Sitting of 13 July 1999

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

    Leasehold Reform
    Jacqui Smith: What progress is being made on leasehold reform legislation. [89476]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing: We are analysing the many responses to our consultation paper. We are proceeding as swiftly as possible, but, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, I cannot make any commitment on when we will be able to legislate.
    Jacqui Smith: My right hon. Friend is aware of the seven-year battle which has been fought by the Redditch Leasehold Action Committee on behalf of several thousand householders in my constituency. Their freeholds were sold from underneath them in bulk to private firms, which then profiteered by offering them back for sale at increased prices—in many cases, at more than 10 times the price. Does she accept that that situation could have been avoided by extending the right of first refusal to householders? Will she assure me that the proposal will be in Government legislation—and that such legislation will be introduced soon?
    Ms Armstrong: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to her constituents in Redditch, who have fought a long and determined battle, and who, I am pleased to say, have recently had some success in leasehold valuation tribunals. I am conscious of the points that she makes. In our consultation paper, we proposed that the right of first refusal should be extended to houses. We are conscious of the difficulties that some leaseholders have faced because of the lack of such a right. We will consult further on the details of the provisions that would be required, but my hon. Friend has my assurance that, in accordance with the consultation, we intend to move on the issue.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: The Minister will know that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 first gave leaseholders a right of first refusal when a landlord decided to dispose of his interest in a property. There is evidence that that was widely ignored by landlords. That led to considerable strengthening of the provision in the Housing Act 1996. Is she satisfied that the new measures in that Act are working well?
    Ms Armstrong: As I have said, leasehold valuation tribunal rulings have strengthened that part of the Act—
    148
    the rights of people who live in houses, not simply of those who live in flats. We consulted on the whole subject, and that consultation has now finished. We have had a remarkably high number of responses, and we will reflect on them to see what strengthening is necessary in legislation.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, when there is a response from the Department to the consultation period and when it is preparing the way forward, it will also examine shared ownership schemes and sheltered schemes, where many of the problems about leasehold tenure that my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) mentioned also arise?
    Ms Armstrong: We know that there are particular problems in those areas. As my hon. Friend knows, there are problems all around. Again, he is someone who has consistently made strong representations on behalf of leaseholders. I congratulate him on that and I assure him that we will examine those issues. As I say, we have had a considerable number of responses to the consultation document and we will respond to them as soon as we are able.

    Road Hauliers
    Mr. David Amess: What representations he has received from road hauliers on his freight policy; and if he will make a statement. [89477]
    Mr. Robert Syms: What recent representations he has received from the road haulage industry regarding the Government' s transport policies; and if he will make a statement. [89489]
    The Minister for Transport (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I have received a number of representations from the Freight Transport Association, from the Road Haulage Association and from individual hauliers, both through the road haulage forum and directly. Prospects for the industry are very good provided that it stays at the leading edge of efficiency, good practice and business professionalism.
    Mr. Amess: Given that it takes an hour for Southend hauliers to get out of the town as a result of the Government's incompetence over the M 11 link road, which has not opened—it is an absolute shambles—why have three months passed before the second meeting of the road haulage forum? What will the agenda be at that meeting? Who has been invited? Who wanted to be invited and has been refused? Will hauliers be afforded the opportunity of regular meetings?
    Mrs. Liddell: The next meeting of the road haulage forum will take place on 19 July. I had hoped to have the meeting in June, but it proved impossible to find a date as the directors general of both the FTA and the RHA took leave, or were out of the country, and I was keen that they should be able to attend the meeting. The forum's membership is well known. Officials have been meeting in the intervening period to agree a number of position papers—their next meeting will be on Friday—to inform the discussions on Monday next week. Both professional

    149
    associations have welcomed the forum and made it clear that they view it as the way forward for the industry, working in partnership with Government. It is about coherent pragmatic approaches, not pointless soundbites.
    Mr. Syms: Is the Minister aware of predictions that the road haulage industry could lose 50,000 jobs because of the Government's policies? When will the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions stand up to the Treasury—which is pummelling the industry into the ground? Is it not time for a fair deal for motorists and a fair deal for the road haulage industry?
    Mrs. Liddell: A fair deal for motorists would involve reducing congestion, and the Government have a congestion policy—unlike the Conservative party, which launched its proposals yesterday. The road haulage industry and any other industries that are considering their economic viability have to take into account all sorts of factors, not the least of which is the costs of running a business. Those costs are now lower in the United Kingdom than in other parts of Europe. Road haulage wages, for example, are lower in the United Kingdom than they are in Europe. The costs of establishing a business are lower in the United Kingdom than in Europe. As a direct consequence of the Government's policies, the United Kingdom has the lowest corporation tax levels in Europe.
    All those measures will help our road haulage industry, as they will help other United Kingdom industries. They are all designed to make the United Kingdom much more economically viable than it was under the previous Government.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: On behalf of Labour Members, I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the freight transport policy being pursued by the Government. That policy is identified with increasingly moving freight transport from road to rail, and with extending rail facilities. Euroports—such as the one in my constituency—could be developed, and could assist in taking United Kingdom freight, on rail, to Europe; they show the best way forward for United Kingdom freight policy. Does my right hon. Friend accept that Labour Members firmly believe that we should continue with the Government's policy of encouraging freight transport to move from road to rail, as that would benefit all our communities and industries?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point—which is the crux of moving goods in the United Kingdom. We have doubled our spending on freight grants—in the past two years, we have spent £60 million—to support the shift of freight from road to rail or water. We are also committed to making still more funds available for the grant, if there is sufficient demand, in the next three years. Railtrack figures for 1998–99 show an 18 per cent. increase in railway freight volume.
    We shall also give to the new Strategic Rail Authority objectives to promote rail freight transport. Meanwhile, the shadow Strategic Rail Authority will be able to make a start on strategic planning for rail freight growth. Rail freight transport is a key factor in reducing traffic on our roads and pollution, and in ensuring that, in future, we have a viable rail network. Our policy is common sense.
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend accept that—apparently unlike
    150
    Conservative Members, as demonstrated in their recent publication—Labour Members believe that a continued free-for-all in road transport could have disastrous long-term consequences for the British distribution system and for freight haulage, particularly for the viability of the just-in-time system which is vital to Britain's distributive economy? What discussions has she had on ensuring the future viability of the British just-in-time system?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend has raised that issue with me before, and I have been discussing it with officials. The issue is important, particularly in the context of congestion. We must ensure that congestion on our roads does not lead to a reduction in the economic performance of our businesses. We must, therefore, adopt a commonsense and focused attitude in dealing with congestion issues—unlike Conservative Members, who yesterday published a document containing proposals that would lead to increased congestion, cost lives, and adversely affect the United Kingdom's economic performance.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Is it not interesting that Labour Members want to ask questions about anything but the state of the United Kingdom road haulage industry—for which the right hon. Lady is responsible? I welcome the fact that—at last, and about time, too—there will be another meeting of the road haulage forum. Will she give an assurance that that meeting will not be simply a delaying tactic, to string out the matter until the next Budget, when hauliers may be clobbered again?
    How does it feel to be part of a Department that is consenting to the removal of ever more money from the transport industries by the Treasury, while the Treasury gives less and less in return? Is it not time that the right hon. Lady stood up for the industries that she represents, instead of increasing taxes and cutting investment?
    Mrs. Liddell: I deplore the slurs on the directors general of the RHA and the FTA, and I am sure that their reasons for being out of the country were perfectly valid. I was anxious to ensure that my Department was able to take fully into account their representations on the road haulage industry. On expenditure on transport by this Government, I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the remarks of the AA yesterday, which pointed out that the previous Government had taken thousands of millions of pounds out of transport, and that this Government were doing something to put those resources back.

    Housing (Recycled Land)
    Mr. Andrew Reed: What progress he has made towards meeting his target for housing construction on recycled land in the east midlands. [89478]
    The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): The latest available regional information from 1994 shows that 37 per cent. of new dwellings in the east midlands were constructed on previously developed land. The urban task force, under Lord Rogers, estimated that 65 per cent. of new dwellings could be accommodated on recycled land over the next 20 years.
    Mr. Reed: What reassurances can my right hon. Friend give the House, the local chamber of commerce and the

    151
    Loughborough town centre steering group that those targets can be met, in view of the fact that many brown-field sites for housing and employment are under-used and lack investment? Following the Rogers report, what measures is my right hon. Friend likely to take to ensure that public-private partnerships bring some of that land back into use as soon as possible?
    Mr. Caborn: We will be responding to Lord Rogers's report, which has 105 recommendations and will form the basis of the forthcoming urban White Paper. The developments in Loughborough town centre are in line with Government policy. It is good that the town centre management scheme is working; the firm partnerships that are developing will start to overcome some of the adversity that the town has suffered. The development of the single regeneration budget schemes there will be of assistance.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Minister accept that his answer was very disappointing? Does he accept that the target of 60 per cent. of land is insufficiently high? From statements made over the past few days, we know that the Government understand very little about the countryside. They pretend to the country that they are green, but they must think that we are green if they believe that they can build an enormous number of new houses on green-field sites while pretending that they wish to preserve England's green and pleasant land.
    Mr. Caborn: Here is a little bit of maths for the hon. Gentleman—65 per cent. is greater than 60 per cent. I just said that the urban task force has said that it can achieve 65 per cent, which is above the Government's target of 60 per cent. When the Government came to power, there was no land use databank. Despite all the allegations and the targets set by Conservative Members, they did not even know how much brown-field land there was to build on. It took this Administration to find out how much brown-field land there was. Based on that information, Lord Rogers has made some reasonable projections, which are much sounder than anything that came from the previous Administration.

    A46
    Mr. Edward Leigh: If he will make a statement on the widening of the A46 between Newark and Lincoln. [89479]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): The A46 Newark to Lincoln improvement scheme is included in the targeted programme of improvements announced in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", which was published last July. As announced in December last year, the next stage for this scheme would be the making of the necessary compulsory purchase orders. Start of works would commence in 2001–02.
    Mr. Leigh: Is that a commitment?
    Ms Jackson: Yes.
    Shona McIsaac: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that the Tories did nothing
    152
    to attempt to cut the carnage on the A46 which links my constituents with the A1? Thanks to this Government, and to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), we are at last seeing action to cut the high death tolls on that stretch of road. Does that not show that we are fairer to motorists?
    Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend is entirely right and I pay tribute to the work that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) have done to ensure, as she so aptly put it, that the carnage on our roads is reduced. The Conservatives did nothing in that area when they were in power, and their newly published document makes it abundantly clear that they would be at the forefront of reintroducing carnage on our streets.

    Regional Planning (East Midlands)
    Gillian Merron: If he will make a statement on progress with the development of regional planning in the east midlands. [89480]
    The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): Good progress is being made. I expect to receive the draft regional planning guidance for the east midlands from the east midlands region of the Local Government Association towards the end of this year. That draft will then be subject to wide consultations before selected matters are considered at a public examination in front of an independent panel next year. I hope to be able to issue the final guidance early in 2001.
    Gillian Merron: I welcome the positive progress that has already been made through partnership working. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how he will ensure that all factors are fully taken into account in the planning guidance, including economic, environmental and social factors, so that my constituents in Lincoln can look forward to the benefits of greater integration with the rest of the east midlands?
    Mr. Caborn: The way in which we are approaching regional guidance is by involving the local government associations, which are taking control of it. They are consulting with the partners and stakeholders in the various regions. In the east midlands, the Local Government Association is consulting the regional development agency, the CBI, the east midlands chambers of commerce, the House-Builders Federation, the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, Friends of the Earth and a number of other user groups.

    Traffic Congestion
    Mrs. Eleanor laing: When he last met representatives from the Automobile Association to discuss his proposals to tackle traffic congestion. [89481]
    The Minister for Transport (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I met representatives of the AA on Wednesday 7 July.
    Mrs. Laing: I thank the Minister for that answer. I am sure that she will not agree with me that it is very sad that she is willing to talk in soundbites about congestion, but not willing to put any investment into road improvements.

    153
    Can she tell the House whether the Deputy Prime Minister had an opportunity to discuss congestion problems with the RAC when he visited the British grand prix on Sunday? Was he able to see from his helicopter the people whom his party purports to represent, who were stuck in traffic jams on the motorways below him?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Lady's party yesterday published its new deal for motorists, promising investment in vital, undefined road improvements, funded by new innovative schemes—which were also undefined, but likely to cost a minimum of £10 billion. It also proposed that freight should be encouraged on to the railways in some unknown manner. It is not this Government who will do nothing about congestion: it is the Conservatives, whose proposals will lead to congestion. The hon. Lady asked about the RAC, which has been supportive of the Government in the development of the White Paper strategy for integrated transport. I remind her that, if a policy is to be developed by an Opposition, it should be costed. Otherwise, the only conclusion we can come to is that the Conservatives would be prepared to increase taxation, cut public expenditure—or both. If not, perhaps they do not know how to do their sums.
    Mr. Clive Efford: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the vital role that public transport plays in tackling road congestion? My journey today to Westminster involved catching a train at 8.20 at Eltham station. Connex South Eastern could not get me to Charing Cross until 9.55. Such performance will inevitably have a damaging impact on how much traffic uses the roads in south-east London. The document that is about to be published by the Opposition, with the overt intention of placing them closer to the motorist, will merely lead to jams on our roads—and jam for inefficient, privatised rail services.
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The mess on the railways inherited by this Government was very considerable, as a result of the fragmentation of the rail network and the absence of proper accountability for that network. The establishment of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority will provide an opportunity to put a proper rail network back in place, with targets for the rail operators and penalties for poor performance. Adequate public transport is vital if we are to reduce congestion on our roads, and it must be safe, efficient and pleasant to use. There was no chance of that under the previous Government.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Under the previous Conservative Government, £25 billion in extra taxes was levied on motorists. The present Chancellor has increased that amount. Given her responsibility for transport, will the Minister press the Chancellor, before the next Budget, to agree to return some of that money to motorists by abolishing the annual car tax on family cars?
    Mrs. Liddell: It is interesting that the Liberal Democrats, who purport to be supporters of the environment, are taking that line. However, one of the proposals in yesterday's statement from the Conservative party was to reduce vehicle excise duty on vehicles more
    154
    than 25 years old, which are the vehicles that pollute the most. That is a charter for the old banger. We want motorists to travel on well-maintained roads, in cost-effective vehicles that make travelling a pleasant experience again. As for fiscal policy, I suggest that people who want a reduction in the tax take should say where the money is to come from to fund public expenditure on health and education.

    Housing (Recycled Land)
    Ms Margaret Moran: If he will make a statement on progress towards meeting the 60 per cent. target for housing on recycled land in the south-east. [89482]
    The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): During the period 1990–94, an average of 51 per cent. of new dwellings in the south-east were built on previously developed land. Serplan has proposed in the draft regional planning guidance for the south-east to achieve a target of 60 per cent. of new development on previously used urban land, over the period of the plan, which is 1996–2016. The public examinations panel will provide advice to the Secretary of State on this matter in its report, which is due in September this year.
    Ms Moran: Does my hon. Friend agree that an important element in the solution to meeting the target is to bring empty and under-utilised homes back into use? For example, there are about 13,000 empty homes in Luton, of which only 150 belong to the public sector. Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues look at financial mechanisms—such as the VAT regime and loans to owner-occupiers—to enable owners to refurbish those empty homes and bring them fully back into use?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the problem of empty properties. At present, there are about 753,000 vacant dwellings, across all tenures, in the country. That represents 3.6 per cent. of the housing stock. We aim to reduce that figure to 3 per cent. by 2005, which will then be one of the lowest levels in Europe.
    We are taking a number of measures to reduce the total of empty properties. Action is encouraged through PPG3, the relevant planning guidance. Properties empty for more than a year are currently exempt from council tax, but that exemption will be withdrawn from April next year as an incentive for owners to bring properties back into use. These and other measures will be pursued by the Government to make better use of existing resources, and so help to achieve the target of 60 per cent. of housing on brown-field sites or in existing developed areas.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: If, when the examination is complete, the figures show that there is sufficient brown-field land, will the Minister see what he can do to reduce the obligation placed on West Sussex county council by the Deputy Prime Minister? That obligation is to build an extra 15,000 homes over and above the already excessive number that the council is required to build. If some of the extra load is reduced, not only will rural West Sussex be protected, but the awful overstrain on our infrastructure will, to some extent, be mitigated.
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will know that West Sussex has several times challenged my right

    155
    hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the courts. He will also know that it lost. The Government have set out new targets to increase the proportion of development on brown-field sites. We await the report on the public examination of the Serplan figures, and I cannot comment further until we receive it. Our keen objective is to maximise development on brown-field sites because that is in everyone's interest.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Did not Lord Rogers's task force conclude that there was no prospect of the Government hitting their national target of 60 per cent. under existing policies? Is the position not even worse in the south-east? Is it not likely that many thousands of new developments will occur on green-field and green-belt sites in the south-east? Why have the Government so far accepted only one of the 105 recommendations made by their own task force, and that only as a pilot?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman cannot have read Lord Rogers's report very carefully as it concludes that, under existing policies, the best estimate is that 55 per cent. of development would be achieved on brown-field sites, but that with changes in policy, including many of the new policies that the Government are introducing, it would be possible to achieve a higher percentage, as we intend. Only two weeks after the report's publication, we have already accepted one recommendation. The report contains 105, and we shall give them the consideration that they deserve before we make a judgment on them.

    Park-and-ride Schemes
    Mr. David Atkinson: What guidance his Department gives to local authorities on the location of park-and-ride schemes. [89483]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): Our guidance emphasises that schemes must be carefully designed and located to reduce traffic flows. They should be considered on their merits, case by case, and assessments should include consideration of alternative sites and the impact on local amenity.
    Mr. Atkinson: What advice can the Minister offer local authorities such as Bournemouth, which face a choice between creating a park-and-ride terminus and protecting what is left of the green belt? Which should be their priority?
    Ms Jackson: Existing guidance is clear. The use of green belt for a park-and-ride site should be examined exceedingly closely. Park and ride is not an appropriate use for green-belt land unless the benefits that would accrue are overwhelming.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is my hon. Friend disappointed by the fact that there are too few park-and-ride schemes, which do a tremendous amount to reduce traffic congestion in our town centres? What steps can the Government take to encourage more local authorities to develop schemes to reduce congestion and improve public transport in town centres?
    Ms Jackson: If there is a shortage of park-and-ride sites, it is yet another result of 18 wasted years of
    156
    Conservative Government. They did nothing to create a properly integrated public transport system but, since coming into office, this Government have asked local authorities to prioritise the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. Authorities will submit local integrated transport plans this month, and we shall look out for schemes of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend, if they are appropriate to the local area.
    Mr. Shaun Woodward: The Minister has a great deal of enthusiasm for park-and-ride schemes, but park-and-ride transport strategies across the country are bringing cities such as Oxford to a standstill. The Council for the Protection of Rural England has criticised the damage done to green-field sites by park and ride. Transport 2000 has criticised the Government for cooking the books by misusing figures relating to park and ride. A new report from the university of London severely criticises park-and-ride schemes, arguing that traffic in urban areas increases—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House is quite right to become restless as we have not yet heard a question from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Woodward: With all that criticism of park and ride, will the Minister now review the policy and apologise to the people of Oxford for the considerable inconvenience that she has caused?
    Ms Jackson: What I am aware of, as indeed the entire House and the whole country will be, is that the hon. Gentleman is simply not up to his brief. It is not the case that the park-and-ride scheme in Oxford has been anything other than a success. Not only is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the success of such schemes, but he is equally unaware of the Conservative party's newly announced policy in which it claims that such schemes should be provided free.

    Telecommunications Masts
    Mr. Harry Barnes: What recent representations he has received concerning the siting of telecommunications masts; and if he will make a statement. [89484]
    The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): My Department received 269 responses to the consultation paper, "Telecommunications Development Control" published in July 1998 and 147 responses to the draft circular, "Land Use Planning and Electromagnetic Fields" published in December 1998. Since then, we have answered 10 parliamentary questions and responded centrally to some 140 letters regarding telecommunications masts.
    Mr. Barnes: My right hon. Friend recently made a welcome statement to point out the tightening up of the provisions within those areas. I am concerned about existing telecommunications masts, which may have been placed in areas where they are unacceptable. Many are in school playing fields, right next to schools and to residents. There is one in my constituency on top of a bakery, right next to a residential area, which seems a

    157
    dangerous position. Are any moves being made to ensure an exclusion zone around telecommunications masts and will it operate for those already in existence?
    Mr. Caborn: I appreciate that there is public concern about this issue and we take that seriously. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health and I will be writing to all hon. Members and to local authorities shortly to set out the Government's position on the issue. As the House is aware, our Departments issued jointly for consultation in December the draft of a circular on land use planning and electromagnetic fields. We are considering the responses.
    Government experts tell us that the National Radiological Protection Board advises that the strength of radio waves at ground level and in areas normally accessible to the public is many times below the recommended guideline level and should present no health risk. However, we are aware of the public concern that there might be other risks to health, such as cancer. The Government consider it important that high-quality research continues to be carried out. We are involved in research in the United Kingdom and internationally. I stress that the NRPB advises that there is no firm evidence of a causal link between exposure to electromagnetic fields and cancer.
    Mr. David Lidington: Could the Minister give an assurance that he will pay particular attention in his review to applications for sites within areas of outstanding natural beauty, including the Chiltern hills? Will he take careful account of the reports that pressure is being exerted to overturn the decision of the local planning authority on Chisleys wood in my constituency? That pressure is coming from Government Departments and the current tenant of Chequers. Will he ensure that he takes all steps within his Department to avoid any conflict of interest in determining the outcome?
    Mr. Caborn: It would be inappropriate for me to get involved in a site that was the subject of a particular planning application. There was wide consultation, to which the hon. Gentleman may or may not have responded. We got the support of local authorities, planning authorities and, indeed, the industry. I now believe that there is a sensible approach to the issue. Areas of outstanding natural beauty were taken into consideration in the consultation and the Government responded accordingly.

    Strategic Rail Authority
    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: What progress he has made in setting up the Strategic Rail Authority. [89485]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): We introduced the Railways Bill to establish a Strategic Rail Authority. It will provide a national vision for developing Britain's rail network and tougher regulation to put the passenger first.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and for the way in which he is dealing with transport issues across the board. Does he agree that the
    158
    Opposition's privatisation, which has made many profits, has meant that my constituents are still travelling on rolling stock that is 30 years old, and has led to late trains and overcrowding? Does he understand the need for action now rather than merely the theory?
    Mr. Prescott: We certainly do. The Railways Bill is designed to achieve that. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority is already working on those matters—monitoring the commitments that we received at the rail summit; identifying where and how the rail network needs to be developed; and beginning the process of franchise renegotiations. That will ensure higher priority for the passenger—rather than what we saw under the previous negotiations, which were more concerned with privatisation and a dash for cash.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Last year, I initiated an Adjournment debate on railway noise; since then, other debates have been held on that subject. What will the new authority do to prevent the disruption of the lives of so many people who live near railways and who are not taken into account by Railtrack and others when works are being carried out?
    Mr. Prescott: New and quieter trains will be introduced, instead of the old railway stock that we were left with and that was utilised by the privatised system. The purpose of the rail authority is to help with transport policy and to take into account the reduction of congestion. That is an important issue, especially in view of the fact that we have heard that the Opposition's new policy is supposed to help to reduce congestion. The description of that policy in The Times today as cheap populism is right. It will do little to reduce congestion; it will increase deaths on our roads and, frankly, will be neither cheap nor popular.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the new integrated transport centre that has recently been opened at Whitby railway station? Is it not the case that, when the Strategic Rail Authority considers the development of integrated transport policy throughout the nation, our railways will need to be closely integrated? The public need more information and better access to public transport. That is what the SRA is about and that is what those policies are about.
    Mr. Prescott: The House is aware of my hon. Friend's expert knowledge of transport. We have seen the provision of many more services, and more people are travelling on trains, especially since we were elected two years ago. We can now see the whole integration of our system because of our requirement that trains and buses should connect. There is much more integration of the system than we have ever witnessed before.
    Mr. John Redwood: Given the Deputy Prime Minister's strong anti-car policies, his trip in a helicopter to the British grand prix—that mecca of the finest gas-guzzlers in the world—was a thirsty way of travelling and was a mistake. Instead, should he not have

    159
    gone to a cycle race by train to show us the new Labour way, and sent an apology to Bernie Ecclestone? Does he accept—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I will have order in this House—this is disgraceful behaviour.
    Mr. Redwood: Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that his Railways Bill was cancelled last year by No. 10, delayed this year by No. 10, and may arrive, late and battered, some time? Does he know that the railway industry is fed up with his indecision and the uncertainty that he generates? With him, it is jams today and jams tomorrow, bash the motorist and bash the train companies. When will he listen to the advice of the Prime Minister and change policy to avoid standstill Britain? When will he give railway companies the assurances and certainty that they need to get on with the job?
    Mr. Prescott: The question reflected what The Times said of the Opposition's policy—cheap and populist. It does not address the substance of the issue, nor does it show any responsibility for those matters. We shall continue to put the serious arguments as to transport; we look forward to the debates that we shall have with the right hon. Gentleman. The Railways Bill is before the House, but the shadow Strategic Rail Authority is already working on the problems; it is beginning the renegotiation of the franchises, and considering the network and improvements to our railway system. The rail summit showed us the positive benefits of the targets that we set.

    Sussex Downs Conservation Board
    Mr. Tim Loughton: If he will make a statement on the future status of the Sussex Downs conservation board. [89488]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): We are still considering the former Countryside Commission's advice on the protection of our finest countryside, including the future status of the south downs and its conservation board. We intend to make an announcement soon.
    Mr. Loughton: May I ask the Minister why it has taken so long to make a decision? It has now been 16 months since the lifespan of the Sussex Downs conservation board was extended. Will he or his successor remember, before arriving at a decision, that every local authority in Sussex and every Member of Parliament representing Sussex, with the exception of the Labour-controlled unitary authority of Brighton and Hove and the two Labour Members of Parliament, are in favour of retaining and strengthening the Sussex Downs conservation board, rather than giving away local democracy by opting for national park status?
    Mr. Meale: We are aware of the deep feeling about the Sussex downs, and the hon. Gentleman is quite right to point out that there are different opinions on the issue. However, the reason for the Government's delay is that we believe in a working and living countryside, and we want to get the decision right.
    Dr. Desmond Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that what is really important is not
    160
    the future status of the Sussex Downs conservation board, which has not been the most proactive conservation body ever known to man, but the status of the south downs themselves? Popular opinion in Sussex, as opposed to Conservative-controlled local authorities, is overwhelmingly in favour of national park status for the south downs as the only sensible option to protect one of the most sensitive areas of our country.
    Mr. Meale: My hon. Friend is quite right that opinion on the south downs is almost equally divided, and strong voices are being heard by the Government. As I said, we are committed to a living and working countryside, and the Government have already given an extra £2.5 million to areas of outstanding natural beauty. We intend to get our decisions right on the matter.
    Mr. Damian Green: First, I commiserate with the Minister on the fact that, unlike the Minister for the Environment, and despite a lifetime's effort, he does not rate a CIA file on his activities. It must be a blow to him.
    Will the Minister explain why he is dithering so much on the question of the south downs? He cannot give a decision today, or even tell us when he plans to make up his mind. Will he at least give an end date by which he will have made up his mind, so as to end the damaging uncertainty that threatens the future of one of Britain's most important areas of natural beauty?
    Mr. Meale: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we treat the matter extremely seriously. We are aware of the end date for the present funding arrangements for the conservation board, which is 2001. There is no way that the Government will put at risk either the work of that body, or the right decision on the future of the south downs and other areas. I can also tell him that we are working feverishly to reach a position from which we can make a long-term decision, and we are determined to get that decision right.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Colin Breed: What is his policy on imposing conditions on the sale of council houses; and if he will make a statement. [89489]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Local authorities can sell houses voluntarily and, in some cases, their tenants have the right to buy. In each case, it is up to councils to include such conditions in the sale as are appropriate and reasonable.
    Mr. Breed: I thank the Minister for her reply. Is the Minister aware that Caradon district council in my constituency has recently failed in court to enforce a planning condition in respect of a former council home that is being used for letting, as that was not considered to be a business? Does she agree that that has widespread implications, in that a number of former council houses will be removed from housing stock and that, in future, more and more such properties may be used for businesses, rather than for housing?
    Ms Armstrong: I am sure that the House understands that, because the matter is subject to appeal and is likely

    161
    to go before the courts again, I am not in a position to comment on it. However, the Housing Act 1985 gives councils and other social landlords freedom to include reasonable terms and conditions when selling a home under the right to buy. For example, in rural areas, councils can prevent buyers from reselling to people who have not lived or worked locally for the past three years. In small communities, that helps to keep a stock of affordable housing available for local people. However, it is a matter for the council to determine.
    Mr. John Bercow: What assessment has the Minister made of the effect of the changed rules on the use of capital receipts from the sale of council houses on the level of interest repayments on local authority debt?
    Ms Armstrong: This is an issue not of the right to buy, but of how councils use and organise their debt sales. The whole debt portfolio is a matter for councils. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debt that he so complains about was sanctioned by the previous Government. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. There was an exchange between the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and the Minister for Local Government and Housing that I did not hear.
    Mr. Bercow: I sincerely hope that it is not the case, Madam Speaker, but it seems that the Minister accused me of lying.
    Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman implied that I had said something in my reply that I had not. I said that I hoped that he was not accusing me of lying and implying that I had said that debt had risen, when I had not said that.
    Madam Speaker: Too many remarks are made from sedentary positions. I have said before that hon. Members who have something to say should wait to be called before they say it. If they have asked a question, it is right that they should listen fully to the answer.

    Traffic Calming
    Mr. Bob Russell: If he will provide additional funds to local authorities for road safety traffic-calming schemes. [89490]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): Over the next three years, we are making an additional £700 million available for the implementation of local transport plans. The quality of local safety strategies will be a key consideration in the allocation of resources.
    Mr. Russell: I thank the Minister for her reply and I acknowledge her personal endorsement of road safety schemes throughout the country. However, will she have a word with her colleagues in the Treasury and point out that money that is invested in road safety and, in particular, traffic calming will save money for the public purse, particularly the national health service? The cost of
    162
    a fatal road accident is now £1 million, which could pay for 10 road safety or traffic calming schemes. Bearing in mind the fact that, in the past year, 1,000 pedestrians and cyclists were killed, does she agree that the money saved could be invested in saving lives and preventing injuries?
    Ms Jackson: It is precisely because the Government are so aware of the benefit of traffic-calming schemes that we have not only found additional funding for local authorities, but changed the existing statutory procedures so that local authorities may introduce 20 mph zones or limits. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, traffic-calming measures have reduced accidents, injuries and deaths among our children by 67 per cent.
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is equally aware that the Conservative party's policy is to remove such traffic-calming measures, presumably because the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) wants to become known as the Herod of the 20th century by introducing another form of the massacre of the innocents on our streets.
    Mr. John Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) describes traffic-calming measures as impediments, that causes great offence, particularly to those people who have lost relatives on the roads? Will my hon. Friend say more about the exact mechanism for distributing resources to local authorities through local transport plans, which is a particularly important issue in my area, where there is a crying need for more traffic-calming measures?
    Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The right hon. Member for Wokingham is guilty of not only insensitivity, but, in my view, the advocacy of criminal policies on road safety. Local transport plans will be received this month, and mean that, for the first time, local authorities will be able to make the integrated, strategic decisions that can ensure that they will play their part in meeting our targets for the reduction in deaths and injuries on our roads.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister accept that many Members warmly support the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)? In those proposals, he has represented many organisations that have considerable knowledge of motoring, the motorist and roads. Does the Minister agree that if, as she has announced this afternoon, she is prepared to provide over £700 million for local traffic schemes, she might consider increasing the amount of her money that her Department advances for the maintenance of this country's roads, which are deteriorating rapidly under her Government and contributing to the number of accidents and deaths?
    Ms Jackson: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is unaware of the Government's vast increase in funding road maintenance, in marked contrast to the previous Administration, who slashed such funding year on year. We have increased the funding for the maintenance of local authority roads by 8 per cent. in one year. The right

    163
    hon. Member for Wokingham may be an expert on motoring, but he is clearly an ignoramus on any of the measures that protect pedestrians—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. That was quite unnecessary. I require the hon. Lady to withdraw that remark. [Interruption.] Order. I shall deal with this. I require the hon. Lady to withdraw the remark.
    Ms Jackson: Of course I abide by your ruling, Madam Speaker, and withdraw the word "ignoramus". In fact, I meant to say "a comprehensive lack of knowledge".
    Judy Mallaber: Figures published this week show that the number of accidents in Derbyshire has fallen by 40 per cent. on roads with speed cameras since their introduction in 1993, preventing injury and saving the lives of 225 people. Labour Members welcome the investment in road transport announced by the Minister, but, in the light of the success of speed cameras, will she consider supporting proposals to allow income from speeding fines as a result of speed cameras to be ploughed directly into traffic-calming measures to save yet more lives?
    Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend makes many valid points on the part that speed cameras can play in reducing the numbers of deaths, injuries and accidents on our roads. I am sure that she is aware that the issue of fines is part of on-going discussion between my Department and the Home Office. I am sure that she is equally aware that it is part of the Conservative party's transport policy not to increase the number of speed cameras.

    Urban Task Force
    Mr. James Gray: If he will make a statement on his plans to implement the urban task force's recommendations. [89491]
    The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): The final report of the urban task force, "Towards an Urban Renaissance", was published on 29 June. The urban White Paper will provide our main response to the task force's recommendations, and will be published in the next 12 months. In the meantime, we have invited comments on the task force report from interested parties.
    Mr. Gray: In answer to an earlier question, the Minister suggested that Lord Rogers's task force had said
    164
    that the Government would achieve the building of 60 or even 65 per cent. of new housing on brown-field land. The reality is of course quite different. Lord Rogers said that the Government would achieve only 55 per cent. of such building unless they accepted one of the task force's 105 recommendations.
    May I help the Minister by suggesting that he might consider just one recommendation: the strengthening of the green belt in areas that are not technically green belt, such as the rural buffer zone that protects my constituency from the ever-westward expansion of Swindon? Will he protect Wootton Bassett from Swindon, or will he allow my constituency to be buried under concrete, as he is the rest of England?
    Mr. Caborn: The reference to 65 per cent. concerned the east midlands, in response to the specific question asked. The green belt would be subject to public examination, to which everyone could contribute. It is absolutely clear from Government guidance that the green belt is there and that we will protect it. Indeed, a Labour Government introduced it, as they did national parks and the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. We are very proud of what previous Labour Governments have done in land-use planning over the past half century.
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will my hon. Friend do as much as he can to encourage as wide a public debate as possible on Lord Rogers's report, since it is a most important document? If we do not get some of the things in it right, we will find the implementation of many policies, such as those protecting the green belt and others that we want, difficult to achieve. It is essential that we include the public in the debate about how to implement Lord Rogers's report.
    Mr. Caborn: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. There will be a wide-ranging debate on the Lord Rogers task force and the report that it has produced. However, we shall be going wider than that as we produce the urban White Paper, which will be the first such document for more than 20 years. It will be taking on issues such as education, crime and a reasonable environment in our major urban areas where people will want to live, work and play, contrary to what the Conservative Administration left us to deal with when they left office.

Personal Statement (Mr. Donald Anderson)
3.30 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: With your leave, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a brief personal statement.
Since yesterday's debate on the eighth report of the Standards and Privileges Committee, I have seen a copy of the minute of the conversation between myself and Mr. Andy Henderson of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which took place on 8 February and which was referred to in yesterday's debate. I did not take a note of the meeting and, so far as I can recall, nor did Mr. Henderson. However, Mr. Henderson's minute goes beyond what I told the House about our conversation.
I have no reason to doubt that Mr. Henderson's minute is an accurate report. It must, therefore, qualify what I wrote to the Clerk of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee about my knowledge of the premature disclosure of the Committee's report on Sierra Leone, as recorded in the Committee's second special report. Mr. Henderson's minute also qualifies the statement that I made to the House yesterday.
I emphasise that, when I replied to the Clerk and when I spoke yesterday, I spoke in good faith. In yesterday's debate, I relied on the letter that the Clerk had received from Mr. Henderson, which I assumed to be the totality of the disclosure. I supported the release of Mr. Henderson's minute. However, I now understand that my letter to the Clerk and my statement to the House were not accurate. In the circumstances, I apologise to the House. I wish also to apologise to the House for my discourtesy in revealing to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office certain aspects of the report and of the Committee's deliberations prior to the report's publication.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful, Mr. Anderson. Thank you.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that I was in the Chamber at 2.30 this afternoon. I was hoping to catch your eye to come in on the back of Question 1 in the name of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who was not in his place. I am told that he was in his office throughout Transport questions. Is it not a grotesque discourtesy to the House that a Member should not be in the Chamber after he has tabled a question—
Madam Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for me whether Members are in the Chamber. I call their names if they are on the Order Paper, and that is the end of it.

Broadcasting (Religious Programming)
3.32 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove restrictions on the ownership by religious bodies of broadcasting licences and to clarify the role of the Radio Authority and the Independent Television Commission in relation to the religious content of programmes."
I suppose that the first issue that must be addressed in such a debate is whether we are still a Christian society. Much has been made in recent years of the decline of religious faith and of attendance, and it is true that that has happened to some extent. However, if we stop people in the street, seven out of 10 will say that they consider themselves to be Christians. If we conduct a similar survey—this would be a national survey—we will find that only 22 per cent. of people say that they have no religious belief. About 4 per cent. will say that they have a religious belief apart from that of Christianity. I contend that we are a Christian society to that extent.
The Christianity of our society is embedded in our traditions, our history and, of course, our laws. We still have a law that requests and requires schools to have a daily act of religious worship. That Act may not be carried out in every instance in secondary schools, but our laws state that that is required. To that extent, we are a Christian society.
One would expect that to be reflected in our laws relating to broadcasting, but in fact religious broadcasters are put in a uniquely disadvantageous position. As more and more franchises become available, as more and more people are given the freedom to broadcast on cooking, travel or any other subject, and as the digital revolution progresses, one aspect of our society—religious broadcasting—is uniquely discriminated against and constrained.
The relevant statute that my Bill would amend is the Broadcasting Act 1990, which states in schedule 2 that no religious broadcaster may own a national radio licence or an ITV franchise, and, more importantly as the digital revolution unfolds, that no religious broadcaster may own a digital franchise. That places religious broadcasters in a uniquely disadvantaged position.
One can promote anything one likes. One can get a national radio licence to promote atheism, but one is prevented by law from promoting Christianity. The law is so draconian that, if a local vicar were asked to join the board of a television franchisee, that company would immediately lose its franchise. My Bill would repeal paragraph 2 of schedule 2 to the 1990 Act.
Under the law, United Christian Broadcasters, a small broadcaster in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), can broadcast gospel music, which is hardly alarming and is unlikely to undermine society, only to people who have a special decoder on their television set, which receives only the music, with no picture.
The situation is absurd and anomalous. That view is shared by 170 hon. Members from all parties who have signed a motion tabled by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central to try to put matters right.

167
There is only one Christian local radio station in London, Premier Radio. Why are there 50 religious radio stations in France, but only one in the United Kingdom? The reason is that the codes are so tight that, whereas politicians or anyone else can go on television or the radio to raise funds for charity, to make exclusive claims or to recruit, religious broadcasters are not allowed to do so. If a religious broadcaster manages to get round all the difficulties of the law, the codes are so tight that it is virtually impossible to produce an interesting programme.
What happens abroad? I have already described France. In no other country in the western world is religious broadcasting as tightly constrained as in this country. In America, there are 1,600 Christian radio stations. People say that we need stringent laws because of all the abuses that have occurred in America. However, in recent years, there have been only two cases of fraud by Christian broadcasters, who were rightly convicted of misleading the public. In any system, there will be a couple of bad apples. Why should all religious broadcasting—Christian, Jewish or Muslim—be banned, because of the fear that religious broadcasters, uniquely, will somehow bamboozle the public?
It could be argued that religious broadcasting is available on BBC 1 and other existing channels, but that is true only to a limited extent. For instance, people who are elderly or disabled or who live in remote part of the countryside may want a Sunday morning act of worship on television, but it is not available except on high days and holy days. It was not available even on Christmas day. The service is very limited. People must tune in to radio at 8.7 am; there is no televised morning service. Out of all the countless hours of game shows, chat shows, trivia, consumerism, violence and materialism, surely 40 minutes on Sundays for morning worship is not too much to ask of the BBC. It simply does not provide that.
Those people say, "We simply cannot rely on the existing channels. Give us the right to broadcast on our own." The 22 per cent. of people who have no religious faith will not be forced to listen to United Christian Broadcasters or watch Christian television, but surely those people have rights, as does anybody else, and they should be allowed to exercise them. I believe that we are still a Christian society. Many people are denied any kind of effective religious broadcasting and they look to the House for a simple change of the law to allow them to have the same rights as everybody else.
3.40 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne: The existing law is anomalous, but we must address the question whether that anomaly gives rise to a particular benefit. There are Members present who would argue from different ends of the spectrum that there is a benefit—because Britain is either a secular or a multi-faith society—and that religious broadcasting is inappropriate. It is right, therefore, that those Members should express that view by voting to deny my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) leave to bring in his Bill
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 9.

Division No. 233]

[3.41 pm

AYES

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Jenkin, Bemard

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Atkins, Charlotte

Baldry, Tony

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Beggs, Roy

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Kemp, Fraser

Body, Sir Richard

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Boswell, Tim

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Brake, Tom

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Breed, Colin

Laxton, Bob

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Leigh, Edward

Burstow, Paul

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Lidington, David

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Llwyd, Elfyn

Casale, Roger

McCabe, Steve

Cawsey, Ian

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

McCartney, Robert (N Down)

McGrady, Eddie

Chope, Christopher

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Clappison, James

Mackinlay, Andrew

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

McNamara, Kevin

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

McNulty, Tony

Collins, Tim

Madel, Sir David

Colvin, Michael

Malins, Humfrey

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Mallon, Seamus

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Cotter, Brian

Oaten, Mark

Gran, James

Öpik, Lembit

Crausby, David

Organ, Mrs Diana

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Dalyell, Tam

Paisley, Rev Ian

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Plaskitt, James

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Rapson, Syd

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Robathan, Andrew

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Day, Stephen

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Donohoe, Brian H

Rowlands, Ted

Evans, Nigel

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Faber, David

St Aubyn, Nick

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Salter, Martin

Fisher, Mark

Sanders, Adrian

Flight, Howard

Sarwar, Mohammad

Flynn, Paul

Sayeed, Jonathan

Forsythe, Clifford

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Singh, Marsha

Fraser, Christopher

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

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Streeter, Gary

Gill, Christopher

Syms, Robert

Gorrie, Donald

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Grieve, Dominic

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hammond, Philip

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Harris, Dr Evan

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Harvey, Nick

Thompson, William

Heath, David(Somerton & Frome)

Townend, John

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Trimble, Rt Hon David

Home Robertson, John

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Tyler, Paul

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Tyne, Andrew

Hume, John

Waterson, Nigel

Hunter, Andrew

Webb, Steve

169

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Willis, Phil

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Wilshire, David

Wilkinson, John

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Willetts, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Mr. James Gray and

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Mr. John Bercow.

NOES

Ashton, Joe

Levitt, Tom

Barnes, Harry

Maxton, John

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Tellers for the Notes:

Harris, Dr Evan

Mr. Desmond Swayne and

Illsley, Eric

Mr. Tim Loughton.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. Mark Fisher, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Steve Webb, Mr. Colin Breed, Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Gary Streeter, Mr. Laurence Robertson, Mr. Gerald Howarth and Mr. Christopher Chope.

Broadcasting (Religious Programming)

  BROADCASTING (RELIGIOUS PROGRAMMING)
  Mr. Edward Leigh accordingly presented a Bill to remove restrictions on the ownership by religious bodies of broadcasting licences and to clarify the role of the Radio Authority and the Independent Television Commission in relation to the religious content of programmes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 138].
  Mr. James Paice: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise to you, and to the House, for not being in my place when I was called to ask a question at Question Time. It was nothing more than an oversight.
  However, I was present to hear the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) raise the matter on a point of order. He said that I had apparently been in my office at the time when I should have been asking the question. That is true—as I have said, it was due to an oversight—but, while I was in my office, my secretary took a telephone call from a gentleman purporting to be from the Opposition Whips Office, and wanting to speak to me. As soon as he was put through to me, he put down the receiver.
  It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that the information was obtained by subterfuge. I am sure that that is not an acceptable way for the hon. Member for Pendle to find out whether I was in the House.
  Madam Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I wish that we could stop playing tit for tat through points of order that are disingenuous in the first place.

  Orders of the Day

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
    Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    Northern Ireland Bill (Programme)
    Madam Speaker: Those Members who are concerned with proceedings on the Northern Ireland Bill will wish to know that a new version of the amendment paper, incorporating amendments tabled up to 2.30 today, is now available for them in the Vote Office.
    3.55 pm
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): I beg to move,
    That the following provisions shall apply to proceedings on the Northern Ireland Bill:—

    Northern Ireland Bill (Programme)

      Timing of proceedings
      1.—(1) Proceedings on the Bill shall be completed at today's sitting.
      (2) Proceedings on Second Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
      (3) In Committee—

      (a) proceedings on any new clause which may be selected relating to the operation of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 shall be taken first and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion; and

      (a) remaining proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion seven and a half hours after that commencement.

      (4) Remaining proceedings on the Bill shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion eight hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

      2.—(1) When the Bill has been read a second time—

      (a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put,

      (b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill,

      (c) On the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an instruction has been given.

      (2) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question; and if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

      Questions to be put
      3.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

      (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

      (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and on a Motion for a new Clause or Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

      (2) If two or more Questions would fall to be put by the Chairman under sub-paragraph (1)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions.

      Lords Amendments
      4. At the sitting on Thursday 15 July—

      (a) any message received from the Lords relating to the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and

      (b) proceedings on any message shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, one hour after commencement.

      5.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of concluding in accordance with paragraph 4 any proceedings on any message received from the Lords relating to the Bill.

      (2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

      (3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

      (a) the Question on any further amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

      (b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

      (4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

      (a) the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and

      (b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

      (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.

      (6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.

      (7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment which is moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.

      (8) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.

      (9) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of that day's sitting.

      Miscellaneous
      6. If at the sitting today or on Thursday 15 July—

      (a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock, and

      (b) proceedings on the Bill have begun before that time,

      the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings in accordance with paragraph 1 or 4 shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
      7.—(1) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.
      (2) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
      (3) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment.
      8. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.
      9.—(1) The Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall be put forthwith; and Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill at the sittings today and on Thursday 15 July.
      (2) If at the sitting today or on Thursday 15 July the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under paragraph 1 or 4, no notice shall be required of a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
      10. Proceedings on the Bill shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
      I am aware that we are asking the House to consider the Bill in a very tight time scale. From our point of view, it would be much more preferable if we had longer to scrutinise the Bill before debates began and intervals between stages, but the whole House realises why we have such a time scale.
      I apologise to the House for the lateness of the delivery of the Bill last night. I believe that it arrived in the Table Office at about 6.15. I am conscious that Members on both sides of the House wish to contribute, so I end my comments.
      3.56 pm
      Mr. Eric Forth: The House surely cannot let the occasion pass without at least recording considerable disquiet at the way in which the Government propose to deal with the legislation. It surely must be the case that any legislation should be given proper scrutiny by the House, and that there should be a proper opportunity for Members to consider it, time in which Members can consult those who they think have an interest, time to consider amendments and time for a due process.
      That would be the case in any circumstance, but, in this of all circumstances, on this subject and at this time, all those matters become yet more important. However, we are faced with what I can describe only as a completely arbitrary and artificial deadline—one of many.
      We have had a number of deadlines on the matter. Who knows—there may even be more, but, because of the artificial deadline that is being imposed on us, on the House of Commons and on the parliamentary process by the Government, we are being forced to consider vital legislation, on which so much rests, in the most indecent haste.
      That would be bad enough in itself, but there is a risk in forcing to us consider the legislation in such undue haste. Hon. Members did not know even what was in the Bill until yesterday evening. You have just announced, Madam Speaker, that the latest set of amendments was available in a revised amendment paper at 2.30. What kind of way is that to make law? What kind of way is that to ask the House of Commons to make decisions?
      The risks that we run now are considerable. I find it shocking that we are apparently being forced to consider the legislation at the timetable in the motion. I hope just that we are able to do a proper job of scrutiny—although, for the life of me, I cannot see how—that we do not make some dreadful mistake by processing the legislation at the speed with which we are obliged to do it, and that it will not be seen as a precedent. It is bad enough doing that where there is a real requirement for speed. Where the deadline is totally arbitrary and artificial, the whole process is unacceptable.
      174
      I want to record my disquiet and my opposition to this method of legislating. I hope that we never do it again.
      Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I, too, wish to protest at the manner in which the legislation is being dealt with, not least because it is basically an unconstitutional Bill, based on a hypothesis.
      Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a speech, I shall be happy to call him. We have three hours to go.
      3.59 pm
      Rev. Ian Paisley: On behalf of the people whom I represent in the House, I should like to make my protest about the way in which the matter has been conducted. According to some press reports, when the draft Bill was tabled, it was not even written out or complete. The Government very kindly faxed us all in Northern Ireland a copy of the Bill, but the fax was so abominable that we could not read it. In fact, I offered the fax to an hon. Gentleman and asked whether he could interpret it for me, but he said, "No, I couldn't interpret that." How can we adequately represent the people of Northern Ireland when we have not before us what we have to discuss in this very important debate?
      I do not want to prolong my speech now, because it is more important that what time we have is used effectively and effectually. However, this is no way of dealing with a matter of such seriousness. We are supposed to be debating a failsafe Bill, but, in previous weeks, I have heard nothing but people conjecturing about the possibility of a failsafe situation.
      The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, told us that he needed an assurance from the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that he would see to it that IRA-Sinn Fein would be expelled from any Executive unless it had decommissioned by a certain date. Then, I read about the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) talking about a mythical Mr. P. O'Neill, and the fact that the hon. Gentleman would be quite satisfied that we could move forward if that mythical Mr. P. O'Neill would only just write to him. Today, we come to this Bill.
      There is nothing in the legislation that really deals with the issue before us—one has only to read it to see that that is so. I suppose that the reason for that is that the Government are hooked to their own petard, because they cannot change the agreement. If they put anything into the legislation that will change the agreement, the parties to the agreement—especially Sinn Fein itself, and the Dublin Government—will of course have something to say. Those are the facts of the matter.
      Today, we are being pushed to deal with legislation that is different from anything that has ever been produced in the House of Commons on the standing of terrorists in a part of the Government and a part of Her Majesty's United Kingdom. Surely such a matter deserves time to discuss and debate properly.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Northern Ireland Bill
    Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    4.3 pm
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    I am very grateful to colleagues for attending to this urgent business, and apologise for the speed with which it is being done. I know that hon. Members will appreciate the circumstances in which the Bill has been introduced and be anxious for the Good Friday agreement to be implemented in full.
    In the past 10 months, progress has been held up by the dispute over the formation of an inclusive Executive and the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons. There have been months of discussions, hundreds of meetings and hour upon hour of debate and negotiation, the sole purpose of which has been to find a way through the impasse which both sides of the community in Northern Ireland are able to support.
    As we are debating progress in Northern Ireland, I should like to register in the House the progress that has been made on marches in the past week. I think that everyone will be pleased with the progress that was made, on 12 July and in the preceding weeks, and will hope that that progress continues. I pay tribute to the Orange Order, which worked hard—as did the residents, but the Orange Order worked particularly hard—to ensure that this time of year was not violent.
    I say at the outset that I know that a number of issues and concerns have been raised about this Bill by the parties in Northern Ireland and people in the House—in particular, suspension versus exclusion, prisoner releases and the timetable for decommissioning. My intention is to cover the detailed points in the Bill, and then to address these concerns more fully.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and US President Clinton have all been actively involved in trying to help the parties to overcome their differences and, as almost anybody engaged in the process will acknowledge, they have worked very hard.
    The latest discussions began in Belfast on 25 June, when three important principles were agreed: that an inclusive Executive should be formed, exercising devolved powers; that all paramilitary arms should be decommissioned by May 2000; and that decommissioning should be carried out in a manner determined by the Independent Commission on Decommissioning, under General John de Chastelain.
    On 2 July, the two Governments put forward new proposals, based on those agreed principles. As the Prime Minister said in the House at the beginning of last week, the two Governments are proposing the following: the d'Hondt process to nominate Ministers in a new Northern Ireland Executive, to be run this Thursday; following that, devolution of powers will take effect from Sunday; and General John de Chastelain' s commission will then set out the steps required for, and the modalities for achieving, total decommissioning by all paramilitary groups by May next year. Literally within days of devolution, the process of decommissioning is to begin, as specified by the commission, and there is to be a start to actual decommissioning within a few weeks.
    176
    The Commission will report progress in September, December and May, but can do so at any other time if it considers that commitments are not being fulfilled.
    That, Madam Speaker, is the sequence. In my view, it represents the best way forward. However, I recognise clearly that what really matters to people on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland is certainty. Nationalists and republicans require certainty that they will be welcomed alongside the Unionists. Unionists need certainty that they will not have to sit in an Executive with others if commitments on decommissioning are not met.
    The Bill provides that certainty. It contains a failsafe clause—an insurance policy, or guarantee—which says that, if commitments are breached, either on decommissioning or on devolving the institutions set up by the agreement, the agreement will be suspended. In effect, that will rewind the process to where it is today—exactly as the Prime Minister said. We will be back to direct rule, with the Executive brought to an end.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Marjorie Mowlam: May I make a little more progress, and then I will? The Bill sets out how this failsafe would work. Let me go into some of the detail, and I will then take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
    Clause 1 provides for the automatic and immediate suspension of the operation of the institutions established under the Agreement. This will bite if either decommissioning or devolution commitments are not met; in the case of decommissioning, for example, when the Decommissioning Commission reports that there has been a failure to meet a commitment or to take a step that it has laid down. The effect of suspension is that the Assembly will no longer be able to legislate, or to meet, apart from specific circumstances for which the Bill provides.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Marjorie Mowlam: In two seconds. Ministers will cease to hold office. The North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council will cease to function under the terms of a supplementary treaty between the two Governments. The draft treaty is available in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Robathan: The Secretary of State referred to a few days and a few weeks. Can she tell us exactly how many days and how many weeks?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I am sorry to say that it is not my decision. General de Chastelain, who is well respected on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, chairs an independent body and it is his decision as to the time scale. However, he made the position clear in his report on 2 July in which he said that the process would start in a number of days, and actual decommissioning would follow in a number of weeks. He made it clear in the report that he will put down a timetable as to amounts, and it will be clearly laid out. The independent

    177
    commission making that decision was agreed by all the parties, earlier in June, as the best mechanism to move forward.
    Mr. McNamara: My right hon. Friend said that there would be a wind-back to the position that we have now, but that is not quite accurate. In fact, articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution would have been amended and the Anglo-Irish agreement ended.
    Marjorie Mowlam: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but, as those points were agreed so long ago, I assumed that they were taken for granted. He is right to say that that will happen, and that the changes to the constitution of the Irish Republic will continue regardless.
    Mr. Tom King: The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have rightly emphasised that the essential safeguard in this whole exercise of trust—because a certain amount has to be taken on trust—is the failsafe mechanism, which is the ultimate protection. I understand the difficulties and the independence of Sir John de Chastelain, but the House is being asked to assess the quality of that failsafe mechanism without, at the moment, being absolutely sure of the benchmarks against which it is to work.
    I told the Prime Minister, in a question on the statement he made, that it seemed to me that the only certain benchmark on which anybody could rely was May 2000. Could the Secretary of State arrange, either in her speech or before the end of the debate, for the House to be given the clearest possible guidance as to the thinking of Sir John de Chastelain? Without that, it will be extremely difficult to assess the quality of the failsafe mechanism.
    Marjorie Mowlam: The right hon. Gentleman knows that General de Chastelain is independent. One of the difficulties of independent bodies is that one cannot tell them what to do, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the report that General de Chastelain gave at the beginning of July outlines clearly the stages that will be taken. As I have mentioned already, he has said that, after devolution, it will be a number of days before the process begins and at most a number of weeks before the actual process starts. In that report, he says that there will be a timetable with modalities, and outlines the amounts and the time scale that he thinks suitable. That will be there for everybody to see.
    General de Chastelain is strongly committed to making progress, and what he has said is there for everyone to read. He has also made it clear that additional reports will be published in September, December and May, and additional ones to those if he feels that commitments are not being made. For those eight months, there is a clear programme already in the statements that he has made.
    Mr. Frank Field: I wish to pick up the point about rewinding that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) touched on. It is possible to look over past events and to see how brilliantly the IRA has conducted negotiations. The communities on both sides have made major concessions to get to this position, but the IRA has not made any major concessions. The communities made those concessions in the hope that the weapons would be decommissioned.
    178
    When there is rewinding, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would give rise to instability to rewind to the position today? Should we not also consider going back on the prisoner release system, so that, if the arms are not delivered, the IRA will lose some of the advantages they have gained in the past year?
    Marjorie Mowlam: All sides have made progress and shown a determination to move forward. For example, the republicans and the nationalists have accepted the principle of consent and the changes to the Republic's constitution, both of which are big steps forward. Moreover, the Assembly, perceived as a partitionist body, has been accepted, even though it is not high on the nationalist agenda. It has not been easy for either side, but both have made progress.
    As for the point about prisoners, I hope that my right hon. Friend will allow me to make a little progress, as I shall address that matter in some detail in a minute.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Marjorie Mowlam: If the hon. Gentleman will give me a chance to make some progress and finish describing the content of the Bill, I shall surely take an intervention from him.
    All legislative and executive functions during the suspension period will revert to us here in Westminster. A review, under the terms of the Belfast agreement, will begin as soon as is practicable after the suspension.
    Clause 2 deals with the period of the suspension and the procedure for bringing it to an end. Clause 3 requires two meetings of the Assembly to be called during the suspension period—the first within seven days of suspension, without taking a vote; the second within seven days of the end of the review, when the Assembly will debate the outcome of the review and vote on any proposed action. Clause 4 lays down what would happen when devolved government was restored once the suspension was lifted.
    Clause 5 deals with the six north-south implementation bodies that will come into being at the point of devolution. As those bodies will have continuing administrative functions, it would not be practicable to suspend them immediately. However, there are two important safeguards.
    First, during the suspension, the Governments will not confer any new functions or policy directions on those bodies, nor will they establish any new bodies. Secondly, the draft treaty makes it clear that if, within four months, the suspension has not been ended, the two Governments will agree new arrangements to transfer the bodies' functions to the relevant Departments in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic. That is another example of rewinding to the status quo, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said.
    As I mentioned at the beginning, a number of specific concerns have been raised with the Government, and particularly with the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), during his consultations with parties, both here and in Northern Ireland.
    I shall deal first with the issue of exclusion, which is one of the matters that has been raised. The Bill means that, if anyone fails to meet commitments on either

    179
    decommissioning or devolution, the Executive will not continue. This we can guarantee absolutely. The Executive will come to an end. That is clear, automatic and irreversible, unless the parties decide differently.
    What we cannot do is decide to form a new Executive ourselves. That can be done only by agreement between the parties. Even if we could provide for the automatic exclusion of a party, the same thing would happen. The others would still need to decide whether they wanted to go ahead on their own. There would be no basis under the Good Friday agreement for continuing unless an Executive, with representatives of both communities, could be formed.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: When the Secretary of State replied to the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I took it that she said that changes to the constitution of the Irish Republic would still go ahead. However, I am sure that she is aware that the Government in the south of Ireland have made a statement that the matter will be postponed for two years. I want to ask about something that is more important to me—the Government of Ireland Act 1920. What will happen to that? Will it be repealed, or retained?
    Marjorie Mowlam: The Government of Ireland Act 1920 will be kept. I do not have the information that the hon. Gentleman says he possesses about the Irish Government changing the date of their constitutional amendment, which I am convinced will still happen according to the given timetable.
    Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The Secretary of State has spoken about exclusion. Will she confirm that a Minister can be excluded from a future Executive only if there is a cross-community vote in the Assembly under the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998? The Executive can be suspended, but no one can be excluded unless there is a vote to exclude that individual, or an individual party, from holding office.
    Marjorie Mowlam: That has always been the case. The new Bill focuses on the situation in which someone in the Executive fails to make the required commitment in line with the de Chastelain timetable, providing an automatic mechanism to mean that that person is out, the Executive stopped and the process suspended.
    Mr. Donaldson: Everyone is out.
    Marjorie Mowlam: The process means that the Executive is stopped, as a result of which people will not have to share a position on it with those who are not willing to decommission. Matters can proceed in Northern Ireland only when there is a collective Executive. If one party changes, whether it is loyalist or republican, there will be a knock-on effect. We cannot treat parties in isolation, because of the collective impact exclusion would have. That is why the entire Executive would be disbanded. The hon. Gentleman knows that matters would rewind to where we are now. No one would be worse off than they are at present.
    Several hon. Members have mentioned prisoners, and I understand the concerns that have been raised on both sides. Prisoner releases are difficult. We all find it hard to deal with them, but it is least easy for those families who
    180
    have been victims of the troubles. Under the Good Friday agreement, the release of prisoners is linked to the maintenance of paramilitary ceasefires. That is reflected in the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which makes it clear that one of the factors that I should take into account in judging whether ceasefires have been maintained is whether organisations benefiting are co-operating fully with the Decommissioning Commission.
    I can assure the House that, in the overall judgments that I have to make about whether ceasefires are holding, I shall pay increasingly close attention to the extent to which an organisation is co-operating with the commission. That test will become tougher as time goes on.
    Mr. David Trimble: The Secretary of State correctly says that one of the criteria that she must consider under the 1998 Act is whether an organisation is co-operating with the de Chastelain commission. May I direct her attention to clause 1(1)(a)(ii) of the new Bill, which makes one of the bases for a report a failure to take any step required by the commission? Anyone failing to co-operate with the commission would fall within the terms of the Bill, which provides for automatic suspension. Cannot the Secretary of State say that the remedy with regard to prisoners will be just as swift and certain as that provided by the Bill?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I cannot rewrite the agreement, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. There is a clear relationship between prisoner releases and ceasefire; there is not that relationship between the accelerated release of prisoners and decommissioning. That is what the Bill states and that is my understanding of it.
    Those are matters of judgment; but the judgment as to whether a group is on ceasefire is part of the process of whether it is decommissioning in line with the Independent Commission on Decommissioning. If the group is said not to be following the directions of the decommissioning body, of course I will take it into account, but it is one of a number of factors. As I said, that factor will become more testing as time goes by.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Marjorie Mowlam: No, I want to make a little more progress.
    Finally, on a timetable for decommissioning, the agreement provides for the independent commission to have a key role. In its report of 2 July, it said that it is
    "prepared to define a timetable for decommissioning of arms by the main paramilitary groups",
    and that such groups
    "will be expected to adhere to it to ensure completion by…May 2000."
    If we want to go outside the de Chastelain process, one thing is clear: decommissioning will not happen. A process for decommissioning to take place alongside de Chastelain is outlined in the agreement.
    In articles in the papers and elsewhere, hon. Members have expressed the view that the process should happen more quickly. Unless it is in line with the Good Friday

    181
    agreement, there is not a chance of decommissioning happening. That is what the parties have signed up to and that is our best bet for making progress.
    Mr. David Wilshire: I am anxious to be clear before I vote on the timetable. Earlier, the right hon. Lady said that the Government cannot dictate the timetable. Now she has said that the Decommissioning Commission will produce one, but it has not already done so. Will it be possible by the time we vote tonight to know exactly we are being asked to vote for—exactly when these things will happen? If not, there surely cannot be any guarantee.
    Marjorie Mowlam: I make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, General de Chastelain has made it very clear that he will put in place a full timetable after devolution is in place and when he is talking to all the groups. However, in his statement of the 2nd, he made it patently clear that a decommissioning process will start within days of devolution and that the first act of decommissioning will be within weeks—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen keep shouting, "How many days? How many weeks?" What we have here is the best chance—the best option—for getting not merely a token gesture of decommissioning but a process that will start now and will be completed by May 2000.
    Any past suggestion has been a token gesture. Why this is the best option that we have had to make real peace in Northern Ireland derives from the fact that it will be a timetable for complete decommissioning by May 2000. That is worth taking a risk for. It is a risk, I accept that. It is partially a risk—
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Marjorie Mowlam: Let me finish. It is partially a risk because it is saying that, after d'Hondt on Thursday and devolution on Saturday, it will be a matter of days before the process starts and a matter of weeks before actual decommissioning starts. Is that too long to wait to find out whether this process can work? We will know who is serious—we will know which side is not going to fulfil its agreement—within weeks. That is worth doing to find out whether we can get real decommissioning.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Marjorie Mowlam: I will make a little more progress.
    As many people have said, the present difficulties in Northern Ireland are about confidence—about offering guarantees to both sides that devolution and decommissioning will happen. What this process offers is a legal guarantee to both sides. We have said before that the process needs more confidence and more trust. Over the next couple of weeks, with the legal guarantee that whoever does not fulfil either decommissioning under the timetable set by de Chastelain or the devolution commitment to put in place the institutions, we have a
    182
    chance to see who is serious, who will honour their commitment and who will not. This is a chance and a test—
    Mr. Beggs: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Marjorie Mowlam: This will be the last time.
    Mr. Beggs: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Does she realise that the impression that has been given over the past 12 months is that she, as Secretary of State, and others have been prepared to turn a completely blind eye to murder, beating and mutilation, and to the number of families who have been intimidated and driven out of the country? What does she say to those who formed that impression? How can she give us confidence that serious activity by terrorist organisations will not be ignored in the future?
    Marjorie Mowlam: For the past couple of months, I have been implementing the Good Friday agreement, for which the people of Northern Ireland voted. In addition, the Bill gives guarantees to both sides that, if decommissioning is not honoured and if devolution is not honoured, they do not have to sit in the Executive with people who have not decommissioned. That is a worthwhile guarantee; within weeks, we shall know if that is serious.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about allowing murders to continue, I find that slightly offensive. I guarantee to him that, week after week, I ensure that I talk to the security forces and to the police. Ten days ago, the Chief Constable said that he thought that he disagreed with nothing that I have said or done. I have listened carefully to advice; I do not listen to gossip, rumour or unfounded allegations. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if I receive evidence that people are murdering or beating, and if it is evidence that I can act on, I shall do so. I will not shirk that responsibility.
    I believe that the end is potentially in sight. At present, we have an historic choice before us. It will give us the chance to move forward in a way that has not been possible before. I commend the Bill to the House.
    4.32 pm
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: I start on a personal note by thanking the Secretary of State, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), and the Prime Minister for the consideration that they have shown my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and myself in taking us, step by step, through the latest developments. As I shall point out later, there are matters of doubt and disagreement, but we appreciate the courtesy that has been shown to us.
    The measure inevitably goes back to the Belfast agreement. I emphasise again that the Opposition wholeheartedly support the agreement; we supported it when it was brokered a year ago last Easter, and we do so unreservedly today. However, we have always maintained—as has the Prime Minister—that we cannot dine a la carte on that agreement. It only works if it all hangs together; it was a huge compromise and everybody has to play their part.
    We strongly endorsed elements of the agreement: the constitutional change in the Republic, which meant that it no longer had a legal claim over the north and that

    183
    it allowed the people of Northern Ireland to decide their own future; and the setting up of a devolved Administration so that, after so many years of direct rule, the people of Northern Ireland—or, more significantly, their elected politicians—were able to have a considerable say in running their part of the United Kingdom. We were especially anxious to ensure that there would be decommissioning of all weapons illegally held by paramilitaries, whether republican or loyalist, and that there would be a total end to violence.
    What we did not like, but reluctantly swallowed because it was part of the total package, was the early release of terrorist prisoners back on to the streets. We fully understood when the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister started to release those prisoners back on to the streets after the House passed the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998: it was clear that the Government had to show their good will and their commitment to the men of violence before they would start to decommission.
    However, by the end of September, a significant number of terrorists had been released early and there was no sign of any decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives by any of the paramilitaries whose political associates had signed up to the agreement. Since the end of September onwards, the Leader of the Opposition and I have continually called on the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to halt the early release of terrorist prisoners until there is decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives.
    A bargain was struck in Belfast last Good Friday, and both sides have to keep to that bargain for it to work—it has to be balanced. The Secretary of State says that decommissioning only had to take place over a two-year period ending May 2000. I put it to her that any reasonable observer would say that, if people are supposed to decommission all their illegally held arms and explosives over a two-year period, the fact that not one gun or one ounce of Semtex has been decommissioned after 14 months of that two-year period, which is the stage we are at now, indicates that the paramilitary parties have failed to fulfil their part of the bargain, so it would be right and proper for a halt to take place in the Government's early release of terrorist prisoners.
    Marjorie Mowlam: The Good Friday agreement says that decommissioning is an obligation, not a precondition. We all want decommissioning to happen as quickly as possible, but there was no timetable in the Good Friday agreement. What the deal gives us is a timetable from next week for full decommissioning. That is the difference and why this is a good Bill to have.
    Mr. MacKay: I put it to the Secretary of State that I wish that that were so, but there is no specific timetable in the legislation. If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall move amendments to the Bill—
    Mr. Donaldson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. MacKay: I shall respond to the Secretary of State first and then give way. There is no specific timetable in
    184
    the Bill, and we want to ensure that there is. I shall elaborate on that later in my speech. Meanwhile, I give way to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson).
    Mr. Donaldson: On the question of what is meant by decommissioning and when it should happen, may I quote from a letter from the Prime Minister to my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of my party? It is dated 10 April—Good Friday—last year and is signed in the Prime Minister's own handwriting. It states:
    "Furthermore, I confirm that in our view the effect of the decommissioning section of the agreement, with decommissioning schemes coming into effect in June, is that the process of decommissioning should begin straight away."
    Mr. MacKay: I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says: that the Prime Minister, who obviously and genuinely wants decommissioning to take place as soon as possible, just as I do, has made commitments—including the commitment in that letter to the First Minister designate—which, to be frank, have not been fulfilled.
    Mr. McCartney rose—
    Mr. MacKay: I shall give way once more but, because we are time limited, it must be the last time.
    Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that one of the most telling factors in the referendum campaign were the public pledges given in the Prime Minister's own handwriting that there would be a direct nexus between decommissioning and the release of prisoners; and that those pledges remain dishonoured and unfulfilled?
    Mr. MacKay: The hon. and learned Gentleman might recall that the Leader of the Opposition and I were campaigning for a yes vote in the Province on the same day as the Prime Minister made his handwritten pledges. I welcomed those pledges, and I think that they made a significant difference in ensuring a yes vote in both communities. Since then, many people in Northern Ireland who voted yes have felt badly let down. Today, we have an opportunity to put that right, if our amendments are passed.
    If we had been listened to, and if decommissioning had started because of the halt to terrorist prisoner releases, we would have no need for this debate and legislation today. We all want a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland, and we want it to include the maximum number of people of the widest diversity. We want it to be inclusive. We certainly want it to include all those who were elected to the Assembly and have sufficient seats to become Ministers under the d'Hondt formula.
    To ask the people of Northern Ireland and my Unionist friends to sit in a devolved Executive with Ministers who represent paramilitaries who have not begun to decommission is a very tall order, as I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree. That is why the Leader of the Opposition and I have continually said that everyone must jump together. In other words, Ministers should be appointed only when decommissioning has started. That is why I so strongly commended the Prime Minister's Hillsborough declaration, in which he and the Taoiseach

    185
    said categorically, after lengthy negotiations with all the parties in Northern Ireland last Easter, that, if decommissioning started, ministerial appointments would be made.
    Sadly, through no fault of the Prime Minister, the Hillsborough declaration was not implemented. It is worth noting why. It was because the paramilitaries and their political friends, both republican and loyalist, refused point blank to decommission. The Prime Minister had, therefore, to go back to the drawing board and had extensive, and no doubt exhaustive, discussions with all the political parties in the Province.
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. MacKay: I should like to finish this point, and then I shall certainly give way.
    The Prime Minister had exhaustive discussions with all the political parties only a few weeks ago. At the end of those discussions, he came up with a blueprint that invited the House and Unionists to set up an Executive in which Unionists and others would sit as Ministers with Sinn Fein representatives, without any decommissioning. I found that unacceptable. However, the Prime Minister then said, "There will be failsafes. I am inviting you to set up the Executive and, within a few days, there will certainly be penalties for any of the paramilitaries who do not decommission." That, I reluctantly concluded, was the only way forward.
    We therefore supported the Government because, as the Prime Minister eloquently said on the steps of Stormont, in an article in The Sunday Times and at the Dispatch Box a week last Monday, that would put whoever was not prepared to move forward completely on the spot. Under those circumstances, providing that the agreement was legally binding, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State would have had our wholehearted support and we would have advised Unionists and others to agree to be Ministers in that Executive.
    I shall quote from the significant article by the Prime Minister in The Sunday Times of 5 July. He said:
    "Within days of devolution, the paramilitary organisations, including the IRA, must notify intention to decommission. If they don't there's a failsafe that unwinds devolution.
    Within weeks they must decommission. The process is then verified by an independent commission, headed by the highly respected General de Chastelain."
    I agree wholeheartedly with all that. The Prime Minister continued:
    "This failsafe will be put in legislation and made automatic".
    One can imagine our disappointment, then, when the failsafes were not included in the legislation that we finally saw early yesterday evening.
    Mr. Mallon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. MacKay: I shall specify which failsafes are missing, and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I want to make it very clear why we believe that the failsafes promised by the Prime Minister are not in the proposed legislation, and why we shall be seeking to
    186
    amend the Bill to ensure that they are. When the Bill is amended, we will vote enthusiastically for its Third Reading.
    Three failsafes are missing. First, there is no tight, transparent timetable in the Bill. We are being asked to rely on various remarks of the respected independent General de Chastelain, and hope that he will produce a timetable. That could lead to a fudge, and the Prime Minister knows that. We want a timetable in the legislation. Then we can judge whether any paramilitaries are failing to decommission in time. We must have a tight, verifiable timetable.
    Secondly, if the IRA fails to decommission on time—I sincerely hope that it decommissions so that Sinn Fein can play its full role in the Executive—it should be automatically excluded from the Executive. As the Bill is drafted, the whole Executive and the whole Assembly would be closed down and suspended. I have never known of a situation in which everybody is punished equally. Those who have done no wrong and who have fulfilled their obligations would be punished in exactly the same way as those who failed to fulfil their obligations by not decommissioning. That cannot be fair and equitable.
    We require a third and final failsafe. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister will agree that only some of the paramilitary parties are the slightest bit interested in the Assembly or the Executive. Only the Provisional IRA, through Sinn Fein, is interested in the Assembly and the Executive, and only the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Progressive Unionist party are interested in the Assembly. None of the others has any political representation in the Assembly, so there is no punishment for them. As the Bill is drafted, the Loyalist Volunteer Force could fail to decommission on time and bring the whole pack of cards tumbling down. That cannot be right.
    It is not reasonable to ask the Provisional IRA to decommission, if we cannot be certain that the loyalist paramilitaries will also decommission. We would be asking republicans to disarm when their own people, as they would put it, would be fearful of attack from loyalist thugs, terrorists and paramilitaries but have no means of defending themselves.
    So, it is absolutely essential that, if any paramilitary group fails to decommission on time, its terrorist prisoner release is immediately halted by the Government. That is the only sanction that we have against them, and we need it not just to protect the democrats and the democratic process, but to assure the republicans that there will be loyalist decommissioning as well and that their own people will not be unduly exposed.
    The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has been very patient, and I shall now give way to him.
    Mr. Mallon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; I indeed have grown patient. Will he explain his espousal of the Hillsborough declaration, which was also espoused by the Unionist parties, with only a little token decommissioning, no de Chastelain report and a commitment to run the d'Hondt system on that Maundy Thursday and for an Executive to be up and running by the end of Easter, but his refusal to accept this proposal, which contains not only the de Chastelain report but the

    187
    commitment of de Chastelain reports on four different occasions, a beginning, a middle and an end to decommissioning and a failsafe device if that is not met?
    Mr. MacKay: I can straightforwardly explain that. In a perfect world all of us, including the hon. Gentleman, would prefer decommissioning to be going ahead at the same time as ministerial appointments, and that is why we supported the Hillsborough declaration.
    We are now being offered that Ministers be appointed to the Executive with no certainty that there will be decommissioning in future, and the possibility of a fudge. That fudge will be removed if our amendments are passed. It will then be legally binding that there will be a timetable, the exclusion of Sinn Fein if the IRA does not decommission, and the halting of terrorist prisoner releases for any paramilitary group, loyalist or republican, that does not decommission on time. These are true failsafes that would avoid a fudge and ensure that the proposed legislation moves forward.
    The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are absolutely right when they say that there is a lack of trust. We know after nearly 30 years of troubles in the Province that trust is in desperately short supply. To paraphrase, Unionists do not trust the IRA to decommission at all, and republicans, and quite probably some constitutional nationalists, do not believe in their heart of hearts that the Unionists will ever agree to share power or to be Ministers in an Executive with nationalists or republicans, and certainly with Sinn Fein.
    The Secretary of State and I will never be able to persuade those people, because the trust is not there. The only way forward is to have legislation of the sort that is being introduced today, where there are copper-bottomed guarantees and failsafes in law so that those concerned are not taking my word for it, nor the right hon. Lady's, nor even the Prime Minister's or General de Chastelain's. They will have it in law, in statute and in an Act of Parliament that has been passed by the House of Commons that, if anyone reneges on his obligations, he will be fully penalised.
    It is a crying shame that that is not the position at present because there is a real possibility of moving forward in a way that we have been unable to do before, and having proper, inclusive, devolved government in Northern Ireland combined with the decommissioning of illegally held weapons and an end to violence. It is so close; it is a pity that the Bill is flawed and will not allow that to happen.
    4.52 pm
    Mr. David Trimble: As the Secretary of State said in her introductory remarks, the Bill is to give effect to the declaration made on 2 July by the Prime Minister in association with the Irish Prime Minister. In that declaration, the Prime Minister is asking us to take part in an Executive with Sinn Fein in advance of decommissioning. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are reluctant to do so. Our reluctance will be portrayed by some as an unwillingness to share in an Administration with Catholics or nationalists. That is untrue.
    The d'Hondt formula, which will produce an inclusive Executive, was the proposal of the Ulster Unionist party. The concept of proportionality goes back to the proposals made by Jim Molyneaux, as he then was, and the
    188
    hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) to the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in 1987. The administration of the shadow Assembly, over the course of the past year, has been conducted jointly by myself and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). Last Friday, our Ulster Unionist executive explicitly endorsed the concept of an inclusive Administration. I mention this so that no one should be taken in by the Sinn Fein lie on this point.
    Nor do we have an absolute objection to those with a terrorist past. We know that people can change and that having a past does not disentitle one from a future, but it places an onus on those concerned to show that the past has been left behind. I recall that, a few days after becoming leader of my party, I was happy to welcome into our headquarters a politician who was once a republican activist. I had good reason to know that he had left that past behind him. He is not the only former republican activist with whom I have been willing to work. Our problem is not with former terrorists; it is about taking an existing and active terrorist organisation into government, for that is what Her Majesty's Government now propose.
    To meet that concern, the Government offer what they call a failsafe mechanism. As I said on 2 July, that mechanism is flawed and unfair—unfair because, if Sinn Fein breaks its obligations, everyone in the Executive is ejected from office. As the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said, the innocent are punished along with the guilty, and the democrats are treated as though they were indistinguishable from the terrorists.
    The fair response is obvious and has been mentioned. The offending party should be removed. If that were in the Bill, it would go a long way to making it acceptable, but it is not. Why not? The answer given by the Prime Minister in his newspaper article, to which we have heard reference, is that he cannot compel any party to remain in the Executive. In the circumstances, the implication is obvious. The implication is that the SDLP does not want to sit with us, if it means being apart from Sinn Fein.
    Why arrange matters in the legislation so that that position is concealed, while we are forced to a public choice? The answer to the second question comes from a study of clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill. They provide for a review, which is arranged and carefully structured to be equally open to two different outcomes. One is that Sinn Fein is excluded, and the other is that the default is waived and the original Executive is reconstituted.
    We are left with the suspicion that this arrangement has been made to hold out the prospect that we can be pressured into waiving the failure to decommission—that decommissioning can, as it has been throughout this process, simply be moved into the next phase. We are left with the suspicion that that is the Government's intention. I have tabled amendments that would cure that flaw, and I invite the Government to accept them.
    The mechanism itself is flawed. There is no certainty about it. Yes, the Secretary of State is made subject to a duty, and rightly so, because the Government know that after the way in which she has disregarded those matters which, under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, she should have taken into account, no Unionist would have any faith in her judgment.
    However, decommissioning itself is not subject to any precise duty. Clause 1(1) refers to commitments. Those are defined as commitments under the agreement or the

    189
    joint statement, but does that involve any clear commitment, short of completing decommissioning by May 2000?
    The Secretary of State has attached weight to statements given by General de Chastelain who said that, in his view, the procedures should begin within a few days, and actual decommissioning should begin within a few weeks; but can it be said that there are commitments to that, and that those constitute commitments under the statement, for the purposes of the Bill? In any event, we know only too well how republicans can spin out procedures.
    It would be beneficial if people looked carefully at the decommissioning scheme. It does not refer to timetables. Timetables have been mentioned, but there is no explicit reference in the decommissioning scheme to a timetable. The nearest that we come to it is in paragraph 12 of the decommissioning scheme, which states:
    "The Commission may make such arrangements as it considers appropriate to facilitate the decommissioning of arms."
    I repeat:
    "such arrangements as it considers appropriate to facilitate"
    decommissioning.
    It may be possible to stretch that language to include a timetable, but can it then be said that there is a commitment to that timetable for the purposes of the Bill? The arrangements will have to be proof against legal challenge. A further flaw is that they depend on the judgment of the commission. Although I have every faith in John de Chastelain as a person, I am well aware of how procedures can be exploited and how timetables can be stretched. Again, I have tabled amendments on that which will cure that flaw. Again, we invite the Government to consider them.
    That is not the only flaw in the arrangement. As the right hon. Member for Bracknell has said, decommissioning must be mutual. We expect republicans to decommission. Equally, loyalists must decommission. It would be difficult to expect republicans to go through with decommissioning if loyalists refused to reciprocate. Although one has to say that republicans have a bigger arsenal and they could start, there must still be that mutuality. The Bill has a sanction for republican default—specifically Sinn Fein-IRA default—but there is no sanction for loyalist default or, indeed, default by the Irish National Liberation Army. It and the loyalists are not likely to be in the Executive and one loyalist party—and, indeed, the INLA's party, if it still exists—is not even in the Assembly. The only sanction there can be for other paramilitary groups is in respect of prisoners' release.
    The Secretary of State has hinted that that sanction would be applied in the exercise of her discretion under the existing legislation, but, as I pointed out to her, the sanction in the Bill against republicans is automatic. In my view, the sanction against other paramilitaries ought to be equally automatic and it is of course open to the Government to amend the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 to do that. Again, amendments have been tabled which would have that effect.
    190
    There are other flaws—many others—but I do not want to go through them all in detail; I shall pick out just a few. The statement made by the Prime Minister referred to suspending
    "the operation of the institutions"
    of the agreement, but the legislation leaves out many of those institutions. It leaves out the civic forum, the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission, the commission on policing and the revue of criminal justice. They are also institutions of the agreement. There is a simple message here, which I hope will have some appeal to Labour Members—one out, all out.
    Much worse than those omissions is what appeared on reading the Bill to be the deliberate continuation of the north-south implementation arrangements in direct defiance of the agreement. The Secretary of State has referred to a draft treaty lodged in the Library. That is the first bit of information that we have had about that. I shall endeavour, when I can, to look at that document to see whether it is effective. I am sorry that she did not see fit to inform us about that important matter on which we had already made representations to the Northern Ireland Office and the Government.
    Despite the flaws in this option, there are those who would say to us that we should put the matters to the test anyway. It has been said that we have nothing to lose and would gain by exposing republicans. I can see two ways in which it is possible that we could gain. First, if it were clear that actual decommissioning would occur—and did in fact occur within a few weeks, as I would define "few"—then not only us but society as a whole in Northern Ireland would gain, because we could then say that the situation had clearly turned the corner and we would be able to proceed in Northern Ireland in a wholly peaceful and wholly inclusive manner. That is a prize worth obtaining and there would be advantage—not only to us, but to republicans and nationalists as well. Indeed, I have not been able to understand why republicans have not been prepared to move on that matter with us, as we have repeatedly offered to do.
    I suspect that the explanation for republicans' failure to move with us on that matter is that they still have hopes of being able to bring the entire republican movement—their so-called army as well as their party, inextricably linked as they are—together into the heart of government. That would carry with it the danger of creating a Mafia state and it would also retain, if only for a future generation, the option of using violence to finish the job. That explanation, to our way of thinking, is reinforced by the complete absence of any evidence of what the Prime Minister called a seismic shift in republicanism. We have looked, and we will continue to look with an open mind, for signs of such a move. We would like it to happen, but we will guard against the wish being father to the thought.
    The second way in which it is possible that we would gain would be if, in the event of a failure to decommission, the SDLP decided to form an Administration without Sinn Fein, but in view of the structure of clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill, and the constant equivocation about that by nationalism generally, the prospect is not inviting. I do not want to go into too much detail on this issue, but I have to say that it is sad that a party that asks us to gamble cannot tell us what its position will be in certain clearly defined circumstances that are perhaps only a few weeks away. It is not a matter

    191
    of prejudging something in unknown circumstances or writing a blank cheque, although we were offered one a few months ago. It would be easier for us all if the SDLP could muster a fraction of the courage that it attributes to us.
    Those two ways in which it is possible that we could gain from this measure now seem unlikely. In all other ways we would lose. Undertaking such a gamble would mean putting an enormous strain on society as a whole, and on Unionism in particular. In undertaking such a gamble, one would sacrifice an important principle involving the integrity of the democratic process. It is stated several times in the Belfast agreement that only those who are committed to peaceful, democratic means should hold office. It would clearly be wrong to place in government those with a private army.
    I can illustrate the problem that would arise quite simply. Under the Government's proposals, we could easily have in Belfast a Sinn Fein Minister of Health in charge of, among other things, an anti-drugs policy, while his colleagues in the IRA continued to use the threat of armed force—and, who knows, perhaps even the Minister's advice—to enable them to control and exploit the supply of illegal drugs.
    We summed up this whole issue in the phrase: "no guns handed in, no hand in government." We know that matters are not always as clear cut as we would like. That is why, on 10 April last year, we accepted an agreement that has unsatisfactory aspects, as the right hon. Member for Bracknell said. Moreover, the agreement's provisions on decommissioning contained ambiguities. I considered that there was enough time for republicans to establish their intentions, and I was fortified by the fact that the Prime Minister publicly shared my construction of those provisions as requiring a beginning of decommissioning in June 1998.
    The agreement divided Unionism. I thought that, as the benefits of the agreement came through, support for it would grow. Instead, over the past 15 months, the perception of Unionism has been that matters have not improved. None the less, I consider that what I did then was right. I still want the agreement to succeed, but I remain to be convinced that the right way to do it is through this hastily concocted scheme, which clearly has not been thought through.
    We must take account of the possibility that individuals or a movement are in the process of evolution, and that, given time and space, could change. We know that our objectives can be achieved in a variety of ways. If there was a clear, watertight scheme, in which there was at the outset an unequivocal commitment to change and a process that genuinely guaranteed to deliver that change, we would have to consider whether a scruple over a period of days could be justified. We do not have that option before us today.
    The House should seriously consider whether the haste with which this measure has been presented is really needed, or whether it would be better to have more time and to proceed on a sounder basis. I have no doubt that that would be a better way to proceed, just as I have no doubt that we should all tell the paramilitaries that the right way forward is not for democrats constantly to have to bend to the requirements of paramilitaries, but for paramilitaries to accept the opportunity this process offers them of becoming fully and genuinely partners in the democratic process.
    5.9 pm
    Mr. John Hume: I should like to begin by expressing our deep appreciation and gratitude to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and Ministers for the enormously detailed work that they have put into this matter—the most serious human problem facing this Government, as it was for previous Governments. We are deeply grateful to them for the efforts that they are making, particularly to break the present impasse. I regret that the debate is taking place, because if one were watching these proceedings and did not know Northern Ireland, one would get the impression that no progress had been made at all, whereas in fact there has been enormous progress in the past few years and the atmosphere on our streets has been transformed. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who laid the foundations for this approach, and made an enormous contribution.
    In recent weeks, we have heard major statements from the business community, the trade union movement, community groups and the youth movement, calling on the political leadership to keep working to build on the progress already made rather than arguing and quarrelling all the time. I hope that we shall be doing that soon.
    As well as the transformation of the atmosphere on our streets, where there is now peace, what is interesting is the strength of the call from young people for a continuation of the process. Most people under the age of 30 have never known anything other than the troubles on our streets, and no one knows better than they how much progress has been made. The youth movement is sending strong messages to us.
    The most important aspect of what has happened is that, in the case of the Good Friday agreement, the final word was not with the politicians but with the people. That was an historic development: for the first time in our history, the people of Ireland—north and south—with a vote spoke on how they wished to share that piece of earth.
    Listening to some people, one would think that the agreement constituted the appeasement of certain extremists. Central to it, however, was a transformation of nationalist thinking right across Ireland, north and south—and that included Sinn Fein. It is totally accepted that it is the people of the island who are divided, and that agreement is the only way in which to solve the problem. That agreement must involve the allegiance and loyalty of both sections of our people.
    As the Secretary of State pointed out, what is central is the complete acceptance of the principle of consent by all the parties from the nationalist tradition. That is a major step forward. What has not gone, however—this is obvious from the debate, and has been mentioned by several speakers on both sides of the House—is the distrust that exists between both sections of our community. Given the centuries of quarrelling, it is natural enough, in a sense, for such distrust to exist; but part of our task for the future is to erode it.
    The people voted overwhelmingly for the agreement. We hear a good deal of talk about democracy here. If we are true democrats, what is our duty? It is to implement the will of the people in all its aspects and, therefore,

    193
    to implement all aspects of the agreement. The two Governments have been dealing with the current impasse preventing such implementation.
    Mr. Stephen Day: Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that, when the majority of people of Northern Ireland voted in favour of the Good Friday agreement, they were, in effect, voting for terrorists in government? Surely they were not; they were voting to remove terror from their community through decommissioning.
    Mr. Hume: To be honest, I do not need a lesson from you about such matters. I do not know how you interpreted my remarks in that way. What I am saying is—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that if he says "you" he is addressing the Chair.
    Mr. Hume: I am sorry about that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, as I said, I do not understand why I was interpreted in that way. I was saying, and saying very clearly, that it was our duty to implement the will of the people, which means implementing the Good Friday agreement in all its aspects. The basis of the agreement is the provision of lasting peace and stability on our streets, and the removal of violence from our streets for keeps. That is what it is about.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the difficulty that we face today is that the agreement that was endorsed in the referendum meant very different things to very different sections of the community, and the absence of clarity on what it actually meant means that all the chickens are coming home to roost today?
    Mr. Hume: I do not think that there are two meanings of the word "peace". The agreement meant peace and stability to the people and they came out in strength. Let me put it like this. Who could have thought five years ago that the people of Ireland as a whole—71 per cent. of the people of the north and 93 per cent. of the people of the south—would agree on how we live together in that island, and what democratic institutions should be there to represent them? That is the powerful progress that has been made. It is our duty not to let the impasse erode it.
    Of course, part of the task of moving forward, as I have already said, is eroding the distrust. There is one solid way in which to do that. When the impasse occurred, the two Governments met and set out three principles which all parties agreed to—the Unionists, Sinn Fein and ourselves agreed to those three principles. The first principle was moving into setting up the inclusive Executive. Of course, let us not forget that that is a very important factor in our future, because, for the first time in our history, all sections of our people will work together. It is by working together that we will start to see the real solution.
    The institutions that we are setting up are a framework. The first principle of our peace process is respect for our differences—no victory for either side. The second is the
    194
    creation of institutions that can achieve that. That creates a framework, but it does not remove the distrust of centuries. That distrust will be removed only when both sections of our people start working together—as I often put it, spilling their sweat and not their blood. By doing that, we will break down the barrier. That is the first principle set out to us by the two Prime Ministers—to get inclusivity, because inclusivity is, indeed, important.
    Let me make it clear: there is no circumstance in which either my party or I would sit in government with any other party that is either engaged in violence or threatening violence. That has been our consistent position since we were founded as a party. As everyone knows, we have been in the front line against violence throughout our existence.
    The second principle that was agreed was that the decommissioning would take place by May next year, according to a timetable laid out in the agreement. The third principle was that it would be carried out by an independent commission of experts. The arguments about decommissioning that have gone on here today and in the past months were going on earlier, too. Remember that the talks process lasted two years. Going through all that, it was very obvious that we could not reach agreement on how to handle the decommissioning thing, and that the best way of dealing with it was to bring in an independent commission of experts.
    We have that commission of experts. Let those experts do the work and report. When they report, let us consider their report and let us take decisions based on the realities that they tell us, not on the distrust of both sections of our community.
    Mr. Donaldson rose—
    Mr. Peter Robinson rose—
    Mr. William Cash rose—
    Mr. Hume: I give way.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I ask the hon. Member for Hume to whom he is giving way? [Interruption.] I apologise; I mean the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume).
    Mr. Hume: I will not make the remark that I was thinking of about all of them, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but let one of them go ahead.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman says that his party would not sit in government with those who use or threaten violence. Would he, for the sake of clarity, interpret to the House whether he considers holding on to an arsenal of weapons to be the threat of violence?
    Mr. Hume: We are totally committed to the Good Friday agreement, which contains a total commitment to total demilitarisation, total disarmament and total decommissioning. We want to see that done, now. As we know, however, given our history, it is not an easy thing to do.
    Decommissioning is not the most important factor in ending violence, as one could decommission on Monday but secretly buy more guns on Tuesday—[Interruption.]

    195
    That is true. What is very important is that those who say that they have ended violence mean it and are practising it. We want the gun to be taken completely out of our society, and, within the established time frame, we want there to be total demilitarisation, disarmament and decommissioning. We want that to be done to the satisfaction of a commission of experts. That is how we have approached the matter, and that is how we should approach it.
    Ultimately, we have to deal with the distrust. Therefore, the sooner we resolve this impasse, have an inclusive Executive, and start working together, the better.
    I also hope that the House—I am now appealing to Opposition Members—will keep bipartisanship strong. The issue that we are debating should never be a source of party politics. We want bipartisanship to be maintained, and I should hope that the issue—given the role of human nature in our terrible problem—rises above party politics.
    I should give some advice—
    Mr. Donaldson: Will you listen to some advice?
    Mr. Hume: The advice that I should like to give to both the Leader of the Opposition and his spokesman, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), is that you might occasionally check the opinions of other sections of Northern Ireland. The Leader of the Opposition should take a lesson from his predecessor, who not only laid the foundations for our peace process, but, throughout, kept himself fully informed of the opinions of different parties. Never yet has the Social Democratic and Labour party had a meeting with the new leadership of the Conservative party. What does that say about their real interest in our situation?
    I appeal to the Conservative leadership: get yourselves informed. If you were fully informed on the different shades of opinion, you might take a more sensitive approach to the problem.
    I hope that all of us will now take it as our duty to implement the will of our people and use all of our energies in doing so—to resolve the impasses to the satisfaction of all sides. The sooner that we do that, and the sooner we start working together, the sooner we will start really solving the problem.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should say that I hope that I shall listen to the words and advice of all hon. Members.
    5.23 pm
    Mr. John Major: If today passes with some well-meaning platitudes from all of us but without some hard questions, I think that we shall have lost a very precious opportunity. Today is a day to say what hitherto has not been said, and for more than one party present today to do what hitherto has not been done. For generations, men and women of both traditions have been murdered in Northern Ireland by paramilitaries. After years of work, with many of the people who have worked on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland, we are on the verge of a settlement.
    Is it not perverse that, at the very last hurdle, it is one of the democratic political parties—the Ulster Unionists—that is being urged, quite predominantly, to take one more risk on the good faith of a paramilitary group, the IRA?
    196
    We should not be surprised that that is so. It shows that democrats demand more of one another than they do of those to whom democracy has long been an alien concept.
    In our history, however, the House has often had to deal with unsavoury groups in a good cause. Making peace is a messy business, and no one should doubt that for a second. The trick is to bring the anti-democrats within the democratic embrace. That is why the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and his party are today facing so much pressure. Before this day is out, other parties, such as the Social Democratic and Labour party, will face pressure as well on their views on the matter. But as that happens, let us not turn logic on its head. The democratic political parties do not have Semtex. They do not murder. They are part of the solution; they are not part of the problem.
    If we are to pressurise the democrats—and there is pressure on democrats—there must be safeguards for democracy. That is what the Bill is about. Essentially, the Bill is asking the democratic political parties to sit in government in Northern Ireland with Sinn Fein before the IRA has disarmed or destroyed a single weapon. It does so for this reason—explicitly to create the circumstances in which it is believed the IRA may disarm, or so we hope.
    When Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness say that they will use their influence on the IRA, why do we take them seriously? Who do we think they are? Why do we think that they have influence? To whom do we think they talk? It is said that Sinn Fein is no part of the IRA—although, in the parts of Northern Ireland that I have visited, there are many dogs on the street who would not accept that.
    If Sinn Fein had no influence with the IRA, it would be but a tiny political group, of much less importance than those represented in this House. If Sinn Fein does have influence with the IRA, however, let us realise with whom democracy will be sitting down in the power-sharing Executive. That is why Sinn Fein must be expelled if there is no disarmament by the IRA. I wish the Executive to succeed, but I wish it to succeed not for a day or for a month, but for good. In my judgment, it will never be secure if it is dependent on paramilitary organisations not returning to violence if they fail to get their way in the power-sharing Executive.
    The question before us today is straightforward. Should the risk be taken to go ahead? Let me pose four questions upon which the judgment on the Bill must be made. First, if the IRA does not disarm, is Sinn Fein automatically expelled from the Executive? The answer to that question is no. An expulsion mechanism is automatic, but expulsion is not. Expulsion ultimately depends on the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    General de Chastelain reports that the disarmament pledge has been broken. All institutions are suspended from Executive action. The Assembly, in a non-Executive role, can meet and debate this. The Governments review it and report. The Assembly then considers that review and decides. However, even then, the expulsion of Sinn Fein would need cross-party support, with 60 per cent. of both main traditions voting to expel—as would be the case, of course, with any Protestant paramilitary group as well.
    On this point, the leader of the SDLP, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), has been crystal clear all along, and he was equally clear again this afternoon—the SDLP

    197
    will not sit down with terrorists. We can assume, therefore, that, in such circumstances, the SDLP would vote to expel. I accept unequivocally that that would be the position of the hon. Gentleman and his party.
    However, I hope that the SDLP will make a further contribution, which I believe would be of reassurance to this House and to other democratic parties—that, if those circumstances unfortunately arise and it passes a vote, with others, to expel Sinn Fein from the Executive, the SDLP will commit itself to stay in the Executive and the Assembly. If it does not, all of us in the House know that both those bodies will be unsustainable and will collapse.
    If we are to move forward, everyone in the House will have to take risks—there is no one for whom there is no risk. I hope that the risk that the hon. Member for Foyle will take on behalf of his party is to commit himself to keeping the Executive and the Assembly in being if it proves necessary to expel any paramilitary group—specifically Sinn Fein, because the IRA has not disarmed. If the hon. Gentleman does not do that, the danger is that the failure of a paramilitary group—the IRA—to disarm will bring down the democratic Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, and democracy, this House, the process, Northern Ireland and the future will all be the losers. That is a crucial point.
    The second point concerns General de Chastelain. On behalf of this House, he will talk directly to the IRA and to the Protestant paramilitary groups. He will agree what we call the modalities of disarmament. I expect that he will agree that the paramilitaries can destroy their own weapons, provided that there is independent verification. That would be sensible and I would support it. We are not looking for artificial surrenders: we want the verified destruction of the weapons. It is clear from what has been said by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State that the paramilitaries are expected to notify an intention to disarm within days—but will not actually be expected to do so until some time next month. But what will be decommissioned and when will it be decommissioned? We need to know the answers.
    I have two questions directly for the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. General de Chastelain has not yet made the agreement—I appreciate that point—but, when he does, will they encourage him to publish the full schedules of disarmament that he agrees, so that pressure for progress can be publicly seen to be put at all points in the future? That is critical. It is, of course, the general's decision. I appointed him, and I know the independence and the quality of the man. It is his decision, but I have no doubt that he will listen to the views of this House and to any views put to him by the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State. I hope that they will put to him the view of this House, which I hope will be their view, that publication of detailed schedules would add to the confidence in Northern Ireland and elsewhere that this process is going ahead properly.
    We need to know how many arms there are as far as the general can judge. The pike in the hedge point is a real one, because no one will ever know precisely what arms are held in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. However, a judgment can be made and we need to know what that judgment is, when the general expects the arms to be destroyed and how it will be done.
    198
    Can the Government confirm—this is the second question specifically for them—that any breach in the disarmament schedule, at any time—not just at the outset—will lead to the expulsion mechanism being activated? I believe that the answer to that is yes, but I would welcome an assurance on that point.
    The third point is the contentious issue of prisoners. I believe that, thus far, nearly half the paramilitary prisoners have now been released, and nearly half the remainder still in prison may be released within the next year. I shall be specific: under what circumstances will the prisoner release stop? As I understand it, under the prisoner release legislation, it does not stop if Sinn Fein or any other group is expelled from the Executive. It stops only when the Secretary of State decides that a paramilitary group is no longer on ceasefire.
    Here is a real dilemma. The IRA might not disarm, but equally violence might not resume. In those circumstances, the ceasefire has not been broken and, in that scenario and under the present prisoner release legislation, prisoners could still be released. That is the position and it will not do. It cannot be acceptable. I ask the Government to make it clear today that, if any party is expelled from the Executive, the Secretary of State will make the presumption that the ceasefire is at risk and halt the releases immediately.
    That assurance needs to be bankable. There must be no ifs, buts or uncertainties. There must be no pleas for fresh negotiation, and no more time. I say that as much in the interests of democracy and of the Government as for any partisan reason. It would be indefensible if releases continued and the ceasefire was broken when the prisoners were out of prison. The Government must not put themselves in that position, as it would cause them to lose all credibility.
    In political terms, that is the Government's worry, not mine. However, in terms of the Government's capacity to move forward the process in Northern Ireland about which I care so much, I do not wish them to lose credibility with either side of opinion, in Northern Ireland or in the United Kingdom. I wish to continue to support the efforts that the Government are making to end the nightmare through which Northern Ireland has lived for so long.
    My fourth question is simple and straightforward, and it, too, is directed to the Government. Can they confirm later this evening that the British and the Irish Governments are wholly agreed about the legislation and about how it will work? There must be no dispute in the future if any of the mechanisms in the Bill come to be triggered.
    The Bill asks us to take on trust the actions of people whom we do not trust. However, if the assurances that I seek are given—if the disarmament schedule is published; if the Government make the cast-iron presumption that prisoner releases will stop if any party is expelled from the Executive; if all the political parties agree to sustain the Executive and the Assembly in being even after such an expulsion—I believe that a more balanced position will have been achieved. I believe there is a risk then to be taken that would be a reasonable risk.
    We are asked to put the paramilitaries to the test. To do so, we must first put ourselves to the test.
    5.37 pm
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: I listened with interest to what the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), had to say. I recall that, after the Canary wharf bomb, IRA prisoners were still released under his early release scheme, even though the ceasefire was over. The right hon. Gentleman advocates a most dangerous course when he suggests that prisoners should be used as tokens in the bargaining process. That was not part and parcel of the Good Friday agreement.
    What we are witnessing is a complete change of position by the Opposition, and the ending of bipartisanship. I am one of the few hon. Members who can recall the negotiations that started from the Sunningdale agreement and later under Humphrey Atkins and James Prior. I also recall the arrangements that were undertaken then to try to achieve a settlement, a peace, an agreement. Throughout that time, the Labour Opposition supported every effort that was made. We did not attempt to rewrite the agreements that were reached, but that is what the amendments tabled by the Opposition would do. We did not act in the thoroughly irresponsible manner adopted by the Opposition as they attempt to rewrite the Good Friday agreement.
    My second point turns on what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in response to my intervention earlier. She spoke about what would happen if the Executive were to fail after the Unionists had made the leap of faith and accepted its establishment. She said that the position would be rewound to the status quo, but that is not the case. In fact, what will have happened in those circumstances is that two of the most contentious points in the bargaining will no longer apply. The nationalists will have sacrificed their claims on behalf of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, as well as the protections that they felt that they had under the Anglo-Irish agreement. The arrangement is that, once the Executiveis formed, the new clauses will come into operation in the Irish constitution and the Anglo-Irish Agreement will fall. If the Assembly were then to fail, all the cross-border, north-south and east-west arrangements would disappear.
    The people who would benefit from that would be the Unionists. They would have achieved all of their bargaining positions, leaving the nationalists with nothing. It is not Unionist politicians who are making the leap in the dark. It is the nationalist politicians. We should recognise who is making the sacrifice. Demands have been made of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), and he has been asked to give undertakings. That asks far too much of him. The nationalists have put far more at risk than the Unionists. They are taking a far more deliberate gamble.
    Our focus on decommissioning seems to me to be a ghost come back to haunt us from the Washington talks and from the arrangements first made by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon. As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle has said, decommissioning could happen tomorrow, but anyone with £100 could easily buy all the ingredients for a barrack buster or an agricultural bomb. We need to decommission not weapons but minds, and hearts, and knowledge. Our great reward should simply be that the guns and bombs are by and large silent. The most important thing that we can do is to maintain that degree of decommissioning.
    200
    Like everyone else, I do not believe that the IRA should possess weapons. Arms should be given up, and the terrorists should never have had them. But the most important things we can do are to maintain the ceasefire and to build up goodwill on the streets of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. McNamara: No.
    Maintaining the ceasefire is too important to allow us to make an Aunt Sally of decommissioning. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in an answer published in today's Hansard, we do not know what weapons the terrorists hold. We will never know whether they have disarmed, no matter what they say. We must get away from that mindset.
    In passing the Bill—I hope that we do—we must consider the full implications of clause 3. When the Unionists entered into agreements a few years ago, their initial demands were that we get rid of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which then happened, and that a devolved Assembly in the north of Ireland should be achieved. We must be careful not to fall into the trap of having an Assembly that would remain after all the arrangements had disappeared. If we accept that, the point of all the negotiations will have been lost.
    What did the Unionists want? An end to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and their own devolved assembly. Indeed, the House will recall that, before even the right hon. Member for Huntingdon could set about his arrangements, a forum had to be elected. No one had asked for it or wanted it, but again we met a demand made by the Unionists.
    We must put those matters on the record because it is important for us to realise that it is not merely one side that has made, or is being asked to make, the leap—there has been a considerable leap from the nationalist side.
    I shall make a point that some hon. Members will not particularly like. Again, it concerns the IRA, which is not an organisation for which I have any affection whatsoever. The activities of the Provisional IRA have set back the cause of constitutional nationalism by the length of time that I have been in this House. I have no particular brief for that organisation but, whether we like it or not, according to their own philosophy, members of the IRA regard themselves as an army. They believe that they have made a ceasefire and that they have not surrendered. They believe that they should see something tangible coming out of the Good Friday agreement. They believed that the Assembly was to be set up before decommissioning and that it was not, as my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have said continuously, a precondition.
    The arrangements that we are making today accept that belief and start with the Assembly first. Let us bear in mind the fact that, whether we like it or not, there is an organisation out there that has that mindset. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle has been grappling with for years to bring them into the democratic process. We have almost succeeded in doing so.
    In one sense, as has been said, we can push the Unionists too far. However, the people who speak for Sinn Fein or the IRA are also grappling with the problems of their own organisations, and we must understand that

    201
    too. If we fail to understand the problems of the Unionists and those affecting Sinn Fein and the IRA leadership, we are in equal difficulty and we can equally flounder. That is why it is important that we should push forward with this legislation and say, "It is there. It cannot be altered."
    All sides are making a great leap of faith. Everyone has a great deal to lose, but if we go ahead, we all have a great deal to gain.
    5.48 pm
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: Just before I came into the Chamber, a journalist asked me how many points out of 10 I would give the Secretary of State for her performance. After a moment, I gave her eight. If I had given her 10, there would be little room for improvement and she would become complacent and, also, I suspect that the Prime Minister has been helping her with her project work. Having said that, I am pleased with the work that she has done. In fairness, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have shown an unquestionable commitment to carrying on the work that their predecessors in the previous Government did to try to create a lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
    This debate is a predictable consequence of the Good Friday agreement. The deadline for decommissioning in the agreement was clearly May 2000, but no timetable was signed up to at that stage. I doubt that Sinn Fein would have signed the Good Friday agreement if there had been a timetable and, although I realise that some hon. Members are cynical about that, I look at the matter differently. A decommissioning timetable has now crept into the process, and has potentially been accepted by those who refused to accept it in the first place. We not only have the copper-bottomed deadline of May 2000, but we are beginning to set up a timetable that increases the chance that it will be met.
    As has already been said, it is true that decommissioning is more symbolic than practical. However, that symbolism is most important, and I am concerned that that has been missed by certain hon. Members. During earlier speeches, there were calls of, "How many days before decommissioning?". That ignores the fact that the failsafe mechanism that we are discussing today is itself symbolic of how far we have come overall.
    Another problem is that the process for the timetable has become fairly clearly defined; it is called de Chastelain—after the effective arbiter appointed by the previous Government and widely accepted as truly independent. One can disagree with that process, but that is a matter of judgment, not of principle. I disagree profoundly with the official Opposition, who have major concerns because the timetable is not before us. Given the extremely sensitive circumstances in which the matter has been negotiated, I feel that this is the strongest way in which we can realistically proceed at this stage. The timetable has not been specified, but the process through which a specific timetable could be drawn up could not be clearer. It is false to raise major concerns as to the matters that we are discussing based simply on the absence of that timetable.
    The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) described the problem; it is not so great for mainland politicians as it is for those who have to sell in Northern
    202
    Ireland the decisions made in this place. One of the most important points that he made was that having a past does not bar one from having a future. That symbolises the right hon. Gentleman's courage in leading his party towards a recognition of the importance of reconciliation. He also said that the measure before us was flawed and unfair—largely because of the blanket suspension if decommissioning does not occur.
    Without labouring the point, let me say that it is fairly easy to understand why the difficult negotiations that have taken place in Northern Ireland have led to exactly that result. One can question the tactics, but it is difficult to question the principle. The final step requires some faith. That step was inevitably going to be difficult, once the Good Friday agreement had excluded a timetable for decommissioning.
    It is perfectly valid to hold a different view from the one that I have described; those who are in the best position to hold that view are not mainland politicians, but those who represent Northern Ireland. I have a great deal of sympathy for the right hon. Member for Upper Bann who, every day, has to face up to, and justify, the decisions that he makes on behalf of his party and—in many ways—on behalf of Northern Ireland as a whole. However, the alternative to accepting the measure before us is not decommissioning—it is nothing at all. It is a stalling of the entire process. If the risks—which are small for us, but great for Northern Ireland's politicians—are not taken, the result does not bear thinking about.
    Prisoner releases and the decommissioning aspects of the Good Friday agreement can be linked. One can justifiably say that prisoner releases should be linked to decommissioning—but not now. That could have been done only when the original agreement was being negotiated. Although I have sympathy with the comments of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), I have no process to suggest—nor, I think, does the House—that could possibly link decommissioning with prisoner releases at this stage. I remind the House that prisoner releases were linked to ceasefires, not to decommissioning. Any argument that the two should be brought together would be tenuous in the extreme. [Interruption.] I hear cries of disagreement from hon. Members, and I shall be interested to hear their arguments. However, like all other hon. Members who are interested in these matters, I have read the Good Friday agreement and I defy anyone to show me any plausible or tangible link between decommissioning—specifically the process of decommissioning—and prisoner releases.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman may have read the Belfast agreement, but he has clearly not read the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. That says that prisoner releases can be stopped if the Secretary of State recognises that an organisation is no longer on ceasefire. The Act defines how the Secretary of State will arrive at that decision; one of the conditions is that, if an organisation is not
    "co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997".
    That is directly linked to decommissioning.
    Mr. Öpik: That would be the argument that I would expect to try to create that linkage. The hon. Gentleman

    203
    is entitled to hold that view. However, as I said earlier, these are matters of judgment. In my judgment, and that of my party, it is far more important to assess whether the ceasefire is holding in line with all the conditions—for example, whether people are being shot or whether bombs are being planted for political motives—rather than on the narrow constraint of the definition of the decommissioning process. Others are entirely justified in holding different views—that is the purpose of holding a debate. However, I cannot subscribe to the belief that the lack of a timetable and the lack of specific action by the IRA at this stage are sufficient to claim that the ceasefire has been broken, and hence to trigger the necessary consequence of that—the cessation of the Good Friday agreement and the whole peace process.
    There has been criticism—which was rather disingenuous—of some of the risks and the decisions taken by the Secretary of State and the Government in relation to decommissioning. Prisoner releases also came into that matter. The irony is that many of the decisions that are now being criticised by the official Opposition are similar to some of those that were made by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) when he was Prime Minister, and was beginning the process that has come so far during the past few years. I have often said that one of the right hon. Gentleman's great achievements as Prime Minister was to begin the process that the present Government have continued. No one can take away his achievements; they made possible the measure that we are discussing today. However, let us remember the risks that he took; let us remember how many times things were leaked that could have been enormously compromising to his Government, if the then Opposition had chosen to make political mileage from them.
    I am a member of neither the Government nor the official Opposition, and I say in all sincerity—it is not a party political point—that the official Opposition need to think carefully about what they are trying to achieve when they condemn the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for taking risks that are very much in the spirit of those supported throughout the House only three years ago. It is ironic that representatives of mainland constituencies sometimes feel so justified in challenging the risks that have been taken to try to secure peace in Northern Ireland. Although, on occasion, I may disagree with Unionists and members of the Ulster Democratic Unionist party, I very much respect the position from which they make their points.
    In that context, although Northern Ireland Members' judgment may differ from mine, they are entitled to hold their opinions, even if their views are contrary to the Government's position. They have difficult constituencies, and they have clear-cut positions on which they were elected. That is not true of the official Opposition, who repeatedly tell us that they are supportive of the Good Friday agreement, while trying to create artificial linkages, as I have described, in a way that is, to say the least, unhelpful to the process that we are trying to promote.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Öpik: I have nearly finished my speech, so I shall not give way.
    204
    I counsel the right hon. Member for Bracknell to consider the consequences of the views that he expresses. He must recognise that the ripple effect of the official Opposition's statements reaches Northern Ireland.
    I hope that I do not sound harsh. I believe that, for all its faults, the Bill is not a matter that we should dismiss lightly, or criticise on the basis of false premises. The failsafe that we are debating and the Bill as a whole are not really about politicians, but about Northern Ireland, the Province, and the safety of its people.
    I agree with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that the Good Friday agreement is flawed, but it is the best Good Friday agreement that we have. We have to recognise that, if we are to have peace, we have only one route. It is possible to argue that, if we are to have peace in the near future, we have only three days. If hon. Members' views differ from mine, I can respect that, but their views have to be based on judgment and, more to the point, they have to come up with a proposal that is likely to be more successful than the measure before us. Although we often hear criticism of the proposals, we rarely hear suggestions as to how they can be improved.
    I hope that hon. Members will think hard about the proposals and the views that they express. In addition, I sincerely hope that mainland politicians take care to ensure that all of Northern Ireland's politicians are given the room that they need to manoeuvre and to make the compromises necessary to make the Good Friday agreement work.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Temple-Morris.
    6.3 pm
    Mr. Peter Temple-Morris rose—
    Mr. Donaldson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In her speech, the Secretary of State referred to a draft treaty between the British and Irish Governments and said that it had been placed in the Library of the House of Commons. I have just been to the Library to obtain a copy of that important document, but it is not available. We as a party were not informed that that document was going to be made available; then the Secretary of State informed the House that it was available in the Library, but it is not. Will the Secretary of State, as a matter of urgency, provide clarification as to when we can obtain a copy of that document?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has answered his own point of order. It is not a point of order, but a question to the Secretary of State, which she will have heard. I call Mr. Peter Temple-Morris to speak.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: To return to the debate after that interesting intervention, which I am sure will have prompt effect, let me say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik).
    I strongly agreed with the hon. Gentleman on one point, which reinforces a comment that I meant to make. Ever since crossing the Floor of the House, I have never tried overtly to attack my former party, for obvious reasons, not least the fact that I was so connected, albeit as a Back Bencher, with so many of the things that the Conservatives have done. However, as one who has sat on both sides of the House, I agree with the

    205
    hon. Gentleman that the present actions of the Secretary of State and the Government are an ever more efficient execution of that which was so well started by my former right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). There was an element of political semi-tragedy in the fact that, having started the process and having pushed it on its way, he lacked the political necessities to carry the policy through. The current Government have them, however, and are doing a good job.
    I do not want to pursue the matter in great detail, point for point, but I should make one generalised point about the rationale for the amendments offered by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). All I have to say is that I regret the amendments en bloc, because I do not think that they are practical or realistic at this stage. I would add one general plea for the record, which might be read at some time: if the major parties in House were to combine together on one of the most difficult political exercises undertaken within my political life—and, I dare say, that of others—the chances of success would be greatly improved.
    I well appreciate the history of the Conservative and Unionist party. However, the practical effect of that party's actions is that tonight, at a crucial stage, it has joined forces on the amendments with one particular element in an extremely difficult question. I well respect that element, but it would be far better to acknowledge that there are two sides to the process. If the amendments were agreed to, it would be an end to the process—it is as simple as that. Today, we should be trying to preserve the process and make it work.
    The right hon. Member for Huntingdon made one very interesting remark, which has relevance today. He said that the political trick in government is to bring the anti-democrats within the democratic embrace. I have already described how, for reasons that were not entirely his fault, to put it mildly, it was difficult for him to do that. However, now, through the Bill and through previous legislation and negotiations, the anti-democrats are coming within the political embrace, and they are doing so far more effectively than they ever have before; so the trick to which he referred is now being fulfilled. The right hon. Gentleman stated more eloquently than I could his views on the amendments. If, in their naked expression, they were ever passed, that would be the end of the game and of the trick.
    Let me comment briefly on the speech of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Our feelings about the deal have swung from pessimism to optimism, so, when I came into the Chamber tonight, I hoped that we would see the spirit, or the glimmer of the spirit, of peacekeeping emanating from somewhere on the Unionist Benches. Instead, we heard the expression of a hardline approach that cannot make me other than pessimistic about the rest of the week.
    When the right hon. Gentleman says that the proposals are all about taking an active terrorist organisation into government, one wonders what on earth he has been doing signing the Belfast agreement and negotiating in some detail with that same organisation over weeks and months—and, incidentally, receiving a great deal of credit for doing so in both national and international press. Now that the crunch is here—now that, as the right
    206
    hon. Member for Huntingdon said, the parties are so close together that it is almost agonising to wait for them to take the final leap—we see the all too familiar retreat.
    The right hon. Member for Upper Bann speaks of descending into "a Mafia state" and of using violence to finish the job. When he uses such emotive language, he appears to forget that the whole beauty of the agreement is that Ulster remains part of the United Kingdom, as the Ulster Unionist party wants. Hearing the right hon. Gentleman speak, one would have thought that he had forgotten that, if there was any question of a Mafia state arising, the British state would be all too ready to step in.
    Let me make a couple of substantive points. I actually came here intending to be nice to the Ulster Unionist party.
    Mr. William Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Temple-Morris: No, I shall not give way for the moment—although I asked for that. Let me say something nice, and then I shall take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. We debated matters together in great detail last summer, and I usually gave way when it was appropriate to do so.
    I agree with the Ulster Unionists' concerns that the process is aspirational, whether one is referring to the Sinn Fein declaration of 12 days ago or to General de Chastelain's report, as demonstrated by the use of phrases such as
    "offers promise that decommissioning will take place or can now begin".
    I agree also that a direct statement of any kind by the IRA would be of enormous assistance to the process. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann and his party are right to ask for such a statement, but it will not be made. We must realise, because of circumstances, that there are two sides involved and that the Ulster Unionist position stems from strength, not weakness.
    Under the process, the Ulster Unionists have secured the most enormous advances. Peace in Northern Ireland, too, has made an enormous advance. An example of that is the concession of the principle of consent, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) mentioned. The Irish constitution—
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Temple-Morris: I shall finish my point. The hon. and learned Gentleman will have to contain himself for a little longer, although that is something that he does not often do.
    We have had—no one has underlined this point—a prolonged ceasefire by the mainline IRA, which is still continuing. With all due credit to the IRA, that ceasefire was maintained in the most strained circumstances for 16 months during the first phase of the process under the previous Government. The Unionists become the legitimate part of all this. On that point, I will give way if the hon. and learned Gentleman still wants to intervene.
    Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he appreciate that the consent of the

    207
    majority of the people of Northern Ireland is required only for the transfer of legal sovereignty, not for the creation of institutions that will create a functionally and economically united Ireland, in which their consent to a transfer of legal sovereignty will be either inevitable or unnecessary?
    Mr. Temple-Morris: That is really a distraction that would lead to the debate that we had, ad infinitum, with the hon. and learned Gentleman last summer. The whole point of the Bill is to devolve the democratic process to Northern Ireland with the consent of the House and, indeed, that of a considerable majority of the people in Northern Ireland. From what I have seen of recent polls, that process would also have considerable approval from those of the Unionist persuasion.
    I turn now to the republican position. I shall not refer to the nationalist position, which is so well represented in the House. The SDLP has played an outstanding role in starting the peace process and carrying it through. I do not want to place further burdens on the party, but I think that its important role is far from over. It will have to do serious work before we eventually reach a successful conclusion.
    On the republican position, I simply say that republicans have delivered two ceasefires. They have agreed to participate in the constitutional Government of part of the United Kingdom, which of course goes directly against their traditional attitude towards partition. That is a formidable concession by any standards.
    Bearing in mind who represents strength and who represents weakness in the process, at what price have the republicans made concessions? There is serious division in the republican movement when demands are made of it. That division is so serious that outbreaks of violence have already taken place. The co-operation of the security forces has been absolutely magnificent in keeping that violence down to a level that means, perhaps, that we are not aware of how bad it is.
    There is a possible split in the republican ranks. Anyone associated with the process will confirm that the split could occur at any time, while some would argue that the ranks have already split. Such splits have been envisaged from the very beginning of the process. The question as we come into the last lap of this stage—if I may put it like that—is what sort of split we are dealing with. The whole trick—to use the right hon. Member for Huntingdon's word again—is to get the majority to take the constitutional side. Bearing in mind the history that is involved, if that happened, the "war" would be over and a minority of a terrorist or, as I prefer to call it, criminal persuasion may increasingly become a law and order problem.
    If, however, as a result of the amendments that we shall consider tonight, the majority breaks away from the process prematurely, Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness will be neutralised. They would be so far neutralised that they might not even be leaders of a minority. The "war" would then begin again, and would continue to have serious political and criminal overtones. The House is, therefore, dealing with serious business tonight.
    I want briefly to describe the present position. The IRA can at no time be seen to surrender. That has been patently clear, and the IRA faces demands, if not for a pound of
    208
    flesh, then for something that would resemble the surrender that the Unionists so frequently resisted some years ago. In that context, the amendments are fatal.
    After devolution, the situation will change dramatically. There will be visible signs of success. Sinn Fein will be in the system and the pressure will be on it. If anything goes wrong with decommissioning, aided and abetted by the failsafe mechanism that is so well placed within the Bill, the IRA will become discredited and, potentially, isolated and separated from the political process and its political allies and wing. If that happens and there is a split, the process will be able to work and Sinn Fein can be kept within the system or expelled, or it can withdraw, as it decides. The essential point is that, depending on what happens at the time, that should be a matter for the Assembly, and we should realise that any breach of the agreement will discredit the IRA.
    Finally, I turn to what has to happen now. One side must jump. There is no alternative. If Sinn Fein jumps too soon, that will be the end of Sinn Fein and of the peace process. The Unionists would jump from a secure, protected position with an opportunity to call the republicans' bluff. They would even jump with my blessing and my assurance that I shall do my utmost in the House to protect them, should anything go wrong. That is what the Bill is about.
    I tell the Unionists that, if they do not jump now, we will slide back into the war and violence that we have, mercifully, got away from in recent times. After a recurrence of that violence, we would return to a solution that would probably be identical to the one that has been before us since the peace process began—no doubt in the form of a Bill similar to the one that is before us today.
    Marjorie Mowlam: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may be for the convenience of the House if I clarify the matter that I referred to earlier in respect of the draft treaty. I said earlier in the debate that copies were available from the Library. I understand, however, that they have been available instead from the Vote Office since 1.40 pm today. I regret any inconvenience.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the House is grateful for that information from the Secretary of State.
    6.19 pm
    Mr. Michael Howard: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), who gave me my first job in politics nearly 40 years ago—a fact that no doubt causes him tremendous embarrassment today. It is a matter of great regret to me that he no longer sits on the same side of the Chamber as 1 do, although I deeply disagree with him on the subject before the House and, indeed, on several other subjects.
    This is the first speech that I have ever made in this House on Northern Ireland. My silence does not mean that I have not followed events in the Province very closely over the years. I supported the brave and bold initiatives taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) when he was Prime Minister, and though I have considerable reservations about many of the decisions taken on Northern Ireland by the present Prime Minister, I believe that he was right to continue the process started by my right hon. Friend.

    209
    For four years, I had responsibility on the mainland of Great Britain for the protection of our citizens from terrorist attack. It grieves me to say that I did not succeed in providing that protection. I had the dubious privilege of visiting South Quay immediately after it was devastated by an IRA bomb which murdered innocent citizens of our country. I visited the centre of Manchester shortly after it, too, was devastated by an IRA bomb. No one who shouldered those responsibilities or saw that devastation would want us to return to the situation in which those attacks took place. The desire for peace runs deep. We all want it; we should be prepared to take risks for it.
    We will never secure the permanent, enduring peace for which we all yearn until the terrorists have genuinely given up violence for good. That phrase has been much used over the years. It is an abstract form of words. If it is to be made meaningful, it must be accompanied by action. The action that can give it meaning is the handing over of the guns and bombs that have been used to perpetuate the violence. I have never heard any answer to the question, "Why, if the terrorists have given up violence for good, do they still need their guns and bombs?". I have never heard an answer to that question because, in truth, there is no answer to it.
    That is why I have watched in dismay as, 15 months after the Good Friday agreement, not a single bomb, not a single gun, has been handed over. Meanwhile, hundreds of prisoners have been released. Some of them were responsible for outrages committed while I was Home Secretary. Some of them would have been responsible for outrages against my constituents.
    Patrick Magee is widely known as the bomber of the Grand hotel in Brighton. What is not quite so widely known is that when he was arrested he was planning a series of bombing attacks on other south coast towns, including Folkestone. I have no idea whether recent reports of his intentions are true, but what is clear is that he and his murderous colleagues are now free to return to the guns and bombs that they used in the past at any time they choose. That is the background to the proposed legislation.
    The Prime Minister explained these latest proposals, which are enshrined in the Bill, when he made a statement to the House on Monday last week. He said:
    "I understand perfectly well why people will not accept undertakings, words, statements or any of the rest of it … we have learned often enough in Northern Ireland that we cannot pay attention simply to assurances."—[Official Report, 5 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 643–52.]
    How right he was, and how apt his words were in relation to his own undertakings, words, statements and assurances.
    In his own hand last year, the Prime Minister wrote:
    "those who use or threaten violence must be excluded from the Government of Northern Ireland."
    But the effect of this Bill would be to include in the Government of Northern Ireland those who use or threaten violence. In his own hand, he also promised:
    "prisoners will be kept in unless violence is given up for good."
    But the prisoners have not been kept in, despite the fact that violence has not been given up for good. The truth is that the Prime Minister has broken his promises; on this, as on other issues, when he is put under pressure, his promises turn to dust.
    210
    The Sunday Telegraph of 27 June carried an article by Jenny McCartney which identified in stark horror the kind of situation that could come about in Northern Ireland if an Executive were set up before terrorists had genuinely given up violence for good. The scenario that she describes is one in which Martin McGuinness, a man widely believed to sit on the IRA's Army Council—and to have sat on it when the bombs went off in South Quay and Manchester—is Northern Ireland's Minister for Education; not by any means a far-fetched scenario, since Sinn Fein is understood to want to hold the education portfolio.
    Jenny McCartney asks us to suppose that the IRA, which still holds its guns and bombs, remains active on the streets, as it is now; that its members patrol Belfast housing estates, intimidate families and quell any dissent; that gangs of masked men haul people from their houses in the middle of the night and beat or shoot them for some alleged offence.
    "Imagine", Jenny McCartney says, "that you're a teacher in a Belfast school, and one afternoon someone associated with the Minister for Education pays you a visit. He says that the Minister has certain ideas about a poster campaign or about a children's demonstration, and he'd be most grateful for your co-operation. Perhaps you don't like the idea. It might be too political and, in ordinary circumstances, you would politely refuse. But these are not ordinary circumstances. You are acutely aware of the Minister's paramilitary connections, and you're afraid that there could be nasty repercussions for yourself if you don't agree. So you say, 'Yes, of course; I'll see how we can set that up.'" In the course of that tiny, trivial exchange, Jenny McCartney says, and I agree with her, a very big thing has been lost—it is called freedom.
    These are not fanciful fears—I wish that they were. They are a realistic assessment of what could happen in a part of the United Kingdom if an Executive is set up before decommissioning takes place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and others of my hon. Friends, and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), have tabled amendments. They are similar in effect to the assurances that were sought by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon. If accepted, the amendments would minimise the harm that the arrangements contemplated in the Bill would cause; they would mitigate the damage; they would minimise the risk. Without those amendments, the Bill does not deserve the support of the House.
    6.29 pm
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: I hope sincerely that this legislation will never be used. It is a sad commentary on the situation that we are all in—those who live in Northern Ireland and those who legislate for it—that, at a time when people are about to enter a partnership, they want to know how they will deal with its demise. Perhaps it is an Irish thing, or maybe the Irish thing has permeated into British legislation. It is almost as if before the wedding, or before the wedding is consummated, the funeral cortege is arranged for either the bride or the bridegroom. That is what we are dealing with and that is where we are at.
    Many serious contributions will be made to the debate, but the nub of the problem is that the Bill is based on suppositions. It is legislation for "What ifs". It is a charter

    211
    for the mistrust that is so obvious today. Would it not have been better to introduce legislation when the set of circumstances with which it had to deal had become clear? I believe that that would have been the proper approach. In that event, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) would not have been talking about "What ifs", and other hon. Members would not have been basing their valid arguments on suppositions. The problem is that we are faced with legislation that is geared to deal with what may or may not become a fact. Surely it is better to legislate on the basis of fact, once that fact has arisen, than on the basis of suppositions.
    I understand why the Bill is before us; let us understand the pressures under which it is being dealt with. The Unionist parties demanded that legislation be presented to deal with the failsafe clause. That is why the Bill is being presented now and not when the situation as to what has or has not happened becomes clear. On Second Reading, and when we deal with the amendments, we shall continue in terms of what may happen in future, what might happen in future and—what none of us has thought of—what may not happen in future.
    I support the Bill in so far as it is in accord with the two Prime Ministers' "The Way Forward" and with the Good Friday agreement. I support it when it is in accord with those documents. However, there is one part of the Bill that is not in accord with them, and I shall oppose that part. I have tabled a new clause in my opposition to it.
    From all of this we must retain the Good Friday agreement, "The Way Forward" and the means of solving our problems. As I have said, we are seeking to put in place new arrangements for failure before we even begin the journey that might bring us success. We are doing so in the dark, not knowing precisely what we might be dealing with. So be it; that is the decision that has been made. I am not happy that, only days before we may be going into government, we are busy making clear how little trust there is between all of us who will have to serve in government. It is hardly the prelude for which anyone would wish. So be it; this is the situation in which we must make decisions.
    I have listened with great interest to the debate, and especially to the contribution of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon who asked four questions. He put three questions to the Government, and I have no doubt that they will answer them. His fourth question was directed to the Social Democratic and Labour party. It was asked also by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). I shall take up the point. I stand by the Good Friday agreement. It is the agreement to which I owe my allegiance; I do not owe it to the Opposition, to a Unionist party, and not even to a Government with whom I am proud to be associated. I want to preserve the agreement and take every step in accordance with it.
    The one way in which we can proceed in accord with the agreement is by means of a review, which is specified within the agreement. That is the only way in which "What ifs" or hypotheses can be dealt with in accordance with the Good Friday agreement. However, what is that review? I should have liked the right hon. Member for Huntingdon to be in his place. It is a collective judgment, but made by whom? Will it be made by the Government, by the Irish Government, by the SDLP, by the Ulster Unionist party, by the Democratic Unionist party, by the
    212
    UK Unionist party, by Sinn Fein, by the Alliance or by the Northern Ireland women's coalition? A collective judgment must be made by all those parties, not by one or two of them, even if the two are the two Governments. The judgment must be made on the same collective basis that led to the signing of the Good Friday agreement.
    As I have said, I stand by the Good Friday agreement. I stand also by the need for a review. However, it is suggested that one of us should pre-determine the collective decision made in the review. That one party—for example, the SDLP—would have the audacity to pre-determine what all the parties and the two Governments might decide in the review and the shape of everything that ensued as a result of it.
    It is not merely a matter of pre-determining what the review might arrive at. There is a wish to pre-determine not only the judgment but the penalty. When asked to do that, I say, "Think carefully what you are asking. You are asking one political party to pre-determine the outcome of a review." That includes two sovereign Governments and all the other parties to the agreement.
    When are we being asked to make the judgment and decide the penalty? Are we being asked to do that when things happen? No. Are we being asked to do so a month beforehand? Not necessarily. Is it to be two months beforehand? Not necessarily. What about three months beforehand? Maybe. Is it to be by 22 May? Definitely. Is it wise to make a pre-determination of the judgment and the penalty 10 months before events take place in circumstances of which we are not aware? Those circumstances could change not only by the day but by the hour. So I say to those who ask for that, "Think of what you are asking for." It is audacious. It would be arrogance on our part to assume that right, and it is unthinking on the part of others to ask that we do so. It would negate the very essence of the review system in the agreement, it would negate the way forward as determined by the two Prime Ministers, and it would negate the Good Friday agreement.
    Penalty and judgment must be left until we know the circumstances. Note that I say "penalty"; I will not shirk that word. If those who make a solemn commitment under the agreement, which we stand by, subsequently renege on it against the wishes of nationalist Ireland or republican Ireland or Unionist Ireland, does anyone imagine that there will not be a penalty? Does anyone imagine that having broken faith and trust with all of us, such people will somehow escape unscathed?
    Unionism, too, will not escape unscathed. Throughout the debate, little attention has been paid to the fact that part of the failsafe clause relates to the failure to work devolution. There is some evidence that that is a possibility. We have had empirical evidence for 12 months. It is there to be seen. Have we heard from those on the Opposition Benches calls on the Unionist party not to break its commitment to work the agreement, when month after month that was the case?
    Mr. Trimble: Not so.
    Mr. Mallon: I say to those in the Ulster Unionist party: apply the same standards to yourselves as you are asking us to apply.
    Mr. Donaldson: You do the same.
    Mr. Mallon: I can assure you that if any party associated with paramilitarism breaks its word to the

    213
    people of Ireland in terms of the commitment given in "The Way Forward", we will not ignore it. We will not shirk consideration of penalty, as we will not shirk consideration of penalty if the commitment is broken by any of the Unionist parties.
    Has any of the Opposition parties even questioned the situation in which two members of the Democratic Unionist party who could be in the Executive by the end of the week are on record as saying that they will not work parts of the agreement? Have you suggested any sanctions in your amendments to deal with that?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying in and out of correct parliamentary language. I should be grateful if he would try to use it.
    Mr. Mallon: You are correct, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to you and to the House.
    I ask hon. Members to consider that there are more implications to the matter than one. Let us not forget that we are all doing a serious piece of business today.
    I do not expect the Ulster Unionist party to renege on its commitment to devolution. I accept what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said earlier. I am not one of the people who question whether he will serve in an Executive with members of the nationalist or republican community. However, if there is to be a failsafe clause, let us all understand what it is and the implications of it.
    Those implications are far-reaching. We hope to take a step this week. I ask those on the Unionist Benches especially to take that step. I ask them seriously to consider the effects of their not taking it. I understand the difficulties of the Ulster Unionist party.
    I understand the difficulties of Sinn Fein as well. Do I take its word on decommissioning? I now have a way of finding out. I have a way of knowing whether it will or will not decommission. I have a way of measuring it, against the report of General de Chastelain. I have a way of measuring it in time, against the reports that General de Chastelain is to make in September, October, December and next May. I now have a way of finding out. It may not be the ideal way, or the way that would have been best suited had the legislation been introduced when problems arose and we knew what we were dealing with, but I have a way of knowing what will happen.
    If some of the amendments are carried—I hope they will not be—we will never know whether the IRA will decommission. There are those who want a statement from the IRA saying that it will. Those are the same people who do not take the IRA's word. I am not recommending trust in that or any other organisation. I am simply saying that, for the first time, we have an opportunity to establish whether decommissioning will or will not happen.
    For the first time, we have an opportunity to ensure that violent republicanism on the island of Ireland rids itself of illegally held weapons. That has never happened before. If it happens, it will be seismic for all of us. I suggest that, when we consider the implications of the Bill, we measure.
    214
    The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) told us of his experiences. They were touching experiences, and many of us have had similar ones. I have lived in South Armagh for 63 years. I know republicanism. I know violent republicanism. I know it well because I came from it. I know the psychology behind it, and I know what can and what cannot work with it.
    The agreement can work, despite the fact that the legislation should not have been introduced at this stage. It can work because of the absolute commitment of the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. Dispute what they say; disagree with their analysis; question tactics and question strategy, but do not ever question the fact that those two men have set out together to put the issue to the test. They have given us all a means of moving forward into something that is absolutely new to all for us. It is so new that it is frightening to many because of its implications.
    I have heard two anecdotes today about what might happen if so-and-so from Sinn Fein became Minister for Health and so-and-so from Sinn Fein became Minister for Education. Does that not undermine the good arguments that have been put forward about how we deal with the coming together of Unionism and nationalism in Northern Ireland? That is so close that we are almost in touching range of it, although we could lose because of our own genuine convictions, which may be based on that which is not valid—and it is frightening, so frightening that it has frightened many, especially on the Unionist Benches. [Interruption.] I am referring not to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, but to some in his party who have not yet told the House what they will do if they enter an Executive and how they will work the agreement.
    I refer specifically to the Democratic Unionist party. I await its Members taking the opportunity to tell the House that they will work the agreement fully if they take their seats in the Executive and that they will join the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, myself, my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and others in ensuring that those who break their word, given solemnly in the agreement, will not escape lightly. I address this question to Members across the Floor: is it conceivable to any Member of the House that those who have broken their word and their commitment and reneged on the agreement would be beneficiaries of the review, which is so necessary? I ask every Unionist Member of a political party who is present to think carefully about that.
    I ask Members to think carefully about some of the amendments—not those tabled by all the Ulster Unionist Members, but those tabled by the leaders of the Ulster Unionist and Conservative parties—and their implications. Before they vote, they should ask themselves one question: will agreeing to those amendments bring forward the day of which the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe spoke—the day on which he, I or anyone else will never again have to visit a scene of violence or violent death in this country or in Ireland? That is the question, and we have it in our hands to stop that violence now in a way that can be accounted for by all of us. By all of us, I mean Ulster Unionist Members especially. When they make their decisions, they must know that those of us who will be sitting in the Executive and involved in the review with them will not take lightly any breaking of word or commitment.
    6.53 pm
    Mr. Peter Robinson: The process of gentrifying members of Sinn Fein and elevating its leaders began many years ago. It started in secret meetings, but its first public manifestation came in 1993 in the joint declaration, which is sometimes referred to as the Downing Street declaration. The then Prime Minister recognised that it would not be palatable simply to bring those who were recognised as active IRA terrorists into the democratic fold as if nothing had happened—that there had to be a cleansing process and that Sinn Fein-IRA had to do something to make people believe that a change had taken place.
    The two Prime Ministers set down in paragraph 10 of the joint declaration the criteria that they would apply to bringing Sinn Fein-IRA into the political process. They first required that there had to be a "permanent end" to acts of paramilitary violence. Sinn Fein-IRA balked at the word "permanent". Months of clarification were required, because they were not prepared to sign up to anything that might be deemed to be a permanent end to violence. Automatically, Unionists gauged that their refusal to say that they had permanently ended violence was an indicator that they would turn the violence on again if things did not go their way and they wanted to apply more pressure.
    There have been many stages in the process but, to this very moment, the giving up of arms so that they could not be used in the future would have been the one clear indicator that Sinn Fein-IRA were putting violence behind them. Although that would not be a totally safe method of calculation, it would be a clear statement of intent that they were reforming their ways. That has not happened and I do not believe that it will.
    During the referendum campaign, when many of us said that the Belfast agreement was silent on those issues and that there was no requirement to decommission before the Sinn Fein-IRA representatives entered government and the prisoners were released, the Prime Minister came out with a lot of promises. As the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, the right hon. Gentleman made hand-written pledges that those who used or threatened violence would be excluded from the government of Northern Ireland and that prisoners would be kept inside unless violence was given up for good. In the House, he defined that as meaning decommissioning.
    At the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister was asked by the Leader of the Opposition:
    "Will you agree with me that prisoners should not be released early until the organisations they belong to have substantially decommissioned their weapons?"
    The Prime Minister replied:
    "The answer to your question is, yes, of course it is the case that both in respect of taking seats in the government of Northern Ireland and the early release of prisoners—the only organisations that qualify for that are organisations that have given up violence and given it up for good."
    216
    The right hon. Gentleman came to Northern Ireland and pleaded with the people that they should believe him and take his promises and pledges that violence would have to be given up, that decommissioning would take place and that no one would be released from prison or enter government unless that had occurred.
    We all know that our position has been vindicated. Although we find ourselves on the verge of government, Sinn Fein-IRA still have not decommissioned one bullet or one ounce of Semtex and they are being allowed into government under the Government's proposal without doing anything in relation to decommissioning. The Bill is therefore being introduced by a Government who once again find themselves toadying to the terrorists.
    On a recent visit to No. 10 Downing street, I remember being left open mouthed as I saw two members of the IRA Army Council roaming freely around the corridors in their shirt sleeves. The previous Government knew that those people were responsible for giving the instructions to launch a rocket at No. 10 Downing street, but this Government consistently go along with whatever Sinn Fein-IRA demand because they know that they have the capacity to carry out more violence on the mainland against the citizens of the United Kingdom.
    The Bill is unacceptable, and it would remain so even if the best of the amendments were accepted. That might make it less unacceptable, but it still would not be acceptable because it is predicated on the acceptance into government of Sinn Fein-IRA without any decommissioning whatever taking place. It merely—and in my view quite inadequately—purports to provide a failsafe against failure to engage in decommissioning ex post facto. So far from the Bill being a failsafe, it is a risk—as even the Secretary of State said from the Dispatch Box. That statement is a long way from the words spoken by the Prime Minister on the steps of Castle buildings, when he talked of the certainty that these measures would contain.
    The Bill suggests that the so-called failsafe is triggered—an unfortunate term—by a failure to keep commitments. The commitments that are expected to be kept are set out in clause 1. What commitments have the IRA or—on the other side of the coin—Sinn Fein made? They are not set down in the joint statement or in the Bill. Who made them? When were they given? The IRA certainly has not made any. In the last IRA statement about decommissioning that is on record, the issue was "firmly ruled out"; it was "a red herring"; and talk of a "gesture" handover of weapons was "fanciful." The statement went on:
    "The weapons belong to the revolution, not to any individuals."
    It added:
    "Nothing would be surrendered until all objectives are achieved.
    There is no commitment from the IRA that has to be kept.
    I suspect that the commitments referred to are not in the Belfast agreement, because that simply commits people to use any influence that they may have. No sanction is applied if they do not use that influence or if decommissioning does not take place. The provisional movement says that it will keep to the Belfast agreement, because that agreement does not require it to do anything more than to use whatever influence it may have.
    The commitment referred to cannot be a commitment contained in the report of General de Chastelain, because there is no such commitment in that report. It cannot be

    217
    any commitment contained in the declaration of Sinn Fein-IRA during the recent talks process. In that declaration, they referred to decommissioning and said that
    "the full implementation of the Agreement would demonstrably facilitate the decommissioning process".
    After the agreement has been fully implemented and they have gained all the concessions, decommissioning might be facilitated.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic courtesy in giving way to me. I assure him that I have no wish to disrupt his speech, but I want to ask him a question. Is it his intention to take up a seat on the Executive or to refuse to take up such a position?
    Mr. Robinson: It is clear that we are trying to ensure that the Executive will have excluded from it those who are still wedded to violence. In those circumstances, we would be delighted to take up a seat in what would be a more democratic process. I am sure that those are the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman envisages, and I hope that he will vote for that this evening.
    The Sinn Fein declaration went on to say that, against the background of the full implementation of the agreement,
    "we believe that all of us, as participants acting in good faith, could succeed in persuading those with arms to decommission".
    So the Sinn Fein statement contains no commitment to do anything other than say that decommissioning would be facilitated if it were given all the concessions contained in the Belfast agreement. In those circumstances it "could" succeed—not "will" succeed. Sinn Fein will not ensure that it does succeed, even though it has the capacity to do so.
    It should be remembered that all the personnel involved in the IRA army council were in Castle buildings and were capable of taking decisions on behalf of the IRA. They could have clearly indicated that they were prepared to decommission.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I have followed the hon. Gentleman's speech closely. Would I be right in thinking that he has a problem with the very idea of sharing any power, authority or responsibility with any representative of the nationalist community? Would that be a fair summation of his views?
    Mr. Robinson: No, but I would not expect to hear a fair summation of my views from the person who has just spoken. It has been abundantly clear from the moment that I stood to my feet that it is a requirement that those in government and exercising Executive power should be those who are exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means. There is no commitment to peaceful and democratic means if one has an armed terrorist organisation at one's beck and call with tonnes of Semtex, thousands of rifles and handguns, and even surface-to-air missiles.
    The Bill is imprecise, weak and woolly. It has to be, because all roads lead back to the Belfast agreement, which is flawed. The bad judgment exercised a year ago
    218
    still corrupts politics today. The agreement did not require decommissioning, so people are at present engaged in an exercise that requires something that they did not negotiate when they signed up to the Belfast agreement. There are no sanctions for those who do not decommission.
    Let us turn to the sanctions contained in the Bill. According to the Bill, a number of things automatically happen if the commitments are not kept. It is not those who have defaulted on their commitments but those who support the democratic process who will be punished. The Assembly will be suspended, but Sinn Fein-IRA were opposed to the setting up of the Assembly. It is strange to impose a sanction against those who do not decommission by bringing down the one part of the agreement that they did not want in the first place. There will then be a review.
    Mr. Martin Salter: Which parts of the Belfast agreement did the hon. Gentleman's party want?
    Mr. Robinson: It is remarkable that people who have been in the House over the past year are not aware that we fiercely contested the Belfast agreement, and asked the people of Northern Ireland to vote against it. I am glad to say that an increasing number of them have now changed their opinion. At the European elections in Northern Ireland, 60 per cent. of the Unionist people who voted, voted for candidates who were against the Belfast agreement and who asked people to vote for them by way of a referendum on those issues. Only time prohibits me from going into the by-elections that have taken place which show that movement.
    The Assembly will be suspended and no action will have to be taken to stop the Patten commission, which is part of the Belfast agreement, or to stop prisoner releases.
    On 5 July, Downing Street quietly whispered to several journalists that it was considering reviewing prisoner releases. That was on offer if the IRA did not decommission. The next morning's newspapers carried the stories:
    "Blair offers 'review' of IRA releases".
    An official said that
    "we will review prisoner releases"
    if the IRA refuses to give up arms. Immediately, Sinn Fein-IRA got agitated. They demanded a meeting with the Secretary of State to seek assurances on those issues. No one stopped to ask the question: why would they be concerned? If it was their intention to decommission, why on earth would Sinn Fein-IRA be concerned that, if the IRA did not decommission, prisoners would stop being released? They would be concerned only if it was not their intention to decommission. If they intended to decommission, it would not matter what the sanction was, because it would not be applied against them. Clearly Sinn Fein-IRA did not, and do not, intend to decommission. They recognise that such a sanction would apply to them.
    In reply to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), let me say that it is clear from the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 that the Secretary of State has the power to stop prison releases if there has not been co-operation on decommissioning. That power is expressly contained in section 3(9)(d). It is not, therefore, a question of introducing a new factor.

    219
    If anyone were to try to identify two issues in the Belfast agreement that were most closely in parallel, the issues concerned would be the issue of decommissioning and the issue of prisoner releases. There is a similarity. Both decommissioning and releases must be completed within two years; and nothing suggests that the Government should rush ahead on the release of prisoners while decommissioning lags behind. Indeed, there is no requirement for the Government to continue to release prisoners while decommissioning lags behind. There is a clear link. Certainly the sanctions should be applied in the current circumstances, and, along with others, I have tabled amendments on that very subject.
    I have to say that the Secretary of State not only could but should already have applied the section to which I refer. It involves other issues, such as on-going violence, support for organisations that are involved in violence, and support for organisations that are threatening to use violence.
    Everyone knows that the IRA killed Andrew Kearney. Everyone knows that the IRA murdered Eamon Collins, Brendan Fagan and John Downey. Everyone knows that the IRA was responsible for the shooting of some 48 people; for the beatings of at least 120 people; and for the recent attempt to kill Martin McGartland. Everyone also knows that, while people were sitting round negotiating in Castle buildings, the Garda Siochana apprehended two IRA men who were bringing components of a bomb into Northern Ireland with the intention of bombing the guts out of one of our towns. Despite all that, the Secretary of State says that she must view these things in the round—and, in the round, we find that things never happen.
    The Garda Siochana made it very clear that the Provisional IRA was responsible in terms of the attempted bombing. The two persons who were arrested applied immediately to be admitted to the IRA wing at Portlaoise prison. It is abundantly clear that the Secretary of State has the capacity to act, and the reason to act; but she has not acted.
    People ask why Unionists want legislative guarantees. Certainly, they could not depend on its being the view of a Secretary of State that such actions should be taken, or on the taking of such actions being the wish of a Secretary of State. As the only sanction in the Bill is a review, however, why cannot that review include an automatic expulsion of Sinn Fein-IRA?
    The reason is simple: the SDLP and the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic will not have it. According to Mr. Ahern, Sinn Fein must join the Executive, and there must be inclusiveness. Mr. Ahern agrees with Mr. Blair that Sinn Fein-IRA could be excluded from government. He has insisted that an inclusive body represents the only way forward, and has said that that is why in the Good Friday agreement—and again last Friday—it was carefully ensured that the emphasis is on inclusion rather than exclusion.
    This, incidentally, is the same Mr. Ahern who, on 14 February, said that
    "Sinn Fein should be barred from the new Northern Ireland government unless the IRA starts to decommission its weapons."
    Mr. Ahern also said:
    "Decommissioning in one form or another has to happen. It is not compatible with being a part of a government, and part of an executive, if there is not at least a commencement of decommissioning. That would apply in the North and in the South."
    220
    One is inclined to ask what was responsible for this—I was going to say "change on the road to Damascus", but the change on the road to Damascus would not have been in this direction. What we have seen is a clear sea change of views on the part of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland. Was it caused by the threat of more IRA violence—by the knowledge that the IRA has the arms and the capacity to engage in such activities?
    Last week, when we met the Minister responsible for the talks process, I told him that, according to the de Chastelain report, the joint statement and the draft version of the Bill, it was perfectly possible for Sinn Fein to be in government on Thursday, and not to do anything other than appoint a person to talk to the decommissioning body about the modalities. The terms of the de Chastelain report suggest that the best way of setting a timetable is through discussions with the paramilitary organisations; but the paramilitary organisations can say, "Yes, we will do it, but the logistics mean that we cannot do it until April." Sinn Fein-IRA could be in government for nine or 10 months, until it found an excuse—perhaps the Patten report, or perhaps something else—to say that things had changed, and that the agreement had not been fulfilled. Nothing in the Bill, nothing in the joint statement and nothing in the Minister's position suggests that that could not happen.
    I asked the Minister to explain how such a scenario could be prevented. He could find no written evidence; he could only wave proudly a copy of a speech by the Prime Minister. As he will recall, I immediately pointed to other words of the Prime Minister—pledges that had not been kept.
    The bottom line is this. The only currency that any politician has, particularly a Prime Minister, is his word. In regard to these issues, the Prime Minister has devalued that currency, and he is no longer trusted by the Unionist community in Northern Ireland.
    7.16 pm
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Listening to the debate has made me think of other parts of the world where there has been conflict, violence and murder for generations. Other parts of the world have managed to come together, live together and rule their countries together. There is no reason why Northern Ireland should not be able to do the same, but that requires the building up of trust: it requires the making of that leap from time to time.
    I have taken account of what Opposition Members have said about their worries in regard to clauses 1 and 2, but, if the present Secretary of State or some future Secretary of State dragged his or her feet in regard to the implementation of the recommendation, what purpose could that serve? Why would any Secretary of State wish to do that? [Interruption.] Opposition Members grin and make sedentary comments, but I want an honest answer. Why would any Secretary of State not want to act, given that the actions of the Government, the Irish Government and the former Prime Minister have been intended to produce an agreement?
    Mr. Donaldson rose—
    Mr. Robert McCartney rose—
    Mrs. Fyfe: I will give way to someone who will tell me why the Secretary of State would not want to act in that way.
    Mr. McCartney: I suggest that the reason is this. Terror and violence—especially violence aimed at the City of London—have driven the process from the beginning. That is the fundamental reason. The agreement is not about a political settlement; it is about the conflict resolution between the British state and Sinn Fein-IRA.
    Mrs. Fyfe: I can only say that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the process is about giving in to fear of IRA action—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] If hon. Members think that, they are dead wrong. What they are saying is ludicrous, and I cannot believe that the public generally, throughout these islands, agree with them.
    If Members of the Assembly are not committed to its success, the Assembly will fall apart in any event, regardless of what the Secretary of State does or says. It is necessary to build up trust, and to act together.
    Mr. David Winnick: Does not the intervention by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) do a disservice to the people on the mainland, who stood up to terror, as did the people in Northern Ireland, and never gave in to all the terror that the IRA inflicted on innocent people? Therefore, it is most inappropriate to say that the agreement comes about simply because the British Government are frightened of the IRA. We stood up to terror for so long and we would do so time and again.
    Mrs. Fyfe: I thoroughly agree.
    None of the events is happening in a vacuum. Everything that is going on in Northern Ireland is under the inspection of the world's media and of people who care about peace and freedom everywhere. Do any of the hon. Members on the Opposition Benches really think that, if anyone who had been appointed to senior office continued to support violence, that would not be noted and commented on adversely, with the person likely to be thrown out of office?
    I come from a nationalist family background. It is not easy for me to think well of people on the Unionist side, but I have met many of them over the years, especially since being involved in parliamentary politics. I know some people who have served prison sentences for acts of extreme violence and murder, yet, if those people have changed—I believe that they have—I would support their standing for election and their holding senior office in the Assembly. The point is not a person's past, but their willingness to change and to be part of the future, not the past.
    Life does not bring total guarantees. We are not talking about buying a fridge. In any step in life, nothing is guaranteed, but we take such steps because we are human beings and we wish to live and to get on with our lives. We want to live in peace with our fellow human beings.
    The debate has concentrated entirely on the history of nationalist violence. Listening to it, one would hardly believe that there had been any from the other side, but we all know that it has a long record of violence, too, so why not be honest about it?
    I did not read The Sunday Telegraph article that has been referred to, but I recently saw in another newspaper a photograph of a tiny toddler, who was far too young to understand the words on the bib around his neck: "Born to walk the Garvaghy Road".
    222
    When I saw that picture, I thought, "For every toddler who is wearing such a bib, there is a toddler in a nationalist household somewhere being taught: do not trust these people. Do not hand the guns in. Hide them instead because you do not know what will happen."
    It was pointed out earlier that it is not so much about counting guns as changing minds. I thoroughly believe that. It is about changing minds and getting people to change their attitudes because that is what really counts.
    If Opposition Members do not support the Bill because of their ludicrous idea that it has been introduced because of fear of nationalist violence, I will not believe that that is an honest position. They are doing great discredit to good people on their own side. It was marvellous when the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) won the praise of the world for coming together to fight for peace. We should support their efforts and get behind them.
    Opposition Members will not get behind us, but what are they saying? Are they prepared to let things unravel again? We have still to hear positive proposals that are workable and bring together Northern Ireland in the way in which we want.
    The Scottish Parliament is up and running. The Welsh Assembly is up and running. All hon. Members are anxious to see the Northern Ireland Assembly up and running, but, to achieve that, a change in spirit and attitude on all sides is required.
    7.24 pm
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) will forgive me if I do not follow her. We are limited in time and other hon. Members wish to speak.
    I disagree with much of the Prime Minister's policy, but I commend him for his persistence, perseverance and efforts in trying to bring a solution to Northern Ireland. We all recognise that he has built on the considerable and sustained work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). We may be coming to a point where peace is possible in Northern Ireland and it behoves us all to help that process. That is not to say that the Prime Minister has not made mistakes along the way. Some of the wording of the Good Friday agreement was so poor and lacking in precision that it allowed all sides to interpret it differently.
    Some people will suggest that it is better to have any agreement, however faulty, than none. I am not one of those. In a Province where there has been some 300 years of distrust, any dispute as to the meaning of the words in an agreement gives rise to the suspicion of bad faith. I fear that the Belfast agreement and its consequence—the Northern Ireland Bill—may repeat that mistake.
    I held a position of profound juniority in the Northern Ireland Office, but I recognise that those who do not live in Northern Ireland cannot understand what it must be like for those who do, or what it must be like for Northern Ireland Members who have seen their family, friends, neighbours and constituents bombed, beaten, shot and terrorised. The only time when terrorism can be understood, if not condoned, is when there is no alternative, no democracy, no hope. That is not the case with the IRA in Northern Ireland. It has no such excuse.
    As a Conservative and a Unionist, I believe that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, but, as a democrat, I believe that, if the people of Northern Ireland

    223
    want it otherwise, they should have it otherwise. Consequently, the IRA has no right to use weapons and no excuse to hold them. It should get rid of them if it wishes to be part of the democratic process.
    There are risks with the Bill. We all know from bitter experience that the IRA takes, takes and takes and gives nothing back, but is worth taking risks for the prize of peace. There are dangers, but those dangers are rather less real than some would suppose. Using the cold calculation of the balance sheet, I ask: what is the downside for Northern Ireland? What is the downside for the Ulster Unionists if the IRA refuses to disarm? Some gestures of symbolic significance will have been made, but nothing in practice will have changed, and the blame for the lack of disarmament will be fairly put on the IRA. The upside is different. If the IRA does surrender its weapons, the long-suffering democrats in Northern Ireland will have won a famous victory.
    There is no doubt that releasing murderers sticks in everyone's craw. Releasing murderers with no reciprocal action by the IRA has been a profound mistake. I regret the equivocation of the SDLP, which makes the Ulster Unionists' agreement to the Bill all the more difficult. I would prefer it if the Bill made it clear that terrorists had to disarm and that, if they did not, their apologists or spokesmen and only their apologists or spokesmen, would be ejected from the Assembly and Executive.
    Even if the Bill is not amended, however, I shall not oppose it. I believe that there is a chance of disarmament, and a chance of peace. Although I detest and distrust the IRA, I believe that it should be given a chance to change. We should determine to give peace a chance.
    7.30 pm
    Mr. George Galloway: On the subject of balance, it is a great pity that, on the Conservative side of the debate, so few of the colleagues of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) have taken the same thoughtful line as he has. However, others have lived up to their reputations.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) lived up to his reputation of not being able to see a belt without hitting below it. His imputation of dishonourable behaviour by the Prime Minister will be widely resented on both sides of the House and across the country. I do not think that I am anyone's idea of a slavish Government loyalist or any type of toady, but I do believe that the efforts of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and her Ministers have been widely admired, not only across the country but around the world. To do as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did in accusing the Prime Minister of having dishonoured his promises was unworthy of a man who held the high office that he held for so long in the previous Government.
    The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—always less clear, more circumlocutory than the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe—left me unsure about whether he was supporting the Government's peace process—the words "like the rope supports the hanging man" came to mind—or whether he would be in the Government Lobby today, as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire will be.
    Nevertheless, I was sure that the support—if it was there—offered by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon was far less unequivocal than the support that was given
    224
    to him earlier in the process, in very dark and difficult times, by the previous Opposition Front-Bench team. At that time, the right hon. Gentleman, who was then the Prime Minister, was telling us that it would be gut-wrenching and turn his stomach to talk to terrorists. Later, of course, it emerged that that is precisely what he had been doing for quite a considerable time in secret, without informing the House or the country.
    Lord Whitelaw—whom we buried recently; that great statesman—had an even earlier try at lifting terrorist prisoners out of Long Kesh and bringing them to a posh house in Chelsea, to try to broker the type of peace that we now have so nearly within our grasp.
    I understand why the Ulster Unionists—
    Mr. Donaldson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Galloway: No; I have no time.
    I understand why the Ulster Unionists take the position that they do—I know where they are coming from and the constituency that they represent. They are right to negotiate and haggle, to the last second, to protect the interests of their constituents, who are a vital and important part in the whole picture.
    What I genuinely cannot understand is how, today, the Conservative party—a once great national party; once a party of government—could make a turn to such breathtaking irresponsibility, playing fast and loose with people's lives—which is what they are doing—by becoming the mainland political wing of Ulster Unionism. They have shown that breathtaking irresponsibility by quibbling and haggling over how many days is "days" and how many weeks is "weeks", whereas Ireland has waited not decades, but centuries to achieve the type of peace that we now have within our grasp—[Interruption.]
    Unionist Members scoff, but they do not cut a very handsome figure. They should remember that the people of the United Kingdom mainland are those whose blood and treasure has to be expended to defend the Union and the Unionist population; who, for decades, have sent their soldiers on to the streets of Northern Ireland, to try to keep the peace and fight terrorism; and who have expended billions of our taxes to try to keep that peace. It is about time that Unionist Members remembered that they have to try to keep the British population on side as well, and stop being so selfish and irresponsible about it.
    It is simply not true that the nationalists and the republicans have given nothing in the process. It is simply to fly in the face of reality to assert—as has been done today—that, somehow, they have come out winners in the process. The republican tradition has abandoned for all time the notion that anything other than the consent of the majority of the people of the six counties can change the constitutional course of events. That is a monumental change in republican thinking.
    The Irish Republic has abandoned articles 2 and 3 of its constitution—[Interruption.] It has promised to do, and will do so, according to the terms of the agreement. Those articles were central to the very foundation of that state.
    The IRA has for a very long time been on a military ceasefire. When I heard the former Home Secretary recite the dismal litany of events to which he was witness—las all of us were—and all the blood and suffering that he

    225
    saw in his time in government, I wondered how he could seem so sanguine about the possibility of returning to all that.
    In the 60 seconds left to me, I say only that, if the process all comes crashing down, the echoes will be long and loud in Ireland, both north and south, and here on the British mainland. Many more people will suffer the awful misery to which the former Home Secretary referred. Avoiding that is the prize in front of us—making all that a part of the troubled history of Britain and of Ireland, and looking forward to a new future. Only a madman would wish to take risks—
    Mr. Howard rose—
    Mr. Galloway: I am sorry to say that I have no time. I have been told to sit down at 7.38 pm, although I have waited all day to make this speech.
    Only a madman would wish to risk bringing all that crashing down, rather than allow days or weeks to pass before we could see whether the promises that have been made are going to be kept.
    7.38 pm
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), I have been waiting all day—to reply to the speeches.
    The debate has been one of those occasions in the House that will be memorable. We have had a relatively short debate on an exceptionally important issue. I think that all the different points of view that have been expressed add richness, if nothing else, to the House and its debating facility. I think also that no one in the Chamber—from whatever party he comes, or whatever views he may have on the Good Friday agreement—is opposed to the search for peace in Northern Ireland.
    All those who have spoken in the debate want peace, although they may, of course, come from different directions on the issues. Most of them expressed a desire for a political settlement. Certainly, the bulk of those who have spoken want a political settlement that is based on the Good Friday agreement—for which the people of Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly, by a 71 per cent. majority.
    A couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister expressed three principles to the Northern Ireland parties. First, did they agree with an Executive which was truly inclusive? Secondly, did they agree that there was a need under the Good Friday agreement to decommission? Thirdly, did they agree that there was huge significance in the role of the Independent Commission on Decommissioning, headed by General de Chastelain? The parties were asked to address those issues. That was the basis on which the two Prime Ministers went into the negotiations in Castle buildings the week before last.
    We have looked today at certainty, testing, assurance and failsafe. Some of us think that we have got it right; others think that we were getting it right, but that we have not quite got it right. We will reflect on the points made during the Second Reading debate, and those to be made in Committee later this evening. Those points can be raised again—and addressed if necessary—in the other place.
    226
    The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) opened the debate, and talked about the Good Friday agreement being a huge compromise—which it is. In a sense, we have been talking today about the compromise between unionism and nationalism going forward. That makes legislation very difficult. We are not legislating for an Assembly in Cardiff or a Parliament in Edinburgh. The basis upon which the Bill is founded is the Good Friday agreement. That, in turn, is based upon an arrangement that means we can have devolution, and all the other institutions that go with it, only if we can carry through unionism and nationalism at the same time. That is extremely difficult, but it is vital in considering the Bill and anything else that appertains to the Good Friday agreement.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to the slow progress on decommissioning, and he is right. We have had slow progress, although we have made progress, on various aspects of devolution, but that is not unexpected. After 30 years of conflict and distrust—and even longer periods of dislike, and even hatred, between the communities of Northern Ireland—who would have thought that this could have been done quickly?
    When George Mitchell said after the agreement was signed that the troubles were beginning and that the difficulties were starting in terms of implementing the agreement, he was right. In many respects, it is right that we negotiate hard and that we discuss with great intensity the matters that are before us—whether it is the number of Ministers in the Cabinet, the North-South implementation bodies or, vitally, the question of decommissioning and its relationship with devolution.
    The right hon. Member for Bracknell and others referred to a timetable, and we shall discuss that in greater detail later. However, I must stress above all that the Independent Commission on Decommissioning must be genuinely independent. We cannot compromise that. What we do in this House—legislating, as we do, for the British Parliament—is not enough on its own, because the agreement is based on an understanding between nationalism and unionism. So far—and so good—both nationalism and unionism have expressed the highest confidence in the Independent Commission on Decommissioning, and in General de Chastelain personally. I know that the right hon. Member for Bracknell shares that view. It is vital that that independence is retained.
    We will see in the debates to follow that the general laid down an indicative timetable, and referred to a timetable in paragraph 21. His statement on the Friday in question mentioned "days" at the beginning of the process of decommissioning, and "weeks" in terms of actual decommissioning taking place. We will return to that matter later, and in some detail.
    The right hon. Member for Bracknell referred to exclusion. The effect of excluding, expelling or suspending is all the same because, ultimately, we will end up in the same place. I repeat—we are dealing not with Cardiff or Edinburgh, but with Belfast and the agreement based on the concord between unionism and nationalism. We will end up all the time with review—inevitably, because that is what the Good Friday agreement said, and that is what the people voted for.
    If the process goes wrong, if decommissioning does not occur, if devolution does not occur, or if all other aspects of the agreement are not working, the only way in which

    227
    we can resolve the matter is through review, according to the Good Friday agreement. We have a part to play, and that is why we are meeting today. Things have developed, in the sense that the purpose of the meeting of the two Prime Ministers at Castle buildings was to try to get out of the deadlock and the impasse. The sequencing of devolution and decommissioning is precise, as is the method by which we would contest those who would go back on their pledges.
    The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), in a powerful speech, referred to the commitment to inclusion, which he made eloquently. He and his party have said that they are not opposed to an inclusive Executive. He said that his party was concerned about the guarantees, the failsafe, the assurances and the certainties, but that the idea of an inclusive Executive was part of his party's policy. I agree with that entirely.
    The right hon. Gentleman was concerned that, while the review could lead to the exclusion of the offending party, it could lead also to his own party coming under pressure to overlook a breach and to move forward with the Executive unchanged. No one can be certain of the outcome of any review, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and his party that they will come under no pressure from this Government in those circumstances.
    The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)—who, with others, has been instrumental in bringing about this process—indicated, rightly, that people in Northern Ireland were not politicians and that they were anxious that there should be progress. I agree entirely. Outside this Chamber, and outside the Northern Ireland Assembly, there are 1.5 million people in Northern Ireland who want and deserve peace and political stability. A great burden lies on our shoulders collectively as politicians to try to ensure that that is achieved.
    It is important politically to remember that, if Sinn Fein advances politically, the party which has more to lose than any other is the SDLP, in the sense that the politics of Northern Ireland will result, inevitably, in people voting for nationalist parties and people voting for Unionist parties. The hon. Gentleman's points were valid, and we will look again at them.
    The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) started this process and we pay tribute to him for that role, including his campaigning for the Good Friday agreement in the referendum in Northern Ireland. He helped to persuade many people to vote for it. He made a number of important points, some of which I shall try to answer.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we would encourage General de Chastelain to publish the full schedule and timetable for disarmament. The joint statement calls for the commission to specify two key dates—when the process should start and when actual decommissioning should begin. It must be completed by May 2000, and the commission will report in September, December and May—and more often if necessary.
    General de Chastelain said in his report of 2 July that he was prepared to define a detailed timetable for decommissioning, following discussions with representatives of the organisations. Clearly, there will be a detailed timetable. Under the Bill, if the general lays down a timetable, it must be kept to, or he will blow the whistle. I recognise that the publication of the full timetable would encourage confidence. Equally, it is a matter for the general and his colleagues to decide whether they should do that. He has
    228
    a vital, but delicate, task. He must command confidence on all sides if he is to succeed. I can ensure that the general sees the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, and we will take it from there.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked whether any breach of the disarmament schedule would lead to suspension. The answer to that is yes.
    Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Murphy: No, I had better press on. I have only five minutes left to answer everyone, and it is important that I reply to the points raised by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon. A breach of the disarmament schedule would lead to suspension. Failure to take any step specified by the commission leads automatically and immediately to suspension.
    The right hon. Member for Huntingdon asked whether prisoner releases would be stopped if a party were excluded from the Executive. We have already made it clear that, under the Good Friday agreement, prisoner releases are linked to the continuing ceasefires. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said that one of the factors to be taken into account under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 is whether an organisation is fully co-operating with the Decommissioning Commission.
    My right hon. Friend keeps the prisoner release scheme under close review on the basis of the best security advice available. Clearly, if the process is suspended because decommissioning commitments are not being met, that factor would weigh especially heavily on my right hon. Friend's judgment about the status of the relevant ceasefire. Equally, if the Assembly, on a cross-community basis, decided that a party should not hold office, that, too, would be a relevant consideration in deciding whether any linked paramilitary organisation is on ceasefire. I have not the slightest doubt that in any review that would follow suspension for that reason, that those other matters—especially prisoner release, but others as well—would be open to discussion.
    The right hon. Member for Huntingdon also asked whether we could confirm that the British and Irish Governments are agreed on the Bill. Our relationship as Governments has never been closer and we agreed fully on the way forward. We will work together to implement the proposals made by the two Prime Ministers.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made the point about the silence of the guns. That is significant and nobody underestimates it. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik)—we thank him and his party for their support on the Bill—referred to civil society and the significant fact that the people in Northern Ireland want this to work. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) rightly emphasised the fact that the process is two-sided, and that we cannot go ahead without unionism and nationalism both agreeing on where we go. He also emphasised the principle of consent.
    I understand the feelings of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) about the issue that he raised, especially because of his earlier

    229
    ministerial position, but I suspect from his comments that he was not too keen on the idea of inclusivity in any event, even if we did not have this failsafe legislation in place.
    The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) asked why we are legislating now. That is a fair question and we all hope that the legislation will not be used, but if it were and we were in a recess, it would difficult to recall Parliament to consider the matter. It is also better to have the legislation because a failsafe mechanism will give assurances to all concerned. The whole House will have heard the hon. Gentleman's assurance that, in a review such as that to which I and others have referred, the defaulters will not be the beneficiaries and his party will not shrink from penalties if necessary.
    The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) talked about my waving papers at him in our meetings last week. We will be waving more papers at him during the Committee stage of the Bill, but I am not sure that he is keen on the whole business anyway. Certainly, I know that he and his party have made it clear that they are in favour of devolution to Northern Ireland. I only hope that he and his colleagues will be able to support devolution in Northern Ireland when that occurs.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) emphasised the need for trust in the whole process. She has been committed to the role of women in Northern Ireland, and I pay tribute to her for that. I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) for his support, despite his misgivings about the process and the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin gave his usual rousing speech.
    The people of Northern Ireland are looking to us in this Chamber and to the parties in Northern Ireland to settle this impasse and to break the deadlock. Unless there are any better ideas, this Bill is the best chance to ensure that devolution and decommissioning occur. Can anyone give me any assurance that any other idea would produce decommissioning better than the suggestions in the Bill? Is there any other way to test Sinn Fein on decommissioning? Is there any other way to bring nationalism and unionism together so as to ensure an opportunity to test the arrangements? I do not think so and, as a consequence, I commend the Bill to the House.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 19.

    Division No. 234]

    [7.55 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Ainger, Nick

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Allan, Richard

    Best, Harold

    Allen, Graham

    Betts, Clive

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Blackman, Liz

    Ashton, Joe

    Blair, Rt Hon Tony

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Banks, Tony

    Boateng, Paul

    Barnes, Harry

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Beard, Nigel

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Breed, Colin

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    230

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Browne, Desmond

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Burden, Richard

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Burstow, Paul

    Godsiff, Roger

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Gorrie, Donald

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NEFife)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Grogan, John

    Cann, Jamie

    Gunnell, John

    Casale, Roger

    Hain, Peter

    Caton, Martin

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hancock, Mike

    Clapham, Michael

    Hanson, David

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Healey, John

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Clwyd, Ann

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hesford, Stephen

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Cohen, Harry

    Hill, Keith

    Coleman, Iain

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Colman, Tony

    Hoey, Kate

    Connarty, Michael

    Home Robertson, John

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cotter, Brian

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cox, Tom

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Cranston, Ross

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Hume, John

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hutton, John

    Cummings, John

    Illsley, Eric

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Uanelli)

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Doran, Frank

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Dowd, Jim

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Edwards, Huw

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Ennis, Jeff

    Khabra, Piara S

    Etherington, Bill

    Kidney, David

    Feam, Ronnie

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Fisher, Mark

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Flint, Caroline

    Lepper, David

    Flynn, Paul

    Leslie, Christopher

    Follett, Barbara

    Levitt, Tom

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Fyfe, Maria

    Linton, Martin

    Galloway, George

    Uwyd, Elfyn

    Gapes, Mike

    Love, Andrew

    Gardiner, Barry

    McAllion, John

    231

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    McCabe, Steve

    Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Rooker, Jeff

    Macdonald, Calum

    Rooney, Terry

    McDonnell, John

    Rowlands, Ted

    McFall, John

    Roy, Frank

    McGrady, Eddie

    Ruane, Chris

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Ruddock, Joan

    McIsaac, Shona

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) Ryan, Ms Joan

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Salter, Martin

    McNamara, Kevin

    Sanders, Adrian

    McNulty, Tony

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    MacShane, Denis

    Sawford, Phil

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Sheerman, Barry

    Mallaber, Judy

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Mallon, Seamus

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Singh, Marsha

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Martlew, Eric

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Maxton, John

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Meale, Alan

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Merron, Gillian

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

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Soley, Clive

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Moffatt, Laura

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Stevenson, George

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Morley, Elliot

    Stott, Roger

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Mudie, George

    Stringer, Graham

    Mullin, Chris

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Olner, Bill

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Öpik, Lembit

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Tipping, Paddy

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Touhig, Don

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Trickett, Jon

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Pike, Peter L

    Tyler, Paul

    Plaskitt, James

    Vaz, Keith

    Pollard, Kerry

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Pond, Chris

    Wareing, Robert N

    Webb, Steve

    Pope, Greg

    Welsh, Andrew

    Pound, Stephen

    White, Brian

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Purchase, Ken

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Rapson, Syd

    Willis, Phil

    Raynsford, Nick

    Winnick, David

    232

    Wise, Audrey

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wood, Mike

    Worthington, Tony

    Mr. David Jamieson and

    Wyatt, Derek

    Mr. David Clelland.

    NOES

    Beggs, Roy

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Swayne, Desmond

    Cash, William

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Thompson, William

    Forsythe, Clifford

    Trimble, Rt Hon David

    Gill, Christopher

    Wilkinson, John

    Hunter, Andrew

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfied)

    McCartney, Robert (N Down)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Mr. William Ross and

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Rev. Martin Smyth.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read a Second time.
    Further proceedings stood postponed, pursuant to Order [this day].

    NORTHERN IRELAND BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Question agreed to.

    NORTHERN IRELAND BILL
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
    That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Question agreed to.
    Bill immediately considered in Committee.
    [MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

    NORTHERN IRELAND BILL
      New Clause 1

        SUSPENSION OF PRISONER RELEASES
        'Where the Secretary of State has made a suspension under section 1 of this Act, he shall also make an order under section 16 of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 suspending the operation of sections 3 and 10 of that Act.'.—[Mr. MacKay.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        8.7 pm
        Mr. MacKay: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Prisoner releases—
        'Where section 1 applies the Secretary of State shall specify under section 3 of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 any organisation in respect of which the Decommissioning Commission has reported under section 1.'.
        [The Second Deputy Chairman]
        Amendment No. 10, in clause 1, clause 1, page 1, line 24, at end insert—
        '(ba) the operation of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 shall be suspended and all releases so far made under that Act shall be revoked.'.
        Amendment No. 12, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
        '(ca) the release of prisoners under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 shall be suspended in accordance with the powers available in section 8 of that Act; and'.
        Amendment No. 29, in title, line 2, after 'Ireland' insert
        ', the release of prisoners under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998'.
        Mr. MacKay: I shall speak specifically to new clause 1 and to amendments Nos. 12 and 29. I note that this debate—[Interruption.]
        The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Will hon. Members who do not wish to stay for the debate please leave quickly and quietly?
        Mr. MacKay: I note that this debate will be truncated, and that there are only just over 50 minutes in which to hold it. I shall therefore keep my remarks brief, as I covered many of the points that I wish to make on Second Reading.
        My main point is simple: there have to be safeguards, the most important of which has to be that the paramilitaries go ahead and decommission on time. The Provisional IRA, which the Prime Minister has said is inextricably linked to Sinn Fein, should have a real incentive to decommission on time. If it does not, Sinn Fein will—if my amendment is accepted later—be expelled from the Executive. If the Ulster Volunteer Force, which has a direct link with the Progressive Unionist party that is represented in the Assembly, fails to decommission, the Assembly will be suspended. In the right circumstances, I believe that the PUP could be removed from the Assembly.
        However, the real problem is that other republican and loyalist paramilitary groups have no incentive whatsoever to decommission. They will have no political partners in the Executive or the Assembly. To ensure that they decommission, the Government must say—by accepting our new clause—that there will be an immediate halt to early release of their terrorist prisoners if these groups fail to comply with the decommissioning timetable. To do less would discourage them from decommissioning.
        I have already asked the Secretary of State to consider the position of the republican community, particularly that of the Provisional IRA. The Minister and I want the IRA to decommission all its illegally held arms and explosives between now and next May. But if the IRA were here tonight, its representatives would argue that to decommission or disarm when loyalist paramilitaries were retaining their arms would make their communities vulnerable. If the PIRA is to decommission, it is essential to ensure that everyone else must decommission too.
        The Minister is responsible for security in Northern Ireland, and he does not need me to tell him that there is an overwhelming desire in paramilitary communities—loyalist and republican—to get the boys out of prison.
        234
        Every time the Government and the Prime Minister put a terrorist prisoner back on the streets of Belfast by releasing him early, they throw away a trump card. Some 277 trump cards have been thrown away to date, and only 120 or so terrorist prisoners remain for release.
        If decommissioning does not happen, it will be essential to halt terrorist releases. The people of Northern Ireland deserve nothing less. Only by halting releases can we provide the copper-bottomed failsafes that the Prime Minister has promised the people of Northern Ireland and the House of Commons.
        I urge the Minister to accept our new clauses and amendments, or to agree to produce his own. I readily admit that his amendments might be better drafted than ours, which we were able to draft only yesterday evening. Including new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 12 and 29 in the Bill would go a long way towards satisfying the Unionist community and democratic opinion that there are real safeguards against, and proper penalties for, all paramilitary groups if decommissioning does not occur.
        New clause 1 is precise in that only those paramilitaries who fail to decommission would be penalised. No one would be penalised for the faults of those who failed to fulfil their obligations. That is essential to the proper working of the Bill and to ensuring that Ministers are appointed to the Executive to provide proper devolved government for Northern Ireland.
        Mr. Trimble: I agree with the general thrust of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), and I do not intend to rehearse in detail all the arguments that we have heard about prisoner release during the past year. I shall discuss instead the Bill's focus only on default by Sinn Fein and its lack of any effective provision regarding default by other paramilitary organisations. The Bill is seriously defective as it must provide for dealings with other paramilitary organisations. It is unrealistic to apply a sanction only to Sinn Fein, when the sanction can be applied to other groups only through prisoner release.
        8.15 pm
        I drafted new clause 2, and it will be no surprise to anyone to learn that I prefer my own drafting. I focused on section 3 of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. Subsection (9) directs the Secretary of State to take into account a number of factors, the fourth of which is whether an organisation
        "is co-operating fully with any Commission … implementing the Decommissioning section of the agreement reached at multi-party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3833."
        That touches precisely on the point that we are discussing. Suspension would arise only in the event of someone's having failed to carry out commitments entered into.
        Subsection (9) directs the Secretary of State to take into account a number of factors, which gives her a discretion but, if the Bill becomes law and the Government's hopes for it are realised, the situation contemplated in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 will have changed. Some decommissioning would be happening, and the onus on other paramilitary organisations to co-operate would have to be greater than it has been during the past 15 months. It seems right to raise the standard relating to what the Secretary of State should do.

        235
        The Northern Ireland Bill provides for automatic action, and it seems appropriate to apply the same standard to sentencing. We should bring the provisions of the 1998 Act into line with the Bill that we are debating tonight. That would be consistent. I urge the Minister to contemplate new clause 2 very carefully.
        Mr. Öpik: I am about to prove that at least one person—namely, me—listens to debates in the House. Until 7.55 pm, I was fairly convinced that it would be hard to connect decommissioning and prisoner release, but one Minister of State strongly implied in his Second Reading speech that a linkage could be made. I hope that the other Minister of State can clarify matters when he deals with the new clauses.
        I believe that it is difficult to connect the terms of the Good Friday agreement, including those on decommissioning, with prisoner release. The right hon. Members for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) have given their views, but I should be glad if the Minister clarified the position, to help us to understand whether we can expect some movement towards slowing down prisoner releases without the need for the amendments.
        I have two specific questions for the Minister. What is the Government's view of the new clauses in the context of the Good Friday agreement? Will he explain, following the comments of his fellow Minister, whether, even if they do not accept the new clauses, the Government are considering some linkage with prisoner release?
        Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish to comment briefly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and I tabled amendment No. 10, which is in this group.
        I feel strongly about this matter because the only real barrier that we have to make the paramilitaries and armed gangsters understand that the Government and this Parliament mean business is prisoner release. If those concerned have left violence and do not intend to go back to it, they should be prepared for decommissioning to take place. If it does not take place, we can be assured that they intend to keep their weaponry so that one day, at some time in the future, they can do what one of their spokesmen in the Assembly said that they would do—go back to doing what they were "best at". That was that spokesman's public statement. If that is so, the deterrent is necessary and it has to go farther than merely stopping the releases. They must be revoked. After all, if we are going to go back, we have to go back to where we started.
        There is now a strong argument to the effect that those prisoners who have got out have gone back to violence. Time will declare it. I have been seeking information from the police on this matter. We do not know what will be revealed in the days ahead, but I am sure that it will be revealed that some of them have already done so.
        Dr. Nick Palmer: My understanding of the trend of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that he opposes prisoner release, even for organisations that are willing to decommission. Given that he is opposed to the releases in any case, is a sincere reservation behind the amendment?
        Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman should question the motivation of the terrorists, not my motivation. None of the people who are tied up with terrorism has said that
        236
        they will decommission—none of them represented in the Assembly and none of them represented at the talks. The only people who have decommissioned are the Loyalist Volunteer Force, which was not in the talks and is not represented in the Assembly. The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right before he attacks my motivation.
        I am certainly not happy with armed gangsters being released on the streets when I see their attitude when they come out of prison, what they say and do, and the people with whom they associate. If the hon. Gentleman's mother or children had been murdered by one of those people, as has happened to my constituents, he would not want them to be walking about the streets. That is even more the case now when the organisations to which they belong are saying that they will not decommission. If they have given up violence for good, surely they should give up their weaponry and then they cannot return to violence. As I said, however, they tell us that they will go back to what they are best at. The time has come for the Government to call a halt to the whole charade of what is going on with those prisoners.
        Dr. Palmer: The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) continues his fundamental opposition to the whole process. Clearly, if one is opposed in principle to the Good Friday agreement, one naturally also opposes prisoner release, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman outlined.
        I have more difficulty with the position of the Opposition, which appears to be that they are in favour of the Good Friday agreement which, as several hon. Members have said, allows for the possibility that a failure to decommission will have consequences for prisoner release and other benefits that arise out of the agreement. However, the Conservative party has for some time now opposed prisoner releases, which are an essential part of the agreement. As I understand it, the amendment would harden the agreement as regards such releases.
        Mr. MacKay: I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman, as he might not have been here for my speech on Second Reading when I explained this matter fully. The situation is simply this: the Belfast agreement stated that prisoners would be released over a two-year period from the enactment last July of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. It also stated that paramilitaries who signed up to the agreement would decommission all their illegally held arms and explosives during a two-year period, which concludes in May next year.
        The hon. Gentleman will realise that we are now 14 months into the two-year period for decommissioning and not one gun or ounce of Semtex has been handed in. He is a reasonable person. He must think it unreasonable that there has not been any decommissioning. At the same time, the Government have shown their good will by releasing 277 terrorist prisoners—loyalist and republican—back on to the streets of Belfast. That is not a fair deal and is therefore not comparable.
        Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. None the less, the amendment would appear to seek to harden the terms of an agreement that was negotiated with great difficulty and under considerable stress. If we take a step back from the present fraught situation, we will see what ordinary people in Northern Ireland and Britain see clearly, which is that

        237
        we are at a juncture where it is possible to take a chance for peace, or to go back to the eternal circle of haggling, renegotiating and redefining.
        Mr. Robert McCartney: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the fact that the Prime Minister himself encouraged the pro-Union people and their representatives to believe that, if they said yes in a referendum, there would be a nexus or connection between the release of prisoners and decommissioning.
        Dr. Palmer: The hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly correct. The Prime Minister has stated on many occasions that decommissioning is an integral part of the process. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman must also be aware that every survey in Northern Ireland as well as in Britain shows that, for the sake of the people of Northern Ireland, people want the current proposals to be given a chance.
        The difficulty that I and many other Back Benchers have with attempts to tinker with the Good Friday agreement and to harden certain aspects of it is that we detect a certain begrudging attitude to the leap of faith that is needed by both sides to give the agreement a chance.
        Most of us have been reticent in speaking on the issue because we are reluctant to rock the boat and to intervene when we are aware that Front-Bench Members of all the parties are working hard to reach an agreed settlement. However, the overwhelming majority not only of the parliamentary Labour party but of the British people will be alienated, if, at this stage of the process, those on any side stand back and say that they are not willing to make that leap of faith to try to achieve the settlement—including decommissioning—for which we have all worked over the past 18 months. If we say that that is not possible because we want tinkering here or there, we must accept that it will be concluded that, as a people, we are not serious about peace.
        8.30 pm
        Mr. Field: Is there not is a real danger in thinking that we can interpret the public mood? It is probable that there is an equally strong view in the country that, at this crucial point, people would expect some decommissioning at the next stage. Of course, the Ulster Unionists are unhappy with what was originally signed, in that there was no clear link between the whole process of prisoner release and decommissioning. However, the best interpretation that one can put on that is that there was a cock-up and that people did not notice.
        I think that the Ulster Unionists have taken the debate further today and are putting that behind them; they are assuming that the Bill will be enacted, and that, if people do not begin decommissioning within the timetable laid down by the commission, the prisoner release scheme will be reconsidered. They are not trying to renegotiate the original terms of the agreement—although they might feel that they were foolish not to have spotted the absence of a link—but the assumption behind the amendments is that the Bill will be enacted and that, if it quickly appears that,
        238
        at some stage, there will be no decommissioning, those who do not decommission will be punished, not only by the review—
        The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's intervention is gently turning into a speech. He must finish his intervention briefly.
        Mr. Field: I shall just finish the sentence. We are debating whether, in the new situation, there should be a link; the old debate is now being put aside. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) not support the fact that there should be some link, and that those who do not disarm should not get their prisoners out?
        Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that courteous intervention. We would all accept that prisoner release may well depend on decommissioning as part of a general pattern of behaviour. However, the Good Friday agreement set up a delicate system of checks and balances—including not only decommissioning, but the ceasefire, co-operation with Northern Ireland and cross-border institutions, and other elements.
        We know the conflicting parties well enough to expect that each change in the process will trigger another change. If we say that the failure to decommission will have the concrete and guaranteed effect of suspending prisoner releases, we can expect that other aspects of the agreement will be called into question—especially the ceasefire. I think—as indeed do the great majority of people in the United Kingdom—that the achievement of the ceasefire has been worth all the concessions that have been made until now.
        Mr. Donaldson: In relation to prisoner releases, I point out, with all due respect to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), that public opinion in Great Britain is changing. Public opinion in Great Britain is becoming impatient that people such as Patrick Magee—a man who tried to destroy the British Government with a bomb—are being released, but the organisation to which he belongs has not decommissioned a single bullet. The hon. Gentleman should reconsider the issue of public opinion in Great Britain. May I recommend to him an article by John Lloyd in the current edition of the New Statesman, which I think that he will find edifying?
        Rev. Martin Smyth: In relation to the claims that public opinion is against any of the changes, is it not remarkable that more and more people from England are phoning and writing to us, telling us to stand fast because it is wrong to give way to terrorism? Will my hon. Friend persuade those who might not be in this place, and who regularly accuse Ulster Unionist Members of dealing with only one aspect of terrorism, that the amendments deal with all aspects of terrorism?
        Mr. Donaldson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is precisely the point. As only one terrorist organisation in Northern Ireland will benefit from having seats in the Executive—that is Sinn Fein-IRA—we must find some means of urging the other terrorist organisations to decommission. There must be some penalty if that does not happen.
        The hon. Member for Broxtowe talks about balance, but we have had 14 months of the agreement and the problem is that there is no balance. He talks about the

        239
        ceasefires but the ceasefires have been breached, whether or not the Government care to acknowledge that. There have been murders on the streets of Northern Ireland committed by all the terrorist organisations benefiting from prisoner releases. They have all breached their ceasefires, yet the Government have chosen to disregard that in relation to the legislative provision in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which places on the Secretary of State the responsibility to review on a regular basis whether the organisations benefiting from prisoner releases should continue to benefit in that way. With all due respect, I have to point out that there is a link between decommissioning and prisoner releases—it is in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act and it was put there by the Government. The link is there.
        The problem is that, under the proposals in "The Way Forward" document, the penalties that will be applied if parties are in default will not apply to all the parties, since not all the terrorist organisations are represented in the Assembly, let alone in the Executive. The hon. Member for Broxtowe says that we cannot tinker with the agreement, but I put it to him that "The Way Forward" does exactly that. It sets new deadlines for the institutions that are not in the agreement, and new timetables that are not in the agreement. Would we need "The Way Forward" if the agreement were delivering on all those aspects? Of course not. If it is right to tinker with the agreement on devolution, why should it not be right to tinker with it on prisoner releases? Surely the hon. Gentleman concedes that point.
        Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the House, in the debate on prisoner releases, the Prime Minister indicated that, if the prisoner releases were to be stopped or curtailed in any way, it would mean a return to violence? Therefore, terror is dictating the terms on which the whole process moves forward.
        Mr. Donaldson: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention. Throughout this debate, I have heard Government Members give the warning that, if we do not do this and we do not do that, there will be a return to violence—yet the agreement requires all the parties to be committed to "exclusively … peaceful means". Surely such a commitment means that, in all circumstances, one takes the democratic and peaceful path, yet the hon. Member for Broxtowe warns us that, if we do not take the leap, there will be a return to violence. Is that a commitment to exclusively peaceful means? I do not think so.
        That commitment was required of Sinn Fein-IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries when they signed up to the agreement. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that they are about to breach their commitment if they do not get their way? What guarantee will the Unionist members of the Executive have? If, at some time in the future, we come up against a decision that has to be taken on an issue of government in Northern Ireland and the Republicans disagree with our position, are we to expect that, once again, whispered in the ear of the First Minister will be the dark mutterings, "If you don't do it our way, the boys might have to go back to doing what they do best"? That is what is being asked of us.
        Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is stating most effectively, in summary form, the arguments that are
        240
        being advanced by Government Members. Do not those arguments, in effect, amount to: "You'd better believe the IRA have given up violence because, if you don't, they will use violence again."?
        Mr. Donaldson: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention—of course that is what we are being told by Government Members. It is almost as if a gun is being put to our head, accompanied by the threat, "Sign up, or else." I know about threats—I have received them, as have my right hon. and hon. Friends. Some of us have had attempts made on our lives by paramilitaries, but not once have we raised a finger in retaliation against them. I chose the democratic and peaceful path when I entered politics, and I will not be deviated from that path, because I am committed to exclusively peaceful means.
        Mr. Trimble: My hon. Friend is criticising, very correctly, the comments made by the hon. Member for Broxtowe. Those comments clearly demonstrated that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that there is, at present, a genuine commitment to peaceful means. He believes that, unless one acts in accordance with what are perceived to be the interests of the public, there will be a return to violence, but that is indicative only of his state of mind, and we must not regard his state of mind as being decisive in what will actually happen.
        Mr. Donaldson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. That is the reality with which Unionist Members are faced.
        I support the amendments on prisoner releases because people in Northern Ireland believe that there should be a balance, and the process should not be a one-way street. The hon. Member for Broxtowe said that the concessions had been worth while, but giving concessions meant anticipation that there would be a response, which included the decommissioning of illegal terrorist weapons.
        Dr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman sways back and forth between using the Good Friday agreement, which he opposed at the time, in his arguments, and opposing the content of the agreement. It is not at all clear how he has the nerve to oppose an agreement and then use its contents to criticise parties which supported it and made a commitment to peace—a commitment that he, by his opposition, has not made.
        Mr. Donaldson: With all due respect, that is a disgraceful remark. My family have suffered at the hands of terrorists, and I have buried members of my family. I joined the Ulster Defence Regiment, which is a legal organisation, to fight terrorism of all kinds, and I am committed to peace. How dare the hon. Gentleman make such a ridiculous, disgraceful accusation? If there is any honour left in him, he should withdraw that remark. I shall, however, deal with the point that he made.
        I have the nerve to oppose the agreement because I am a democrat. In a democratic society, I am entitled to vote against the agreement, but that does not mean that I do not accept the will of the people who voted for it. In this House, it is my duty to ensure that the people whom I represent get the best deal and that, where the agreement refers to decommissioning, decommissioning is delivered. When prisoners are being released, it is my duty to

        241
        ensure that the people who suffered at the hands of those prisoners get the best deal in the form of commitments from those terrorists and the decommissioning of their weapons.
        I shall leave the hon. Gentleman with the following thought. Mr. Bernard McGinn is an IRA murderer who was recently sentenced to 490 years in prison. The Belfast Telegraph reported:
        "IRA killer Bernard McGinn laughed as he was handed three life sentences and a 490-year prison term yesterday—knowing that he would soon be released."
        I want to wipe the smile off Mr. McGinn's face because I want him to know that he will be released only if the organisation that he belongs to gives up violence for good and decommissions its illegal weapons. if it does not do so, Mr. McGinn should remain where he belongs—behind bars—for a long time.
        Mr. Malcolm Moss: We do not have much time so I shall be as brief as possible.
        Accusations have been made during the debate that our amendments are outside the Belfast agreement and seek to wreck it. We state categorically that our amendments are within the confines of the agreement and the legislation that will emanate from that agreement.
        New clause 1 does two things. It calls on legislation that is already on the statute book—the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998—and it follows through, clearly and logically, assurances given by the Prime Minister on more than one occasion.
        8.45 pm
        I refer particularly to the Prime Minister's keynote speech at the Balmoral showground in Belfast on 14 May, in which he set out the terms on which parties linked with terrorist organisations would be eligible for prisoner release. The key was that those organisations would have been maintaining a "complete and unequivocal ceasefire". In determining what constituted that, one of the key factors was full co-operation with the Independent Commission on Decommissioning, which of course implements the provisions of the agreement.
        New clause 2 refers to the Secretary of State, at the time of suspension, specifying organisations, as defined in section 3 of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which deals with prisoner eligibility for release. A condition of such eligibility is that
        "the prisoner is not a supporter of a specified organisation."
        In subsection (8), a specified organisation is clearly defined as
        "an organisation specified by order of the Secretary of State; and he shall specify any organisation which he believes—
        (a) is concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland …
        (b) has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire."
        Subsection (9) states that the Secretary of State shall take into account, when coming to that decision, that the organisation
        "(a) is committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve its objectives;
        242
        (b) has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence;
        (c) is directing or promoting acts of violence by other organisations".
        That is the link between Sinn Fein and the IRA, which the Prime Minister still contends is inextricable—although the Taoiseach, Mr. Ahern, says that the two are separate. Subsection (9)(d)—this is the key point because it links legislation passed in this House to the Belfast agreement—states that the organisation
        "is co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 in implementing the Decommissioning section of the agreement reached at multi-party talks".
        We would maintain that there is a clear link and that legislation is already on the statute book for the Secretary of State and the Government to act.
        The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): We have a very few minutes to deal with this matter. A certain amount of heat has been generated in the debate so it is right, for a moment, to reflect on some of the sensitive issues with which we are dealing.
        The sensitivity of this issue of course impacts greatly on the victims—those who have suffered over the past 30 years. As the Minister with responsibility for victims, I have probably met more, either in groups or as individuals, than anyone else in the House, with the possible exception of one or two Northern Ireland Members. I understand only too well the hurt and grief that they have suffered. Some of them are speaking up for the first time about events that go back 10, 15 or 20 years.
        Much of that has been brought to the surface by the process of the release of prisoners—early or otherwise. It is not just the early release of prisoners that can impact on those who have suffered most. We as a Government have had to deal with that. I make the point again that, effectively, we inherited a blank sheet from the previous Administration on the issue. That is why there was recognition in the Good Friday agreement of this very important issue, which no one had addressed and which we had to pick up and take forward.
        At the same time, we had to take on board the other commitment that was placed on the Government—the one on the early release of terrorist prisoners. Everyone who was party to the agreement signed up to such an commitment. I accept that the hon. Members for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) do not support the Belfast agreement. We do not know whether they support some of it or none of it—in a sense, they have never quite specified—but we know that they do not want it to succeed. Given that, they cannot cherry-pick; they cannot say, "We like this bit, but we don't like that bit." They must understand the complexities that the two Governments and those who are engaged in the process must take on board. Prisoner releases are a critical aspect of that.
        After moving forward and implementation, we must consider what that means and how we interpret and judge whether groups are on complete and unequivocal ceasefire, and that is what the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 sets out. I accept that many Opposition Members did not accept the principles of that legislation although they were in line with what was set

        243
        out in the Good Friday agreement. Many of those who defended the agreement voted against what became the 1998 Act, thereby cherry-picking and more or less leaving it to the Government to proceed with an undoubtedly vexed and difficult issue, primarily because of the impact that it has within the wider community.
        There is no direct linkage between prisoner releases and any other part of the agreement, including the political institutions. There are no linkages and no pre-conditions. We are talking of a totality and of everything being part of a whole.
        The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) spelled out the purport of new clause 1. He explained that the intention behind it was to suspend section 3 of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which sets out prisoners' eligibility for release, and section 10, which deals with accelerated release arrangements. That is a clear proposition. That is what the official Opposition want to happen, while saying that they still support the Good Friday agreement. There is an inherent contradiction in that position.
        Mr. Moss: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. Ingram: No. There are only three minutes left to me.
        The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) talked about important linkages in terms of republican terrorists who could be judged as somehow failing to meet their commitments under the agreement, and those of loyalists. We must recognise the importance of loyalist decommissioning alongside that of republican decommissioning. The right hon. Gentleman was right to raise the matter. There are some loyalist and republican groups which do not have linked parties even in the Assembly, let alone the Executive. However, all groups on ceasefire have a common interest in achieving decommissioning on a mutual and reciprocal basis. That is why they have a ceasefire in the first place. They find themselves being committed to the principle of the Good Friday agreement because movement is taking place. We are moving into a new political environment within Northern Ireland and so they sign up to that very principle.
        I suggest that loyalists know that there will not be republican disarmament without loyalists giving up guns at the same time, and vice versa. They each watch and study the other in trying to understand what the other is seeking to do. It is right that some groups will not be directly affected by suspension. However, the main purpose of suspension is to give the parties time and space to allow them to agree on how to deal with any breach of commitments, including sanctions on which they may agree. The suspension process involves those who are actually dealing with the issue—those who conceived the Good Friday process in the first place and those who have signed up to it. The issue returns to their agenda and they must deal with it.
        Mr. Öpik: Will the Minister state unequivocally, yes or no, whether the clauses contravene the Good Friday agreement?
        Mr. Ingram: The 1998 Act sets out the ways in which the Secretary of State would judge whether a group is on
        244
        a complete and unequivocal ceasefire and whether it would be subject to that Act. We are dealing with complex issues and trying to make judgments. We are putting in place, through the failsafe, a new proposal that allows a judgment to be made by a body that everyone respects. We are allowing that process to be considered and—
        It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The Committee divided: Ayes 147, Noes 349.

        Division No. 235]

        [8.55 pm

        AYES

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Grieve, Dominic

        Amess, David

        Gummer, Rt Hon John

        Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

        Hague, Rt Hon William

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Hammond, Philip

        Baldry, Tony

        Hawkins, Nick

        Beggs, Roy

        Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

        Bercow, John

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Blunt, Crispin

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Boswell, Tim

        Hunter, Andrew

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Brazier, Julian

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        Key, Robert

        Butterfill, John

        King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

        Cash, William

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

        Lansley, Andrew

        Leigh, Edward

        Chope, Christopher

        Letwin, Oliver

        Clappison, James

        Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

        Lidington, David

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Loughton, Tim

        Collins, Tim

        Luff, Peter

        Colvin, Michael

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        McCartney, Robert (N Down)

        Cran, James

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Curry, Rt Hon David

        MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

        Madel, Sir David

        Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

        Malins, Humfrey

        Donaldson, Jeffrey

        Mates, Michael

        Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

        Maude, Rt Hon Francis

        Duncan, Alan

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

        Duncan Smith, Iain

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Evans, Nigel

        Moss, Malcolm

        Faber, David

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Fabricant, Michael

        Ottaway, Richard

        Fallon, Michael

        Page, Richard

        Flight, Howard

        Paice, James

        Forsythe, Clifford

        Paisley, Rev Ian

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Pickles, Eric

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Prior, David

        Fox, Dr Liam

        Randall, John

        Fraser, Christopher

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Gale, Roger

        Robathan, Andrew

        Garnier, Edward

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Gibb, Nick

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Gill, Christopher

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        Ross, William (E Lond'y)

        Gray, James

        Ruffley, David

        Green, Damian

        St Aubyn, Nick

        Greenway, John

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        245

        Shepherd, Richard

        Trimble, Rt Hon David

        Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Viggers, Peter

        Soames, Nicholas

        Walter, Robert

        Spelman, Mrs Caroline

        Wardle, Charles

        Spicer, Sir Michael

        Waterson, Nigel

        Spring, Richard

        Wells, Bowen

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Whitney, Sir Raymond

        Steen, Anthony

        Whittingdale, John

        Streeter, Gary

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        Swayne, Desmond

        Wilkinson, John

        Syms, Robert

        Willetts, David

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Wilshire, David

        Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

        Woodward, Shaun

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Yeo, Tim

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Thompson, William

        Townend, John

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Tredinnick, David

        Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

        Trend, Michael

        Mr. Stephen Day.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

        Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Ainger, Nick

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Alexander, Douglas

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Allan, Richard

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Allen, Graham

        Clelland, David

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Clwyd, Ann

        Ashton, Joe

        Coaker, Vernon

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Austin, John

        Cohen, Harry

        Banks, Tony

        Coleman, Iain

        Barnes, Harry

        Colman, Tony

        Barron, Kevin

        Connarty, Michael

        Battle, John

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Beard, Nigel

        Corbett, Robin

        Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Corston, Ms Jean

        Bell, Martin (Tatton)

        Cousins, Jim

        Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

        Cox, Tom

        Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

        Cranston, Ross

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

        Crausby, David

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Berry, Roger

        Cummings, John

        Best, Harold

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Betts, Clive

        Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack(Copeland)

        Blackman, Liz

        Blunkett, Rt Hon David

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Boateng, Paul

        Dalyell, Tam

        Bradley, Keith (Withington)

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Darvill, Keith

        Breed, Colin

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Brinton, Mrs Helen

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

        Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Dawson, Hilton

        Browne, Desmond

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Burden, Richard

        Dismore, Andrew

        Burstow, Paul

        Dobbin, Jim

        Butler, Mrs Christine

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

        Doran, Frank

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Dowd, Jim

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Cann, Jamie

        Edwards, Huw

        Caplin, Ivor

        Efford, Clive

        Casale, Roger

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Caton, Martin

        Ennis, Jeff

        Cawsey, Ian

        Etherington, Bill

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Fearn, Ronnie

        Chaytor, David

        Fisher, Mark

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Fitzsimons, Lorna

        Clapham, Michael

        Flint, Caroline

        246

        Flynn, Paul

        Khabra, Piara S

        Follett, Barbara

        Kidney, David

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Fyfe, Maria

        Lawrence, Ms Jackie

        Galloway, George

        Laxton, Bob

        Gapes, Mike

        Leslie, Christopher

        Gardiner, Barry

        Levitt, Tom

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        George, Bruce (Walsall S)

        Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Linton, Martin

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        Lock, David

        Godsiff, Roger

        Love, Andrew

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        McAllion, John

        Gordon, Mrs Eileen

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Gorrie, Donald

        McCabe, Steve

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        McCafferty, Ms Chris

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Grocott, Bruce

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Grogan, John

        Macdonald, Calum

        Gunnell, John

        McDonnell, John

        Hain, Peter

        McFall, John

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        McGrady, Eddie

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Hancock, Mike

        McIsaac, Shona

        Hanson, David

        McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

        Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        McNamara, Kevin

        Healey, John

        McNulty, Tony

        Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

        MacShane, Denis

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        McWalter, Tony

        Hepburn, Stephen

        McWilliam, John

        Heppell, John

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Hesford, Stephen

        Mallaber, Judy

        Hewitt, Ms Patricia

        Mallon, Seamus

        Hill, Keith

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Hodge, Ms Margaret

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Hoey, Kate

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Home Robertson, John

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Hood, Jimmy

        Marshall-Andrews, Robert

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Martlew, Eric

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Maxton, John

        Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

        Meale, Alan

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Merron, Gillian

        Howells, Dr Kim

        Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

        Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

        Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Mitchell, Austin

        Hume, John

        Moffatt, Laura

        Hutton, John

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Illsley, Eric

        Moran, Ms Margaret

        Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

        Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

        Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

        Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Morley, Elliot

        Jamieson, David

        Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

        Jenkins, Brian

        Mudie, George

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        Mullin, Chris

        Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

        Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

        O'Hara, Eddie

        Olner, Bill

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        O'Neill, Martin

        Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Öpik, Lembit

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Organ, Mrs Diana

        Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

        Osborne, Ms Sandra

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

        Pearson, Ian

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Pendry, Tom

        247

        Perham, Ms Linda

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        Pickthall, Colin

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Pike, Peter L

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Plaskitt, James

        Stevenson, George

        Pollard, Kerry

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Pond, Chris

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Pope, Greg

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Pound, Stephen

        Stott, Roger

        Powell, Sir Raymond

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Stringer, Graham

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Prescott, Rt Hon John

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Purchase, Ken

        Taylor, Ms Dart (Stockton S)

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Rammell, Bill

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Rapson, Syd

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Raynsford, Nick

        Tipping, Paddy

        Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

        Todd, Mark

        Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

        Touhig, Don

        Trickett, Jon

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Rooker, Jeff

        Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        Rooney, Terry

        Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

        Rowlands, Ted

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Roy, Frank

        Tyler, Paul

        Ruane, Chris

        vaz, Keith

        Ruddock, Joan

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Wareing, Robert N

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        Webb, Steve

        Ryan, Ms Joan

        Welsh, Andrew

        Salter, Martin

        White, Brian

        Sanders, Adrian

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Sawford, Phil

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Sheerman, Barry

        Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

        Short, Rt Hon Clare

        Willis, Phil

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        Winnick, David

        Singh, Marsha

        Wise, Audrey

        Skinner, Dennis

        Wood, Mike

        Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

        Worthington, Tony

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Wyatt, Derek

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

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

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Soley, Clive

        Mr. Mike Hall and

        Southworth, Ms Helen

        Jane Kennedy.

        Question accordingly negatived.

      Clause 1

        SUSPENSION OF DEVOLVED GOVERNMENT
        Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13, leave out from 'Commission' to end of line 16.
        The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 13, after 'Commission' insert
        'and specifies the nature of that failure'.
        No. 3, in page 1, line 13, at end insert—
        '(iii) a failure within 4 days after Parts II and III of the 1998 Act come into force to appoint a contact person, give notice of intention to decommission arms and otherwise act in accordance with paragraph 7 of the Decommissioning Scheme made under the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997; or
        248
        (iv) a failure within 4 weeks under Parts II and III of the 1998 Act came into force to decommission arms within the meaning of paragraphs 21 to 25 of the Decommissioning Scheme made under the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997; or'.
        No. 4, in page 1, line 13, at end insert—
        '(iii) a failure to commence actual decommissioning within three days of Parts II and III of the 1998 Act coming into force; or'.
        No. 5, in page 1, line 13, at end insert—
        '(iv) a failure to proceed with actual decommissioning in a regular and proportional manner so as to achieve total decommissioning by May 2000; or'.
        No. 6, in page 1, line 16, at end insert
        'or—
        (c) there has been a failure by the Decommissioning Commission to confirm a start to the process of decommissioning as specified in paragraph 3 of the Joint Statement within 4 days of the formation of the Executive.'.
        No. 7, in page 1, line 16, at end insert
        'or—
        (d). in reporting progress in September and December 1999 in accordance with paragraph 4 of the Joint Statement the Decommissioning Commission fails to report any actual decommissioning of weapons and explosives.'.
        No. 31, in page 1, line 16, at end insert
        'or—
        (c) a paramilitary organisation and its associated political wing do not state before midnight on 22nd July 1999 that they have renounced all violence for good, will physically begin decommissioning by 15th August 1999 and will complete the decommissioning of all their arms and explosives by 1st May 2000; or
        (d) a paramilitary organisation and its associated political wing have not before midnight on 14th August 1999 decommissioned 25 per cent of their entire stock of arms and explosives; or
        (e) a paramilitary organisation and its associated political wing have not before midnight in 30th April 2000 decommissioned their entire stock of arms and explosives.'.
        No. 33, in clause 2, page 2, line 31, at end insert
        'after either—
        (a) a paramilitary organisation and its associated political wing to which a suspended member of the Assembly, Minister or junior Minister, chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee belongs states that they have renounced all violence for good, will physically begin decommissioning by 15th August 1999 and will complete the decommissioning of all their arms and explosives by 1st May 2000;
        (b) a paramilitary organisation and its associated political wing to which a suspended member of the Assembly, Minister or junior Minister, chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee belongs decommissions 25 per cent of their entire stock of arms and explosives (provided that such decommissioning occurs before midnight on 31st December 1999); or
        (c) a paramilitary organisation and its associated political wing to which a suspended member of the Assembly, Minister or junior Minister, chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee belongs decommissions their entire stock of arms and explosives.'.
        Mr. Trimble: Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are in my name, and I intend to address my remarks primarily to amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 1 would remove subsection (1)(b). The reason for tabling that amendment

        249
        was to try to get an explanation from the Government of what that subsection means, because it is misconceived, bearing in mind the fact that the Bill will take effect only after devolution has occurred. I cannot see how any party could fail to meet a commitment on devolution once it has occurred, so I should like an explanation of that.
        I want to concentrate my remarks on amendment No. 3, which relates to the question of time and timetabling. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State made copious reference to the comments of General de Chastelain of the Decommissioning Commission about the process beginning in a few days, and decommissioning starting in a few weeks. The right hon. Lady relied on that extensively.
        Winding up the Second Reading debate, the Minister of State spoke of a timetable coming from the Decommissioning Commission. He said that a breach of that timetable would constitute a breach of a commitment for the purpose of clause 1. I should be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he would spell out precisely how that result is achieved. Having examined the decommissioning scheme created by the Northern Ireland Office under the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, I assume that the only paragraph on which a timetable could be based is paragraph 12, which states:
        "The Commission may make such arrangements as it considers appropriate to facilitate the decommissioning of arms."
        I suppose that a timetable could constitute an arrangement to facilitate the decommissioning of arms, but that strikes me as being quite some distance from a commitment the breaching of which, for the purpose of clause 1, would cause the suspension of all the arrangements. Surely some distance must be travelled from that permissive arrangement to the existence of a clear commitment.
        It is worth looking carefully at what has actually been said. On 2 July, General de Chastelain said:
        "What you have just heard from the Governments, taken in conjunction with our report, makes it possible for the process of decommissioning to begin, literally, a couple of days after devolution."
        Again, I feel that some distance needs to be travelled between that statement of what is "possible" and a clear commitment whose breach would lead to suspension, and I should be grateful for some elucidation from the Government.
        The general also said—this is in the final paragraph of his remarks—
        "My own assessment is that to retain confidence in the process, actual decommissioning would have to begin within a few weeks of the start of the decommissioning process."
        He had spoken of that beginning within a few days. Paragraph 17 of the commission's report states:
        "It is the Commission's considered view that the process of decommissioning begins in connection with a paramilitary group when it
        (a) gives an unambiguous commitment that decommissioning will be completed, and
        (b) commences detailed discussions of actual modalities—amounts, types, location, timing—with the Commission."
        That is the beginning of the process. There is talk of "an unambiguous commitment"; however, we may wonder whether unambiguous commitments will be given
        250
        in terms that are satisfactory. In any event, the process is only to lead to the commencement of detailed discussions. It is only from that point that time begins to run for the general's "few weeks".
        It should be noted that the general said:
        "My own assessment is that … actual decommissioning would have to begin within a few weeks of the start of the decommissioning process."
        He was not, at that point, speaking for the commission. If the commencement of the process consists merely of discussions about modalities, are we required to believe that those discussions will be completed rapidly, that the timetable will evolve rapidly, and that it will be possible to say a few weeks later that there has been a breach of that timetable? That strikes me as an incredibly optimistic view.
        I know that the Government have prayed in aid the character of General de Chastelain on the basis of the confidence that he has retained among the various parties. He has retained that confidence, but an awful lot of weight has been piled on him, especially given his carefulness not to tie things down rigidly. The Government have given the impression that things are tied down very firmly—to a few days or a few weeks—but when we look at what the general has actually said, it is clear that there is no such precision or certainty. There is a danger that the public are being given the impression that the general has said things that he has not, in fact, said.
        9.15 pm
        The consequence of that is that the general's credibility and integrity may be put at risk by what the Government have done, have said and are doing in the legislation. Expectations are being created that may not be fulfilled. That is not fair to the general, or to the way in which he is proceeding on the matter. Therefore, it would much better for there to be a precise timetable in the legislation and a timetable that does not depend on the exercise of judgment.
        That is why, in amendment No. 3, I have spelt out two sub-paragraphs that deal with clear situations. The first is a failure within four days after the Act comes into force
        "to appoint a contact person, give notice of intention to decommission arms and otherwise act in accordance with paragraph 7 of the Decommissioning Scheme".
        Those are precise events—paragraph 7 talks about formal notice of intention to decommission and the appointment of a contact person. We can tell precisely whether or not they have happened. Four days is longer than the period mentioned to me in discussions in the period before 2 July, when we were talking about a few days, so I have given a more generous time frame than that mentioned to me by the Government in those negotiations.
        I have also provided for a failure within four weeks
        "to decommission arms within the meaning of paragraphs 21 to 25".
        Again, that is clear and precise. It does not depend on any interpretation by the general or others. Again, four weeks is clearly within the spirit of the discussions that we had before 2 July. Instead of putting an unfair weight on the

        251
        general, we are moving to something that is precise and that can lead to the sort of action that the Government say that they wish to take under clause 1.
        Dr. George Turner: May I ask the Minister for clarification about the Government's position on when the Good Friday agreement is not being kept to?
        I entirely understand the difficulty that we are in, which arises from the fact that the agreement defines the end date for the process—a process that most of us know cannot be done in 24 hours—but does not contain a start date for the process of decommissioning. Any reasonable member of the public would have expected, reasonably, that, as the Good Friday agreement contained an end date, that probably implied a start to decommissioning, which we already would have seen. I suppose that those who are more familiar with the complexities of politics in Northern Ireland than me or than the average member of the public would have realised that that was not good enough, but it seems absolutely clear that someone has to decide by what date decommissioning has to start if it is to end by the agreed date.
        The Government are saying, correctly, that, given the complexities of the situation, an independent body should decide the timetable, but surely they should at least say that the groups must act and that, if that body defines the timetable that is required to meet the clear end date for the process, those who do not observe that timetable are not in accord with the agreement. I should have thought that such a clear statement would be helpful to the debate. With regard to prisoner release, I cannot see how, if an organisation is not in accord with what an independent commission says is required to be within the terms of the Good Friday agreement, it can live up to the full terms of the ceasefire as defined in the legislation.
        In that regard, I noticed a lack of complete clarity in the words of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and detected firmer language by the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate. I should be grateful if I could be told exactly what the Government's position is on the matter, because I do not understand how people can be said to be obeying a ceasefire, or decommissioning, if they refuse actually to stick to the timetable and the terms laid down for the observation of the Good Friday agreement.
        The official Opposition have yet to convince me that they are able to behave in a bipartisan way by taking sides with one of the parties most intimately involved in the matter. I could understand someone taking sides in an argument after listening to both sides but I was horrified to hear earlier in the debate that the official Opposition have not even talked to the Social Democratic and Labour party. How can the official Opposition say that they are being helpful and bipartisan if they are being so one-sided?
        The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the matters dealt with in this group of amendments, to which we must confine ourselves.
        Dr. Turner: Thank you, Mr. Martin, but that was my final question. Although I certainly heed your advice, I should still like to have an answer to the question.
        Mr. MacKay: In the light of your ruling, Mr. Martin, I am not quite sure whether I am allowed to answer the
        252
        question, although I should like to. Before doing so, however, I commend the rest of the speech of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner). He is a reasonable man and has noted—as did the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on Second Reading—that we are now 14 months into a two-year period in which decommissioning should be completed. Any reasonable Member would note that, after 14 months, there should have been substantial decommissioning. I need hardly remind the Committee that neither one gun nor one ounce of Semtex has been handed in by any of the paramilitaries who signed up to the Belfast agreement.
        If I may trespass a little on your good will, Mr. Martin, I should like to tell the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk that the Opposition regularly have informal discussions with individual Social Democratic and Labour party Members, as we do with Unionist Members. I think that Unionist Members will confirm that we have never had a formal meeting with them, but talk to them informally—as I talk to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and other hon. Members.
        If the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) would like a formal meeting between SDLP Members and the Leader of the Opposition, we should very much welcome it. I see the hon. Member for South Down in the Chamber and think that he is nodding, so he has heard what I have said. I am very grateful to have cleared that matter up—although, in answering the question, I was clearly out of order, as the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk was in asking it.
        The official Opposition support this group of amendments—some of which we co-tabled, and others of which we tabled on our own. I should tell the Minister just why we believe that the amendments would provide vital safeguards or—to use the Prime Minister's words—"necessary failsafes".
        When, 10 days ago, the Prime Minister not unreasonably trumpeted his blueprint from Stormont's Castle buildings; when, subsequently, the Sunday before last, he wrote in The Sunday Times; and when, the Monday before last, he came to the Dispatch Box, he made it very clear to the people of Northern Ireland and to the House that, if he was going to ask Unionists and the House to agree to Ministers establishing an Executive including Sinn Fein Ministers before any decommissioning had occurred, there would have to be proper failsafes. On that basis, we said, "Yes, we can see that point, and we go along with it. The key failsafe will have to be a tight and transparent timetable."
        The Prime Minister was very helpful. He went into some detail and kept repeating the terms of the timetable, which were based on general remarks by General de Chastelain. The Prime Minister very clearly said, "Within two or three days, we shall know the answer to the question whether the IRA and Sinn Fein are serious about all that. They will have had to declare that they will decommission to the satisfaction of General de Chastelain. If they do not, they will be out of the Executive." The right hon. Gentleman went on to indicate that, within a few weeks, there would be actual decommissioning and that, in September—and again in November and December—the general and his commission would report back to say whether they were satisfied that not just the Provisional IRA but all other paramilitary groups, whether loyalist or republican, had

        253
        proceeded to decommission. If any of them had not decommissioned, they would be penalised. That was a proper safeguard.
        We were delighted and, in our private discussions with Ministers, we made it clear that we understood that, in an ideal world, it had to be up to General de Chastelain to set a timetable—not up to the Minister, and not even up to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and me by way of amendment tonight. We said that the Prime Minister should invite the general to confirm the details of the timetable that he had broadly outlined two weeks ago by way of a memorandum to the Prime Minister, which then could be published and be part of a schedule to the Bill.
        We would then have a clear, transparent, tight and realistic timetable, and all of us could decide whether it had been kept to. With the best will in the world—I have the greatest respect for the Minister of State and for General de Chastelain—we cannot just take those words on trust. The only way in which things can move forward properly is by legislation—presumably, that is why the Minister is rushing this Bill through tonight.
        It is essential that the Bill contains the copper-bottomed safeguard of a clear timetable. I can see no good reason why there should not be a timetable, bearing in mind that the timetable in the amendment is similar to—in fact, is slightly more generous than—that outlined by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised us a timetable and, frankly, he has not given us a timetable in the Bill. That is why we have been forced to table amendments to include a timetable in the Bill.
        If there is no timetable, there can be no guarantees and failsafes, and those who would sit in the Executive as Ministers will not feel able to do so with Sinn Fein because they will not be absolutely certain that, if the IRA fails to decommission, there will be a timetable that has been breached. There is no definite watertight timetable. Give us a watertight timetable, and progress will have been made. It is to be hoped that, if that happened, we would then have the devolved, wide-ranging Executive that the people of Northern Ireland have deserved for many years. I urge the Minister to agree to the amendments.
        Dr. George Turner: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he explain how he reconciles the fact that he seems to accept that it should be for an independent body to determine the timetable with the fact that the amendments for which he is asking us to vote contain a specific timetable imposed by the right hon. Gentleman in partnership with what will be seen outside this House as one of the protagonists to the argument?
        Mr. MacKay: I praised the hon. Gentleman earlier for being a reasonable man, but clearly he has not been listening carefully to my speech. I was with the hon. Gentleman in much of what he said earlier, and I am anxious to take him along with what I am saying now. We acknowledge, and would prefer, that the independent commission, under the chairmanship of General de Chastelain, should set down the timetable. However, as that timetable has not been made precise by the Prime Minister requesting a memorandum from General de Chastelain, we have no alternative but to table the amendment as a poor second-best.
        254
        I would be willing to withdraw our amendment—as, I suspect, would the right hon. Member for Upper Bann—if we had a guarantee that a memorandum from the general would be published and could be put in as a schedule to the Bill when it is considered in the other place on Thursday. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that that would be better. We have been forced to table the amendments because there is no timetable.
        9.30 pm
        I passionately disagree with the hon. Gentleman's implication that there was something wrong in me, as the shadow Secretary of State, signing amendments that were tabled by the First Minister designate of Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. If I agree with the amendments that the right hon. Gentleman is tabling, or with amendments tabled by the hon. Members for South Down or for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), I shall sign them. [Interruption.] I can see that an offer is on the way and we shall have great meetings to conspire to table amendments in the future. I am glad to see both those hon. Members in their place. In all seriousness, I think that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk will, on reflection, see that that was not a wise thing to have said. It is right that right hon. and hon. Members attach their names to amendments on the basis of their merits, rather than on the basis of who else happens to have signed them. That is not how this place works.
        I shall conclude my remarks, because under the timetable, the Committee and Report stages will have to be concluded in under two hours and I note that other significant amendments need to be debated. I hope that we will come to those in reasonable time.
        Mr. Peter Robinson: Two of the amendments in this group, amendments Nos. 4 and 5, are in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and myself. The purpose of the amendments is similar to the purpose of amendment No. 3 tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). However, a quick glance shows that the timetable in amendments Nos. 4 and 5 might be considered more stringent than that in amendment No. 3.
        The fact that the purpose of the amendments is the same draws attention once more to the expectation, based on the word of the Prime Minister, that the legislation would contain some clear time limits for the commencement of decommissioning. People expected that, because that is what the Prime Minister said would happen. He made it clear that there were two certainties, and one was that decommissioning would take place within days and that the process would be under way. The general tenor of the Prime Minister's remarks was that we would be able to flush the IRA out.
        Instead, we are now being asked to take the word of General de Chastelain, which was casually thrown out during a news conference. We have some experience of the general on the subject of decommissioning. The world did not start this morning, and that issue has been around for a long time. The general has been at the forefront of much of the controversy that has taken place.
        Before the talks process began in 1996, many Unionists—indeed all of those on this Bench—said that they could not sit down and negotiate with Sinn Fein-IRA until decommissioning had not only begun but

        255
        been completed. That was the position of all the Unionist parties and, I suspect, of some of the Tories present tonight. The general was one of a team, including Prime Minister Holkeri and George Mitchell, a senator from the United States of America. They were given the task of resolving the dilemma over decommissioning. Not surprisingly, they came up with a resolution. They determined, using their judgment, that the IRA was serious about decommissioning. We know how wrong they were, because decommissioning did not happen during the talks process.
        However, those people said, "Look, some people want decommissioning to happen before the talks begin, while others say that it should happen after the talks are over. The only proper way to move forward is for decommissioning to take place during the talks. On that basis, we should move forward." That was the basis on which the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), decided that progress could be made.
        Why, therefore, do we now want a timetable? It is because we were given exactly the same promises in 1996, and they were defaulted on in the period 1996–98. It is not possible to abide by the promises and good will of others: we want the Bill to contain a timetable. The Prime Minister recognised that it was necessary to have certainty, and that the commitments should be given legislative effect.
        Everyone who has met the general would agree that he is a very pleasant man. No one could point to any dishonesty on his part, nor would any of us question his credentials. At the same time, however, we would be fools indeed if we were to let the future of this great principle—the principle of whether the democratic process should be contaminated with those who have not given up violence and have no intention of doing so—depend on his word or expectation. It is clear that we cannot do that.
        It has to be said also that the throw-away remarks were made by the general, not by the commission. The commission did not pronounce on a timetable: it made remarks only in its report. It stated:
        "The developments of 1 July give the basis for believing that decommissioning can be completed in the time prescribed by the Good Friday Agreement."
        That was as far as it went, although it added:
        "There is still sufficient time to do that, but there is a need to get started soon."
        The commission did not specify a few days, or any particular period. Worse than that, it went on to state:
        "While the Commission is prepared to define a detailed timetable for decommissioning of arms by the main paramilitary groups, it believes this will best be achieved in discussions with the groups".
        So, it is clear that the paramilitary groups will have an input into what the timetable should be. No doubt, the general suggested to the Government the same thing that he suggested to us when we met him, which was that the timetable in many ways depended on the logistics of the problem—on where the guns are and how they must be destroyed.
        Therefore, the general regards the issue of timetabling as one that is best discussed with the paramilitary organisations—or one that can be discussed only with them. For years, the paramilitary organisations have shown a propensity to put off the date on which actual decommissioning would take place. Is it unreasonable for
        256
        Unionists to ask for specific dates to be put into the Bill, given that decommissioning was to have occurred during the couple of years of the talks process?
        Indeed, that was the requirement on which those talks were based. Even after the agreement was reached, decommissioning was to take place within a two-year period but, 14 months later, it has not even begun. In those circumstances, I do not think that Unionists can be accused of being unreasonable in asking for a starting date.
        That is all that we ask for: a starting date and a way to measure progress. That could be done on a monthly basis, for example—or on whatever basis is decided—so that a quota of arms could be destroyed in each of the months running up to May 2000.
        That is what the amendment would ensure. The Government would be hard put to say that Unionists are asking for something unreasonable, given the history of the problem and the fact that previous promises were not kept by the Prime Minister or during the 1996 talks.
        Dr. George Turner: The hon. Gentleman said that a timetable was the only thing that is wanted. My suspicion is that, when the Unionists pocket such a timetable—if they ever do—they will want something else. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a timetable is the only thing needed before he can support the initiative?
        Mr. Robinson: Not only am I not saying that now, but I did not say it before. Had the hon. Gentleman been present for the Second Reading debate, he would have heard me say that the Bill would still not be a good piece of legislation, even if all the amendments were agreed. It allows Sinn Fein-IRA into government before any guns have been handed over.
        The Prime Minister must keep his word to the people of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) mentioned several occasions on which that word was given. The Prime Minister also spoke on "Good Morning Ulster" and on the radio in Foyle. Every time, he attempted to convince the people of Northern Ireland that it would be only a matter of days before the IRA's bluff was called on decommissioning. Well, we are calling the Prime Minister's bluff now. Let us see the timetable in the Bill.
        Mr. Michael Connarty: I have not taken part in many debates on Northern Ireland, although I have talked with many of my colleagues in the Unionist parties. I see the Bill as an opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to have a continuing relationship with the United Kingdom, within the Union.
        I am concerned about the amendment, which I see as precipitate. The dictionary definition of the word "precipitate" is to force out deliberately, and that is what the amendment would do. Instead of moving us steadily towards including within the agreement more people committed to the Assembly and the resolution of the problem within the United Kingdom, the amendment would force some people out.
        The IRA and Sinn Fein are often named together, but Sinn Fein has clearly said that it is against the use of arms. It wants decommissioning, but it cannot make the IRA do it. To me and to people outside the Chamber, it seems logical that, if Sinn Fein is brought into the Assembly to

        257
        participate in ministerial positions, the IRA will become more and more marginalised. We want to continue the period of peace that has existed in spite of splintering among, and intimidation and terror by, paramilitaries from both sides within their own communities, matters that I have raised in the House on behalf of Families Against Intimidation and Terror.
        The people of Northern Ireland, on all sides of the community, want steady progress towards conflict resolution. They do not want precipitate moves that force some people out of the agreement and out of the process. That would break the link between the Good Friday agreement and the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.
        Mr. Robert McCartney: If the amendment is precipitate, it is precipitation at the end of a very long process. Decommissioning, and the gradual move away from it, has been an issue for two or three years now. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the amendment is not so much a precipitate move as the end point of a slow and long-drawn-out process?
        Mr. Connarty: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows how much I respect his views and his intellect, but he is wrong to talk about having reached the end of a process after a few years. Along with a Unionist councillor, I visited a museum in the Shankill where I saw photographs of the assembling of Carson' s volunteers to secure the place of Northern Ireland within the Union. The process did not even start there. It has gone on at least throughout this century. To lay down a timetable specifying four days or four weeks is to insult the memory of people from this and previous centuries who saw the process continuing for many years.
        We seem to ask only how people in Northern Ireland can move from conflict and violence to peace. Do Unionist Members think that Yasser Arafat trusts the Israeli Government just because there has been an election? Do they think that the Israeli Government trust the Palestine Liberation Organisation to work through a peace in the occupied territories in independent Palestine? They do not. Do Unionist Members believe that the PLO has no say over what happens in Hamas or Hezbollah? Of course not. But the process moves steadily forward because no one is erecting barriers or saying that, when a certain point is reached, it is, as the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) put it, the end point. If it is the end, it is the end of peace. If it is the end of the peaceful process, then it is the end of the credibility of the Unionist movement in the mainland of the United Kingdom and that is the great danger.
        9.45 pm
        Mr. Field: I did not vote with the Government on the new clause because I thought that our position was wrong and that the agreement was not broken by that clause. I disagree with this amendment because it breaks the agreement.
        Under the agreement, an independent commission was set up. If we try to interfere with that, we are in a new ball game. The commission must have heard the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State,
        258
        in his excellent speech in summing up, saying that they expect movement on decommissioning within days and the first tranche of decommissioning within weeks. I do not think that, given the structure—
        The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Interventions must be brief.
        Mr. Connarty: I understand what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was trying to say. He is agreeing that a precipitate motion would prevent progress because it would impose barriers to it.
        I can understand the frustration of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party and I commend him for the hard work that he has done, along with the Prime Minister and others. I believe that those in his party who want barriers want the process to be derailed and, if they want that, they are not in the spirit of what the British people want—that includes the people of the United Kingdom. We want conflict resolution which enables people to move back and back—to soften the people concerned and draw them in. If the Assembly includes Sinn Fein people working alongside Unionists in senior positions, it undermines the IRA to the point where it can never use those guns and, therefore, its only way forward is to go with decommissioning.
        The Unionists are giving those people a way out, if they carry the amendment.
        Rev. Martin Smyth rose—
        Mr. Connarty: I will not take an intervention now as I am sure that I will hear the hon. Gentleman's views in his speech.
        Mr. Tom King: I asked the Prime Minister, when he made his statement, whether we could have clarification of the details of the failsafe mechanism. I raised the same matter in an intervention on the Secretary of State. I asked for the maximum clarification from the Government before we ended these proceedings.
        Further to a point that has just been discussed, this is not a precipitate issue in any sense. On the day of the Downing street declaration—12 December 1993—was a meeting of the British-Irish parliamentary body. We greeted with enthusiasm the announcement of the declaration by Albert Reynolds and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) in Downing street. That afternoon, the parliamentary body debated that important development, which was welcomed by all sides.
        At that time, I raised what I thought was the most difficult issue that would have to be faced—that of decommissioning. Obviously it would have to be faced. That was generally agreed on the British side, although that belief was greeted by Irish Members of the Dail as a deliberate British attempt to wreck the whole proceedings. It then became clear to me that it would be a most difficult issue to face.
        In the end, that issue must be faced. Responsible Members of the Dail know that, even if they achieve a united Ireland, the last thing that they would want or would tolerate are private armies with substantial quantities of weapons available to dissident groups—ould threaten the very existence of that united Ireland. No parliamentary democracy could tolerate the existence of such weapons.

        259
        Another reason why it is in the interests of everyone who is seeking to move forward in Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland for weapons to be removed is that there is no guarantee, as we debate this issue, that those whom we regard as the leaders of Sinn Fein-IRA will continue to maintain control of those stocks of weapons.
        We have moved far enough through the process to be aware of the dissident groups that exist already—whether Continuity, Real, Revenge or whatever new title has emerged for the splinter groups that may or may not be forming. We know of the allegation that one of those who joined the Real or Continuity IRA was the quartermaster of the IRA. We cannot keep on fudging—whether in the interests of Unionist, nationalist or republican democratic parties which aspire legitimately towards a united Ireland.
        Against that background, I have always considered the issue to be important—especially the last step. That comes as no surprise to any of us who have lived through many years of longing for an outcome of peace and for the resolution of this terrible period of conflict and sadness—a small part of my life was spent at the centre of those problems. No one, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, was under any illusion that the last moment might be the most difficult one. It was often said that it would have to be imposed and that there would not be absolute agreement. I thought that, at least if that last step had to be imposed, it would be done fairly and with justice to either side.
        However, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the measure is an imposition and we shall be trusting people whom we do not trust at present; we are asking democrats to go that extra mile to accommodate men who have been associated with violence, but who claim that they are becoming democrats. Under the Bill, we are preparing to trust them. If we do that, we must be absolutely sure that the basis for that trust is the fairest that we can achieve.
        I am grateful to the Minister and his colleagues for ensuring that those of us who take a close interest in these matters received a copy of the Bill—I received one last night. I heard the Prime Minister speak of his determination that there would be a failsafe mechanism; that people would be able to see clearly how the matter would be undertaken; and that there would be no uncertainty. There would be no risk because, if people embarked on the process, the failsafe mechanism would protect them. However, I turned page after page of the Bill and, when I came to the end, I realised that it contained no structure for a failsafe mechanism. I genuinely do not understand that. Ten days ago, the Prime Minister announced what the process would be. General de Chastelain and his colleagues have been working for about two years, and I fail to understand why the measure does not contain the essential ingredient for establishing the failsafe mechanism.
        There is a fund of good will in this House towards Governments dealing with Northern Ireland issues—indeed, I have drawn on it myself. I wholly accept that, in certain circumstances, Governments present legislation and ask for the co-operation of the House. In the peculiarly difficult and challenging circumstances of Northern Ireland, Governments are entitled to expect the co-operation of the House to an extent that would never be given to normal legislation of any other kind. The House of Commons has tended to show a sense of responsibility and a bipartisan approach on such
        260
        occasions. The Government are drawing on that well of bipartisan good will tonight to achieve their objective and to help them to find a solution.
        In those circumstances, the House is entitled to expect the fullest information to make that judgment. In all seriousness, I have to say that the Government will be abusing that good will and the relationship that prevails in the House if the Minister is not able to state clearly how the system is going to work. I continue to believe what I said to the Prime Minister last week when he made his statement. I cannot conceive what tripwire there will be—we have not been shown one, and the House does not know what it is—short of the final deadline of May 2000, when everything is supposed to be complete.
        I strongly agree with a comment made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I know General de Chastelain: I knew him well at NATO, during my time as Secretary of State for Defence. He is a fine and honourable man. A man in his position should not be abused or taken advantage of. He has been asked to undertake a job which I hardly imagine he sought and which is as challenging a job as can be found—I suppose its only equal is to advise on the reform of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Anyone who knows Northern Ireland knows that such challenges have to be met, but they are not the easiest of undertakings. General de Chastelain has undertaken that job.
        The Minister will know that I am not known for taking one side or the other—I have been chased around Belfast city hall by a loyalist waving a Union Jack and accusing me of betraying the Union. I genuinely tried to ensure that, in finding a solution to the problems, we recognised the legitimate interests of both sides, including those of the Irish Government. I faced those problems during negotiations on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which established the recognition of the legitimate interest of the Irish Government in the affairs of Northern Ireland. It also established the principle of consent, which the Government have paraded today as a key achievement and which Unionists should welcome and accept.
        It is against that background of having faced the challenges and having sought to respect the legitimate concerns of both sides that I make my comments tonight. I have to say that a great weight is placed on General de Chastelain, who has to take the responsibility for deciding, at some moment, that he will effectively torpedo the Good Friday agreement—that he has to decide that the offence is so great that he has to stop the whole process that is, as the Government describe it, the best hope for peace in our lifetime. What a responsibility to lay on him. In such circumstances, he needs some sort of bolster: the Government owe it to General de Chastelain to put in the Bill some sort of structure that he can stand by, defend and confirm.
        If it is left entirely to General de Chastelain to make up the rules and then to decide whether they have been implemented or not, he will not do it. That would be an impossible task and an unreasonable responsibility to lay on him. Knowing the way in which the House and the Government work, I suspect that the Minister will not have the authority to accept the amendment, although I dearly wish that he did.
        I do not claim that the amendment is the perfect solution, but I hope that, before the Bill returns from the other place, the Government will have read what I

        261
        have said. I hope that the Minister of State will draw my words to the attention of both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, and that they will acknowledge that I speak with experience of my time in Northern Ireland.
        I pray that something for which we have fought and worked for many years is not destroyed by one last fault. The Government must find a way to insert provisions that will give that necessary measure of confidence and set out a structure in which people can have confidence. Only then will the process have some real chance of working.
        10 pm
        Dr. Palmer: Our difficulty in this debate is that the end to the conflict in Northern Ireland ultimately depends not so much on the individual terms of the Good Friday agreement or any additional terms that we may seek to impose, but on a development of trust between the parties.
        I shall illustrate my point with the example given by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). If he, as a Conservative Member, were found to have in his home a weapon, perhaps a hunting rifle, I, as a Labour Member, would not feel threatened by him because it would never occur to me that he would use his weapon in a violent fashion. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman were in the habit of issuing violent threats and was known to support terrorist activity, I would feel a sense of deep unease when I met him even if I did not know that he had a weapon at home or whether he had voluntarily given up such a weapon, and I would be reluctant to work with him in a common Government. That is the basic problem faced by the Ulster Unionists, as well as by Sinn Fein and every other party in Northern Ireland.
        The difficulty that we face with the amendments is the same as that with the previous group of amendments—they seek to home in on, and to harden, a specific aspect of the agreement that is known to cause difficulty to a particular section of those involved in the process. That is why the amendments appear to be partisan and unhelpful.
        If General de Chastelain, considering the overall picture, judges that we are making genuine progress towards a civil society in Northern Ireland from which the threat of violence is banned, that will be a crucial step forward. It would be wrong if an amendment that we passed tonight forced the disruption of that process and the end of the Good Friday agreement. Conversely, if General de Chastelain detects that, on one side or another, there is no genuine commitment to the agreement and to peace, and that one party is not serious about the process, that will be a serious matter that will effectively end the process, regardless of whether a rifle or a pound of Semtex has been given up.
        Decommissioning is important, as we have all stressed several times, but it is one of a wide range of factors. I believe that, if we had nailed down the decommissioning aspect of the agreement, the critics of the agreement, whom we greet regularly on the Opposition Benches, would be raising other aspects of it because of their basic distrust of the other side, for reasons that we can understand, and their reluctance to reach an agreement with a commitment to a peaceful settlement. The amendment is understandable, but it is unhelpful
        262
        because it seeks to solidify a particular aspect of the agreement at the expense of the more fundamental question of whether we can trust the parties.
        Mr. Öpik: I fully agree with the need for a timetable for decommissioning, but having heard how the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) first savaged and then praised the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner), I hesitate before I draw the Tory shilling.
        Everybody agrees that we need a timetable. On Second Reading, the issue hinged on whether the Government or an independent body should set the timetable. Both could work, but the Government are suggesting that an independent body, in the form of General de Chastelain's commission, should set the timetable, and I am inclined to agree, for one crucial reason. General de Chastelain has built up enormous credibility with both sides, and individuals and parties have sought to accept him as an effective, independent arbiter. Given the tensions that will unquestionably arise when the timetable is set, it is reasonable to allow General de Chastelain's independent commission to choose the route and the wayposts.
        I am therefore a little concerned that the amendments, if agreed, would demand us to do the job. As I said on Second Reading, much of this is about not principle but judgment. Therefore, there is space for people to differ. I still think that de Chastelain is probably in a very strong position to make this happen.
        Amendment No. 5 summarises what we would all like: a process that leads to May 2000 as the point of complete decommissioning. If right hon. and hon. Members are looking for a copper-bottomed assurance, I say once again that that deadline is it. We—as well as, indeed, the failsafe mechanism—are attempting to ensure that we end up with the desired result in May 2000.
        Putting that aside, I commend to the Government amendment No. 2, which I tabled. This is a matter of process. Clause 1 is so drafted that it requires the Decommissioning Commission to report a failure but not to specify its exact nature. Amendment No. 2 would put that right. Suggesting that may sound a little pedantic, but given the absolute necessity for us to be extremely clear at every point in our deliberations and, given the danger of any latitude in the Bill's terminology, I ask the Government to take seriously those five or six words, which would tidy up exactly what the Decommissioning Commission is expected to report.
        Mr. Wilshire: I was desperately keen to make a speech on Second Reading about the prostitution of democracy by allowing armed terrorists into government, but sadly, I was not called. I suspect that, if I tried to make such a speech now, I would promptly be ruled out of order. I shall therefore resist that temptation and speak instead to amendments Nos. 31 and 33, which stand in my name.
        Amendment No. 31 would achieve what other people have tried to achieve: confirm a timetable specifying when things must happen. Amendment No. 33 would specify what must happen before any sanctions that are imposed can be lifted.
        In fairness, I should remind the Committee that I voted against both the Good Friday agreement and Second Reading. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about where I am coming from. None the less, I accept the democratic will of the majority, which is of course

        263
        more than one can say about Sinn Fein-IRA. The key reason for being against both the Good Friday agreement and this Bill is that they duck the issue of decommissioning. The Good Friday agreement fudged the question in the hope that it would go away—but it has not—and the Bill tries to do exactly the same.
        I have listened intently throughout these debates to what others have said, and note that the Bill is supposed to provide a failsafe guarantee that decommissioning will occur. But, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that the Government do not control the timetable—I believe that those were her words. I also listened carefully to the explanation that General de Chastelain controls the timetable. Then I heard it explained that General de Chastelain has not specified a timetable. Rather than going down the route of what exactly he did say, I shall leave it to the words of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who spelled out in detail exactly General de Chastelain's real position.
        In the end, all that I have to go on are the words of the Prime Minister. If I understand him correctly, he has told us several times that, if we pass this Bill, there will be a commitment to disarm within days and a start to proper decommissioning within weeks, to be completed by May 2000.
        For the purpose of the debate, I am prepared to take the Prime Minister at his word. That is why I have tabled amendment No. 31. The Prime Minister said that there will be a commitment within days, and I take days to mean less than a week. If the agreement comes into effect on the 15th, I see no reason why we should not specify 22 July, which is days away, not a week, for a commitment. If that is what we are being offered, surely we can write it down.
        We were told that there will be a real start within weeks. To me, weeks mean less than a month. If there is to be a start within weeks, that means that it must be before 15 August, which is why I put that date in my amendment. If the Prime Minister is telling us the truth, there is no harm in accepting the amendment.
        We are told also—it is in the Good Friday agreement—that the completion of decommissioning will be by May 2000. It therefore seems simple to me to specify 30 April. That is how I arrived at that date.
        Tokenism will not do.
        Mr. Mallon: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the date specified in the agreement is 22 May 2000.
        Mr. Wilshire: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and he is right to correct me. If I could table an amendment to an amendment, I would willingly accommodate him. I hope that he accepts that the principle applies. Instead of 30 April—
        Mr. Mallon: I made the point because the hon. Gentleman so clearly stated what days and weeks mean to him. The one date that we could be accurate about is the one specified in the agreement, which the hon. Gentleman got wrong.
        Mr. Wilshire: We are old sparring partners and I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and take it on the chin. I shall not pursue the matter, but I shall pursue the issue of tokenism.
        264
        It is crucial that we do not say that a start equals one bullet. It seemed logical to me to specify 25 per cent. of all arms by 15 August, but it could be another figure. If the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) wanted to challenge me on that, I would allow him to do so.
        Amendment No. 33 deals with what must happen before any breach of the conditions can be rectified. Clause 2 merely provides that the Secretary of State can specify when the process comes to an end. That is not good enough. There must be clear indications of what has to happen before the Secretary of State can use the powers set out in the Bill. The date in the amendment is wrong, so if the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh wants another go, I shall willingly give way to him.
        We have been told today, and before, that we are within an ace of success and that there is only one more concession to make, just one more leap in the dark, and we shall be there. I do not like taking risks of this sort. I do not like leaps in the dark. That being so, my amendments are designed to provide a little more illumination.
        Although even contemplating the possibility of allowing armed terrorists into government sticks in my craw because it undermines everything in which I believe, if the House of Commons is determined to go down that track, I believe that we must be clear about what it is that we mean, and clear about the timetable. If the Government genuinely want a failsafe guarantee to everyone in this place, they will specify a timetable. If they will not do that, I can conclude only that, once agam, the Government are ducking and weaving and trying to make more concessions to terror.
        10.15 pm
        Mr. Paul Murphy: The Government want decommissioning and a timetable. The best way to achieve both is to do what is set out in the Bill. The essence of the argument concerns the role of the independent commission. From the beginning of the process, and certainly from the time that the Good Friday agreement was concluded and put to the people of Northern Ireland, who in a referendum agreed on decommissioning just as they agreed on the other parts, the intention was that decommissioning should be in the hands of an independent commission.
        We all know that the authority, integrity and wisdom of General de Chastelain and his colleagues are not in question. They have spent many months considering in enormous detail how they can deal with the problem of decommissioning—the modalities and so on.
        Trust and confidence have been mentioned by many speakers in this short debate. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said that the last hurdle was decommissioning. I think that the last hurdle is trust, although decommissioning is part of it. The only way in which we will ensure that the terms of the agreement are implemented is by putting in place a genuinely independent commission.
        That Independent Commission on Decommissioning must set the parameters and specify how decommissioning is to be carried out. Why do we say that? There are two reasons. One is that that is set out in the agreement. The other is that all parties to the agreement wanted the commission to be independent

        265
        because they would not trust us as a Government, any more than loyalists would trust the Irish Government as a Government. Our only hope of success in decommissioning is to ensure that the commission is genuinely independent of Government, although it reports to Governments, and that it sets the parameters.
        Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is rightly laying great stress on the role of the commission. Can he tell the House, now or later, whether the decisions of the commission are subject to judicial review? In other words, are the decisions of the commission final or are they open to review in the courts, with all the consequences that might follow?
        Mr. Murphy: I shall return to the matter, but my initial reaction—I speak to a lawyer who is much more qualified than I am in these matters—is that the commission's decisions are subject to review.
        The agreement, as has often been said, is not a legal document. It is a political document. People voted for it because they thought that an agreement would bring them peace and stability. The question is how we can establish a commission that will attract the trust and confidence of those who must decommission, and those who want decommissioning to take place.
        Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is making the case that the commission is independent. The case has been made on previous occasions that the Government do not seek to influence the commission's judgments. That leaves me with a concern. Do the Government have any view on the timetable, or are they neutered on this fundamental issue? If they cannot lean on, or advise, or seek to persuade, the commission, and the decision is purely for the commission, is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that, instead of supporting a timetable, as the Opposition do, he is moving even further—
        The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Too long.
        Mr. Murphy: I shall deal with the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, because it is important to state where the Government stand. Let me return to the independence of the commission, and how that was reflected in the negotiations two or three weeks ago. Schedule 2 is entitled "Text of the Joint Statement". Paragraph 3 refers to the devolution order, and paragraph 4, which refers to the Independent Commission on Decommissioning, says that
        "the Commission will have urgent discussions with the groups' points of contact. The Commission will specify that actual decommissioning is to start within a specified time. They will report progress in September and December 1999 and May 2000."
        Perhaps more significant is the commission's report, which was presented during the week of negotiations. Paragraph 21 says:
        "While the Commission is prepared to define a detailed timetable for decommissioning of arms by the main paramilitary groups, it believes this will best be achieved in discussions with the groups' various points of contact. Once such a timetable has been
        266
        worked out, paramilitary groups will be expected to adhere to it to ensure completion by 22 May 2000, and the Commission will report on progress to the two Governments."
        Mr. Donaldson: Is the Minister saying that the timetable will be determined by the Independent Commission on Decommissioning, which will negotiate that timetable with the terrorist organisations?
        Mr. Murphy: I am saying that the commission itself has worked out how best it can achieve its ends. It is saying to us that the best way to achieve those ends is finding the points of contact, ensuring that they are in place and discussing with them how best to proceed. I know that the hon. Gentleman is going to say, "Ah, they will do their best to prolong all this to ensure that it does not come within any specified time." All of us in the Chamber would agree that there has to be speed in this matter. The general himself said in his press statement that the process should begin within days—the person concerned should be identified and the modalities construed—and, after that, the first actual decommissioning should take place within weeks. Within that, he also specified September, December and May as dates for reporting progress.
        The Bill also ensures that the failsafe mechanism will come into operation at any point in between should the commission report that commitments are not being fulfilled. It seems to me that that absolutely ensures that decommissioning is achievable, and properly achievable, within the time limit. That is what General de Chastelain is saying, but it is important to understand that he also said that decommissioning could not be achieved in its entirety by May 2000 unless a start was made now. That is in the report; it clearly refers to the timing, scheduling and timetabling of decommissioning, for which he is responsible.
        Mr. Robert McCartney rose—
        Mr. Murphy: Before I allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to intervene, I must say to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) that he is a much better lawyer than I am. My understanding now is that the commission is immune from judicial review. [Interruption.]
        The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There are too many conversations going on and the Minister should be heard.
        Mr. Murphy: I give way to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney).
        Mr. McCartney: Paragraph 21 of the commission's report indeed says:
        "The Commission believes that the detailed modalities, the timetable, and the commencement of actual decommissioning should be agreed with the paramilitary groups as soon as possible."
        The Minister has said that that might take place within days, but will the failure of the commission to agree those matters within days constitute a breach of the agreement?
        Mr. Murphy: The chairman of the commission will have to report to the Government and the Government will surely have to ensure that the failsafe mechanism operates if seriousness is not present and the chairman says, "Look, we are not getting anywhere and nothing is happening." One of the purposes of this process is to test people's seriousness about decommissioning and how it should occur.
        Mr. Tom King: The right hon. Gentleman refers to testing the seriousness of those involved. In General de Chastelain's report, which accompanied the recent statement by the Prime Minister, the commission asked 10 political parties to confirm their views. It asked:
        "Is the paramilitary group willing to give the Commission a firm basis for expecting that decommissioning will take place within the timescale set forth in the Good Friday Agreement?"
        The commission said that there were no responses to that question from either the IRA or the UDA. That is what concerns us.
        The Secretary of State did not hear my earlier contribution. I believe that General de Chastelain is entitled to get reinforcement from the House, which should provide a proper framework that does not put the whole responsibility on him, because that is an unreasonable weight to bear. The House should give him a time scale that enables him to assert the independence of his commission and to establish fair rules within a framework that the House has agreed.
        Mr. Murphy: In his report, the general makes it clear how best he will be able to achieve decommissioning. He says that the best way is to define a timetable for the main paramilitary groups. The commission
        "believes this will best be achieved in discussions with the groups' various points of contact."
        He is not going to be dictated to by those groups. He consults and discusses matters with them, but he and his two colleagues will, for their own integrity if nothing else, report to the Government on precisely how far the groups have gone. This legislation will come in at that stage.
        We must understand that, unless we respect that integrity and independence, we will not achieve decommissioning. Only through an independent commission will it be possible.
        Mr. Thompson: The right hon. Gentleman has made much of the independence of the commission. The commission has already said that the first stage could take place in days, which is less than a week, and the second stage could take place in weeks, which is less than a month. If we were to put those dates on the statute, surely that would not impinge on the commission's independence.
        Mr. Murphy: I do not know why we think that we can do it better than General de Chastelain. The agreement explained why we must have an independent body to deal with the issue. That independent body has already produced its report. Its chairman has said that decommissioning could start in days. We have also provided a failsafe mechanism.
        The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) made a number of detailed points to which I should reply.
        268
        He is right to say that subsection (1) bites after devolution. That is when the Secretary of State can act. Subsection (6) makes it clear that the commitments arise from the agreement or the joint statement.
        The right hon. Gentleman also drew the House's attention to the decommissioning scheme under the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, which lays down how the process is to proceed. Paragraph 7 of the scheme says that it starts when someone approaches the commission on behalf of a paramilitary organisation and convinces it of the organisation' s intention to decommission.
        Under paragraph 8, that person acts in accordance with the scheme only if he complies with all its requirements. That links in with sub-paragraphs (1)(a)(i) and (ii). Once an organisation has made a commitment to decommission, if it breaches that commitment, it is caught under (1)(a)(i) or (1)(a)(ii) if at any time it does not take any step specified by the commission, such as one required under a scheme.
        The right hon. Gentleman also referred to paragraph 12 of the decommissioning scheme. The commission's ability to lay down a timetable does depends not just on that paragraph, but on the general duty to facilitate decommissioning. In the report, the commission made it clear that it is prepared to lay down such a timetable.
        We must leave it to the independence of the commission and the integrity of its chairman. When these negotiations took place, all the people concerned realised that decommissioning had to be carried out in a specified time. We all know that. Let us ensure that that happens.
        10.30 pm
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The Committee divided: Ayes 145, Noes 352.

        Division No. 236]

        [10.30 pm

        AYES

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Gran, James

        Amess, David

        Curry, Rt Hon David

        Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

        Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

        Baldry, Tony

        Duncan, Alan

        Beggs, Roy

        Duncan Smith, Iain

        Bercow, John

        Evans, Nigel

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Faber, David

        Blunt, Crispin

        Fabricant, Michael

        Body, Sir Richard

        Flight, Howard

        Boswell, Tim

        Forsythe, Clifford

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Brazier, Julian

        Fox, Dr Liam

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Fraser, Christopher

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Gale, Roger

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        Garnier, Edward

        Butterfill, John

        Gibb, Nick

        Chapman, Sir Sydney

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        (Chipping Barnet)

        Gray, James

        Chope, Christopher

        Green, Damian

        Clappison, James

        Greenway, John

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

        Grieve, Dominic

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Gummer, Rt Hon John

        Hague, Rt Hon William

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

        Collins, Tim

        Hammond, Philip

        Colvin, Michael

        Hawkins, Nick

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

        269

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

        Ross, William (E Lond'y)

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Ruffley, David

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        St Aubyn, Nick

        Hunter, Andrew

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Shepherd, Richard

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Johnson Smith,

        Soames, Nicholas

        Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Spelman, Mrs Caroline

        Key, Robert

        Spicer, Sir Michael

        King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

        Spring, Richard

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Lansley, Andrew

        Steen, Anthony

        Leigh, Edward

        Streeter, Gary

        Letwin, Oliver

        Swayne, Desmond

        Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

        Syms, Robert

        Lidington, David

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

        Loughton, Tim

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Luff, Peter

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Thompson, William

        McCartney, Robert (N Down)

        Townend, John

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Tredinnick, David

        MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

        Trend, Michael

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Trimble, Rt Hon David

        Madel, Sir David

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Malins, Humfrey

        Viggers, Peter

        Mates, Michael

        Walter, Robert

        Maude, Rt Hon Francis

        Wardle, Charles

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

        Waterson, Nigel

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Wells, Bowen

        Moss, Malcolm

        Whitney, Sir Raymond

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Whittingdale, John

        Ottaway, Richard

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        Page, Richard

        Wilkinson, John

        Paice, James

        Willetts, David

        Paisley, Rev Ian

        Wilshire, David

        Pickles, Eric

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Prior, David

        Woodward, Shaun

        Randall, John

        Yeo, Tim

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Robathan, Andrew

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

        Mr. Stephen Day.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Blunkett, Rt Hon David

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

        Boateng, Paul

        Ainger, Nick

        Bradley, Keith (Withington)

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Alexander, Douglas

        Brake, Tom

        Allan, Richard

        Breed, Colin

        Allen, Graham

        Brinton, Mrs Helen

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Ashton, Joe

        Browne, Desmond

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Burden, Richard

        Austin, John

        Burnett, John

        Banks, Tony

        Butler, Mrs Christine

        Barnes, Harry

        Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

        Barron, Kevin

        Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

        Battle, John

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Beard, Nigel

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

        Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Bell, Martin (Tatton)

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

        Cann, Jamie

        Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

        Caplin, Ivor

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Casale, Roger

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Caton, Martin

        Berry, Roger

        Cawsey, Ian

        Best, Harold

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Betts, Clive

        Chaytor, David

        Blackman, Liz

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        270

        Clapham, Michael

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Grogan, John

        Clark, Dr Lynda

        Gunnell, John

        (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Hain, Peter

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Clelland, David

        Hancock, Mike

        Clwyd, Ann

        Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

        Coaker, Vernon

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Healey, John

        Cohen, Harry

        Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

        Coleman, Iain

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Colman, Tony

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Connarty, Michael

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Heppell, John

        Corbett, Robin

        Hesford, Stephen

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Hewitt, Ms Patricia

        Corston, Ms Jean

        Hodge, Ms Margaret

        Cousins, Jim

        Hoey, Kate

        Cox, Tom

        Home Robertson, John

        Cranston, Ross

        Hood, Jimmy

        Crausby, David

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

        Cummings, John

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Howells, Dr Kim

        Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Hume, John

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Hutton, John

        Darvill, Keith

        Illsley, Eric

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

        Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Dawson, Hilton

        Jamieson, David

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Jenkins, Brian

        Dismore, Andrew

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        Dobbin, Jim

        Johnson, Miss Melanie

        Donohoe, Brian H

        (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Doran, Frank

        Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

        Dowd, Jim

        Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Jones, Ms Jenny

        Edwards, Huw

        (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Efford, Clive

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Ennis, Jeff

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Etherington, Bill

        Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

        Field, Rt Hon Frank

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Fisher, Mark

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Fitzsimons, Lorna

        Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

        Flint, Caroline

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Flynn, Paul

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

        Follett, Barbara

        Khabra, Piara S

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Kidney, David

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Foulkes, George

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Fyfe, Maria

        Lawrence, Ms Jackie

        Galloway, George

        Laxton, Bob

        Gapes, Mike

        Leslie, Christopher

        Gardiner, Barry

        Levitt, Tom

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        George, Bruce (Walsall S)

        Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Linton, Martin

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        Lock, David

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        Love, Andrew

        Godsiff, Roger

        McAllion, John

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Gordon, Mrs Eileen

        McCabe, Steve

        Gorrie, Donald

        McCafferty, Ms Chris

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        (Makerfield)

        271

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Raynsford, Nick

        Macdonald, Calum

        Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

        McDonnell, John

        Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

        McFall, John

        Robertson, Rt Hon George

        McGrady, Eddie

        (Hamilton S)

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        McIsaac, Shona

        Rooker, Jeff

        McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

        Rooney, Terry

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Rowlands, Ted

        McNamara, Kevin

        Roy, Frank

        McNulty, Tony

        Ruane, Chris

        Ruddock, Joan

        MacShane, Denis

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        McWalter, Tony

        Ryan, Ms Joan

        McWilliam, John

        Salter, Martin

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Sanders, Adrian

        Mallaber, Judy

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        Mallon, Seamus

        Sawford, Phil

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Sheerman, Barry

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Short, Rt Hon Clare

        Marshall-Andrews, Robert

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        Martlew, Eric

        Singh, Marsha

        Maxton, John

        Skinner, Dennis

        Meale, Alan

        Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

        Merron, Gillian

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

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

        Mitchell, Austin

        Soley, Clive

        Moffatt, Laura

        Southworth, Ms Helen

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        Moran, Ms Margaret

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

        Stevenson, George

        Morley, Elliot

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Mudie, George

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Mullin, Chris

        Stott, Roger

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        Stringer, Graham

        Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        (Dewsbury)

        O'Hara, Eddie

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Olner, Bill

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        O'Neill, Martin

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Öpik, Lembit

        Tipping, Paddy

        Organ, Mrs Diana

        Todd, Mark

        Osborne, Ms Sandra

        Touhig, Don

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Trickett, Jon

        Pearson, Ian

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Pendry, Tom

        Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        Perham, Ms Linda

        Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

        Pickthall, Colin

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Pike, Peter L

        Tyler, Paul

        Plaskitt, James

        Vaz, Keith

        Pollard, Kerry

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Pond, Chris

        Wareing, Robert N

        Pope, Greg

        Watts, David

        Pound, Stephen

        Webb, Steve

        Powell, Sir Raymond

        Welsh, Andrew

        White, Brian

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Prescott, Rt Hon John

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Primarolo, Dawn

        (Swansea W)

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

        Purchase, Ken

        Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Willis, Phil

        Rammell, Bill

        Winnick, David

        Rapson, Syd

        Wise, Audrey

        272

        Wood, Mike

        Wyatt, Derek

        Worthington, Tony

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Mr. David Hanson and

        Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

        Mr. Keith Hill.

        Question accordingly negatived.
        Mr. MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 19, leave out from 'Assembly' to end of line 21.
        The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 37, in page 1, line 19, leave out
        ', except as provided by section 3,'.
        Amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 23, after second `Minister' insert
        'under sections 18 and 19 of the 1998 Act other than in accordance with section 3;'.
        Amendment No. 14, in page 2, leave out lines 8 to 10.
        Amendment No. 15, in page 2, line 8, after `practicable' insert
        'but no later than 7 days'.
        Amendment No. 16, in page 2, line 9, leave out from `shall' to end of line 10 and insert
        'serve notice on the Presiding Officer requiring him to move a motion for resolution under section 30(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.'.
        Amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 9, leave out 'take steps to'.
        Amendment No. 18, in page 2, line 10, at end insert
        'within four weeks of a suspension order being made.'.
        Amendment No. 38, in clause 2, page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (2).
        Amendment No. 19, in, page 2, line 33, leave out from `account' to end of line 34 and insert
        'the proceedings of the Assembly under section 3;'.
        Amendment No. 20, in clause 3, page 3, line 8, leave out from 'call' to end of line 9 and insert
        'a meeting of the Assembly within 7 days of the making of the suspension order and such further meetings as he considers appropriate.'.
        Amendment No. 21, in page 3, leave out lines 10 to 19 and insert—
        '(2). Unless the Assembly resolves otherwise on a cross-community basis, a party in respect of which the Decommissioning Commission has reported under section 1 shall be disregarded for the purposes of subsections (4) to (6) of section 4 as if that party had been the subject of a resolution of the Assembly under section 30(2) of the 1998 Act.'.
        Amendment No. 22, in page 3, line 11, leave out from `debate' to end of line 15 and insert
        'a motion for resolution under section 30(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
        (2A) In the event of a resolution under section 30(2) the Secretary of State shall implement the requirements under section 18(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.'.
        Amendment No. 34, in page 3, line 11, leave out 'but not' and insert 'and, if it chooses,'.
        Amendment No. 23, in page 3, line 15, at end insert—
        '(3) The review shall take no longer than three months.'.

        273
        Amendment No. 24, in page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
        '(3) Following the implementation of section 18(2) the second meeting shall be held within 7 days and at that meeting the Assembly shall debate any action proposed to be taken in consequence of that implementation.'.
        Amendment No. 35, in page 3, line 18, after 'and' insert `if it chooses'.
        Clause 3 stand part.
        Amendment No. 28, in schedule 1, page 8, line 11, at end insert—
        '4A.—(1) During a suspension period the Secretary of State may by notice served on the Presiding Officer authorise the Assembly to meet at such times and to conduct such business as may be specified in the notice.
        (2) For the purposes of sub—paragraph (1) the Assembly Standing Orders shall have effect subject to such modifications as may be specified in the notice'.
        New clause 3—Review process—
        'Within seven days of the conclusion of the review conducted under the Validation, Implementation and Review section of the Belfast Agreement, the Secretary of State shall call a meeting of the Assembly for the purpose of giving effect to any action within its competence which may have been agreed within the review.'.
        Mr. MacKay: As I said on Second Reading, we believe that the Prime Minister promised—outside Castle buildings, Stormont; in The Sunday Times article; and in his statement last week to the House—several failsafes that, mysteriously and sadly, do not appear in the legislation, therefore making the Bill incomplete. The failsafes—as the Prime Minister likes to call them; or the copper-bottomed safeguards, as I should prefer to call them—are just not in the Bill.
        This final set of amendments, which we believe would create a copper-bottomed failsafe, is based on a simple premise. The Bill currently provides—I cannot believe that the Minister believes that it should do so—that, if any paramilitary organisation, whether loyalist or republican, fails to meet its decommissioning obligations under General de Chastelain's timetable—when he eventually publishes it—the penalty will be a suspension of both the Executive and the Assembly.
        We will have the bizarre situation of one group failing to fulfil its obligations, and everyone else getting penalised. I can think of no other law or regulation under which those who get hurt or penalised are the innocent parties who have done nothing wrong.
        10.45 pm
        Mr. Ian Taylor.(Esher and Walton): Is my right hon. Friend implying that, if the decommissioning body decided that one side or another had breached the terms, the whole process would rewind, rather than continue? I believed that the Prime Minister had indicated in his statement to the House after the Belfast talks that the process would continue without the offending party.
        Mr. MacKay: Like my hon. Friend, I was here in the House when the Prime Minister made his statement a week last Monday. I recall that the Prime Minister said categorically that only those who had breached the decommissioning timetable would be penalised. To give
        274
        an extreme example, the LVF might refuse to decommission and, in so doing, would bring down the Executive and the Assembly. I repeat to my hon. Friend that that is bizarre and wrong.
        Under the amendment, if the Provisional IRA failed to decommission within the timetable and failed to fulfil its obligations, Sinn Fein would be immediately excluded from the Executive. However, the Executive would remain in place and, after a reasonable period, the d'Hondt formula would be triggered again so that there would be two new Ministers replacing the two excluded Sinn Fein Ministers.
        That way, there would be a continued devolved Administration and Executive in the Province, and all the constitutional parties—who will have fulfilled their obligations—would not be penalised. Surely that is the right way forward, and it is the copper-bottomed safeguard that Unionists and others require to ensure that they can go safely into an Executive with Sinn Fein Ministers, knowing either that the Provisional IRA will decommission its illegally held arms and explosives quickly or that Sinn Fein will be removed from the Executive. They will not be in the invidious position of having to share ministerial responsibility with men of violence who are retaining a fully armed paramilitary organisation.
        If the Minister of State wants the process to succeed—and if, as I know that he does, he wants a lasting devolved Administration for Northern Ireland with the most inclusive ministerial team possible under the d'Hondt formula—it is essential that he accepts the amendment. Then, Unionists and others would have a copper-bottomed guarantee that, by taking ministerial appointments ahead of decommissioning, there will be either decommissioning or the expulsion of Sinn Fein from the Executive. It is simple, straightforward and right and, at this late hour, I plead with the Minister to accept the amendment.
        Mr. Mallon: I went to some lengths on Second Reading to state that the review was the only way within the agreement under which, in accord with the agreement, an examination could be made of the reasons why a default was made by anyone who had contravened the commitment given in terms of either decommissioning or the non-working of devolution. I do not wish to repeat what I said then, but it is essential to point out that, if we are going to be consistent with the agreement, that review must be in place, and no other mechanism must be used until a mechanism is decided at that review.
        If we do not have a suspension, we might end up in the anomalous situation in which Ministers whose party was under consideration in the review for having reneged or defaulted participated in that review as acting Ministers. Is that the situation that we want?
        I do not want to see the suspension of institutions that I have helped in some small way to set up. I do not want to see any blockage in the working of the new Executive, which I hope will be set up this week, but I want to try to preserve the agreement, above all else, because it transcends any Opposition party position, or any Unionist position, or any position that might be adopted by us, this Government or the Irish Government. It supersedes all those considerations and that is why I believe that we must act in accord with the review, to be at one with the agreement.

        275
        The purpose of new clause 3 is simple. It is to ensure that the Bill before us accurately implements "The Way Forward" document that was decided by the two Prime Ministers. Paragraph 5 of that document provides that, if the commitments in relation to devolution or decommissioning are not met, the Governments will
        "automatically, and with immediate effect, suspend the operation of the institutions set up by the Agreement."
        Suspension must therefore apply to all institutions in the same way. The Bill fails to achieve that.
        The Bill provides that functions in relation to the North-South Ministerial Council and the new British-Irish Council shall not be exercisable. That means that the Councils cannot convene or operate. By contrast, clause 3 provides that the Assembly not only can but must convene and operate, so we are faced with an illogical absurdity. On the one hand, the Bill suspends the Assembly and on the other it requires it to meet twice while in suspension.
        The first of those meetings is to be held within seven days to debate the situation that led to the suspension order and the review. Can one imagine what purpose that debate would serve? Would it have an adverse effect on the subsequent review? Would it encourage posturing and increased rancour? Would it divert the parties from what must be their essential task at that time—to work constructively within the review? I believe that it would have a tremendously detrimental effect. One can imagine the rancour that could be generated in such a debate.
        The debate would have no ending, because there would be no vote. It would carry no responsibilities, because the Assembly would be suspended even though it was required to meet by order of the Secretary of State. The Bill provides that the second time that the Assembly meets must be before the suspension period has ended, to debate and vote on any action proposed to be taken in consequence of the review. If an institution is to be suspended, is it not ridiculous for it to meet and vote during its suspension? All that is necessary is that, after the suspension period, the Assembly should meet to implement the conclusions of the review. Any meeting of the Assembly during a suspension period would contradict the terms of the document "The Way Forward", laid down by the two Prime Ministers at the end of the most recent negotiations.
        The amendments make it clear that the Assembly should not meet during the review. Only after the review has been concluded should the Assembly meet to debate and vote on measures then within its competence. If the amendments were accepted, the Bill would then be in accordance with "The Way Forward" document and with the agreement.
        That is the only way in which all the institutions established by the Good Friday agreement can be treated on an equal basis, as the agreement requires. The proposals in the Bill would favour the Assembly over all other institutions in a way that would be remarkably detrimental to debates and to the taking of decisions that are outside its competence in terms of the review. New clause 3 would bring the Bill back to the terms of the Good Friday agreement and the document "The Way Forward". I hope that the two Governments will consider it carefully.
        Although I cannot be sure, I suspect that I know why the Bill has been drafted as it has. I shall leave the Government with one last thought. There is an old saying
        276
        in County Armagh, where I live, that is used often. It holds that nothing is ever enough for those for whom enough is always too little. That should be pondered seriously in relation to clause 3.
        Mr. Öpik: The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) referred to copper bottoms and failsafes. When is a copper bottom not a failsafe? What is a failsafe's bottom made of? I fear that if we use such terms too much, the public will give us the bum's rush, which may be made of copper or something else.
        The collective effect of amendments Nos. 8 and 28, as set out by the right hon. Member for Bracknell, would not necessarily be what he intends. There is a possibility that the Assembly would end up running on an ad hoc basis. I am worried that it would sit on and off, according to official notices, and that it would rattle along without being master of its destiny but without being fully suspended. However, I know there is an underlying feeling that all sides should not be punished if one side fails to deliver. I can see some case for that proposition, but I look forward to hearing what other hon. Members have to say about it.
        None of the various approaches adopted hitherto have been very effective, and we must now recognise that we face a true deadline. That deadline must not slip, nor must it be so half-hearted that it can be negotiated around. A clear suspension at least has the benefit that it is unequivocal and less open to abuse.
        Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 would specify the terms of the review. Amendment No. 17 would omit from clause 1 the phrase "take steps to", although I understand why the Minister felt those words to be necessary. If amendment No. 17 were successful, clause 1(4) would state that the Secretary of State would initiate a review under the validation, implementation and review section of the Belfast agreement rather than merely taking steps to do so. Notwithstanding the reasons for inclusion in the Bill of the vague words "take steps to", that would make the clause clearer.
        11 pm
        Amendment No. 18 deals with timing. The Bill specifies no time within which the review must take place. If we do not set a deadline, we risk an open-ended start date for the review. The danger is that time will stretch while the review goes uninitiated for some reason. I note that amendment No. 15 also seeks to set a deadline: it suggests seven days, and my amendment suggests four weeks: I do not mind how long it actually is so long as the period is defined.
        Amendment No. 23 suggests that the review should have an upper time limit of three months. Again, the length of time matters less than the fact of its limitation. If we do not limit it, the process may stall as we wait for the result of the review. One of the Bill's weaknesses is the lack of a specified time duration for the review. We have seen how deadlines can slip, and enshrining them in the Bill would provide a powerful failsafe against ending up in the quagmire of a never-ending review.
        Mr. Andrew Hunter: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) succinctly expressed the arguments for the amendments that he and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann

        277
        (Mr. Trimble) have tabled. However, I dare to suggest that I can summarise them even more briefly: it is entirely unacceptable that everything should be suspended when what we should be demanding is the expulsion of offenders. It defies reason and logic to proceed down the Government's path.
        In this debate, as on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has totally failed to convince. It simply is not good enough for the Social Democratic and Labour party—even it can rightly boast about standing for democracy and against violence—to hide behind collective decisions, the findings of reviews and wide generalities. The hon. Gentleman has failed to say what the SDLP would do if the IRA did not abide by a decommissioning schedule. His party, much to its discredit, cannot answer that question and refuses to do so.
        The hon. Gentleman's amendment should be rejected because, among other reasons, it inspires a sense of déjà vu. The initiative begun by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and Lord Mayhew was scuppered by the SDLP because the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) had in mind a bigger picture—the inclusion of the IRA—and one feels that one is seeing an action replay of those events. Members of the SDLP are not prepared to answer a direct question. One fears that one knows the reasons why.
        Mr. Mallon: I spent some considerable time on Second Reading giving the answer to that very question, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). I took on the points that he raised directly. I am prepared to repeat those so that the hon. Gentleman can understand what I am saying, but I am not sure that it would be fair to all the other hon. Members who were present during the Second Reading debate to take up time at this stage.
        I know that the hon. Gentleman sometimes finds it difficult to understand Northern Irish politics, despite his practise at it. I will spend any time that he wants with him, privately or publicly, to show him that, in effect, we are not going to bow to pressure from either side, whether it is Sinn Fein or Unionist.
        Mr. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman obliges and, once again, fails to give a direct answer, although the implications are obvious. The question that the SDLP continues to refuse to answer is whether it will support the continuation of Sinn Fein in the Executive in the event that the IRA does not abide by a decommissioning schedule—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The answer is not forthcoming. We must draw our own conclusions from that. I rest my case. The amendment of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is as deficient as the rest of his argument on the entire process.
        Mr. Paul Murphy: The whole purpose of this failsafe is suspension and there is an obvious reason for it. As I have said many times this evening, the situation in Northern Ireland is different from anywhere else. The Assembly is based on the agreement, which in itself is based on the concord—the agreement between Unionism and nationalism. It will not work otherwise and we all
        278
        know that. If we think for one second that we can have an Assembly in Belfast that is like the one in Cardiff, we are fooling ourselves. It is not going to work like that.
        Mr. Beggs: Try it.
        Mr. Murphy: We cannot try it. As the hon. Member knows, this matter was put to the people. They believed that this was the best way forward to achieve that result.
        If we accept that as a reality—I think that we must—clearly, if we find that the commitment on devolution or on decommissioning is not met, we will have to suspend the institutions of the agreement. As we outlined, those institutions are the Executive, the Assembly, and the north-south and east-west bodies. Clearly, one would then have to go to the review that is set out in the agreement.
        The Bill also makes additional provisions—some that are not particularly pleasing to my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and some that are not particularly pleasing to Ulster Unionist Members. So we may well have got it right this time—who knows?
        The Bill states:
        "The first meeting shall be held within 7 days of the making of the suspension order; and at that meeting the Assembly shall debate, but not vote on—
        (a) the situation that led to the making of the suspension order; and
        (b) the matters which fall to be reviewed under…the Belfast Agreement."
        The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) rightly referred to the difficult situation with loyalist decommissioning, particularly as loyalism—in this sense—would have no members of the Executive, or in some cases even Members of the Assembly, who could be put out of it; yet if, as General de Chastelain's commission said, the Loyalist Volunteer Force or the Ulster Defence Association, for the sake of argument, failed to decommission and that was reported to the Government, the process would still come into operation. How do we show that the whole apparatus of government in Northern Ireland will have to be dealt with in the same way as those who are represented on its Executive will be? That is one good reason why the Assembly should meet.
        My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has powers to call the Assembly and to limit the time of its meeting, so that it will not go on endlessly—as one hon. Member suggested. The limit would be set by the Secretary of State and common sense would prevail. For example, if a loyalist group with no Assembly or Executive members had failed to decommission, we should not want the whole apparatus to be suspended for any length of time. However, it is important that the Assembly should deal with the issue and discuss it, and that the review should take place of how to deal with that non-decommissioning.
        It would be different if the IRA did not decommission, because Sinn Fein would be in government. That would clearly be more difficult to deal with; that is where the operation of the agreement comes in. It states that the two Governments and all the parties who sit in the Assembly—whether or not they are in favour of the agreement—will review where we go next. That will be the same—whether the effect is exclusion, expulsion

        279
        or suspension. People will have to get round the table and find a way out of the impasse, deadlock or crisis in the process.
        That is why we cannot exclude specifically through the measure. We cannot prejudge or determine what the review will do, because it will include representatives of all the Unionist parties in the Assembly and of the two Governments. If the report was so dramatic, the review would deal with the matter and decide how to continue, under the arrangements in the agreement. Whatever happens, we must undertake that review under the terms of the agreement.
        It would be a good idea to have a meeting of the Assembly after a review. The Assembly would have the opportunity to debate and to vote on the results of a particular review. The most important reassurance for Unionists—indeed for all of us—would be that the suspension would be automatic. There is no doubt that, as soon as the commission reports difficulty, the suspension becomes automatic. If we were to use the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and the Assembly voted for the exclusion of a party from the Executive, the Executive would have to be suspended; d'Hondt would have to be invoked and the excluded Ministers would have to be replaced. The effect would be the same in both cases. However, the measure is in the spirit of the agreement; it allows for automatic suspension and for review. It also allows us to deal with the more difficult issues of loyalists who fail to decommission.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The Committee divided: Ayes 144, Noes 340.

        Division No. 237]

        [11.12 pm

        AYES

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Duncan, Alan

        Amess, David

        Duncan Smith, Iain

        Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

        Evans, Nigel

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

        Faber, David

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Fabricant, Michael

        Baldry, Tony

        Flight, Howard

        Beggs, Roy

        Forsythe, Clifford

        Bercow, John

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Blunt, Crispin

        Fox, Dr Liam

        Body, Sir Richard

        Fraser, Christopher

        Boswell, Tim

        Gale, Roger

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Garnier, Edward

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

        Gibb, Nick

        Brazier, Julian

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Gray, James

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Green, Damian

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        Greenway, John

        Butterfill, John

        Grieve, Dominic

        Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

        Gummer, Rt Hon John

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

        Chope, Christopher

        Hammond, Philip

        Clappison, James

        Hawkins, Nick

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

        Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Collins, Tim

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Colvin, Michael

        Hunter, Andrew

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Cran, James

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Curry, Rt Hon David

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

        Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

        Donaldson, Jeffrey

        Key, Robert

        Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

        King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

        280

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Shepherd, Richard

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

        Lansley, Andrew

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Leigh, Edward

        Soames, Nicholas

        Letwin, Oliver

        Spelman, Mrs Caroline

        Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

        Spicer, Sir Michael

        Lidington, David

        Spring, Richard

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        LIoyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Steen, Anthony

        Loughton, Tim

        Streeter, Gary

        Luff, Peter

        Swayne, Desmond

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Syms, Robert

        McCartney, Robert (N Down)

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

        MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

        Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Madel, Sir David

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Maginnis, Ken

        Thompson, William

        Malins, Humfrey

        Townend, John

        Mates, Michael

        Tredinnick, David

        Maude, Rt Hon Francis

        Trend, Michael

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

        Tyrie, Andrew

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Viggers, Peter

        Moss, Malcolm

        Wardle, Charles

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Waterson, Nigel

        Ottaway, Richard

        Wells, Bowen

        Page, Richard

        Whitney, Sir Raymond

        Paice, James

        Whittingdale, John

        Paisley, Rev Ian

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        Pickles, Eric

        Wilkinson, John

        Prior, David

        Willetts, David

        Randall, John

        Wilshire, David

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Robathan, Andrew

        Woodward, Shaun

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Yeo, Tim

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Ross, William (E Lond'y)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Ruffley, David

        Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

        St Aubyn, Nick

        and

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Mr. Stephen Day.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Breed, Colin

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

        Brinton, Mrs Helen

        Ainger, Nick

        Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Alexander, Douglas

        Browne, Desmond

        Allan, Richard

        Burden, Richard

        Allen, Graham

        Burnett, John

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Butler, Mrs Christine

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

        Ashton, Joe

        Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Austin, John

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Banks, Tony

        Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

        Barnes, Harry

        Barron, Kevin

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Battle, John

        Cann, Jamie

        Beard, Nigel

        Caplin, Ivor

        Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

        Casale, Roger

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Caton, Martin

        Bell, Martin (Tatton)

        Cawsey, Ian

        Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

        Chaytor, David

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Clapham, Michael

        Berry, Roger

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Best, Harold

        Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Betts, Clive

        Blackman, Liz

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Blunkett, Rt Hon David

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Boateng, Paul

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Bradley, Keith (Withington)

        Clelland, David

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Clwyd, Ann

        Brake, Tom

        Coaker, Vernon

        281

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Hesford, Stephen

        Cohen, Harry

        Hewitt, Ms Patricia

        Coleman, Iain

        Hodge, Ms Margaret

        Colman, Tony

        Hoey, Kate

        Connarty, Michael

        Home Robertson, John

        Corbett, Robin

        Hood, Jimmy

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Corston, Ms Jean

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Cox, Tom

        Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

        Cranston, Ross

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Crausby, David

        Howells, Dr Kim

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Cryer, John (Hornchunch)

        Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

        Cummings, John

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Hutton, John

        Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

        Illsley, Eric

        (Copeland)

        Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

        Dalyell, Tarn

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Jamieson, David

        Darvill, Keith

        Jenkins, Brian

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Johnson, Miss Melanie

        Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

        (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Dawson, Hilton

        Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

        Dismore, Andrew

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Dobbin, Jim

        Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Doran, Frank

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Dowd, Jim

        Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Edwards, Huw

        Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

        Efford, Clive

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Ennis, Jeff

        Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

        Field, Rt Hon Frank

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Fisher, Mark

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

        Fitzsimons, Lorna

        Khabra, Piara S

        Flint, Caroline

        Kidney, David

        Flynn, Paul

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Follett, Barbara

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Lawrence, Ms Jackie

        Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

        Laxton, Bob

        Foulkes, George

        Leslie, Christopher

        Fyfe, Maria

        Levitt, Tom

        Galloway, George

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Gapes, Mike

        Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

        Gardiner, Barry

        Linton, Martin

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        George, Bruce (Walsall S)

        Lock, David

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        McAllion, John

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        McCabe, Steve

        Godsiff, Roger

        McCafferty, Ms Chris

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

        Gordon, Mrs Eileen

        Gorrie, Donald

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Macdonald, Calum

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        McDonnell, John

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        McFall, John

        Grogan, John

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Hain, Peter

        McIsaac, Shona

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        McNamara, Kevin

        Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

        McNulty, Tony

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        MacShane, Denis

        Healey, John

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

        McWalter, Tony

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        McWilliam, John

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Mallaber, Judy

        Heppell, John

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        282

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Salter, Martin

        Marshall, David (SheWeston)

        Sanders, Adrian

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        Marshall-Andrews, Robert

        Sawford, Phil

        Martlew, Eric

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Maxton, John

        Sheerman, Barry

        Meale, Alan

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Merron, Gillian

        Short, Rt Hon Clare

        Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

        Singh, Marsha

        Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

        Skinner, Dennis

        Mitchell, Austin

        Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

        Moffatt, Laura

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Moran, Ms Margaret

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

        Smith, Sir Robert (WA b'd'ns)

        Morley, Elliot

        Soley, Clive

        Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

        Southworth, Ms Helen

        Mudie, George

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        Mullin, Chris

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

        Stevenson, George

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Oaten, Mark

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        O'Hara, Eddie

        Stringer, Graham

        Olner, Bill

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        O'Neill, Martin

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Öpik, Lembit

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Organ, Mrs Diana

        Osborne, Ms Sandra

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Pearson, Ian

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Pendry, Tom

        Tipping, Paddy

        Perham, Ms Linda

        Todd, Mark

        Pickthall, Colin

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        Pike, Peter L

        Touhig, Don

        Plaskitt, James

        Trickett, Jon

        Pollard, Kerry

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Pond, Chris

        Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        Pope, Greg

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Pound, Stephen

        Tyler, Paul

        Powell, Sir Raymond

        Vaz, Keith

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Wareing, Robert N

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Watts, David

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Webb, Steve

        Purchase, Ken

        Welsh, Andrew

        Quinn, Lawrie

        White, Brian

        Rammell, Bill

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Rapson, Syd

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Raynsford, Nick

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

        (Swansea W)

        Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

        Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

        Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Winnick, David

        Rooker, Jeff

        Wise, Audrey

        Rooney, Terry

        Wood, Mike

        Rowlands, Ted

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Roy, Frank

        Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

        Ruane, Chris

        Wyatt, Derek

        Ruddock, Joan

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        Mr. David Hanson and

        Ryan, Ms Joan

        Mr. Keith Hill.

        Question accordingly negatived
        It being seven and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour
        Clauses 1 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
        Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
        Bill reported, without amendment.
        Order for Third Reading read.
        11.27 pm
        The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
        I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate on this Bill. I and my ministerial colleagues have listened carefully to all of them, which were honestly and often eloquently made by hon. Members of all parties. We remain of the view that the joint statement on which the Bill is based represents the best way forward.
        11.27 pm
        Mr. MacKay: I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State saying that she and her ministerial colleagues will listen very carefully to everything that is being said throughout these debates because we sincerely believe that the three sets of amendments, which would provide the proper failsafes that the Prime Minister promised the people of Northern Ireland, and this House from the Dispatch Box, should be part of the legislation.
        I am at least heartened to learn that, on the ITN news at 11 o'clock tonight, the political editor Mr. Michael Brunson, presumably with the help of spin doctors from Downing street—apparently he was speaking from outside Downing street—said that the Government are now indicating that they will move on prisoner releases and will also take into account what my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have said. Whether that is true, I do not know. I hope that it is accurate.
        I hope that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, who is in the House, have listened because, without our amendments, this Bill is so imperfect as to be irrelevant and there will be no chance of an Executive being set up. I want an inclusive Executive to be set up so that there can be a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland—that is what the people of Northern Ireland want—but we need proper failsafes in legislation. Let us hope that Mr. Michael Brunson is correct and, in fact, the Secretary of State is not yet fully informed of what the Prime Minister is doing. I hope that, in the other place, tomorrow and on Thursday, we will find that the Government have moved. If they have, it will be in everybody's best interests.
        11.29 pm
        Mr. Eddie McGrady: Hon. Members have spoken with sincerity throughout all stages of our consideration of the Bill and that sincerity has been accepted by all those in the Chamber. The second common factor is that all of us, of whatever party, of whatever tradition and of whatever future we want to have together, do not want arms to remain in private hands.
        The substance of the Bill is how, after so many decades and so many recent months of stress and turmoil, to reach the point where the decommissioning of weapons and explosives takes place. However imperfect the Bill may be in the eyes of many, at least it gives us a yardstick by
        284
        which, in the very near future, real measurement can be made of success. Alternatively, the failure to achieve decommissioning can be fully exposed.
        Many have spoken tonight of the lack of trust between the parties in Northern Ireland. That is so, and that is understandable. Many have produced litanies of the deaths, murders and other terrible acts of violence. I remember when we passed a Northern Ireland Bill that in effect, said that, after 30 years of intense violence, we would not be able to switch off violence at midnight on a given day. There is a history of violence within people, and some of it will continue. However, we must not let violence that is organised, approved and authorised by paramilitary organisations continue.
        Many members of those organisations will continue to engage in violence as a way of life in terms of drugs, extortion and intimidation, for example. That must not be confused with paramilitary violence aimed at destabilising the state. That is an entirely different concept. We as a society will suffer from the violence of individuals for many years to come. We will have to deal with it as a social issue. I do not want to have to deal with it as a paramilitary issue. That is what the Bill is about.
        All but one of the Ulster Unionist parties, including the United Kingdom Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party, are opposed not only to the Bill or to the amendments to it but to the entire concept of the Good Friday agreement. That is fair enough. That is what democracy is about. But democracy has also said—71 per cent. of the north and 93 per cent. of the south—that the Good Friday agreement is the way in which we want to go forward as communities in the north and the south living in harmony together.
        There is distrust among us. The best way to test whether there is trust is to introduce a test, and we can do so within weeks. I will not argue whether that should be four weeks or six weeks in the context of our history, but we know that the test must take place within a short term when set against what we have suffered over 30 years and way beyond.
        I ask the House, particularly Opposition Members, to join in this last gesture before the test is put. Endorsement of the Bill will reflect the solidarity of the House and will reflect also the solidarity that we want to see in the north of Ireland. That will enable, 48 hours from now, the hunt to be run with some confidence of success.
        11.34 pm
        Mr. William Ross: The Government Whip told us a few minutes ago that we had considered the Bill. That stretched the imagination because, as the House knows, we have gone only through the motions. There is much in the Bill that has not yet been explored. There has not been time to go through it in the necessary detail. It has long been evident to anyone who lives in Northern Ireland and who knows the situation there that there is no peace at present. In the longer term, it has long been evident that the litmus test of whether the IRA would come in from the cold and be part of the democratic process was weapons. The question of weapons always had the potential—
        Mr. Robert McCartney: Illegal weapons.
        Mr. Ross: My hon. and learned Friend says "Illegal weapons", and that is what we are always talking about.

        285
        These are weapons that are held by the terrorist paramilitary organisations. Let us describe them as they are. We are talking of criminal elements that have used weaponry, murder and bombing as means to effect political change. I believe that it was not so much the weapons held by those people that have the potential to wreck the process, as the fact that they intended such an outcome to be an absolute certainty from the day that we embarked on the process.
        I have always believed that Sinn Fein-IRA are totally committed to turmoil and instability in Northern Ireland. They want to portray it as a failed political entity. They have made it clear that they do not want the Assembly. They want all-Ireland bodies.
        The issue of weapons should not be discussed in the House today. It should have been resolved early in the negotiations, then we would have known where we were going. It is the subject of debate today because of the failure to deal with such a crucial element at the beginning of the process.
        The Prime Minister told us that, if those people were kept out, there would be violence. He has not explained to anyone in Northern Ireland or the House how he will deal with violence if they must be put out next year or whenever—provided that they ever get in.
        It was evident to those of us who have been in this place for some time that there was never the slightest possibility of the Government accepting any amendments. The Bill has already been agreed with Dublin, with the White House, with the Social Democratic and Labour party and, for all I know, with Mr. Adams. Consequently, there was no chance that it would be amended.
        The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) was present when his party leader spoke earlier. He was challenged on the question whether his party would put the gunmen out if they did not surrender weapons—a question that he has always failed to answer. Only one conclusion can be drawn.
        The net effect of the Bill is simple. At present, the parties in the Assembly can exclude those who do not live up to the standards that they are supposed to accept. The combination of the Ulster Unionist party and the SDLP could always have kept Sinn Fein-IRA out of office. For that matter, a combination of the Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party could keep them out for up to 12 months at a time, renewable under the provisions of the 1998 legislation.
        The Bill shifts the onus to the Disarmament Commission report and to the Secretary of State, who then must act. Under the Bill, those people would be kept out for only a limited period—less than 12 months—after which time they could get back in again.
        The debate has been a whitewash exercise. Apart from allowing us to go through the motions and express our views, it has been a wasted day for the House.
        11.38 pm
        Dr. Palmer: On Second Reading, we discussed in some detail the amendments proposed by the official Opposition and the Ulster Unionists. I said then that the difficulty seemed to be that the central issue of Northern Ireland peace was not weapons—the weapons are a symptom of the central issue, which is trust.
        286
        If the politicians in Northern Ireland, Britain and Ireland trust each other, the question of weapons will resolve itself. If they do not trust each other, they will need to be made to trust each other through the process, before anyone can feel safe. That is the reason why the assault from hon. Members who oppose the Good Friday agreement is so ambiguous, to put it politely. They say that they disagree with the agreement, yet they criticise the signatories to the agreement for not moving as rapidly as they had hoped.
        Let us accept that, if any of us were asked to work together on the basis of threats of violence, we would have the greatest difficulty in doing so. That would be the case regardless of whether we had weapons, whether we had given them up, or whether we had promised to give them up. The threats and the atmosphere of violence are the basic problem of Northern Ireland.
        We have allowed the debate to be hijacked by opponents of the Good Friday agreement. There is a good reason why decommissioning was not central to it—the central issue was the creation of trust between the parties. In their campaign against it, the Democratic Unionist party and the United Kingdom Unionists were successful in moving decommissioning to centre stage with the results that we see tonight. Okay, but, as we pass the Bill let us say that this is our best chance. The people of the United Kingdom have asked us to take that chance to try to achieve the peace and the trust that is so badly needed.
        Trust has another element—the trust between the British people and the Unionists in Northern Ireland who claim to call themselves loyalists. When they speak of loyalism, we expect a degree of loyalty to the interest of the United Kingdom, and that includes a peaceful settlement. We ask for their support to give the agreement the chance that it deserves.
        11.41 pm
        Mr. Howard: If what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) has said about the television news is correct—I have no doubt that it is—it is an affront to the House that news of those concessions was given to television and not to the House when it was debating those very matters. Although that is an affront to the House, it is par for the course for the Government.
        The amendments, which might have made some sense of the Bill, were rejected. The arrangements contemplated in the Bill are directly contrary to the handwritten promises given by the Prime Minister to the people of Northern Ireland at the time of the Good Friday agreement. He pledged that
        "those who use or threaten violence must be excluded from the Government of Northern Ireland."
        The Bill's effect will be to include in the Government of Northern Ireland those who use or threaten violence. He promised that
        "prisoners will be kept in unless violence is given up for good."
        Violence has not been given up for good and the prisoners have not been kept in. I shall vote against Third Reading.
        11.42 pm
        Mr. Öpik: We have had a full debate and the Government have had the opportunity to consider my brilliant amendments, which will no doubt be implemented through Government action. We have heard

        287
        more about copper bottoms this evening than the average person hears in a lifetime and we have also left two questions unanswered.
        The first question concerns clarity about where the Government stand on the relationship between decommissioning and prisoner releases. I brought up the matter earlier to express my concerns. Although we obviously do not have much information, the Government have to be absolutely clear about where they stand on that central question.
        The second and more subtle unanswered question concerns whether there will be a time limit on the review process. If a suspension is called, the review process will present an opportunity for indefinite delay by those on the review panel. Once again, I counsel Ministers to take that concern seriously. If they look through the current specifications of the review process, they will see that it could be stalled because the review period is not defined. I strongly encourage the Secretary of State to think about what action she wants to take on that.
        Having said that, we must remember that the Bill is a pathway to peace. The ultimate copper-bottomed guarantee that something must happen is a date—May 2000, by which time decommissioning will or will not have been completed. It is said that, sooner or later, even the best strategy has to degenerate into action. In that sense, the Bill is only a piece of paper. Action has to come from it. There is an old saying that people cannot talk themselves out of a problem that they have behaved themselves into. We have done a lot of talking here in Parliament; the next step clearly will be taken in Northern Ireland itself, where politicians and paramilitaries must take forward what we have discussed today.
        I only hope that people are seized of the fact that we have just three days before the Prime Minister's final deadline. I sincerely hope that this one will be kept. More to the point, I sincerely hope that those in Northern Ireland in whose gift it is to deliver peace will take this opportunity to do so, because the people of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom as a whole will not take kindly to any further vacillation or obstruction of the peace process.
        11.45 pm
        Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) has lectured us about what people think. I am in a position to speak about how people think in Northern Ireland. At the European elections, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) was supposed to top the poll and wipe me from the political scene. I doubled my electoral majority over him, and he did not get his great prize of being first in Europe. Almost 70 per cent. of Unionist people voted against this agreement.
        Both Governments told us that the agreement should be supported by a majority of both sections of the community: a majority of the nationalists and a majority of the Unionists. It is clear that the majority of the Unionists do not go along with this agreement. We asked why. It is because they were conned by the Prime Minister when he made them all the promises that have been listed today. As a result of those promises, a wafer-thin majority of Unionists voted for the Good Friday agreement. That has changed. The Secretary of State and her Ministers know that it has changed. They can put all the opinion polls together and help people to make their decisions,
        288
        but the people have spoken. I was told by the hon. Member for Broxtowe that a recent opinion poll in a Northern Ireland newspaper showed that he was right and we were wrong. That poll showed the very opposite: it showed that we were overwhelmingly right. In its editorial, the newspaper had to admit that those who had opposed the agreement had the people with them.
        That being so, the House can continue to set itself against the majority of the majority. Will that bring peace? Will that give confidence to the people? We need a review. [Interruption.] It is all right for the Minister to mutter, but what we need is a proper look at this agreement. It is sad that we were misled by members of the Front-Bench team. We were told that articles 2 and 3 would be proceeded with, but they are not being proceeded with and have been put on a two-year finger by the Dublin Government. They have announced that they will do nothing about articles 2 and 3 for two years.
        The Government of Ireland Act 1920 is the rock granite of our Province's constitutional position. Will it be taken away? Have we not the right to hold on to that, as people who prize our citizenship of the United Kingdom? Ulster has no debts to pay to the rest of the United Kingdom. It has paid its debts over and over again. [Interruption.] There are Scots men in the House who would also say that they have no debts to pay to the rest of the United Kingdom. As an Ulster man, I say that we have no debts to pay to this United Kingdom.
        I was told over and again by the hon. Member for Foyle in Strasbourg that the ceasefire was for ever, and that there would never be another bomb. I met him at a radio station on the day on which this city was bombed. I said, "What did I tell you, John? I said that the bombing would recommence at the will of the godfathers of the IRA."
        The bombing will recommence in every part of this United Kingdom when the godfathers decide. Mr. Adams made it clear, in the midst of the ceasefire, that the IRA has not gone away. How could it go away, when he is its leader and its champion?
        11.50 pm
        Mr. Robathan: We have heard a good deal about failsafes and guarantees on Third Reading and, indeed, throughout the day. In the Bill, I see no failsafes and no guarantees.
        Labour Members may ponder on the history of rushed emergency legislation in the House. They may remember the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, which we all rushed back to pass last September. It was terribly important for that legislation to be rushed through in a single day. Since that time, 10 months ago, seven people have been charged and no one has been convicted. Rushed emergency legislation is generally to be avoided.
        We have heard today—from, among others, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer)—that this represents a tremendous chance that must be grasped. According to the Prime Minister, it is the chance of a lifetime. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said earlier, the Prime Minister said that his pledge to the people of Northern Ireland was that
        "those who use or threaten violence must be excluded from the Government of Northern Ireland … prisoners will be kept in unless violence is given up for good."

        289
        Violence goes on, day in day out, on the streets of Northern Ireland. There are beatings on the streets of Northern Ireland; there are murders on the streets of Northern Ireland. There is intimidation, there are exiles, there is targeting of members of the security forces, day in day out, on the streets of Northern Ireland; yet we continue with this trust. We have to trust the terrorists.
        Now we are asked for another leap of faith: another act of trust. We are told by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), "The war is over." He must have chosen those words advisedly. They were the words used by Sinn Fein in, I believe, 1993, when it sent my noble Friend Lord Mayhew—then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—the message, "The war is over." How is it possible to reach such an accommodation? The war was not over in 1993; the IRA retains its weapons. How can the hon. Gentleman use those words? It is not a leap of faith that we are requested to make, but a leap into the dark.
        The Secretary of State, with good intentions, says that we must have evidence; but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said, even the dogs on the streets of Northern Ireland know who is responsible for certain acts. Let me ask the Secretary of State this: who is responsible for the murder of Paul Downey? Who is responsible for the murder of Brendan Fegan? Who is responsible for the murder of Eamon Collins, the IRA informer? Who attempted to murder Martin McGartland? Everyone in Northern Ireland knows; everyone in the RUC knows. How is it that the Secretary of State does not know? The Secretary of State is determined that she must have evidence, but we all know who is responsible for those acts.
        The Government are the dupes of the paramilitaries, both loyalist and republican—but it is not the loyalist paramilitaries who matter; only IRA-Sinn Fein will be a beneficiary of the Executive places. The Government are the dupes of McLaughlin, Adams and McGuinness, and I fear that that is to the shame of the Government.
        The Government must be motivated by good intentions, but are they really concerned with justice, with the rule of law, and with equity in Northern Ireland? They do not seem to be, in the Bill. The Government, and the democratic parties in Northern Ireland, have bent over backward to accommodate the terrorists. Surely there must come a time when there can be no further compromise.
        I will give Ministers credit for good intentions; I know that they are well intentioned. They must know, however, that the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
        11.54 pm
        Mr. Hunter: During the past seven and a half hours, Opposition Members have attempted to expose the Bill's deficiencies. We stand by our arguments.
        One other dimension should be mentioned. Some of us oppose the Bill in principle. We oppose in principle the joint statement from which it emanates and the wider circumstances that have given rise to it. Some of us cannot and will not accept that political representatives of terrorist organisations should be offered places in government as an inducement to decommission their illegal arms—
        It being eight hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
        Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 343, Noes 24.

        Division No. 238]

        [11.55 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Clelland, David

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

        Clwyd, Ann

        Ainger, Nick

        Coaker, Vernon

        Ainsworth, Robed (Cov'try NE)

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Alexander, Douglas

        Cohen, Harry

        Allan, Richard

        Coleman, Iain

        Allen, Graham

        Colman, Tony

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Connarty, Michael

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Ashton, Joe

        Corbett, Robin

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Austin, John

        Corston, Ms Jean

        Banks, Tony

        Cotter, Brian

        Barnes, Harry

        Cousins, Jim

        Barron, Kevin

        Cox, Tom

        Battle, John

        Cranston, Ross

        Beard, Nigel

        Crausby, David

        Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Bell, Martin (Tatton)

        Cummings, John

        Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Dalyell, Tam

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Berry, Roger

        Darvill, Keith

        Best, Harold

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Betts, Clive

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Blackman, Liz

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Blunkett, Rt Hon David

        Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

        Boateng, Paul

        Dawson, Hilton

        Bradley, Keith (Withington)

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Dismore, Andrew

        Brake, Tom

        Dobbin, Jim

        Breed, Colin

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Brinton, Mrs Helen

        Doran, Frank

        Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

        Dowd, Jim

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Browne, Desmond

        Edwards, Huw

        Burden, Richard

        Efford, Clive

        Burnett, John

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Butler, Mrs Christine

        Ennis, Jeff

        Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

        Etherington, Bill

        Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

        Fisher, Mark

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Fitzsimons, Lorna

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Flint, Caroline

        Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

        Flynn, Paul

        Follett, Barbara

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Cann, Jamie

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Caplin, Ivor

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Casale, Roger

        Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

        Caton, Martin

        Foulkes, George

        Cawsey, Ian

        Fyfe, Maria

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Galloway, George

        Chaytor, David

        Gapes, Mike

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Gardiner, Barry

        Clapham, Michael

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        George, Bruce (Walsall S)

        Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Godsiff, Roger

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Gordon, Mrs Eileen

        291

        Gorrie, Donald

        McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Macdonald, Calum

        Grogan, John

        McDonnell, John

        Hain, Peter

        McFall, John

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        McGrady, Eddie

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        McIsaac, Shona

        Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

        McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Healey, John

        McNamara, Kevin

        Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

        McNulty, Tony

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        MacShane, Denis

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Heppell, John

        McWalter, Tony

        Hesford, Stephen

        McWilliam, John

        Hewitt, Ms Patricia

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Hodge, Ms Margaret

        Mallaber, Judy

        Hoey, Kate

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Home Robertson, John

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Hood, Jimmy

        Marshall, David (SheWeston)

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Marshall-Andrews, Robert

        Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

        Martlew, Eric

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Maxton, John

        Howells, Dr Kim

        Meale, Alan

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Merron, Gillian

        Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

        Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

        Hume, John

        Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

        Hutton, John

        Mitchell, Austin

        Illsley, Eric

        Moffatt, Laura

        Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

        Moran, Ms Margaret

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

        Jamieson, David

        Jenkins, Brian

        Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        Morley, Elliot

        Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

        Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

        Mudie, George

        Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

        Mullin, Chris

        Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

        Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Oaten, Mark

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        O'Hara, Eddie

        Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

        Olner, Bill

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        O'Neill, Martin

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Öpik, Lembit

        Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

        Organ, Mrs Diana

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Osborne, Ms Sandra

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Khabra, Piara S

        Pearson, Ian

        Kidney, David

        Pendry, Tom

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Perham, Ms Linda

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Pickthall, Colin

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Pike, Peter L

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Plaskitt, James

        Lawrence, Ms Jackie

        Pollard, Kerry

        Laxton, Bob

        Leslie, Christopher Levitt, Tom

        Pond, Chris Pope, Greg

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Pound, Stephen

        Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

        Powell, Sir Raymond

        Linton, Martin

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Uwyd, Elfyn

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Lock, David

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Love, Andrew

        Prosser, Gwyn

        McAllion, John

        Purchase, Ken

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Quinn, Lawrie

        McCabe, Steve

        Rammell, Bill

        McCafferty, Ms Chris

        Rapson, Syd

        292

        Raynsford, Nick

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Rooker, Jeff

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Rooney, Terry

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Rowlands, Ted

        Tipping, Paddy

        Roy, Frank

        Todd, Mark

        Ruane, Chris

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        Ruddock, Joan

        Touhig, Don

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Trickett, Jon

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Ryan, Ms Joan

        Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        Salter, Martin

        Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

        Sanders, Adrian

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        Tyler, Paul

        Sawford, Phil

        Vaz, Keith

        Sheerman, Barry

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Wareing, Robert N

        Short, Rt Hon Clare

        Watts, David

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        Webb, Steve

        Singh, Marsha

        Welsh, Andrew

        Skinner, Dennis

        White, Brian

        Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

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

        Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

        Soley, Clive

        Winnick, David

        Southworth, Ms Helen

        Wise, Audrey

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        Wood, Mike

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

        Stevenson, George

        Wyatt, Derek

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Mr. David Hanson and

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        Mr. Keith Hill.

        NOES

        Beggs, Roy

        Robathan, Andrew

        Chope, Christopher

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

        St Aubyn, Nick

        Donaldson, Jeffrey

        Swayne, Desmond

        Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Thompson, William

        Forsythe, Clifford

        Townend, John

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Wardle, Charles

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Wilkinson, John

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Wilshire, David

        Hunter, Andrew

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        McCartney, Robert (N Down)

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Maginnis, Ken

        Mr. William Ross and

        Paisley, Rev Ian

        Rev. Martin Smyth.

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Bill read the Third time, and passed.
        Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier this evening—when I believe that you were not in the Chair—the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) correctly drew my attention to a detail that I had got wrong in an amendment that I had tabled. I do not like making such mistakes, and I wanted to be absolutely certain that I was correct when I came to speak to the next motion this evening. Since the motion seeks to extend the powers of the Northern Ireland Act 1974, it seemed sensible to go to the Vote Office to make sure that I had a copy of the Act so that I would not make the same mistake. However, I was told by the Vote Office

        293
        that no copies of the Act were available. May I therefore ask you how we can consider an interim extension to something to which we cannot refer this evening?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will find that there are copies of that Act, if not in the Vote Office, then in the Lobbies and other places. There are certainly bound copies in the Library and in various other places.
        Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I have dealt with that point of order.

        Northern Ireland
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.—[Mr. Paul Murphy.]
        12.8 am
        Mr. David Wilshire: I do not believe that an order of this sort can be allowed to go through on the nod, and it is essential that we understand what we are being asked to do.
        If we pass the motion tonight, we will extend direct rule in Northern Ireland for a year and a day from the date when the d'Hondt process is to be triggered on Thursday. However, we have just spent the past eight hours passing a Bill that has been sold to us all as standing between us and the end of direct rule. We have been told time and again during those eight hours, "One more step, one more thing, one more concession—pass this Bill and direct rule will not be required after next Sunday."
        Yet five minutes later—and almost on the nod—the Government are prepared to say that that was all a charade and that it did not matter, because they now want the powers to continue direct rule for a further year.
        Rev. Martin Smyth: Earlier, we were chided on the grounds that some of our amendments were precipitate and causing problems. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the order is precipitate and could cause problems?
        Mr. Wilshire: It seems to me that the Government are speaking with forked tongue. For eight hours they have said that the Bill will solve the problem and, in the early hours of the next morning, they try to sneak through the reality—the extension of direct rule for a further year.
        To make matters worse, the Government were not even prepared to do more than move the order formally. They did not consider it worthy of even five words of explanation. They want to continue direct rule without telling us why, but they have to tell us why. If they do not, we have no alternative but to come to the conclusion that the whole episode earlier today was a charade.
        The Government must therefore tell us whether they want this order because they have already privately concluded that the Unionists will refuse to join an Executive with armed terrorists. Or is it perhaps because secretly they have already made up their minds that Sinn Fein-IRA will not decommission, so devolution will not happen? Is that the problem?
        The Government must explain whether the order is before us tonight because they have decided that the Unionists will not co-operate. If that is so, we have had a cynical pantomime today. The only explanation for the proceedings today would be that they were an attempt to force the Unionists into a position in which they had no alternative but to refuse to co-operate. That is cynical in the extreme.
        Mr. Frank Cook: Rubbish.
        Mr. Wilshire: I am willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to expLain to the House why we are being asked to continue direct rule within minutes of

        295
        being sold a Bill which, it was claimed, would solve the problem. Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell us why we are being asked to do that?
        Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Give way then.
        Mr. Wilshire: I will willingly give way.
        Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman seems to be trying to lay before the House several principles that suggest that he is the kind of gentleman who, having taken out fire insurance cover, would then be silly enough to throw away the fire extinguishers.
        Mr. Wilshire: I think I follow the hon. Gentleman's point. I have given the only explanation that has been offered. Ministers were prepared to push the order through on the nod.
        We must ask the Government whether it was in their mind this afternoon that they would need this order tonight because they were going to manoeuvre the Unionists into such a position that they could not join the Executive. If that is so, I can assume only that the Government have done that to the Unionists because the Government know that the Unionists are the democrats in this process. They play by the rule of law. Have we had this pantomime because the Unionists do not have a gun to hold to the head of the Secretary of State?
        Alternatively, the reason for the order could be that the Government have already made up their mind that the pantomime of passing a Bill with so-called failsafe mechanisms was worthless, as many hon. Members argued this afternoon. Did the failsafe mechanisms mean nothing? Was the talk of a matter of days merely weasel words? Was it meaningless when Ministers talked of a matter of weeks this afternoon? Did it count for nothing when they said that the process might be complete by May 2000? Is that the cause of today's pantomime? Had the Government decided already that there would be no decommissioning by Sinn Fein-IRA?
        If so, I say hallelujah—at last the Government have come to their senses and now accept what many have been saying for years. They should now tell us why they want this order. We have to consider what the order aims to achieve and not just let another year go by. If the House is to make a meaningful decision tonight, we must be clear about the objectives behind the order.
        The Northern Ireland Act 1974 allows the Government to continue to run Northern Ireland as a colony. Decisions are made in London about housing, education, and planning.
        Mr. Eric Martlew: What about Dublin making them?
        Mr. Wilshire: If the Government are given half a chance, they will let Dublin run the whole shooting match. Some Labour Members have that as an objective, and I am grateful for that confirmation.
        The order asks us to continue to allow Northern Ireland's affairs to be run by unelected officials and to be overseen by politicians from Great Britain who come and go with monotonous regularity. I read in the newspapers that some will come and go again in a few days or weeks, if those words still mean anything to the Government.
        296
        I wonder how my fellow Conservative Members would feel if their constituents in Great Britain were treated as colonials, as the order that the Government want us to nod through implies for Northern Ireland.
        Mr. Desmond Swayne: I shall vote for the order with alacrity. Although my hon. Friend is right to point out that it denies the people of Northern Ireland proper local government, it at least allows the prospect of undoing the damage that hon. Members inflicted by voting for the Bill only half an hour ago.
        Mr. Wilshire: That is an intriguing and thought-provoking argument. If my hon. Friend develops it he may convert me to his view.
        As well as considering how we would feel if our constituents and local services in Great Britain were treated in the way that direct rule allows their equivalents in Northern Ireland to be treated, we should also consider how the Government have used the powers since they were last extended. They have used them disgracefully, to make concession after concession to the gunman and the bomber.
        I hold no brief for terrorists on either side. They are as evil as each other. The Government have shown no discretion in the evil people whom they allow out of prison early. The releases have applied to both sides of the despicable terrorist divide. If that is the way direct powers are used, it justifies their being described as disgraceful.
        Direct rule also allows the Government to invite foreign Governments to tell us how to run part of our country. I have always deplored that. To any American who considers the matter seriously I have always said, "How would you feel if we came to your country and told you to get out the red carpet for the Oklahoma bomber and make a hero of him?" That is precisely what foreigners have been telling us to do with terrorists in our country. Some members of the Government have used the direct powers to make as many concessions as they can to those determined to have a united Ireland by any means—the ballot box, the bullet or the bomb. Those people have been appeased by the powers of direct rule time and time again.
        Over the past year or so, we have also seen the release of terrorists. Some people may be tempted to believe that the release of prisoners, and everything else that happens in Northern Ireland, does not play with voters in the rest of the United Kingdom. That may be true. Perhaps English Members of Parliament like me take an interest in matters in which many of our constituents take none. However, many people in Great Britain are appalled by the early release of bombers, murderers and people of that ilk. We have heard today that the Government are not prepared even to contemplate stopping the release of yet more evil people; that will not go down well across the whole UK.
        Direct rule is to be used to undermine the very principle of democracy by allowing into a part of the Government of a part of the United Kingdom people who keep Semtex and guns and who are prepared to mutilate, torture and threaten. That is a disgrace. If extending the order will enable the Government further to appease the men of terror, I am against it.
        12.22 am
        Mr. Eric Forth: I echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). I find it puzzling, and not a little disturbing, that the Government are so arrogant as to place on the Order Paper an item such as this without seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that they may expLain what it is all about. Mere courtesy to the House should lead the Government to spend a few minutes expLaining the object of the order and the reasoning behind it. To say nothing, and to assume that the House will simply nod the matter through, is arrogance of the worst kind. The Government should be held to account for their arrogance, and it may take us some time this evening to hold them properly to account.
        I am concerned by my hon. Friend's point about the apparent lack of availability of documents. It is normal for documents relating to a matter on the Order Paper to be freely available to hon. Members so that we may study them before participating in debate. If my hon. Friend is right to say that the original Act to which the order applies—the Northern Ireland Act 1974; the key to proper consideration of the extension order—is not readily and equally available to all Members, there is a real question over how far we can be expected properly to consider and debate the matter before we vote.
        I leave it to others to judge whether it is good enough to say that some copies will be available in the Lobbies or in the Library, but are we are expected to stampede out of the Chamber to lay our hands on the few copies available? Are we expected to crowd around the copying machine before—or, worse, during—the debate? I hardly think that either scenario would contribute to the quality of our debate or our consideration.
        We are in real difficulty here. As we get into the early stages of this debate, we are at a distinct disadvantage. We have not had the benefit of an explanation by the Government as to what the order is about, why it is on the Order Paper and why they want us to approve it. Also, we are handicapped by the lack of ready availability of a source document for the debate.
        All that would be bad enough, but when one looks at the words on the Order Paper, one sees that we are apparently being asked that
        "the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 7th July,"—
        as long ago as that—
        "be approved."
        The Order Paper continues:
        "The Instrument has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments."
        I wonder whether there is something sinister behind this. The implication of that apparently simple little phrase is that such an order would normally be considered by the Statutory Instruments Joint Committee but that in this case it has not been and I can readily understand why. If the matter was only laid before the House as recently as 7 July, it is no wonder that the Committee has not been able to consider it fully and properly so that it may advise the House.
        298
        The Government are trying to rush this matter through without having given the reasonable and normal opportunity for that Committee to consider it. That is my reading—
        Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the title? It is an extension order to extend existing powers and to cover the predicament that might arise if anything went wrong.
        Mr. Forth: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful. He seems to think that simply because it is an extension we need not bother too much about it. I do not know whether he thinks that his constituents will be happy if, when they ask him what he did about the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1999 and say, "Don't you realise that it had not been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments?", all he can say is, "Don't worry folks. It was only an extension order, so I did not bother to look at it.
        That may be good enough for the people of St. Helens, but it is certainly not good enough for the people of Bromley and Chislehurst. They will have expected me to consider the details of the matter on the Order Paper fully and properly. I expect that the constituents of most other hon. Members would feel the same. I cannot understand why the people of St. Helens are not interested in the reasons behind an extension order, but I defer to the hon. Gentleman and his understanding of the fact that his constituents have so little interest.
        Mr. Bermingham: The answer is simple. The people of St. Helens, South are very intelligent and I am sure that the people of Bromley and Chislehurst can understand the meaning of the order, even if the right hon. Gentleman cannot.
        Mr. Forth: I advise the hon. Gentleman to stop digging before he is called to account by his constituents.
        That exchange has made its own point. If Labour Members believe that simply because an order is an extension it does not require deliberation or consideration in the House, they have a different idea of their parliamentary duties from mine. I try to take seriously the matters that are laid before us by the Government. I assume that it is still the responsibility of this House to give these matters proper consideration. I would prefer that the documents were readily available. I would prefer that the Government initiated the debate by giving us an explanation of the matter before us.
        Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what he has described—an unwillingness on the part of the Government to explain the nature of the order—is part of a pattern? I think that he is aware of last night's debate on the Ways and Means resolution for the Food Standards Bill, which involved a great deal of money. He will remember that it was not until the end of that debate, after a great deal of prompting, that Members on the Treasury Bench explained the Ways and Means resolution. This is part of a pattern.
        Mr. Forth: I regret to say that my right hon. and learned Friend is correct. Given that he is so assiduous in

        299
        his parliamentary duties, he was in the Chamber last night and witnessed the fact that, yet again, the Government expected the House to pay little or no attention to the important matter before us. At the beginning of that debate, the Government failed, yet again, to offer the House the merest courtesy of an explanation—however brief—as to what the debate would be about.
        Having concluded my preliminary remarks, I want to get into the substance of the issue—the extension of the order. As we are in unguided mode, I can only guess what the order is about—it might take me some little time because I have not yet been told by the Government. I do know, because it is stated in the order, that:
        "The interim period specified by section 1(4) of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 shall continue until 16th July 2000."
        I did not need to be told that by the Government.
        However, I am left to guess why the order should continue until 16 July 2000. If we relate the order to our earlier proceedings today, we are forced to ask why, if the Government have such confidence in those matters, they should want to extend the order until 16 July. I could understand the argument for its extension to May of next year, because that date seems to have some relevance for the Government. I could even understand an extension for only a few days or weeks beyond today's date, if necessary. Why was the date of 16 July 2000 chosen? It seems to bear no relation to our earlier deliberations. We are left to wonder why the Government are extending the order at all, because we have not been told. However, even if we grant that the extension has a certain logic, we have not yet been told why the order will extend to that date.
        The House is entitled to ask such questions; in fact it is our duty to ask them. That is why we are all here—to ask questions of the Government of the day. The matter could probably have been dealt with much more briefly if the Government had had the courtesy and good sense to explain matters at the beginning of the debate. Who knows? That might have meant that some of us would not have to ask these questions, because they would already have been answered. The Government seem to want to prolong the proceedings unnecessarily by not offering us an explanation.
        I shall bring my questions to an end, as the lack of an explanation from the Government might mean that one or two of my colleagues may want to add their own questions.
        Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend itemises some of the questions that should be put to the Government. Will he also invite the Government to explain the relationship between motions 6 and 7? I note that motion 7 may not be debated, but that it can be objected to. In order to avoid making an objection, which may be tiresome, it might be helpful if, when Members on the Treasury Bench are speaking to motion 6, they will tell us the relationship between that motion and—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to know that we can deal only with one motion at a time.
        Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was about to be tempted to note in passing—but I resisted—that motion 7 intriguingly contains a reference to Friday 16 July. Is that
        300
        the key to the as yet unanswered question as to why 16 July is referred to in the order? We still do not know. However, there is a hint of an explanation that there might be a connection between the two. You have said that we must not refer to motion 7, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although, regrettably, there will be no opportunity to debate it—only to vote on it. We shall have to make our own judgment on the matter.
        Mr. Robert Syms: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the extension order provides a good opportunity to review how the arrangements have worked over the past 12 months, first, in respect of policies and, secondly, in respect of the individuals conducting those policies in Northern Ireland?
        Mr. Forth: I would that that were so. My hon. Friend has made a perfectly reasonable request, but we have no opportunity for such a review, judgment and evaluation process, which would enable us to put in context the measure before us. If we were able to do that, I would feel more comfortable when the House, as it must, divides on the motion and hon. Members express their views in the Lobby. However, we shall leave that for a little later—after we have had an explanation from the Minister at the conclusion of this brief debate.
        There are real questions to be asked, and the House is owed an explanation. We shall want to have on the record a statement of what the measure is about, because such matters should not be left to speculation of the sort in which I have necessarily had to indulge. Only when we have heard the Minister's explanation shall we be able properly to cast our votes on whether or not we agree with the Government. I await that explanation with eagerness.
        12.36 am
        Mr. Desmond Swayne: I shall not detain the House long because I do not believe that we should look a gift horse in the mouth. I do not share the perspective of my right hon. and hon. Friends: as I said earlier, I shall vote for the measure with alacrity.
        The extension of the powers is all the more vital as a consequence of the Bill to which we have just given a Third Reading. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has said about the way in which the powers have operated in the past. He has said, quite rightly, that they have denied the people of Northern Ireland a measure of local government that all our constituents enjoy. That is regrettable. However, we now have the basis for taking a step back from the policy that has been pursued over the past 18 months in respect of those powers.
        That policy has been to try to draw the terrorists into the democratic process—to entrap them with the trappings of democracy. However, the consequences of that policy are that the very reverse has been achieved. In the Northern Ireland Bill to which we have just given a Third Reading, we see that we have actually corrupted the democratic process by providing for continual compromise on the part of the democrats, so that they are, in effect, duped into giving credence to the posturing of the terrorists. We have corrupted the entire democratic process.
        The extension of the powers in the order gives us the opportunity in the year ahead, to 16 July 2000—I am not so taken by the theological questions surrounding that

        301
        date as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is—to correct the mistakes that we have just made. I accept that the powers are necessary, I shall vote for them with enthusiasm, and I hope that I shall be able to do so soon.
        12.39 am
        Mr. Andrew Robathan: This is a bizarre little debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—although not because of the hilarity being evinced by some Government Members below the Gangway. As we approach 12.40 am on the following day, those of us who have sat here most of the time since 4 pm yesterday—Ministers, Front-Bench spokesmen, Unionists and others on both sides of the House, including myself—are wondering what has gone on. Only an hour ago—[Laughter.] The hon. Members who find this debate hilarious do not realise the importance of this measure or the Bill that we discussed earlier. Only an hour ago, the Government were arguing exactly the opposite of what they are now proposing, yet they expect the motion to go through without debate. That is pretty much a derogation of democracy.
        As we have heard, the Northern Ireland Act 1974 is not in the Vote Office and, regrettably, my hon. Friends and I—and, I suspect, most Labour Members—have not had time to read the 1974 debates on the original Act or the debates on it that have taken place every year since then. It would be interesting to know whether the Labour party opposed the measure when in opposition. I have no idea, but I should like to know, because I want to know on what basis the measure might have been opposed in the past.
        Mr. Hogg: There is a perfectly sensible basis for opposing the measure, which is that there should be direct integration of the Province into the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a substantive issue, and if the Act is to be extended for another 12 months, that may be precisely the Question that we should consider.
        Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, because, as it happens, I shall touch on that point later in my remarks.
        As I understand the issue without having read the debates in 1974, we are being asked to extend direct rule. Who in the House is in favour of that? I am not, because I would much rather see devolved government for Northern Ireland or, indeed, a Northern Ireland that is integrated with the United Kingdom.
        Mr. Swayne: Does my hon. Friend realise that he has only just emerged from the Division Lobby where he opposed a measure that he rightly thought would include terrorists in that devolved Government, and that these powers are therefore all the more necessary?
        Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend is kind to think that I had not considered that, but the devolved rule that I should like to see is devolved government to democratic parties in Northern Ireland, not terrorist parties. I do not want general devolution. Along with every Member of the House, I want the Good Friday agreement to be
        302
        implemented in full, but that does not include the measure against which I voted less than an hour ago or the Act that we are now debating.
        Who is in favour of direct rule for Northern Ireland? The Government, who have put forward the order, are not, and they have been arguing against that position for the past 12 hours. The Unionists are not particularly in favour of it. The Conservatives are not in favour of it; we want devolved rule. Sinn Fein certainly do not seem to be favour of it. So who is in favour?
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst and Bromley, or wherever it is—
        Mr. Forth: Bromley and Chislehurst.
        Mr. Robathan: A very fine place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said that it was arrogant of the Government—which indeed it is—to spend eight hours arguing for one position and then suddenly introduce an order of this magnitude and expect it to go through on the nod. This is a very important order. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gainsborough; no, Lincolnshire; no, Grantham—[Laughter.] I cannot think what Labour Members find so hilarious. [HON. MEMBERS: "You."] That is kind, but I never intended to be a stand-up comic. I can only suspect that the hilarity has something to do with the lateness of the hour and the way in which the previous hours have been spent.
        My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) talked about the integration of Northern Ireland with the United Kingdom. That is a very reasonable position, and one that I would support, but it is very much against the Government's devolutionary tendencies. Surely that is a matter for debate, rather than merely for nodding through the House.
        What about other alternatives that have not been considered or even mentioned by the Minister, who simply proposed the motion formally? That is quite inappropriate. I know it is late, but this is an important issue. It is extraordinary that the Government intend to steamroller the motion through, as they do with so many other measures, even though they argued for entirely the opposite position for hours this afternoon and evening. The laughter of Ministers and others surely shows confusion in their minds.
        What do the Government really believe? They seem to be in a mess. Do they want direct rule for an emergency? They have been saying that Sinn Fein and the IRA are sticking to a ceasefire, so there is no emergency. The order provides for emergency legislation to deal with special circumstances. If the special circumstances have passed, why do we yet again require the order? The killings and beatings in Northern Ireland that I mentioned in our earlier debate are very important, yet the Government tell us that there is no emergency.
        I would like some consistency in Government policy, as I think would the more serious Government Members. That is not too much to ask. This is not some little order to be nodded through about whether—this is close to my heart—we ride bicycles on pavements. It is about the ruling of the Province of Northern Ireland—part of the United Kingdom—and affects millions of people. We should surely treat it rather more seriously.

        303
        What does the order contain? What have we heard from Ministers about security and security policy? All such matters are relevant to the order, but we have heard nothing. What have we heard about schools, roads or health? We have heard nothing except the Minister move the motion formally. That is not good enough for me, for Northern Ireland, or for the constituents of Labour Members sitting below the Gangway, who seem to find the whole thing very funny. I do not know whether people in Northern Ireland will find it funny; perhaps they will read about it.
        We are told that all these matters should be dealt with by locally elected politicians in Northern Ireland. All we get from the Minister is one word. There must be some explanation—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Member keeps repeating himself. He should not do that.
        Dr. George Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I notice that the Order Paper says
        "The Speaker will put the Question not later than 1½ hours after proceedings begin".
        As a new Member, I would have thought that that probably gave you some discretion. In view of the quality of the debate, I wonder whether I may be allowed to move that the Question be put?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are occasions on which I wish that I had discretion, but I am afraid, even at this late hour, that I am in the hands of the House.
        Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I plead with you to give the right to the people of Northern Ireland to be heard in this debate, and to let it continue for its full length.
        Mr. Robathan: I know that, notwithstanding the barracking from the riff-raff on the Labour Benches, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will always—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should not use such terms. Perhaps he will withdraw his remark.
        Mr. Robathan: I shall certainly withdraw it. I apologise if "riff-raff' is an unparliamentary term.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can tell the hon. Member that it is unparliamentary, and that he must withdraw it.
        Mr. Robathan: I shall certainly withdraw it. I can think of many other terms to describe the hooting from Labour Members. I am glad that you use your discretion wisely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, unlike the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner).
        This is very important legislation. It deals with the governance of 1.5 million people in Northern Ireland and it is not to be taken lightly and dealt with late at night. It should be considered at much greater length.
        Mr. Swayne: Before my hon. Friend resumes his place, will he at least favour us with an explanation of whether
        304
        he is in favour of extending these powers? I am not clear, and perhaps I have not followed his argument. If he is in favour of extending the powers, will he tell us why?
        Mr. Robathan: I do not want to go too far down that line. I do not think that the responsibility is on me to say whether I am in favour of the powers. The responsibility is on the Government to tell us what the powers will involve and to describe the purpose or intention of the order, given what has been said since 4 o'clock this afternoon. They should tell us what the consequences of the order will be. I very much hope that we shall hear rather more from the Government than we have heard so far.
        12.50 am
        Mr. Robert Syms: I support the order. It seems sensible that the provisions should continue to be on the statute book. We all hope that the agreement succeeds, but, if it does not, the Province will still have to be governed in the short term and beyond. There are about 1.5 million citizens in Northern Ireland and it is an important part of the United Kingdom. If we have a problem in the Chamber, it is that we do not discuss Northern Ireland enough. I am talking not about security matters, although they are very important, but about health, education and welfare services—all the things that we implement under the guise of the extension order in the administration of the Province. It is a pity that the Minister moved the order formally.
        We have an hour and a half to debate the order, but we cannot use the full time to debate issues that concern the people of Northern Ireland. I rather suspect that they are concerned with unemployment, health, education and their children getting on. Those are the issues that concern all our constituents. It is a great pity that, as a Parliament, we have not had the opportunity to discuss these matters as fully as we might.
        Rev. Martin Smyth: There are about 1.75 million citizens in Northern Ireland.
        Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, if we go down this road again, Ministers should at least move motions in this place that the Northern Ireland Grand Committee might meet in Northern Ireland from time to time? Does he agree that they should depart from the over-long tradition of getting their officials to phone a Member a day or so before they visit the constituency? They then say, "If you want any other information, please phone us tomorrow."
        Mr. Syms: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am glad that the former Conservative Government set up the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, but I think that it needs to be used rather more and that it should meet in Northern Ireland.
        I think also that the normal courtesies of a democratic Government should be extended to Northern Ireland. We hope that the Assembly will not fail, but, if it does, it will be wrong to fall back on direct rule without considering other options.
        There is no meaningful local government in Northern Ireland. People stand for election under party colours, sometimes under great threat from terrorists. Sometimes, they have to sit in a council chamber with terrorists to run

        305
        footpaths and swimming pools. Some people risk their lives doing that. On the mainland, we do not always understand the difficulties that people sometimes face in participating in democratic life in Northern Ireland.
        About two years ago, I went on a trip to Northern Ireland. We had a look round Belfast city hall and we talked to some local councillors. They are frustrated because they want to take part in ordinary democratic life. They want to shape their communities, but they cannot do so because of direct rule.
        All politicians wish to make great leaps and to embark on big schemes. We hope that what we have been debating for several hours in the Chamber succeeds. However, small steps are also possible. If things do not work out, I hope that, when we debate the order next year, we shall consider transferring some meaningful powers back to local government in Northern Ireland. It is important that when people stand for election they are able to undertake responsibilities and shape their local community, and there are many who would like to do that in Northern Ireland.
        It is wrong not to debate how people are governed at a local level and the processes of the health boards and authorities in Northern Ireland. There are important health matters throughout the Province and these are not discussed in the Chamber. There are great black spots of unemployment. Yet we are being asked to extend the order without even a report about how things have gone over the past 12 months.
        There are 1.75 million people in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said, and the way in which they are governed deserves debate. We hope that progress will be made, but if not, we fall back on the order. Important issues are involved, but we have not had the opportunity to address them.
        I hope that I have made a serious point, in the early hours of the morning. There are 1.75 million people who deserve decent government. I hope that we do not have to fall back on the order. I would support it if there were a vote, because the Province's services must be provided. That would be the line for us, as responsible politicians, to take.
        If progress is not made on the political front, I hope that we will not simply nod the order through year after year, without addressing the real issues: how Northern Ireland is governed; how local politicians can be given responsibility; and how the degree of accountability can be increased not only at local level in the Province, but through the House, the Northern Ireland Grand Committee and other methods.
        I have spoken to one or two people who have been elected to 'the Assembly in Northern Ireland. They say that one of the best things that have happened since that occurred is that civil servants who work in the Northern Ireland Office have telephoned them and asked their opinions. They feel more included in the process.
        If the political process does not work and we fall back on the order, we should try to embrace those within existing democratic structures in Northern Ireland by integrating them far more in the decision-making process. It is a common criticism in Northern Ireland that civil servants and representatives from south of the border are
        306
        consulted more than some of our democratic politicians from north of the border. I have concerns about the order, but I will support it in a Division. The future of 1.75 million people is important and is worthy of debate.
        12.57 am
        Rev. Ian Paisley: I entirely support the remarks of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on the government of Northern Ireland. In the earlier debate, I wanted to mention the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The House owes a great debt to the RUC. During the period of direct rule, the independent commission to deal with the RUC was set up.
        It seems strange to the people of Northern Ireland that we are told by the general in charge of so-called decommissioning that all decommissioning of terrorist organisations will be by mutual consent, yet terrible attacks have been made on the Royal Ulster Constabulary as a result of the setting up of the independent commission. The independent commission became a sounding board for protests from IRA-Sinn Fein. Instead of proper communications from the general public, there was a campaign to attack and discredit members of the RUC.
        People in Northern Ireland say that, before there is any change in the policing of the Province, there should be a rigorous campaign to deal with the terrorists who are still carrying out terrorism in Northern Ireland.
        I salute the members of the RUC and the Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve. I salute their mothers, their wives and their families, who every day send their loved ones out to work and do not know whether they will return in safety.
        The force, which has done its best in difficult times and has had a terrible job policing the Province because of the acts of terrorism carried out there, seems to have been the butt of attack because of the setting up of the commission.
        Recently, we had a visit from representatives of the Congress and the Senate in Washington, which I deeply resented. It was led by two prominent Senators and a Congressman and the most vicious attack was launched on the RUC. I did not see any defence made of the RUC by any Minister of the Crown. That most scurrilous attack called for its complete abandonment and said that all it did was discriminate against the Roman Catholic population of our Province. I say, "Hands off the RUC." Mr. Patten has become the Foreign Secretary of the European Union; his work is over and he has drawn up his report. We are waiting for it, and I understand from the information that it will be very damaging and will help to forward the republican agenda in our Province. I say to the Ministers of the Crown that they should be taking a stand for those who are seeking, in difficult circumstances, to police our Province.
        I should like to raise one other matter—a long-service medal for the firemen of Northern Ireland. There was—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a perfectly good thing that the hon. Gentleman has brought up the question of a long-service medal for the firemen, but perhaps it would be more appropriate to raise it in another debate. We are discussing an order that covers a multitude of matters, but he is going into specific detail.
        Rev. Ian Paisley: I have taken part in such debates for many years—perhaps for more years than you,

        307
        Mr. Deputy Speaker. This debate was held every year and it used to be a proper debate. If any Minister of the Crown had stood by and said, "Formally," he would have had his head taken off. With respect, all that I can say to the House is that, tonight, I am entitled to roam over every part of the government of Northern Ireland—from Dan to Beersheba—because it is all included in the order.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that I have allowed him to roam—[Laughter.] I have allowed him to roam, but he is going into great detail about a specific subject relating to Northern Ireland. I suggest that perhaps he finds another time to raise that matter.
        Rev. Ian Paisley: It is not often that anybody sends me to roam, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friends have told me to come home quick; they must think that I would be contaminated.
        The fire services of Northern Ireland have done a magnificent job in protecting everybody's property. There was a move to strike a long-service medal for the firemen of Northern Ireland, but it was rejected when a head of steam was raised by a republican lobby. Ministers know something about this matter—I ask them to remember that those men deserve that medal, which is what they would receive if they worked on this side of the water—and I trust that it will be resolved satisfactorily and those who have served the people of Northern Ireland in that capacity will be the proud wearers of long-service medals. I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        1.4 am
        Mr. William Ross: I see from the Order Paper that the draft order has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. As it happens, for a good many years, I have been a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I was struck by the fact that the order has not been laid within the normal time scale. It may have been considered by the Committee today, but, due to my presence on these Benches, I was unable to attend that meeting. If not, it will come before the Committee in due course. When it does, no doubt we shall ask the usual questions. Such questions are all too frequent, because, through either incompetence or neglect, Departments often fail to produce statutory instruments in the proper time, so hon. Members do not have an opportunity to table motions either to condemn them, to commend them or to demand a debate on them. Occasionally, the Order Paper contains prayers asking that orders or statutory instruments be rescinded or withdrawn.
        This order is defective in a number of ways. The proper time scale has not been observed. It has come before the House before it has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. We have not had an opportunity to consider whether it meets the proper standards and falls within the power delegated to the Minister by the main legislation. Furthermore, it has not been signed by the Secretary of State, as it should be. I should be grateful for an explanation of why that has been neglected. It refers to
        "One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State",
        but there is nothing above that, so we do not know which Secretary of State it should be. Any of them can legally sign it, but that has not apparently been done.
        308
        The draft order states that it
        "shall come into force forthwith".
        Draft orders are usually laid some considerable time before the application date. The fact that this order must be brought into force forthwith shows that the Government have got the time scale wrong, as they have on a number of occasions. They were wrong over the time that it was to take before the new arrangements for the Government of Northern Ireland came into force. They clearly expected that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 would have been in operation by now.
        Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has had a great deal of experience as a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Will he confirm to the House that one of the advantages of a draft statutory instrument being considered by that Committee is that it can make a report to the House, which would inform our debate? As a consequence of the Committee not having considered this draft order, we do have the advantage of a formal report.
        Mr. Ross: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct. These instruments are carefully considered by the legal advisers to the Speaker, so that we can be certain that they fall within the law. That has clearly not happened in this case, and that is a matter of regret. No doubt, the Joint Committee will report to the House on this order in due course. As is far too often the case, it may castigate the Department concerned for its failure in this matter.
        As I was saying when the right hon. and learned Gentleman intervened, given the fact that this order has had to be introduced at the last minute, it is clear that the Government intended that the 1998 Act should be in operation by now, but it is not. Why not? That has been debated at some length today, and it is purely the fault of the Provisional IRA and the other terrorist organisations that have held on to their weaponry. This order has appeared in such great haste because it has become apparent to the Government that the IRA has no intention of co-operating on the surrender of weapons.
        That is also the reason why Mr. Ahern, the Prime Minister of the Republic, is now trying to make everyone believe that Sinn Fein and the IRA are two separate organisations. That is like saying that the yolk and the white are not part of the same egg. No one in this place, and no one in Northern Ireland, would accept Mr. Ahern's description of the two organisations. They are one and the same. They have been using the laws and rules of this country; they have been using the system to destroy the system. The sooner people understand that, the better.
        This is the interim period extension, for the 25th year in succession. Actually, we are talking about rather more than 25 years: the arrangement has existed since 1972, in its previous incarnation. The late Enoch Powell used to say that there was nothing so permanent as the temporary, and I think that this piece of paper proves the accuracy of that observation.
        There is no good reason why Northern Ireland should have had to suffer the problems associated with direct rule over the past 25 years, under Governments of both parties. The matter could have been resolved long ago. Means were set out whereby it could have been resolved—not least in the manifesto commitment given by the Conservative party at the time of the 1979 election,

        309
        to which I often hark back. If implemented, it would have resolved the situation: we would have had some form of local administration at an early stage in that long period of Conservative administration of the nation. The Conservatives, however, broke that commitment when they were bombed.
        I well remember being out with Gerry Fitt and Airey Neave—whose crest is above the door of the Chamber—the day before Airey Neave was killed. We did a television interview; then we came back, and I talked to Airey. I was the last Ulster person who talked to him before his murder in the precincts of this building. It was clear that he understood what had to be done. The House, and the two principal parties in it, have assiduously avoided doing what is necessary for the last 25 years.
        In the last few months, many billions of pounds have been spent on bombing Kosovo in an attempt to get gunmen off the back of citizens there. We have spent the last 16 months trying to put gunmen on to the backs of the citizens of Northern Ireland, as rulers over them. That is repugnant to me; the whole legislative process in regard to this has been repugnant to me. I have seen and heard nothing today—or, indeed, at any time during the past 16 months—to make me change my mind. There are means of improving the government of Northern Ireland without any great difficulty. I hope and pray that, if there is a new Secretary of State, he or she will consider the ways in which the government of Northern Ireland can be improved, and avoid all the nonsense that we have had to suffer for many years which has cost us so dear.
        It has already been pointed out that Ministers have not given an account of how they have cared for the Province of Northern Ireland in the last year. I wish that they would. There will be other opportunities, but I think that, in this debate, Ministers should be prepared to say what has been accomplished to improve government, to improve the lot of the people of Northern Ireland, and to ensure that law and order is enforced throughout the Province. We know that there have been murders. Murders have been committed by the IRA, and by other terrorist organisations, but principally by the Provisional IRA—not only in Northern Ireland, but in the Irish Republic.
        I read in the paper that a drug dealer had been killed there a couple of weeks ago, with two barrels from a shotgun in his back. He was not the first, and I suspect that he will be the last. We all remember the so-called Direct Action Against Drugs organisation, which was so good at murdering drug dealers. In fact, it is nearly as bad as north London now.
        I suspect that if Ministers really put their minds to what can, should and must be done over the 26th year of the direct rule legislation and system in Northern Ireland, they will find ways to improve the government of Northern Ireland without engaging in what my former party leader used to call high-wire gymnastics, and summits that lead to nothing but many more newspaper sales the next morning and a lot of people staying up late, watching, and listening to, commentators make a very good living out of what they say on radio and television.
        If the two principal parties in the nation had done their job, those things would have long since been consigned to history. I hope that it is the last such order.
        Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the start of the debate, I raised with the Deputy Speaker who was then in the Chair the fact that no copies of the original Act were available in the Vote Office for us to consult. I raise as a matter of order the fact that the Vote Office has very helpfully found some copies. Hon. Members who were restrained from joining in the debate may wish to obtain copies, so that they can be better informed and then contribute.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the information.
        1.16 am
        Mr. Malcolm Moss: I am greatly surprised and somewhat disappointed by the way in which this important order was presented to the House. I was surprised on two counts. First, the Minister who moved it formally normally affords a courtesy to the House by explaining the order. Secondly, it has been taken on the Floor of the House, not in Committee, where we usually take such orders.
        I should like an explanation from the Minister. It is incumbent on him to answer some of the points in the debate, but, principally, to say why the order has been taken on the Floor of the House late at night after a long debate on other Northern Ireland business. We have two orders in Committee this week. The one on Thursday has been moved from 10 o'clock in the morning to 9 o'clock. There is no reason why the order that we are discussing could not have been taken in Committee.
        Mr. Öpik: Just to clarify the matter, had the hon. Gentleman not been informed before the debate began that the Government intended to take the order formally? My understanding was that he had been so informed.
        Mr. Moss: No, I had not been informed. That information was not passed to me. I can honestly say that that was not communicated to me.
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked a question about the wording on the Order Paper, which says:
        "The Instrument has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments."
        How significant is that?
        The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): Not at all.
        Mr. Moss: Not at all, the Minister says from a sedentary position.
        My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked a question about the next business on the Order Paper, which relates to a statutory instrument that may be laid this Friday. The date, 16 July, seems to be significant. It appears in the order that we are discussing and in the

        311
        next business of the House. Without notice, a motion for approval of the said instrument at the sitting that day will be laid and taken without debate.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that we cannot discuss business that is not before us. We must dispose of the business that is before us before we mention any other business on the Order Paper.
        Mr. Moss: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there is some significance in the date appearing in both the orders on the Order Paper.
        The Minister owes it to the House to give some explanation of why the order has been tabled today and moved formally without any explanation. It has been a long debate, and many questions have been asked. Obviously, it is important that the extension goes through. We will not oppose it because we recognise that we cannot have a vacuum in the governance of Northern Ireland, but the Minister should get to the Dispatch Box and explain why we are debating it tonight and the significance of that.
        1.19 am
        The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): There is a difference between what we have done for 25 years and what we are doing today. Before I come to the reasons for that, there are a couple of technical points with which I should deal.
        The first point relates to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Today, the order went to the Joint Committee, which has been approving exactly the same order, without comment, for a quarter of a century. Hon. Members will find that the Joint Committee's report is in the Library with the Northern Ireland Act 1974, to which hon. Members have referred.
        The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked why the order has not already been signed. It has not been signed because it is an affirmative order and cannot he signed by the Secretary of State until the House has approved it.
        Mr. Hogg: I may have misheard the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that he said that the order went today to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. If the order was laid on 7 July, why was it not sent to the Joint Committee on 7 July?
        Mr. Murphy: I shall have to write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that matter, as it does not come within my purview.
        The order is usually taken on the Floor of the House; the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) was therefore mistaken about that. In addition, the order has been taken on the Floor of the House, not in Committee, because of the requirement that it be passed no later than 15 July.
        Mr. William Ross: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the reason for the time scale of the all such orders is to ensure the protection of the citizen. The Minister may very well argue that that does not matter in
        312
        relation to this order, but in relation to other orders it might matter a very great deal to the citizen. For that reason, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments insists that proper procedures should be observed. Why will not the right hon. Gentleman observe them on this occasion?
        Mr. Murphy: Obviously, that is a matter for consideration by the Joint Committee.
        I should like to try to explain to the House why we are dealing with this order differently from previous ones. Northern Ireland Members will certainly recall that, previously, our consideration of this order provided an opportunity to have a general, state of the nation debate about Northern Ireland. Today, however, we have already had plenty of debate; moreover, this order is rather specific.
        The order would extend the period of direct rule in the event of what we hope will occur, in two days, as devolution is passed to Northern Ireland. As the House will know, if the d'Hondt procedure is run on Thursday, an Executive will be established in Belfast. The intention is that, on Friday, a devolution order will be passed in this place and in the House of Lords, so that devolution will pass to Northern Ireland at midnight on Saturday-Sunday.
        Therefore, from the passing of that order on 16 July to Sunday, there will be two days in which, technically, there will be no Ministers of either the United Kingdom Government or the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. Consequently, we shall have to cover two days, and that is what the order is all about.
        If all that does not occur—I sincerely hope that that is not the case—the order will continue, and direct rule will continue until such time as devolution is passed. Therefore, this order is very different.
        I am sure that all hon. Members want devolution to occur in Northern Ireland. The Government want it to happen as quickly as possible, and the plan is that it will happen this weekend. However, for those two days to be covered, it is necessary for this order to be passed. If it were not, we should have to govern by emergency procedures and without Ministers. That is the simple purpose of the order. There is nothing sinister about it: it is something that has to be done. I commend it to the House.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Resolved,
        That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.

        BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Statutory Instrument)
        Motion made, and Question put,
        That, if a Statutory Instrument relating to a Northern Ireland matter be laid before the House on Friday 16th July, a Minister of the Crown may, notwithstanding the practice of the House, make without notice a Motion for the approval of the said Instrument at the sitting that day.
        Hon. Members: Object.

    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

      Poole Hospital
      1.25 am
      Mr. Robert Syms: I wish to present a petition of more than 16,800 names.
      The petition states:
      To the House of Commons in Parliament assembled.
      The petition of the patients, parents, relatives and supporters of patients and residents within the catchment area served by the Poole hospital cleft team
      Declares that the recommendations of the clinical standards advisory group for the relocation of the surgical and nursing care provided by the Poole hospital authority cleft lip and palate team to a centre in Bristol would be detrimental to the quality of care provided locally.
      The Poole team has been established for some 14 years under the guidance of a maxillofacial surgeon who is renowned internationally for his work in this field. This unit is already meeting the criteria as set out in the CSAG report and uses surgical techniques that minimise frequency of surgical intervention and produce excellent results.
      Therefore your petitioners request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Health to review the recommendations of the clinical standards advisory group to prevent the relocation and loss of service to the local community of this outstanding facility.
      And the Petitioners remain etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

      National Air Traffic Services
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
      1.25 am
      Dr. Desmond Turner: NATS has considerable problems, but those problems are in no way a reflection on the highly professional body of people who operate the service. They provide a wonderful service, which is highly regarded internationally and has a good safety record, and are doing so under difficult conditions; they are struggling with outdated equipment and an ever-increasing burden, while managing the most dense air traffic in the world.
      Those are real problems, and they are compounded by the delay in the completion of the new air traffic control centre at Swanwick and in financing the replacement of other outdated equipment that is needed for control centres.
      There are perceived problems also—I call them perceived because they are, in a sense, artificial. They are financial problems and problems of governance. The principal problem is the restriction of Treasury rules on making available the capital needed urgently for investment in the system. That is creating great difficulties for the service.
      There is no question of the service being in financial difficulty, and its financial performance is extremely good. It does not cost the taxpayer a cent. In fact, in 1997 it made an operating profit of £70 million—so it actually provides an income stream to the Government. However, it does not have the capacity to invest, and that is a serious problem. The volume of traffic is mounting and the chances of breakdown in the system are increasing; investment is needed urgently.
      This ought to be a matter of grave concern for the Government, and I believe that it is. It is noteworthy that, in the weekend opinion polls, the Government were well ahead on every aspect tested except transport, where only a minority thought that the Government were doing a good job. I find that sad, knowing the amount of effort that this party and this Government are putting into transport and the importance that we attach to it. It is vital that we get such issues right.
      The Government have come up with one suggested solution for the problem, in a consultation paper which suggested a public-private partnership. I find the use of the words "public-private partnership" semantically puzzling in this context, because it would involve the sale of 51 per cent. of the service. That is not a partnership: it is selling control of the service.
      I suggest that the Government consider alternative propositions that have been put forward. The principal one is for a publicly owned corporation. The Government have set a precedent with last week's statement on the future of the Post Office.
      I shall now undertake a somewhat simplistic exercise by running two propositions past a few tests and seeing how they measure up. When we consider privatisation, we should note that there is no other example in the world that I have been able to discover of an air traffic control system that is operated on a private, for-profit basis. It would be unique.

      315
      It is true that privatisation would provide a windfall income for the Government to reinvest in other transport projects. However, the income would probably fall far short of the real asset value of the air traffic control system. Set against the fact that the Government would lose the income stream that they currently enjoy from the ATCS, that suggests that privatisation would be neutral in financial terms.
      The most important criterion has to be safety, because that is the ethos of the entire service. Nothing else matters.
      Laura Moffatt: I thank my hon. Friend for introducing the issue of safety. Does he agree that airports such as Gatwick, which has 27 million passengers a year—projected to rise to 40 million—need to be assured that we have the safest system in the world? Privatisation may not be the way to give them that assurance.
      Dr. Turner: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Gatwick will have 40 million passengers a year. I have lost count of the numbers at Heathrow, but its figure is double Gatwick's. The system is already on the edge at times. Privatisation will not help it to deal with those problems and will not give the public confidence in the safety of the system.
      Mr. Martin Salter: Is my hon. Friend aware of the leaked memo from the Civil Aviation Authority's privatisation unit, which made it clear that whole or partial privatisation involved a substantial risk of a trade-off between profit and safety considerations? Does he agree that it is almost inherent in the proposals that the drive for profits and dividends could be a compromising factor in the all-important issue of aircraft and air traffic safety?
      Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I was just coming to that point and he has made it for me. The income of the ATCS is, essentially, fixed for years ahead, so the only way in which dividends can be found is by cutting costs. However it is done—by reducing staff or some other means—cutting costs could only compromise safety. Safety would no longer be the service's guiding ethos because commercial considerations would play a significant part, and they do not increase safety.
      The potential for generating accidents in an air traffic control service is worth pondering. Two fully laden jumbo jets colliding over a densely populated area of London would cause horrendous carnage. Any suggestion that such an accident resulted from a failure of an air traffic control system under privatised governance would lead to very serious questions being asked of the Government who had imposed that governance. I urge the Government to think very carefully before taking such a step, as safety has to be paramount.
      We all know that the proposed new airport at Swanwick is way behind schedule. If the system were put into private ownership, there might be a temptation to commission Swanwick prematurely. That facility is behind schedule at present in part because National Air Traffic Services will not commission it until it is 100 per cent. confident of its safe operation. A commercial
      316
      enterprise could be tempted, for reasons of public relations or of cutting costs, to bring it into operation before it was completely ready and safe.
      Ms Sandra Osborne: Is my hon. Friend aware that the proposed new Scottish centre at Prestwick in my constituency has already been delayed for a number of years? It is possible that private interests would cause the new centre's operational capacity to be changed and thus cost many jobs.
      Dr. Turner: I am aware of those difficulties, which make up another specific element of the problems faced by the service.
      The regulation that would be required is another factor against privatisation. Railtrack provides a truly dreadful example of how poorly regulation works. The company is under severe criticism for failing to invest adequately in track maintenance and for its poor safety record. Meanwhile, its profits and dividends have increased.
      What about the criteria of value and fairness for passengers? Privatisation would not lead to greater safety for passengers, nor any cheaper flights, but it would disadvantage them by compromising their safety. Passengers would not feel too good about that.
      Finally, there are international considerations to take into account. Air traffic control is not limited to national boundaries. It has to operate in collaboration with the other European systems, all of which are in public control. A private operation would be in conflict with them.
      None of the negative factors that I have described would apply to a public corporation, which would offer many positive advantages. The public will know that safety is a public system's only ethos, and will therefore have greater faith in it. They will know that they are getting best value. There will be no need for a separate regulator, and no problem with international collaboration. On those simple criteria, the only possible conclusion is that a public corporation wins hands down.
      The Government have shown their willingness to adopt such a policy for the Post Office—probably because they realise how much we love the Post Office—by giving it its commercial freedom through the agency of a publicly owned corporation. That is marvellous, but much as we love the Post Office, we all love our own skins better and would feel more confident of their safety if they were in public rather than private hands.
      I speak on behalf of air traffic controllers, many hon. Members, and the vast majority of the travelling public in appealing to the Minister to look to a publicly owned corporation rather than towards privatisation.
      1.41 am
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) on obtaining this debate and on choosing such a vital topic.
      Air traffic control is profoundly important. One of our key international obligations under the Chicago convention is to ensure the provision of air navigation services in national airspace. National air traffic control is a strategic activity with implications for the economy, security and public safety. Not only must it be done, but it must be done better than well.

      317
      When the Government came into office in 1997, National Air Traffic Services' front-line staff were—they still are—doing a first-class job of moving traffic around safely and expeditiously. NATS's management was doing its level best on a furious catching-up job to compensate for underinvestment a decade earlier. However, the new en route centre at Swanwick was already late, and the proposed new Scottish centre at Prestwick seemed to be in jeopardy.
      It was apparent that Government financing procedures and the need to keep a tight rein on public expenditure were likely to pose problems for the delivery of NATS's investment requirements. NATS's customers were demanding high levels of investment in order to increase capacity and minimise delays but that charges should be kept as low as possible. NATS needed certainty of access to investment funding and sought greater management and commercial freedom to develop the business. The national interest required a safe and efficient air traffic control system that could underpin the national economy and meet the nation's security needs without prejudice to the United Kingdom's international relationships and other commitments.
      We clearly needed to look at how NATS was financed and managed, but we also had to take account of NATS's desire for freedom to expand in the longer term into European and worldwide air traffic control markets. NATS's technical expertise and ability to manage traffic went a long way towards making that aspiration realistic, but development clearly requires more than opportunity, commitment and excellence, and more than guaranteed access to capital to undertake major investment; it requires world-class financial, project and commercial management.
      We wanted a solution that would let us maintain and build on the excellent record of aviation safety in the UK; ensure that NATS had adequate funding for investment; provide NATS with commercial freedom and the skills to make best use of it; continue to meet the needs of commercial, military and leisure users in peacetime; and, where necessary, protect national security.
      The status quo was not a runner. Allowing borrowing freedom within the public sector—the independent publicly owned corporation which my hon. Friend mentioned—would meet the funding need, but not much more. A non-profit-making entity, be it public or private sector, would again meet some of the need, but not all. We looked again at the model originally proposed by the previous Administration—the so-called "privatised contractor"—and concluded that they were, for once in their life, right not to pursue that course.
      However, we thought it right to examine a public-private partnership, which could secure a genuine partnership between public and private sectors to deliver a safe, modern and efficient air traffic control system for the future. The proposal on which we consulted envisaged a continuing role for the Government through a 49 per cent. shareholding, a stake of up to 5 per cent. of the shares for NATS's staff, and a 46 per cent. private sector shareholding. It was designed to free NATS from the constraints of public ownership and allow important investment and management decisions to be taken on commercial grounds, so the new company would be able
      318
      to invest for the future to improve capacity and service standards, which would benefit the travelling public and the national economy.
      Economic regulation would provide the right structure of incentives and disciplines to maximise efficiency and ensure more transparency in charges, which would benefit air users. It would separate regulation from service provision, and the Government's retained shareholding would bring financial benefits to the taxpayer, through the payment of dividends, plus the assurance that NATS would continue to act in the public interest.
      Therefore, the proposed public-private partnership offers a range of benefits to NATS, its staff, airspace users and the taxpayer. We understand the concerns expressed by NATS's staff. The prospect of change is always unnerving and the future of NATS has been in question for too long now. Staff have voiced concerns over safety and again, understandably, over their pension rights and job security.
      We have assured all employees that we are considering advice from our financial advisers on the options for the proposed employee shareholding. We announced on 14 June key principles for ensuring that the private finance initiative and PPP will secure fair treatment of the pensions of public servants transferring to public sector employees. The Government want employees' existing contractual terms and conditions of employment to be maintained, and welcome the commitment of the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS's management to full and proper consultation with the work force.
      Mr. John McDonnell: Air traffic control West Drayton is in my constituency. What factors or arguments have been brought into play since a Labour Front Bencher at a Labour party conference stood up and said that we would not "sell the air"? If it is the spurious argument about introducing commercial management to make the system more effective and competitive in the international market, surely we have learned the lessons from Railtrack about how commercial management can undermine not only a service but safety.
      Ms Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for touching on that issue, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and for Ayr (Ms Osborne) because that is the issue that was rightly at the forefront of people's minds.
      Our safety standards are some of the most stringent in the world. Our skies are safe despite the fact that air traffic is increasing by about 7 per cent. a year. In the main, that is a tribute to the CAA, which sets and monitors those standards and to NATS, whose ability to move traffic safely and expeditiously is arguably the highest in the world.
      NATS is subject to testing safety targets set by the Government and continues to meet those targets, and we are totally committed to maintaining and improving the United Kingdom's safety standards. Indeed, in view of the relentless rise in traffic levels, which is expected to continue in the foreseeable future, actual safety levels must increase. That is the overriding priority of our aviation policy, and I can tell my hon. Friends who have raised concerns about that issue that this Government would not have contemplated institutional change if we had thought that safety might be jeopardised.

      319
      NATS's staff and some hon. Members have argued that a private sector NATS would put profits before safety. My hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown made that point forcefully. It is our view that it would not. The safety culture within NATS is very strong at all levels and the Government, the regulator and NATS together would ensure that that remained the case.
      One of the benefits of the PPP would be to ensure the separation of safety regulation from the provision of ATC services. That is something that airspace users would welcome and which the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and the former Monopolies and Mergers Commission have been recommending for some years. It would make a major contribution to NATS's ability to deliver our ATC projects both now and in the future, enabling us to continue to handle safely the increase in flights that we expect. Correctly structured—and it would be—it would give NATS greater access to private capital for investment and the skills to use that capital to best effect.
      NATS would be the first to admit that mistakes were made with Swanwick. However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown will be reassured to know that the centre is now on schedule to enter operation by spring 2002. Technical transfer—the point at which the system development is complete and satisfies its initial requirement—was achieved on time at the end of March. The new system is now being integrated into the rest of the UK ATC infrastructure; that should be complete by late next year. The year 2001 will be taken up with training controllers on the new systems before the centre enters operation.
      Prestwick and Swanwick are the pillars of NATS's two-centre strategy. NATS's commitment to the strategy is unwavering, as is that of the Government. I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr will take comfort from the fact that NATS plans to bring the new Scottish centre into operation in the winter of 2005–06. In April this year, we approved the negotiation of a multi-phase contract for the NSC with Sky Solutions. We expect agreement on phase 1—the detailed design of the building and systems, and some software development—this summer. We are appointing external project management experts to assist NATS.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown touched on the future of national air traffic control, not only on the future of NATS. He is right not to be too parochial; aviation is an international business. European air traffic levels continue to rise, and delays due to ATC causes are affecting the European ATC system at an alarming rate. The Kosovo conflict is part of the problem, even though combat activity has ceased. Capacity seems to be inadequate in some parts of Europe. Happily, the situation in the UK is much better; the UK is currently responsible for only 6 per cent. of the total delays across Europe. That is remarkable considering that traffic is at record levels in some parts of our airspace and well beyond forecast levels.
      320
      Nevertheless, the UK is part of a whole, and we suffer knock-on effects from delays elsewhere. We believe that it is in the UK's best interests to seek an overall European solution to ATC delay problems. We think that political initiatives already under way should be strengthened. We are co-operating fully with European states at ministerial, official, technical, and operational level to develop solutions through harmonising and integrating national systems, in order to maximise the available capacity in the short term, and create more capacity in the longer term. The results of co-operation over about 10 years are feeding through to capacity increase, but traffic growth is rapidly outstripping the rate at which demand can be accommodated. We need to explore new and innovative measures.
      The introduction of radar after the second world war obviously vastly improved the controller's ability to retain an overall picture of his traffic and to effect safe separation between them. However, the basic principles remain: individual aircraft are separated from each other manually, and aircraft are obliged to fly predetermined routes through the skies.
      The European organisation for the safety of air navigation—EUROCONTROL—of which the UK is one of the most active members, has brought together all interested aviation parties, including the military, to develop a strategy for the future of air traffic management. Entitled "ATM 2000+", it looks at the period until 2015 and approaches air traffic control in a new light. Safety will always be paramount, but we can harness new technology. New developments can enhance the dialogue between pilot and controller. They can replace voice transmissions with data transfer, take full advantage of air navigation systems for ATC use, and utilise airborne safety net systems. In the ATC system of the future, the controller will take on a more strategic role, allowing airborne routing and flight profile freedoms, thereby gaining greater overall airspace capacity. Safety levels will be enhanced, and the controller will be able to intervene where necessary to maintain proscribed separation standards.
      For the future, we need an ATC system that can respond positively to rising traffic levels, improve safety levels to meet the requirements of increased volumes of traffic, and deliver a cost-effective service at a price the airlines are prepared to pay. That is the background against which we proposed a public-private partnership for NATS. What we want goes beyond financial freedom, important though that is. UK air traffic control must be a safe, effective and efficient part of the global system. We have not yet come to a conclusion on the precise future form of NATS, although we hope to do so shortly. However, the future of air traffic control is no small issue; we must be sure that we have the right answer, and we will.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Two o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Social Exclusion
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to publish the Social Exclusion Unit report on 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training; and if he will make a statement. [91008]

  The Prime Minister
  Last summer, I asked the Social Exclusion Unit to assess how many 16 to 18-year-olds are not in education, work or training, to analyse the reasons why and to produce proposals to reduce the number significantly. I am publishing the Unit's report today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  At any one time, more than 160,000 16 to 18-year-olds—one in 11 of the age group—are not in education, training or work. The young people most likely not to participate in education, training or work during this period of their lives come from backgrounds of poverty or unemployment in the family, have truanted or been excluded from school, have been in care or live in the poorest neighbourhoods. There are clear links between non-participation and other problems encountered in adolescence. Half the young women who are outside education, work or training are teenage parents or carers, and there are links also with homelessness, offending and serious drug misuse.

  Non-participation at this time in their lives has a dire effect on young people's future life prospects. By their mid-twenties, they are much more likely than their peers to have no qualifications, to be unemployed, to be poor, to experience poor health and depression and, if they are men, to have a criminal record which damages their prospects of work. The Government have a number of programmes in place to tackle educational under-achievement and youth disaffection, including the setting up of youth offending teams. But more needs to be done. The Unit's Report shows that there is little joined-up delivery of services to young people, and that the end of compulsory schooling at 16 is seen by too many young people as the end of education, rather than as a basis for its continuation. For too many of them, no one is responsible outside the family for guiding them through adolescence and there is not enough effective support to help them overcome personal problems that get in the way of learning. There are also strong arguments for giving more financial help to young people from poor families who want to stay on in education.

  The Unit's Report plots a way forward in combating social exclusion among this age group. The Government believe that young people should be given every encouragement and support to stay in full-time education after they are 16 and reach at least a Level 2 qualification. It will ask the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to consult on ways of giving young people who stay in education until 16 recognition for what they have
  90
  achieved in education and elsewhere. It will build on improvements already in train in education and skills for 13 to 19-year-olds, with a particular emphasis on the education received by young people in custody.

  To extend the financial support available to young people to stay in education, the pilots of the Education Maintenance Allowance will be extended to include homeless and disabled young people, and those with high transport costs, for example in rural areas.

  The Report also provides more detail on the new Youth Support Service, which was announced in the White Paper "Learning to Succeed" (Cm 4392) on 30 June. The aim of the new service will be to provide for young people between the ages of 13 and 19 individually tailored guidance and support, in places and ways which meet their needs. The youth support service will be a new service operating in a radically different way. It will look at the broad range of needs which a young person may have, focusing on those who require most help with the clear goal of supporting participation in learning. It will link closely with other agencies in doing this.

  It is clear that the best defence against social exclusion is having a job, and the best chance of having a job is to be well educated. This will be more the case in the information age of the future than it has ever been. The years between 16 and 18 are crucial ones; making the wrong decision at that stage can affect a young person's prospects for the rest of their life. This action plan for the whole of Government will help to put young people firmly on the right track.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Data Series
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Attorney-General what new data series separated by gender, race, disability and age have been commissioned by his Department since June 1997. [90534]

  The Attorney-General
  The Treasury Solicitor's department holds, as a matter of course, information as to the age and gender of all its staff. In 1998, the department conducted fresh surveys of staff then in post, requesting information on ethnic origin and disability. The survey information is regularly updated as new entrants are invited to complete survey forms on joining. No new 'data series' (internal surveys) have been commissioned by my other departments (the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office).

  All my departments contribute to the 'Mandate' database maintained by the Cabinet Office from which data are taken for the publications "Civil Service Statistics" and "Equal Opportunities in the Civil Service". Furthermore, my departments contributed to the Schneider-Ross report on under-representation of women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities in the Senior Civil Service, published on 7 July by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Attorney-General how many(a) race and (b) sex discrimination cases have been lodged against the CPS at industrial/employment tribunals by CPS staff in each of the last five years; and how many of

  Cases lodged

  Result favourable to applicant

  Settled

  Discontinued

  Ongoing

  Race discrimination cases lodged by CPS staff

  April 1994 to March 1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  April 1995 to March 1996

  2

  —

  —

  1

  11

  April 1996 to March 1997

  1

  —

  —

  11

  —

  April 1997 to March 1998

  3

  1

  —

  1

  11

  April 1998 to March 1999

  8

  11

  13

  11

  13

  Sex discrimination cases lodged by CPS staff

  April 1994 to March 1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  April 1995 to March 1996

  1

  —

  —

  —

  11

  April 1996 to March 1997

  2

  —

  —

  12

  —

  April 1997 to March 1998

  2

  —

  —

  11

  11

  April 1998 to March 1999

  6

  11

  —

  12

  13

  1 The table includes one case claiming race and sex discrimination

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what plans he has to review the operation of performance appraisal reports in the CPS in the light of the Bamieh case; [90377]

  (2) what plans he has to review the operation of CPS promotion boards following the Bamieh case; [90378]

  (3) what plans he has to review the operation of acting up arrangements in the CPS following the Bamieh case. [90380]

  The Attorney-General
  The recent decision of the Employment Tribunal, to which I believe my hon. Friend refers, concerns a case brought by Mrs. Bamieh against the Crown Prosecution Service relating to events which took place after 1 July 1997 and before 22 June 1998. The Tribunal found for Mrs. Bamieh in respect of the conduct of a promotion board that took place in 1998 but against her in the other three matters that she put forward.

  Mrs. Bamieh's complaint in relation to her performance appraisal report in 1998 failed; however, the Crown Prosecution Service, in any event, introduced a new performance appraisal report that year. The appraisal system is being kept under regular review.

  Equally, the Tribunal did not find that Mrs. Bamieh was discriminated against in relation to deputising and temporary promotion procedures; however, it did make observations about the systems in place. The deputising and temporary promotion procedures are currently under review and are being discussed with the departmental Trade Unions. The comments made by the Tribunal are being taken into account.

  The Tribunal's Decision in relation to the conduct of the promotion boards is being taken very seriously by the Crown Prosecution Service, which is currently reviewing its promotion board procedures.
  92
  the cases within (a) and (b) were (i) successfully pursued to a tribunal decision favourable to the applicant, (ii) settled and (iii) discontinued. [90379]

  The Attorney-General
  The statistics from April 1994 until March 1999 are set out in the following table. My hon. Friend's attention is drawn to the footnote which accompanies the table.

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Attorney-General how many kilometres have been travelled on his Department's business in each of the last three years broken down by(a) foot, (b) bike, (c) bus, (d) train, (e) tram, (f) light-rail, (g) plane, (h) motorbike, (i) car, (j) taxi, (k) river-taxi and (l) other modes of transport; what plans and targets his Department has to reduce the kilometres travelled by private transport by his Department's employees; and if he will make a statement. [91023]

  The Attorney-General
  The information on business travel is not collected in the form requested and therefore cannot be provided. As published in the integrated transport White Paper in July 1998, the Government have set a target that all Government Department headquarters buildings and main buildings occupied by Executive Agencies and Government Offices for the Regions should have green transport plans by March 1999 and all other key buildings by March 2000.

  My Departments have completed green transport plans for their headquarters buildings and are developing plans for all other key buildings in line with the target set in the White Paper. The plans include measures to reduce single occupancy car use by employees for commuting and business travel, including ensuring that journeys are necessary, by making available loans for the purchase of season tickets for public transport and bicycles, and by providing secure bicycle storage facilities and showers.

  Racism (Disciplinary Action)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Attorney-General if the remarks made by the Director of Public Prosecutions in early May 1999 to a Law Society meeting of ethnic minority lawyers, concerning disciplinary action against staff found to have committed racist behaviour or made racist comments, represent Government policy. [90381]

  The Attorney-General
  Government policy is to deliver real change in race equality in Britain through policy formulation and implementation. The Government
  93
  do not condone racist behaviour of any sort. This policy applies to the Crown Prosecution Service, and those who are found to display racist behaviour or attitudes will have action taken against them under the Service's disciplinary code.

DEFENCE

  Deployment
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of(a) Army, (b) Royal Navy and (c) Royal Air Force personnel are currently committed to active service operations; and what percentage are warned to deploy to such operations. [88124]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 24 June 1999]: (a) Of the Army, 28.6 per cent. actually deployed on operations. The total percentage of the Army committed to operations is 47 per cent. This includes not only the troops actually deployed, but those preparing for imminent deployment as well as those who are in the process of post-deployment recovery and recuperation.

  (b) Of the Naval Service (including Royal Marines) around 45 per cent. are on operational sea service.

  (c) Of the Royal Air Force, a total of 40 per cent. of personnel are currently deployed, ready to deploy or in immediate support of operations, based in UK and abroad.

  Royal Hospital, Haslar
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the establishment for orthopaedic surgeons at the Royal Hospital, Haslar on the basis of the full implementation of Defence Cost Study 15. [88339]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 25 June 1999]: Following Defence Cost Study 15, it was agreed that eight orthopaedic surgeons were required at the Royal Hospital Haslar.

  Operation Joint Guardian
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of troops earmarked for Operation Joint Guardian are at present deployed in(a) Kosovo, (b) Macedonia and (c) Albania. [88781]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: Of the forces we expect to deploy in support of Operation Joint Guardian, some 73 per cent. are deployed in Kosovo and 21 per cent. in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. None are deployed in Albania.

  Armed Forces (Under-18s)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Army committed to operations in Northern Ireland were under 18 years of age on 23 June; and in which units. [89041]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 30 June 1999]: A total of 28 UK Trained Army Personnel under the age of 18 years were serving in Northern Ireland as at 1 June 1999, the latest date for which information is held centrally. A breakdown by individual regiments is shown in the table.
  94

  Regiment/Unit

  Number

  Guards

  5

  Scots Guards

  2

  1 Black Watch

  2

  Royal Regiment Fusiliers

  1

  Royal Anglian Regiment

  3

  Green Howards

  1

  Royal Irish (General Service)

  7

  Queen's Lancastrian Regiment

  3

  Royal Welch Fusiliers

  1

  Light Infantry

  2

  Royal Logistics Corps

  1

  Total

  28

  Age is taken into account in selecting the types of duty in which under 18s can be employed. The Army does not, as a general rule, currently deploy those under 17¼ who are usually involved in initial training. The minimum ages currently applied for deployment on active service in Northern Ireland are 18 years for an Emergency Tour, and 17½ for Resident Units where they are confined to duties within the Barracks only.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the sites of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency visited by Defence Ministers since May 1997. [89621]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 2 July 1999]: Since May 1997, Defence Ministers have visited the following DERA sites:

  Farnborough

  Malvern

  Porton Down

  Chertsey

  Portsdown West.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the meetings he and his Ministers have held with trade union representatives of staff employed by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency to discuss the Public Private Partnership proposals [90632]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 12 July 1999]: In July 1998, the Strategic Defence Review—SDR—announced a Public Private partnership—PPP—for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency—DERA. Since then, there have been a number of meetings between Ministers and trade union representatives of DERA staff. Many of these meetings were intended to discuss a range of SDR issues, but the subject of DERA PPP often featured prominently.

  Date

  Attendees

  Location

  22 July 1998

  Minister (DP), DERA management, staff and trade unions

  DERA Farnborough

  28 July 1998

  Secretary of State, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and trade unions

  MOD

  28 January 1999

  Secretary of State and the trade unions

  The Royal United Services Institute

  10 February 1999

  Under-Secretary of State and trade unions

  Defence Industrial Whitley Committee, MOD

  95

  Date

  Attendees

  Location

  19 February 1999

  Minister(DP), DERA Management, staff and trade unions

  DERA Malvern

  26 February 1999

  Minister(DP), DERA staff and trade unions

  DERA Portsdown West

  28 April 1999

  Under-Secretary of State and trade unions

  Defence Industrial Whitley Committee, MOD

  The formal method for consultation with the trade unions is through the DERA Consultative Committee, and regular meetings, attended by DERA senior management and MOD, have been held. On a less formal basis, DERA management has taken every opportunity to keep the trade unions informed of progress on the DERA PPP study and staff issues. DERA site managers have also met with local representatives. The MOD study team has a continuing dialogue with both local and national trade union representatives.

  We intend this level of dialogue to continue throughout the project.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency; and how many at each site. [90559]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 12 July 1999]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Michael Fallon, dated 13 July 1999:
  I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question concerning the number of people currently employed by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and the number employed on each DERA site.
  As of 2 July 1999 DERA employed a total of 11,647 people. The numbers employed on the major DERA sites are as follows:

  Site

  Hebrides

  70

  Aberporth

  282

  Alverstoke

  123

  Aquila

  182

  Bedford

  305

  Bincleaves

  184

  Boscombe Down

  1,062

  Chertsey

  396.5

  Defford

  111

  Bridgwater

  28

  Eskmeals

  41

  Farnborough

  2,594.5

  Fort Halstead

  1,174.5

  Fraser

  55

  Funtington

  24

  Glasgow

  50.5

  Haslar

  190.5

  Larkhill

  41

  Loch Goil

  26.5

  Malvern

  1,871

  Pendine

  38

  Portland Bill

  26

  Porton Down

  637.5

  Portsdown

  35.5

  Portsdown West

  610.5

  Pyestock

  548.5

  96

  Site

  Rosyth

  135.5

  Shoeburyness

  53

  West Drayton

  26

  West Freugh

  30

  Winfrith

  442

  DERA also has a small number of staff, currently 64, manning various ranges and facilities in the UK. There are also another 188.5 staff on secondment to non-DERA establishments or lodging in small numbers on non-DERA sites.

  I hope that this information is helpful.

  Chinook Helicopters
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 June 1999,Official Report, columns 326–27, on FADEC software, when, between 1989 and June 1994, the FADEC software was redesigned on the Chinook MK2; what was the nature of the redesign work undertaken; and which contractor was responsible for carrying out the work. [89860]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Between 1989 and June 1994, there were 58 design changes incorporated in the FADEC software. The changes (categorised in the table) were all undertaken by the prime contractor Textron Lycoming.

  Software

  Changes

  Improved maintainability of software

  7

  Improved fault logic

  10

  Customer request

  11

  Fault logic corrections

  9

  Improved accuracy

  6

  Modification due to Hardware changes

  5

  Improved Comms link and Qualification test changes

  4

  Corrections and Improvements in reliability

  6

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 June 1999,Official Report, column 327, on the inquiry into the loss of the RAF Chinook on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994, if he will place in the Library the letters his Department has received from the public requesting the re-opening of the inquiry. [89859]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Correspondence between the Ministry of Defence and members of the public is a private matter between my Department and the individuals concerned. Release of these letters into the public domain could be done only with the consent of these individuals and seeking this for all correspondence on the accident since 1994 could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  RNAS Culdrose
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has(a) to respond to complaints of local residents with regard to aircraft from RNAS Culdrose and (b) to alter air routes used to and from the base to avoid residential areas. [90244]

  Mr. Spellar
  All complaints concerning military aircraft activity at RNAS Culdrose are carefully considered and where there is sufficient evidence to
  97
  suggest that a breach of flying regulations may have occurred, a thorough investigation is undertaken. The approach and climb out routes to and from the base are dictated by the position of the runways and the prevailing weather conditions, and although they do not take aircraft over major residential areas, overflight of some individual properties is unavoidable. There are no other established air routes in the vicinity of RNAS Culdrose and every effort is made to mitigate the disturbance caused to local communities within the limitations imposed by the need to maintain operational capability.

  Army Widows
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that widows of all pre-1973 Army pensioners are identified and reimbursed with full refund and supplement; and that reasonable effort is made to make refunds to estates where neither pensioner nor spouse has survived. [90620]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We are making every effort to review the case files of pre-1973 Army pensioners to identify the widows/widowers of individuals who might be eligible for a tax refund. Because of the numbers of files, their age and the way in which they are indexed, the process is not straightforward. Individual cases can be processed more quickly if widows who believe they may be entitled to a refund submit a claim to my Department. We have therefore sought to publicise the possible entitlement, and we are grateful for the assistance of the ex-Service organisations in this. It is more difficult to trace more distant entitlements where no pension is in payment because the scheme member and his immediate dependants have died or (in the case of children's pensions) have reached adulthood. But if claims with supporting evidence were submitted, the Inland Revenue would consider them and make a refund if entitlement is proved.

  Data Series
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new data series separated by gender, race, disability and age have been commissioned by his Department since June 1997. [90825]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department publishes statistical data on the age, gender and ethnicity of Service personnel and the gender, ethnicity and the disability status of civilian staff annually in the publication "UK Defence Statistics", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Armed Forces Insignia
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what amount of revenue his Department expects to receive from the 3 per cent. reproduction fee being charged by the Ministry of Defence for products displaying insignia of the armed forces. [90776]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 12 July 1999]: Reproduction fees charged by MOD in respect of Crown Copyright material are discretionary. Where they are charged they vary between 1 per cent. and 7.5 per cent. The amount of revenue my Department expects to receive from reproduction fees charged for products displaying insignia of the armed forces is expected to be in the region of £45,000 in the current financial year.

  Military Visits
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will(a) list the countries from which military officers have visited Northern Ireland since 1 May 1997, (b) set out the purpose of each visit, (c) set out the nature of the related training programme, (d) indicate which delegations have participated in (i) military and (ii) RUC patrols and (e) indicate which delegations have visited surveillance and observation posts in South Armagh. [89912]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 12 July 1999]: The information requested is as follows:

  The New Zealand Defence Attache to London accompanied the Chief of Staff of the General Staff on his St. Patrick's Day visit to Omagh and Ballykelly on 17 March 1998.

  Military officers from the following countries visited the Army in Northern Ireland on 1 April 1998 as part of a visit by the Royal College of Defence Studies:

  Colonel, Omani Ministry of Defence

  Colonel, Spanish Air Force

  Colonel, French Gendarmerie

  Colonel, Hellenic Army

  Colonel, Czech Air Force

  Colonel, US Air Force.

  Two Russian officers carried out an Arms Control Inspection in Northern Ireland from 17–24 October 1998. Military officers from the following countries visited the Army in Northern Ireland on 24 March 1999 as part of a visit by the Royal College of Defence Studies:

  Air Commodore, Omani Air Force

  Colonel, Royal Netherlands Army

  Captain, Italian Navy

  Lieutenant Colonel, Polish Army

  Colonel, New Zealand Army

  Colonel, US Marine Corps.

  Twelve Czech officers carried out an Arms Control Inspection in Northern Ireland from 21–24 April 1999.

  None of the visitors listed participated in military or RUC patrols or visited surveillance and observation posts in South Armagh.

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many kilometres have been travelled on his Department's business in each of the last three years broken down by(a) foot, (b) bike, (c) bus, (d) train, (e) tram, (f) light-rail, (g) plane, (h) motorbike, (i) car, (j) taxi, (k) river-taxi and (l) other modes of transport; what plans and targets his Department has to reduce the kilometres travelled by private transport by his Department's employees; and if he will make a statement. [91012]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information on the number of kilometres travelled on departmental business is not collected in the form requested and therefore cannot be provided.
  99
  Like other departments, we are working to develop green transport plans in line with the targets for government buildings set out in the integrated transport White Paper in July 1998. These plans, which we are taking forward in the context of wider Environmental Management Systems, will as a matter of course seek to reduce the environmental impact of commuting, business travel and fleet operations—for all departmental sites, and not solely for HQ and other key buildings.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for reassessing the National Radiological Protection Board's report of 1997 on the impact of radiation on British service personnel who participated in atomic weapons tests. [91013]

  Mr. Spellar
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to the report published by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) in 1993, in which case I have no such plans: and nothing to add to my responses of 1 July 1999,Official Report, column 534, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), during the recent Armed Forces Personnel Debate and subsequently in writing. A copy of my letter of 7 July has been placed in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [91060]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 15 April 1999,Official Report, column 306.

  Single Currency
  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much expenditure her Department(a) has incurred to date and (b) expects to incur in the future on preparations for possible United Kingdom entry into the European single currency; and if she will make a statement. [91038]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information for the NIO and NI departments is as follows:

  (a) The cost incurred to date in preparing for the euro is approximately £80,000.

  (b) The expenditure expected to be incurred in the future on preparations for possible United Kingdom entry is estimated at £104,000.

  The costs incurred to date have largely been spent on making the private and public sector aware of the implications of a single currency. The largest element of the estimated costs at (b) are based on manpower requirements to complete departmental changeover plans later this year.
  100

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Artificial Limbs (Sierra Leone)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many artificial limbs have been supplied and fitted by her Department to victims of mutilation in Sierra Leone; and if she will make a statement. [90497]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We are not supplying artificial limbs to victims of mutilation in Sierra Leone. An EU-funded NGO, Handicap International—Vivre Debout, are working in Freetown and Bo to help victims of mutilations in this way. To date Handicap International have fitted 76 prostheses. A joint project involving Handicap International and the GoSL demobilisation programme, which we are funding, has recently been agreed.

  We are also providing humanitarian assistance and support for reform of the judiciary and legal systems, the independent media, and reform of the police and security forces. Currently we are considering what more we can do to support the implementation of the peace agreement.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many times Ministers in her Department have held meetings with ministers and officials of the Irish Government since 1 January 1998, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting; the Ministers involved, and the names of the Irish ministers and officials at each meeting. [90405]

  Clare Short
  None.

  Bosnia-Herzegovina
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance the Government are giving to Bosnia-Herzegovina to rebuild its economy. [91203]

  Mr. Foulkes
  At the donors conference in May, we pledged £17 million in new, bilateral, funds to help the future development of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Our objectives are to reduce levels of social exclusion and social conflict through strengthening civil society, to support the establishment of an effective, accountable and responsive public administration and help in the development of viable, well regulated markets.

  A team from the Department for International Development (DFID) is in the region this week (12–17 July) to discuss how best to implement these objectives with government officials and representatives of civil society.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funding is available to encourage cultural exchanges with students and Government officials from Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if she will make a statement. [91189]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We do not provide funding for cultural exchanges with students or government officials from Bosnia-Herzegovina. Our programme provides in-country support to help civil society organisations, to support the
  101
  establishment of an effective, accountable and responsive public administration and assist with the development of a well regulated market economy.

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many kilometres have been travelled on her Department's business in each of the last three years broken down by(a) foot, (b) bike, (c) bus, (d) train, (e) tram, (f) light-rail, (g) plane, (h) motorbike, (i) car, (j) taxi, (k) river-taxi and (l) other modes of transport; what plans and targets her Department has to reduce the kilometres travelled by private transport by her Department's employees; and if she will make a statement. [91029]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The information on business travel is not collected in the form requested and therefore cannot be provided. As published in the Integrated Transport White Paper in July 1998, the Government have set a target that all Government Department headquarters buildings and main buildings occupied by Executive Agencies and Government Offices for the Regions should have green transport plans by March 1999 and all other key buildings by March 2000.

  We have completed a green transport plan for our London headquarters buildings which is awaiting final approval from our Green Minister and are in the process of developing a plan for our office in East Kilbride.

  Also, we have committed ourselves to reduce our central London car parking provision by 73 per cent.

  Departmental Staff
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff are employed in Scotland(a) by her Department and (b) by executive agencies responsible to her Department; where these staff are located; and how many staff are employed in (i) England, (ii) London and the South East, (iii) Wales, (iv) Northern Ireland and (v) United Kingdom in total. [90561]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for International Development (DFID) employs 410 staff in Scotland based in East Kilbride. A further 746 staff are employed in England based in London. No staff are employed in Wales or Northern Ireland. The total number of staff employed by DFID in the UK is 1,156. There are no executive agencies responsible to DFID.

  Children (Disabilities)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's policy is on children with disabilities. [91195]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We support a significant number of initiatives around the world aimed at assisting children with disabilities to secure their rights. This is an important part of our wider work in seeking to uphold the rights of all people, and particularly the poor, to economic and social development as well as to the civil, political and cultural liberties and freedoms set out in international agreements. Our policy in respect of disabled children 102
  aims to support the implementation of the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and other associated agreements.

  Our work in education provides a good illustration of our approach. One of our key priorities is helping meet the International Development Goal of Universal Primary Education (UPE) in all countries by 2015. In many developing countries, the disabled are a group whose chances of gaining access to primary education are slim. We recognise that reaching them and other disadvantaged groups is a distinct challenge for national governments which requires resources, political commitment and flexibility of response.

  In India, we have recently agreed to provide substantial support (up to £34.5 million over five years) for Lok Jumbish, a grass roots movement in Rajasthan, which seeks to support UPE through a range of interventions including the enrolment of vulnerable groups such as the disabled in school. This offers a potential model for developing a more equitable approach to primary education in general, as well as bringing immediate benefits to disabled children. Initiatives such as this are contributing to a wider assessment we are undertaking, with partner countries, of the effectiveness of our support for reaching the "missing children" within the context of overall sector strategies for education.

  We are currently taking stock more generally of our work with people with disabilities, and will be pleased to report back on this in due course.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of her Department's budget has been allocated to children with disabilities in(a) Africa, (b) Asia, (c) Latin America, (d) the Middle East and (e) Eastern Europe. [91194]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The information requested is not readily available. The cost of collecting and recording such information would be disproportionately high.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to paragraph 8.18 of the White Paper, "Smoking Kills," what steps have been taken, and what funding has been provided, by her Department to help developing countries reduce tobacco dependence and help farmers dependent on tobacco crops to diversify. [91083]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We fully support the World Health Organisation's (WHO) "Tobacco Free" initiative and the development of an International Framework Convention (IFC) on tobacco control and have contributed £200,000 this financial year. The IFC is expected to set out detailed protocols on the range of measures, including agricultural diversification, which a country could usefully include in its tobacco reduction strategy. Development funds are not used for any purpose which identifiably supports the tobacco sector. Our programmes have explored alternative livelihood opportunities for poor farmers in countries where tobacco is a significant crop.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to prevent children in the developing world being exposed to tobacco advertising. [91191]
  103
  Mr. Foulkes
  In our White Papers on "International Development" and "Tobacco" we clearly state our commitment to working with other governments to achieve a global ban on tobacco advertising and to support an International Framework Convention (IFC) code of conduct for transnational companies advertising tobacco products. We have provided the World Health Organisation (WHO) with £200,000 towards work this year. The universal ban we are working towards, therefore, addresses the issue of children's exposure to advertising in the developed and developing world.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much expenditure her Department(a) has incurred to date and (b) expects to incur on preparations for possible United Kingdom entry into the European single currency; and if she will make a statement. [91192]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have incurred no expenditure to date. Our accounting software caters for multi-currencies. The cost of possible entry to a European single currency would not therefore be material.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of her Department's budget is allocated to(a) treatment, (b) prevention and (c) care, rehabilitation and social inclusion in respect of children and HIV/AIDS. [91196]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We currently spend about £35 million per year directly on HIV/AIDS activities. We expect this to increase in the future. Because much of our work in this area is not restricted to specific target groups, but looks to improve systems which enable more effective national responses to HIV/AIDS, it is currently not possible to identify accurately the proportion of expenditure relevant to children, and a further breakdown thereof.

  But we treat with utmost seriousness the issue of HIV/AIDS and children. We are particularly concerned about the growing burden faced by poor countries in caring for AIDS orphans, as well as of the impact on the children themselves. We are working closely with UNAIDS and others in seeking to find ways to mitigate this impact

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's policy is on children with HIV/AIDS. [91197]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Of the 2.5 million people who died of AIDS in 1998, 510,000 were children under 15. Infection runs faster in children than in adults. Children are not only infected with HIV, but also affected: many have lost one or both parents as a result of HIV/AIDS.

  As a consequence, we attach great importance to the particular needs of children. Without a cure, our primary objective is to prevent transmission to children and we are working with others, particularly UNAIDS, to identify ways in which this can be achieved more effectively, for example in preventing mother to child transmission.
  104

  Family Planning (China)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will place in the Library a copy of the report of the independent evaluation of the Chinese family planning programmes referred to by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development on 20 January 1999,Official Report, column 842. [91190]

  Mr. Foulkes
  A copy of the report entitled: "A review of the role of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) in China and of the work of the China Family Planning Association (CFPA)" was placed in the Library of the House in November 1996. Further copies are being provided.

  Sudan
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if her Department is planning new initiatives in Sudan following the renewal of links between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Sudan. [91193]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Our capacity to respond to humanitarian needs in Sudan was not interrupted by the withdrawal from Khartoum of our Ambassador and his British staff. Humanitarian aid has continued to be delivered by international non-governmental organisations and UN agencies are we have liaised closely with Ambassador's staff out-posted to Nairobi. The humanitarian situation in Sudan is much better than last year and so far we have committed £9 million.

  Ending the civil war in Sudan and finding a just political settlement continue to be the key to enable the Sudanese people to rebuild their lives. The renewal of links with the Government of Sudan will allow us to recommence our close dialogue with the Khartoum authorities on this issue.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  State Opening (Costs)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council what is the forecast cost of the State Opening of Parliament in 1999. [89927]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The forecast cost of the State Opening of Parliament in 1999 is £50,000 shared with the House of Lords. Costs are, of course, incurred by others such as Buckingham Palace, the Metropolitan Police and the Ministry of Defence.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Risk Assessments)
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons prisoners serving sentences of over four years are not eligible for home leave in their last six months of sentence before probation if they pass a risk assessment. [90114]
  105
  Mr. George Howarth
  Eligibility for resettlement licence, which replaced home leave in 1995, is set out in Prison Service Instruction 36/1995, a copy of which is in the Library. Some prisoners are automatically excluded from release on temporary licence and would not, therefore, be risk assessed. These are: category A prisoners, those subject to extradition proceedings, and those who are remanded on further charges.

  In addition, a prisoner serving four years or more is not eligible for resettlement licence until he or she has completed half the single term, which is the prisoner's parole eligibility date. If the prisoner is refused parole, he or she must wait for six months after a first refusal of parole, or two months from any subsequent refusal, before being able to take resettlement leave. The purpose of a resettlement licence is to assist in the prisoner's resettlement on release from custody. Where parole is refused, this, of course, delays a prisoner's release and accordingly eligibility to take resettlement leave.

  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce classification of offences for which adjudication decisions are made on prisoners to allow more precise judgment of a prisoner's behaviour in prison when considering the prisoner for probation. [90264]

  Mr. George Howarth
  A prisoner's behaviour is one of the issues taken into account in assessing risk in a parole review. The weight given to any adjudications will depend on the individual prisoner and the nature and circumstances of the index offence. There are no plans to introduce a more formal system of classification.

  Public Safety Radio Communications Project
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the costs to police authorities of adopting the Public Safety Radio Communications Project; and if he will make a statement. [90272]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am told by the Police Information Technology Unit (PITO) that the costs of the Public Safety Radio Communications Project (PSRCP) are currently the subject of negotiation between PITO, which is managing the project for the police service, and the contractor British Telecom. Indicative prices have been issued and PITO is now preparing to invite British Telecom's final contractual offer, at the request of the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what monitoring he undertakes of decisions on criminal injuries compensation to ensure consistency and comparability. [90313]

  Mr. Boateng
  The introduction of a tariff-based compensation scheme in 1996, under which compensation is assessed on the basis of a fixed tariff of awards for injuries of comparable severity, ensures that a considerable degree of consistency, comparability and transparency is built into the system.
  106
  Ministers' general oversight of the scheme does not extend to monitoring directly decisions taken in particular cases. However, the bodies administering the new scheme, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel (CICAP), themselves take a range of measures to maximise consistency in decision making, including training events and seminars. The CICA is about to embark on a pilot exercise on the comparative assessment of decisions. The outcome of this pilot, and any ensuing procedure, will be considered by the National Audit Office as part of its current review of the scheme.

  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the rules relating to criminal injuries compensation and the effect of awards on means-tested benefits: and what consideration has been given to staggering awards to ensure recipients are not disadvantaged by the savings rule. [90312]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government invited views on ways in which the criminal injuries compensation scheme might be changed for the benefit of victims of crime in a public consultation exercise which ran from March to June 1999. Preliminary analysis of responses has shown that a number of respondents felt that compensation derived from personal injury should be disregarded for the purposes of assessing entitlement to means-tested social security benefits. The responses are now being analysed more fully, and we hope to be able to say what changes might be made to the scheme in consequence later this year.

  Dual Nationals
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allow dual nationals who are released on licence in the United Kingdom the option of serving their licence period in their other country of nationality. [90266]

  Mr. George Howarth
  If an offender wishes to resettle permanently in another country before his licence period expires, permission to do so may be granted by the probation service, the Parole Board or the Secretary of State, depending on the length of sentence, provided that certain criteria are met. The licence period is an integral part of the custodial sentence imposed for offences committed under United Kingdom law; it is not possible for the enforcement of the licence conditions to be transferred to a foreign jurisdiction.

  Prisons (Resettlement Units)
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to establish a resettlement unit in each prison. [90271]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There are no plans to provide resettlement units in all prisons. However, the Prison Service is currently developing a policy framework and national standards for resettlement provision.

  Job Applicants (Criminal Records)
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce
  107
  legislation to penalise employers who discriminate against a potential job applicant because they have a criminal record. [90268]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have no plans for such legislation.

  The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 provides that any conviction resulting in a sentence of no more than two and a half years imprisonment may become spent after a specified period (depending on the length of the sentence and whether the offender commits further offences within that period). The Act provides that an offender is not normally required to disclose the fact he has "spent" convictions when applying for a job. It also stipulates that the fact that a person has a "spent" conviction or their failure to disclose that fact shall not be proper grounds for dismissing or excluding them from any office, profession, occupation or employment or for prejudicing them in any way in any occupation or employment.

  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to monitor the effect of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 on discrimination against offenders in job applications. [90267]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are concerned that ex-offenders should not be subject to unfair discrimination in the labour market. The Department for Education and Employment has commissioned a major research study into the employment experiences of ex-offenders, employers' attitudes towards them and their likely use of conviction information under the plans for the Criminal Records Bureau. The research will report in summer 2000 when the Government will consider any policy implications.

  Project Funding
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what work is being done to address the effect on the finances of organisations in the not-for-profit sector of the demand for matching funding for projects sponsored by the European Union or the National Lottery. [90307]

  Mr. Boateng
  A code of good practice on voluntary sector funding is being prepared jointly by the Government and the sector's Working Group on Government Relations. The code will address, among other matters, issues concerning match funding.

  European Structural Fund aided projects must be match funded by a national contribution. This ensures local ownership and commitment to the project. There are no plans to change fundamentally these arrangements.

  The National Lottery Charities Board does not require match funding. This acknowledges that the Board funds many small local groups and organisations that are unlikely to be able to raise partnership support.

  The Directions issued to other Lottery distributors require an element of partnership support from applicants for Lottery funding. This provides evidence of community support for a project and allows many more projects to be funded. The Directions encourage a flexible approach, linked closely to an applicant's realistic ability to raise
  108
  partnership support, and by giving consideration to volunteer time and in-kind contributions.

  Custody (Ethnic Monitoring)
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to ensure that the custody ethnic monitoring form is filled in accurately by custody officers. [90270]

  Mr. George Howarth
  On first reception into Prison Service custody, the ethnic origin of each prisoner is recorded with other personal details on a standard prisoner record. This is a mandatory requirement under the Prison Service Order on Race Relations, a copy of which is in the Library. Reception officers are responsible for obtaining and recording the ethnic origin of each newly received prisoner. The personal details recorded on this form, including ethnic origin, are checked on every occasion of transfer to another prison.

  Police Communications
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the extent to which civilian staff recruited to work on police switchboards and communications centres are conversant with police operations and information. [90310]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is entirely a matter for chief constables to decide the extent to which civilian staff should be deployed on police switchboards and communications centres and to determine what training they need to enable them to carry out their duties.

  Prisons (Racism)
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to introduce(a) monitoring, (b) training and (c) representation of prisoners to combat racism in prisons. [90269]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service is committed to equality of opportunity and the elimination of discrimination on improper grounds. It has well-developed policies and procedures which are set out in the Prison Service Order on Race Relations, a copy of which is available in the Library. This gives mandatory and recommended requirements covering the policy and practice of good race relations within a prison establishment. All of the mandatory requirements are audited by the standards audit unit of the Prison Service and their implementation determines a prison's success or failure in the audit.

  It is a mandatory requirement that in all establishments, ethnic monitoring and analysis must cover allocation to work, accommodation, education/training, adjudications, temporary release, segregation and requests/complaints. Furthermore, the Prison Service recommends ethnic monitoring is undertaken in other areas, such as random drug testing and random searches. It is also strongly recommended that ethnic monitoring takes place on a monthly basis, collated quarterly and forwarded to the appropriate area office at Prison Service headquarters. These measures are taken to ensure that any possible racial discrimination in the decision making process is quickly identified so that suitable action can be taken.
  109
  All members of Prison Service staff in a prison, including civilian and auxiliary grades, must be provided with race relations training at local level. A revised and updated local race relations training pack has recently been piloted in a number of prison establishments and the completed document should be distributed in the autumn. Every prison establishment has a race relations liaison officer and a race relations management team, meeting at least quarterly. It is a mandatory requirement that the liaison officer and all members of the race relations management team attend the appropriate central training course.

  The race relations management teams develop local race relations strategies and monitor performance to ensure implementation of the national policy. Prisoner representation is recommended on this team in order to increase both staff and prisoner perceptions about ethnic minority issues. Where there are practical difficulties in having prisoner representation on the team, such as at a local prison with a high turnover of prisoners, prisons are advised to have a prisoner sub-group chaired by the race relations liaison officer. An increasing number of prisons are involving prisoners in this way and Prison Service headquarters is encouraging them to do so.

  Prisoners (Licence Period)
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the length of licence period a prisoner receives in relation to the length of sentence served. [90265]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Criminal Justice Act 1991 sets out the arrangements for the release on licence of determinate sentence prisoners. Under the Act, prisoners serving a sentence of 12 months or more but less than four years must be released on licence at the half-way point of the sentence. Those serving a determinate sentence of four years or more are eligible for release on licence at the half-way point of the sentence and in any event must be released on licence at the two thirds point. Prisoners serving a sentence of less than 12 months must be released unconditionally at the half-way point.

  Under the home detention curfew arrangements introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, there is now provision for some determinate sentence prisoners to be released on licence up to a maximum of two months earlier than under the arrangements above. These provisions apply only to prisoners aged 18 or over who are serving a sentence of more than three months but less than four years. Prisoners released on this scheme are monitored by electronic tagging.

  Finally, under section 58 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, where a court proposes to impose a custodial sentence for a sexual or violent offence, and considers that the normal licence period under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 would not be adequate, it may now pass an extended sentence on that offender. This means in effect that the offender will be subject to a longer period of supervision on licence.

  The Government have no current plans to change these arrangements.

  Witnesses
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to ensure that police keep in close contact with witnesses about progress on cases in which they are involved; and what guidelines he has issued on the subject. [90309]

  Mr. Boateng
  The 1996 Victim's Charter outlines the standards of service that victims and witnesses can expect from the police and the other criminal justice agencies. The Charter standards are monitored regularly by the interdepartmental Victims Steering Group, chaired by the Home Office. A review of the Charter itself will begin next year. The review will take into account both changes in legislation and new non-legislative measures, including those measures introduced as a result of the Macpherson Inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

  Victim Support
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress made with the National Victim Support help line since it was established; what activities it undertakes apart from referring callers to local victim support groups; and what monitoring he undertakes of its work. [90308]

  Mr. Boateng
  Victim Support's telephone Supportline has dealt with more than 10,000 calls since its inception in February 1998. The majority of callers are victims of crime, who are provided with emotional support and practical information and advice according to need. Among other things, callers can be offered details of, or referral to, their local victim support scheme and other sources of help and information as appropriate. Supportline also provides an easily accessible Victim Support number for use by other agencies in contact with victims and witnesses.

  Supportline activities are monitored daily, and formal reports detailing the number and nature of calls are collated and evaluated monthly by Victim Support. Summarising reports are made available to the Home Office on a quarterly basis.

  Drug Seizures
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug seizures occurred in(a) 1997 and (b) 1998 in the Northern Region. [90256]

  Mr. Boateng
  There were 21,840 seizures of controlled drugs in the Northern Region in 1997. Figures for 1998 will not be available until late 1999.

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sexual offences(a) were reported and (b) resulted in convictions in the last two years in the Northern Region. [90255]
  111
  Mr. Boateng
  Figures for 1998 are not yet available. The overall figures for 1996 and 1997 for the North West (including Merseyside) and North East government regions are as follows:

  Year

  Sexual offences recorded by the police

  Offenders convicted for sexual offences

  1996

  5,059

  1,004

  1997

  5,581

  1,003

  It is important to note that the figures for offences reported and convictions are not directly comparable because convictions relate to offenders.

  Charity Volunteers
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the total number of hours worked by volunteers in the charities sector in each year from 1992 to the present. [90254]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not available.

  The 1997 National Survey of Volunteering from the Institute for Volunteering Research found that, across the United Kingdom, an estimated 21.8 million volunteers were contributing an average of 88 million hours per week—an annual total of nearly 4,600 million hours. This compared with the 1991 figure, the date of the previous survey, of 23.2 million volunteers contributing 62 million hours per week—an annual total of around 3,200 million hours. These figures refer to all types of formal volunteering and include sports, arts and politics. Much of this volunteering will have taken place in public sector organisations, for example, schools and hospitals, but the 1997 survey found that 84 per cent. of volunteers were active in the voluntary sector.

  Corporate Manslaughter
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to implement the Law Commission recommendation on corporate manslaughter. [90242]

  Mr. Boateng
  An inter-departmental working group, which includes a member of the Law Commission, is currently considering all of the recommendations contained in the Law Commission's report number 237 "Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter", including those relating to corporate manslaughter. We expect to receive the working group's recommendations shortly and will then consider how to take them forward.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the change in the number of Probation Service staff between 1994 and the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [90587]
  112
  Mr. George Howarth
  At the end of 1994, there were 16,405 probation staff, of whom 7,776 were probation officers. At the end of December 1998, there were 14,613 probation staff, of whom 7,191 were probation officers. The figures given here are full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the current number of vacancies for Probation Officers in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [90586]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on probation officer vacancies is not collected centrally. However, information about the staffing requirements of the Probation Service will be generated by the work force planning survey currently being undertaken by the Home Office with the Association of Chief Officers of Probation and the Central Probation Council.

  European Communities Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 July 1999,Official Report, column 249, on European Communities working groups, if he will list the Title VI working groups referred to and indicate how many times each has met. [90399]

  Mr. Straw
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Dogs
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue guidance to local authorities summarising the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 and outlining their specific powers and responsibilities. [90621]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Yes. Appropriate guidance will be issued to local authorities before the Act comes into force at the end of this year.

  HMP Aldington
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many family units will be included in the redevelopment of Her Majesty's Prison, Aldington; and if he will make a statement. [90577]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It has not yet been decided how many family units will be included in the redevelopment of the Aldington site, but we anticipate the requirement will be three to four units.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements in terms of(a) support services, (b) translation services, (c) health services and (d) dietary services will be provided for asylum seekers following the redevelopment of Her Majesty's Prison, Aldington; and if he will make a statement. [90578]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is too early in the procurement process to provide details of the services to be provided once Aldington is redeveloped as an Immigration Service Detention Centre. The Services will be based on the provisions and facilities at the only other purpose designed centre, Tinsley House. A copy of the contract for Tinsley House is available in the Library.
  113
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost to the Treasury of the plans to redevelop Her Majesty's Prison, Aldington; and if he will make a statement. [90574]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The project to redevelop Her Majesty's Prison Aldington is at a very early stage. Work has just started to prepare the outline specification for the centre, on which planning authority and, later, the detailed Invitation to Tender for a public-private partnership will be based.

  In advance of this competitive process, it is not prudent or meaningful to make public estimates of the cost of this project. The actual cost to the Home Office will be offset by making the 200 places currently used by Immigration detainees at Rochester Prison available for prisoner use. The current running costs of Aldington will also be made available to the Immigration Service to set against the cost of the proposed Detention Centre.

  Travellers
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with local authorities and police forces about arrangements for dealing with unauthorised camping by travellers. [90423]

  Mr. Boateng
  I and my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), have held meetings with senior police officers, Members of Parliament, local councillors and others on this issue. My Department published the guidance document, "Managing Unauthorised Camping: A Good Practice Guide" jointly with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in October 1998.

  Police Community Consultative Groups
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue non-statutory guidance to the Metropolitan Police Authority with regard to police community consultative groups; and if he will consult the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and London police community consultative groups on what that guidance should include about the special characteristics of London police community consultative groups. [90525]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government have no plans to issue such guidance to the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA). Subject to the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill, it will be for the MPA to decide, after consulting the Commissioner, what arrangements to make for obtaining the views of people about policing matters in the Metropolitan Police District. The MPA will be a local, democratically accountable body, and, in common with police authorities outside London, it will be best placed to determine its methods for consulting the public.

  As part of next year's induction process of members of the new MPA, information will be provided to them about the work of police and community consultative groups.

  Electoral Procedures
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people attended each public meeting of the Independent Commission on the Voting System. [90527]
  114
  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given in another place by my noble Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, Lord Williams, on 7 July 1998,Official Report, column 124.

  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation he(a) has held and (b) will hold in formulating his Department's response to paragraph 46 of the Home Affairs Committee's Fourth report of Session 1997–98 (HC768) on Electoral Law and Administration; and if he will respond to the recommendation in that paragraph. [90991]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Following official contacts with MIND, the Working Party on Electoral Procedures, which I Chair, has recommended that the restrictions on using psychiatric hospitals for the purposes of electoral registration should be removed, except for those who are detained as a result of criminal activity. It has also recommended that the requirement for a voluntary patient to complete an additional declaration before being registered to vote should be lifted. These recommendations are broadly in line with paragraph 46 of the Home Affairs Committee report referred to by my hon. Friend. A formal response will be made to the Committee when the final report of my Working Party is published in full later this summer.

  Experimental Psychiatric Research
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to supply to the hon. Member for Northavon the material referred to in his answer of 15 June 1999,Official Report, column 100. [90948]

  Mr. Boateng
  I hope to be able to provide the requested information shortly.

  Interception Warrants
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons he proposes to extend to three months the validity of interception warrants under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. [90724]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government's proposals for legislation to replace the Interception of Communications Act 1985 are contained in a consultation paper which I published on 22 June. The reasons behind the proposal to extend the authorisation period of warrants are explained in this document, which is available in the Library, beginning at paragraph 7.12.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with United States citizens concerning the interception regime operated in this country. [90725]

  Mr. Straw
  I am not aware of any discussions this year between Ministers and United States citizens specifically about the United Kingdom's interception regime. However, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office met senior members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drugs Enforcement Agency and Attorney-General's Department in the United States last month. He discussed a wide range of issues relevant to the fight against organised crime. Interception was discussed in the context of the Government's proposals
  115
  for legislation to maintain law enforcement agencies' capabilities against encrypted stored data and communications.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review his proposal not to include a test of substantial harm in the draft Freedom of Information Bill. [90726]

  Mr. Straw
  We are currently consulting widely on the content of the draft Freedom of Information Bill. It is also subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee on Public Administration and an ad hoc Select Committee in another place, and also of public consultation.

  I look forward to receiving their recommendations and other comments, which I will consider fully before introducing the Bill into the House.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the countries within the European Union(a) which have freedom of information legislation and (b) where such legislation contains a public interest test. [90718]

  Mr. Straw
  The European Union Green Paper on Public Sector Information in the Information Society, published in January this year, identified the following European Union countries as having national freedom of information legislation: Austria; Belgium; Denmark; Finland; France; Greece; Ireland; Italy; Netherlands; Portugal; Spain and Sweden. Ireland's legislation contains a public interest test, as does the United Kingdom draft Bill. We have not analysed other European legislation.

  Our analysis has focused on countries with common law jurisdictions, e.g. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States of America. The legislation for each of these countries contains a public interest test.

  A copy of the Green Paper is available in the Library.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he took to establish the views of MI5 before deciding they should be exempt from the disclosure tests applied in the draft Freedom of Information Bill. [90720]

  Mr. Straw
  The Security Service has been fully consulted over the provisions of the Freedom of Information Bill.

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many kilometres have been travelled on his Department's business in each of the last three years broken down by(a) foot, (b) bike, (c) bus, (d) train, (e) tram, (f) light-rail(g) plane,(h) motorbike, (i) car, (j) taxi, (k) river-taxi and (l) other modes of transport; what plans and targets his Department has to reduce the kilometres travelled by private transport by his Department's employees; and if he will make a statement. [91031]

  Mr. Straw
  Distance travelled on official business is recorded only when an allowance is paid per mile or kilometre travelled. I can, therefore, only supply the information requested for travel by bike, motorbike and 116
  car. That information is currently being collected from around the Department. I will write to the hon. Member when the information is available and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  My Department's headquarters buildings had green transport plans in place by the end of March 1999.

  A seminar was held on 29 April for green transport co-ordinators for the other 26 Departmental sites that will be required to produce green transport plans by March 2000.

  No targets have been set centrally for transport (other than the Government-wide one of producing a plan). Trying to set targets that will be meaningful for both our Central London accommodation and the training colleges that are situated in isolated locations will be difficult. My Department is therefore encouraging sites to set their own targets in their plans. I will monitor and review the success of this approach.

  In an effort to limit the effect on the environment, the Home Office joined the "London First" clean air charter in 1997, and has been active in setting targets for and monitoring fuel consumption for the fleet.

  The Home Office has drafted an Environmental Transport Policy, which is currently in the consultation process. The policy aims to help reduce the Department's impact on the environment by addressing the issues of fleet size and composition, fuel type, fuel monitoring, vehicle maintenance, and driver training.

  The Home Office seeks to ensure that each vehicle in the fleet is not only required, but fully used. The reduction of one vehicle in the fleet has a significantly higher impact than improving the fuel consumption of several vehicles.

  The Home Office is planning to carry out a combined Green and Efficiency review of the entire fleet. That review will make recommendations, for fleet composition, usage rates and fuel consumption for each fleet centre. We expect to complete the first review within eighteen months using current resources.

  The Home Office is committed to reducing the impact that its business travel has on the environment. Before undertaking any business travel, staff and their line managers consider whether the visit/attendance at a meeting is really necessary, whether the objectives of the meeting could be met through correspondence, e-mail, fax or telephone and whether video-conferencing facilities could be used. If it is considered necessary, staff must use public transport unless there are operational grounds for using private vehicles/hire cars e.g. carrying heavy equipment, or if the route is poorly served by public transport.

  There are currently two rates of mileage allowance—Standard Rate and Public Transport Rate. The Home Office operates a strict policy when considering the payment of allowances to officers who use their private vehicles for business travel, including prior authorisation from line managers when Standard Rate Mileage Allowance is claimed. This ensures that private vehicles are used only when absolutely necessary.

  Whilst those areas which have higher than average business travel have been targeted since January 1999 in an effort to promote the switch to public transport, it is

  117
  also proposed to pursue the option of a single rate of Standard Rate Motor Mileage Allowance. If adopted, this should encourage the use of smaller cars and further encourage the use of public transport through a reduced rate of Motor Mileage Allowance for larger engine cars. The Home Office also has allowances for the use of motorcycles and pedal cycles for official travel.

  A passenger supplement of two pence per mile for the first passenger and one pence per mile for each additional passenger is also available for staff who use their private vehicle on official business as this represents a cost effective and greener alternative.

  The Home Office also pays advances for Season Ticket purchase and bicycle purchase for those members of staff who require assistance with their travel costs to work. The advances are recovered through salary over a 12-month period.

  Extradition
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) British nationals and (b) Portuguese nationals have been extradited from the United Kingdom to stand trial in Portugal in each of the last five years; and how many have been extradited from Portugal to the United Kingdom. [89572]

  Kate Hoey
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Number of British and Portuguese nationals extradited to Portugal to stand trial in each of the last five years

  Year

  British nationals

  Portuguese nationals

  Total

  1994

  —

  1

  1

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  1997

  1

  1

  2

  1998

  1

  —

  1

  There have been no extraditions from Portugal to the United Kingdom in that period. Two requests for British nationals are under consideration from Portugal.

  Stop and searches (including searches of unattended vehicles)

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  Not recorded

  Vehicles

  Total

  Stolen property

  50,065

  19,534

  4,279

  1,441

  2,068

  1,714

  79,101

  Drugs

  86,941

  35,423

  17,240

  2,380

  3,534

  2,187

  147,705

  Firearms

  1,129

  740

  186

  39

  62

  74

  2,230

  Offensive weapons

  12,961

  7,045

  2,839

  552

  614

  258

  24,269

  Going equipped

  29,130

  10,355

  2,808

  592

  1,078

  310

  44,273

  Other

  1,806

  783

  275

  36

  137

  120

  3,157

  Total

  182,032

  73,880

  27,627

  5,040

  7,493

  4,663

  300,735

  Arrests as a result

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  Not recorded

  Total

  Stolen property

  4,672

  2,119

  525

  183

  174

  7,673

  Drugs

  9,677

  3,365

  1,612

  247

  346

  15,247

  Firearms

  143

  80

  13

  3

  3

  242

  Stop and Search
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the outcome of the study of stop and search undertaken by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) of 8 May 1998,Official Report, column 514; and if he will make a statement. [91180]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the study of stop and search referred to in the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) is currently being evaluated. An interim report should be produced by the end of July and the full evaluation will be published in September.

  The Metropolitan Police have been examining stop and search since 1995, and between April 1998 and March 1999 undertook work under the guidance of the Home Office and subject to independent evaluation on seven pilot sites: Brixton, Kingston, Plumstead, Hounslow, Tottenham, Limehouse and Charing Cross. The aims of the pilots are to:
  improve the effective use of the tactic in tackling crime;
  demonstrate to the public the contribution of the tactic to tackling crimes that concerns them;
  ensure it is exercised fairly across all ethnic groups; and
  ensure it is exercised in a way which minimises damage to community confidence.

  I look forward to hearing the outcome of the study.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many stop and search incidents took place in the Metropolitan Police district in 1998; if he will provide the ethnic breakdown of those stopped and searched; what proportion of such incidents resulted in(a) an arrest and (b) a charge, broken down by ethnic group; and if he will make a statement. [91087]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has provided the following summary of information on stop and search records for the financial year 1998–99. He informs me that the Metropolitan Police does not keep data on charges in the form requested.
  119

  Arrests as a result

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  Not recorded

  Total

  Offensive weapons

  1,933

  892

  264

  92

  107

  3,288

  Going equipped

  1,053

  355

  117

  32

  47

  1,604

  Other

  5,662

  2,857

  646

  150

  217

  9,532

  Total

  23,140

  9,668

  3,177

  707

  894

  37,586

  Percentage of searches resulting in arrest

  percentage

  White

  12.7

  Black

  13.1

  Asian

  11.5

  Other

  14.0

  Not recorded

  11.9

  Vehicles

  n/a

  Total

  12.5

  Operation Lancet
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the name and rank of each Cleveland police officer who has been served with a regulation 7 notice in the Operation Lancet investigation. [91014]

  Mr. Boateng
  Notices are issued under Regulation 7 of the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985 to inform officers who are under investigation of the allegations or complaints which have been made against them and to give them the opportunity to make a statement. As these notices are issued on the basis of allegations, it would not be appropriate to provide the name and rank of officers who have received such a notice.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has undertaken of the risks faced by telecommunications engineers who install and maintain custodial electronic tagging and monitoring equipment. [91188]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No prisoner is allowed to participate in the Home Detention Curfew scheme (HDC) unless he or she satisfies both a prison service risk assessment and the strict eligibility criteria set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Prisoners are not released on HDC if the release would present an unacceptable risk to the victim or members of the public, or if they have a pattern of offending which indicates a likelihood of re-offending during the HDC period, or if they are considered unlikely to comply with the conditions of the curfew.

  As to court-ordered curfews enforced by electronic monitoring, an assessment of the suitability of the sentence for an offender is carried out by the probation service as part of the pre-sentence report. This would include consideration of the same risk issues as outlined above in respect of HDC.

  There is no reason to believe that telecommunications engineers are at risk from offenders subject to electronic monitoring.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Films
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to encourage cinema owners to commit screen time to British films. [89409]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 2 July 1999]: The Government have no specific plans to ask cinema owners to commit screen time to British films. However, the recent Film Policy review identified a number of measures aimed at improving the performance and distribution of British films. Once established, the new Film Council will take forward this strategy.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many British films financed in (i) 1996 and (ii) 1997 took advantage of capital gains tax reinvestment relief; what was the total value of equity investment in respect of these films; and what are the equivalent figures for the period since April 1998; [89413]

  (2) what representations he has received regarding the effect on the British film industry of merging capital gains tax reinvestment relief with the enterprise investment scheme. [89397]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 2 July 1999]: My Department has received representations from one promoter of a film investment scheme. The evaluation of specific tax-based schemes is a matter for the Inland Revenue.

  The detailed information requested on capital gains tax reinvestment relief is not available. Figures for the period since April 1998 would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Activity Holidays (National Minimum Wage)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer of 30 June 1999,Official Report, column 201, if he intends to publish the representations reporting the impact of the national minimum wage on activity holidays. [899456]

  Janet Anderson
  I take a close interest in all matters of concern to the tourism industry, including activity holidays, but we have no plans to publish any representations that may be made to this Department on the impact of the National Minimum Wage. We would, in any case, pass any representations on to the Department of Trade and Industry, whose responsibility this matter is.

  Publication of representations to the Low Pay Commission on the impact of National Minimum Wage is a matter for the Commission itself.
  121

  Television Licence Evasion
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many successful prosecutions took place for television licence evasion in the BB postcode area in each year since 1996. [90644]

  Janet Anderson
  The number of convictions for television licence evasion in the BB postcode area during the period in question was:

  Year

  Number

  1996–97

  1,414

  1997–98

  1,007

  1998–99

  934

  Holidays in Britain
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps the Government are taking to encourage more people to take their holidays in Britain. [90369]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government's new tourism strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism", which I launched on 26 February, contains a raft of initiatives designed to promote quality in tourism through improved career opportunities, more sustainable development and increased access to, and better information about, tourism. As our tourism strategy is implemented and we help to develop an even more high quality and competitive tourism industry, we hope that more people from home and abroad will choose to take holiday breaks in Britain.

  Cambridge Motivate Project
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) Cambridge University mathematicians, (b) schools in Brent and (c) schoolchildren in Brent he estimates will work within the Cambridge Motivate project in (i) the first year and (ii) the first five years. [90605]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Cambridge Motivate project is a pilot project supported by the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA).

  The project will involve five volunteer Cambridge University mathematicians, assisted by a number of Cambridge Education Department mathematical educationalists. In the first year, a total of up to 125 students (12–18) will be involved in the project, to include up to 50 students from two schools in Brent and up to 75 students from three schools in neighbouring London boroughs. Each of those involved will be trained to disseminate their work to five other students in their own schools, so that up to a further 250 students in Brent and 375 students in other schools will be involved in a less direct way. The mathematical problems posed will also be available on the Motivate website for others to explore.

  NESTA will support the project for one year. The impact of the project will be evaluated as it progresses and it may be expanded to more students once its impact has been assessed.
  122

  New Audience Fund
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if figures on new audiences resulting from the New Audience Fund will be collated by or for his Department. [90604]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The New Audience Fund is managed by the Arts Council of England, which will publish a full report on the scheme in December.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will announce his decision on the future of the Millennium Dome after 2001. [90622]

  Janet Anderson
  As announced on 4 March 1999, at the launch of the competition inviting bids for the Millennium Dome and associated land, final decisions on its future use will not be taken until 2000, when the Millennium Experience is up and running for all to see.

  Trafalgar Square Plinth
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many times the advisory panel on the vacant plinth in Trafalgar Square has met; [90607]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the advisory panel on the vacant plinth in Trafalgar Square. [90609]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State joined Sir John Mortimer, Chairman, and some members of the advisory panel at their inaugural meeting last month. The full membership of the panel will be announced shortly and I understand that a second meeting is now being arranged.

  Seaside Resorts
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with European Commission officials regarding Objective 2 status for seaside resorts. [90601]

  Janet Anderson
  My Department has made a strong case for seaside resorts to be considered a priority when the UK Government make proposals to the Commission for the revised Structural Funds map. The Government have been involved in many discussions with the Commission throughout the negotiation of the reform of the Structural Funds. For Objective 2, all areas will be considered equally for inclusion on the basis of need.

  UK lobbying led to the inclusion of a reference in the new Structural Fund Regulation at preamble 6, which mentions the development of tourism and the creation of sustainable employment. It underlines the Government's commitment to target all areas of need.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions about hostels in seaside resorts. [90602]

  Janet Anderson
  My officials have regular discussions with the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and are involved in the public consultation exercise on Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs). I am well aware of widespread concern that the existence of hostels in a number of popular tourist destinations can
  123
  cause serious problems. The Government remain firmly committed to introducing a national licensing system for HMOs when the legislative timetable allows. With DETR, we are currently studying the responses to the consultation exercise which ended recently.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department regarding the impact on seaside resorts of the placement of asylum seekers. [90603]

  Janet Anderson
  I have been corresponding with the Home Office about the placement of asylum seekers in our seaside resorts. I have emphasised the importance of very careful consideration being given to the long-term interests of both asylum seekers and host communities before any decision is taken to place asylum seekers in our resorts.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions regarding transport arrangements to the seaside resort areas of(a) Great Yarmouth, (b) Brighton and Hove, (c) Bournemouth, (d) Torbay,(e) Thanet and (f) Blackpool. [90600]

  Janet Anderson
  I have had no discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions regarding transport arrangements to the seaside resorts mentioned, nor have any representations from those resorts been made to me. However, as set out in our tourism strategy document "Tomorrow's Tourism", we are in close contact with DETR in taking forward action set out in the White Paper on Integrated Transport Policy for the UK.

  Urban Task Force
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what(a) discussions and (b) meetings he had with the Urban Task Force before the publication of its report. [90611]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I had a meeting with Lord Rogers and members of the Task Force on 23 March 1999, when they presented their interim report and discussed their emerging findings. We had a further meeting on 16 June 1999 when Lord Rogers and colleagues explained their main conclusions. My officials have also provided information to the secretariat as required.

  Pressure Systems Directive
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with owners of historic steam engine collections about the Pressure Systems Directive 97/23/EC; and if he will make a statement. [90843]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 12 July 1999]: My Department has received one representation about the Pressure Systems Directive 97/23/EC. The Department of Trade and Industry, as the lead Department dealing with the Directive, were consulted in replying.
  124
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville answered a similar written question about the Directive tabled by Lord Inglewood in another place on 7 July 1999, Official Report, House of Lords, columns 103–04. It is our belief that the historic steam preservation movement, which provides such a valued contribution to maintaining our engineering heritage, will not be faced with disproportionate costs as a result of the Directive.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [90152]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 12 July 1999]: 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.

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) of 5 July 1999,Official Report, column 382, what representations he has made to the Home Office about charitable status for sports clubs. [90812]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has been in close contact with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office on this issue. I particularly look forward to the forthcoming consultation dealing with charitable status and community based sports clubs, in which I will be taking a close interest.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much expenditure his Department(a) has incurred to date and (b) expects to incur on preparations for possible United Kingdom entry into the European single currency; and if he will make a statement. [91182]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Department has not incurred any separately identifiable expenditure. Activity in this area has been limited to disseminating information to sponsored bodies. I have made no estimate of future expenditure.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the location, functions, number of staff accommodated and running costs of his Department's and its agencies' buildings in Scotland. [90859]
  125
  Mr. Chris Smith
  DCMS has no staff, accommodation or agencies in Scotland.

SCOTLAND

  Media Relations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers involved in media relations were employed within his Department at 1 May (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [84203]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 18 May 1999]: Detailed information on the numbers of permanent civil servants employed in Departmental Press Offices during the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99 was provided in a memorandum dated 16 June 1998 to the Select Committee on Public Administration and published in its report on The Government Information and Communication Service (HC 770) in July 1998. A copy is in the Library of the House. The number in post in my Department at 1 May 1999 was 30.

  All Special Advisers in my Department have had ad hoc contact with the media, but no Special Adviser was employed to deal specifically with media relations at 1 May (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 or (iii) 1999. One special adviser with particular responsibility for media relations was employed from 5 May 1998 to 6 April 1999.

  Wildlife Protection
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposal he has to introduce greater protection for wildlife; and if he will make a statement. [90179]

  Dr. Reid
  Protection for wildlife was devolved on 1 July and is now a matter for the Scottish Parliament. The only reserved aspect of protection for wildlife is the protection and regulation of the import and export of animals and plants (under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—CITES).

  Post Office
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to ministers about the proposed changes in the Post Office as they would affect Scotland. [90774]

  Dr. Reid
  The Post Office makes a vital contribution to national life in Scotland, particularly in rural areas. I have been fully involved in development of the Government's proposals for reform of the Post Office that were presented to the House by my right hon. Friend on 8 July 1999,Official Report, columns 1175–90. "Post Office Reform: A World Class Service for the 21st Century" reaffirms the Government's commitment to a universal postal service at a uniform tariff. Measures such as the setting of criteria for access to Post Office counter services will ensure that any evolution of the network of post offices will take place with due regard to less populated areas.
  126

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has(a) made to the Cabinet Office and (b) received from the Scottish Executive regarding changes required in the rules governing the conduct of civil servants because of their involvement in supporting or advising committees of the Scottish Parliament. [90777]

  Dr. Reid
  None.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much expenditure his Department has(a) incurred to date and (b) expects to incur, on preparations for possible United Kingdom entry into a European single currency; and if he will make a statement. [91184]

  Dr. Reid
  Following the publication of the Government's Outline National Changeover Plan, my Department is considering what preparations may be necessary.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Rural Transport
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has for the improvement of transport provision for people living in rural areas. [89475]

  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures have been taken to improve transport in rural areas since May 1997; and if he will make a statement on progress made. [89508]

  Mr. Prescott
  This Government have already significantly improved transport in rural areas. Over £170 million is being made available over three years for extra rural bus services and 1,500 new and enhanced services have been set up, many to local hospitals, shops and stations.

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the decision reached at the Council of Environment Ministers meeting in Luxembourg on 25 June regarding the development, production and sale of genetically modified foods. [89494]

  Mr. Meale
  I am pleased to announce to the House that the Council reached political agreement on the amendment to Directive 90/220 on the deliberate release and marketing of genetically modified organisms. This directive does not include the approval for sale of genetically modified foods, but it does cover crops used in the production of foods.

  I am confident that this will secure better protection for the environment and human health. Tightening of many of the core elements of the Directive and increasing transparency will help public confidence in the regulatory

  127
  regime, and establishing fixed time periods for the decision-making steps will provide more predictability for biotechnology research and industry.

  Urban Renewal
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in the application of the policies set out in the report "Towards an Urban Renaissance" in the east midlands. [89495]

  Mr. Caborn
  The final report of the Urban Task Force "Towards an Urban Renaissance" was published on 29 June. We are considering the Task Force's recommendations in the preparation of our Urban and Rural White Papers, both of which will be published in the next 12 months.

  Urban areas in the Midlands currently benefit from a range of Government regeneration initiatives such as the Single Regeneration Budget, the New Deal for Communities (in Leicester and Nottingham), and from regeneration activity carried out by English Partnerships and the East Midlands Development Agency.

  Road Charging
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the impact on traffic levels which the Government's planned new charges on motorists will have. [89496]

  Mrs. Liddell
  A number of studies have indicated that traffic levels could be substantially reduced if local authorities decided to implement packages of measures including road user charges and complementary public transport improvements.

  Motorway Services
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the franchise conditions of service station operations on the motorways. [89497]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have no immediate plans to do so, though a recent increase in complaints has led the Office of Fair Trading to conduct a preliminary investigation of its own into the price of food and drink at motorway services areas. We have said that we will wish to consider the case for further Government intervention, either through our formal agreements with operators or otherwise, in the light of OFT' s findings.

  Paddington Station
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on improving public transport access to Paddington station. [89498]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Underground is currently improving access to its station at Paddington. The improvements include a widened ticket hall, an extended ticket office, a revised gateline and new architectural finishes. The work will be complete in September 1999.
  128

  Safe Routes (Schools)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the introduction of safe routes to schools. [89499]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are working closely with schools and local authorities to improve safety and reduce car use on the journey to school. Last week we published comprehensive guidance on travel to school and announced a new pilot programme of assistance for schools.

  West Coast Line
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the rail operators of the west coast line about future performance targets. [89500]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Performance targets for rail operators are matters for the Franchising Director. The franchise agreement for Virgin West Coast provides for the cancellation thresholds relating to call-in to be tightened from April 2003 and, at the Franchising Director's option, further tightened from April 2005. These changes will reflect the expected improvement in performance that will result from the Passenger Upgrade of the line (PUG2).

  Trunk Road Network
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress made in improving the trunk road network. [89501]

  Mrs. Liddell
  We have made maintenance our first priority and provided the Highways Agency with the resources necessary to maintain its roads properly. We have increased the funding available for measures to make better use of existing roads. We have established a clear timetable for taking forward the Targeted Programme of Improvements so that all 37 schemes will start within the next 7 years. The net result will be a trunk road network which is safer and serves the needs of users better.

  Container Ports
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy in respect of applications to build container ports that preference should be given to brown-field sites. [89502]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our policy on port developments is that they should make the best use of existing infrastructure, in preference to expansion wherever practicable. In cases where new development can be justified, our view is that ports should promote best environmental standards in design and operation. We are planning to publish a ports policy paper in the Autumn.

  Reighton Bypass
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the case for a bypass for the village of Reighton in North Yorkshire. [89503]
  129
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The proposal for a bypass of Reighton is the responsibility of North Yorkshire County Council as local highway authority. Any bid for funding for the scheme in the forthcoming provisional Local Transport Plan will be considered on its merits. All schemes costing more than £5 million need to be appraised using the New Approach to Appraisal.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in addressing rural needs through the work of regional development agencies. [89504]

  Mr. Meale
  The Regional Development Agencies will later this month publish for consultation their draft regional strategies; final versions will be submitted to Ministers in October. The Secretary of State has issued statutory guidance to Regional Development Agencies about the content and coverage of regional strategies which includes the requirement that strategies should take account of the particular features of the region's rural areas. Separate non-statutory guidance has also been issued which includes a section on rural policy designed to assist the RDAs in considering the rural dimension of their brief, in particular in preparing their strategies.

  Long-distance Buses
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met representatives of National Express to discuss the long-distance bus network. [89505]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Minister responsible for local transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), met senior executives of National Express in April last year as part of the Department's continuing discussions with representatives of the bus and coach industry on a wide range of issues.

  Brown-field Sites
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on Government targets for development on brown-field land. [89506]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's target is that 60 per cent. of additional housing should be built on previously developed land or re-use existing building over the next 10 years.

  London Underground
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has held with(a) Her Majesty's Treasury and (b) commercial interests about the financing of London Underground in 2000–01. [89507]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister routinely has discussions with HM Treasury on a range of issues, including London Transport. London Transport have invited prospective bidders to pre-qualify for the Public/Private Partnership competition for the deep tube lines, and have commenced discussions with Railtrack in respect of the sub-surface lines.
  130

  Fuel Duties
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on road traffic levels of increasing fuel duties by 6 per cent. a year in real terms over the next five years. [89509]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The 1997 National Road Traffic Forecasts already take into account our policy of annual 6 per cent. increases in fuel duty until 2002. Continuing the escalator for another two years would reduce the forecast traffic levels for 2011 by broadly 1.6 per cent., assuming there is no significant change in vehicle fuel efficiency.

  Local Government Elections
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the first-past-the-post system currently used for local government elections in England. [89510]

  Ms Armstrong
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on 15 June 1999,Official Report, column 77.

  Greater London Assembly
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made with preparations for the London Mayor and Assembly. [89511]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Good progress is being made. We have announced that, subject to Parliamentary approval of the Greater London Authority Bill, the elections for the Mayor and Assembly will take place on 4 May 2000, and the GLA and functional bodies will assume their full responsibilities on 3 July 2000. In the meantime the Bill should shortly complete its Committee stage in another place; proposals for both temporary accommodation (Romney House, Westminster) and permanent accommodation (at London Bridge City, Southwark) have been announced; and Dr. Robert Chilton has been appointed, on secondment, from the Audit commission to head the work on the transition to the GLA.

  M4 Bus Lane
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what effect the M4 bus lane has had on journey time for bus passengers from Heston to London. [89512]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The operation of the bus lane is being monitored by the Transport Research Laboratory. Based on the first three weeks monitoring since the bus lane was opened, buses, coaches and taxis are saving an average time of approximately three minutes during the morning and evening peak periods. In periods of severe congestion, because of incidents elsewhere on the road network, vehicles using the bus lane have had savings of up to 16 minutes on journey time.

  Liverpool Vision
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to support Liverpool Vision. [89513]
  131
  Mr. Meale
  Liverpool Vision is a very immediate and welcome response to Lord Rogers's Urban Task Force recommendations. My Officials will work with the new Urban Regeneration Company to make sure its vision of an integrated, vibrant city centre for the new century is delivered.

  A11
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made with the plans to dual the remaining sections of the A11. [89492]

  Mrs. Liddell
  We included the three schemes to complete the dual carriageway on the A11 from the M11 to Norwich in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England" published last summer. The Roudham Heath to Attleborough Improvement is included in our Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI) and construction of the scheme will start in 2001–02. The Attleborough Bypass and the Fiveways to Thetford Improvement were not sufficiently advanced to be included in the TPI but will be the subject of public consultation exercises in 2000–01 so that if, after full appraisal and statutory procedure, they are eventually endorsed, they can be taken foreword without delay.

  Planning (London)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action the Government are taking to involve the business community in the reform of the planning system in London. [89493]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have consulted widely at all stages in the development of the new planning arrangements for London that will come into operation once the Mayor and Assembly are in place. We have met with representatives of the business community on numerous occasions to discuss the proposals.

  GLOBE Projects
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the environmental GLOBE projects carried out by schools; and if he will make a statement. [90400]

  Mr. Meale
  GLOBE stands for Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment. It offers school children structured opportunities to carry out environmental experiments and compare results with other schools globally using the World Wide Web. In England it is managed by the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust, with a grant from my department's Environmental Action Fund (EAF), linked to private sector support from the ARC Environment Fund and the National Grid Company. The Warwickshire Wildlife Trust assesses the projects carried out by schools as part of its EAF funded work. We in turn assess their performance during each year of grant funding, and will carry out a more detailed terminal assessment at the end of the grant in April 2001.

  BA Tail Fins
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how 132
  many misidentifications of British Airways aircraft have been reported by air traffic control as a result of confusion caused by the tail fin design. [90498]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Civil Aviation Authority has confirmed that no misidentifications of British Airways craft have been reported by air traffic control as a result of tail fin design.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason persons who hold a current United Kingdom driving licence have to sit a driving theory test as part of the qualifying test for a public service vehicle licence. [90647]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is vital that people who wish to drive buses and coaches are properly trained and tested. The theory test examines a learner's knowledge and understanding of road safety matters relating to these vehicles before having skills and behaviour assessed in a practical test.

  Seaside Resorts
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to improve transport links to seaside resorts. [90373]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are working with a wide range of bodies, including local authorities, regional planning bodies, the Highways Agency, the rail and bus industries and transport user groups, to deliver its integrated transport strategy. Where relevant, transport links to seaside resorts would be considered in this work. We are also encouraging the tourism industry to improve information about public transport links and alternative transport modes to tourist attractions.

  Beacon Councils
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in implementing the Beacon Council Scheme. [90374]

  Mr. Meale
  In May we published our Application Brochure inviting councils to submit by 31 July their applications for beacon status. We intend to announce the first Beacon Councils in November.

  Planning Inspectors
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if membership of(a) English Heritage or (b) the National Trust is a bar to appointment as a planning inspector; and what are the reasons for these arrangements. [90394]

  Mr. Raynsford
  (a) Yes; English Nature has a statutory function in the planning process, and is involved in a large number of planning cases. It has been felt that membership might bring into question the requirement that Planning Inspectors should be fair, open and impartial, but at my request this policy is now under review.
  133
  (b) No; because the National Trust plays no customary part in the development control process. Membership by Planning Inspectors would be unlikely to call into question the requirement that they should be open, fair and impartial.

  Local Government Salaries and Allowances
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what guidelines he proposes to establish for the level of salaries for executive mayors and members of local council cabinets; and if he will make it his policy to collect statistics on the salaries awarded; [90431]

  (2) what guidelines he plans to issue for the levels of special responsibility allowances in local government. [90430]

  Mr. Meale
  As stated in the White Paper: "Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People" (Cm 4014), we will work with the Local Government Association to develop guidance on allowances and the criteria to be applied in determining their level. We do not propose to collect statistics on these decisions, which as the White Paper indicates, are to be taken by individual councils in the light of recommendations from local independent panels.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the London Boroughs that have produced recycling plans; and what actions he proposes to take in respect of those Boroughs that have not yet done so. [90350]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 12 July 1999]: Under section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 all Waste Collection Authorities (WCAs) are under a duty to have in place Waste Recycling Plans. In London, the London Boroughs are the WCAs. All London Boroughs produced recycling plans in 1992.

  In March 1998, the Secretary of State directed all WCAs to investigate if their Recycling Plans needed updating. The Secretary of State does not have the power to direct WCAs to update their Recycling Plans.

  In London, several Boroughs have submitted revised plans and most of the remaining Boroughs have indicated that they are presently revising their plans. Details are given in the following table:

  Borough

  Revised recycling plan approved

  Revised recycling plan expected

  City of London

  Yes

  —

  Barking and Dagenham

  —

  —4

  Barnet

  —

  In preparation2

  Bexley

  —

  Draft received

  Brent

  —

  In preparation3

  Bromley

  Yes

  —

  Camden

  Yes

  —2

  Croydon

  —

  In preparation

  Ealing

  —

  In preparation3

  Enfield

  Yes

  In preparation2

  Greenwich

  —

  In preparation1

  Hackney

  —

  —2

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  No plans to issue revised plan

  Haringey

  —

  In preparation

  134

  Borough

  Revised recycling plan approved

  Revised recycling plan expected

  Harrow

  —

  In preparation3

  Havering

  —

  —4

  Hillingdon

  —

  —3

  Hounslow

  —

  —3

  Islington

  —

  —2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  In preparation, Summer 1999

  Kingston upon Thames

  —

  In preparation, 1999

  Lambeth

  —

  In preparation, Summer 1999

  Lewisham

  —

  In preparation1

  Merton

  —

  No plans to issue revised plan

  Newham

  —

  —4

  Redbridge

  —

  Draft received4

  Richmond upon Thames

  —

  Draft received3

  Southwark

  —

  Draft received

  Sutton

  —

  In preparation, Summer 1999

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  No plans to issue revised plan

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —2

  Wandsworth

  Yes

  —

  Westminster

  —

  No revision planned at the moment

  1 Greenwich and Lewisham are working on a combined municipal waste management strategy

  2 North London Waste Authority and its constituent collection authorities (LBs of Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Hackney, Islington and Waltham Forest) are working on a municipal waste management strategy

  3 West London Waste Authority and its constituent collection authorities (LBs of Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow and Richmond upon Thames) are working on a municipal waste management strategy

  4 East London Waste Authority and its constituent collection authorities (LBs of Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Newham and Redbridge) are working on a municipal waste management strategy

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what requirements govern the extent to which county council waste local plans have to include a specific provision for waste incineration. [90853]

  Mr. Meale
  PPG23 requires local authorities to have regard to the following principles when drawing up their waste development plans:the best practicable environmental option for a particular waste stream in a particular location, which is in turn informed by
  the proximity principle (dealing with waste as close to its source of generation as possible), and
  the waste hierarchy, with an emphasis on waste reduction, re-use and recovery (both materials and energy) before waste disposal options are considered.

  "A Way with Waste", the draft waste strategy for England and Wales published on 30 June 1999, gives greater detail on how waste management decisions should be taken at the local level. The strategy creates no obligation to include incineration within waste development plans. It recognises, however, that energy recovery, by a variety of routes, combined with high levels of recycling and composting, is likely to form part of a balanced and integrated plan.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria are used by his Department in determining the cost of a road accident for a(a) fatality, (b) serious injury and (c) slight injury; and in each case what is the current figure. [90822]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 12 July 1999]: The values for the prevention of road casualties take account of the following criteria: medical costs, lost production, human costs based on willingness to pay, the cost of police and courts, insurance administration, and property damage. The values attributed to the prevention of death and injury in a road accident in 1997 prices were (a) fatal £902,500; (b) serious accident £102,880; and (c) slight accident £7,970. The value of the prevention of an accident is slightly higher in each case, because there may be more than one casualty. Detailed figures are published in Highways Economic Note 1, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Packaging Regulations
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the results of the consultation process on the Packaging Regulations. [90971]

  Mr. Meale
  On the consultation carried out in 1998, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 28 January 1999,Official Report, columns 335–37. A further consultation on proposed changes to the percentage activity obligations and other issues will be published very soon. The consultation period is expected to last about six weeks.

  Maritime Hijacks
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will give the locations of each attempted maritime hijack which occurred for the last year for which figures are available, giving in each case(a) the flag flown, (b) the location of the incident, (c) the material carried and (d) the outcome of the hijacking attempt. [90727]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  According to the International Chamber of Commerce's International Maritime Bureau statistics, there were six recorded incidents of hijack for the period 1 May 1998 to 30 April 1999, as follows:18 May 1998—A Malaysian flagged fishing boat was hijacked in the Malacca Strait. A ransom was paid for release of crew;
  5 August 1998—A Belize flagged general cargo vessel was hijacked off Indonesia; it is still missing with some crew;
  27 September 1999—A general cargo vessel, flag unknown, was hijacked off Somalia; it is still missing with some crew;
  16 November 1998—A Panamanian flagged cargo of furnace slag was hijacked in the South China Sea; all 23 crew were shot dead and the seven pirates responsible subsequently arrested;
  December 1998—An oil tanker, flag unknown, was hijacked off Indonesia; the ship was arrested by authorities and prosecutions are expected;
  12 March 1999—A Belize flagged general cargo vessel was hijacked off Somalia; the vessel was taken to a Somali port by the hijackers. Nothing further is known.

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many kilometres have been travelled on departmental business in each of the last three years broken down by(a) foot, (b) bike, (c) bus, (d) train, (e) tram, (f) light-rail, (g) plane, (h) motorbike, (i) car, (j) taxi, (k) river-taxi and (l) other modes of transport; what plans and targets his Department has to reduce the kilometres travelled by private transport by departmental employees; and if he will make a statement. [91015]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information on business travel is not collected in the form requested and therefore cannot be provided. As published in the Integrated Transport White Paper in July 1998, the Government have set a target that all Government Department headquarters buildings and main buildings occupied by Executive Agencies and Government Offices for the Regions should have green transport plans by March 1999 and all other key buildings by March 2000.

  We have completed green transport plans covering all our headquarters and main buildings and we are developing plans for all other key buildings in line with the targets set out in the White Paper. These plans include a range of measures intended to reduce the environmental and transport impact of DETR operations, including future reductions in business mileage. The plan for our headquarters buildings includes a target to achieve a reduction of 10 per cent. of business travel miles by car over three years, i.e. by March 2000.

  Air Passenger Service Charges
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the correspondence between the Office of Fair Trading and the International Air Transport Association about the description of passenger service charges as taxes; and if he will make a statement. [89574]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I am concerned about the practice of some airlines of displaying PSC as a tax. My officials have recently discussed the issue of PSC with representatives of the airlines, and are considering their proposals for ensuring that passengers cease to be misled. The Local Authority Co-ordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards believes that such airlines may be in breach of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988, and has recently issued guidance to this effect to local authority trading standards officers.

  The Office of Fair Trading has written to the International Air Transport Association raising complaints that IATA have misrepresented the PSC as a tax, and IATA have responded.

  I have placed copies of this correspondence in the Library.

  Airlines
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) on how many occasions in the last year he has discussed the issue of
  137
  slots at Heathrow with representatives of (a) British Airways, (b) Virgin Atlantic and (c) other airlines; [91222]

  (2) if he will list each occasion since he took office when he has met (a) British Airways and (b) Virgin Atlantic to discuss the proposed British Airways-American Airlines alliance. [91220]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Ministers in this Department are in regular contact with representatives of British Airways and Virgin Atlantic on aviation matters, including, among other things, slots at Heathrow and the British Airways-American Airlines alliance. It is not the normal practice of government to give details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what indication he has received from British Airways or American Airlines that their proposed alliance is not to proceed. [91224]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have received no communication from American Airlines about the alliance. British Airways position continues to be that the progress of the deal as presently structured will depend on satisfactory competition remedies.

  Timber Recycling
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much timber was recycled in each of the last five years. [90716]

  Mr. Meale
  The information requested is not available.

  The Department is working with representatives of the construction industry to develop a strategy to help the industry contribute to the aims of sustainable development. When published later this year, the strategy will address issues such as reducing waste and making more use of recycled materials. In its own operations, the Department follows the advice published in the "Green guide for managers on the government estate" which refers to the importance of using recycled materials in construction and ensuring future recyclability in obtaining best value.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the possible implications for local authorities responsible for street lighting of the introduction of the climate change levy. [90714]

  Mr. Meale
  The impact of the climate change levy on local authorities will depend on the rates of the climate change levy. The final rates of climate change levy will not be set until Finance Bill 2000. It is therefore not possible to give definitive figures about the impact of the climate change levy on local authorities.

  It is proposed that the revenue from the climate change levy will be recycled principally through a 0.5 per cent. cut in employers' National Insurance Contributions. Like other employers, local authorities will benefit from this reduction.

  Garden Waste
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the amount of garden waste produced in each of the last 10 years and; and if he will make a statement on(a) the Government's strategy for dealing with garden waste and (b) its policy towards incineration of garden waste. [90715]

  Mr. Meale
  No estimates are available for the total amount of garden waste arisings. 380,000 tonnes of municipal waste, including garden waste, were collected for centralised composting in England and Wales in 1997–98; 250,000 tonnes in 1996–97; and 150,000 tonnes in 1995–96. (Source: DETR Municipal Waste Survey). Estimates from local authorities suggest that a further 200,000–300,000 tonnes are composted each year at home. Data for earlier years were not collected.

  (a) Our draft waste strategy "A Way with Waste" calls for substantial increases in composting and recycling. The Government will continue to work with key players to implement the recommendations of the Composting Development Group to overcome barriers to the marketing of waste-derived compost.

  (b) Incineration with energy recovery should not be undertaken without consideration first being given to the possibility of composting and materials recycling. The final decision will rest with local authorities, and depend on their own circumstances and their assessment of the Best Practicable Environmental Option.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library copies of the representations which he has received concerning the application to erect a telecom mast at Chisley Wood, Buckmoor End, Butlers Cross, Buckinghamshire (APP/IT0425/A/99/1024262). [91036]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I can confirm that copies of the two representations about this application while it was under consideration by Wycombe District Council have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) which Minister will be responsible for determining planning appeal ref. APP/IT0425/A/99/1024262; and if he will make a statement; [91035]

  (2) what steps he has taken to avoid any conflict of interest arising in the determination of planning appeal APP/IT0425/A/99/1024262 concerning a proposal to erect a telecom mast at Chisley Wood, Buckinghamshire. [91033]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The appeal has been withdrawn and the Planning Inspectorate will be taking no further action in the matter.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations (i) his Department and (ii) the Planning Inspectorate have received from Government Departments or agencies about the planning application
  139
  and appeal relating to the erection of a telecom mast at Chisley Wood, Buckmoor End, Butlers Cross, Buckinghamshire. [91034]

  Mr. Raynsford
  None.

  Leasehold Reform
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if, following the consultation on leasehold reform, he intends to(a) make a statement on whether he will legislate and when and (b) publish the results of the consultation. [91187]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are currently analysing the large number of responses to our consultation paper and will publish the results in due course. We are proceeding as swiftly as possible but I cannot yet say when we will be able to announce our decisions.

  Road Traffic Reduction
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans for an absolute reduction in road traffic levels. [89514]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are making good progress in implementing the package of measures set out in our Integrated Transport White Paper which is needed to reduce road traffic growth, and to reduce absolute levels of traffic in those places where its environmental damage is greatest. We remain committed to publishing our first report under the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998, on the issue of whether to set a national traffic reduction target, by the end of this year.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Indian Overseas Territories
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to publish the findings of, and recommendations arising from, the recent visit to the British Indian Overseas Territories by Dr. Charles Sheppard; what steps he has taken to protect fisheries in the British Indian Overseas Territories in the light of the coral bleaching in the islands; from whom advice has been received; and if he will establish no-fishing zones. [87384]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: Dr. Sheppard's Report is now being printed and I expect it to be issued in the next few days. The Government of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) intends to give it a wide distribution. The fisheries management policy of the BIOT Government is based on the precautionary approach. Some partial Marine Protected Areas were introduced in the autumn of 1998 and the number of licences available for the inshore fishery for the 1999 season reduced by one third.

  Early advice has been received from Dr. Sheppard and BIOT fisheries consultants. After issue of the Report, further consultation will be undertaken in co-ordination with the Department for International Development, who are co-sponsoring an Indian Ocean-wide programme on Coral Reef Degradation.
  140
  The establishment of closed areas or other regulatory mechanisms for the protection of the fishers remain permanently under consideration by the BIOT Government.

  Prime Minister (Personal Representative)
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what respect Lord Levy represented the Prime Minister in his visits to Syria from 9 to 10 April and to Jordan and Syria from 5 to 10 June; what were Lord Levy's terms of reference; if Lord Levy was accompanied by his Department's officials throughout the visits; if he will list the names of those whom Lord Levy met on each occasion in his capacity as the Prime Minister's personal representative and what was discussed; on what Vote the travel costs fell; what were the experience and knowledge possessed by Lord Levy which led to his being chosen for the mission; for what reasons his Department's Ministers did not undertake the visits; what previous visits Lord Levy has undertaken on behalf of the Prime Minister; and what further such visits are planned. [90287]

  Mr. Hoon
  Lord Levy paid for his travel costs personally. His visits included calls on King Abdullah of Jordan and President Assad of Syria when he delivered personal messages on behalf of the Prime Minister.

  The FCO, through the Embassies in Amman and Damascus, liaised in advance with the respective governments on the timing of Lord Levy's visit. The Embassies in Amman and Damascus made programme arrangements, provided some accompanied transportation by road during the programme and accommodation at our Ambassador's residence. The Embassy in Amman hosted a lunch for Lord Levy to meet Jordanian politicians and officials.

  Entry Clearance Applications
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for how long a person who applied for entry clearance for settlement in (i) February, (ii) March, (iii) April, (iv) May and (v) June can be expected to have to wait for an interview in each queue at each post in the Indian subcontinent. [90755]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 12 July 1999]: The figures requested are as follows:

  Waiting time in weeks on last day of month

  Post

  Queue

  February

  March

  April

  May

  Bombay

  1—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2—

  8

  8

  8

  7

  3—

  8

  8

  8

  7

  4—

  8

  8

  8

  7

  Calcutta

  5—

  0

  0.2

  2

  3

  Colombo

  5—

  1.5

  5

  7

  7

  Dhaka

  1—

  14

  12

  10

  12

  2—

  26

  18

  20

  24

  3—

  14

  11

  9

  12

  4—

  34

  37

  38

  54

  Islamabad

  1—

  13

  12

  12

  12

  2—

  30

  33

  39

  41

  3—

  32

  36

  36

  46

  4—

  36

  40

  40

  53

  Karachi

  5—

  6

  8

  8

  7

  Madras

  5—

  9

  6

  4

  10

  141

  Waiting time in weeks on last day of month

  Post

  Queue

  February

  March

  April

  May

  New Delhi

  1—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2—

  13

  14

  14

  16

  3—

  23

  22

  24

  26

  4—

  24

  28

  25

  29

  1 Right of Abode claimants; dependent relatives over 65; special compassionate cases

  2 Spouses, children under 18

  3 Fiance(e)s, other settlement categories

  4 Re-applicants

  5 Calcutta, Colombo, Karachi and Madras do not operate separate queues

  Note:

  Figures for June are in the process of being compiled and are not therefore available.

  The extended queues in Islamabad and Dhaka in particular are a consequence of seasonal pressures. We have deployed additional staff to deal with increased applications for short-term visits. We will deploy further staff as necessary in early autumn to reduce the numbers waiting for settlement entry clearance and bring forward interview dates.

  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the average waiting time is for an initial interview by an entry clearance officer in Islamabad. [91084]

  Mr. Hoon
  Waiting times for interviews vary according to the categories of the application. Some applicants can be issued visas without an interview. The latest figures we have for waiting times in Islamabad for those categories that require interview are for the last working day in May. They are as follows:

  Waiting time

  Tier 3

  (Visit)

  21 days

  Tier 4

  Q1 (Right of Abode claimants, dependent relatives over 65, special compassionate cases)

  12 weeks

  Q2 (Spouses, children under 18)

  41 weeks

  Q3 (Finance(e)s, other categories)

  46 weeks

  Q4 (Re-applicants)

  53 weeks

  The extended queues in Islamabad and Dhaka in particular are a consequence of seasonal pressures. We have deployed additional staff to deal with increased applications for short-term visits. We will deploy further staff as necessary in early autumn to reduce the numbers waiting for settlement entry clearance and bring forward interview dates.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to give effect to the decision by the General Affairs Council on 26 April to impose additional restrictive measures against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [91290]
  142
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The additional measures against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia agreed by the Council of Ministers on 26 April included:a travel ban on President Milosevic, his family, all Ministers/senior officials of the FRY and Serbian governments, and on persons, included in a specific list, close to the regime whose activities support President Milosevic;
  a comprehensive flight ban between the European Community and the FRY;
  extension of the scope of the freeze of funds held abroad by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbian Governments to cover individuals associated with President Milosevic and companies controlled by, or acting on behalf of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbian Governments;
  prohibition of provision of export finance by the private sector further to the existing moratorium on Government-financed export credits set out in Common Position 98/240 of 19 March 1998;
  extension of the investment ban set out in Council Regulation (EC) no 1607/98;
  widening the scope of the prohibition on the export of equipment for international repression and its extension to include goods, services, technology and equipment for the purpose of restoring/repairing assets damaged in airstrikes;

  Member states also agreed to discourage the participation of the FRY in international sporting events.

  A Common Position (1999/318/CFSP) confirming these measures was adopted and came into force on 10 May. A Council Decision (1999/319/CFSP) listing those individuals to be covered by the travel ban was adopted and came into force the same day. Immediate steps were taken to implement the ban in the UK.

  The Council adopted Regulation 1064/1999 imposing a ban on flights between the European Community and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 21 May 1999. This entered into force the following day and repealed and replaced the provisions of Regulation No. 1901/98, as amended. The ban allows for exemptions, subject to a consultation procedure, for strictly humanitarian purposes.

  On 15 June, the Council of the European Union adopted a further Regulation 1294/99 concerning a freeze of funds and a ban on investment in relation to the FRY. The Regulation came into force on 19 June. The regulation provides that:
  funds held outside the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and belonging to the Government of the FRY and/or to the Government of the Republic of Serbia shall be frozen; and that
  no funds shall be made available, directly or indirectly to or for the benefit of, either or both, those Governments.

  For the purpose of the Regulation "Government of the FRY" and "Government of Serbia" are broadly defined to include companies, undertakings, institutions and entities owned or controlled by those Governments, and persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of those Governments. Annexes list individuals and companies who are deemed to fall within this definition.

  The Regulation allows for certain specified exemptions.

  The Regulation applies to any person who is a national of a member state, to any body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a member state, on board an

  143
  aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a member state and within the territory of the Community and its airspace.

  The Regulation is directly applicable in the UK and repeals Regulations 1295/98 and 1607/98. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Freezing of Funds and Prohibition on Investment) Regulations 1999, which came into force on 25 June, give practical effect to the EC Regulation in the UK and provides for criminal penalties if the provisions of the EC Regulation are infringed.

  The Council also decided on 26 April to widen the scope of the prohibition on the export of equipment to include provision and export of certain goods, services and technology to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in order to prevent the restoring/repairing of assets damaged in airstrikes. In line with this decision and pending the preparation of a Regulation to implement it, the UK, while continuing to scrutinise individually all applications for licences to export dual-use goods to the FRY, has granted licences only where the goods are to be used for clearly humanitarian purposes. Following the Council decision, the Commission and member states began preparations to adopt the necessary Regulation. This work has been put on hold, following the end of NATO'S military campaign against the FRY. The UK practice remains in place.

  The Government have taken all necessary steps to discourage participation by teams representing the FRY in sporting events in the UK.

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many kilometres have been travelled on his Department's business in each of the last three years broken down by(a) foot, (b) bike, (c) bus, (d) train, (e) tram, (f) light-rail, (g) plane, (h) motorbike, (i) car, (j) taxi, (k) river-taxi and (l) other modes of transport; what plans and targets his Department has to reduce the kilometres travelled by private transport by his Department's employees; and if he will make a statement. [91017]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information on business travel is not collected in the form requested and therefore cannot be provided. As published in the Integrated Transport White Paper in July 1998, the Government have set a target that all Government Department headquarters buildings and main buildings occupied by Executive Agencies and Government Offices for the Regions should have green transport plans by March 1999 and all other key buildings by March 2000.

  The FCO has completed a green transport plan covering its entire United Kingdom estate. This includes the Department's headquarters buildings in Central London and its sole provincial site at Hanslope Park, some 5 miles north of Milton Keynes. The plan aims to reduce car use by employees for business travel by such measures as reviewing rates of mileage payable to users of private cars and bicycles for official journeys and providing improved facilities for secure storage of cycles on official premises and improved locker and shower facilities for cyclists in order to promote cycling and encourage greater use of public transport.
  144
  The Plan discourages the use of private motor vehicles for home to office transport to buildings in Central London by severely restricting the number of parking slots available for private use. "Casual" parking on official premises is not permitted. The FCO will continue to provide staff with loans to fund the purchase of annual rail season tickets and, in the longer term, may consider the introduction of loans for the purchase of bicycles,

  The FCO has also taken steps to reduce the size of its official transport fleet in the United Kingdom and to ensure compliance with DETR emission regulations through tighter controls on maintenance standards. The trial of a vehicle fuelled by LPG is currently under way.

  Portugal (British Prisoners)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British nationals are currently in custody in Portugal but have not yet had charges brought against them; and how many of them have been in custody for more than(a) three months, (b) six months and (c) nine months. [89573]

  Mr. Hoon
  On 6 July, our records show there were three British Nationals detained in Portugal without charge who had spent nine months, seven months and one week in custody. In addition, another Briton has been detained for seven weeks pending consideration of a request for extradition to the UK.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 18 May 1999,Official Report, columns 333–34, on tobacco, how many requests for help from other countries, referred to in paragraph 5, have been (a) received by posts and (b) referred to the Department of Health. [91179]

  Mr. Hoon
  No such requests have yet been received via posts to pass to the Department of Health. We remain fully supportive of international tobacco control work and are committed to international efforts, under World Health Organisation auspices, to tackle smoking.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give a regional breakdown of his Department's spending on(a) hospitality, (b) stationery and (c) travel in the last year for which figures are available. [90568]

  Mr. Hoon
  Expenditure by the FCO on hospitality, stationery and travel in England in the last Financial Year (1998–99) was as follows:

  Expenditure

  £000

  Hospitality1

  2,289

  Stationery

  2,538

  Travel

  1,192

  1 This figure includes the expenditure by the Government Hospitality Fund which provides for State Visits, Guests of Government and functions for all Government Departments

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the location and running costs in the last year for which figures are available of each of his Department's buildings in the United Kingdom. [90570]

  Mr. Hoon
  The location and running costs—for 1998–99—of each of the FCO's buildings in the UK are listed:

  £000

  Location

  Running costs Financial year 1998–99

  Main building, London SW1

  2,700

  Old Admiralty Building, London SW1

  420

  1 Palace Street, London SW1E

  4,870

  22–24 Whitehall, London SW1

  50

  8 Cleveland Row, London SW1

  210

  Cromwell House, London SW1

  1,150

  20 Victoria Street, London SW1

  40

  4 Matthew Parker Street, London SW1

  1,040

  Apollo House, Croydon

  650

  Hanslope Park, Bucks

  990

  Creslow, Bucks

  50

  Gawcott, Bucks

  Orfordness, Suffolk

  Miscellaneous Expenditure

  13,990

  + 270

  4,260

  1 Running cost expenditure on a range of buildings, but which have not been separately identified on the FCO's accounting system

  Consular Assistance
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the arrangements for providing consular assistance to Commonwealth nationals in United Kingdom embassies in countries where their nation is not represented; and what charges are made for such services. [90572]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK has no responsibility for other Commonwealth citizens in Commonwealth countries. We have no formal obligation to help Commonwealth nationals in foreign countries where they have no representation. By tradition, however, we help where we can. We do not charge for consular protection work, but consular fees are, where appropriate, levied on their nationals.

  Departmental Capital Projects
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the capital projects funded by his Department in the United Kingdom for which cumulative costs have exceeded £1 million, indicating the percentage of projects in(a) Scotland, (b) England and (c) London and the South East, in the last year for which figures are available. [90566]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has four capital projects worth more than 1 million pounds in the United Kingdom. All are in London and South East England.146
  Home estate:
  Renovation of Old Admiralty Building in Central London.
  IT and office automation:
  New Windows Office system. This is part of a system being delivered to FCO offices at home and overseas;
  Intelligence handling system
  Financial Management and Accounts System

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of his Department's employees based (i) overseas and (ii) in the United Kingdom, broken down by region; and if he will list the total wage bill, by region, of those based in the United Kingdom, providing separately the costs of any London allowances and weightings in the last year for which figures are available. [90567]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  On 1 April 1999, the FCO employed 5,493 UK-based staff in London and the South East and at posts overseas. Of these, 2,217 were serving overseas.

  Total wage-bill expenditure on all UK-based staff (including the cost of Salaries, National Insurance, Shift Allowance, Superannuation, Overtime and Recruitment and Retention Allowance) for the financial year 1998–99 was £172.5 million.

  Expenditure in 1997–99 on London allowances and weightings, which forms part of the Recruitment and Retention Allowance budget, was £7.9 million.

  Departmental Overseas Properties
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list overseas properties which his Department shares(a) with other United Kingdom Departments and (b) with foreign Governments. [90571]

  Mr. Hoon
  (a) The FCO does not formally share any overseas properties with other United Kingdom Departments. However, around 970 staff from other United Kingdom Departments work in many of our 220 Posts.

  (b) In the overseas locations listed, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office shares its properties with foreign governments:

  Almaty

  Kampala

  Kinshasa

  Llilongwe

  Lima

  Minsk

  Ottawa

  Quito

  Reykjavic

  Vientiane

  United Kingdom/European Community (Payments and Receipts)
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the United Kingdom's total payments to the European Community and net receipts from the European Community were in 1998. [90273]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.
  147
  Details of the United Kingdom's gross contributions, receipts and net contributions for the 1998 calendar year are set out in Table 3 of the White Paper "European Community Finances" (Cm4382).

HEALTH

  Cancer Care
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of using(a) flexible sigmoidoscopy and (b) Haemocult screening in diagnosing for colorectal cancer; and if he will make a statement. [89094]

  Mr. Hutton
  A large-scale study by the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, about the use of flexible sigmoidoscopy in the early diagnosis of colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients has recently been completed. We will assess the conclusions of that study when it is published at the end of the year.

  We have commissioned two pilot sites to test the feasibility and public acceptability of screening for colorectal cancer. The pilots will initially use Haemocult technology for Faecal Occult Blood testing, which has previously been proven in robust research trials.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spends annually on(a) cancer treatment drugs and (b) laxatives. [89095]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 1998, the net ingredient cost of drugs used in the treatment of cancer and dispensed in the community in England was £96.1 million. Information about the condition for which drugs are dispensed is not available centrally, and therefore some of these drugs may have been used to treat other conditions.

  In 1998, the net ingredient cost of laxatives dispensed in the community in England was £47.0 million.

  Information on drugs dispensed in hospitals is not available centrally.

  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.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the patient information packs to be produced under the Cancer Information Strategy will be available on an internet web site; and if he will make a statement. [89085]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National electronic Library for Health (NeLH) will provide information about cancer services.

  It is intended that access for health care professionals to the electronic Library will be through the National Health Service's own secure intranet (NHSnet), and that patients and the public will be able to access it through other routes, one of which is likely to be the internet. It is intended that patient information packs will be made available through the public floor of the NeLH.
  148
  The NHS Information Authority will be considering the business case for the NeLH in the near future, with the expectation of having a prototype in operation before the end of the year.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's plans to make cancer care services more patient-centred. [89093]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are committed to the development of patient-centred care across the National Health Service. It is at the heart of the Calman/Hine report, "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services". Patients should be closely involved in decisions about their care and clear information about treatment options and outcomes should be available at all stages.

  We are committed to patient-centred care, support and information for both patients and also for families and carers. A recent cancer summit hosted by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was opened by a presentation from a patient. We are also pleased to be supporting the Macmillan campaign, "A Voice for Life", by assisting in the distribution of a cancer information booklet to every patient diagnosed with cancer.

  We have set up a new Cancer Care Action Group, to bring together leading cancer voluntary organisations and the NHS to assist with identifying and implementing improvements to the quality of care offered to patients and their families.

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of statutory instruments introduced by his Department into Parliament in(a) 1998, (b) 1992, (c) 1985 and (d) 1973 had the European Union as their legislative source. [89166]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Breast Screening
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the pilot projects to assess the impact of extending routine breast screening to older women were set up; and for what reason the age limit was extended only to women aged up to 69 years. [89365]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is funding three pilot projects set up to assess the impact of extending routine breast screening to older women. The Brighton pilot was set up in May 1996 and will finish later this year. The project in Nottingham started in February 1997 and the one in Leeds/Wakefield started in June 1997. They will complete in 2000.

  There is growing evidence to suggest that an increasing number of women aged up to 69 would accept routine invitations to screening. This evidence weakens for women over the age of 70 and from the age of 74 is non-existent. A woman can ask to be screened every three years in the same way as women aged 50–64.

  Terminally Ill Patients
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response the Government have made to the British Medical Association's new guidelines on giving resuscitation to terminally ill patients. [90442]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department is aware that the British Medical Association have indicated an intent to revise their guidance on Decisions Relating to Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation which was issued jointly with the Royal College of Nursing in association with the Resuscitation Council (UK) in 1993. However, the revision has not yet been published and we are therefore unable to comment on it.

  Cordless Telephones
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effects of exposure to radiation from cordless telephones; and if he will make a statement. [90432]

  Ms Jowell
  I am advised that cordless telephones operate at much lower powers to mobile telephones although they are very similar in their principles of operation. There is a substantial body of evidence relating to the effects of high intensity exposure to radio waves and there are national and international exposure guidelines based on the avoidance of these effects. The advice of the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) is that exposures of the users of modern mobile telephones will comply with these guidelines. It is expected that exposures from cordless telephones will be far lower than those from mobile telephones and the relevant European Standards group has said that measurements are not required at these lower powers.

  The NRPB's Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation continues to review research on the health effects of electromagnetic fields and NRPB have been instructed to set up an independent working group to assess the current state of research into the use of mobile phones. The findings would be relevant to exposures from cordless telephones also. The group will be chaired by Sir William Stewart FRS, FRSE. The membership and terms of reference will be announced shortly.

  Persistent Vegetative State
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients are in a persistent vegetative state; and if he will make a statement. [90429]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Organ Donation (Conditions)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will bring forward proposals to prevent people selecting the ethnic or religious group of the person to whom they donate an organ; [90986]

  (2) how many people who donated organs specified that such organs were to be used for patients of a particular ethnic or religious group in each of the past five years. [90987]
  150
  Mr. Dobson
  On 6 July, I was told of a case where organs for transplant had been accepted on condition that they shall be given to white recipients only. I immediately ordered an investigation by the Permanent Secretary in the Department of Health. So far, this investigation has not identified any case beyond that originally brought to my attention, which occurred in 1998. I shall take whatever action is necessary to prevent this practice.

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many kilometres have been travelled on his Department's business in each of the last three years broken down by(a) foot, (b) bike, (c) bus, (d) train, (e) tram, (f) light-rail, (g) plane, (h) motorbike, (i) car, (j) taxi, (k) river-taxi and (l) other modes of transport; what plans and targets his Department has to reduce the kilometres travelled by private transport by his Department's employees; and if he will make a statement. [91032]

  Mr. Denham
  The information on business travel is not available centrally.

  As published in the Integrated Transport White Paper in July 1998, the Government have set a target that all Government Department headquarters buildings and main buildings occupied by Executive Agencies and Government Offices for the Regions should have green transport plans by March 1999 and all other key buildings by March 2000.

  We have completed green transport plans covering our headquarters and main buildings occupied by Executive Agencies. The plans include measures to reduce the use by staff of private transport, including initiatives to encourage use of public transport, a review of rules governing the use of private transport and enhancement of videoconferencing facilities. We are developing plans for all other key buildings in line with the targets set out in the White Paper.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make additional funding available in this financial year to Essex Health Authority to enable Mid-Essex Hospital Trust to reduce in-patient and out-patient waiting lists to below what they were on 31 March 1997. [91046]

  Mr. Denham
  Additional funding of £4.23 million has been made available to North Essex Health Authority in 1999–2000 from the modernisation fund to help address waiting lists in the trusts in the health authority's area, including the Mid-Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust.

  Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust is committed to playing its part and making a contribution to the Government's objective of reducing long out-patients' waits and the health authority's overall waiting list figures.

  Stroke Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to increase the provision of(a) stroke services and (b) doctors specialising in stroke medicine; [90194]
  151
  (2) what steps are being taken to spread best practice in stroke medicine. [90195]

  Mr. Hutton
  Evidence-based national service frameworks are being developed to ensure consistent access to and quality of care right across the country. In December 1998, we announced that the national service framework for older people would include stroke services.

  In addition, we are funding a range of initiatives related to stroke including a sentinel audit of stroke services; reviewing the Effective Health Care Bulletin, produced in 1992 on stroke rehabilitation; funding the Royal College of Physicians to develop guidelines in stroke rehabilitation; and publishing a report later this year by the National Health Service Health Outcomes Indicators Group on health outcomes for stroke.

  Stroke medicine is not a recognised hospital specialty. The Specialty Workforce Advisory Group advises Ministers on the numbers needed in higher specialist training in the stroke related specialties, geriatric medicine and neurology, to provide fully trained doctors to fill consultant posts in the future. In estimating likely future requirements for higher specialist trainees, it seeks views from the NHS on local pressures and service developments and consults the medical profession.

  Consultant Vacancies
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many whole-time equivalent consultants there were in each of the last five years in(a) the National Health Service as a whole, (b) psychiatry, (c) obstetrics and gynaecology, (d) paediatrics, (e) geriatrics and (f) oncology; [91041]

  (2) how many new whole-time equivalent consultant posts were created in each of the last five years in (a) the National Health Service as a whole, (b) psychiatry, (c) obstetrics and gynaecology, (d) paediatrics, (e) geriatrics and (f) oncology. [91040]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the numbers of whole-time equivalent consultants in each of the last five years in psychiatry, obstetrics and gynaecology, paediatrics, geriatrics and oncology is shown in the table. Information about numbers of posts is not available centrally.

  Numbers of whole-time equivalent hospital medical consultants for specified specialties in England at 30 September each year 1994–98

  Specialties

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Total Consultants

  England

  15,640

  16,930

  17,610

  18,620

  19,380

  Psychiatry Group

  1,880

  2,040

  2,080

  2,210

  2,360

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  820

  880

  910

  960

  970

  Geriatric medicine

  600

  640

  620

  650

  690

  Paediatrics

  920

  1,010

  1,060

  1,130

  1,190

  Oncology

  280

  310

  300

  330

  360

  Notes:

  1. Figures round to the nearest ten;

  2. Psychiatry group includes: child and adolescent; forensic; learning disabilities; old age and psychotherapy;

  3. Paediatrics includes: paediatrics neurology/cardiology

  Source:

  Department of Health HCHS medical and dental workforce census
  152
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what, in each of the last five years, was the whole-time equivalent number of unfilled vacancies for consultant posts in(a) the National Health Service as a whole, (b) psychiatry, (c) obstetrics and gynaecology, (d) paediatrics, (e) geriatrics and (f) oncology. [91039]

  Mr. Denham
  In January 1999, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, during his appearance at the House of Commons Health Committee, indicated that the Department would conduct a survey of staff shortages by the end of 1998–99. The results of this survey will be published in due course.

  Contraception
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make emergency contraception available on the NHS to women in advance of their need to use it. [91044]

  Ms Jowell
  Hormonal emergency contraception is available on the National Health Service from clinics, any general practitioner who provides contraceptive services—not just the woman's usual general practitioner—family planning clinics, youth advisory services, some hospital accident and emergency departments and some genito-urinary clinics. While not to be prescribed for use as a regular contraceptive, a doctor may, under the terms of the licence, prescribe hormonal emergency contraception prospectively where, in his or her clinical judgment, it is appropriate and there is a risk that the usual method of contraception might fail or not be used.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to set up pilot schemes for the prescription of contraceptives by nurses and pharmacists under group protocols, as outlined in the Crown Review of prescribing and administration of drugs. [91043]

  Ms Jowell
  I currently have no plans to do so.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Monsanto
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the trips, facilities, gifts and other offerings of a financial value provided by Monsanto to(a) ministers and (b) civil servants in his Department since 1 May 1997. [88953]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: Departmental hospitality records show that, since 1 May 1997, DTI officials have had working lunches with Monsanto on two occasions.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to make a statement on insolvency. [89559]

  Dr. Howells
  We have been concerned for some time that for too many people the fear of failure stifles innovation and enterprise. The Insolvency Service was
  153
  therefore asked to take a fresh look at attitudes to business failures, balancing the needs of bankrupts with the rights of their creditors.

  A small number of bankrupts, an estimated 7–12 per cent., may be deemed to be culpable, including those who deliberately set out to mislead and deceive others. But for those who fail for reasons beyond their control, despite their best efforts to save their businesses, we need a new attitude.

  The Insolvency Service's study suggests that the bankruptcy laws could be changed to allow people who have put money into their business to hold on to enough to cover the deposit for a new home on a pound-for-pound basis matching their investment up to a maximum limit of, say, between £10,000 and £20,000. This concession would not apply to culpable bankrupts.

  We now plan to consult on this proposal and on the possibility of differentiating between bankrupts who have been simply unfortunate and those whose behaviour has been unacceptable. The Insolvency Service study suggests that culpable bankrupts could face disqualification from between three and five years, with exceptionally bad cases being extended to fifteen years. On the other hand, responsible risk-takers could be discharged earlier than at present. Six months instead of three years is suggested.

  As well as consulting on these ideas, we hope to introduce some important but uncontroversial amendments to insolvency law as soon as possible, including the possibility of a rescue period for companies in trouble. Building on these ideas, the DTI and the Treasury are also carrying out a joint review of Company Rescue Mechanisms.

  As part of the Insolvency Service's study, Official Receivers carried out a survey of business failures during January and February 1999. They found that:
  out of 1,412 cases, less than 3 per cent. of failures were attributable to fraud;
  half of all businesses had traded for less than 4 years, 32 per cent. failed within their first 2 years;
  33 per cent. of directors and bankrupts involved were aged between 35 and 45;
  the most common reason for insolvency give was the businesses' loss of market or its main customer (19 per cent.).

  The Study concluded that a linkage between investment in a business and keeping a limited amount of money to cover a mortgage deposit could have a number of benefits. It could:
  remove a real disincentive to set up in business;
  encourage better capitalisation of new businesses. A major cause of failure of businesses in their first 3 years is lack of capital;
  provide an incentive to better record keeping (it claimed to have invested would have to be substantiated). Poor record keeping is another common factor in many bankruptcies.

  Market Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the title and purpose of each item of market and opinion research commissioned by or through his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997 stating in each case whether or not the results were published. [89687]
  154
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: The following table shows all surveys conducted by the DTI and its agencies since 1 May 1997 which involve an element of public opinion research, and which are subject to survey control. No information is held centrally on market and opinion research commissioned by non-departmental public bodies. The table indicates, where possible, those surveys whose results have been published.

  DTI surveys involving an element of opinion gathering since 1 May 1997 (as at July 1999)

  Purpose

  Published

  DTI regular surveys conducted since 1 May 1997

  Workplace Employee Relations Survey

  Assess state of the industry

  1—

  National Weights and Measures Customer Survey

  Customer satisfaction

  No

  Patent Office Customer Survey

  Citizen's charter

  Yes

  Export Market Information Centre User Satisfaction Questionnaire

  Customer satisfaction

  No

  Quality Management System for Export Services

  Customer satisfaction

  Yes

  Radiocommunications Agency Customer Survey

  Citizen's charter

  Yes

  Business Links Baseline Tracking Study

  Programme evaluation

  Yes

  Biotechnology Means Business Evaluation

  Programme evaluation

  No

  Design Council Evaluation and Tracking Study

  Programme evaluation

  No

  Companies House Customer Satisfaction Survey

  Customer satisfaction

  Yes

  3rd Survey of Industrial Tribunals

  Programme evaluation

  1—

  Quality Management System: Market Directorates

  Customer satisfaction

  Yes

  Subtotal Regular Surveys: 12

  DTI ad-hoc surveys conducted since 1 May 1997

  Survey of UKAEA Contractors

  Programme evaluation

  No

  Insolvency Service User Survey

  Customer satisfaction

  Yes

  Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme

  Programme evaluation

  2—

  Evaluation of Regional Supply Network

  Programme evaluation

  Yes

  Support for Overseas Trade Fairs and Seminars

  Programme evaluation

  Yes

  Business Link Advertising Campaign Evaluation (Benchmark)

  Advertising campaign evaluation

  No

  Business Link Advertising Campaign Evaluation (Follow-up)

  Advertising campaign evaluation

  No

  Future Market for Photovoltaic Building Products

  Assess state of industry

  Yes

  BNSC Customer Survey

  Customer satisfaction

  Yes

  Evaluation of Design of High Speed Machinery Programme

  Programme evaluation

  Yes

  Evaluation of Export Market Research Scheme

  Programme evaluation

  No

  Evaluation of RETEX Initiative

  Programme evaluation

  3—

  Evaluation of KONVER Initiative

  Programme evaluation

  3—

  Evaluation of Industry '96 Follow-up

  Programme evaluation

  Yes

  Mid-term Review of Applications Demonstration Programme

  Programme evaluation

  3—

  Review of European Supported Networks

  Programme evaluation

  No

  Evaluation of Regional Selective Assistance '89–'93

  Programme evaluation

  3—

  Engineering Automotive and Metals Directorate Client Survey

  Customer satisfaction

  No

  Business Links Value for Money Evaluation

  Programme evaluation

  Yes

  DTI/Foundry 2000 Survey

  Assess state of industry

  1—

  Evaluation of Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme

  Programme evaluation

  Yes

  Review of the Internet Watch Foundation

  Programme evaluation

  Yes

  155

  DTI surveys involving an element of opinion gathering since 1 May 1997 (as at July 1999)

  Purpose

  Published

  Materials Measurement Evaluation Survey

  Programme evalution

  Yes

  Working Time Regulations Evaluation

  Programme evaluation

  No

  Survey of New and Renewable Energy Programme Participants

  Programme evaluation

  4—

  Evaluation of OSO Support for Innovation Programme

  Programme evaluation

  1—

  Bankruptcy Register User Survey

  Customer satisfaction

  No

  UK Business Potential for Virtual Reality

  Assess state of industry

  Yes

  Interim Evaluation of DTI's Biotechnology Means Business

  Programme evaluation

  No

  Joining Forces Evaluation

  Programme evaluation

  1—

  Management Best Practice Customer Survey

  Customer satisfaction

  No

  Government Office Eastern Region Client Survey

  Customer satisfaction

  1—

  Business Link Pre/Post Advertising Survey

  Advertising campaign evaluation

  No

  Sector Sponsorship Evaluation

  Programme evaluation

  1—

  National Minimum Wage Quantitative Research

  Advertising campaign evaluation

  No

  Evaluation of Inward Missions

  Programme evaluation

  1—

  Evaluation of Biotechnology SME Initiatives

  Programme evaluation

  No

  Study of the Impact of EU Framework Programmes

  Programme evaluation

  1—

  DTI Overseas Trade Services Language Study 1999

  Programme evaluation

  Yes

  Subtotal ad hock surveys: 39

  DTI surveys to households and individuals conducted since 1 May 1997

  Consumer Product Recalls

  Customer attitudes

  4—

  Insolvency Service Communications Review

  Customer awareness

  No

  Surveys of users and non-users of the Internet

  Customer awareness

  Yes

  Subtotal surveys to households and individuals: 3

  Grand Total of surveys: 54

  1 To be published.

  2 The Environment Technology Best Practice Survey is a series of Surveys given blanket approval in 1994 which is still in progress. The results of some individual surveys have been published, but in most cases they are not.

  3 Information not available.

  4 Yet to be decided whether results will be published.

  Export Licences
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers the Government have to revoke export licences; and if he will list the occasions on which licences have been revoked. [90694]

  Dr. Howells
  Powers to revoke export licences are contained in Regulation 3(2) of the Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations 1996 and in Article 7(1) of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994.

  Over the years, a large number of standard individual export licences have been revoked for a range of reasons; for instance, because of the introduction of UN trade sanctions or arms embargoes or in response to wrongdoing. It would entail disproportionate cost to provide details of all these licences.
  156
  Details of licences revoked between 2 May and 31 December 1997 were set out in the annual report published on 25 March by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This information would also be included in future annual reports.

  Information Society Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress with the Information Society Directive. [90398]

  Dr. Howells
  The draft EC Directive on copyright and related rights in the Information Society is still under discussion in a Working Group of the Council of Ministers. The European Parliament gave its Opinion in February, and the European Commission have recently published their amended proposal which takes on board many of the Parliament's amendments. As the outgoing German Presidency reported at the Internal Market Council on 21 June, progress has been made on the Directive. However, the common position of the member states is not expected for some time owing to the complex and controversial nature of some of the proposals.

  The electronic environment necessitates international harmonisation of copyright laws, and the Government therefore welcome the broad thrust of this Directive and wish to see it adopted as soon as possible. However, there are concerns about certain aspects of the Directive, including the treatment of temporary copies, the approach on exceptions to rights for a broad range of users, and provisions on technical measures. We are pressing in the Council for solutions on these issues which will allow a fair and reasonable balance to be maintained between the interests of all the key players.

  Property Purchases
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evidence he has assessed of the existence of a preference system for property purchases linking estate agents, mortgages and the availability of purchase options to clients agreeing to take part. [90765]

  Dr. Howells
  Discrimination against a prospective purchaser by an estate agent on the ground that the purchaser will not be, or is unlikely to be, accepting services is an undesirable practice under the Estate Agents (Undesirable Practices) (No. 2) Order 1991. I understand that the Office of Fair Trading is currently considering a number of complaints it has received on this issue.

  Minimum Wage
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the number of employers, broken down by size of firm, who have been fined for paying less than the statutory minimum wage. [91166]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  No employers have been fined. The overwhelming majority of the non-complying employers discovered by the minimum wage inspectors have subsequently agreed to make good the underpayment, without the need for further action. But we expect a number of enforcement notices to be issued shortly against recalcitrant employers. If these are not complied with, they will be followed by financial penalty notices.

  Imperial Measures
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if it is his policy to make it a criminal offence after 1 January 2000 for butchers and greengrocers to sell loose goods using imperial measures; and if he will make a statement. [91076]

  Dr. Howells
  The Weights and Measures Act 1985 prohibits the use, for trade, of units of measurement other than those defined and authorised by the Act. The Act was amended in 1994 to authorise metric units only for the sale of loose goods by weight after 31 December 1999. Imperial units are authorised after that date only as optional supplementary indications of quantity and price, alongside the mandatory primary indications in metric units.

  Airbus
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with(a) British Aerospace and (b) his French counterpart concerning the potential sale or merger of the United Kingdom interest in Airbus. [91204]

  Mr. Battle
  I have regular discussions with both industry and my European counterparts on the future structure of Airbus. All sides are committed to transforming the existing Airbus consortium into a single corporate entity working along fully commercial lines in order to maximise its competitiveness. The Government hopes this will happen in the near future. However, it is for the industrial partners to lead the process and to determine what steps are necessary. At a meeting of the Airbus Governments and industry at the Paris Airshow last month, Ministers asked the partner companies to report by the end of the Summer on their proposed way ahead in transforming Airbus.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) men and (b) women have appealed to an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal during the last 12 months. [90766]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Between 1 July 1998 and 30 June 1999, the Employment Tribunals received a total of 35,017 applications for unfair dismissal. The gender breakdown was as follows:

  Male: 22,000

  Female: 12,785

  Not specified: 232.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [90149]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 12 July 1999]: 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
  158
  departmental performance against the target 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.

  Royal Mail (Transport)
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to encourage the Royal Mail to increase the proportion of post transported by rail. [90752]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 12 July 1999]: Decisions relating to the transport arrangement for mail are the operational responsibility of Royal Mail management whose business policy is continually to review its methods of transportation in order to improve service to customers.

  I understand that Royal Mail are currently looking at a number of initiatives for transferring letter mails from road to rail and the first of these will be introduced between London and Glasgow at the end of August. In addition, a dedicated rail terminal at Bristol is scheduled for completion by Easter 2000, which will transfer an annual 250,000 kilometres of road journeys to rail.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage by volume of Royal Mail parcels and letters have been transferred from rail to road transport in the past five years. [90852]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I understand from the Post Office that there has been no net movement of Royal Mail letter traffic from road transport to rail in the past five years. Over the period, conveyance of letter traffic by transport mode has remained constant at 70 per cent. road, 23 per cent. rail and 7 per cent.

  Parcelforce have transferred 0.5 per cent. of national traffic from road to rail via the intermodal service introduced in June 1998.

  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to make an announcement on the proposed partial privatisation of BNFL. [91143]

  Mr. Byers
  I am now in a position to make a statement about the future of BNFL.

  On 11 November 1998, Official Report, column 222, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry announced that KPMG were carrying out an initial review of the options for BNFL's future structure including, but not restricted to, some form of Public Private Partnership (PPP).

  BNFL is pursuing an ambitious strategy designed to achieve global market leadership in nuclear business. Its objective should be to grow and flourish in a fast-growing global market by exploiting the benefits of its unique expertise in nuclear clean-up and decommissioning. The acquisition of Westinghouse and winning the opportunity to take part in two major nuclear waste clean-up contracts in the United States at the US Department of Energy's

  159
  Hanford site in Washington and at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory are an integral part of this strategy.

  I have now considered KPMG's report and the subsequent work which my Department asked KPMG to undertake. The report states that the need for Government to approve these major transactions has thrown into sharp relief the difficulties which it can face in judging major commercial transactions of this nature. I agree with this analysis.

  It is clear from KPMG's work that a public-private partnership, involving a partial transfer of BNFL to the private sector, possibly by a flotation of part of the equity of the company, would be the best way of injecting private sector expertise and entrepreneurial spirit, while holding to the Government's priorities of rigorous safety, health and environmental standards.

  I have therefore decided that, in principle, a PPP would be good for the company, the employees, the taxpayer, and the wider community. Accordingly, I am asking my officials to tender for advisers to provide advice on a PPP for BNFL. Our current working assumption is that a PPP would involve BNFL as a whole. The KPMG report noted that there would be major operational and regulatory obstacles in separating the businesses and that such an approach would run counter to BNFL's vision as an integrated nuclear services provider. Existing legislation provides for the sale of up to 49 per cent. of the business.

  Before a PPP is introduced into the business, I want to see BNFL achieve improved safety and environmental standards and I must be sure that the taxpayer will get proper value for money, reflecting the company's commercial performance.

  I have therefore decided to take an innovative approach, which will set this PPP apart from the privatisations of the previous Administration, and which will focus on BNFL achieving improved safety and environmental standards, sustained and progressive improvement in its commercial performance, and a constructive partnership between management and workforce in developing the skills and capabilities of all those who work in the business. To this end, the Government will, together with the company, explore the scope for developing an employee partnership scheme, with the aim of ensuring that the employees share in the future success of the business, and that they are rewarded for their part in the progress the company makes towards achieving a successful PPP.

  In considering my approach to this PPP, I have taken careful consideration of the recent work and advice of the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Trade and Industry Committee about the lessons to be learned from past Government share offerings to enable the taxpayer to receive due value from the introduction of private capital, reflecting the company's performance and potential for future earnings.

  I have therefore set BNFL a number of specific performance targets.

  The targets relating to safety and the environment are being developed with the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agencies.
  160
  Both BNFL and I attach great importance to the health of the company's workforce and to its safety. No less important is care for the environment and the need for BNFL to strive towards continuous improvement in this area with the aim of bringing work practices, culture and performance into line with world-class international standards.

  The company will therefore build on its recent record in safety, health and environmental performance by aiming at continuous and measurable improvement in these areas against a new and challenging index, based on best practice and developed in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agencies.

  The new index will reinforce the efforts the company are making to achieve this sustained improvement in achievement in their record on safety, health and environmental protection.

  The company, and all the trade unions representing the workforce, will build on their recent success in developing the concept of partnership. This has led to proposals for a new single contract which will enhance skill levels, introduce new competencies and create a flexible mobile workforce generating high value employment opportunities in the communities where BNFL operates. Under the existing Partnership Council involving union representatives, it is intended to monitor progress in implementing the new contract, including measuring targeted improvements in skill enhancement and productivity levels. The company and the unions are agreed that the introduction of a PPP into BNFL could help create a climate in which initiatives to improve productivity would be encouraged and which would underpin and enhance recent progress in establishing a partnership approach within the company. The company will also aim to achieve improvements in productivity as expressed in sales per unit of cost.

  The company will seek to enhance its financial performance further through material and progressive growth in the profits generated from ordinary activities. It will also aim to increase the overall contribution made by its US business to BNFL profits, and increase towards 15 per cent. the proportion of BNFL profits derived from the US business. BNFL's progress in winning an increasing share of the US clean-up business will help contribute towards this goal.

  In 1997 BNFL set itself the target of achieving cumulative reductions in controllable costs of 25 per cent. by March 2001. This remains the aim: thus far BNFL has achieved reductions in controllable costs of some 14 per cent.

  The company has established a Liabilities Management Unit to reinforce the strategic management of its liabilities and will, without compromising safety and consistent with the regulatory framework within which it operates, seek to identify ways to manage them more efficiently and effectively through the development of new techniques, skills and strategies.

  The company will also continue to sustain a Research and Technology capability which will contribute to the company's overall business performance and enable it to continue to meet high standards of safety and environmental protection.
  161
  These targets reflect the company's commitment to high standards of safety, health and the environment; they focus on the key drivers of value in the business; and they acknowledge the importance of developing the skills of the workforce and of productivity gains. Each target is backed up by an understanding between my Department and the company of how it will be measured, the precise details of which must, for obvious reasons, remain commercially confidential. They form a balanced scorecard of stretching targets which provide BNFL—both management and the workforce—with the opportunity to demonstrate that the company can realise its full potential, in line with its "Beyond 2000" Strategy.

  The Government will look to introduce a PPP into BNFL before the end of the current Parliament, subject to BNFL's overall progress towards achieving these targets, as well as the further work which will now be undertaken by my Department and its advisers.

  I am arranging for a summary of the key points in the KPMG report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if shipments of plutonium from Sellafield are required to be accompanied by an armed escort vessel. [90713]

  Mr. Battle
  I announced to the House on 18 January 1999,Official Report, columns 364–65, the arrangements for the return to Japan of nuclear materials recovered from reprocessing Japanese spent nuclear fuel at BNFL's Sellafield plant, including the use of armed vessels.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the total cost of providing security for shipments of plutonium from Sellafield is met by BNFL. [90712]

  Mr. Battle
  The cost of providing physical security for MOX fuel shipments from Europe to Japan are reflected in the value of BNFL's contracts with its customers.

  End-of-life Vehicles
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason no conclusion was reached at the Environment Council on the proposed directive on end-of-life vehicles. [91223]

  Dr. Howells
  At the Environment Council meeting on 24 June, the Presidency concluded that it was not possible to reach a Common Position due to concerns about the date of application of the producer responsibility obligations in respect of existing vehicles. The incoming Finnish Presidency intends to find a solution to this issue during its Presidency, and will schedule a further discussion with other member states on this Directive.

  These concerns affect an important industry and need to be considered carefully. I am confident that an outcome acceptable to all can be found.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the application 162
  of the national minimum wage to disabled workers on therapeutic earnings; what representations he has received on this issue; and if he will publish them. [90717]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 was deliberately designed to be non-discriminatory. If somebody is employed under a contract of employment or any other worker's contract as defined in the Act, he or she is entitled to the national minimum wage. I have received a number of representations on this issue. The independent Low Pay Commission concluded in its first report that "there are compelling arguments for treating disabled people in the same way as other workers". The Commission is monitoring the national minimum wage and will report by December. Officials from my Department, as well as the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Social Security, have been in continual discussions with various organisations connected with disabled and therapeutic workers about the effective implementation for workers with disabilities and in respect of therapeutic earnings.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Data Series
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what new data series separated by gender, race, disability and age have been commissioned by his Department since June 1997. [90535]

  Mr. Vaz
  No new data series separated by gender, race, disability and age have been commissioned by the Lord Chancellor's Department since June 1997; however, the Department has been collecting data in respect of its personnel by gender, race and disability since the early 1990s.

  European Community Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 June 1999,Official Report, column 214, on European Communities working groups, if he will set out the remits of the working groups listed. [90505]

  Mr. Vaz
  The remit of the working group on Extension of the Brussels Convention was to report on the possibility of extending the scope of the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters to matters of family and succession law, and subsequently to establish a draft Convention on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters. The remit of the Rome II working group was to examine the need for and feasibility of drawing up a Convention on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations. The remit of the working group on Revision of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions was to revise the provisions of those Conventions, respecting the basic principles and objectives of the Brussels Convention, taking into account the case law of the European Court of Justice on the Brussels Convention and relevant decisions of national courts on the Lugano Convention, and examining all proposals with a view to their potential usefulness in the operation of the Conventions.

  Public Service Interpreters
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress is being made towards establishing a single register of public service interpreters in the Court Service. [90443]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Court Service, with other users of the criminal justice system, will use interpreters from the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI) as the need arises. In civil proceedings, the courts do not provide interpreters; it is for the party concerned to obtain and pay for them. The court can recommend the Institute of Linguists or any other appropriate body.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many persons on the national register of public service interpreters(a) have obtained the diploma of public service interpreting, legal option, (b) hold a legal qualification and (c) can demonstrate that they have more than 100 hours' experience of interpreting in court. [90444]

  Mr. Vaz
  The national register of public service interpreters is maintained by the Institute of Linguists (IoL), which is a separate body from the Court Service. I understand(a) that there are 224 (English law) and 9 (Scottish law) interpreters with a diploma in public service interpreting, legal option; (b) it is not known how many interpreters have a legal qualification; and (c) figures are not kept to show how many interpreters have more than 100 hours experience of interpreting in court.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 June 1999,Official Report, column 53, on ministerial meetings, how many times (a) the Lord Chancellor and (b) the Minister of State in the Lord Chancellor's Department met members or officials in the United States Government between 1 May 1997 and 1 June 1998; and if he will list the dates and locations of each meeting, the US departments involved on each occasion and the names of the US members and officials at each meeting. [90427]

  Mr. Vaz
  Neither the Lord Chancellor nor the Minister of State had any official meetings with members or officials in the United States Government between 1 May 1997 and 1 June 1998.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many times the Lord Chancellor or the Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department have met members or officials of the Irish Government since 1 January 1998, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting, the ministers involved, and the names of the Irish ministers and officials at each meeting. [90406]

  Mr. Vaz
  Neither the Lord Chancellor nor the Minister of State have had any official meetings with members or officials in the Irish Government since 1 January 1998.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Government plans to 164
  make known its views on the proposals set out in the Green Paper, "Who Decides: Making Decisions on Behalf of Mentally Incapacitated Adults". [91391]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government received over 4,000 responses to "Who Decides?" on the Law Commission's recommendations about decision making for mentally incapacitated adults. Respondents included many charities working on behalf of incapacitated people; local authorities; doctors; professional organisations and those working with the law. We also received a large number of contributions from individual members of the public. There was much support for the key principles: the functional approach to assessing capacity; the factors to be taken into account when assessing best interests; and the General Authority. There was wide-ranging support for Continuing Powers of Attorney. Many respondents also supported the proposals for Managers appointed by the court to replace the current system of Receivers, with appropriate safeguards. Since consultation closed in March 1998, we have been giving very careful consideration to all the issues involved. The Lord Chancellor intends to publish a Policy Statement in October 1999, which will set out the Government's thinking on a number of the issues raised in the consultation paper.

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many kilometres have been travelled on his Department's business in each of the last three years broken down by(a) foot, (b) bike, (c) bus, (d) train, (e) tram, (f) light-rail, (g) plane, (h) motorbike, (i) car, (j) taxi, (k) river-taxi and (l) other modes of transport; what plans and targets his Department has to reduce the kilometres travelled by private transport by his Department's employees; and if he will make a statement. [91022]

  Mr. Vaz
  The information on business travel is not collected in the form requested and therefore cannot be provided. The Government have set a target that all Government Department headquarters buildings and main buildings occupied by Executive Agencies should have green transport plans by March 1999 and all other key buildings by March 2000.

  We have completed green transport plans covering all our headquarters and main buildings and are developing plans for all other key buildings in line with targets set out in the 1998 Integrated Transport White Paper. The plans include measures to reduce single-occupancy car use by employees for commuting and business travel.

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what role the Community Legal Service will have in relation to representation at employment tribunals. [90193]

  Mr. Vaz
  Under the Access to Justice Bill, civil legal aid will be replaced by the Community Legal Service fund. For proceedings before the employment tribunals all help short of advocacy will continue to be available. Meanwhile, the Government are conducting a review of all tribunals to assess the extent to which current procedures and other arrangements, including
  165
  representation, comply with our ECHR and EU obligations, and to identify the options for ensuring compliance in the future. The Government believe that it would be premature to make any decisions on extending publicly funded representation to tribunal proceedings until the review has been completed. The wider Community Legal Service, through Community Legal Service Partnerships (CLSPs), will provide the framework for comprehensive local networks of good quality legal and advice services supported by co-ordinated funding, based on the needs of local people. The CLSPs will base their planning and funding decisions on an assessment of local needs, which will include the need for help with employment disputes.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what dates Special Advisers from his Department have travelled abroad on official business since 2 May 1997; which countries were visited on each occasion; and what were the names of the special advisers who travelled abroad on each occasion. [88436]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) on 29 April 1999,Official Report, column 238.

  Out-of-school Clubs
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received from out-of-school clubs concerning the basis upon which local education authorities have sought to charge out-of-school clubs operating out of premises owned by local education authorities for their use of the premises and associated facilities; and what response his Department has made. [R] [88958]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: Since July 1997, the Department has received no representations from out-of-school clubs concerning charges for the use of local education authority maintained school premises, although in February 1998 we did liaise with the Department of Health on correspondence received by them from The Guide Association about changes made by one Metropolitan Borough Council.

  New Deal Conference
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost of the New Deal Conference held in Birmingham on 21 and 22 June; and if he will make a statement. [89369]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The cost of the conference was £257,336, including the hire of the International Convention Centre in Birmingham, all costs of production, stage, set, equipment, personnel, facilities, facilitators for syndicate sessions and catering. The conference was attended by 670 delegates, 54 speakers and 34 journalists. In addition to the plenary sessions there were 37 syndicate sessions covering 19 different subjects.
  166

  Education Budget
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will state the total budget announced since May 1997 for(a) local recruitment measures, (b) family numeracy, (c) summer numeracy schools, (d) numeracy at Key Stage 3, (e) literacy at Key Stage 3, (f) summer literacy schools, (g) special educational needs, (h) work-related learning, Social Inclusion-Pupil Support, (j) National Grid for Learning, (k) Education for Travellers and Displaced Persons, (l) Expanding Local Authority Music Services and (m) New Deal for Schools Phase 3 stating 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 allocated in grants. [89471]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 2 July 1999]A reply to this question could be supplied only at 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 Reports, copies of which are held in the Library.

  Action Zones
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 19 April 1999,Official Report, column 435, on action zones, 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 and publicity, (e) opinion polling, (f) web sites, (g) hospitality, (h) central administration costs and (i) external consultants and advisers in relation (1) to local recruitment measures, (2) literacy at Key Stage 3, (3) numeracy at Key Stage 3, (4) summer numeracy schools, (5) family numeracy, (6) work-related learning, (7) social inclusion-pupil support, (8) education of travellers and displaced persons and (9) expanding local authority music services. [89622]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 2 July 1999]: Expenditure is as follows:

  £

  1998

  1999–2000

  1999–2000

  Actual

  Actual to date

  Planned

  (a) Market Research

  0

  0

  0

  (b) Conferences

  254,735

  11,359

  27,000

  (c) Direct Mail

  3,496

  0

  0

  (d) Advertising and Publicity

  124,825

  0

  0

  (e) Opinion Polling

  0

  0

  0

  (f) Website

  0

  0

  10,000

  (g) Hospitality

  1,220

  638

  2,550

  (h) Central Administration Costs

  539,693

  123,555

  459,664

  (i) External Consultants and Advisers

  219,202

  36,900

  176,593

  No details are available prior to the financial year 1998–99—the first zones started work in September 1998. We cannot provide a further breakdown of the figures into

  167
  categories 1–9 above because this information is not held by the department and/or identifying it would incur disproportionate cost.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what(a) consultation he has had with the Better Regulation Task Force and (b) assessment he has made of its initiatives in assessing the administrative burdens on employers of involvement in the New Deal. [89421]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 2 July 1999]: The design implementation, marketing and evaluation of the New Deal takes account of the advice of the New Deal Task Force, which has a substantial proportion of its membership drawn from business, including the noble Lord Haskins, who is also the chair of the Better Regulation Task Force.

  New Deal (Sunderland)
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of young people in the New Deal programme are in jobs without Government subsidy in the city of Sunderland. [90277]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  A young person participating on New Deal who finds a job that does not qualify for the government subsidy through the New Deal Employment Option actually leaves the programme. In the period April 1998 to April 1999, 516 young people have left New Deal to go into unsubsidised employment in the City of Sunderland Unit of Delivery.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 5 July 1999,Official Report, column 403, if he will list the sports bodies which suggested the number of school playing fields sold off between 1979 and 1998, as indicated in his answer. [90259]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The figure was originally derived from national surveys carried out by the Central Council of Physical Recreation. But our calculations, based on experience in the grant-maintained sector (which the Government monitored from 1988) suggest that the 5,000 figure could well be an under-estimate.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 5 July 1999,Official Report, column 403, what information he has obtained from the National Playing Fields Association about the number of sales of school playing fields between 1979 and 1999. [90258]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have received no information from the National Playing Fields Association about the number of sales of school playing fields between 1979 and 1999; however, we would be happy to consider any information which might be offered.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what statistics he has collated on the number of schools which have their own sports grounds. [90510]
  168
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department does not currently collate statistics on the number of schools which have their own sports grounds. However, local education authorities are being encouraged to develop Asset Management Plans which will include comprehensive details of their school premises, including the number of playing fields for each school. These details will be collated by the Department.

  Research Assessment Exercise
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total cost of the 1992 to 1996 Research Assessment Exercise. [90177]

  Mr. Mudie
  The cost to higher education institutions of undertaking the 1996 Research Assessment Exercise was estimated to be £27.3 million, less than 1 per cent. of the public funds for research which will be distributed by funding bodies with reference to the 1996 RAE results.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of higher education under the auspices of further education colleges. [90526]

  Mr. Mudie
  We are committed to ensuring that everyone who has the capacity to benefit from higher education has the opportunity to do so. The Dearing Report into higher education recommended that the Government respond to increased demand for higher education at sub-degree level and that priority in this expansion should be given to further education colleges. Over the next two years, we are making available an additional 34,000 sub-degree places, the majority of which will be delivered by further education colleges.

  Further education colleges have an important role to play in the delivery of higher education. They widen participation by bringing higher education within reach of most communities and attracting people from households with little or no tradition of higher education. Through their strong links with local business, they are also well placed to provide the skills needed by the local labour market and to help students into work.

  Our confidence in the contribution played by further education colleges is reflected in the latest figures which show that colleges account for 11 per cent. of people studying higher education in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the individual financial allocations to further education colleges from the FEFC Standards Fund together with the category of each allocation. [90454]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Further Education Funding Council published a Circular on the Use of the Standards Fund on 1 June 1999. The Standards Fund is intended to recognise
  169
  and reward excellence, and to enable colleges to have access to funds to help them secure improvement. It will be allocated under four broad strands. These are:
  Strand 1: help for colleges which are causing concern to make rapid improvements;
  Strand 2: supporting post-inspection action plans for colleges which have been inspected since September 1997;
  Strand 3: supporting continuing professional development for lecturers, principals and governors;
  Strand 4: funding for colleges performing well—including those which achieve FEFC accredited status or are recognised by Ministers as 'Beacon' colleges—to share examples of good practice.

  It is not possible to list the individual financial allocations to colleges at this stage. The Council's first priority is to arrange support for those colleges causing concern and therefore eligible for funding under Strand 1 of the Standards Fund. These colleges have been asked to prepare costed action plans and to submit these to the Council no later than 16 July 1999. Colleges eligible for funding under Strands 2 and 4 have been asked to prepare action plans as soon as possible and by the end of October 1999 at the latest. Strand 3 of the Standards Fund will require consultation and development before training initiatives can be finalised.

  The adequacy of costed action plans provided by colleges will be assessed by the Council before funding is agreed. All action plans submitted to the Council will receive a response within five working weeks. To date, an action plan from Knowsley Community College has been approved under Strand 4 funding and a payment of £50,000 made to this accredited and Beacon college.

  Pupil Records
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the timetable for the development of a national system of individualised pupil records which will assess(a) the value added by each school and (b) the progress made by pupils within them. [90419]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Value added measures, based on the results of individual pupils and measured between two stages of education require each pupil to be reliably identified. Early National Curriculum test results were not collected in this way but suitable data are gradually becoming available. The 'Unique Pupil Number', which we intent to introduce nationally this autumn, will streamline future data collection exercises. In the meantime, we are aiming to publish Key Stage 3 to GCSE/GNVQ value added measures for each school in the 2000 secondary performance tables.

  Schools are also already able to compare the progress made by their pupils (between all the National Curriculum Key Stages, and up to GCSE/GNVQ) with average national progress using a package of information produced jointly in the autumn by the Department, QCA and Ofsted. This is the second year for the package, following an enthusiastic reception from schools when it was introduced in 1998.

  Pupil Spending (Birmingham)
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the estimated spending per pupil in Birmingham for the year 1999–170
  2000; and what would the figure have been if the authority had spent 100 per cent. of the funds granted under the Standard Spending Assessment for education. [90851]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Birmingham local education authority have indicated that they intend to spend over £516 million on education (other than capital expenditure) in their schools during this financial year. This is 102 per cent. of the Education Standard Spending Assessment, which was £506 million. The Authority's delegated spending per pupil is expected to be £2,372.

  School Activity Holidays
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the number of school children(a) seriously injured and (b) killed on school organised activity holidays abroad, which were booked through a tour operator, in the latest year for which the information is available and the previous six academic years, indicating the activity in each case; and if he will make a statement. [90757]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 12 July 1999]: There is no obligation on schools to notify my Department or the Health and Safety Executive when pupils suffer serious injury or death on school visits abroad. The Department therefore does not collect the comprehensive data requested, although we are of course aware of a number of serious incidents of the type described.

  New Deal for Schools
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much Government money has been invested in New Deal for Schools initiatives in(a) Bath and North East Somerset and (b) South Gloucestershire, since May 1997. [91157]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The following table shows the total amount of New Deal for Schools funding allocated to Bath and North East Somerset and South Gloucestershire Local Education Authorities since 1997–98.

  Total New Deal for Schools (NDS) allocations

  Phase

  Bath and North East Somerset

  South Gloucestershire

  NDS1—1997–98

  1,007,300

  412,270

  NDS2—1998–99

  1,070,059

  1,507,180

  NDS3—1999–2000

  940,201

  943,487

  School Pupils (Drugs)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice is given by his Department to schools regarding the need for children to be warned against taking controlled drugs. [91133]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department issued Circular 4/95 "Drug Prevention and Schools" in May 1995, which sets out the statutory position on drug education, offers guidance to schools to help them develop and implement programmes of drug education, and advises on how to deal with drug-related incidents in schools.
  171
  The Department also published in November 1998 supplementary guidance on good practice in drug education in schools and the youth service. It includes advice for teachers and youth workers on the effective delivery of drug education, and on dealing with drug-related incidents. The guidance was sent to all Chief Education Officers, and is available to all schools free of charge.

  Both sets of guidance cover all illegal drugs as well as alcohol and tobacco.

  School Grounds (Mobile Phone Masts)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance his Department has issued to those schools assessing whether to allow mobile phone masts to be sited within their grounds. [90947]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 12 July 1999]: The National Radiological Protection Board—which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health sponsors—is responsible for advising the Government on radiological protection matters. The Department has not issued separate advice to schools or commissioned research on the impact of these masts.

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

  School Sports
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the education SSA is allocated for school sport or physical education. [90781]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Education standard spending assessments are unhypothecated. Local education authorities are therefore free to determine what proportion of their overall resources to allocate to sport or physical education.

  Departmental Buildings and Staff (Scotland)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the(a) location, (b) purpose, (c) number of staff accommodated and their wage costs and (d) running costs of the buildings owned, rented or occupied by his Department and its agencies in Scotland. [90857]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Of the Department and its agencies, only the Employment Service employ staff and have buildings located in Scotland.

  A complete list of all Employment Service offices in Scotland has been placed in the Library. They are all primarily Jobcentres but some of them also accommodate District Management Teams, Disability Service Teams and Sector Adjudication Teams.

  As at 1 April 1999, there were 3,911 members of staff in post in the Employment Service in Scotland, which equates to approximating to 3,667 Staff Unit Year
  172
  equivalents. The total salary costs in the 1998–99 financial year were £58.034 million and all other Running Costs totalled £22.538 million.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the extent of the compliance with paragraph 79 of the Ministerial Code(a) when he and the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities visited Chelmsford on 28 June and (b) when he and the Minister for School Standards visited Moulsham High School, Chelmsford, earlier this year. [91217]

  Mr. Blunkett
  In line with the Ministerial Code, I made arrangements to inform the hon. Member for West Chelmsford of my visits to Chelmsford in January and June this year. Unfortunately, my Department's instructions to the conference organisers to inform him about the 28 June visit were not carried out and I have written to the hon. Member to apologise. My office wrote to the hon. Member the week before my visit to Moulsham High School in January.

  Single Currency
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much expenditure his Department(a) has incurred to date and (b) expects to incur in the future on preparations for possible United Kingdom entry into the European single currency; and if he will make a statement. [91037]

  Mr. Mudie
  Following the publication of the Government's Outline National Changeover Plan, my Department is considering what preparations may be necessary.

  Long-term Unemployed
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps the Government are taking to encourage more firms to join the New Deal for the long-term unemployed. [90191]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There has been an overwhelming response from employers to our New Deal advertising and marketing campaigns—some 52,000 have signed employer agreements so far. The Employment Service and its partners are now working to build on that commitment, ensuring it is translated into jobs for New Deal clients.

  New Deal (Small Firms)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment the Government have made of the effectiveness of the subsidies paid to small firms as part of the New Deal. [90190]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Early qualitative research with 25 employers (including some employing fewer than 50 employees), carried out as part of the national evaluation of New Deal for Young People, explored views on the wage and training subsidies. Employers clearly appreciated the advantages of the subsidies in reducing costs of employing and training young people. Some respondents expressed the view that smaller employers
  173
  stand to gain more from subsidies than larger employers, as the savings may make the difference between being able to employ an extra member of staff or not. A report on this research was published in December 1998 and is available in the Library.

  Further research with employers will be published towards the end of this year and in the summer of next year.

CABINET OFFICE

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what representations the Cabinet Office has made to(a) Wycombe District Council, (b) the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and (c) the Planning Inspectorate about the proposal to erect a telecom mast at Chisley Wood, Buckinghamshire. [91042]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  None.

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many kilometres have been travelled on his Department's business in each of the last three years broken down by(a) foot, (b) bike, (c) bus, (d) train, (e) tram, (f) light-rail, (g) plane, (h) motorbike, (i) car, (j) taxi, (k) river-taxi and (l) other modes of transport; what plans and targets his Department has to reduce the kilometres travelled by private transport by his Department's employees; and if he will make a statement. [91018]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The number of kilometres travelled by motorbike or private car by employees of the central Cabinet Office on the Department's business in the last two complete tax years were as follows:

  Motorbike

  1997–98; 0 kilometres;

  1998–99; 691 kilometres.

  Private Car

  1997–98: 53,913 kilometres;

  1998–99: 80,221 kilometres.

  Information about the distances travelled by other modes of transport by central Cabinet Office staff, and all the information requested in respect of Cabinet Office Agencies, is not held centrally and is available only at disproportionate cost.

  In my Department official travel is undertaken only where absolutely necessary and then, as a matter of policy, by the most cost-effective means.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to his answer of 24 June 1999,Official Report, column 456, what the total cost was of pension contributions paid by the Government (a) to Special Advisers and (b) into the pension schemes of Special Advisers during the periods (i) 1 May 1997 to 30 April 1998 and (ii) 1 May 1998 to 30 April 1999. [90318]
  174
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The information, shown by financial years rather than the precise periods asked for, is as follows:(a) None. Pension contributions are paid direct into the individual Special Advisers' pension schemes.
  (b)(i) £290,000 was paid into the pension schemes of Special Advisers in the eleven month period 1 May 1997 to 30 March 1998;
  (ii) £413,000 was paid into the pension schemes of Special Advisers in the year 1 April 1998 to 30 March 1999.

  In addition, National Insurance contributions are paid at the contracted-in rates.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many trials(a) were initially planned, (b) are currently being conducted and (c) are planned in total under the Krebs recommendations; [87577]

  (2) how many trials under the Krebs recommendations have been discontinued. [87578]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The recommendation of the Krebs Review Group endorsed by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, was that a scientific study should be carried out in a minimum of 30 trial areas. Twelve areas have been identified so far and work is proceeding in all of these. Work has not been discontinued in any of the areas.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 8 June 1999,Official Report, column 250, if a provisional agenda was available to him prior to the Council meeting. [88219]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  A provisional agenda for the May Agriculture Council meeting was made available to the European Scrutiny Committee in line with the usual pre-Council scrutiny arrangements.

  The right hon. Gentleman will also wish to be aware that the European Scrutiny Committee has agreed that in the interest of keeping the whole House informed of business at forthcoming Councils it is appropriate and sensible for provisional agenda for Councils provided to the Committee to be placed in the House Library. A copy of the agenda for the June Agriculture Council was placed in the Library in this way.

  Food Contamination (Belgium)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his officials first learned of the contamination of Belgian food products. [88628]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the statement I gave on 8 June 1999, Official Report, columns 480–81.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from whom information about the contamination of Belgian food products was first received by his officials. [88630]
  175
  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: Officials first received information about the contamination of Belgian food products from industry sources who alerted us to articles in the Belgian press.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he first learned of the contamination of Belgian food products. [88629]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: I was informed of this contamination incident on 30 May. However, my hon. Friend the Minister of State with direct responsibility for food safety was made aware on the afternoon of Friday 28 May.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has made to the European Commission about the Belgian Government's handling of the contamination of Belgian food products; [88632]

  (2) what representations he has made to the Belgian Government about their handling of the contamination of Belgian food products. [88631]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: Our views have been expressed fully at meetings of the Standing Veterinary Committee and other meetings chaired by the Commission. In addition, officials have raised our concerns directly with the Commission.

  Belgian officials were present at these meetings and are fully aware of our views.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the subject and date of each written briefing prepared by his Special Advisers for all Labour Members since May 1997 and the total number and total cost to date of these. [89993]

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

  European Single Currency
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much expenditure his Department(a) has incurred to date and (b) expects to incur in future, on preparations for possible United Kingdom entry into the European single currency; and if he will make a statement. [90967]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 12 July 1999]: Following the publication of the Government's outline National Changeover Plan, my Department is considering what preparations may be necessary.
  176

  Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made towards the establishment of the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs; and if he will make a statement. [91390]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am delighted to announce the appointment of 13 members to the new Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs. This Committee will provide valuable independent advice to the future Food Standards Agency and Agriculture Ministers. By examining the safety and use of animal feedingstuffs, which are an integral part of the food chain, the Committee will play a key role in promoting food safety in the UK. Reviewing the implications of new developments, particularly the use of genetically modified materials, will be especially important.

  The 13 members and their main area of expertise are Dr. Ian Brown (occupational health), Mr. John Cheetham (local authority enforcement), Dr. Andrew Chesson (animal nutrition), Mrs. Gilli Davies (consumer), Mr. Paul Foxcroft (animal by-products), Dr. John Heritage (novel technology), Mrs. Fiona Hodgson (lay member), Mr. Robert Moore (veterinary practice), Mr. Andrew Peddie (farming), Dr. Helen Raine (feed compounding), Dr. Desmond Rice (feed compounding and veterinary background), Professor Ian Shaw (toxicology) and Dr. Michael Stringer (microbiology). Professor Phillip Thomas was appointed Chairman on 12 April.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the President of the Council how many kilometres have been travelled on her Department's business in each of the last three years broken down by(a) foot, (b) bike, (c) bus, (d) train, (e) tram, (f) light-rail, (g) plane, (h) motorbike, (i) car, (j) taxi, (k) river-taxi and (l) other modes of transport; what plans and targets her Department has to reduce the kilometres travelled by private transport by her Department's employees; and if she will make a statement. [91030]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Information on business travel is not collected in the form requested.

  The Privy Council Office is encompassed by the green transport plan prepared by the Cabinet Office for 68–70 Whitehall. The use of private transport for business travel is discouraged, and claims are submitted extremely rarely

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the review of housing benefit. [90263]

  Angela Eagle
  Our intention is to publish our proposals for housing benefit reform in a Housing Green Paper later in the year.

  Benefits (Pensioners)
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure that pensioners receive all the benefits to which they are entitled. [90370]

  Mr. Timms
  We undertook pilot projects and research last year to understand more about why pensioners do not claim the Income Support they are entitled to, and what could be done to improve this situation. We are currently exploring options for further activity to encourage greater take-up and we will announce our plans as soon as we are able to do so.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many times Ministers in his Department have held meetings with Ministers and officials of the Irish Government since 1 January 1998, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved and the names of the Irish Ministers and officials at each meeting. [90407]

  Mr. Darling
  I and Ministers of this Department have met with Irish Ministers and their officials on three occasions. The information requested is in the table below:

  Date

  Location

  Social Security Minister

  Irish Minister and officials

  15 January 1998

  Richmond House, London, SW1

  Keith Bradley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary

  Dermot Ahem, Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs Tom Mulherin, Assistant Secretary General, DSCFA Mel Cousins, Minister's Advisor, DSCFA Leo Sheedy, Irish Embassy Stephen Coughlan, Private Secretary Gerry Mungan, Principal, DSCFA

  25 February 1998

  Richmond House, London, SW1

  Frank Field, Minister of State

  Mary Hamey, Tanaiste

  25 June 1999

  Dublin

  Alistair Darling, Secretary of State

  Seamus O'Moran, Assistant Secretary—Labour Force Development Division, DETE Martin Territt, Press Officer Gerry Donnelly, Advisor Leo Sheedy, Irish Embassy Dermot Ahern, Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs Eddie Sullivan, Secretary General, Department for Social, Community and Family Affairs (DSCFA) John Hynes, Director General, DSCFA

  178

  Date

  Location

  Social Security Minister

  Irish Minister and officials

  Deirdre Carroll, Assistant Secretary, DSCFA Tom Mulherin, Assistant Secretary, DSCFA Mel Cousins, Minister's Advisor

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [91071]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer I gave him on 15 April 1999,Official Report, column 308.

  All-work Test
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) of 5 July 1999,Official Report, column 623, if he will describe the special procedures for the All-Work test that apply to claimants with mental health problems. [90819]

  Mr. Bayley
  Where the medical condition that has caused the incapacity for work relates to a mental disease or disablement, further information is sought from the General Practitioner or psychiatric specialist in order to establish whether the condition is severe enough to justify exemption from the All-Work Test. If this is not the case, or where the position is unclear, a questionnaire will be issued to allow the claimant an opportunity to describe the effect of any physical disabilities and also the general effect of any mental problems they have. Unless it is clear from the questionnaire that the person satisfies the All-Work Test, a medical examination will be carried out. The examination will be offered even where the claimant does not respond to the questionnaire, in order to give people with mental conditions every opportunity to be fully assessed for benefit purposes. This arrangement is different from that for people without mental conditions, who are disallowed benefit if they do not return the questionnaire.

  All doctors undertaking examinations meet minimum recruitment standards which must include at least three years broadly based post-registration experience. Most have a background in general medical practice but many will also have additional experience and qualifications in relevant specialities such as occupational medicine and psychiatry. The stringent approval process requires them to undergo training and assessment. This ensures that they have the special skills and knowledge to fulfil their role in providing good quality expert advice to enable a decision on benefit entitlement to be made.

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many kilometres have been travelled on
  179
  his Department's business in each of the last three years broken down by (a) foot, (b) bike, (c) bus, (d) train, (e) tram, (f) light-rail, (g) plane, (h) motorbike, (i) car, (j) taxi, (k) river-taxi and (l) other modes of transport; what plans and targets his Department has to reduce the kilometres travelled by private transport by his Department's employees; and if he will make a statement. [91027]

  Angela Eagle
  The information on business travel is not collected in the form requested and therefore cannot be provided. As published in the integrated transport White Paper in July 1998, the Government have set a target that all Government Department headquarters buildings and main buildings occupied by Executive Agencies and Government Offices for the Regions should have green transport plans by March 1999, and all other key buildings by March 2000.

  We have completed green transport plans covering all our headquarters and main buildings —27 in all, which covers 33 per cent. of staff— and are developing plans for the other 363 buildings on the DSS estate in line with the targets set out in the White Paper. The plans include measures to reduce single-occupancy car use by employees for commuting, including the setting up of car-sharing registers and making travel by public transport more attractive. Staff are encouraged, wherever it is practicable, to share cars for business travel and also to use public transport, especially for longer journeys.

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the extent of the compliance by(a) himself and (b) the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), with paragraph 79 of the Ministerial Code when visiting Chelmsford on 28 June. [91216]

  Mr. Darling
  In line with the Ministerial Code, I made arrangements to inform the hon. Member for West Chelmsford of my visit to Chelmsford with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 28 June this year. Unfortunately, the letter to inform him was not issued. I have written to the hon. Member to apologise.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much expenditure his Department has(a) incurred to date and (b) forecasts to be incurred in the future on preparation for possible UK entry into the European single currency; and if he will make a statement. [91086]

  Angela Eagle
  In preparation for the launch of the euro in the 11 participating countries, on 1 January this year, this Department undertook analysis and preparation work to assess the impacts on DSS at a cost of £100,000.

  Following the publication of the Government's outline National Changeover Plan, the Department is currently considering what preparations and costs might be necessary for the introduction of the euro.
  180

WALES

  Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many meetings of the CJCC he has attended. [89271]

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

  Official Representation (Brussels)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 5 May 1999,Official Report, column 429, on official representation in Brussels, if he will make a statement on progress with discussions between Welsh Office officials and political parties on the establishment of official representation for Wales in Brussels. [89590]

  Mr. Hain
  This is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many kilometres have been travelled on his Department's business in each of the last three years broken down by(a) foot, (b) bike, (c) bus, (d) train, (e) tram, (f) light-rail, (g) plane, (h) motorbike, (i) car, (j) taxi, (k) river-taxi and (l) other modes of transport; what plans and targets his Department has to reduce the kilometres travelled by private transport by his Department's employees; and if he will make a statement. [91024]

  Mr. Michael
  The information on business travel is not collected in the form requested and therefore cannot be provided. The number of officials supporting the Secretary of State for Wales now consists of about 30 people and therefore there is not a formal green transport plan. The Department is co-operating with the green transport strategies for Government offices in London.

TREASURY

  Higher-rate Taxpayers
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) basic and (b) higher rate taxpayers there have been in each year since 1979. [88827]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The numbers of basic rate and higher rate taxpaying individuals between 1991–92 and 1998 –99 are given in table 2.1 of Inland Revenue Statistics 1998; figures for the total number of higher rate individuals for the earlier years 1978 –79 to 1991 –92 are given in the 1994 edition of Inland Revenue Statistics 1994. For these earlier years, the number of basic rate paying individuals can be derived by deducting the number of higher rate individuals from the total number of individuals.

  For 1999 –2000, there are estimated to be 20.7 million basic rate individual taxpayers and 2.3 million higher-rate individual taxpayers. These figures were derived from the 1996 –97 Survey of Personal Incomes.

  Employment (Northern Region)
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were in work in the Northern Region in(a) May 1999 and (b) May 1997. [90279]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Fraser Kemp, dated 13 July 1999:
  In the absence of the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on employment in the Northern region.
  The most up-to-date estimates of employment are published using the Government Office Region geography. The latest Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimate of the number of employed people living in the North East is 1,050,000 for the period February to April 1999 on a seasonally adjusted basis. The comparable estimate for the same period in 1997 was 1,071,000.
  Employment estimates based on the old Standard Statistical Region (SSR) geography are still available from the LFS on a non-seasonally adjusted basis for certain quarters. The latest estimate of the number of employed people living in the Northern SSR is 1,282,000 (December 1998 to February 1999) compared with 1,292,000 for the corresponding quarter two years earlier.

  Mortgage Providers (Insurance Services)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to require mortgage providers to disclose the level of commission they receive from sales of bundled home insurance; [90817]

  (2). what plans he has to ensure that mortgage lenders inform consumers whether purchase of the provider's insurance is a condition of the mortgage they are to take out; [90816]

  (3). if he will place on mortgage providers a duty to inform customers at renewal or expiry of a particular home insurance policy that they can exercise the right to switch to an alternative insurance provider if they so wish. [90814]

  Ms Hewitt
  This and other matters associated with protecting the consumer interest will be considered in HM Treasury's review of whether advice on, and marketing of, mortgages should be subject to statutory regulation by the Financial Services Authority.

  HM Treasury will shortly begin to assess the case for regulation.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the current review of the Council of Mortgage Lenders Code will include the practice of linking insurance with mortgage products. [90815]

  Ms Hewitt
  Yes. The operation of the Code will be reviewed and the Code provides that transparent information should be provided on such linkages.

  EU Code of Conduct Group
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the minutes of the meeting of the EU Code of Conduct Group chaired by the Paymaster General on 7 and 8 July. [91002]
  182
  Dawn Primarolo
  As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on 18 June 1998,Official Report, columns 271–72, paragraph 12 of the Council Conclusions of 9 March 1998 states that the Council "agrees that the work of the Code of Conduct Group shall be confidential".

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which United Kingdom tax reliefs were discussed at the recent meeting of the EU Code of Conduct Group chaired by the Paymaster General. [91003]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Paragraph 12 of the Council Conclusions of 9 March 1998 states that the Council"agrees that the work of the Code of Conduct Group shall be confidential".

  In my answer to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) 14 June 1999, Official Report, columns 30–31, I listed the UK tax measures which are currently under examination by the EU Code of Conduct Group.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the average rate of return on manufacturing investment in the(a) United Kingdom and (b) Northern Region in the last five years. [90984]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 13 July 1999:
  In the absence of the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the rate of return on manufacturing investment.
  Rates of return were last published in the ONS First Release, Profitability of UK companies in July 1997, which is available in the House of Commons Library. The estimates for the rate of return on capital employed by manufacturing companies in the United Kingdom were:

  1991: 4.3%

  1992: 5.1%

  1993: 6.2%

  1994: 8.0%

  1995: 8.8%

  The estimates are being up-dated and converted to the definitions in the European System of Accounts, 1995 and the next issue of the First Release is expected to be in November 1999. There are no estimates of rates of return by region.

  Employment (City of Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) male and (b) female employees in the City of Durham were in (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employment in (1) temporary and (2) permanent jobs in each year since 1990. [90985]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
  183
  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 13 July 1999:
  In the absence of the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on employment in the City of Durham.
  The information is available from two sources. Employee Jobs from the Annual Employment Survey (AES) are shown for the City of Durham Parliamentary Constituency, by gender and full-time/part-time status at September of 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996 and 1997 in the attached table. This Survey was formerly known as the Census of Employment when it was conducted biennially. Figures from the September 1998 AES will be available in January/February 2000.
  The second source of information is the Labour Force Survey (LFS). Figures from the LFS are shown for Permanent/Temporary Employees by gender in the table. However this data is only available for the wider area of the County of Durham at 1996, 1997 and 1998.
  Both sources of information are not seasonally adjusted.

  Employee Jobs in City of Durham1 at September

  Thousand

  1991

  1993

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Male

  full-time

  15.7

  15.6

  16.2

  15.8

  16.2

  Male

  part-time

  1.5

  1.6

  1.8

  1.8

  1.7

  Female

  full-time

  10.2

  9.6

  10.4

  9.3

  10.6

  Female

  part-time

  9.6

  9.8

  9.9

  10.2

  9.4

  All

  36.9

  36.5

  38.3

  37.1

  37.9

  1 Parliamentary Constituency

  Source:

  1991–1993 Census of Employment, 1995–1997 Annual Employment Survey

  Number of temporary and permanent employees in the Former County of Durham

  Thousand

  19962

  19972

  19982

  Males

  Permanent

  117

  109

  113

  Temporary

  8

  10

  9

  All employees1

  126

  120

  123

  Females

  Permanent

  102

  99

  97

  Temporary

  9

  7

  9

  All employees1

  112

  107

  107

  All

  Permanent

  219

  207

  209

  Temporary

  17

  17

  19

  All employees1

  237

  227

  229

  1 Includes some employees who did not state whether they were temporary or permanent

  2 Average of the spring to winter quarters

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey

  Business Taxation
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the United Kingdom tax measures under investigation by the EU Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) subsequent to its initial list. [91085]
  184
  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave on 14 June 1999,Official Report, columns 30–31.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much landfill tax has been collected for each of the last five years, by each landfill operator. [90523]

  Ms Hewitt
  Figures relating to the amount of landfill tax collected from each operator cannot be disclosed as to do so would breach commercial confidentiality.

  Gold
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations the Treasury held with(a) Bank of England officials, (b) foreign Governments, (c) the World Bank, (d) the International Monetary Fund, (e) the European Central Bank and (f) private institutions on the proposed sale of UK gold reserves prior to the Treasury announcement of 7 May. [88841]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury regularly consults with outside organisations on a wide range of issues.

  Advance Corporation Tax
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to limit the impact on pension funds of the abolition of the advance corporation tax dividend tax credits. [88046]

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on pensions of abolition of the advance corporation tax dividend tax credits. [88047]

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect on pensions of the abolition of the advance corporation tax dividend tax credits. [88028]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: Our package of corporation tax reforms included not only the abolition of payable tax credits, but also a 2–3 per cent. reduction in the rate of corporation tax. The overall effect on pension funds of these changes will vary depending upon factors like the type of scheme and the investment policy adopted. So it is not clear that steps are necessary to limit the impact on pension funds of the abolition of payable tax credits. But during 1997, when tax credits were available for only 6 months, the average British pension fund manager delivered an overall investment return of 16 per cent. and a real return of 12 per cent., which compared very favourably with an average return for the previous year of around 9 per cent.

  Overseas Debt
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is(a) the total debt owed to the members of the Paris Club, (b) the total debt that dates from before the cut-off date, (c) the total that is previously rescheduled debt and (d) the remaining eligible debt, broken down for (i) each of the 41 highly indebted poor countries, (ii) Bangladesh, (iii) Cambodia, (iv) the Gambia,

  185
  (v) Haiti, (vi) Jamaica, (vii) Morocco, (viii) Nepal, (ix) Nigeria, (x) Peru, (xi) the Philippines and (xii) Zimbabwe. [90319]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested is not available.

  Tax Rebates
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of tax rebates paid in each financial year since 1992–93 under the arrangements for charitable deeds of covenant. [90253]

  Ms Hewitt
  Basic rate income tax repayments to charities since 1992–93, and estimates of higher rate tax relief, in respect of donations made under deed of covenant are shown in the table.

  £ million

  Tax repayment to charities on covenants1

  Higher rate tax relief on covenants

  1992–93

  197

  25

  1993–94

  210

  25

  1994–95

  224

  25

  1995–96

  235

  25

  1996–97

  251

  35

  1997–98

  259

  50

  1998–992

  290

  55

  1 Repayments are shown in the year in which the claim was made

  2 Provisional

  Self-administered Pension Schemes
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the proportion of normal self-administered pension schemes that are liable to pay tax. [90732]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is not held centrally.

  Duty-free Goods
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those categories of persons who will retain the right to purchase duty free goods in the European Union. [90395]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Diplomats accredited to the Court of St. James are entitled to certain privileges and immunities in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961. International organisations and their staff who are granted diplomatic status are also entitled to certain privileges and immunities under the International Organisations Act 1968 and the European Communities Act 1972.

  UK Payments (EU)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 25 May 1999,Official Report, column 137, what is his estimate of the difference in cost if UK contributions to the EC budget since 1 January 1999 had been made in euros. [90393]

  Ms Hewitt
  Over the year as a whole it will be nil.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he had at the G8 on the Paris Club debt relief ceiling of 80 per cent; and if he will make a statement. [90504]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Koln Summit agreed that the ceiling for debt write-down for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs) could be increased to 90 per cent. or more if needed in individual cases, with proportionate burden sharing between creditors.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what actions the Government intend to take to ensure that the Mauritius Mandate target for all eligible countries to have entered the highly indebted poor countries process will be met by 2000. [90506]

  Ms Hewitt
  The UK has made the Mauritius Mandate target a priority in discussions with fellow creditors and the IFIs. The Koln Summit called for the IFIs and the Paris Club to ensure that three quarters of eligible countries have reached their decision point by the year 2000, and to assist the very poorest countries to embark on the HIPC process as soon as possible.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions there were at the G8 summit on reducing the maximum six-year track record requirement, which must be fulfilled in order to qualify for debt relief under the highly indebted poor countries initiative; and if he will press for an agreement amongst creditor nations to reduce the requirement to a maximum of three years. [90507]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Koln Summit agreed that the benefits of debt relief should be felt after a maximum of three years rather than the current maximum of six years, and earlier for those countries already in the system.

  National Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the initial and (b) revised quarterly figures for company profits in the national statistics for the last 10 quarters; and what plans he has to review the quality of reporting of company profits in the national statistics. [90932]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 13 July 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on company profits.
  Company profits covers the profits of the non-financial corporations sector, including Continental Shelf companies. The available estimates for growth in non-financial company profits are shown in the table below:

  First estimate

  Latest estimate

  1996

  Q3

  3.0

  3.7

  Q4

  2.0

  0.3

  1997

  Q1

  -0.7

  -0.7

  Q2

  0.9

  2.2

  Q3

  3.7

  2.0

  187

  First estimate

  Latest estimate

  Q4

  -0.1

  -1.5

  1998

  Q1

  -1.5

  -1.9

  Q2

  -0.5

  0.0

  Q3

  -0.7

  -1.9

  Q4

  -3.5

  Release date 29 July 1999

  The first estimate is that published about 12 weeks after the end of the quarter concerned. The first estimates up to and including Q1 1998 were based on definitions of profits based on earlier accounting definitions. The other estimates are based on the European System of Accounts (ESA) 1995. The difference in definition had little effect on the estimates of growth. The latest estimates were those published on 22 March 1999. The initial estimate of company profits for the first quarter of 1999 will be published in the Quarterly National Accounts Press Release, a copy of which will be available in the House of Commons Library, on 29 July.

  It is ONS policy to keep the qualify of reporting of company profits under continuous review.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the change in service sector productivity over the last four years; and what plans he has to review the quality of estimates for national statistics on service sector productivity. [90931]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 13 July 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on productivity.
  Although various published ONS datasets can be used to derive an estimate of productivity for the services sector, there are conceptual differences between these series that still need to be addressed. ONS will wait until a programme of improvements has been introduced and the results quality assured, before publishing official estimates of service sector productivity.
  The work programme for the coming months includes new productivity estimates using output and employment data collected on the same basis. We intend to construct a new series will be constructed using hours worked rather than employment numbers as the denominator, and, in the longer term, an index of service sector output and estimates service sector productivity.

  Long-term Investment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the quarter by quarter share of long-term investment in GDP for the least 10 quarters for which figures are available, distinguishing between public and private sector financed long-term investment, and the effect of the private finance initiative. [90930]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 13 July 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on long-term investment.
  188
  The ONS does not produce estimates that separate investment into long-term and short-term. It is also not possible to separate investment financed by the private finance initiative within ONS estimates.
  For information, the attached table gives the latest published estimates of gross fixed capital formation expressed at current prices in £billion. The total is split between private sector and public sector investment.

  Gross fixed capital formation, at current prices, seasonally adjusted

  £ billion

  total

  public sector

  Percentage of GDP

  Private Sector

  Percentage of GDP

  1996

  125.7

  16.6

  2.2

  109.1

  14.5

  1997

  134.1

  14.9

  1.9

  119.3

  14.9

  1998

  145.3

  14.7

  1.8

  130.7

  15.6

  1996Q1

  31.0

  4.5

  2.4

  26.5

  14.3

  1996Q2

  31.4

  4.7

  2.5

  26.7

  14.3

  1996Q3

  31.7

  4.2

  2.2

  27.5

  14.5

  1996Q4

  31.6

  3.2

  1.7

  28.4

  14.8

  1997Q1

  32.2

  4.1

  2.1

  28.1

  14.4

  1997Q2

  33.1

  3.3

  1.7

  29.8

  15.0

  1997Q3

  33.5

  3.7

  1.8

  29.8

  14.7

  1997Q4

  35.3

  3.8

  1.9

  31.4

  15.4

  1998Q1

  35.8

  3.7

  1.8

  32.1

  15.5

  1998Q2

  35.6

  3.3

  1.6

  32.3

  15.5

  1998Q3

  36.5

  3.7

  1.8

  32.8

  15.6

  1998Q4

  37.4

  4.0

  1.9

  33.4

  15.8

  1999Q1

  37.2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [91068]

  Ms Hewitt
  Seven hundred and four of the 2,307 named day questions tabled for answer on a named day between May 1997 and 14 April 1999 (31 per cent.) were answered substantively on that day. 56 per cent. of all such questions were answered within two days of the nominated day.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the (i) location, (ii) running costs(a) in total and (b) per square metre and (iii) the rental value per square metre of each of his Department's buildings in the last year for which figures are available. [90563]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The costs below relate to all of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments for the 1998–99 financial year.

  The total running costs were £340.43 million. This equates to £199 per square metre. The rental value was £93 per square metre.

  It has not been possible to provide this information on a building-by-building basis due to the constraints of time and cost.

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.

Baroness Stern
Miss Vivien Helen Stern, CBE, having been created Baroness Stern, of Vauxhall in the London Borough of Lambeth, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Dubs and the Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham
Sir Henry Dennistoun Stevenson, Knight, CBE, having been created Baron Stevenson of Coddenham, of Coddenham in the County of Suffolk, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Dormand of Easington and the Lord Walker of Worcester.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
2.48 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will announce their decision on the future status, as protected areas of landscape, of areas of outstanding natural beauty, and the arrangements for the long-term funding of their management.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government are still considering very carefully the advice on the future treatment of AONBs in England which the former Countryside Commission delivered to them last summer.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, which is almost exactly the same as that given to me a year ago. Does the noble Baroness agree that there has been an extraordinary development in the Government's countryside policy? No decisions have been taken about the future of areas of outstanding natural beauty or sites of special scientific interest, which are of great concern to many. There is no strategy about the decline in farm incomes, which is also a matter of concern to many people. However, a decision has been taken about fox-hunting and the manner in which foxes are to be killed, whether by gassing, snaring or shooting—anything but hunting with hounds. Was that really what the Government meant when they opened the Countryside Agency three weeks ago with the slogan "Everybody's a Winner"? I can assure the noble Baroness that the fox will not be a winner for the Government but a loser.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as the noble Lord points out, the position is exactly the same; no decision has been taken about the process to be adopted for implementing our policy. As to SSSIs, legislation is a priority and we intend to use the first legislative slot that we can obtain to present a Bill to Parliament. The noble Lord is fully aware that there are divided opinions on the future of AONBs. Therefore, the Government wish to give very careful consideration not only to his views but to those of other noble Lords, including his noble friends, that may be somewhat different from his.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, can the Government deal with this matter with greater urgency? As my noble friend said, the situation in farming is dire. The message to anyone who lives in a rural area is that the Government do not care. How soon is soon? We have heard reference to "soon", "very soon" and "coming shortly". Can the Minister enlarge upon that?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Baroness accuses the Government of not caring about the rural communities. The substantial improvement in the provision of rural public transport is but one example of our concrete support of rural communities. We agree that, as with national parks, there is a need to ensure the protection of AONBs. The decision to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, refers is related to future status. At the moment, both are fully protected.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, how will improving rural transport help the plight of farmers?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, those who work as farmers and in agriculture need to travel. Their children need to be able to get to work; and rural communities need that transport. Anyone with the noble Baroness's knowledge of and background in rural communities will know, as I do, that one of the problems facing young people in rural communities seeking to gain employment is what happened to the bus services in rural communities during her government's period of office.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, will the Minister be so kind as to help me? I thought I heard her reply to my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry that no decision had been taken regarding the implementation of government policies in this context. If I heard that correctly, will she be kind enough to tell the House why no decision has been taken, and whether it has anything to do with possibilities for renewable energy in such areas?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am not aware of any connection with renewable energy. Should I find that there is one I shall write to the noble Lord.
The proposition sounds simple when put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. However, to take one example of which the noble Lord is well aware, the Countryside Agency is seeking a statutory

167
conservation board for the South Downs. Others, including the CPRE, Friends of the Earth and the Council for National Parks, hold a diametrically opposing view and support the view of the House reported in 1947. Surely we need to be fair to both sides and give careful consideration to this important issue.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that only during the past two years have the Government sought to do something about the social exclusion of rural communities? Does the Minister agree that there was social exclusion in rural communities earlier than two years ago?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, yes—the social exclusion to which I referred in my reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. There are many difficulties and much poverty within the rural community. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, is a fair-minded woman. I am sure that she would agree that those problems cannot be solved overnight.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, we were interested to hear the Minister's remarks about improvements in transport in rural communities. I do not doubt that the noble Baroness has made use of those improved facilities. Perhaps she can give some details of them to the House.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, local authorities across the country were given access to government funding to develop services. For example, in Wales there are combinations of a localised taxi service collecting people to take them to the nearest main bus connection enabling them to travel. There are new improved services serving rural and remote communities to allow people to get to the shops. Many elderly people living in rural communities do not have access to car transport and need access to rural transport.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that there are many areas of outstanding natural beauty throughout the country which currently receive temporary funding from local authorities and the Countryside Agency. They need to know from where their future funding is to come if they are to stay in being.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, yes, we are aware of that. It is for that reason that specific grants were made available to the Countryside Agency and sums were increased from £2 million to £4.5 million. As the noble Lord is aware, local authorities spend more money voluntarily. That is in addition to a 10 per cent increase in the funding available for the national parks. I am sure that the noble Lord would wish to join with others in congratulating the Government.

Welsh Office: Ministerial Complement
2.57 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the ministerial complement of the Welsh Office after the Secretary of State has resigned his office to become the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, that is a matter for the Prime Minister who will make his decisions at the appropriate time.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, is it not already clear from exchanges in another place, in particular at Question Time on Wednesday last, and as a result of the Speaker's Statement yesterday, that the role in this Parliament of the Secretary of State for Wales and his Ministers is much reduced following the transfer of powers to the National Assembly for Wales on 1st July? Does the Minister agree that it is important that, like Scotland, Wales should continue to have a voice in Cabinet to safeguard the interests of Wales and to help preserve the unity of the United Kingdom?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. It is an inevitable and foreseen desired consequence of the devolution settlement that the duties at Westminster of the Secretary of State for Wales will be reduced. Equally, I agree with the noble Lord that Welsh interests should be fully, coherently and eloquently represented here at Westminster. I understand from the "Today" programme this morning—it is always a useful source of information—that the present Secretary of State for Wales is intending to step down shortly to concentrate his formidable energies on his duties in Cardiff.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, was it not a foreseen consequence that once the devolution measure was through, Welsh Members of Parliament would not be able to ask Questions in the House of Commons about almost any of the issues which most concern their own constituents? Does it not follow that they will have little else to do but to make inquiries about England and help to interfere with the government of it? Will England be happy about that?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my experience of English Members of Parliament and English hereditary Peers is that they are constantly very happy about most things. The Speaker made it perfectly plain that there are significant continuing areas where the Welsh Members of Parliament will have a proper function in questioning Welsh Ministers. There is no reason why that should not continue. A close scrutiny of what she said in another place yesterday would be quite valuable.
Lord Elton: My Lords, did the Minister read in yesterday's Hansard a reply to a Written Question about

169
the management of a serious infestation of the bee population of England, Scotland and Wales which concluded with the comment that in future such matters in Scotland and Wales would be devolved and could not be answered in that way? Can the Minister tell us how anyone interested in such policy will be able to gain a picture of what is happening in the United Kingdom? That must be relevant, because if we had different policies on either side of the borders, the result would be no policy at all as regards the population of this country.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did not see the Question and its Answer because we were otherwise engaged here until about quarter to one this morning on the Immigration and Asylum Bill. I would respectfully and I hope helpfully ask the noble Lord to revisit what the Speaker said in another place. I believe that there are many Questions which are proper to be asked in the Westminster context following devolution. Returning to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, the foreseen consequences post-devolution were that some matters would be devolved and therefore would be the responsibility of the devolved Assembly and Parliament.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me coming back, but my question related to this House and not another place, because we need to develop conventions here as to how to deal with this the difficult matter.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sorry, there was a certain amount of extraneous noise and I plainly misheard the noble Lord's question. It is a matter for the House, but it seems to me that his question has point and purpose. With respect to the usual channels, it seems to be a matter that they should consider and develop.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, while my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is undying, can he assure me that he will not have his workload increased by being made spokesman for the Scottish Office towards the end of the month when the Prime Minister has his reshuffle, and that we will continue to have at least one Minister representing the Scottish Office here as a Scottish Office Minister and not on loan from the Home Office?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is almost the language of asperity. I am pleased to have the undying support of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, particularly as he looks in remarkably good health.

Iraq: Medical Supplies
3.4 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will inquire into the impact of United Nations sanctions against Iraq on the dispatch of medical supplies by post by individuals on a non-commercial basis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, there is no prohibition on sending medical supplies by post to Iraq on a non-commercial basis provided that a licence is first obtained. Security Council Resolutions 661 and 687, which imposed sanctions on Iraq, made exceptions to the prohibition on exports to Iraq. Medical supplies were included within those exceptions. Resolution 666 recommends that governments strictly supervise the export of medical supplies. The Government implement those resolutions by licensing arrangements.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, will the Minister recognise that in Iraq 5,000 children under the age of five are dying each month, many suffering from stunted growth due to chronic and long-term malnutrition? Yet before 1990 Iraq's health standards were among the highest in the Middle East. Will the Minister appreciate that sanctions are a most insidious form of warfare, for they target the poorest, weakest and vulnerable of the population? Even when ordinary citizens of this country, some from Wales with whom I am in contact, try to help by sending medical supplies, toys and pencils for school children, they have to obtain an export licence and are subjected to inordinate delay. Surely the Minister will recognise that whatever the inequities of Saddam Hussein might be, the sanctions are uncivilised and should be ended without further delay?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am extremely sorry to say that I cannot agree with my noble friend. I explained in my initial Answer why the export licences are required. The Government must strictly supervise the export of medical supplies. While my noble friend points to the dreadful number of children dying in Iraq, I ask him to draw to the attention of his friends in Wales who are trying to help the fact that Iraq is selling food to Syria and is trying to sell food to Jordan.
Since January, Iraq has imported more than 5,000 cases of whisky and more than 53,000 cartons of cigarettes. The funds used to purchase those goods could have been used to purchase humanitarian goods, but the Iraqi Government chose otherwise.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, in the light of the consideration of the UK/Netherlands draft resolution by the Security Council, can the Minister confirm that, while allowing the expansion of the oil-for-food programme on the basis of humanitarian need, the Government will not agree to any suspension or lifting of sanctions in the absence of Iraq's full compliance with its obligations under all existing Security Council resolutions?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that I can confirm the position which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, articulates. The purpose of our draft resolution is to be as generous as we can in proposing measures aimed at bringing more revenue through the oil-for-food programme in order to meet the

171
humanitarian needs, while at the same time not sacrificing any of the issues on which we have fought so hard as regards weapons of mass destruction.
The Earl Listowel: My Lords, are the Government at all concerned with the effects of uranium depleted rounds on the general population of Iraq? Has there been any recent research into the consequences of their use?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course the Government are always concerned about the effect of the use of depleted uranium. I can tell the House that the UK Government have not used any such weapons at any time during the recent exchanges with Iraq.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is there a Europe/US divide in Iraqi policy and the need for articulation on priorities and trade off, not least to show solidarity with the Iraqi people?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that it has been noticed that the draft resolution to which I referred was drawn up by us and the Netherlands. We now have five more co-sponsors. The US supports our overall approach. However, the US would like to see some further changes in the text. As with amendments proposed by others, we and our co-sponsors are considering them. I stress that while we often try to ensure that we keep a proper relationship with the US, given the fact that both countries have been engaged in the exchanges with Iraq, there is no question that the United Kingdom is in charge of its own policy as regards that country.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, will the noble Baroness join me in paying tribute to the memory of the late Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham, who personally carried medical supplies into Iraq, as he had already done to the Spanish Sahara? Does she agree that the personal commitment of individuals and voluntary organisations should be encouraged wherever possible when governments are unable to communicate?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am happy to join the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, in that tribute. Many of us heard the heart-rending account that Lord Winchilsea gave to the House of his experiences in a children's hospital in Iraq. That personal commitment and first-hand experience is very important, because it often gives us the human perspective that we need when dealing with such issues.

Britain in Europe Campaign
3.10 p.m.
Lord Taverne Lord Taverne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to support the full aims of the Britain in Europe campaign.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government fully support the setting up of Britain in
172
Europe. We want a successful cross-party campaign. The Prime Minister has confirmed that he will attend the launch. As the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, has said:
"Britain in Europe has concentrated on the need to build a bigger, more productive European role for Britain".
The Government fully support that aim.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I welcome the Prime Minister's support for Britain in Europe and that of senior Conservatives who seem prepared to flaunt the traditional rituals of Westminster by putting country first and party second. I recognise that the argument in favour of the euro should be seen as part of the wider question of Britain's position in Europe, but will the Government give a lead—and recognise the importance of doing so—in arguing for the euro in principle and not leave the Opposition's arguments against the euro unanswered, as they did at the elections to the European Parliament?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in a rather less contentious way may I say that of course the Government recognise the cross-party nature of the group? Its membership already includes the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, Mr Giles Radice and Mr Menzies Campbell. We have already seen such luminaries as Sir Ken Jackson, the General Secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, and Niall Fitzgerald, the chairman of Unilever, lend their support. Support has been expressed not only by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, but by Mr Paddy Ashdown and Mr Kenneth Clarke. There has been no change in government policy. Our position on the euro remains the same as that set out by my right honourable friend the Chancellor in October 1997. That includes the five economic tests that will have to be met before any decision on the euro is taken.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the position of groups such as Business for Sterling is nearer to the Government's position than that outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and his friends, who would like to see us pushed into the euro without any of the considerations that the Government have laid down? Does my noble friend also understand that over the years millions and millions of pounds have been poured into the European movement from the taxpayer and other interested parties, including the British taxpayer? So far that has only made the British people more reluctant to go further into the European adventure, as they showed at the recent elections, when they certainly voted against trading the euro for the pound, which has been a successful currency for many hundreds of years.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government agree in large measure with the major concern of the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, to inject a good dose of rationality and common sense into our national debate. Britain in Europe has never been wedded to the idea of rushing into the euro regardless—far from it. The Government agree on that. We also agree with Britain in Europe that Britain's voice should

173
he heard in Europe, that we need to engage properly in Europe and that, if we are to be heard on such important issues as reform of the common agricultural policy and structural funds, it is sensible for us to engage as fully as possible.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, as a board member of Britain in Europe, may I add my welcome to the noble Baroness's answers? Will she ensure that the Government lay great stress on the huge and various potential benefits to Britain of being able to conduct almost two-thirds of our overseas trade with a market of almost 300 million people in a single, stable currency?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords. I am glad to be able to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, on that. The United Kingdom's prosperity is intricately tied up with prosperity of Europe. The single market has 380 million customers and enlargement will add a further 100 million. Almost 60 per cent of UK trade is with EU countries and 40 per cent of UK overseas investment is destined for the euro zone. Our business community recognises that and so do the Government.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Britain in Europe campaign makes a significant and positive contribution to the vital and long overdue national debate about the future strength of our membership of the European Union?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords. I agree with what my noble friend says. I remind her that the Government will apply five economic tests when deciding whether to recommend the euro to the British people. I also remind her of the triple lock that the Government will have on the process: first, the Government will consider whether it would be sensible and in our economic interests; then Parliament will have an opportunity to decide; and then the people of this country—the ones who really count—will make their decision in a referendum.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, will the Minister use this opportunity to give a special vote of thanks to those former officials from her department, including two former ambassadors to Washington, one former ambassador to Paris and two former permanent secretaries to the Foreign Office, who have cast aside the conventional thinking of the department and said that, far from increasing Britain's influence in the world, joining the single currency or moving further towards political integration in Europe would diminish our standing? As that message does not seem to have reached those in the Britain in Europe movement, will she ensure that Sir John Cole's remarks are widely distributed to them?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, is not it a good thing that under this Government former diplomats feel that they can express their views? I welcome any sensible contribution to the debate from either side, provided that it is based on fact, not
174
prejudice. I remind the noble Lord that not that long ago a former Conservative Foreign Secretary said:
"The European Union is one of the most successful partnerships of the 20th century and we mean to keep it that way".
So do we.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, does my noble friend also welcome the statement made by a number of equally distinguished diplomats that Britain should seriously consider embracing the euro? Does she agree that it would be fair to give equal time in the debate to those who are in favour of the euro and those who are against it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I do. In recent days and weeks a number of distinguished diplomats have made their views known. I should be happy for everyone to feel able to engage in the debate. One or two people have, rather unkindly, pointed out that some of those concerned are ex-diplomats. Nonetheless, if they are putting arguments to us on the basis of their considerable experience, they all deserve a hearing. However, it is not they who will decide. It is not even your Lordships and another place. The people of this country will decide whether we join the euro.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does Britain in Europe consider that the euro is a step towards political union? Is it not true that Mr Prodi believes that, as do most European statesmen? Does Britain in Europe think so? If not, why not?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I really cannot answer for Britain in Europe. I suggest that the noble Lord addresses his question to the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, and others. The noble Lord, Lord Marshall, has made clear that it is important that we should now have a rational, commonsense, national debate. The Government support that wholeheartedly.

Baxi Partnership Limited Trusts Bill [H.L.]
3.22 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Business of the House: Standing Order 44
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable more than one stage of any Northern Ireland Bill brought from the Commons before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess to be taken on one day; and to

175
enable all stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill to be taken on Thursday next.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House whether this Motion is intended to apply to the Northern Ireland Bill set down for Second Reading tomorrow? Is the noble Baroness aware of the great concern over the hasty drafting of this Bill during the past weekend and of the obvious need for properly staged scrutiny if we are to avoid yet more confusion?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, yes indeed, this Motion does apply to the Northern Ireland Bill. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Bill will be considered in another place and, on the present basis of the timetable, should reach your Lordships' House tomorrow. There will be an opportunity for scrutiny, and I understand that the Public Bill Office is now prepared to accept amendments, if that is what concerns the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it true, as we hear on the radio, that the House of Commons is to spend only eight hours on all stages of this Bill? Bearing in mind the implications of the Bill and the whole Northern Ireland situation, is it really sufficient for the House of Commons—which, after all, is sovereign—to have only eight hours to discuss all the implications of the Bill? My noble friend is well aware of the very strong feelings among the Unionists on the whole issue of the Good Friday agreement and what has transpired since. Surely, in the interests of democratic debate, the House of Commons should be allowed to hold more discussion on such an important Bill.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is aware that that is, of course, entirely a matter for the other place. As regards the arrangements for this House—in which I am engaged—I believe that the usual channels have been consulted. In accordance with the undertakings which I gave last week, I understand that the Cross-Benchers have also been consulted on this important issue and that agreement has been reached in your Lordships' House on the timetable which is, of course, the matter which concerns your Lordships.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Baroness has just said that the handling of this Bill is entirely a matter for the other place. Not everyone in your Lordships' House is satisfied that the House of Commons is able to give or accustomed to giving thorough examination to very important measures. This one, which is highly contentious and very speculative, will receive only a short period of review in the other place. One wonders what will happen in this House. There are serious concerns about a measure which has been put forward suddenly, abruptly and without
176
adequate consideration. No one would ever claim that the draftsmanship which goes into the legislation which comes before your Lordships' House is immaculate.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I say, I can only repeat that I understand precisely the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, about the extreme importance of this particular measure. However, the arrangements for the other place are entirely a matter for the other place. As I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, I am sure that there will be adequate time for your Lordships to give their usual scrutiny to this Bill. As I stated, the opportunity to table amendments is already available.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is mistaken in saying that the House of Commons is sovereign? Is it not only one person in the parliamentary trinity?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I always defer to the noble Earl and his constitutional observations.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the noble Baroness explain how we are to deal with amendments if the Bill is to be taken through all its stages in one day? Will there be a Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord is mistaken. The Bill will not be taken in one day. The Second Reading will take place tomorrow. As I stated before, as has been agreed through the usual channels in co-operation with the Cross-Benchers, the further stages will be taken on Thursday.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness elaborate a little further on that? I do not want to trespass on the delicate ground of what the usual channels do in private. But those of us who are not in that circle are concerned, if amendments are tabled and agreed in Committee, as to whether there will be sufficient time to deal with them or indeed to refine them on Report. Therefore, where are the buffers at the end of the line? Are we trying to get away at the end of July or is there a possibility that a Report stage could be held over into the following week?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the buffer on this particular piece of legislation is Thursday evening. As I said, that has been agreed through the usual channels. I agree with the noble Lord that the mysteries of this particular process are not always immediately obvious, but that is the understanding. I am sure that the noble Lord and the whole House are aware of the implications of that timetable for the whole process of devolution which we all very much hope will take place this week.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
3.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 51 [Entitlement to Category B retirement pension by reference to new allowances]:
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 91A:
Page 58, line 25, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (7A),").
The noble Lord said: Although this is already on record, I should declare that personal interest which all of us with spouses have, especially if our mortality catches up with us after April next year.
I do not want to detain Members of the Committee on matters on which other noble Lords and the Minister have spoken so eloquently. I shall attempt to be brief in the commonly accepted sense of that term and not as in Chaucer' s Prologue.
In brief, a previous administration used the Social Security Act 1986 to halve the earnings related to the inheritance of spouses with effect from April 2000. That change is now in Section 50(5) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and is reflected in Clause 51(7) of the Bill which we are now debating. The Minister has inherited that poisoned chalice but she and her colleagues have not so far been minded to disown it. What the noble Baroness and her colleagues in another place have done is acknowledge that the suppression of information about the loss of accrued rights under the 1986 Act has created injustices which will have to be addressed through some form of compensation for some people.
My amendment—I recognise its drafting limitations—seeks to require regulations to be made, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Those regulations would, I envisage, give full inherited pension rights to the spouses of those whose contributions span the whole period from 1978 to 1986 before the 1986 legislation came into being to diminish those rights. Using the formula of which I have notified the Minister, they would give a lesser inheritance to the spouses of those who contributed after 1986 during the period when the law had changed, but that change in the law had not been notified to those affected by it.
I propose this approach because I do not want to complicate an already complicated clause and because I am wedded to the principle of justice but flexible as to the detail of what should be done to deliver justice. My approach has, I believe, the potential to secure justice without all the costs of a flood of individual compensation cases.
It behoves lesser mortals to take shelter when the Titans are hurling rocks. I am aware that Lady Sally Greengross of Age Concern has put to the department a legal opinion which challenges the legal opinion quoted by Ministers that the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights allow the inheritance rights of spouses to be reduced. It may well be that this part of the Bill—though not only this part—will have to be reconsidered. I do not want this debate in any way to prejudice proceedings. I am anxious to know whether the Minister is in a position to amend what she said about the legal position at Second Reading.
In conclusion, I should like to make three points which I think are hard to controvert. First, the Government have—and have acknowledged having—a problem; albeit not one initially of their own making. The Government have accepted that money will have to be spent on resolving that problem. Secondly, it really is not acceptable to take away pension rights already contracted for and paid for. No occupational pension scheme would be allowed to act in this way, as we are now aware with the case at present going through the courts. Thirdly, it is not acceptable to take away future rights unless those affected have been notified and have had the opportunity to seek to make alternative arrangements. In this case, not only were people not told; they were assured that their spouses' rights were intact.
I am offering the Government a lifeline. I would go on to say that I stand astounded at my own moderation, were it not that readers of Macaulay might recall that when Warren Hastings made that comment he was refusing to apologise for having appropriated rather large sums of money. In this case, if I may say so, the Government seem to have appropriated rather large sums of contributors' money. I hope that the Minister will be able to express her gratitude for my rescue package and take that which is offered in a spirit of goodwill and with cheated contributors and disappointed surviving spouses particularly in mind. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: There were originally three amendments on the Marshalled List concerned with the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has drawn to our attention. I am sure that the Committee will be grateful for the elegant way in which he put forward the arguments.
We debated this matter last Tuesday, 6th July (col. 141). I moved an amendment designed to deal, in part, with the problem which we now face, by suggesting that the arrangements should not go forward in the Bill until such time as the Government had put forward their proposals regarding compensation for those who were not informed of the true situation as regards the reduction of widows benefits.
It is important to distinguish between the two separate issues raised by the noble Lord. I refer to the reduction by or to 50 per cent of the widows' pension, enacted as long ago as 1986, and to the subsequent problems which

179
have arisen because individuals were misinformed as to the fact that that was the state of the law, or at least appeared to be.
As regards the first matter, there is a significant difference between the amendment tabled by the noble Lord and that which I moved the other day. I was concerned with the problem of misinformation; he is concerned, more fundamentally, with the question of the reduction in widows' pension in the first instance. In 1986 proposals were made which stated that pensions would not be reduced immediately but after a period of 14 years. Time has moved on and that period has virtually expired. The present proposals are that the pensions will be reduced as from April next year.
As I have mentioned, there is a third amendment on the Marshalled List, tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which goes still further. It seeks to reverse the situation created in 1986. We need to clarify the position with regard to all these matters. No doubt the Minister will reply to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, as regards the underlying situation of the reduction in pension and, in particular, to the points he raised concerning the European Convention on Human Rights. Although that was not part of our domestic law in 1986, it is now. I do not wish to elaborate on that side of matters. I want to concentrate on the question of misinformation.
I pointed out the other day, and I repeat now, that it seems to me that this is not a partisan issue. Whatever one may think about the basic question of the reduction, I have looked back on the debate and, surprisingly, there seemed to be remarkably little opposition, in some ways, at the time. However, there were proposals for transitional arrangements, and so on.
Despite the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, the other night regarding the effect of SERPS and the change which was made, as I understand it the Government do not propose to alter the basic situation with regard to the reduction of the pension, although the noble Lord Rix is suggesting, as indeed are the Liberal Democrat Benches, that that should be so.
However, the problem arises from a tactical point of view, if I may put it in that way, as to what should be done about the misinformation. Clearly, this happened under the previous Government and under this Government in a quite extraordinary way. The original proposals for informing people of what would happen after the lapse of 14 years from 1986 did not take place. We run into difficult problems of parliamentary accountability.
The traditional view is that Ministers are accountable, both those of the previous government and the present Government. It is also important to consider the relationship between Ministers and officials. We need to consider the position of the officials involved in this affair. In the light of the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee of some years ago, which I looked up, although there were subtle distinctions made between the actions of officials on the one hand and the conduct of officials on the other, nonetheless, the
180
general doctrine was agreed that if something had gone wrong, Ministers should look into the matter and at least assure the House that something had been done by way of disciplinary procedures.
Perhaps the Minister could clarify that situation for us this afternoon. Obviously there are additional complications, given the change of government in the meantime and the problems of referring back to papers of the previous government. However, clearly the problem arises from the fact that what Ministers said would be done did not take place. This is an important issue.
The other important issue concerns people being misinformed and, as a result, not making provision for their pensions. What evidence will the Government use to establish whether a particular individual has been misinformed or not? I refer, for instance, to phone calls—the noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred to the fact that he had some experience of that—or to correspondence, which, presumably, is more likely to be on the record. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us the situation as regards such evidence as may be produced.
The Parliamentary Ombudsman is considering whether there has been maladministration and he said in a press release that he will report before the change in pension payments is made. That is to happen, once and for all, on a specific date and I do not believe that that is satisfactory. We should be clear about what will happen well in advance of that date and before the legislation is passed. Perhaps the noble Baroness can give us some idea of the timetable.
In the various exchanges across the Floor of the House at Question Time, the noble Baroness pointed out—some months ago now—that she was taking legal advice about the Government's liabilities in the circumstances that have been described by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, regarding misinformation. It is important that we have some idea of the nature of that legal advice. I hope that the Minister will tell us what advice she has received. She must know what it is by now and, if she is unable to reveal it, perhaps the Law Officers should come before us and explain the true situation.
We are unclear about what the Government have in mind by way of compensation. The Minister of State in another place has made it absolutely clear that the Government will ensure—that is the word he used—that those who have incurred loss as a result of being wrongly informed about the true situation will not suffer. That is a pretty comprehensive statement. However, we are not the least bit clear about what the Government propose. We do not know whether they favour the proposal advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in his amendment, whether they will defer the change, or introduce compensation in the form of cash or whatever.
The Government are paying compensation for a whole range of things, not least as a result of the failure of the Department of Social Security's computer. These are important issues, and we hope that the Minister will spell out in more detail than has been provided so far what the Government intend to do. They have had

181
sufficient time to consider the matter. We should be in a position to hear this afternoon what the Government propose to do about compensation and the more fundamental issue of their attitude to the noble Lord's amendment.
Earl Russell: I received this morning a vigorously expressed letter from a constituent of my honourable friend Mr Rendell. After expressing his gratitude to my honourable friend for the work that he has done on this issue—that praise was deserved—he pointed out that he does not have sufficient earning years left to be able to put right the mischief caused by this misadventure. That constituent feels strongly that he has been deprived the opportunity to make adequate provision for his spouse. He has hit the nail on the head.
Fortunately, we have an agreed body of facts. There has been misinformation under both governments. We on these Benches will not attempt to turn inferior opportunity into a claim of superior virtue. Whatever the causes may be, they are fairly deep-seated and institutional and must not be blamed on the faults of any one particular party. Therefore, I hope that, when the Minister replies, she will not suffer from an attack of the pot and kettle disease. We have a problem and we are all responsible for trying to find a solution.
We have tabled our own amendment on this point that is slightly more far reaching than that of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. However, as I am sure the Minister is about to remind the Committee, our proposal is a good deal more expensive. We naturally prefer our amendment, but, were the Minister to be minded to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, we will remember that the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread is an extremely good political principle. In any event, i think that the noble Lord's amendment provides a good deal more than half a loaf.
The noble Lord referred to an opinion that he has obtained through Age Concern about the implications of the European Convention on Human Rights. That opinion is quite far reaching because it suggests that the Government do not have the option of doing nothing. If they do not take action in response to parliamentary pressure—as any responsible government should—they will find that they are forced to do so by international judicial action.
The first point of the opinion is that the entitlement to SERPS constitutes possession within the meaning of Article 1 of the first protocol. I do not think that Ministers are in a position to object to that because the European Commission has already ruled on the matter in another case.
The second question is whether the entitlement to the spouse could be seen as a possession of the contributor. We should note that that concept of possession arises from the contributory principle: an entitlement exists because contributions have been made. The Commission of the European Court of Human Rights has also ruled that, because contributions have been made, an entitlement to the spouse as well as to the contributor arises.
182
The only further question that must be decided is whether the change has a legal basis and has been made sufficiently accessible. We are in no doubt that the change has a legal basis: it is definitely intra vires for an Act of Parliament to do what this legislation will do. However, it is equally clear that the change has not been made sufficiently accessible. I cannot imagine that any Minister—least of all one who pays attention to evidence, and this Minister is famous for that—could possibly be in a position to deny that. If the change has not been made sufficiently accessible, compensation is payable.
The rule is a good one: settle now or pay later. I hope that the Minister will choose the first option.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Like Amendment No. 73A, which we discussed a week ago, these amendments relate to the provisions for reducing the value of inherited SERPS. We discussed this matter fully towards the end of the last Committee day, and the amendments were grouped originally because they deal with the same issue. However, your Lordships have chosen to ungroup the amendments, so I hope that I will be forgiven if, as a result, I say the same thing three times. The situation has not advanced since the previous Committee day and the last amendment that we discussed on that occasion. I must admit that I think most of the speeches made today were virtually the same as those delivered on the previous occasion. So I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I cannot advance the argument much further.
Earl Russell: I hope that the Minister will exempt me from that comment. I relied in my speech on an opinion that I had not even read the last time that we discussed this matter.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As always, I am happy to extend an exemption to the noble Lord.
The intention of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is to phase in the reduction over a period of time. His formula is complex and is intended to compensate fully those who paid employee contributions between 1978 and 1986 and to compensate partially those who paid contributions from 1986 onwards.
All noble Lords—including the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—accept that the changes to inherited SERPS were not handled well. The Government and I are certainly aware that many people are very concerned—and rightly so—about the reduction and the misleading information that some have received. We are considering that issue very seriously. However, as I said when we discussed the previous amendment, the costs of either delaying or phasing in the change are substantial and could run into many billions of pounds. To reverse the change or to introduce an open ended compensation scheme would have the same early effect, but would entail a bill for expenditure in the future that would continue to increase. We are considering the matter. We shall make an announcement in due course.

183
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, raised the point in relation to the nature of the legal advice he took—a point extended by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—and asked whether I was in a position to comment further on what I said in regard to the previous amendment. There is a strong argument that spouses' pensions are not possessions under Article 1 because they are based on contributions paid by another person. In addition, Article 1 gives governments the right to reassess needs in the light of changing social policy. On that argument, the reduction in SERPS strikes the necessary balance between the rights of spouses and the broader public interest. We are therefore acting in accordance with our legal obligations under the convention.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised a question relating to officials. As he knows, this Government, perfectly properly, do not have access to the papers of a previous government. Therefore, we simply cannot tell what happened. He and his previous fellow incumbents—perhaps his noble friend Lord Lamont—may be able to help with regard to what was happening at the time if they have access to their private papers. The ombudsman may be able to obtain access to those papers, in which case the situation will be brought to light and that will be helpful. We cannot tell what happened, as the noble Lord well knows; but the ombudsman may be able to do so.
Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that all governments were equally to blame for this situation. I refuse to accept that. I am not trying to deal with this in a partisan way, but there is a difference between a government who introduced a measure and therefore in my view have a moral responsibility for diffusing correct information about it—and to do so for the following 10 years—and a government who inherited the situation and are trying to address it.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps I can clarify the issue. I did not attempt to apportion shares of responsibility. I said that we are all responsible to the extent of our opportunities.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In that sense, that would by definition he true of any situation in which anyone was placed. There is always truth in tautology and we heard that one today.
I should like to he more helpful to the Committee because the Committee knows that I like to share information as and when I have it. But I cannot advance beyond the situation in the previous amendment. It is an extremely complicated matter. We do not have all the information to which the ombudsman may have access. The financial implications are huge. We are considering the position and as soon as I am able to give the Committee any more guidance, I shall be happy to do so.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister sits down, does she recognise that my amendment provides for the Secretary of State to introduce regulations which can be reflected after the ombudsman makes his findings clear? There is no compulsion in the amendment with regard to the
184
amount of compensation, when it should be paid and so forth; it simply follows the fact that in another place it has been clearly stated on several occasions that compensation is to be paid. Amendment No. 91A gives the Secretary of State the right to pay that compensation by affirmative resolution, but the amount of the compensation can be decided at some time after the ombudsman's findings or after—although one hopes that it does not go so far because it would cause many years' delay—the decision of the Court of Human Rights.
Does not the Minister recognise that the amendment is a helping hand rather than imposing a demand upon the Government and the Secretary of State to provide X amount of compensation for X number of people?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is seeking to be helpful in this respect. If the Secretary of State decides that the appropriate way forward is compensation, I do not doubt that he will have to follow the path outlined by the noble Lord. He is absolutely right. There may be other ways of dealing with compensation but a not-unacceptable or unusual one would be to lay regulations which would allow the Secretary of State just the freedom for interpretation in the action the noble Lord describes. But there are perhaps other ways of dealing with this.
Other Members of the Committee suggested deferring the introduction of the change. So until we know what the Government believe to be the right way forward, balancing fairness to those who have been hurt by this change with the wider considerations of the finite budget and other equally pressing needs, then and only then will the Secretary of State know whether he wishes to follow the path suggested by the noble Lord or a different one.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister sits down perhaps I may ask a further question. Can she clarify the statement made in another place by the Minister, Stephen Timms, that compensation will probably he payable to those who make telephone calls to the Benefits Agency? Clearly if that is so, it will take many years to unravel who did and who did not make phone calls; how it will be proved and so forth. A number of people have been in correspondence with the Benefits Agency, but many thousands, of whom I am one, conducted their inquiries through the telephone.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord is correct, but it is even more complicated. A person may simply have made an inquiry at the counter and no record was kept; that might be considered to be appropriate evidence. I cannot help the Committee any further on this until the Government determine what path, if any, they propose to take in response to this situation. Then, as soon as I can, I shall share that information with the Committee and it will no doubt be open for debate. But we are not there yet.
Lord Higgins: That is a rather strange statement. Of course until the Government decide what to do we

185
cannot move forward, but we are seeking to urge the Government to make such a decision; otherwise the argument becomes completely circular.
We cannot accept what the noble Baroness said about the grouping of the amendments. It is true that the same issue underlies all three, but each one deals with the problem in a completely different way. My amendment merely sought to urge the Government to make a decision and imposed a sanction if they did not. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, would cost an uncertain amount; the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to which we shall come shortly, would probably cost around £5.5 billion. Therefore, it is strange to say that they are all the same amendment.
Perhaps I may pursue the point made with regard to officials. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that there is a problem in looking back at the papers of the previous government. The absolutely watertight convention is that one government do not look at their predecessor's papers. That is right. We therefore have a problem in finding out what was happening in 1986 or thereabouts. I hope that the ombudsman can illuminate that matter.
It is also the case that, under the present Government, officials continued, right up to April, to misinform people. While Ministers are accountable, there is also a responsibility on them—as the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee made clear and it is now accepted doctrine—to look into the matter and assure Members of the Committee that appropriate action has been taken in relation to the individuals concerned. That does not necessarily mean producing the individuals in the light of day, but at least reassuring us; that something has been done; otherwise the kind of inaction which took place under both governments is unlikely to be corrected.
In one sense the noble Baroness helpfully spelt out the Government's attitude to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in relation to the legal arguments. Whether one view or the other is correct remains to be seen. But she did not deal with the question, when the legal issue originally arose, of the position with regard to the misinformation. Having taken legal advice, do the Government now take the view that they do or do not have a legal liability with regard to the individuals who, as a result of being misinformed, did not take action which they would otherwise have taken and who suffered as a result? One must press the Government. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rix, we have tried to be helpful as regards individuals who do not know where they stand. Time is running out. As the noble Earl has pointed out, the longer the matter is unresolved the less chance there is for people to make adjustments.
Given the very clear undertaking in another place by the Minister of State that the Government will ensure that those who have been misinformed do not suffer, we should at least have some idea what form of compensation they have in mind. So far we have had no indication at all other than the Government saying that they cannot say what the answer will be until they have made a decision. We need to have a decision now and not a policy of procrastination.
4 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I listened attentively to what the Minister had to say hoping that the rumour that she was about to announce some substantial concession was true. But obviously it is not because all we have been given is an undated promissory note. The ombudsman is to report, but when? Surely the Minister knows.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not know.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: The Minister does not know. Is there no time limit set to the ombudsman's deliberations?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My noble friend has much greater experience than I have. She knows that the ombudsman is independent of the Government and determines his own timetable.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Yes, of course. But is it going to be this year, next year, some time or never that we shall get a report that will compel the Government to make some compensatory payments to these people? The Government have a very serious share of the liability. I was thinking over how we introduced the widows' pension provision way back in the 1974 government. We did that by analysing the causes of poverty and seeking to deal with them. We found that one of the main causes was a breadwinner on a low income with a large family and hence child benefit. I congratulate the Government in not having had second thoughts about that. We found that the other great pocket of poverty existed among elderly widows. So we devised the most generous provision for widows yet known in our social security system. As we all know, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, reversed that. Mr. Tony Blair's Government was in no hurry to repudiate this total change of Labour policy because he believed in it. That is the truth. That is why the Government were not anxious to publicise the change of what had been Labour's traditional policy. We had a government who said that they were going to be a caring government and do this or that, but they failed for a substantial period of time to rectify the lack of information which the predecessor government had provided. So the Government have a liability at the very least to compensate those who, as many people have pointed out, are astonished to find that widows will be inadequately provided for.
As usual, the Minister said that it would cost billions. If so, does that not mean that they are robbing the widows of billions? Is not that the simple fact? If an error has been made, who should pay for it? Should it be the people who in good faith continued to believe that widows would get the whole of their SERPS pension entitlement? In my view the very size of the bill puts a greater moral responsibility on the Government to compensate and make some adjustment. I am deeply concerned today that we are going away very shortly for

187
the Summer Recess with no indication as to when the country will know what the Government are going to do to lift this shadow from the lives of so many people.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn, has hit the nail on the head. I do not know whether the Minister is a reader of David Lodge's book Changing Places. If so, she will remember the character Howard Ringbaum who could not resist winning even to his own great detriment. I hope that when the Minister finds defects in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, she will bear that danger in mind. She has the choice here between an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Rix, which is cheap but technically difficult and an amendment from me which is workable but clearly expensive. If I were the Minister I would not try to be too persuasive about the difficulties of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
Lord Davies of Coity: I, too, have listened very attentively to this debate. I have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the objective he seeks to achieve. I have spoken on this matter on occasions in the past. But listening to the debate today I find some measure of inconsistency in the question of us all being responsible for doing something about the problem. We have to recognise that only the Government have the responsibility of finding £5 billion in order to deal with the difficulty in full.
As regards the apportionment and criticism that have been levelled, we have to understand that this legislation was introduced in 1986 in both Houses of Parliament and passed. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has demonstrated, that was 14 years ago and twelve of those years passed when the previous government were in power. This Government have been in power for only two years. I suggest that placing blame on this Government for the lack of information or misinformation is a fragile straw to cling to. Quite frankly, even if people were informed as they should have been 14 years ago, many of them would not have made alternative arrangements when they knew SERPS was to be reduced.
We ought to keep a balance. We have the ombudsman and a Labour Government who are extremely sympathetic to the people who will be adversely affected by the present situation. That is sufficient at this stage rather than trying to impose on the Government the enormous burden of a matter which they did not introduce.
Lord Rix: I said in my introductory speech that the Government have chosen to drink from this poisoned chalice. They had the option two years ago to reverse the 1986 legislation or at least make sure that information was being disseminated from the Benefits Agency. Therefore, whatever they have said about the length of time which has elapsed since 1986 when it was the fault of the Conservative government, and now appears to be that of a Labour Government who have taken up the same baton and are running with it, I do
188
not believe that that is an argument against the fact that the government of the day have a duty to put right what was obviously wrong in 1986. I would have thought that any government with moral fibre, background and constitution would do that as a matter of course.
I have two questions for the Minister to add to those put by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. There appears to be some delay. As the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, said, we may have to wait for sometime, never, for the ombudsman to respond. Can the Minister say whether some words of comfort can drip from this Government's publicity machine before 5th April 2000? After that date potential and putative widows are extremely worried as to what will happen from that date onwards.
Could not a letter be forthcoming from the Benefits Agency apologising for the enormous damage which it has caused, and pointing out the detrimental effects that its incorrect information has had on many people, both husbands and wives? Could not such a letter also carry some crumbs of comfort that the Minister of State in another place has said that compensation will be paid to those who are due to be compensated? That would at least be something to hold the fort, as it were, before 5th April next year; otherwise, if the ombudsman has not reported and the matter is referred to the European Court of Human Rights—which could take another five years—what will happen then? Indeed, many widows will be walking around with furrowed brows. Can the Minister possibly answer those questions?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am very sorry, but I cannot take Members of the Committee very much further than what was said on the last amendment, which was debated on the previous Committee day. I know that noble Lords are pressing the matter with three separate amendments, which happened to fall due for debate on two different days, but I am afraid that I am being asked to give information that is not available and to answer questions that I cannot answer because I do not have the relevant information. Indeed, in the course of the process, we have not yet made our final determinations.
In response to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I should remind the Committee that no one has yet suffered any financial loss as a result of these changes because they do not take effect until April 2000. The noble Lord is absolutely right to say that the Government must have their position and their response clear by that time. We said this not only on the last Committee day but also during Question Time in this Chamber; indeed, we have made that clear.
The Government have also made it clear on several occasions that they would consider claims for compensation from individuals who have received incorrect information, which has either subsequently acted to their detriment or failed to act to their benefit. I am sure that all noble Lords accept just how complicated the evidence in that respect will turn out to be. The other option available to the Government is some possible staged deferral. However, we have not yet determined what our response should be. We do not know where the problems originated because we do not have access to the previous government's

189
paperwork. Clearly a Statement will be made before April 2000, and I am very happy to give the noble Lord that reassurance. I hope that it will be helpful.
I wish that I could take Members of the Committee further, but we could continue such discussions for a few more hours and all I would be able to stand up and say is, "I cannot take noble Lords any further". When I have information that I can bring to the House, I shall be delighted to do so. As my noble friend rightly said, many widows or widowers have obviously made provision on a misunderstanding of what the situation would be. In so far as that has caused them stress or potential financial detriment, it is not a situation that we would wish them to be in. The Government will do their best under the circumstances, while balancing the pressures that we face. As soon as I can give noble Lords any further information, as I said, I shall be very happy to do so. With that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rix: Obviously I had hoped that the Minister would assure us that at least the Benefits Agency would send out a letter to people who are likely to suffer under this SERPS arrangements at present. Clearly, SERPS is being widely reported in the media and, judging by the letters which I have received—certainly by the thousands of letters which Age Concern has received—many people are extremely worried at this moment. They would like some assurance that due attention is being paid to the situation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall obviously take note of the noble Lord's suggestion and consider it. I do not know whether the noble Lord is inviting us to write to everyone in this respect, including those who know about it or are unaffected by it; or, indeed, those who have never been given any misleading evidence. However, I shall read Hansard carefully and consider what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Rix: I thank the Minister. Leaflets have been incorrectly printed over the years and have been sent out in their tens of thousands—indeed, probably millions—from the Benefits Agency. I am merely asking for a round robin letter to all those who are likely to be in receipt of SERPS, stating the present position and, possibly, the future position. That might clear many people's minds before 5th April—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should point out to the noble Lord that there is no way that the Government could send out a letter stating a future position which has not yet been decided. However, I take the noble Lord's point that there is concern in this respect. Obviously, the Government will seek to ascertain whether there is any way in which we can allay the concern between now and the point at which we can bring our proposals to this and the other place.
Lord Rix: I am very happy with that assurance. I had contemplated seeking a Division on this amendment. However, in view of the possibilities of complicating any judicial findings or later findings of the ombudsman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 91B not moved.]
[Amendment No. 92 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 92A not moved.]
Clause 51 agreed to.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 92B:
After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill

  RETIREMENT PENSION OF NON-RESIDENTS
  ("(1) After subsection (1) of section 113 of the Contributions and Benefits Act there shall be inserted—
  "(1A) Subsection (1) shall not disqualify a person absent from Great Britain from receiving a retirement pension under Part II of this Act."
  (2) At the end of section 119 of the Contributions and Benefits Act there shall be added—
  "(2) No order made under this section may provide for any uprating under section 150 of the Administration Act of retirement pensions under Part II of this Act to be excluded or reduced by reason of the absence from Great Britain of the person entitled to the pension."").
  The noble Earl said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Goodhart, who is attending the freedom of information committee, I rise to move this amendment. The proposed new clause deals with the situation of pensioners who have moved abroad, most commonly to Australia, Canada and other countries, and whose pensions are no longer uprated once they have left this country. Therefore, they become nugatory very quickly. Clearly in such cases this leads to fairly considerable hardship and, obviously, there is very strong feeling on the matter. I believe that the matter has been debated in this Chamber on and off many times during the past 11 years—indeed, that is all the time that I have been here—and, I imagine, for a good deal longer.
  Of course, governments always respond with the question of cost. It is quite right that they should do so because it is significant. However, the key principle here is reciprocity. Obviously no country wants to be responsible both for its own pensioners living abroad and also for other countries' pensioners who are living within its territories. Moreover, it is a good thing that everyone drawing a pension should have someone who is responsible for uprating it. If that is not the case, the pension very rapidly becomes so small that it is really not of very much use. That, in turn, tends to become a charge on means-tested benefits in the host country. Therefore, if people do not accept the principle of reciprocity, we will have a situation of "beggar my neighbour" out of which everyone loses.
  It is my understanding that the Government of Australia do accept responsibility for uprating the pensions of Australian pensioners who live in this country. I believe that the Government ought to follow the principle of reciprocity. If it takes time, they should undertake a certain amount of negotiation; but they should not simply leave the matter as it is. The Minister may remember that, under present law, a good many of

  191
  these people have votes in this country and they may well cast them. I hope that that will concentrate the Minister's mind wonderfully. I beg to move.
  Lord Higgins: Debates on this subject certainly go back a great deal longer than 11 years; indeed, I would hesitate to say quite how long they go back—probably almost as long as the national insurance pension has been in existence. This amendment was drawn to my attention by Mr Paul Lewis who was writing an article for the Weekly Telegraph. He asked me whether I had noticed any amendments on this matter. I said that I would consider any amendments which were tabled. He reported the matter fairly in the article on 6th July 1999. Alas, all journalists are victims of their sub-editors' decisions and I do not believe that the headlines which were attached to the article reflected the views in the article. None the less, I have said that I shall consider this matter. I think we are agreed that this matter has caused considerable concern over the years. We should consider the principles involved.
  We have to consider the exact nature of the national insurance pension, as we have done on a number of occasions on this Bill. I think we are all agreed that it is based on the contributory principle; that is to say, in exchange for making contributions one receives some benefits, in this case the national insurance pension. However, I believe that it is also broadly accepted—certainly if the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, were here, he would stress this point—that it is not an insurance scheme and that the system is not funded. In reality, almost the moment Beveridge introduced the scheme there was a degree of inflation and although part of the pension was covered by contributions, it certainly was not the case that all of it was covered by contributions. It was largely made up by the taxpayer. Historically, that is probably the reason that the then government—and indeed all successive governments—have taken the view that they ought not to uprate those pensions which are drawn overseas in the same way as they uprate pensions at home for the reason that the difference between what was covered by contributions and what was not—certainly the vast bulk of it now is not covered by contributions—was paid by the taxpayer, and the people overseas were no longer paying tax into the general pool out of which the pension was financed.
  The other reason was that rates of inflation, to which the uprating is related—if there is no inflation, there is no uprating—differed considerably between the country of origin, the United Kingdom, and wherever individuals migrated to. There are sound reasons of principle here although I understand that the position has been modified in some cases with regard to reciprocity. I hope that the Minister can clarify that position. I believe that reciprocity applies in some countries but not in others.
  I hope that I have not misrepresented the article. I have received no formal representations about amendments but I have received a number of letters from people overseas, most of whom stressed the role which they played in the war before they emigrated. Presumably, therefore, they are stressing their military rather than other pensions. I do not know what the position is with regard to uprating
  192
  military pensions. The noble Earl is right to raise this matter and no doubt the Minister can spell out exactly what the position is. However, despite the remarks which the noble Earl made about voting, I think that people might be rather surprised if I did an immediate U-turn on this issue because of that point. This is a difficult matter and many people who have gone overseas nevertheless retain a great feeling of loyalty to this country and may have fought in its defence. They therefore feel that this issue should be tackled. As I say, no doubt the Government can spell out the position.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was trying to encourage my noble friend to join this debate but I was not successful.
  This new clause has a single and familiar purpose; namely, to attempt to redress the situation where more than half of all UK pensioners living overseas do not receive annual cost-of-living increases in their retirement pensions. I am aware of the importance that some Members of the Committee and pensioners abroad attach to this issue. In return I believe that noble Lords know this Government's position. It is not dissimilar to the position of the previous government and therefore I do not think my response will surprise the Committee.
  UK pensions are paid anywhere in the world and we pay some 840,000 pensioners in more than 150 countries. About half of those—some 450,000 of those pensioners—have what is commonly referred to as a "frozen" pension. That means that the pension remains fixed at the rate payable when a person ceases to live permanently in the UK, or at the rate initially awarded on retirement if a person is already resident abroad.
  Upratings are paid only within the European economic area (EEA), in the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and in about a dozen other countries where certain long-standing—I think mostly pre-1970—social security agreements exist. The policy on pensions abroad has been followed by successive governments ever since retirement pensions and widows' pensions became payable worldwide in 1955. We have made clear—as did the previous government—that changing this policy would not be a priority call on scarce resources. The Social Security Select Committee came to the same conclusion in 1996 when it considered the matter.
  We also know that the total likely cost of uprating would be something like £275 million a year for all those affected countries. We do not think that it is a priority call on resources. I am afraid that we do not therefore propose to unfreeze those UK pensions paid abroad.
  Earl Russell: I presume that figure of £275 million is a gross cost. I presume it does not include any saving to means-tested benefits arising from reciprocal uprating by other countries. Were we to include that figure, I imagine that it would be extremely different. I do not expect the Minister to enlighten me—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I can give the noble Earl the figures he wants, but the problem (particularly as regards Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada) is the disproportionality between the number of UK pensioners living there as opposed to the number of

  193
  their pensioners living here. The figures are approximate which is why I think the noble Earl's argument is not valid. According to my latest information, we have something like 205,000 UK pensioners receiving the frozen rate pension in Australia, but only about 17,000 former Australian residents—some of whom may be ex-British servicemen—live in this country under the current arrangements. There is that degree of disproportionality and I understand that it is even wider in South Africa and some other countries. Therefore, although there may be a reciprocal arrangement, that does not necessarily mean that there is equity in payment and that therefore there can be an offsetting with regard to income-related benefits.
  Earl Russell: I not only thank the Minister for that answer, I congratulate her on having it at her fingertips. I find that impressive. I accept the point she makes; its justice is, of course, obvious. However, the fact that the netting effect is smaller than perhaps I might have hoped does not mean that that effect is not there. I accept that it is extraordinarily difficult to get a genuine net cost. But were one able to do it, that would be the figure for cost.
  Of course I understand the point about scarce resources. But I also understand that it does not improve the reputation of politics as a whole—here I make no party point whatever because it applies to all of us—that we so often see a real mischief and simply do nothing about it. I do not know whether any noble Lords here read Matthew Parris's column about a week ago on Wormwood Scrubs. It dwelt on precisely this point; namely, how discouraging it is that people saw the mischief but did not really feel the impulse to do something about it, and so it continues. It is an old impulse. There is a case in 1628, to which I have referred before, when it was reported that troops who were unpaid were in danger of mutinying. The Lord Lieutenant said that there was no danger of mutiny as the troops were too naked to be seen marching in public. It is a great deal too easy for us to look at something like this and simply say, "Oh dear, it is awfully difficult". Of course it is extremely difficult, but if we want the trust of the people who elect us—and we all do—then we cannot leave too many of these issues unresolved. I hope that the Government will at least give some attention to addressing this problem on an international basis, with reciprocal agreements, possibly bilaterally with each country in turn. It would redress a mischief and it would do something to restore trust in politics. That needs to be done. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 92C not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 92D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Clause 52 [Claim or full entitlement to certain benefits conditional on work-focused interview]:
  Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 92E:
  Page 59, line 9, at beginning insert ("Subject to commission and publication of research into the actions and income of those disentitled to benefit,")
  The noble Earl said: In rising to move Amendment No. 92E I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 108A, 162A, 163A and 164 which stand in my name.
  We come now to the single gateway, the interviews which people are to have before being admitted to benefit. It is my understanding that if they do not have those interviews they simply do not get any benefit. I should be glad if that issue could be clarified because the press material on it has not been entirely consistent. I should hope to hear that there will be a loss of benefits for not attending the interview according to the words of the Labour Party manifesto and not according to the wording of the Prime Minister's speech in Amsterdam of February 1997. I should be very glad to hear that.
  We have some fairly big questions arising out of the single gateway and some fairly technical questions that follow on behind. The big questions are about the nature of entitlement to benefit: how far the obligation is—as Mr Frank Field has been suggesting for some time—a contractual one and how far it is an entitlement arising from the state's duty to protect the population of the country. Is it an absolute entitlement or a conditional one? If conditional, how severe are the conditions that may be imposed?
  We on these Benches have discussed the matter at considerable length. We hold the view as a party that it is not right for people to set out to draw benefit simply for doing nothing. At the same time we also hold the view both that total disentitlement is liable to have quite severe and possibly, in some cases, disproportionate effects, and that disentitlement is something which should be done with extreme caution, especially with numerous categories of vulnerable people. The purpose of the amendments is to put a string of conditions on the use of the disentitlement under the single gateway.
  Amendment No. 92E seeks to insert a commencement clause—a condition precedent, as it is called; something which must happen before the disentitlement comes into force; namely, the commission and publication of research into the actions and incomes of those disentitled to benefit. I will come back to that in a moment.
  Amendment No. 108A is a fairly straightforward provision of hardship allowance. I do not think that it needs too much explanation. Amendment No. 164 comes to the purpose of Amendment No. 92E by a different route. It requires a series of pilot studies of the effect of disentitlement to benefit; those studies to be commissioned and reported before the commencement clause comes into force. Amendment Nos. 162A and 163A are the new commencement clauses which are consequent upon these amendments. So we have two separate routes of pursuing the same objective.
  The question of what happens to people disentitled to benefit is crucial to any cost-benefit analysis of how far disentitlement to benefit should go. The Minister knows that I have pressed her on this matter frequently. Research has only recently become available. The Demos report Destination Unknown deals with the very large number of people who are not entitled to benefit, not in education, not in training and not in employment. Most unwisely, I picked up the wrong pile of notes when I came in this morning, having been in the Chamber until one o'clock last night, so I do not have

  195
  the exact figures with me. But among 16 and 17 year-olds the figure was, I think, 65,000; and for 18 to 24 year-olds I think it was a six-figure figure.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It was 161,000.
  Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister. It was 161,000, so my recollection was at least ball-park accurate.
  That is quite a lot of people. The report has done a certain amount of work on their housing; it has done none whatever on their source of income or visible means of support. The majority of these people are not dead; clearly they must be making a living out of something. It is material to assessing the effect of what we are doing to know whether these people are sponging on friends; whether they are begging in the Strand; whether they are, as some people do, pushing drugs in order to make a living out of that; whether they are selling their bodies; whether they are taking part in crime. Among 16 and 17 year olds disentitled to benefits in South Glamorgan, the word "shopping" normally means "shoplifting". I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, once reproving me for being "shockingly cynical" simply for quoting that factual observation. But if that is their situation, that is their situation. Shoplifting concerns not only them but adds on average 1 per cent to supermarket prices. So if we do not all pay for it one way, we all pay for it another. That is a principle which applies to a great deal of legislation.
  I have no idea of the respective scale of these various ways of coping with disentitlement. I do not know very much—I hope the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, with his Centrepoint experience, may tell us a little more—about what happens to disentitled people in the way of houses. The CHAR report on youth homelessness was not particularly encouraging in that respect.
  There is substance in the point made by the Demos report that if people are marginalised, especially in youth, it takes them a very long time to work their way back again; the disadvantage lasts all the way through life. There is a possibility that apart from any hardship—to which we should not be indifferent—there may be a severe loss to the Exchequer.
  The Department of Social Security has always said with some pride that it monitors the effects of all its policies. In general it lives up to that claim. However, on the effects of disentitlement, I do not understand how the Department of Social Security can monitor the effects of its policies if it does not know what those effects are. That is the central thrust of the amendment.
  I admit that the methodology of the necessary research will be extremely difficult. However, if we look at some privately commissioned research—the South Glamorgan TEC study; or the Nottingham young people's benefit campaign report; or some of the studies published by the Bridge project in the University of Edinburgh; or the MORI report on 16 and 17 year olds published in 1991 by the DSS—the methodological difficulties can to an extent be overcome. Before we go
  196
  ahead with a measure like this it would be a good idea to try. We really should know what we are doing when we do something like this. I beg to move.
  Baroness Buscombe: I have considerable sympathy with this group of amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. In principle, the single work-focused gateway is welcome. It builds on the principle behind the jobseeker's allowance, which we instituted when in government. However, with the Government's present proposals, there remains a huge question mark over whether in practice they will achieve what they set out to do.
  This group of amendments in essence asks the Government to hold back this Bill, pending an opportunity to discuss and review the pilot schemes. Will they be a success or a failure? Can we really assess within the time-frame the degree of success, or otherwise, of these pilot schemes? How will they work, particularly for the disabled, who will need an enormous amount of support and reassurance in order to cope? How will the training of personal advisers develop over the long term and how will the Government realistically resource people who are suited to this level of responsibility as personal advisers in sufficient numbers for the long term?
  On these Benches we believe that we should all have the opportunity to discuss and debate the results of the pilot schemes before the "one" process, which is now referred to, is fully implemented for the long term. If we do not properly analyse where this process is going and how the pilot schemes are working, we believe that the Government will run into serious difficulties for the long term, in the same way as they are now finding themselves in difficulties with the New Deal for lone parents. In that regard, after two years the New Deal for lone parents still has a success rate of only one in 10. Each job created by the scheme costs nearly £15,000.
  This clearly shows that at present the Government's Welfare to Work programme is simply not working. Although compelling people to attend interviews is welcome to some degree, it will not be the "magic bullet" that Ministers pretend. These amendments also deal with what lies on the other side of the single work-focused gateway. What happens if claimants fail to attend an interview? Is an interview all that is required before settling back into the benefits system, for some, for the long term? What happens to those who fail to turn up and have their benefits reduced? And reduced by whom and by how much?
  As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has said, there are a number of questions and technical points which need to be addressed. Do those who do not turn up or remain outside the system end up on the street? Is that the Government's intention? We think not—in which case it makes sense now to pull back and reconsider while the pilot schemes are under way. We are now reading in the press references to a wish and a will on the part

  197
  of some members of this Government to now—and I quote from the Independent of 5th July 1999,
  "undertake a wholesale review of welfare",
  with a pledge from Mr Robin Cook to "look again", for example, at the way in which disabled people would be interviewed at job centres. If that is the case, we welcome it, although we question why the Government have gone this far if they are still so uncertain about the sensitivity and the fairness of the single gateway process. Perhaps after considering for 18 years in opposition how they might change our welfare system, they now feel under pressure after two years in government to move ahead without enough consideration of the likely consequences.
  We ask the Government to think again about these processes. Indeed, I shall be returning to some of these points, and others, in connection with later amendments. We urge the Government to proceed cautiously and to listen carefully to the arguments that are being put forward, both as regards further clarification of the process and for making proper allowances, in particular for the disabled, at every stage of the process.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Davies of Coity: This is a Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, and that, of course, requires reform of welfare. The cornerstone of the Labour Government is to take people off welfare and into work. I see this interview process as supporting that. People will be interviewed and will be given some opportunities of finding jobs which previously seemed out of reach. It is a question of providing them with choices—not threats—and with opportunities. Of course, it is a not a golden bullet and the Bill will not be a magic wand, but it is a start to taking people away from dependency into independence and finding them jobs.
  There are lots of disabled people out there who are currently claiming benefit and who would like to work. Opportunities are not available to them. If the interviewing system will provide them with opportunities they never thought they would have, that has got to be good. Lone parents and single parents, mainly women, would like to have a job but they cannot find work which also enables them to cater for then-home responsibilities. This interview process will give them that opportunity and there is no suggestion here that, if you do not get a job arising out of the interview, you will lose benefit. There may be some related discipline as regards taking the interview and putting some of your benefit at risk, but that is only for the purpose of the interview. It seems to me right and proper, if we are to get people off dependency on welfare and into work, that every opportunity is explored. That has to be a very good thing.
  Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: Like my noble friend Lady Buscombe, I welcome the principle of the single gateway. On this occasion I shall confine myself to speaking in support of Amendment No. 164, which was the last of the batch of the amendments to which the noble Earl spoke.
  198
  Its effect is to ensure that the new gateway interview pilot schemes are fully and properly assessed before the regulations are finalised. I commend the Government for taking part in pilot schemes. It is always a brave government who do such things. When I was a member of the Social Security Advisory Committee, I was always pressing some of my colleagues to take part in pilot schemes and was very relieved when they did so. I am also aware that people like me, who press governments to take part in pilot schemes, often then go one step further and make a government's life difficult by saying, "But now we want to see the results of the scheme". That is precisely what I intend to do today.
  The pilot schemes are intended to last for three years. We were told that in June, last month, four were to be launched. I wonder whether the noble Baroness the Minister can tell us whether they were launched and, if so, in which particular areas, so that we know which types of claimant are benefiting from those schemes. Have we any news of them so far? Of course, after such a short time progress is bound to be limited, but I am aware of the diligence with which the Department of Social Security monitors pilot schemes. The call centre and the private voluntary sector pilots, we were told, will be launched in November 1999. Can the Minister confirm that is still the target date?
  The Royal National Institute for the Deaf is asking why the Government are rushing into national implementation as early as April next year. At that stage it thinks that we will have only preliminary findings on the basic model pilots. The initial findings of the call centre and the private voluntary sector pilots will not be available until next summer, and the final evaluation reports on all the pilots naturally cannot be published until 2002. In that interval one is aware that the Government are pressing ahead with more than one model of single gateway system, so that different people will be subject to different methods of interview. In some areas, it will be the generalist adviser model, despite at the same time running pilots with dedicated personal advisers for lone parents and disabled people.
  Will the Government consider accepting the RNID recommendation that the national implementation of the single gateway should be delayed until the Government have been able properly to evaluate whether the specialist or the generalist personal adviser model is the more effective?
  Lord Haskel: I was rather worried that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, expressed concern about the value of interviews. Interviews have been standard practice in the private sector for many years. It is the way in which the private sector sets about empowering its people. Staff are interviewed regularly to find out what is necessary as regards training, prospects and people's needs. Over the years it has been found that, as a result, people perform much better and receive far better satisfaction from their work.
  I welcome the Government's attempt to introduce this practice into the public sector. The Government are trying to encourage people to move from welfare into work. This system is well tried in the private sector and over the years has been shown to work. There is no

  199
  reason to believe that it will not work in the public sector. I applaud it. It enables people to make informed decisions and has been highly successful. It is common practice in most well run companies in this country.
  Baroness Buscombe: We are not against the principle of interviewing. Indeed, in principle, we are supportive of the whole process. However, we are deeply concerned about the detail of this provision. We should be looking to see how the pilot schemes "pan out" before the scheme is fully implemented. That applies particularly to people who have multifarious problems, especially the disabled. As presently drafted, the Bill does not take account of those people. That is what we want to discuss in some detail.
  Lord Haskel: The disabled and those with particular problems are the very people who probably need the interviewing process most.
  Earl Russell: If I may save the Committee some time, what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has said for her Benches, I say for these Benches too. No objection is raised to the principle of the interview. The concerns about the practice will be addressed shortly by my noble friend Lord Addington. The amendment addresses our concern about what will happen to those who do not attend an interview. The amendments request no more than information. I hope that that clears the air a little.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is a helpful addition to the debate.
  The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the worrying loss of young people who are not in work, not in education or training, and not on benefit. He therefore suggested that given that they will, as he told the Committee, insist inconveniently on living, they will find their source of support elsewhere. The noble Earl also agrees—I am glad that he does—that people should not be entitled to draw benefit, in his words, simply for doing nothing. As my right honourable friend said in the other place, there comes a point with wilful non-compliance when people must take responsibility for their actions.
  I share the noble Earl's concern about such young people. We know the background that they are likely to come from. They are more likely to come from fractured homes, to be in care, and to have a school record of truanting. That suggests that if we are to rescue them, intervention has to occur at a much earlier stage than merely at the point of entitlement to benefit. That is one of the reasons why the Government are currently investing—I use the word advisedly—£540 million in the Sure Start programme, so that children do not start school ready to vote with their feet if they come from the kind of background I have described.
  As the noble Earl will be aware, Clause 52 deals with every group that may come before the Benefits Agency except young people; those come within JSA. In other words, it deals with those who are disabled, lone
  200
  parents, widows and the like. It does not deal with the young people to whom the noble Earl refers. The noble Baroness—
  Earl Russell: If the Minister will forgive me for intervening, I was drawing on evidence from young people simply because there is more available. The problems, the alternatives for those who have no benefit, are general.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was merely saying, in so far as this has become almost a clause stand part debate, that the clause does not affect young people who are JSA claimants; it affects the other groups.
  I welcome the thoughtful speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. It was an impressive debut on this subject. The noble Baroness referred to the New Deal for lone parents. I contest her figures. She mentioned a success rate of one in 10. That is not true. The scheme is voluntary; therefore, people do not have to reply to an invitation to attend for interview. But of those who do, 88 per cent—not one in 10—join the programme. Figures up to March 1999 indicate that some 12,700 jobs have been found by them as a result.
  This is a new programme. Inevitably, the costs are front-end loaded and therefore they will inevitably be high at the beginning. There will be a formal evaluation in autumn 1999 which will indicate the cost-benefit figures. By that stage we should have a more realistic assumption of the actual costs.
  The programme is a success. I know that, having met many of the lone parents and their advisers. As many have said to me time and again, the New Deal programme has turned their lives around. Without it, they and their children would have been much worse off.
  Many of the points I proposed to make were eloquently made by my noble friends Lord Davies of Coity and Lord Haskel. On the wider issue of interviews, I am glad that the notion of the interview as part of the process of first claiming benefit has been widely accepted by the Committee. This group of amendments seeks to delay the introduction of mandatory work-focused interviews or, I am afraid, to dilute their impact. Amendment No. 108A would ensure that a person who failed to take part in a mandatory interview would remain fully entitled to benefit if the impact of any penalty would cause the claimant or his or her family any hardship. Amendments Nos. 92E, 162A and 163A would delay the introduction until further research has been conducted on the action and income of those disentitled to benefit. Amendment No. 164 would delay introduction until the voluntary phase of the pilot schemes had been properly evaluated.
  Before turning to evaluation research, perhaps I may first deal with Amendment No. 108. I share the concerns that have been expressed about the impact of the provision, particularly on groups of disabled people. But, as my noble friends rightly said, this is not a threat; it is an opportunity. It is not about being forced into work or being disentitled to benefit; it is about providing people with the help that they need: possibly to help

  201
  them plan to return to work; to claim benefits that they may not know about; or, for example, to engage the support of organisations of which they may not be aware.
  Perhaps I may give one example. Research suggests that some 60 per cent of people who use the social security system, who are unemployed, disabled or whatever, believe that if they were to go to work they would lose their housing benefit, full stop. Therefore, they are not willing to risk going to work. However, that is not true. They will not lose their housing benefit. Their housing benefit will be adjusted accordingly. The opportunity of an interview during which some of those concerns can be explored and addressed is vitally important if we are to ensure that people know what are the opportunities for work; what benefits they are entitled to but are not currently claiming; and what support organisations, advice and help may be available to them. That is what we are doing.
  The regulations under Clause 52 would simply impose a requirement to participate in a work-focused interview. We do not believe that to be an onerous requirement. We are only asking people to participate in the interviews so that they will know what they hitherto possibly did not know.
  There will be sanctions for those who refuse to participate. But we believe that if they do not take part in the interview, they will not, so to speak, have signed up for their benefit. To avoid any penalty, a person who has refused to participate without good cause has only to change his behaviour to become entitled again—in other words, attend an interview. The provision is not about penalising people; it is about helping them. But we believe that the interview is the gateway through which they should pass in order to receive their benefits.
  I should like reassure Members of the Committee that we have put in place numerous mechanisms to protect the most vulnerable claimants. I do not doubt that they will be explored during our debates today. We believe that we have the mechanisms in place to ensure that everyone has an ample opportunity to participate, and to protect them if they have good reason not to do so.
  First, "one" service staff will be able to postpone the requirement to have an interview where it would be inappropriate to expect someone to have an immediate discussion about work with a personal adviser. The individual may be recovering from an operation or perhaps has recently had a child or been bereaved.
  Secondly, where a claimant is required to have a work-focused interview, it can take place in the claimant's home where that is more appropriate. If he or she wants to have an advocate at the meeting, that is perfectly acceptable. The claimant is entirely within his or her right in that regard.
  Thirdly, we shall not cut off benefits arbitrarily. Only after a third failure to attend and take part in an interview will benefit be withdrawn. Claimants will have clearly explained to them the consequences of failure to participate and they will be encouraged to take part.
  202
  Fourthly, there will be a comprehensive, and non-exhaustive, "good cause" provision to ensure that claimants are not penalised if there are reasonable grounds for failing to take part.
  Finally, where a decision is made that a claimant has not taken part in an interview, he or she will have the ability to appeal it under the new dispute resolution procedures introduced by the Social Security Act 1998. The claimant will also have a further right of appeal against the decision to an independent appeal tribunal. We believe that that balances rights and responsibilities.
  I deal next with Amendments Nos. 92E, 162A and 163A. These amendments seek to delay the introduction of compulsory interviews until further research has been conducted on the actions and incomes of those who are disentitled to benefit. The noble Earl made clear that he was talking primarily about young people because that was where there was the greatest evidence to that effect. I have a great deal of sympathy with the focus of the amendments on research and evaluation I agree that we must evaluate the pilots properly and take account of research before taking decisions about national roll-out. We want to provide the best possible service to claimants. For that reason, we shall see what works and the effect of our policies on the development of the service.
  We have already spent considerable sums on evaluating related policies and have published the research. I refer to statistics on the New Deal and research into the operation of JSA, which includes data on those who are disallowed, for, for example not meeting labour market conditions. The research was designed to provide a detailed understanding of the attitudes of disallowed and sanctioned people, their knowledge of the benefit rules, and the consequences of disallowance and sanctions. Some of that research, which I have read recently, shows that what clients particularly want is the opportunity to have face-to-face contact and better information about what is expected of them and to be talked through the implications of what happens if they do not follow a particular path. In the light of that research, that is precisely what we aim to provide through the "one" service. We hope that the first qualitative findings on non-compulsory pilots will be available by the summer of next year. Information on the compulsory pilots will come somewhat later. The quantitative findings from the compulsory schemes will be available from the summer of 2001.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked me where the schemes were taking place. We are starting with four basic model pilots in south-east Essex, Warwickshire, the Clyde coast and Renfrew and Lea Roding. Together, they involve some 147,000 people respectively. In November, we expect to enter into the two other kinds of scheme, one concerned with the private and voluntary sectors and the other with the call centres. They will deal with 164,000 people and 174,000 people. In that way, we can learn from the telephone responses and the involvement of the voluntary organisations in comparison with the basic model run by BA/ES and local authority staff. Those schemes started in late June. Therefore, we hope to have the qualitative findings by

  203
  the summer of next year. Given the number of people involved, reliable quantitative findings will not be available until the summer of 2001.
  I turn to Amendment No. 164. We are spending a substantial amount on the evaluation of the pilots which do not merely count the numbers who go in to work but look also at qualitative research. We shall follow it through carefully. I understand the concern of the noble Earl that failure to meet the entirely reasonable requirements as a condition of claiming benefit could lead to disentitlement, crime and social exclusion. However, we are placing numerous safeguards in place. We believe that the impact of penalties will be properly monitored during our evaluation of the "one" pilots. We are satisfied that the requirements of Clause 52 are reasonable. If, on the basis of the pilots, we believe that we should not go ahead with national roll-out, we shall not do so. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay said, that is the point of pilots. We want to see whether this works and whether we can get a loop of learning back into practice and process before any decision is made on how to go forward.
  At the core of it is our belief that for too long the benefits service has been a passive service in which people have not been given the opportunity to have the information they need to make informed choices, particularly if they are disabled, lone parents or have been widowed. We want to provide that information, and to that end we want them to attend interviews. As my noble friends have repeated, for disabled people and lone parents no action needs to be taken following that interview. The only requirement is to turn up at the interview itself. But we want to be sure that people know what the options are so that when they come to make choices, they are informed ones. We shall evaluate this matter both qualitatively and quantitatively under the "one" scheme. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  5 p.m.
  Earl Russell: This has worked as a Committee stage should. A Committee stage should be a negotiating process, and we have been doing that to very good purpose. Before I turn to the remarks of the Minister, many of which I found extremely helpful, I should like to refer to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Haskel. There is nothing in those speeches which is incompatible in any way with these amendments and, therefore, nothing on which I need take issue.
  We on these Benches do not in any sense object to the process of interviews or the idea that people should do something in return for benefits. We are concerned with what happens if they do not. Once one says that as a matter of moral principle they should attend these interviews when asked to do so, the decision as to what to do instead must depend to a large extent on assessing the consequences of any action that is taken.
  Lord Davies of Coity: It may be that the concept of an interview does not recognise the reality of the circumstances. People who claim benefit are involved in
  204
  an interview anyway and an assessment of their circumstances is made. They have to initiate the exercise by making a claim. It is not as if this process is a separate part of it. I believe asking what happens if people do not attend the interview makes too much of the reality of the circumstances.
  Earl Russell: I am grateful for that contribution which factually I believe to be extremely fair. But the fact remains that we are contemplating the possibility of a benefit penalty. The one matter on which I did not hear from the Minister—perhaps she can enlighten me—was with regard to an indication of the size of penalty.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is exactly as my noble friend expressed it so clearly. If someone fails to attend the interview as a result of which he or she will draw benefit, no benefit will be paid because the individual has not signed up for it, as it were. The interview is an integral part of the claim. If the individual has not claimed, he or she cannot get the benefit. However, if someone who is already drawing benefit fails to turn up at a trigger point or periodic interview, say, six months, two years or five years down the line, there will be a sanction. Drawing an analogy with the social security system, the sanction will be either 20 per cent or 40 per cent.
  Earl Russell: I am grateful for that helpful answer. One comes back to the problem of consequences. We have no objection to the requirement to attend the interview or to the idea that something should happen to the claimant if he does not turn up. However, as to what that "something" should be, I believe that we must take account of consequences. To assess those consequences we need information, which is what these amendments seek to achieve. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Buscombe and Lady Anelay of St. Johns, for their extremely thoughtful and interesting speeches. In particular, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her support for Amendment No. 164.
  We have a real question here. In order to decide what is the right thing to do, we should know the consequences. I do not see how we can know the consequences unless the research is done. If the research is not undertaken, it will be extremely difficult to decide the right thing to do. Inevitably some people will fail to attend the interviews. That may be because they are bloody minded (if the Committee will forgive the phrase).
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene. How does the noble Earl distinguish between that situation and one involving an individual who is theoretically entitled to a benefit that he does not claim? All we say is that if someone does not come for the interview, he is not claiming the benefit. That is his right. He may choose not to do that. If he does not know about the interview, it is our responsibility to make sure that he knows about it. The position is no different from the present situation

  205
  where someone is theoretically entitled to a benefit he does not claim. My noble friend rightly says that the interview is embedded in the claim process.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: Can the Minister clarify the provision in the Bill which refers to,
  "a requirement to take part in such an interview as a condition of that person continuing to be entitled to the full amount which is payable to him"?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If a new entrant to the benefits system seeks to claim a benefit, the interview is an integral part of that claiming process. It may well be that for decent reasons, at which we have hinted but may wish to probe further, that interview may need to be deferred on grounds of the individual' s health, sickness, disability, or his personal circumstances. If that person then fails to come for an interview in order to change from temporary to permanent benefit, that benefit will stop.
  Equally, if there is what we call a periodic call-hack—perhaps requiring a lone parent to come back when his or her youngest child is five or 11 and he or she fails to do so—the penalty sanctions there are analogous to the existing penalties in the social security system, which can be sanctions of 20 per cent or 40 per cent depending on the circumstances. That is being looked at.
  We seek to say that if a person does not attend for the original interview or we have deferred that interview for decent cause, then he has not established his claim to entitlement to the benefit; therefore the benefit does not flow.
  We keep talking about sanctions. If the noble Earl, Lord Russell, accepts the description offered by my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity, it should not be seen as an issue of sanctions. It is about giving people the opportunities for information, face-to-face contact, and the named personal adviser that lone parents, young people, and disabled people tell us, in the research undertaken, is missing from the current social security system and which they very much want to have. We are giving them the opportunity for that face-to-face help which will allow them to make informed choices about their work, benefits, the support they may need and how they see their future life. It allows people to regain control over their own lives; to re-own them. But they can do that only if they have the information on which to base it.
  I hope that we shall not view the issue as negative, as sanctions. It is positive. It is opportunity. It is quality service from which we hope people can again have autonomy over they own lives.
  5.15 p.m.
  Earl Russell: I think that the Minister is trying to entangle me in the problem of the St Lawrence/Mississippi watershed. From my use of that example, she may remember that that watershed is in ground so flat that any slope is invisible. Yet the rain that lands on one side of it goes into the Gulf of Mexico; and the rain that lands on the other side goes into the
  206
  North Atlantic. I accept that there is a very flat area in the middle here. But we are being given a new condition of entitlement to benefit; and the Bill spells that out.
  Also, the language of sanctions has been introduced by Members of the Government themselves. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has used that language, for example, when he spoke on "On the Record" a couple of weeks ago. The Prime Minister has used that language. If the language is inappropriate, the Ministers who have used it might be wise to say so. But if it is used, I am tempted to take it seriously.
  I wonder whether the difference may be in the letter which goes out to a person who has not attended an interview. In the past, in the course of an occasional campaign, such a person might have received a letter saying, "You are probably entitled to benefit". He might now receive a letter saying, "You have not met a condition of benefit".
  We are all familiar with small differences which cross a watershed. I think that this probably does. All I am asking for is information. I am still asking for information. However, I do not think that I shall get it today, so meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 93:
  Page 59, line 14, at end insert ("save where a person has a mental illness diagnosis")
  The noble Lord said: We now turn to the specifics of the rather general debate that we have had. Amendment No. 93 refers to,
  "a person [who] has a mental illness diagnosis".
  Amendment No. 94 refers to,
  "a person [who] has been an in-patient of a mental illness hospital within the previous three months".
  No matter how well the interview is conducted, it may put undue pressure on this group of people. The amendments do not address the question of trying to get the person to an interview, or how it should be conducted, but of whether that interview will extract the information to which the Minister referred.
  I think we can accept that properly conducted interviews can potentially do far more good than harm. However, these individuals may not be able to handle the concept of an interview. A severely depressed person who is worried about the fact that he cannot function as he should or used to do will regard an interview as a form of torture. If he regards it in that way, it does not matter what one does in the interview, one will not gain the correct information. Someone who is manic will give false information. He may say, "I can do everything. Wonderful—life's great". A manic depressive will go through those two cycles.
  That is why I suggest that these two exemptions should be included in the legislation, or that they should be provided for in guidance. There is a grave danger that one will obtain the wrong information. One will not have the interchange which allows the system to be honed to the needs of those individuals. I beg to move.
  Baroness Buscombe: I support Amendments Nos. 93 and 94. Following debate on the previous amendment,

  207
  it is important that I clarify that while we and disability organisations believe that engaging disabled people—engaging all people—in the gateway and encouraging them to find work is important and right, it is also crucial to ensure that genuinely disabled people are not pushed into interviews which they do not feel well enough to attend. The amendments address a genuine concern with regard to those caught by this clause. We do not believe that they should be forced to attend this "one" process in order to receive their benefit. We appreciate that there is a provision for some people not to have an interview, or to have it deferred because the interview would not be helpful or appropriate.
  We understand that the circumstances will be set out in regulations. The Minister has already stated that a number of people would not have an immediate interview: those who are recently bereaved; and lone parents with very young children. I think we all agree that people with heavy caring commitments have to be considered, and those suffering from acute illness, or a severe mental illness. In such cases people would be given an adviser who would follow up the question of possible work at a later stage. But we are concerned with the prospect of making the personal adviser interview compulsory and linking it to the claim process. We believe that people should have access to advice and support and be free to use it at a time when it is most helpful to them; otherwise, people will feel threatened, especially those with an invisible disability, such as mental distress. It could be damaging to their mental health and there is a real risk that the claims of some vulnerable people will fall by default if they are not well enough to deal with calls to an interview.
  It is perhaps worth noting at this point the possible number of claimants who may be affected by this clause and who may find the "one" process immensely stressful and too difficult a hurdle to surmount. One in four of the adult population will experience some form of mental health problem in any year.
  If the noble Minister were not minded to accept these amendments, then a related concern—that of the training of personal advisers—must also be addressed. Realistically, can personal advisers be trained to such a degree as to be competent to respond to the very special needs of these people? If people are already receiving incapacity benefit and/or severe disablement allowance, they will have already been assessed, probably with the benefit of medical reports, perhaps numerous reports, and certificates confirming this inability to work. Indeed, I will turn to this very point under our Amendments Nos. 101, 102 and 103.
  There is also a problem of accessibility for interviews for the disabled in particular. May I suggest that the home is not necessarily the panacea? It can be felt to be intrusive and uncomfortable for a claimant to have such an interview taking place in his or her home. We shall return to this and other matters raised in connection with these amendments in later amendments on this clause.
  Regard should be given to the cost of this whole process: training of advisers, administering "one", where, for example, the home visits are preferred and for those with certain ailments where the claimant is
  208
  subject to relapses and remission. There is no doubt that the whole interview process will be prolonged, often over an unforeseeable period of time, placing a considerable burden upon personal advisers. The cost of administering multiple interviews necessary to respond to changing and unforeseen needs must be considered.
  Taking the specific wording proposed by these amendments, while we are supportive of the principle that they address, that of protecting those who are clearly not equipped to deal with the "one" process, I question whether they would achieve their aim as drafted. In other words, are the right criteria being applied where a person has a mental illness diagnosis and/or where a person has been an in-patient of a mental illness hospital within the last three months? Surely it would be much simpler and probably less expensive to apply a straightforward test: is the claimant already in receipt of incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance, and invalid care allowance, in which case they will already have been assessed and therefore it would be much more straightforward and much easier to assess. I shall return to this point under our proposed Amendments Nos. 101, 102 and 103.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I have much sympathy for the amendments in so far as they apply to mental illnesses and I declare an interest, having been associated with the National Schizophrenia Fellowship (NSF) for many years. It and three other organisations concerned with mental illness have made clear their comments on this part of the Bill. They recommend that people with mental illnesses should not be subject to compulsory interviews but that the interviews should be voluntary. That seems very sensible. Voluntary interviews might well be extremely helpful in their cases.
  It is not possible to generalise about people with mental illnesses. Cases can be very different, as can the symptoms, some of them not visible, and the circumstances can also be very different. I agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lady Buscombe about the incidence of stress in the circumstances of being summoned to an interview. Therefore, I would ask the Government to consider very carefully whether, in the categories of cases which I and the noble Lord have indicated, the interviews should be voluntary and not compulsory.
  Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I should like very strongly to support this amendment. I think that the case of the severely mentally ill, especially schizophrenics, puts them into a totally different category. There is no way by which they can be fitted into the existing system as it stands. The noble Baroness has explained that there are very many safeguards and provisions for discretion and so on, but I do not see how the severely schizophrenic patient could possibly be fitted into this system.
  I speak, as I think the noble Baroness is aware, from considerable personal experience of care for a severely schizophrenic case. I cannot imagine how my son would have been able to go through this system without creating very great embarrassment for everybody

  209
  concerned in the interviewing process. If in the Bill there were a separate category, a separate compartment, into which the severely mentally ill—in particular those diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia—were put to be dealt with by advisers who had received considerable training for dealing with the mentally ill, that would be rather a different matter. But I cannot see that it is even fair to the interviewers to expect them to be able to handle such people.
  The noble Baroness is aware that the kind of patients to whom I refer are really very difficult to deal with. One simply does not know how they will react. They are also, as one of the symptoms of their disease, highly irresponsible, and they usually find it impossible to deal with correspondence of any kind. I do not wish to suggest that there is a real danger of violence, because this has been so much overdone in the press, but there is a residual possibility of violence, so I should like to appeal to the noble Baroness to treat this amendment as a special case.
  The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I too should strongly like to support this amendment. I sit in on assessments for young homeless people and my concern, which goes rather beyond this amendment, is that some of these, while not exactly classifiable as having a mental illness, are obviously very distressed. We are talking now about older people, but I imagine those too may well be distressed. When I attend these interviews sometimes the interviewer is very sensitive. He will say something like, "I appreciate this must be a difficult experience for you." He may say, "I know sometimes it is difficult for you to leave home", and the person being interviewed will say, "Yes. Sometimes I just do not want to leave the house".
  Sometimes there are sensitive interviewers who try to make the experience, which can be distressing, easy on the applicant. Sometimes the interviewers are not sensitive. They may be falsely jokey about the procedure and the applicant, who is stressed by the experience, is made to feel worse. I agree with the amendment and ask the Minister to explain how she will ensure that people who are mentally ill or in a good deal of distress are sensitively treated when they attend the interviews.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Rowallan: I support the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I believe that from the point of view of mental patients, Clause 52 is frightening. The Bill prevents thousands of people with severe mental illness accessing the financial support that they require to regain and sustain their mental health.
  Even worse, in some cases changes create additional barriers and stress. I am concerned that the effects of the interview will cause great problems for the mentally ill. The lack of understanding of severe mental illness and its effects was eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. It is a serious problem which needs to be considered most carefully. There is an extreme likelihood that some people will be so unwell
  210
  that they will be unaware of the impending interview and too ill to attend on the day. They will have a fear of losing their benefits as a result.
  Amendment No. 93 does not prevent them attending on a voluntary basis and therefore I believe that the Government should be able to support it. Amendment No. 94 is also important. It, too, has a voluntary basis, but it is essential that on leaving hospital a mental patient is given time to settle down at home. The time when such patients first arrive home is the most stressful of all. They do not have immediate access to nursing staff and perhaps their medicines are beginning to wear off or have side-effects. It is an extremely stressful time and the time when the highest number of suicides occur. That must be considered. I believe that the interviewing of mentally ill people must be seriously considered, as should the whole of Clause 52.
  Lord Haskel: I share the concerns of Members of the Committee about the dangers of the interview for mentally ill people. However, there is another danger; that of stereotyping people. Tonight, we are stereotyping and assuming what their reactions will be. With too many exceptions, that is exactly what happens and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will bear that in mind.
  Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: too, have great sympathy with Amendments Nos. 93 and 94. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, I have never been a carer; nor do I have experience or working with organisations which represent the mentally ill, as do my noble friends Lord Rowallan and Lord Campbell or Croy. I have only been a lay member of appeal tribunals considering incapacity benefit. In that capacity, I was always keenly aware of the importance of not stereotyping anyone who came before the tribunal and of the dangers of so doing. As a layman, I was also aware of the difficulty of making assessments on behalf of people who have mental illnesses, some of which express themselves in different ways at different times and in different ways to different people. I am sure that we shall return to that issue when dealing with Amendment No. 106 relating to the training of advisers.
  My noble friend Lord Rowallan spoke effectively of the difficulty facing people who are recently discharged in-patients who have received some form of treatment. As he said, the risk of suicide and self-harm is particularly high at the point of discharge. Almost one-quarter of the suicides covered by this year's national confidential inquiry into suicide and homicide by people with mental illness occurred within three months of discharge from hospital, with the highest number in the first week. The suicide risk after discharge is 213 times greater than that of the general population for men and 134 times greater for women.
  That evidence was provided to me by MIND and MACA. As those organisations point out, the evidence provides the strongest possible case for people nor to be approached for a compulsory interview which may be

  211
  perceived as threatening within at least three months of discharge. I hope that the Government will look favourably on Amendment No. 94.
  Lord Davies of Coity: I am extremely sympathetic to the arguments advanced in protection of people with mental illness who may be subjected to greater stress. However, I must return to my earlier remarks, recognising that we are concerned with people in receipt of benefit. They will have made an application and undergone an interview for benefit. The range of mental illness is enormous. Perhaps at one end there will be the schizophrenic and at the other the educationally subnormal. Anyone conducting an interview—
  Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was about to make a better point than I, but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, may not have meant to refer to those who are educationally subnormal in the same range as those who are mentally ill. Perhaps the noble Lord was grouping two things together at the same time.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In terms of classification by category for invalidity benefit, they are indeed grouped together.
  Lord Davies of Coity: I apologise if what I said was offensive. I wanted to point out that the range of mental illness can be such that some people can fulfil occupations and go to work. Indeed, they want the opportunity to have work presented to them. However, at the other end of the spectrum, someone else would not be in that position. We must give credit to those who will be conducting the interviews; those involved in providing benefit for people with mental illness. At the risk of stereotyping certain classes of people, it is not necessary to express that intention in the Bill.
  Lord Rowallan: Surely the whole point of the amendment is that such people can attend voluntarily. We do not insist on compulsory measures, but are saying that someone who is mentally incapable of attending an interview at a particular time should be respected and not lose his benefit as a result of ill health.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The debate has been most thoughtful and at times moving. Our difficulty is that we are not dealing with a particular category but with a range of people who may have moved on to incapacity benefit for reasons of stress or depression, which is alleviated once they leave the job, through to manic depression, schizophrenia and severe states which even with drug therapy do not permit a person to re-enter the labour market.
  We are dealing with a wide sweep of people, which is why I find the amendments difficult. I want to support their intention, but I do not believe that they can do what they seek. Mental illness may range from relatively mild stress, which makes it impossible for someone to work, to severe schizophrenia. The full range of people, including those with modest learning difficulties, would not be expected to attend an interview.
  212
  We are trying to avoid categorising people or stereotyping them on the basis of the benefit that they would normally get or their type of disability or handicap. We want to move away from that rigid categorisation because it does not give us the capacity to treat people holistically.
  When a claim is first made, we will not necessarily know whether the claimant falls into the relevant category. As my noble friends have rightly said, mentally ill people who currently want to receive benefit have to engage with the claim process for incapacity benefit or disability living allowance. They have access to the support of their carer, their family or their advocate if they need it. We are not requiring anything different in their interface with the social security system. Through the single gateway we are developing support, based on an interview with heavily trained staff. They will have undertaken seven weeks of training, including input from mental health groups. That opportunity will allow us to discuss with the claimants their opportunities for returning to work if they are well, fit and able. Only 11 per cent of those with mental health problems are in the labour market, but when I met representatives of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship I discovered that such people were desperate to return to work and that their chief obstacle was not their own inability to enter the labour market, but overcoming the stereotype in employers' minds.
  Disabled people who have a mental health problem already have to interact with the social security system. We are giving them the advantage of the support offered by the single gateway. Even if it does not necessarily take them into work—although many of them desperately want to work—it will give them information about benefits and contact groups.
  If a claimant is in poor health at the time proposed for interview, it can be deferred or waived altogether if appropriate. Some of the situations that we have heard about could well come into that category. It would not be appropriate for the small number of people who are acutely ill to come in for an interview, but that does not mean that the opportunities of the single gateway should be denied to the much larger span of people who may be suffering phobias, stress or depression. With the help of drug therapy, support, mentoring, buddying and the backing of the disability rights procedures, many of those people would like to re-enter work. If we accepted the amendments, those people would never get the opportunity to explore what they can do and what support mechanisms might be available for them.
  The amendments would exclude from the initial work-focused interview people who have been diagnosed as mentally ill or who in the previous three months have been in-patients at a mental illness hospital. It is wrong to approach the issue stereotypically and to exclude large numbers of people from the interview. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said that one in four of the adult population had suffered from a mental health problem at some time. I have checked the statistics. In 1978, 9 per cent of people on incapacity benefit claimed it because of a mental health or behavioural problem. Ten years later that had nearly doubled to about 16 per cent. The figure

  213
  is now nearly 30 per cent. Should those people, who have had a job in the past, be denied the opportunity that we are offering?
  The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, said that the system could be voluntary, but that would put us in the same loop that we found with the New Deal. If people do not know what they are going to get from the interview, they do not come. One of the difficulties is to ensure that people have the full knowledge and information that they need. The interview can be deferred if it is inappropriate at that point, or it can be waived. Advocates or carers can also be present, or the interview can be held at home if that is helpful. We do not want to exclude 30 per cent of IB claimants from the reach of the single gateway, because it is in their best interests at least to have the opportunity to come within the system. The amendments are not appropriate because the range of people affected is very broad.
  Staff will receive appropriate training and skills, with the help of groups such as MIND, Mencap and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. It is right to approach the issue flexibly, supportively and decently by bringing those who already claim from the system to a sensitive and well handled interview. After that we can ensure that they have the necessary support, opportunities and information. They and their carers cannot know until they have been through the interview.
  I have given assurances about what the interviews are intended to do. People with a mental health problem already have to engage with the social security system, but without the benefit of face-to-face support. The interviews can be deferred, or even waived, and they can be conducted in the presence of an advocate or in the person's home. The staff will be trained and skilled. Their approach will be sensitive and they will work with voluntary groups. We shall learn from the pilots whether we need to make our procedures more helpful and supportive. With those assurances. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will not press his amendment.
  5.45 p.m.
  The Earl of Listowel: Before my noble friend sits down, may I check something with her? Is she talking about in-patients alone or out-patients as well?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was trying to suggest that many people who have been mental health in-patients may have gone to the hospital voluntarily with a relatively mild illness because they do not have support from their families or because their condition has made it impossible for their families to support them. Others with more severe mental health illnesses are able to lead rich lives in the community in half-way houses supported by other carers. The test of whether someone is an in-patient or under the support of some other mental health organisation is not an appropriate benchmark by which to judge whether someone should come within the single gateway.
  Lord Addington: I have listened to the debate with considerable interest. I am surprised by the amount of agreement in principle. The Minister agreed that there was a problem but said that the amendments were far
  214
  too broad-brush. A reference to severe or acute mental illness in the amendments might have been more appropriate. When it comes to drafting, if I ever get anything right it is more by luck than by judgment. I accept that there is a problem.
  The group whom we are talking about is different because the idea of the interview may be the primary problem. I have already said that it is not the idea of the interview that most of us are worrying about.
  How many of us have heard examples of regulations being made; for example, in education, and the staff being inappropriately trained because it would take such a long time to get round to dealing with those who were already in place? That approach raises a frightening number of questions.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord on that point. There are 200 advisers in the field who have gone through an average of 200 hours of training—and in some cases 300 or 400 hours—working towards established qualifications such as NVQ3. No one will be working as a personal adviser without being fully and properly trained. We are making a huge investment of staff.
  Lord Addington: I thank the Minister for that, but the problem will be getting the right member of staff with the right training to the right person at the right time. Anyone who deals with specialist support services knows that. Demographic trends may cause problems. We have all had experience of that.
  As I said, I appreciate that these amendments are rather widely drawn. I do not feel that the subject has been exhausted and we must look at it again, particularly in the light of what the Minister said. Much of that was helpful as regards the principle. Therefore, I shall now withdraw the amendment and return to the issue, having considered what has been said in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
  Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 95:
  Page 59, line 16, after ("benefit") insert (", save where a person is severely disabled")
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 114. Amendment No. 95 deals with the effect of removing the requirement for a work-focused interview from severely disabled claimants who need to access social security benefits. Amendment No. 114 deals with the need for advocacy support.
  Many of the arguments written down in front of me have already been rehearsed during our discussions on the previous amendment. However, once more, I should like to amend, as it were, thoughts about different incapacities. Mental illness and learning disability are not the same conditions. It was unfortunate that the expression "educationally sub-normal" was used in your Lordships' House. Regrettably, that categorises people with learning disabilities back to the bad old days.
  There must be a way in which to remove the requirement for interview from the benefit claiming process for the most profoundly and multiply disabled people. Incapacity and disability benefits often provide those claimants with their sole source of income. We cannot run the risk of that income being jeopardised if the claimant cannot legitimately attend an interview on grounds of severe unchanging disability.
  The Secretary of State and the noble Baroness have both told me of their reluctance to exempt categories of people. I acknowledge that there are people with higher rates of disability living allowance who are indeed working. But case-by-case discretion exercised by a junior officer seems to be an unsatisfactory and unreliable way in which to address the reality that people so severely disabled should not face a compulsory work-focused interview in order to obtain benefits.
  I am aware that it is not in the interest of anybody—neither the claimant nor the Government—to place unrealistic requirements upon severely disabled people or personal advisers, who are predominantly there to signpost work-ready clients into the labour market. But I shall be sufficiently reassured, as I am sure will other Members of the Committee, if the Minister will give a commitment to issue guidance on advancing the claims of those permanently unfit to attend an interview. That guidance should be developed in consultation with relevant specialists. If I am given such a commitment, I suspect that I shall not press the amendment.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 114 which refers to advocacy support. To interview or not to interview will rarely be a straightforward choice, particularly when determining the value of conducting "one" interviews with clients with moderate learning disabilities. For although an interview may be theoretically possible for some, it is likely to be counterproductive unless appropriate support is provided.
  Many people require support in order to express their own views, and that will undoubtedly be the case within the context of "one" interviews. Without such support, clients with a learning disability may not fully comprehend the process, what is being required of them and what choices they are entitled to make. Some people with learning disabilities may have difficulty taking in new information, handling complex material such as benefit claim forms and communicating effectively. They may need support to help them with what they want to say. They may need encouragement to answer a question. They may also derive considerable emotional support from the presence of an advocate who is in an independent position.
  A skilled advocate can support all those functions and, through facilitation, ensure that an interview is constructive for the claimant and for the personal adviser. If the "one" scheme is really about providing a service to claimants, there is no reason why claimants should be denied the right to advocacy support and provision made, where necessary, for appropriate support. I presume that that advocacy would stretch long beyond the realms of learning disability.
  Perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to assure the Committee that all claimants will have a statutory entitlement to advocacy support, which will be made available without cost to the claimant if the absence of such support makes a work-focused interview untenable.
  A simple way to achieve that would be by advising claimants of their rights to advocacy support on their letter inviting them to a work-focused interview, setting out a structure for the reimbursement of costs. I beg to move.
  Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Disabled people face many barriers to education, training and employment. In principle, personal advisers could bring a much-needed individual approach, provided that the adviser has the appropriate training, qualifications and resources. As I have already stated in connection with the previous amendments, making the personal adviser interview compulsory and linking it with the claims process risks undermining any value which the interview could have for claimants and may also worsen their health.
  Clause 52 requires all claimants to participate in a work-focused interview as a condition of receipt of benefit. The Disability Benefits Consortium and ourselves believe that the term "work-focused" is misleading and does not reflect the full objectives of the interview or the range of support which should be offered to claimants.
  Much has been said on previous amendments about raising fear in people's minds. In practice, much of that fear stems from the terminology used in the Bill. The description "work-focused interviews" is raising alarm among many people who are terrified of the prospect that if they cannot come up to speed in an interview which is aimed at work, they will somehow be penalised and their benefits diminished. Therefore, I suggest that consideration should perhaps be given to the words "work-focused".
  The severity of the condition of claimants with severe disabilities will rule out paid employment. Those are not, by definition, people who are unemployed and available for work but people who are incapable of work and have been so for at least six months. Disabled people who can work may require welfare, either in support of independent living or to top up low earnings. But tying the interview into an incapacity benefit claim means that people are being required to discuss work prospects—that is a problem—before their capacity for work and, hence, eligibility for benefit has been assessed; at a point when they are seeking help precisely because they are not well enough to work and when they may be very ill and distressed; and at a time determined by when they make the claim rather than when they may be able to make best use of job advice.
  If the amendment is not accepted, we believe that the following consequences can be expected. Claimants will feel undermined, harassed and burdened by the requirement and will be likely to perceive the interview as a hurdle in the benefit claim rather than a genuine

  217
  offer of help, with any existing anxiety or depression exacerbated. In addition, in particular, claimants with an invisible impairment, such as mental health problems, chronic fatigue or pain, will feel under extra pressure because of their disability, which will not be obvious to the adviser. They will be faced with having to justify and explain their incapacity one more time.
  We believe that claimants may he steered into ill-advised courses of action if the emphasis is on work regardless of its consequences for health, or if they think that the advice they are given has to be followed. Further, some people will not be able to cope with attending for an interview; for example, because of their mental state and the anxieties generated by the process of claiming benefits. In that case, their claim will not go forward unless there is support to enable them to take part, to show that they are exempt or have good cause not to take part. We believe also that the interviews could become a formality, especially if advisers are seeing the majority of claimants, not just those who can make best use of the interview. Therefore, we question the value of interviews.
  I turn to Amendment No. 114, which concerns advocacy support for a claimant during the interview process. We recognise, as does the Disability Benefits Consortium, that interviews will be unworkable for some claimants with intellectual and sensory impairments or claimants with mental health problems unless they are permitted to be accompanied by an appropriate advocate. I think I am right in saying that the Minister made reference in her opening statement to the ability of claimants to take with them an advocate, and I appreciate that.
  We believe that there should be a statutory provision for all claimants to have a right to advocacy support. The Disability Benefits Consortium supports us on this point, further suggesting that it would welcome a commitment that interview-related expenses incurred by advocates would be met by the agency. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred to that. However, in that regard, one might question the level of advocacy, and the level of expenses, which could be added to the support of this initiative. We therefore support both the amendments.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Addington: We, on these Benches, support the thrust of the amendments. I strongly agree that to call in for interview a person with a long-term unchanging disability, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, may ultimately be a waste of time.
  That applies especially if, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, the interviews are work focused. I believe that the terminology here has led to a great deal of worry. I suspect that the number of amendments to this clause might have been halved if that term had been changed. Many people who have tremendous difficulties in work have been extremely worried by the emphasis on everything being work related.
  The noble Baroness mentioned advocacy support during the interviews. Further enlightenment on that point would be helpful. Such support is essential if the interviews are to he of any use. I believe an amendment
  218
  has been tabled concerning the deaf-blind. Such people have all normal means of communication denied to them. Without advocacy support, they will be totally and utterly helpless in such situations. If information cannot be extracted from them or given to them, the Bill will be irrelevant and meaningless to them. I ant sure that the noble Baroness will say that such people are already covered, but it will not hurt to have it said again. Even if the noble Lord, Lord Rix, does not intend to move the amendments, I suggest that an answer now would be helpful to us at later stages of the Bill.
  Lord Davies of Coity: I am in some difficulty as regards the description of "severely disabled" in the same way as I was with the previous amendment and the description of "mental difficulties". It seems to me that the term "severely disabled" covers a range, unless there is just one category, of which I am not aware. Of course, if a person is severely disabled and bedridden, obviously he or she would not be able to attend for interview. Someone else would, quite rightly, claim the benefit on his or her behalf.
  I would say that someone is severely disabled if he or she is in a wheelchair. However, the opportunity for such people to undergo an interview, with an opportunity to work, which they may want, is available to them. I am sure that all noble Lords will be able to think of many situations in which people who are described as "severely disabled" are still able to fulfil some employment function, which they would want to do. At the end of the day, it will be voluntary and their choice. The whole exercise here is providing choices, opportunities and information to enable people to exercise the right and entitlement that we think is theirs.
  Therefore, I would have some difficulty in supporting an amendment which refers to "severely disabled" but which does not define the people about whom we are talking.
  Lord Addington: Perhaps I may briefly follow up that point. I am afraid that the answer has to be either regulations or a much longer Bill to try to achieve more definition, as I am sure everybody involved in this field will know.
  Lord Milverton: I hope that the Minister is able to respond positively to the two amendments. They put forward an important point of principle. I am sure that there are cases in which severely disabled people would need somebody to assist them when it comes to an interview.
  Lord Rix: Perhaps I may be permitted to interrupt briefly. I expressed the view that I would be more than satisfied if the Minister were able to give an assurance that guidance on both the interview and advocacy were spelt out very clearly. I would consider that to be adequate at present.
  I agree that there is a difficulty in describing a severe disability, particularly one which would render an interview useless. I hate to quote again the case of my daughter, which I have done previously, but she is one of probably a quarter of a million people with a very

  219
  severe learning disability who would not benefit in any shape or form from an interview. She would not know what the interview was about. She would not recognise the interviewer. She would probably use incoherent or offensive language, if she responded at all. She might well be stark naked in bed and unable to be moved out of her room when the interview takes place. She might change her clothes eight, 10, or 14 times a day. She might well be enjoying herself getting through in a wheelchair to a specially-constructed seat.
  However, I think we could safely say that she, and probably another quarter of a million sons and daughters like her, are quite incapable of attending an interview or being interviewed. I cannot believe that it is not beyond the wit of the Government to issue guidance in this direction.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I rise briefly to support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on Amendment No. 95. I could not possibly hope to expand upon his speeches tonight. I should also like to register my support for Amendment No. 114 with regard to advocacy support. I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Rix, when he comes to reply after the Minister has replied to the Committee.
  The Minister referred to the fact that she anticipates that it will continue to be a right of people at the gateway interview to take along an advocate who is able to assist them on their behalf. I welcome her commitment tonight. I also note that in another place the Minister, Andrew Smith, gave the assurance that people who need help will be able to take someone with them, whether that person be a friend, a parent or an advocate in whatever sense.
  He went on to argue that it was not necessary for the right to advocacy to be put on the face of the Bill, simply because in a sense one could replicate the procedure at present.
  I am advised by MIND and MACA that unless the right to advocacy is enshrined in the Bill there could be occasions when individuals are not aware of the possibility of taking someone with them to an interview. They are concerned that the staff might not make that known to them or might refuse permission for an advocate to be present. Perhaps this is a matter on which the Minister could give further assurances tonight which would satisfy the Committee.
  My mind was opened further than usual this morning when I was fortunate enough to attend a parliamentarians' seminar on deaf awareness training. That made me far more aware than I had been—I regret that I had not been aware before—of how important it is for advocates to appear on behalf of a wide group of people with hearing problems.
  I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I thought that I would be able to support him entirely—as is my habit. However, I was concerned by his remarks at the very end of his speech when he referred to some form of advocacy support system. I had anticipated that his amendment would amount to a nil cost to the Treasury and that one could take along a
  220
  McKenzie friend to act on one's behalf without there being any green-form scheme or payment from the Treasury. I hope that is what the noble Lord means. Perhaps I misunderstood him, but I thought he suggested that the Government should provide a group of people, who would be paid for by the DSS or some other government organisation, to play an advocacy role. I hope that I am wrong about that.
  Lord Rix: At the end of my brief speech about advocacy, I expressed the hope that the Minister would take this opportunity to assure the Committee that all claimants will have a statutory entitlement to advocacy support, which will be made available without cost to the claimant if the absence of such support makes a work-focused interview untenable. I am afraid that we are at opposite ends of the argument.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for teasing that response out of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I had similar concerns about his comments.
  In his second or third intervention, the noble Lord asked me to assure the Committee, first, about guidance and, secondly, about advocacy. He asked me to confirm that there will be a statutory entitlement—that is, a right—to advocacy. The answer to the noble Lord's questions is: yes and yes. I could now sit down—which would speed up the proceedings—but it may be appropriate to enlarge upon this point.
  I believe that I must emphasise, as my noble friends have done, the fact that we recognise that people who are severely disabled and who want or need representation must and will be treated with particular sensitivity. However, we must treat people as individuals, not as categories. It is relatively arbitrary whether people receive DLA, SDA or IB. We do not want to suggest that people are treated according to the category in which they are placed. We believe that under the "one" service and face-to-face contact, we will have the opportunity to identify the areas where extra support is needed.
  People may say that that is a waste of time. I was told only a few days ago of a case involving a man living off his redundancy payment who brought into the office his wife, who is severely incapacitated by virtue of a stroke and who is receiving DLA. He was told about—and will now take up—invalid care allowance, his wife will receive SDA and they may be entitled to HB, which may mean a worthwhile increase in their income of £100 per week. That man need not have come into the office. People will be able to seek help under the "one" service in future and we will ensure that a full range of support and assistance is made available in difficult situations.
  It is appropriate to consider whether the interview should take place at the time of claiming or be deferred to a later date. As I have said, personal advisers will have the discretion to waive the interview altogether if that is what the individual circumstances dictate. Guidance will be made available to personal advisers, in association with professional voluntary organisations, to ensure that they are aware of the circumstances in

  221
  which an interview should be waived. That guidance will include references to those who are so severely disabled that work is never likely to be a realistic prospect. I hope that I have answered the noble Lord's first point.
  I repeat: it is not a question of harassing vulnerable people, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, suggested. It is a question of ensuring that people are aware of the support that is available. I wish to make a wider point, on which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will support me. We should not make an easy reading across from the severity of disability to the capacity for work. It is too easy to assume that the most severely disabled are the least likely to work and that those with the least disability are the most likely to work. All of our research and evidence compiled over the past few years confounds that myth. I know of people who are paralysed from the neck down and who, none the less, run businesses. We know of people who have been blind from birth, who have been recruited by major companies because of their affinity with technology and who are holding down senior jobs. We know of people in your Lordships' House and in the Government who have severe disabilities and who, by any definition, would qualify as severely disabled. Yet they are participating fully in your Lordships' debates and one is a serving Cabinet Minister in Her Majesty's Government.
  I know of someone in receipt of SDA who has ME. She keeps in touch with the labour market in the hope that her ME will burn out or be corrected and she will be able to re-enter the job market. She wants to ensure that she keeps her options open. On good days, she wants to be able to read appropriate material, come into the office, talk to people, make contacts and so on. Let us not assume that somehow a severe disability equals incapacity for work. We know from experience that mild to moderate degrees of mental illness and mental health problems may be more incapacitating than some extremely severe physical health problems.
  Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will not attach too much weight to the words "severely disabled". Some of the most severely disabled people I know are most urgent in their desire to return to work. Quadriplegics, the blind and the deaf seek to work, and are working. Yet those people are automatically put onto incapacity benefit without needing to do the all-work test. Such people are holding down jobs, and many like them wish to return to the labour market. That is why we must ensure that we do not write off people, irrespective of their potential, by virtue of some label.
  We must also ensure that people receive the help they need in a positive way. That is why I have a great deal of sympathy with the aim of Amendment No. 114, which seeks to ensure that people who attend work-focused interviews may be accompanied by an advocate when they believe that is appropriate. I am happy to assure noble Lords that a person may be accompanied by a third party. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, suggested, we do not think that it is necessary to put such a requirement on the face of the Bill. If your Lordships believe that there is a serious issue as to whether people know about their right to
  222
  have an advocate, I shall consider whether that should be mentioned in the original letter or whatever. That may be a more appropriate way of handling the matter.
  We want to ensure that people know about their right to advocacy. We are considering whether we should examine the cost of fares and so on when an advocate is necessary for someone who has learning difficulties, for example. There is a similar question when an interpreter is needed and staff cannot provide the necessary translation service. In those circumstances, we will arrange for those services to be provided.
  To return to where I began: I think that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Rix, the assurances that he seeks. Yes, there will be guidance to staff and, yes, there will be a right to advocacy. We will reflect on how best we can ensure that those rights are made known. Behind that lies our insistence that we are seeking to ensure that everyone receives the help and support that they need. For some, that support may be work focused and for others it may be benefit focused or more general support, such as putting people in contact with relevant organisations. Please let us not write off people according to the nature or the degree of severity of their disability. The experience of your Lordships—any of whom have a long history of working with disabled people—is that that is not the right and appropriate way forward. Given those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  6.15 p.m.
  Baroness Buscombe: Before the Minister sits down, I stress that there is no question of us on these Benches suggesting that we write off anyone. I agree entirely that many people with severe disabilities want to work.
  Does the Minister agree that the terminology "work focused" is one of the reasons why many of us are being inundated with letters from numerous organisations and individuals expressing considerable fear and anxiety about this clause? Perhaps I may suggest the use of the term "personal development interviews" or similar wording. It may seem to be a small, insignificant point, but it would be enormously valuable and beneficial to many thousands of people. We must get the wording right so that people do not feel that they must attend an interview and somehow show that they are capable of working when many of them, sadly, are not.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Those reasons were well expressed by the noble Baroness. That is why we now refer to the scheme as "one"; that is, that it suggests an integration of services.
  The vast majority of people coming through will be those on jobseeker's allowance, lone parents, or other groups who have been on income support who may be able to work. It is not unreasonable, therefore, that the focus should be on work. Where we are dealing with issues of disability, it may be more appropriate to focus on benefits and the like.
  I repeat again that, following the "one" interview for any disabled person, their benefit, if they are on incapacity benefit, is protected irrespective of what that

  223
  interview in terms of a subsequent personal capability assessment may throw up. They do not have to follow any course of action following that interview. On the contrary, they may choose not to take part beyond attending that interview.
  From my experience, the problem arises on the other side. People want help; they want face-to-face interviews; they want to go back into work. The complaints I received in the past as a Minister with some responsibility for disability issues were that we have so far not met a need and are beginning to do so. The problem is not pushing people into work who do not want it; it is helping those who want to work to get into work where they can, and giving people the information, opportunities and knowledge that they currently do not have where work is not the appropriate option for them. Disabled people asked us to provide that service and that is what we will be doing.
  Earl Russell: Perhaps I can assist the Minister. We should not get hung up on arguments about whether people want one thing or another. There are all sorts of people. I understand the Minister's argument about the giving of opportunity. That is not at issue. But many people are afraid of the loss of benefits. If the Minister could consider the possibility of distinguishing between attending the interview and the penalty for not doing so, she might find that there is a way forward on a number of these amendments.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We went through that in detail a while ago. Anyone receiving a benefit must make a claim for that benefit. In future, that benefit will be embedded in an interview; full stop. It does not mean that, following that interview, those who have a disability will have to do anything further. However, the interview is part of the process of obtaining that benefit.
  Lord Rix: I am delighted with the assurances given by the Minister in regard to severely disabled people and how they will be affected by guidelines to be issued, also for those who will seek to have advocates present. I am delighted that detailed guidelines will be offered on both subjects. With that in mind I have the greatest pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 96:
  Page 59, line 16, after ("benefit") insert (", save where a person has caring commitments of thirty five hours per week or more")
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 96 concerns caring commitments. The Government are clearly interested in getting carers into paid employment as soon as it becomes feasible once their caring commitments have come to an end. The work-focused interview—perhaps it should be called the "work-focused, benefits-focused interview"—is designed to get individuals thinking about their skills, training requirements and employment aspirations in
  224
  advance so that they are in a strong position to find work when their circumstances change. That is a sensible strategy for the economy, and indeed for some carers who find that welfare ends abruptly when their caring responsibilities come to an end.
  But the Government also hope to encourage some carers to consider the option of part-time work concomitant with their caring responsibilities. Again, that is not inconceivable for some carers who may find scope for work during periods when the disabled child or adult is away from home, at school, college or a day centre. Combining employment and caring responsibilities should make carers at least marginally better off, even though typically carers work in low-skilled, low-paid positions just to make ends meet.
  However, caution must be exercised to ensure that it is not taken for granted that carers can plug a perceived gap in their daily routine with paid employment. Invalid care allowance recipients are, by definition, working 35 hours a week or more. To what other group doing socially useful work would any government dare to say, "Since you are only working 35 hours per week, you should be doing another job as well"? My primary concern is for carers who will never be able to combine caring and work and are likely to spend their lifetime as carers, most notably lifelong, full-time carers of people with severe disabilities. Their contribution to society cannot be underestimated. They already do a full-time job. They save the Treasury millions of pounds in care costs and deserve, as I am sure Members of the Committee recognise, unquestioning support.
  At Second Reading I offered the illustration of the difficulties that a work-focused interview might present to a full-time carer, so I need not go over old ground. None the less, it is important to emphasise that some carers will start off and continue to be full-time carers over a lifetime. A person who gives birth in their twenties to a child with profound physical and intellectual disabilities may have 40 years of full-time caring ahead. A work-focused interview is not likely to be appropriate or convenient, either now or in the future, for people in those circumstances.
  Amendment No. 104 is consequential on Amendment No. 96. Invalid care allowance recipients, by definition, have caring responsibilities of 35 hours per week or more, as I said, and therefore should be excluded from the provisions of this Bill which prescribe that full entitlement to benefit should be conditional on participation in work-focused interviews. I am not advocating a passive welfare state. I do not believe that faceless bureaucracies benefit carers any more than any other client group. By all means provide full-time carers with the opportunity to have a discussion with a personal adviser to chat about benefits and so forth, but do not coerce them into doing so with the sting of benefit withdrawals or reduction. I beg to move.
  Lord Addington: Very briefly, the tone of the noble Lord's speech is one to which I hope the Minister can respond favourably. An interview to see how the state system can help a person to enhance their lives is

  225
  something which people will happily attend. But the idea of withdrawal of benefits is something that will probably sting these people very hard.
  Baroness Pitkeathley: I have some sympathy with these amendments. If I had the temerity to correct the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I would say that carers save the Treasury billions, not millions of pounds. I also have sympathy with his view that not all carers wish to work or can possibly be expected to work.
  However, it is important to understand that for many carers the offer of an interview, especially an appointment with a personal adviser, could be of benefit, particularly as carers constantly say that nobody recognises their position or takes any notice of their difficulties. But that will depend entirely on how the interview is conducted and on the skills and training of the personal adviser—a course we have already been round several times this afternoon.
  First, there is the issue of how the carer can get away to the interview if it is to be conducted somewhere other than home; and if it is to be conducted at home, how will it be conducted in private and in a confidential manner? While the mass of strategy for carers has put extra work and money into respite care for carers, there is no doubt that many carers still suffer the difficulties of having no break from their caring. Even when arrangements have been made for a carer to attend an interview, the unexpected always happens.
  As a carers' national association we are committed to enabling carers to speak up for themselves in meetings with Ministers, at conferences, with the media and so forth, but we always know that we have to have not one carer scheduled to do that, but at least two because the unexpected will happen and the carer will not be able to fulfil the commitment even when all the arrangements have been made, perhaps because of an unexpected worsening of the condition of the person for whom they are caring, or a simple refusal to accept the substitute care. I look forward to having the Minister's assurances that the personal advisers will he trained specifically in these particular issues to help people not only as regards work-focused arrangements but also to help them to gain access to other sources of information and other services.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Rix: Perhaps I may underline a statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. I once went to Manchester to see our people in what was then our PRMH, now PIMD (profound intellectual multiple disability project), which is a Mencap project. It was taking place in Piper Hill School, Manchester. There was an exhibition of work for profoundly multiply disabled young people and middle-aged people.
  Therefore, I totally support the idea that meaningful support from an interview for mothers, fathers or carers generally may be of the greatest possible use. At that function, I was horrified to see a man of 34 in a wheelchair with a profound multiple-intellectual impairment whose mother told me that she had never
  226
  received full benefits until she came to our project in Manchester after 34 years. Up to then, the best she had ever achieved were nappies for his incontinence.
  Baroness Buscombe: I support this amendment. What the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has just said amplifies the need for it. It has the effect of removing compulsion from the work-focused interview for carers. That means that for these groups the receipt of benefit will not be conditional on participation in a work-focused interview. It is important to stress that this amendment does not exclude people in this category from the interview process, thereby ensuring that in principle an interview is available for any claimant who might think they would benefit from it.
  The amendment protects the income of the most overworked carers, if I may put it so strongly, looking after children or disabled or elderly adults. We in the Disability Benefits Consortium lend full support to Amendments Nos. 96 and 104. If implemented properly, personal adviser interviews could provide benefit claimants with much needed information and assistance. For that reason, we would not want to see anyone denied an interview if they believe it appropriate.
  However, there are some people with caring responsibilities for whom an interview is simply inappropriate given their personal circumstances and their existing caring commitments. It is also important that benefit income should not be put at risk for people in this group because they have particular problems in attending interviews, for example, at times specified by the Benefits Agency.
  For some carers, day and night care-work and little sleep leave no possibility of paid employment or, may I suggest, even socialising. Research by Mencap reveals that over 40 per cent of carers of people with learning disabilities have not had an evening out in the past six months. Some carers normally get fewer than three hours sleep a night; others are having to cope with a norm of six hours of washing clothes and bed linen in addition to attending to personal care. Therefore, I believe that it is unrealistic and insensitive to penalise. carers by reducing or taking away what is often their only source of income because their commitment to care-work makes it impossible to honour an interview commitment with the Benefits Agency.
  The Government's affirmation of the work of carers in the recently announced National Carers Strategy could well be undermined if carers are required to justify their role in the Government's drive towards getting people off benefit and into paid employment.
  Compulsory work-focused interviews for carers are inconsistent with the Prime Minister's view that carers are,
  "the unsung heroes of British life".
  In his foreword to the National Carers Strategy the Prime Minister claimed that:
  "What carers do should be properly recognised and properly supported—and the Government should play its part".
  This amendment also safeguards the benefit of claimants who have responsibility for children below school age. That gives lone parents and families the

  227
  choice of looking after children without placing a requirement on them to discuss taking up work. The Disability Benefits Consortium is concerned by the statistics of the Benefits Agency which reveal that many children live in families whose single source of income is social security. It is particularly concerned about the position of low-income families caring for disabled children. To sanction benefits on account of non-attendance at an interview, even for a short period, could have a detrimental effect on the child. Indeed, it may well be the case that arranging suitable childcare is problematic, particularly for the parents of disabled children, and that missing an interview is unavoidable. Therefore, we speak in support of these amendments.
  Lord Davies of Coity: I believe that each of us will be sympathetic to the arguments that have been advanced in support of this amendment; but I fear that it presents one or two difficulties. The first is that it says,
  "thirty five hours per week or more".
  Why not 32, 30 or 25 hours per week? In fact, there may be people caring on a shared arrangement and working very much harder and having greater caring responsibilities, but who may not be working 35 hours per week. That presents an anomaly which would create difficulties for people in caring situations.
  The second problem is that if we put into the Bill the provision that anyone with caring commitments of 35 hours per week or more—
  Lord Rix: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am sure he is aware that one cannot be in receipt of the invalid care allowance unless by definition one is caring for more than 35 hours per week.
  Lord Davies of Coity: I certainly understand that. But I believe that if this amendment is put into the Bill, it could create difficulties. It would discriminate between different carers as regards the interview process.
  The second problem is that if the amendment is incorporated into the Bill, presumably someone will say to the benefits office, "I am caring for a person for more than 35 hours a week". Does the matter remain there and is accepted, or are further inquiries made to see whether or not that is correct? It seems to me that the arguments that have been advanced on behalf of carers would come out very clearly and plainly at the interviewing process. They would demonstrate clearly that the person would not be available for employment.
  Earl Russell: I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said what she did about the effect of this amendment. I understand that its effect would not be to deny an opportunity of an interview to someone who wants it. The amendment deals only with the compulsion. That is the theme to which we keep returning. We on these Benches—by that I refer to my honourable friends as well as my noble friends—have accepted the principle of the interview in the single gateway, subject to a very considerable concern about exceptions for vulnerable people of various sorts.
  228
  We do not seem to be having much success as regards the exception for vulnerable people. Perhaps I may stress again that it is not our intention at any stage to exclude them from the opportunity; it is our concern to protect them from compulsion. If that concern is not to be at all satisfied, we shall have to reconsider our attitude to the whole process. I would not wish to predict what the outcome of such consideration might be, as it will involve many people other than myself who have not yet had the opportunity of finding out what has taken place in this debate.
  Before we leave this subject, I would like to ask the Minister to do a little more thinking about exceptions and about whether she really wishes to move quite so much in the direction of work conscription. It is beginning to look rather perturbing and the language of opportunity, which we have heard and with which we agree, is beginning to look increasingly disproportionate to what is actually being done.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall deal with the noble Earl's remarks in a moment. However, I have to say that his choice of the word "conscription" was both misconceived and inappropriate, especially as I spent a considerable time when responding to the previous amendment explaining that disabled people, lone parents and the like are entirely free, following the interview, to do nothing at all.
  As the noble Lord explained, these amendments seek to exempt from the requirement to attend work-focused interviews people claiming invalid care allowance and others providing care for more than 35 hours a week. Perhaps I can explain why the Government think it right to include carers within the "one" service. In no sense is there any challenge to the extraordinary and valuable role performed by carers who, very often, impoverish themselves and break their own health in the very process of caring, as my noble friend has explained to us on many occasions. Indeed, quite the opposite.
  As I am sure all Members of the Committee will agree, the six million carers—only some 300,000 of whom are entitled to claim ICA—make a vital contribution to the well-being of this country and, above all, to the well-being of our people. The Prime Minister has already announced the allocation of £750 million over the next three years to promote independence through the prevention of illness and disability through rehabilitation. Carers and those they care for will benefit from this. In addition, we are making £140 million available to allow carers to take well-earned breaks from their caring responsibilities. At this point, I should like to pay tribute to the Carers National Association and to the work of my noble friend in achieving that response.
  The proposals in this clause will, of course, require those carers making claims to social security benefits, including the main carers' benefit, ICA, to take part in work-focused interviews both at the point of claim and at various points thereafter. All they will be required to do is to take part in an interview, which is designed to be of real assistance to them.
  There will be three main purposes for carers. First, as I emphasised previously, the interview will not deal exclusively with work-related issues. The personal

  229
  adviser will be able to offer a wide range of advice and support that can be valuable to the carer. This will include advice about other benefits to which he or she may be entitled. In addition, the personal adviser may be able to provide information on other organisations which support carers, in areas such as respite care. Such links may be crucial in helping carers avoid the isolation which often follows the onset of their responsibilities.
  Secondly, as I am sure Members of the Committee will acknowledge, some carers may be able to do some work despite the fact that they have heavy caring commitments. To receive ICA, someone must have caring commitments of at least 35 hours a week. Even so, around 10 per cent to 15 per cent of those who claim ICA do some work. So caring duties and part-time work are not necessarily mutually exclusive. We want the opportunity to discuss with carers whether they wish to consider part-time work, and, if they do, to give them the full range of help and support that they deserve to allow them to realise that ambition. However, I should like to stress again that we will not be forcing carers to follow this route, or any other.
  Thirdly, caring duties do not last for ever. Over one-third of those on ICA care for less than a year. The median length of claim for ICA is two years. Many carers move straight from ICA to jobseeker's allowance with its full range of work-focused conditions. We want to ease that transition by helping carers take what steps they reasonably can to stay in touch with the labour market or improve their employability throughout their period of caring responsibilities. Again, this will be subject to what is feasible, given the extent of their caring commitments.
  These are sensible proposals and ones which we hope many carers will welcome. However, for many people who have spoken today, the argument seems to hinge on the issue of compulsion. Members of the Committee have again suggested that the "one" service should be on an entirely voluntary basis for carers, as with others. I can understand why the noble Lord and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have made that suggestion, but I am afraid that I simply do not agree with them philosophically.
  As I said on Second Reading—and I hoped then that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, actually agreed with me—a key issue here is that you do not know what you do not know. If the noble Earl really believes that the interview can be valuable and helpful, I should point out to him that very often the people who will be in need of that help will be precisely those who will not learn of that help if the interview is voluntary. Therefore, they will not be available to take advantage of such assistance. The whole point about making the interview compulsory is that it is a way of actually empowering people to go on to make subsequent choices. If they do not have that first exposure to appropriate information, support and help, they will not be able to go on and make other choices, which may be more satisfying to them in their lives. That is the reason for it.
  If, following the interview, we were saying to carers that they must work even though they are caring for 35 hours a week and even though they are disabled and receiving incapacity benefit, I could take the noble
  230
  Earl's point. However, people do not know what they do not know. Unless we empower them through the compulsory interview, they will not have that information and will not be able to make such choices. People cannot choose if they do not know about the choices available.
  Earl Russell: I hear what the Minister says. If she will not give up the compulsion, will she consider a reduced penalty for those in vulnerable situations?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If someone is claiming benefit for the first time, the interview is part of that benefit claim unless it is deferred or waived in certain situations following guidance. If that person has had a repeat interview and failed to attend—for example, a trigger interview where the child is five or 11—obviously we are talking about sanctions of 20 per cent to 40 per cent. But people are coming into the system at the point at which they claim benefit. We are embedding that benefit claim in an interview. Indeed, many noble Lords will be quite surprised to learn that people can get benefit without actually having an interview.
  I really do not understand why the noble Earl is so resistant to the notion of a compulsory interview when he values the interview. Indeed, those it would most help would be those least likely to take advantage of such assistance were the interview not to be compulsory.
  Earl Russell: Has the Minister ever known any bureaucratic power which was infallibly exercised?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No. As I tried to explain earlier, that is precisely why anyone seeking to come for an interview would have three repeated contacts through letters or telephone calls. No one would lose benefit in this situation unless he had been personally contacted and was fully aware of the implications of his action. No benefit would be cut off by administrative error because no benefit would he cut off without personal contact having been made, based on home visits or the like. Although I cannot guarantee it, we have put in as much "belt and braces" as is conceivable or feasible under the present system.
  Perhaps I may turn from the point about what people do not know and move on to deal with some of the points raised by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley. The requirement to attend an interview is not an onerous one; indeed, we are talking about an interview which may last, say, an hour in the course of about a year. Those interviews will be arranged at times which fit in with a claimant's caring responsibilities. It can take place in the carer's home if that is appropriate. However, where it is not appropriate to expect someone to have a discussion with a personal adviser because, for example, the person being cared for is seriously ill, the interview can be deferred. My noble friend also asked about the training of staff. I can tell her that the Carers National Association is involved in the training of staff.
  We are approaching the concept of the interview based on the "one" programme as an opportunity for people. We want them to learn about their entitlement

  231
  to benefits; we want them to learn about support; and we want those carers who have come out of the labour market, and who may very quickly go back into it, to stay in contact with the labour market. However, we know that those who have had the least education, those who are most isolated and who have the most severe disabilities are those who have the least knowledge about their entitlements.
  If we rely on people coming forward voluntarily, we know that those who are already well educated and sharp are able to come forward and that those who most need help do not. That is why we are embedding the benefit claim in the interview. But following that, once people are informed and can make informed choices, the choice is theirs. They have the freedom and the right to make that choice. In the light of that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
  Lord Rix: Can the Minister assure me that the department will issue guidance on the service provided to full-time carers through the "one" process, and that guidance of a most detailed kind—as she said on the previous amendment—will be available for the offices taking part?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Guidance will be sent to personal advisers on how best to respond to all these situations—those of carers, severely disabled people and the like.
  Lord Rix: Does that include guidance on home visits as an alternative to having to go to an office?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, of course.
  Lord Rix: With that assurance, and with the slight proviso that I feel I must consult again with the Disability Benefits Consortium, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 97:
  Page 59, line 21, at end insert (";and such regulations shall not have effect unless they have been laid in draft before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.")
  The noble Earl said: The purpose of Amendment No. 97 is to use the affirmative procedure for regulations under Clause 52. It embodies a recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. That committee states in paragraph 11 of its report,
  "These are important new powers, and the Committee considers that wherever the Government's intention for the use of these powers is already certain, for example not requiring retired people to attend work-focused interviews, then this should be stated on the face of the Bill and not left to regulation. We also consider that the first instance of the use of these powers should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure".
  All governments have a good record on accepting the reports of that committee. The committee is a valuable servant of this Chamber. Indeed it has been suggested
  232
  by people of some importance that what it does is so important it might well be imitated elsewhere. That is not for me to say, but it shows that its work is recognised and respected well beyond the confines of this Chamber. The fact that the committee has made this recommendation is itself a serious reason for this amendment.
  Anyone who has heard this debate will, I think, understand that there are reasons for use of the affirmative procedure. We have found a good deal of uncertainty about the extent of the powers. We have found a good deal of room for dispute about the details of how the powers shall be exercised and a good deal of concern about the nature or extent of penalties. All these are matters which should properly be the concern of the Chamber. I admit that one must be wary about not applying the affirmative procedure to too many issues. We need to keep the affirmative procedure for occasions when there is likely to be a considerable body of people in the Chamber wanting to discuss the issue because it is of general concern and because the issues which it raises are extremely various. I think this debate has proved that that criterion is here wholly satisfied. Therefore the case for the affirmative procedure under the regulations under Clause 52 is a strong one.
  We are having a new condition of benefit. How much change that will mean is a point which I think remains open to discovery. The discovery will in part come from seeing those regulations. It will concern everyone. If we are to tease out exactly what the meaning is, we need the issue brought forward in open Chamber where we can all have a look at it. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was hoping that the noble Earl would feel able to withdraw this amendment because he has had a copy of the letter to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee accepting its proposals. I can give a full answer if he likes but, given that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee asked that the first set of regulations should be subject to an affirmative resolution procedure, we have written to the committee saying that we are happy to agree to that. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has received a copy of that letter, as has the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I wonder whether, in the light of that, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Baroness Buscombe: Before the Minister sits down, would she in those circumstances be prepared to publish the draft regulations to which this Bill refers prior to the Report stage?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall have to take advice on that but I would hope so.
  Earl Russell: I think that I owe the Minister an apology. I think the Minister knows that the Chamber sat late last night. One o'clock in the morning is not the best time to start opening post; it does not make one particularly popular at home. I hope that under those circumstances the Minister will forgive me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 98:
  Page 59, line 21, at end insert—
  ("(1A) A work-focused interview for a person receiving or applying for or having applied for incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance, or disability premia in income support shall only take place once the personal capability assessment provided for in section 171C of the Contributions and Benefits Act has been made.")
  The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, we ask simply for clarification as to the processes for assessing a claimant's ability to work or not, and the work-focused interview. In another place it was said that the two processes—the personal capability assessment and the work-focused interview—are separate but related. But how are they related? We believe that the personal capability assessment should be a prerequisite for a proper work-focused interview. I suggest that it would not make sense to have a work-focused interview before the capability assessment has been made. To have a capability assessment after a work-focused interview would be illogical and possibly an expensive waste of money. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This amendment seeks to stipulate on the face of the Bill that claimants of incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance and income support with a disability premium will all have their initial "one" interview deferred until after they have had a personal capability assessment (PCA).
  I know that the relationship between the "one" service and the personal capability assessment was discussed at length in another place, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has raised some of the same issues today. But, although I can appreciate the intentions behind the amendment, I do not believe that it would be right to accept it.
  As the Committee knows, Clause 56 of the Bill replaces the current all-work test with the personal capability assessment. The all-work test determines whether people are incapable of work for the purposes of entitlement to incapacity benefits. The PCA will still do this, and the criteria for entitlement to benefit will remain the same. However, we want to add value to the assessment process, by using it to collect additional information about people's work-related capabilities.
  The "one" service aims to help people from the outset of their claim, changing the culture of the benefit system. The earlier support is given, the more likely people are to focus on planning a route to a fuller life, and the less likely they are to be left stranded on benefit, often against their wishes. That is why we feel it is important for as many people as possible to have an interview immediately at the point of claim.
  However, as I say, for most people, taking part in an interview is not an onerous requirement—we are not requiring anyone to do anything unreasonable. The interview is not a test of eligibility for benefit. The PCA is a medical test which achieves that. The "one" interviews, on the other hand, will offer practical and welfare-related support, and a chance to talk about whether any work or training would be appropriate. They give us a chance to show what help we can offer. For these reasons, I do not believe that it would be right
  234
  to automatically defer the initial "one" interview until after the PCA. This would also run counter to the aim of the "one" service to treat people as individuals. it is important to bear in mind the range of disabilities, circumstances and barriers to work that affect claimants of incapacity benefits. In addition, the nature, stage and progress of their condition may be quite different. For example, some people come onto incapacity benefit after spending up to six months on statutory sick pay, and some come straight on to IB at the start of their illness or disability. Many people may, therefore, benefit from an interview at the outset of their claim.
  Of course, as I have said several times—I must be boring the Committee—we recognise that for some people an immediate interview would not be appropriate. For example, it would not be appropriate for us to interview immediately someone in the early stages of recovering from a major operation. However, the decision to defer the interview will always be made on the basis of individual circumstances. We have always made it clear that we will respond to people's needs in a sensitive way, but we do not believe that it would be right automatically to waive or defer the interview for specific groups.
  As I said, we believe that the interviews and the advice and support of a personal adviser are helpful. We want the interviews to be positive. It would be quite wrong for certain groups of people who could benefit from getting that help to have to wait, often several months, until a PCA comes through. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
  7 p.m.
  Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for that explanation. However, I may not have entirely understood it. What happens if a claimant attends a work-focused interview and then, at that interview, is found to he incapable of work?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Claimants will acquire the entitlement to incapacity benefit by virtue of their score on the all-work test. As the noble Baroness will know, we are not changing anything on that issue; for example, if a person scores 15 points or more on the all-work test for physical disability, he will be entitled to IB; if he has a mental health incapacity, the score is 10 points. That is not changing. There is a Chinese wall between a person's entitlement to benefit and a personal capability assessment.
  One of the big criticisms of the all-work test—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I were shoulder to shoulder on this when it was first introduced—is that it concentrates on the negatives. It concentrates on the things that people cannot do—they cannot put a hat on their head; they cannot lift a bag of potatoes; they cannot do this and they cannot do that—and they score points accordingly. One of the criticisms that has always been made by the disability groups—and which I was making on behalf of those same organisations when I was sitting on the Benches opposite—was that the test did not show what people could do. It did not show whether they had

  235
  the capacity to do other things and could move on to other areas of work with appropriate support and training.
  If someone in a HGV driving job developed major back problems, for example, and could not continue driving, it is possible that with retraining there may be some other, more clerically based jobs that he would like to do and be happy doing. The all-work test will simply ensure his entitlement to IB; the personal capability assessment will, given the nature of his situation—his disabilities and so on—discuss with him what he may be able to do. Whether he chooses to take up any of that advice remains entirely up to him.
  Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I wish to consider the matter a little more. Perhaps I may suggest that it will be referred to again under Clause 56. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 99:
  Page 59, line 21, at end insert—
  ("() Regulations shall provide that a refusal by such a person to undertake work proposed at such an interview shall not, of itself, lead to a loss of benefit entitlement.")
  The noble Baroness said: I should say at the outset that I have no quarrel with the general concept of a single gateway into the benefits system. I accept that it remains a complex system, even after attempts to simplify it. Many claimants have no idea of their entitlement, particularly older claimants. If a single gateway implies the establishment of a proper counselling service designed to ensure that claimants are fully aware of all the options open to them, including benefit entitlement, it can only be a welcome development. Of course, I also agree that people should be encouraged to take suitable employment. This would, of course, imply a fairly sophisticated training programme for the staff who will have to operate the scheme. I hope that arrangements will be in place for that to happen. I welcome the noble Baroness's assurances in that respect.
  However, it seems to me that there may be problems. If there is an agenda at the back of all this designed to get as many people as possible off benefits, the temptations for the officials operating the scheme would be to pressurise people into taking employment, no matter how unsuitable or underpaid. I am particularly concerned about lone parents of young children. In fact, I wonder whether mothers of children under five should be expected to attend for interview at all. During one of our debates in the House about lone parents, an assurance was given on behalf of the Government that lone parents would not be compelled to take up employment.
  Given what appears in other parts of the Bill, I sometimes question whether those who think up policies believe things have changed for women far more than they actually have. In a recent pilot scheme
  236
  aimed at getting lone parents into work, which was conducted in Cardiff, it was noticeable that the only women who pronounced the scheme a success were those with professional training, for whom well paid jobs were available. The majority, who were not in that category, could see nothing in it for them.
  Noble Lords have spoken about the disabled. I agree with the concerns that have been voiced. Again, I welcome the assurances given by the Minister in regard to some of those concerns.
  As I read the Bill, it seems to me that people already in receipt of benefit could be summoned for a work-focused interview. Many people may feel scared or intimidated by the invitation to attend such an interview and may possibly not attend, thus risking the loss of benefits. The middle classes are used to dealing with officialdom and, generally speaking, are not intimidated by it. It is not always the same, I fear, for the ill-informed or the ill-educated.
  If, therefore, the scheme is, as the Government have so often described it, a move to try to show claimants the range of options—and not to pressurise people into taking any sort of job, whether unsuitable, ill paid, perhaps a long way from home or with inconvenient hours and various other drawbacks—and if it is not a move to get people off benefits no matter how, it would seem reasonable to include something like my amendment on the face of the Bill.
  I should not like to see this country moving in the direction of the United States' workfare system. Although I am sure that much can be learned from America, it must be recalled that it seems impossible for it to do anything about the increasingly dangerous underclass which exists in most major cities and which has become totally alienated from normal society. The Government have rightly proposed policies aimed at avoiding that kind of social exclusion. They should continue that philosophy by supporting my amendment, which stipulates that the regulations shall provide that a refusal by a person to undertake work proposed at an interview shall not of itself—I emphasise that—lead to a loss of benefit entitlement. I beg to move.
  Earl Russell: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said. We understand the point the Minister has made many times that there will not be compulsion but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I remember some of our exchanges on the issue of single parents. There is a middle ground—a very undistributed middle—between being compelled to work and being allowed to continue to receive benefit. There is an area for feeling under pressure, under encouragement, under constant suggestion, under the instillation of a sense of guilt. All these things make a difference to people.
  I do not know whether the Minister saw an article in the Observer just over a week ago about the missing millions. These are people who have disappeared from the benefit rolls and from most else as well. One of the people the Observer talked to said that he had gone off benefit and disappeared—he did not explain how he made his living; one might wonder—because he was

  237
  tired of being made to feel a drain, no good, a burden on society and so forth every time he drew benefit. That is a wonderful example of the law of unintended consequence. The noble Baroness's amendment draws attention to that danger.
  We need an assurance not only that people will not be compelled to work, but that it will be recognised that in the end they themselves—especially those with young children and if they are exempt from the actively seeking work rules—are the best judges of whether or not they ought to be working. That is a vital point of recognition of individuality, without which bureaucracy can become extremely burdensome.
  I am very glad, too, that the noble Baroness said what she did about the United States. The United States has achieved a great deal of saving on its welfare rolls. I believe that 3 million people have disappeared from those rolls. We do not know what has happened to those people but we do know, when we consider the costs to the United States' and state treasuries, that the prison budget has taken up the slack left by the welfare system. That is a very expensive system. Concern for the taxpayer, if nothing else, would make it quite important to avoid it. So when one is thinking about pressure one ought to think about all these possible unintended consequences.
  Where one is dealing with people with physical handicaps, who have occupied a great deal of our debate today, one should accept that very often they can judge what they are capable of doing when others cannot. To take as one example back conditions, there are many people who on some days can do a great deal of work. On other days they really cannot. No outsider can really judge that, and unless there is this recognition of people's individuality the whole thing will be a misery. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for drawing attention to precisely these points.
  Lord Rix: I welcome this amendment because it would require any government considering a more radical approach to compulsion to bring forward primary legislation in order to introduce such a change. We may be aligning ourselves a little more closely to our European neighbours in terms of monetary policy, but when it comes to social policy transatlantic influences are clearly evident, as underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. There are a number of more radical US models of compulsion which I am certain that Parliament would want to scrutinise very carefully before their introduction in the United Kingdom is even contemplated.
  7.15 p.m.
  Baroness Buscombe: I rise to speak in strong support of this amendment. We accept that people should be encouraged to take up suitable employment but we question, as have the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the pressure that may be put upon people to take up work, remembering that we are talking about a single gateway,
  238
  which has that emphasis on work. In particular we have referred to lone parents with young children, those who are disabled and those recently bereaved.
  Reactions to the Government's proposals for the single gateway from pressure groups has largely concentrated, as we have heard earlier, on the measures to compel benefit claimants to attend interviews as a condition of claiming benefit. I suggest also that it has to do with the pressure which may follow naturally on attendance at an interview. In an article for the Independent responding to an earlier article by Alistair Darling on the single gateway, Martin Barnes, Director of the Child Poverty Action Group said:
  "The benefits regime is tough already, don't make it tougher. CPAG agrees that for those who want to and are able to work, paid employment is a route out of poverty. But work is not, Hid should not be made to be, an option for all—there must also be genuine security and dignity for those without paid work. The issue of tie adequacy of benefits should be addressed by Alistair Darling, not ignored. Benefits can help prevent poverty, even if the causes are many and complex".
  Also, in a press release responding to tile Bill, Gingerbread, a pressure group representing lone parents, welcomed the fact that lone parents would have access to accurate information about work, training and work-related benefits. Gingerbread, in a press release on the welfare reform Bill on 10th February 1999, expressed its concern over certain aspects of the proposals for the single gateway, and in particular whether the interview would be carried out by an adviser with expertise on the specific needs of lone parents, such as childcare and training needs.
  Gingerbread also argued that for lone parents who had recently been through a separation pressure could add to an individual's stress. On the issue of lone parents and work, it argued that lone parents should be able to make a choice about whether or not they work, based on the needs of their children. They said that parenting was important work, with a long-term benefit to society. Ii must be made clear that lone parents will not have to work. They will only attend an interview to receive information.
  That point brings us to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said in relation to compulsion in connection with interviews. It should also be impressed upon personal advisers that there has to be a really careful balance struck between the need to encourage people to feel positive about work and also about the need to accept that there are many people on benefits now who, for good reason, wish to remain so, particularly lone parents, the disabled and those recently bereaved.
  A number of examples have been raised this afternoon as to why compulsory interviews should not take place. I think there are many more examples. I would particularly refer to multiple sclerosis, where sufferers from that disease can often go through a long period of remission. When in remission they would be perfectly capable of taking up a job, but I would hope that the Minister can give reassurance that the personal advisers would understand that such remission is for an unforeseeable period, and that the patient, though feeling well at the interview and able to take up work, may within days or weeks, or overnight, have relapsed

  239
  into a state in which he or she is simply not capable of working. Therefore in supporting this amendment, we are asking for an enormous degree of sensitivity in relation to the whole interview process. As has been said earlier, we thoroughly support the principle of the interview but we would want to be reassured that nobody would be put under pressure to accept a job where that would be unreasonable.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If I may begin with that last point, I am very happy to give that assurance. I will not deal with the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as he is not in his place at the moment; but my noble friend Lady Turner raised this matter in terms of whether a lone parent, for example, should be expected to work if there is a child under five, or even to go to an interview at all, on the assumption that anyone with a child under five would not want to work and should not come for an interview.
  Under the new deal for lone parents, I have been startled to find that nearly a third of those seeking to come on to the new deal have children under five. I think we accept too easily and too freely the assumptions, often of a different generation, of what women themselves say that they want. Our intention with these interviews, as the noble Earl said, is to empower people who are the best judges of what they should do to make that judgment in an informed way, if they are lone parents or have a disability. Lone parents were telling me, even those with children under five, that they did not see that going into work was an inferior way of bringing up children; they actually thought it was the best way of bringing up their children, providing that the hours and the pay were right and that childcare was available.
  As my noble friend has explained, this amendment is intended to ensure that the provisions in Clause 52 cannot be used to force benefit claimants to take up employment against their will. I can assure her that no such intention lies behind the taking of this path. The Government have made their position very clear, both in the other place and in this Chamber. We wish to introduce into the benefits system a requirement that clients of working age take part in the "one" interviews. We are not introducing into this clause any further conditions. We do want people to attend the interviews, to talk about the barriers that stand in their way and to discuss the help and opportunities that are available to them. They will then be free to decide for themselves whether to take up those opportunities. It will be a matter of choice, but it will be informed choice. So I am happy, as I have said, to reassure my noble friend. I hope that as a result she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for the assurances she has given this afternoon. I am very glad that they will be in Hansard and that we shall be able to look at them again. However, I still wonder, since that is so, why there would be any objection at all to including my wording, or something very similar to it, on the face of the Bill. As I said
  240
  earlier, people can feel intimidated by a requirement to attend for interview. I have evidence of that, as I am often approached by women seeking advice on these matters. If that is the case, I do not see why there should not be a provision on the face of the Bill stating positively that if a person turns down an offer of employment, that does not, of itself, disqualify the claimant from benefit. However, in view of the noble Baroness's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, although I may return to the matter on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 100 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 101:
  Page 59, line 26, leave out paragraph (d)
  The noble Baroness said: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 101, and respectfully suggest that it might make a great deal of sense to speak next to Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 together.
  Amendment No. 101 relates specifically to widows and widows' bereavement benefits falling within Sections 21E and 21EA of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act. This amendment is important. We do not believe it appropriate to engage people in the gateway process and encourage them to find work in certain circumstances. This matter has been discussed; however, it is important to make reference to bereavement benefits.
  We are concerned that in certain circumstances, at a very difficult time, people should not be forced to take part in a "one" in order to receive benefit. Although there are to be exceptions to compulsion, we believe that regulations regarding those exceptions should be carefully crafted to protect those who may, for example, be suffering considerable, albeit invisible, mental distress.
  We also question the skills of the personal advisers and the extent of their training to deal with such cases. In addition, account should be taken of widows with dependent children. It is fair to say that women, particularly those who make what is often a difficult choice to stop work in order to care for their children, lose considerable confidence when they do so. They need an enormous amount of support to face the world of work again; and they will be doing so without their spouse to support them and help them to regain that confidence. I can speak from personal experience. When I stopped work to have my three children, I found that my confidence in the workplace was considerably reduced. It has taken some time to find it again.
  Further, we believe that we should respect the fact that many widows, and indeed widowers, will possibly have spent many months, even years, caring for their partners and are simply not in the physical and mental good health that is necessary to seek work. The Bill includes an exemption for those with "good cause". We ask: who is the arbiter of that cause? Again, the personal carers will have an enormous responsibility placed upon them. There is also a question as to whether they will be able to understand people's sensitivities. We heard

  241
  earlier from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that some interviewers are simply not sensitive. We must confront that fact. People are human, and some have failings in that sense. So we are asking for reassurance, if the Minister is not minded to accept the amendment, that as part of the training for personal advisers considerable regard is paid to the very sensitive period that widows and those in receipt of bereavement benefits go through. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps the noble Baroness can help me. I understood from her introductory remarks that she intended to group all three amendments together.
  Baroness Buscombe: I should like to speak to the next two amendments together.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: So this amendment is separate and the next two will be taken together. I misunderstood the noble Baroness.
  Amendment No. 101 seeks to exclude widows and widowers from the requirement to participate in a work-focused interview. I have every sympathy with the intention that those who have recently experienced bereavement should be treated with respect, consideration and sensitivity. I do not believe that excluding people from the "one" service is the right way to do it.
  The noble Baroness will recall that when we discussed widows' benefits the other evening, I tried to make the point that many widows or widowers are already in work when their spouse becomes ill; they become carers, possibly for only a fortnight, for a month, or for two or three years; and although they want to return to work, they may need help to do so. Others will move back into work very speedily. As I said, in that case, women often find it easier to return to work than do men. Others, particularly those who find themselves with childcare responsibilities, will want to stay in touch with the possibilities and to explore what they might do in future. The "one" service will enable them to do so, by providing each individual with a personal adviser who will help them to gain access to the help and support that is available to them. Personal advisers will receive guidance and training to help them to relate to clients in an appropriate and sensitive way. An immediate interview is not necessarily appropriate, in which case personal advisers will be able to defer the requirement and pay the benefit as soon as possible. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I listened with great care to the recent debate on the question of widow's bereavement benefit. It is important to stress the difference between many women of our generation who are in the world of work today and, in contrast, women of my mother's generation, were she to be alive today; namely, women in their 70s and 80s. There are many women who, although they are still of working age, are not used to working or have become unused to it. We believe that
  242
  enormous sensitivity should apply in such cases. I hear what the Minister says in terms of the training of personal advisers and her reassurance that sensitivity will be an important part of that training. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 102:
  Page 59, line 29, leave out paragraph (e)
  The noble Baroness said: As I suggested, it would make sense to speak to Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 together. I shall be brief. Much of what I had intended to say has already been covered in considerable discussion. However, I make no apology for repeating that, although we and the disability organisations believe that engaging disabled people in the gateway and encouraging them to find work is important and right, it is also crucial to ensure that genuinely disabled people are not pushed into situations and interviews for which they are not well enough.
  In that regard, particular reference must be made to those who feel almost an innate sense of fear in terms of the compulsion to attend a "work-focused" interview rather than, as I have previously suggested, a "personal development" interview, because they feel that they will not be capable of responding properly to that interview.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rix, gave some straightforward and moving examples, with particular reference to his daughter, as to why the whole interview process should not be compulsory for certain people.
  I support the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who again and again has pushed for the removal of any words that express compulsion in relation to the work-focused interview for those in receipt of incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance. We do not believe that that is a positive way forward. Many disabled people want to work, and they should be encouraged to have work-focused interviews. However, there are those for whom this proposal is unrealistic. If the interview is compulsory, fine: the person will turn up for the interview or it will take place in the home. But in the end how much will be gained from making those interviews compulsory? Those who want to work and seek information can do so by choice. We very much hope that through that process they will be guided in the right direction, supported and will find work, which is laudable. However, we suggest that for those who are incapable of work and do not want to attend an interview compulsion will not take the process any further, in which case the whole cost of the process will not justify making it compulsory. If it is optional most people will take it up, but there is a significant group of people who will not do so. I beg to move.
  7.30 p.m.
  Earl Russell: I offer my support for this group of amendments. If I do not explain why it is only because I would be repeating either what I or the noble Baroness have said, or both.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: These two amendments would remove claimants of IB and SDA

  243
  from the requirements of the Bill to participate in the "one" interviews. I do not accept that. There are 1.6 million who receive IB, all of whom once had a job. Nearly 400,000 currently receive SDA. They have very different conditions and needs and range from people who are off work for a few weeks with a bad back to people who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness. It is vital that we should be able to treat each person as an individual and take steps towards meeting each person's needs, as the "one" service is designed to do.
  The personal adviser will consider each case individually and decide whether there should be an interview now, whether it should be deferred or waived altogether or whether it should take place in the home. The advisers will be extensively trained with the support of the professional voluntary organisations that relate to the area of our debate this evening. Where the client will not benefit, for example if he or she has a terminal illness, the interview will be waived; where it is not appropriate at the particular time, perhaps because the individual has just come out of hospital, it may be deferred until he or she is ready to think about the future. But in all these cases there is a real role for the personal adviser to sort out benefit claims and support and advise on a future plan of action to help out the individual and the carer, if there is one.
  The crunch point between us is whether the interview should be compulsory or optional. The noble Baroness believes that most people who would benefit from an interview would take it up. That is not our experience in relation to the New Deal for lone parents where about three-quarters of those concerned do not respond to an invitation. However, of those who do respond, 88 per cent take up the invitation. That is a new voluntary scheme which is not well publicised and is still in its infancy. However, those who take up that invitation benefit from it. We are concerned about those who do not know what they do not know and miss out on the opportunities to learn.
  Earl Russell: Does not the noble Baroness offer us the classic case of the pre-selected sample?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes. Where it is voluntary those who already are fairly knowledgeable about the help on offer come forward, whereas those who are not fail to come forward. The latter are the ones in greatest need. The noble Earl makes my point better than I could myself.
  Earl Russell: Has the Minister any reason to assume that the same success rate will be scored for those who do not come forward voluntarily?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is not a success rate judged by whether somebody goes to work but by whether somebody is able to make an informed choice as to what to do. For example, based on experience under the New Deal, someone who fails to attend an interview, perhaps because of poor educational qualifications or because he or she lives in a poor and isolated estate and is unaware of the opportunities,
  244
  remains the most disadvantaged and handicapped. One either accepts that people do not know what they do not know or that there is an open choice. I believe that the true way to help people is to empower them to make informed choices, which is the purpose of the interview.
  If, following the interview, people choose not to go to work because it is not appropriate for them, we agree with that choice; that is their choice which they have every right to make. But they cannot make that choice if they are not informed of the basis of it. For that reason, we believe it is right that, unless there is good reason either to defer or waive the interview, people should attend as part of the claims process. In that way, the remaining steps that they may want to take will be based on an informed choice which otherwise they may not be able to make.
  Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her explanation. It will probably be difficult to reach an agreement on this matter. We firmly believe that certain people should be given the choice whether or not to attend an interview. That will relieve stress and fear and create a much more positive environment to help people to cope. We may return to this matter at a later stage. However, on the basis that the Minister has given a number of assurances this evening, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments No. 103 and 104 not moved.]
  Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

Prisons
7.35 p.m.
The Earl of Longfordrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the latest annual report from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons; and what developments there have been since the report was published.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have 10 minutes. That does not seem generous but it is far longer than the time allocated to the distinguished speakers who follow me, apart from the time available to the most eminent of all, the Minister. I am sorry that the other speakers may have to indulge in a series of soundbites when they have so much wisdom to offer us.
If I had been able to table this Motion a month ago, I would have been able to pay an almost unqualified tribute to the approach of the Government and the prison department under its new director. I would have had to qualify it to the extent that the size of the future prison population was, and still is, uncertain. I believe that it has been held down in recent times, but no one knows.

245
Only the official predictions provide any guide to whether there will be a big increase in the prison population in the years ahead.
If I had been speaking a month ago, I would have said that the Government had the full confidence of the Chief Inspector of Prisons. I take this opportunity to say that the Chief Inspector of Prisons is one of the men I admire most in the country; another is his predecessor Judge Tumim. If I say that the present inspector is a man of the same quality, I cannot praise him any higher. However, he has the additional advantage of being a soldier, which means that people do not believe that he will be soft on crime. They might have thought that the other one was perhaps an artist. They are both wonderful men.
If I had been speaking a month ago, I would have paid an unqualified tribute. A good deal of tribute must still be paid. However, I should have had to point out the problem of the increase in prison population under the legislation now passed; no one knows what it will be. But that is all speculation.
In the past few weeks, we have been faced with something very unpleasant: the report on Wormwood Scrubs by the chief inspector. I warned the eminent Minister that I should refer to Wormwood Scrubs. Indeed, it comes under the scope of the Motion. I think that we can all agree that it is the most lamentable report on a prison that has been produced for many years. It is certainly the worst during my 50 years' experience of prison visiting. Are we to blame anyone in particular? In the House and elsewhere blame has been freely distributed and justly received. The department comes under censure, as do prison officers. But the Home Office has got off rather undeservedly lightly. When President Nixon was disgraced, he said that he would not grovel. I do not ask the Minister to grovel, but I think that a few humble words would be appropriate considering what a wretched show this is. The Home Office cannot avoid full responsibility.
Two years ago, the Chief Inspector of Prisons announced that that the situation in Wormwood Scrubs was deplorable. Two years later, he announced that it was rather worse. Someone is to blame in the mean while. One can blame the prison officers or the prison service, but the Home Office and Ministers cannot escape blame. It would be as well if they recognised that.
I take up one point. After the first report, there was a gap of six months when there was no governor in Wormwood Scrubs. Who was to blame for that? You may say, the prison governor, but one cannot absolve the Home Secretary from such a serious lapse. That is plain enough.
I recently praised highly the Home Secretary for a new approach, although I would not have done so a year earlier. That was before the Wormwood Scrubs report. I said that the moment for canonisation—treating him as a saint—had not quite arrived. In view of the report, there is even more reason to say that it has not yet arrived.
246
What are the Home Office and the prison service going to do? I believe that they will set out to do a lot of good things. All that they have said is excellent. I believe that the new chief inspector was given almost a standing ovation when he addressed prison officers recently. So a new mood has taken root. All that is encouraging, but let us at least admit past failures and do not let us try to put the blame on someone else.
What about the future? I must say one thing which will not make the Minister any fonder of me, but I have to risk that. Like everyone else who has been concerned with prisoners for any length of time, I am passionately opposed to privatisation of prisons. It seems to me that the Home Secretary and the Minister in this House are toying with moving in that direction. That is a total dereliction of duty on the part of those who seize people, rightly. The courts rightly convict people and lock them up, perhaps for years. Responsibility for those people remains with the Government. One cannot say to a prisoner, "I say, old chap, why don't you see the error of your ways and behave better?" He would say, "You're just acting for some commercial interest". It defeats the whole purpose of the prison system.
Perhaps I may commend the words of the poet to our much respected Minister, who is rightly successful here:
"Turn again oh my sweetest
"The beaten ways are treated as hell's own track".
For God's sake, let us rule out privatisation. I give one reason for ruling it out. If one asks any people in the prison service why they do not trust the present Government, they say that it is because the Government are toying with privatisation and bypassing them. That is not very nice, is it? It is not good Labour Party policy, I should have thought. The problem is the bypassing of the POA and doing without a trade union within the business. I think that it is a disgrace. I hope and believe that that will be repudiated, if not tonight perhaps later.
I have sought to be constructive. I have given the Minister a few hours' notice of this point. Is it not possible to try to establish a better relationship with the Prison Officers' Association? Alternatively, do the Government despair of them? Do they feel, "We can't do anything with the POA. We'll go for commercial interests"? I hope that the Minister will consider this point. I ventured to place it before him a few hours ago. There should be a representative of the Prison Officers' Association on the new strategic board. I think that that might be the beginning of a better relationship. I do not ask for an answer tonight.
I spoke recently too quickly and too crudely when I said that to be a prison officer was an appalling profession. It is an appallingly difficult profession, but, when all is said and done, I agree with what the Minister said: the great majority of prison officers approach the task in a noble spirit. I would rather leave that thought tonight.
The Home Secretary and the revered Minister here have a heavy responsibility. Few of us would be capable of discharging it. Years ago when someone had the idea of my being Home Secretary—it was not likely; I was in the House of Lords—my friend Evelyn Waugh wrote that it would be fatal if I were to become Home

247
Secretary; we would all be murdered in our beds. I do not say that there was ever any chance of my being Home Secretary. I say only that few of us would feel able to tackle the job. The Home Secretary has to win and maintain the confidence of the public and, above all, those responsible for order. But he is a good, strong Christian socialist and I am sure that these words are very familiar to him. Jesus Christ said,
"I was in prison, and ye came unto me … Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of my brethren, ye have done it unto me".
7.47 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Earl for introducing the debate this evening. I am sure that I would not have read this annual report without having the target of speaking in the debate.
It is important for us to realise that, while many failures of the system are highlighted in the report, some good practices are being introduced. It was encouraging to see that. Some prisons are being run very well, although others are not.
I should like to ask the Minister questions on three specific points. I start with a restructuring proposal on page 21 of the report. My motive in asking the question is purely altruistic. This change would make the life of the Minister responsible for prisons immeasurably easier. I refer to the appointment of one director over one type of prison such as women's prisons or young people's prisons. What is the Government's view on that proposal?
Secondly, I turn to the subject of education, work skills and training for employment, a subject about which noble Lords have frequently talked over many years and which many of us believe is key to the future of the prison population. On page 11, one prison is mentioned which provides only 7 per cent of prisoners with education on each day. It is appalling that only 60 out of 860 prisoners can receive education. Bearing in mind that literacy and numeracy levels of the majority of people in prison are way below average, education is crucially important. The report also points out that 97 per cent of those leaving prison will be unemployed. It makes the valuable point, with which I fully agree, that securing a job, coupled with a home and a stable partnership, is the best combination for avoiding recidivism.
What are the Government's present plans for improving education and training for employment? In particular, should all prisoners at the outset, immediately after sentencing, complete an aptitude test similar to that taken by New Deal young prisoners? I feel that this would be very beneficial. Although it would cost money, it would make the training in prison much better focused. That should be additional to the education needs assessment which is recommended for each prison, but the results of these aptitude tests would surely contribute substantially to that needs assessment.
Thirdly, I should like to mention youth. I welcome the appointment of an Assistant Director of Regimes for young offenders who can look at programmes in each
248
relevant institution. Does the assistant director need more authority and greater responsibility? On page 14 reference is made to having one person responsible for all aspects of the imprisonment of young people and being given authority over allocated resources. Should that be this assistant director and would that help the situation of the young?
I should like warmly to commend Thorn Cross Youth Offenders Institution. It provides a 16-hour full, purposeful and active day, and young prisoners are responding to that regime. This will make an enormous difference. I want to end on that cheerful note.
7.51 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, there are two aspects of the Chief Inspector's report to which I wish to draw attention. One is the matter of chaplaincy and the other is that of family centres in prisons for women. Both are emphasised by him and both are naturally of interest to the churches. I wish to refer to the ecumenical work which the churches are doing in both these areas.
First, there is the matter of chaplaincy. Sir David says that
"the contribution of the Chaplaincy is wholly positive, and an important factor in the life of every prison".
He mentions the way in which the chaplains work in multi-faith teams and the fact that the vast majority of governors encourage the work of chaplains wherever possible. The churches are most grateful for that encouragement.
In some prisons, such as Bristol, the chaplain has played a major role in dealing with bereaved relatives following a suicide, and that work is commended in the report. In my own city of Gloucester the review of the chaplaincy speaks of their
"excellent work in reducing the unsettling effects of moving prisoners between jails".
The overcrowding in prisons is a major cause for concern and this has a bad impact on the life of families. The chaplaincy does what it can, but it is not always easy.
Secondly, there is the issue of visit centres. On page 40 of his report Sir David uses strong language about the way in which visitors are handled. He says that it is "frankly appalling" that at some prisons there are no facilities for visitors. He praises the way in which the voluntary sector, including, I might add, the Mothers' Union and the Bourne Trust, provides facilities for visitors, but he asks why it should be up to the voluntary sector to fund this. That question is echoed in an excellent new publication which was published recently by the Catholic Agency for Social Concern and entitled Women in Prison. I urge noble Lords to read this very good document. It calls for family visiting areas where families can stay overnight.
Two-thirds of women prisoners have children under the age of 16. In many cases these children have to make a very long journey to see their mother. After a visit which is often stressful and maybe to a prison with very few facilities, those children then have a very long return journey home on the same day. That, in effect, is

249
a punishment of the child as well as the mother. I hope that the words of Sir David and the recommendation of this Catholic report are taken very seriously indeed.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, in his report Sir David Ramsbotham has a number of passages on young prisoners and the new Youth Justice Board that I chair. I wish to address my remarks to these aspects of his report.
In my judgment, Sir David has performed a notable public service in drawing our attention over a period of time to the poor conditions and regimes which far too many young offenders have been experiencing in recent years. He cites in his report episodes at Werrington and has drawn attention to some of the problems experienced by juveniles in Feltham. They reveal that reform is badly necessary. I should like to say a little about what the Youth Justice Board has been doing since Sir David wrote his report.
The Home Secretary—and I do not know whether this will qualify him in his bid for canonisation—has agreed in principle that from April 2000 the board should become responsible for the commissioning and purchasing of all places in the juvenile secure estate. That includes the 2,400 or so places used by juveniles in the Prison Service as well as those places occupied by young offenders in local authority secure accommodation and the secure training centres. This means that the board will actually hold the budget and let contracts for a specified number of places in particular facilities.
These contracts will relate as far as the Prison Service is concerned to facilities that are part of its new discrete juvenile secure estate within the service. The contracts will make detailed requirements of each facility on the standards to be met, including the types of regime to be provided. Without going into a great deal of detail, I can say quite unequivocally that those standards will be much higher than has often been provided in the past. The board's approach is to use contracting to ensure that individual facilities provide good quality education and training programmes for all young offenders, together with programmes that tackle effectively their offending behaviour. All young offenders need to spend far more time engaged in well-run programmes that provide a better prospect of them returning to the community without re-offending.
The board has provided Home Office Ministers with advice on how the new commissioning and purchasing arrangements would work in detail. My right honourable friend the Minister has been his usual helpful and supportive self in this process. My understanding is that our proposals are broadly endorsed by Ministers and will be published shortly for consultation. Taken together with the new national standards that the board has prepared for the new detention and training order that comes into operation next April, I believe that these new arrangements will produce far better outcomes for young offenders than in the past.
Sir David Ramsbotham's annual report also draws attention to the experience that his team has had in Thorn Cross which has already been referred to by
250
another noble Lord. This points the way forward for the Prison Service, showing how it can provide very productive regimes for young offenders. The report gives a picture of how programmes like the high intensity programme at Thorn Cross can be used to change young offenders' behaviour for the better in the future.
At this point I should like to pay tribute to the way in which the new Director General of the Prison Service, Martin Narey, has shown tremendous personal commitment to improving the regimes for young offenders. He has worked very constructively with the board in bringing forward these new arrangements.
I want to conclude with a quotation from the Thorn Cross report which demonstrates the situation for which we are aiming. It states:
"Young prisoners felt safe and all were actively engaged in meaningful work for most of the day. Both they and the staff were justifiably proud of their achievements.".
That is our vision for the future for juvenile offenders.
8 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for introducing the debate and for his admirable persistence. Between 1992 and April this year, the number of women in prison more than doubled to over 3,000. In 1997, the thematic review by the Chief Inspector of Prisons concluded that only 30 per cent of women prisoners posed a security risk and needed to be in a closed prison. The majority were sentenced for non-violent offences. In the opinion of the CASC Report, already quoted by the right reverend Prelate, they could reasonably be punished in the community. Many reach prison because of previous personal problems including placement in care, poor education, debt or addiction. The chief inspector found that many had previously suffered physical or sexual abuse.
It seems that a high proportion of women prisoners have urgent need of rehabilitation, yet the thematic review showed that 55 per cent received no help while in prison and that more than 70 per cent of those women considered that prison had a negative effect on them.
What is worse is that the negative effect on the children of women in prison must be even more severe. Almost two-thirds of the women in the 1997 survey had children under 16, with an average of just under three children each. The situation for mothers is aggravated by the location of women's prisons in the central, eastern and home counties. There is not a single women's prison in Wales or the four south-western counties. I therefore ask the Government: what is the result of their consideration of much greater use of suspended sentences, whether by themselves or in combination?
I also urge the Minister and his colleagues not to rule out day, night-time or weekend detention for women, not only mothers. When will the Court of Appeal issue new guidelines on the sentencing of women, as is its duty under the 1998 Act? Will the court distinguish between women who have the care of children and other women offenders? When will national guidance be issued following work by the Hereford and Worcester

251
Probation Service to define the most effective forms of supervision in the community? Will the Government increase the use of parole for women, together with releases on resettlement licence and home detention curfews?
Foreign nationals are an important category among women prisoners, amounting to some 15 per cent at the end of last January. I suggest that the maximum use be made of the European convention and of the bilateral arrangements so that as many as possible can serve the balance of their sentences in their countries of origin. Communication with their families overseas is always crucial. Therefore, it is important that governors should use their discretion to the full over free telephone calls and airmails.
I turn to a point which I understand will require legislation. In the Netherlands, a woman who has the care of dependent children can defer the start of any prison sentence while she makes the best possible arrangements for the care of those children. If the Dutch can do it, why cannot our courts have a similar discretion? The Minister knows that a simple one-page Bill has already been drafted for that purpose. Can he confirm that such a provision will appear in the earliest possible piece of government legislation? In that context, how is the Prison Service review of mothers and children in prison progressing? When will it be published?
I return to my starting point. The number of women in prison needs to be reduced as there is scant evidence that the increase in sentencing has reduced crime. Alternatives to custody need to be developed, and rehabilitation both inside and outside prison should be greatly improved. I welcome last year's appointment of an assistant director of regimes for women and the establishment of a women's policy group. I trust that the Minister will give us further good news tonight about the much needed humanising of the present unsatisfactory state of imprisonment for women.
8.4 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, it is an honour to take part in a debate led by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I agree with his view that privatisation is not the best way forward.
It is clear from the chief inspector's annual report that having found much inconsistency in the treatment of prisoners he favours major changes to the structure of the Prison Service. As my noble friend Lord Brentford says, he believes that a better service would be delivered if directors were appointed to groups of like prisons. He cites the dispersal prison directorate in support of his view. He looks for a greater commitment to line management delivering cost-effective outcomes and much less emphasis on area staff functions. Will he carry the day? I doubt it. For deep is not calling for deep.
Sir David values management whereas the service values administration. Where he looks for results, it pursues processes. How otherwise do we explain Feltham and Wormwood Scrubs? That divide is evident in the contrasting styles of his reports and theirs.
252
In seeking a better way forward, we need again to face up to the question: can we have within the public service a division between the responsibility for policy and that for day-to-day management? Herbert Morrison certainly believed that we could, but now we seem to have lost it—although not with the BBC. There are other public sector examples; the heritage Act institutions having their incorporated boards of trustees. However, those examples did not persuade the Home Affairs Committee whose conclusion, which gained the Government's agreement was:
"It is not possible to lay down a rigid dividing line between the roles of Ministers and the Director General of the agency. The needs of accountability and responsibility will require some measure of ministerial involvement in the operational process".
Yet later in the same report, and somewhat wistfully, the committee looks for greater independence from Ministers for the service.
We cannot have it both ways: either we want to find a dividing line or we do not. Either Ministers play an integral part in management undertaken by their department, or Parliament delegates that responsibility to a separate incorporated body.
As I see it, there are now three options: first, to leave things as they are, which is not the chief inspector's choice and I agree with him; secondly, to watch the steady transfer of prisons into the contracted-out system, which I see as an admission of defeat although the dividing line is very clear; and, thirdly, to legislate for a clear division between policy and day-to-day management by the creation—or is it the re-creation?—of a statutory Prison Service separate from the Home Office. That would meet Sir David's views, realistically improve the Government's accountability to Parliament and enable the Prison Service to manage its own future. Even the Prime Minister's current frustrations might be assuaged. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he is indeed a supporter of the third way.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, not for the first time the House is indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for being given the opportunity to revisit problems which have been well discussed. I am a supporter of the chief inspector. He has produced an authoritative report. It is full of information and details many good and disturbing issues. It provides a timely opportunity for all sides to reflect on the situation. I urge co-operation rather than confrontation. My noble friend the Minister has an opportunity to put at rest some uneasy minds on the Home Office's view of its future relationship with the prisons.
I visited 32 prisons during my seven years as a consultant to the Prison Officers' Association. The overwhelming majority of prison officers are decent, professional and humane. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to this year's annual meeting of the POA, which I attended because it was the 60th anniversary. I endorse the excellent reception given to Martin Narey, who made a big impression not just on the members, who listened to his speech soberly and carefully, but on my good self.

253
Many prison officers are frustrated and exasperated by recent events. They want no part in many of the allegations that have been made. It is grossly unfair to support the tendency that tars all prison officers with the same brush. Society deals with criminals fairly, humanely and justly. However, once the prison doors are closed, both people who have committed the most heinous crimes and feckless unfortunates are locked in and the prison officers have to live with them for many hours of the day. Prison officers should be congratulated on doing one of society's dirty jobs.
I welcome the fact that the Government view imprisonment as an integral part of the criminal justice system. That is vital. I also support the Home Secretary's five objectives for the creation of a coherent prison strategy: to house the prison population safely; to protect the public; to develop constructive regimes; to use resources more efficiently in the public and private sectors; and to improve the effectiveness of the organisation. That signals a welcome change of attitude to enable the staff to be more involved in shaping the future of the prison service.
I am not making a plea, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reassure many people outside the House that this could be the beginning of a dialogue involving prison officers, prison governors, prison visitors and prisoners to help the Government to create a better penal estate. We are indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and to the chief inspector and I wish my noble friend the Minister well in his difficult task.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, how fortunate we are to have such a good director general of the Prison Service in Martin Narey and such an outspoken and independent chief inspector of prisons in Sir David Ramsbotham. To spare his blushes, I should also like to add that we have a remarkably good prisons Minister in the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
Sir David's 1997–98 report was more optimistic than many in recent years. His optimism was; based partly on the Government's encouragement of the greater use of community sentences and the release of prisoners under electronic tagging. Sir David said that those moves could have a real impact on overcrowding in prisons—a scourge with which the Prison Service has been afflicted for too long. He was also encouraged by the Government's plan to improve the treatment of juveniles in the prison system and by the additional £660 million to be made available to the Prison Service over the next three years as a result of the comprehensive spending review.
We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who identified the present level of the prison population and some of the associated problems. We hope that the Government's plans will lead to improvements in the prison system, including a reduction in the pressure of numbers. Even though the prison population has fallen from its peak of 66,550 in July 1998, it still stands at nearly 65,000, which is 60 per cent higher—and in the case of women prisoners 137 per cent higher—than at the end of 1992.
254
The rising prison population is due not to an increase in the number of offenders appearing before the courts, but to harsher sentencing. At all courts, the proportion of adult offenders convicted for indictable offences who were sentenced to immediate custody rose from 16 per cent in 1992 to 25 per cent in 1997. It is a shame that the current prison population of around 64,000 means that this country has 122 prisoners for every 100,000 people in the general population. That compares with 110 in Spain, 90 in France and Germany, 85 in Italy and Holland, 80 in Belgium, 65 in Denmark, 60 in Sweden, 55 in Norway and 50 in Greece. In the whole of western Europe, only Portugal gaols a higher proportion of its population than we do. The disproportionately high number of prisoners from ethnic minority communities is a further issue.
Regrettably, the welcome scheme for the early release of selected prisoners under electronic tagging has not produced the size of reduction in the prison population that the Government had hoped for. On 2nd July there were 1,969 people under home detention curfews who would otherwise have been in prison—about half of the Government's original estimate of 4,000. Why are the numbers so low and what steps are being taken to increase the number of suitable prisoners released under electronic tagging?
A number of noble Lords have identified many of the important requirements. We welcome the steps that the Government and the Prison Service have taken and are planning. We particularly welcome the extra £660 million made available under the comprehensive spending review over three years for additional prison capacity and to clear the backlog of urgent repairs and maintenance. However, the prospects for developing constructive prison regimes would be greatly improved if the trend of the past six years towards markedly more punitive sentences were arrested and reversed.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating this debate. His experience of prison work and his concern for the well-being of prisoners go back many years and we are all grateful for the benefit of his wisdom.
The report is written at an interesting time. Sir David Ramsbotham believes that there is a window of opportunity. We welcome that, but we suggest that it is not before time. During the Government's first years in office, too little was done at ministerial level. However, I welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and the director general, Mr Martin Narey that each considers that his reputation is on the line for the good delivery of the Prison Service of England and Wales. I hope that I do not misrepresent the noble Lord. I assure him that we shall be supportive—and constructively critical when appropriate—of the Government in their attempts to improve the prison regime.
The report is critical of several aspects of the service. Some of Sir David's most severe strictures are directed at senior management, who he feels have not done enough in many cases to eliminate poor standards and have left it to the inspector to identify the problems on

255
one of his necessarily infrequent visits. Leadership must come from the top. One of the recurrent themes in the report is the lack of time available for training.
The chief inspector's remarks on what is named, with some misplaced gravitas, the "prison culture" are disturbing. He notes a marked contrast in attitude between public and private sector prisons, highlighted by the fact that several of the private sector directors come from the public sector and are able to introduce practices where previously they had been frustrated by "the culture" in the public sector. Sadly, he mentions also that many junior staff in the public sector who have good and progressive ideas find themselves frustrated by what he terms domination and intimidation by their senior colleagues. We very much agree with Sir David's suggestion that addressing the "culture" in public sector prisons should be one of Mr Narey's top priorities.
Allied to that is the relationship of staff associations with management. The chief inspector sees faults on both sides. We are left in no doubt that Sir David is highly critical of the way industrial procedures are spun out to such an extent that the losers turn out to be the prisoners through no fault of their own.
In the debate on Feltham, the Minister assured us that concerns raised in that debate about the Prison Officers' Association and its relationship with management were being addressed. I look forward to hearing how that is proceeding.
On these Benches, we feel that we should welcome moves to extend private sector involvement in the prisons regime. In that regard, I must respectfully disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and my noble friend Lord Eccles.
This report is now over a year old and another one is due. Much has happened in the intervening period, including two highly critical reports on Wormwood Scrubs and Feltham, and a thematic report on suicides in prison. I look forward to receiving assurances from the Minister that those problems are being tackled.
Perhaps I may say how fortunate we are in having the services of Sir David Ramsbotham. We look forward with interest—and, I think, some awe—to reading his reports for 1998–99. I conclude with a remark addressed to me privately by Sir David. I am sure that he will not object if I repeat it. It relates to his enormous regard for prison officers in the service. I hope that that echoes the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this report covered the period December 1997 to November 1998, although it was published in April of this year, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said. The Prison Service's response to the report continues. It does not of itself require a formal response but we pay very careful attention, as the chief inspector recognises, to his recommendations and, in particular, his thematic reviews. He provides an invaluable service. I value his
256
personal qualities and his frankness. I have said in his presence on a number of occasions that I value the irritant quality of his reports because that is his duty.
He reported recently on Feltham and Wormwood Scrubs. He complained legitimately that earlier recommendations had not been acted upon as swiftly and effectively as they might have been. I can tell your Lordships that now all inspection reports on prison establishments are dealt with under a more formalised procedure. An action plan is formulated which is monitored to ensure that we do not lose sight of any recommendations.
A large number of the recommendations made by the task force in relation to Feltham have already been implemented; that is, 33 out of 39. The governor, Mr Clifford, has also introduced exercise to all remand prisoners in Feltham B which was not previously available. He has completed reprofiling for the efficient deployment of staff. He is negotiating with the POA but it has objected to some of the proposed changes and that must be resolved.
The new governor of Wormwood Scrubs, Stephen Moore, has completed his draft action plan. He is scheduled to agree it with the area manager, Peter Atherton, on Friday. The finalised plan will be submitted to me in time to meet the 30 day deadline on 27th July. I promised that 30-day deadline to this House when we discussed Wormwood Scrubs.
It is not right for anyone to suggest, as the noble Earl did, that the Home Office—either Jack Straw or I—was trying to duck responsibility. We both said, when we made the Statement on Wormwood Scrubs, that we accepted responsibility. Asked by one of your Lordships what was my response to the terms of the report, I used the words "anger", "fury" and "shame." There is no question of trying to avoid responsibilities.
Nor is there any question of trying to humiliate or punish the POA. I have known the general secretary, David Evans, on a close basis for many years. On becoming Minister with responsibility for prisons, I immediately invited David Evans and Mark Healy, the national chairman, to visit me. I told them that I should welcome regular meetings. I want co-operation with them in reformation of, and a determined attempt to improve, prison conditions.
I have said on earlier occasions when discussing Wormwood Scrubs—and I repeat it this evening—that the majority of those who serve in the Prison Service do so out of a sense of commitment. I do not regard it as appropriate to use the phrase used by the noble Earl on the last occasion, which I rejected even then.
The Earl of Longford: Did you hear what I said tonight, sir?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did hear what was said this evening and I am glad that the noble Earl has now withdrawn what he said.
The Earl of Longford: I have not, actually.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it might have been better had he done so. Stephen Moore has started

257
work at Wormwood Scrubs. He has introduced transparent systems and procedures in the segregation unit, new staff, new management and—very important, because it was criticised by Sir David—he has provided unfettered access to visitors; for example, boards of visitors, chaplains and probation staff. He has reintroduced governor grades to prison wings. Each wing is now managed directly by a governor grade. He has introduced a comprehensive incentives and privileges system for prisoners and has increased access to purposeful activity for all prisoners. There has been a refocusing of the education programme on core skills training and a complete overhaul of the staff annual appraisal system. That is only a beginning—but a good one.
I return to the annual report. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for what he said about the important window of opportunity. Sir David said that it had been,
"created by the very deliberate programme embarked upon by the Government in genera], and the Home Secretary in particular".
He highlights the work done by my noble friend Lord Warner following the establishment of the Youth Justice Board; the way that we seek to co-ordinate matters within the criminal justice system—the Crime and Disorder Act is the key to the future; and the greater use of community sentences and home detention curfew.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked in particular about home detention curfew, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also asked me about home detention curfew for women as opposed to men. Home detention curfew has been an extraordinary success. It is not early release. It is the management of prisoners in the community whereby they serve between two weeks and two months in their own homes. There has been a success rate of over 95 per cent. That is an extraordinary tribute to the work of those who carry out the assessments, principally those in the Prison Service and the Probation Service.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, raised the question of management. We have now altered the way that we manage. I chair a strategy board which is the forum for discussing the strategic direction of the Prison Service, its plans and performance. We met for the first time in May; we shall meet again next Tuesday. We shall meet a total of eight times per year. That is a strategy for the next few years rather than for the next few weeks or months.
Martin Narey, who is excellent—I am happy to echo the commendations—chairs the management board with a revamped board of directors. He is supported—and this was a point made by the noble Viscount—by the deputy director general, Phil Wheatley, who provides the source of operational management,, which I readily accept was lacking in the past. That was a common theme not only in Sir David's reports; governors and area managers also felt that the direct line of management was not clear.
I pay tribute also to the work of organisations like NACRO and the Prison Reform Trust. I spent an extremely interesting few hours recently with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, seeing what was being delivered
258
on the basis of practical utility for those who have no homes to go to, no work to go to. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, says; namely, that the classic indicators against reoffending are settled community, work opportunities, settled family and, very important, somewhere to live.
The areas of achievement highlighted by Sir David included the management of the dispersal (high security) estate and the way that open prisons occupy prisoners productively in work and education and assist in rehabilitation. Examples given were Sudbury, and farms and gardens at Kirkham and North Sea Camp. The high intensity regime at Thorn Cross has already been mentioned. I visited that recently. It does indeed show what can be done with a commitment of imagination and determination as well as resource.
As the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Dholakia, indicated, we are now spending substantially more. At present we spend about £7 million to produce 3,000 completions of accredited offending behaviour programmes by prisoners. By 2001/2002 we will have doubled the number to 6,000 and spent—productively, I am sure—£26 million.
I take up a common theme of your Lordships this evening: we are intent on basic skills education. We have to ensure that when people are discharged from custody they are able at least to hope for work. In some prisons two-thirds of the inmates cannot read or write sufficiently to obtain work. That means that over 90 per cent of the possible jobs available to them are simply excluded.
Fifty one million pounds has been allocated to regime provision for juveniles. The purposeful activity expansion scheme is piloted in eight establishments. We have seven pilot projects involving prisons, probation and voluntary organisations to test out and expand the ways we have of resettling short-term prisoners.
Pilots of service delivery agreements, strongly supported by Sir David, started this financial year in three prisons: Moorland, Askham Grange Women's Prison, which I visited last Friday, and Wealstun. As I indicated to your Lordships earlier, we are determined to focus on the vicious consequences of drug abuse whether it affects offenders outside or in prison.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised a number of questions. He was courteous, as always, in giving me advance notice. I am not aware of any plans that the Court of Appeal has to issue guidelines specifically relating to women offenders. The court is, of course, required to take account of circumstances of both offence and offender. As pre-sentence reports are now common in courts, it seems to me that there is a partial opportunity—I agree it is no more than that—for women with children to at least consider making arrangements before they are sentenced. When sentencing a woman with a child or children, the court is obliged to take into account the circumstances of the offence and the offender.
The noble Lord asked me about the work done by Hereford and Worcester Probation Service. I am happy to tell him that three probation pathfinder programmes are being developed under the crime reduction

259
programme, including the one developed by Hereford and Worcester. A national roll-out of accredited programmes is due to begin in April 2000.
A question was raised about HDC (home detention curfew). At the end of June, 42 per cent of eligible women had been granted home detention curfew compared with an overall 31 per cent of eligible prisoners. I refer to the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. My conclusion would be that those rates are consistent with the great caution and care exercised by prison governors and their colleagues in the Probation Service. We cannot expand home detention curfew without being able to assure the public on sound bases that it is truly a public protection measure as well as managing prisoners back into the community.
Free telephone calls and airmail letters are already encouraged in line with our commitment to maintaining family ties. I can say from my own knowledge that the Prison Service tries to group foreign nationals together when there are problems of different cultures and languages. I have seen that work quite effectively in one women's prison.
As regards the review of mother and baby units, I am happy to be able to tell your Lordships, in response to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that I was able to announce the completion of the review and publication of the report just a few days ago, on 6th July. I have ensured that copies are available in the Library.
There is a lot more still to be done. I have one minute in which to describe it. I shall give one or two thoughts, if I may. We have to be careful to monitor all our systems. We have to ensure that prisoners in prison unwillingly, by definition, are nevertheless fairly treated and believe themselves to be properly and considerately treated. There are some areas, for instance, where communication is not sufficiently good. I sometimes have complaints that people in the parole system do not quite understand where their cases have got to.
All of these are extraordinary opportunities. I return to the point so well made by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton. We shall get nowhere without dialogue. The door is open to co-operation. I believe we can make a difference. If we do not make a difference, it will not be the fault of the Prison Service alone, though it may be in part; it will be the responsibility of Jack Straw and myself.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask a question. Will he consider the proposal of which I gave him notice but which he did not deign to answer or discuss, that a prison officer, a representative of the Prison Officers' Association, be included on the strategy board?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I heard the suggestion made by the noble Earl. However, he said that he did not expect me to respond this evening. I shall consider it.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.34 to 8.35 p.m.]

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 52.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 59, line 31, at end insert—
("() Subsection (1) shall not apply to—

(a) a person who has attained pensionable age (within the meaning of the Contributions and Benefits Act), or

(b) a person who is entitled to working families' tax credit or disabled person's tax credit (within the meaning of the Tax Credits Act 1999.").

The noble Lord said Amendment No. 105 stands in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Russell and Lord Addington. I hope that I can be brief. Like an earlier amendment, this arises from the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. The committee proposed that the Government's intention for the use of these regulation-making powers—for example, not requiring retired people to attend work-focused interviews—should be stated on the face of the Bill and not left to regulations.
I therefore tabled this amendment, the first part of which deals merely with the exclusion of those of pensionable age. However, my amendment goes a little further. I should therefore like to probe the Government's intentions as to what other categories they might propose to exclude from the work-focused interview on the face of the Bill. As regards people of pensionable age, it is absolutely obvious that it would be absurd to require them to attend a work-focused interview.
In the Explanatory Notes, the Government suggest two categories of people who should clearly be exempted; that is, those of pensionable age and those already in full-time employment but who might be drawing a means-tested benefit at the same time, which in many cases would include housing or council tax benefit.
In drafting the amendment, I therefore considered specifying, as a class to be excluded, those in full-time employment. However, I decided not to do that because of the problems of defining those who are in full-time employment. It might have been necessary to have regulations to define who was in full-time employment, which would rather defeat the object of the exercise.
However, it appeared that there were one, or perhaps one should say two, obvious categories of people who could, simply by reference to a definition in another Act, be excluded; that is, those in receipt of working families' tax credit or disabled person's tax credit. In

261
those cases, the people in question should be working a minimum of 30 hours a week, which is close to full employment for this purpose.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will the noble Lord repeat his last statement about 30 hours a week?
Lord Goodhart: As I understand it, in order to claim the working families' tax credit, the working member of the family must work for at least 30 hours a week.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is why I did a double take; it is like the old family credit rules. The noble Lord may be thinking that, at 30 hours, one clicks into an extra premium of £11.05.
Lord Goodhart: The Government have decided that, if one is in receipt of working families' tax credit, it justifies the provision of a full income. In those circumstances, the requirement to attend a work-focused interview would seem to be inconsistent with the Government's objectives in the working families' tax credit. What are the Government's intentions so far as extending on the face of the Bill exemptions above and beyond those available to people of pensionable age?
Baroness Buscombe: I rise to speak in support of this amendment and to seek reassurance that a person who has attained pensionable age within the meaning of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and a person who is entitled to working families' tax credit or disabled person's tax credit within the meaning of the Tax Credits Act 1999 would not have to attend an obligatory work-focused interview. We hope that the Minister will confirm that that is the case. We believe that the amendment is important because those two categories of people should be on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, explained, the purpose of this amendment is to exclude from the requirement to attend a work-focused interview people who are over state pension age or receiving working families' tax credit or disabled person's tax credit.
I should make it clear that it has always been our intention to exclude those over pension age from this requirement. We originally intended to do that by regulations, but one of the recommendations in the very helpful report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee was that we should set out this exception on the face of the Bill. I am delighted to say that we shall take up the suggestion and bring forward a government amendment in due course.
In the meantime, I shall explain why we are not able to accept this amendment. We propose to disapply the requirement to attend an interview for any claimant aged 60 or over. This follows the approach that we adopted in the first phase of the pilots. We shall, of course, still offer help and advice under the "one" service to any 60 to 65 year-olds who want help to stay in touch with the labour market. However, that help will be provided on a voluntary basis.
262
Turning to the second part of the amendment, I reassure the Committee that we have no intention of requiring people in full-time work—that is, those working than 16 hours a week—to take part in work-focused interviews. I should point out that neither the WFTC nor the DPTC appears in the list of benefits covered by this clause. So the requirement to attend an interview will not apply to a claimant of either of those benefits. It is possible that a claimant of either one of those benefits could also claim housing benefit or council tax benefit and so be brought within the provision. However, we intend to use regulations to exclude from the requirement anyone working 16 hours a week or more. I assure the Committee that no one claiming WFTC or DPTC will be required to attend an interview.
We do not intend to place this exclusion on the face of the Bill primarily because it will not be a simple matter to draft such an exemption as different benefits have different rules on what constitutes "full-time work". For example, with income support, one is deemed to be in full-time work if one is employed for an average of 16 hours or more a week. On the other hand, ICA recipients can earn up to £50 a week with no limit on the number of hours worked. With bereavement benefits, there are no earnings rules at all. Because of the complexity and degree of detail, we believe that this subject is better left to subordinate legislation. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to accept my assurance that those in full-time work will be excluded from the requirement, and I urge him to withdraw his amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. In so far as it is proposed to exclude everybody over the age of 60—including men who are not yet of pensionable age—that is obviously an improvement on my amendment. As to the exclusion of those who are working full time, I accept that those who are in receipt of working families' tax credit are by no means the only members of that group—which would include, among others, those who do not have families. In those circumstances, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 59, line 42, at end insert—
("() for determining the training to be provided to persons by whom interviews are to be conducted which shall include training in the principles of personnel management and job placement, and in the types and incidence of mental and physical disability and in recent developments in coping with time;")
The noble Baroness said: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 106, which takes account of the need to clarify the training to be provided for personal advisers in order to equip them properly for this extremely responsible, and I would suggest often onerous, task. We have touched on this subject already this evening, but it is important to outline several points of concern.
I believe that the success of this initiative lies, in large part, with the calibre of ability of the personal advisers. They must be able to perform their function in a competent and, most importantly, sensitive manner. To this end, I shall ask a number of questions.
We should like to know the precise details of the sort of training programme that the Government have in mind. What subjects will be covered? Will the training include medical and psychological training? The Minister has stated that the training undertaken by those involved in the pilot scheme is of seven weeks' duration. I suggest that seven weeks is no time at all when compared with the responsibility that personal advisers will have. Even those who work, or have worked, as interviewers in job centres and so on will have a much more responsible task to perform.
Who will be the trainers? Alternatively, will the Government subcontract from the voluntary or private sectors teams of people who are capable of conducting the interviews? From where will the interviewers come? When full implementation takes place, we will be talking about an enormous number of people and an enormous associated cost. We have adjudged that it will cost about £100 million to provide trainers, based on a seven-week training course.
Will interviewers face tests of their capability? That is tremendously important. What will be the scope for retraining and refresher courses? What arrangements will be put in place for monitoring the interviews? Given the enormous difficulties that are bound to arise in certain circumstances—particularly when interviewees are severely disabled and have trouble communicating, for whatever reason, with the interviewer—those conducting the interviews will face an extremely hard task. Therefore, there should be almost a preliminary process whereby they work with a senior interviewer or someone with more experience in this area.
We also question the long-term motivation of personal advisers. It is important that their motivation is sustained, particularly in the case of claimants with multiple difficulties who will require considerable ongoing advice and counselling.
This amendment is important also in relation to carers. We have already touched on this in some detail this evening. The training of personal advisers to interview carers is extremely important. Carers have great difficulty in judging their responsibilities. It can be difficult for people who have not been carers to understand the pressures and challenges involved.
Before advisers can give carers the right advice, they need to understand those pressures. Failure to understand the difficulties in judging priorities and time issues will result in an insensitive service and inappropriate advice. If carers feel that their caring responsibilities are not properly understood, they will feel undervalued and will perhaps not feel able to seek work at all. Understanding the issues could change all that.
The training process involves training people to understand fully all the issues and all the kinds of people with whom they come in contact; the kinds of disabilities; the breadth of differences and types of people they will come across. It is a difficult, albeit important task, and therefore we ask for clarification on those points. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I agree entirely with the spirit of this amendment. Personal advisers will play a crucial role in the "one" service. On their training, their skills and professionalism, the success of "one" will depend. They will support an extremely diverse client group, with very different needs. This calls for a wide range of skills, and a comprehensive programme of training. We have therefore devoted a great deal of time, attention and resources to devising the right programme of learning. However, I hope to convince your Lordships that it is not necessary or appropriate to specify the content of this learning in regulations as this amendment seeks to do; in fact, it is possibly unwise.
First, it is important to remember that we are not starting out with a blank sheet of paper. Many advisers will bring considerable expertise to their role. Those who come from the Employment Service will be well versed in identifying vacancies and matching clients to them. In fact, some will have previously been working as personal advisers in one of the existing New Deal programmes. And, of course, Benefits Agency staff will have experience in the complexities of the benefits system and dealing sensitively with groups such as lone parents and carers. So the training needs of each adviser will be different.
What we require is a flexible programme of learning, tailored to people's individual needs. For example, Benefits Agency and local authority staff are more likely to need additional support in interviewing or submitting clients for jobs, while staff in the Employment Service are likely to need training to improve their knowledge of the benefits system. In other words—to paraphrase—we first need to assess the baggage of skills with which potential personal advisers come to the process—whether they have come from the Employment Service, local authorities or whatever—and then we expose them to the appropriate training module to ensure that at the end of it, whatever their background, they are fully trained and we can have confidence in their capacities.
To give certain areas of training greater weight, as this amendment would do, would therefore be unhelpful. It would remove the essential flexibility at the heart of the "one" service, and make it more difficult to respond to individual training needs. We would not want to spend time and resources training a personal adviser in the principles of job placement who, for example, had come from the Employment Service and had been doing the self-same job for the past three years.
In addition, a key aim of the "one" service is to bring together different sources of expertise at a single contact point. This will give personal advisers ready access to a wide range of specialist support services, such as disability employment advisers and housing advisers. So

265
they will not all need to be experts in every field. They will need to know when they need to bring in extra expertise.
Baroness Buscombe: Perhaps I can ask a question in that regard. Will the advisers be allowed to bring those expert colleagues into the interview or will they be seeking advice outside the interview? That may be difficult. If they have only one opportunity a year to interview a person, they may not know the right questions to ask or how to respond to the interviewee without reference to certain specialist advice. They will not be able to do that if they only find out at that stage what sort of person they have before them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The advisers will have between 200 and 300 hours of training; it is the most extensive training I can recall. We estimate that the training for individual personal advisers will cost on average £2,000 per head. It is a significant investment in training.
We will expect the advisers to be fairly widely competent but where, as we discussed earlier, we were dealing with somebody who had specific disability difficulties but who wanted to go into work and needed to know whether certain types of job may or may not be possible, that would he the point at which an adviser may seek the expert help of a colleague in the disability employment field. They will discuss whether that is done at the point of interview or subsequently. Essentially the personal advisers will be working as a team in an office. What may happen is that in some cases they may need to refer somebody on in the same office in the course of an interview. It may equally be possible that they want to obtain additional information and include it in the interview. We expect the personal advisers to be broadly generically qualified, but we also expect them to recognise occasionally their limitations and at that point to seek additional expert information.
The programme is based on a series of modules and people will take those modules to build up their expertise. We have consulted with personal advisers and their managers in the "one" pilot areas. We have asked them to identify the areas in which they do not already have the necessary skills to operate effectively. In some cases these are the areas mentioned in the amendment—though there are also other areas.
I can reassure the Committee that the personal advisers who are involved in the "one" pilots—that is, the four basic pilots which began on 28th June—have been thoroughly trained and possess the required competencies, knowledge and skills. The Employment Service, Benefits Agency and Child Support Agency have worked together to produce a programme of learning for all staff in the "one" service. Although the amount of training will differ in every case, on average each member of staff will carry out over 200 hours of learning before taking up their post. That equates to 35 days, which is why I came up with seven weeks. Some members of staff may require considerably more than that. This formal programme will be augmented on the ground through the close partnerships which are being put in place with local voluntary organisations. In
266
addition, every adviser has to work towards a professional qualification in advice or guidance, at least to NVQ standards.
External organisations have been closely involved in this process. We have developed training in the needs of special client groups—in association with organisations such as Gingerbread, SCOPE, RNIB, the Carers' National Association, MIND and the National Schizophrenic Fellowship. All of those organisations have spoken at training events. Their involvement has been invaluable, and we will continue to work with them throughout the pilots. For example, several of those groups will be undertaking a review of all existing training material on disability issues and will also be helping the "one" service to design a new training programme on disability awareness, which all staff will be required to undertake. Throughout the pilot scheme we will be testing and refining all aspects of the training package to make sure that it provides the best possible foundation for the "one" service. Where further learning needs are identified, new packages will be developed.
That was the point in relation to the pilots. I have here a summary of the modules to which a personal adviser will be exposed during training. It is in the House of Commons Library and I am happy to put a copy in our Library and send a copy to the noble Baroness. For example, it includes areas starting with knowledge and skills, communication skills, team working, working with outside organisations, how to handle violent clients and the like. Secondly, it gives an overview of various government services, the Employment Service, DSS, BA, CSA and a detailed knowledge of benefits and conditions of entitlement, detailed training in IT systems and in-work benefits, a knowledge of employment service interventions, and so on.
As I say, I am happy to send this information to the noble Baroness, but it is extremely detailed. I hope that I have reassured the Committee that we are addressing the areas identified in this amendment in our overall training package. It is simply that we want the flexibility to respond to individual needs according to the background with which a potential adviser comes into the programme. Not every member of staff will require all aspects of the training, whereas some may require considerably more. Therefore, I do not believe that it is sensible to specify the content of the training in legislation. That would be far too prescriptive. I hope that in light of my explanation that we are taking training extremely seriously; that we are investing considerable effort; that we are working closely with organisations; and that it is a flexible module procedure, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister sits down, wearing my heart on my sleeve, may I also add that MENCAP is involved with the voluntary organisations in the training process. It was made clear to personal advisers that it was only the beginning of their training. They were

267
given assurances that they would be provided with ongoing support whenever training needs were identified.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am happy to confirm that. I was addressing that point partly to the issue of pilot schemes. MENCAP has been involved and we have found that invaluable. As and when people need more training or identify gaps in their training needs, we shall return to them. It is right to say that the spirit of the amendment will be made or broken on the skill, competence and the sensitivity of the personal advisers.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for that full explanation. I believe she will understand that the amendment is a probing amendment. We all appreciate the critical importance of the training programme itself. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out in more detail the processes for the training programme. It may be something to which we shall wish to return at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 60, line 15, after ("regulations,") insert ("such matters to include the degree of incapacity, invalidity or physical or mental illness of the person, the recent bereavement of such a person or the illness or incapacity of any child, parent, spouse, partner or other person for whom the person claiming benefit has care,")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 113. At this stage I must point out that I am not sure why they are connected, but no matter. This amendment relates specifically to exempting carers. I admit that some of my remarks will be a repetition of what I said earlier this evening.
I begin with a quote from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury about carers at the Lady Sear Memorial Lecture. He expressed his concern about the impact of the compulsory interview on carers' self-esteem. He said,
"Some carers will lose out unless new safeguards are introduced".
This is an area where those reviewing the benefit system need to tread with immense caution and sympathy. Those with substantial caring responsibilities will find a compulsory work-focused interview difficult. Many have had to give up work in order to care. They may be in a state of trauma and still trying to cope with an event which has made them a carer: for example, a heart attack or a car accident. They often have feelings of low self-esteem and find it difficult to cope. So pursuing a compulsory work-focused interview could be damaging to their health, self-esteem and ability to cope with caring.
We believe that this intention in the Bill in terms of compulsory interviews for carers is counter to the values in the national carers strategy, which states,
"Some carers will wish or need to be full time and such wishes should be respected".
Although this amendment relates to all carers, we are particularly concerned with those who provide substantial amounts of care or who are themselves
268
recently bereaved. Therefore, we are talking about any person seeking to claim the main carer's benefit, the invalid care allowance, who already has to satisfy that he or she is providing a minimum of 35 hours of care.
That is already considered to be a substantial amount of care and equivalent to a full working week. The question is how they are expected to take on a job in addition to their role as a carer. Indeed, statistics show that the majority of carers receiving the invalid care allowance, which is currently nearly 80 per cent. of all claimants who are carers, provide over 50 hours of care per week.
As regards Amendment No. 113 and advocacy in support of claimants, we have touched on that this evening in an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Both the Disability Benefits Consortium and ourselves recognise that interviews will be unworkable for some claimants with intellectual and sensory impairment or claimants with mental health problems unless they are permitted to be accompanied by an appropriate advocate. The Minister has given us reassurances this evening about the ability of a claimant to attend an interview in the company of an advocate.
The only point I wish to make on that is one that has already been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. It is important that we question or show concern for the cost of advocacy. We support the entitlement to have an advocate. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: In supporting this amendment I would also like to speak to Amendment No. 113, which is in my name and that of my noble friends. The common factor between these amendments is that they deal with things that are to be taken as "good cause" for failure to comply with the regulations. The list enumerated in the noble Baroness's amendment is fairly self-evident and so I hope is the one specified in Amendment No. 113, which states,
"'good cause' shall include physical or mental impairment which makes it difficult for a person to understand or deal with communications".
When I look at those words I remember a particularly effective speech made at one of our party conferences by a sufferer from cerebral palsy. His speech was so impeded that he was able to communicate with the conference only through an interpreter. Had he been summoned for an interview on his own without the benefit of an interpreter, on first meeting, and if they were lucky, they might have understood one word in three. I am not particularly confident of that. An interview conducted under those circumstances might have been rather unfortunate. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will see this case as being reasonably clear.
As regards regulations providing "good cause", I hope that the list which has been tabled will not be regarded as exhaustive and that there will be room left for that necessary formula "or else some other reason why". Usually the best cause of all is one which is so improbable that no one would ever think of foreseeing it.
Lord Rix: I should like to make a few remarks in regard to this amendment and Amendment No. 113. The

269
Minister has already indicated the willingness of the Government to issue comprehensive guidelines. However, if these amendments are not acceptable to the Government and they are not pressed tonight, would it be possible to ensure that the impairments described in them are included specifically in the guidelines which are to be issued by the Government?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I very much hope that I shall he able to reassure the Committee. The effect of these amendments would be to set out in primary legislation some specific circumstances in which a person would have good cause for failing to attend a work-focused interview. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, concentrated primarily on the situation of carers. My problem is not that I disagree with anything in her amendment, but it does not go far enough. Indeed, by definition, any amendment of this kind becomes exhaustive. That is why we think it is more appropriate to go through regulations which are not exhaustive, although they may well be prescriptive.
Perhaps I may enlarge upon the latter point. It is our intention to introduce in regulations a comprehensive good-cause provision. This will ensure that where a person's failure to attend an interview is due to reasons beyond his control, there will be no impact on his benefit. We shall use that provision to cover circumstances such as someone being too ill to attend on the day set for the interview or where a person has misunderstood the requirements placed on him because of language, learning or literacy difficulties. Indeed, such persons may need to attend a funeral, and so on.
We are well aware of the importance of having a fair and comprehensive range of good-cause provisions, but we do not think it is necessary to set out everything in primary legislation. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee does not disagree with us. Good-cause provisions already exist elsewhere in the benefits system; for example, regulations have been made under a very similar provision in the Job Seeker's Act. Moreover, we also need to maintain a degree of flexibility in the "one" service, which deals with a wider spectrum of claimants than JSA. That is why we intend to define in regulations the matters to be taken into account in deciding whether someone has good cause. We shall also use regulations to prescribe specific circumstances in which a person will or will not be regarded as having good cause.
However, the matters listed in regulations will not be exhaustive; indeed, there will always be something that no one in this Chamber has thought of but which, when presented to us, will be a perfectly reasonable basis for good cause. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, can think of every possible circumstance of good cause from a sedentary position, but I hope that he will not share that information with Members of the Committee at this hour. It would be a very long list.
Advisers will be given the flexibility to take account of other circumstances not explicitly set out in the regulations. We cannot hope to anticipate—nor, indeed, should we—every situation which could make it difficult for someone to attend such an interview. However, at the end of the day, the essence of good
270
cause is that, given the circumstances of the individual on that particular day, it was reasonable that he or she did not attend. That is the ultimate test: the test of reasonableness.
From my personal experience of seeing advisers work with New Deal claimants, I am sure that personal advisers dealing with lone parents with caring responsibilities, with carers or with disabled people will err on the side of any generosity of interpretation that may arise. Given that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Earl will not press their amendments.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister most warmly for that response. Indeed, she said everything that I hoped to hear her say.
Baroness Buscombe: I, too, thank the Minister for that full response. I am much encouraged by her reference to the regulations. She said that they will not be exhaustive but that, at the same time, they would be very comprehensive with regard to a good-cause provision. Again, I am sure that the noble Baroness will understand that we introduced this very much as a probing amendment to underline the importance of this aspect of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will appreciate that the sooner we can see the regulations in draft form the better it will be for all of us in that we shall feel comfortable and reassured that what she has said will indeed take place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 60, line 18, at end insert—
("(g) prescribing that, where an interview has not taken place within three days of the initial claim, and unless this is due to unreasonable behaviour by the claimant, full benefit entitlement be paid until such time as the interview has taken place and entitlement can be reassessed").
The noble Earl said: This amendment deals with interim payments and relates to cases which, again, are too numerous for us to enumerate, especially at this time of night. I refer to cases where, for one reason or another, an interview cannot immediately take place.
If there is a delay in the interview process—there may be circumstances where that is the right thing to do from the point of view of all parties—our concern is that the claimant should not lose benefit because of such a delay, which is not his or her fault. Obviously, if that happens, there is a possibility not only of real hunger but also of the building up of debts, involving crisis loans from the Social Fund, leaving the claimants to start life on benefit carrying a burden which has already built up before they have started.
One needs to start life on benefit if possible with as clean a financial slate as possible. I hope that this amendment will be acceptable. Press publicity has suggested that it might be. I await the Minister's answer with optimism. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am happy to make positive noises. We are concerned here with the amount of time between the claimant making a claim and the work-focused interview taking place. Amendment No. 108 seeks to ensure that a claimant whose interview does not take place within three days of making the claim will have his or her benefit put into payment, unless this delay is caused by unreasonable behaviour.
I have every sympathy with the intent behind the amendment. It is regrettable that at present there are instances of claimants not receiving an appropriate service. We hope that the "one" system will make things better. For example, personal advisers will be able to help clients who have not filled in forms correctly rather than the forms having to be sent to and fro as at present, provide them with information on the evidence they need to show and be a personal point of contact if clients want to check the progress of a claim. As I say, we hope and expect that the "one" system will improve the service to clients. That is why we have made the commitment to the three-day period.
However, we recognise that there are always occasional circumstances—I do not always refer to computers when I say this!—in which we cannot achieve the targets we set. I reassure the noble Earl that, where holding an interview within three days is impossible for reasons unrelated to claimants, they will not lose money. I fully share the noble Earl's opinion that it would be wrong for someone to be penalised because of administrative difficulties, or through no fault of his own. I hope that the noble Earl will accept that his amendment is not necessary and will feel able to withdraw it.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that reply. There is just one circumstance it does not cover on which I hope she can reassure me. That is where the delay in the interview is because of circumstances to do with the claimant but for which the claimant is not to blame. I take, for example, the case of a claimant who is overcome by acute appendicitis and is taken into hospital and immediately operated upon.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall write to the noble Earl if I am in any sense misleading him, but as far as I am aware, that would count as a deferred interview. The benefit would be in payment and the claimant would be expected to attend an interview at the appropriate point when he is well enough to do so.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister warmly for filling in that gap. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 108A not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 61, leave out lines 7 to 20
The noble Baroness said: This amendment asks the Government to think again with respect to the designation of the person who would provide services as referred to in this part of the clause. The Bill refers
272
on page 61 to "the designated authority" or "a person providing services". The designated authority or a person providing services could be the Employment Service, the Benefits Agency or the local authority. However, we on these Benches believe that the relevant person is the Secretary of State, as we believe that he or she should be answerable to Parliament. Therefore we ask for clarity as to the identity of "the designated authority". We want a specific reference to the Secretary of State rather than to "the designated authority". I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hope the Committee will forgive me for repeating that the "one" service is all about treating people as individuals rather than as categories. That is why we have resisted blanket definitions to exempt particular categories of people from the requirement to interview.
Amendment No. 109 would not allow advisers any discretion to defer or waive the requirement to take part in a work-focused interview. I believe that such discretion is essential. I am sure that the noble Baroness would want advisers to have precisely that discretion. Indeed more discretion was called for earlier today. The heart of the policy is that personal advisers will be able to make decisions about whether an interview is appropriate on a case-by-case basis. Our expectation is that the vast majority of people will have their interview immediately. But the personal adviser must be able to make a judgment as to whether the help and support he or she has to offer will be of immediate use to the client, or whether it might be helpful at a later date. The example that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave of someone suffering from sudden appendicitis would be an obvious example. As I say, we want the interviews to be as helpful as possible and for people to approach them as a positive measure where they can seek to explore the opportunities available to them. Personal advisers need the discretion to decide whether an interview is appropriate according to individual circumstances. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue Amendment No. 109.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 110 to 112, which relate to the "designated authority" making decisions to defer or waive work-focused interviews. It may be helpful if I explain the purpose of the term "designated authority". This allows certain decisions in relation to work-focused interviews to be taken not only by the Secretary of State but also by local authority staff or by those contracted to provide services to either.
A key aim of the "one" service is to streamline the delivery of benefits: it is a one-stop shop approach. "One" will provide a single point of entry into the benefits system for those of working age and will improve the level of service we provide. Lone parents may very well have between six or eight sources of income and be juggling five different agencies. That is a full-time job over and beyond their caring responsibilities. By bringing together all those agencies involved in the administration of benefits—the BA, the ES and local authorities—in partnership with private and voluntary sector bodies, claimants will be provided with a seamless, efficient and modern service.

273
In "one" pilot areas, a claimant whose first point of contact with the benefits system is with the local authority HB office will be able, from that very office, to claim the whole range of social security benefits to which he may be entitled. The local authority staff there—fully trained, of course, like all personal advisers—will also be able to decide whether an immediate work-focused interview is appropriate for the claimant or whether the requirement should be waived or be deferred to a more appropriate time.
The amendments would prevent one set of key players—local authority staff or their contractors—taking decisions in relation to the interviews. Instead, all decisions would need to be taken on behalf of the Secretary of State. So the amendments, if accepted, would leave us with two choices—and both run directly counter to the streamlined service we seek to introduce and which we believe that claimants deserve: either we could exclude local authorities from "one" altogether, which would perpetuate current piecemeal and inefficient delivery mechanisms; or we could implement a regime in which the local authorities, while retaining responsibility for the vast majority of aspects of "one" delivery, would refer all relevant decisions to the Secretary of State. Again, that would be administratively cumbersome and would certainly lead to delays in processing benefit claims.
I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that the amendments would inhibit one of our prime aims; that is, to make "one" an efficient integrated service for benefit claimants which is sensitive to the needs of the individual. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I still feel somewhat concerned about the reference to the local authority. My understanding is that this is the first reference under this clause to "the local authority". It is therefore very important that the parameters within which it works and its powers are clearly set out.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is not so much that the local authorities will have the powers. We are trying to integrate a range of benefits, from JSA, IS and IB through to housing benefit and council tax benefit. We shall probably include CSA as well. Wherever anyone goes first to claim any one of those benefits—which will normally probably be JSA or IS—they will come into the "one" system. The advisers in the four basic pilots are, for the most part, ES or BA advisers rather than local authority advisers. It is possible that the "one" service could be within a local authority context.
However, the important point is that all personal advisers, whether they come from local authorities, the Employment Service, or the BA, will all have been exposed to the extremely intensive and extensive training I mentioned. So in terms of their skills—apart from some very particular areas of expertise—at the end of the training period they should be virtually interchangeable. I suspect that most local authorities may not be involved in this at all, but where they are so
274
involved and their staff come forward, they will be going through the same training procedures as ES and BA staff. I hope that that explains the position.
Baroness Buscombe: Except that, with regard to these regulations, surely it is the Secretary of State who should be accountable at the end of the day.
I have listened with interest to what the noble Baroness has said. I should like to have the opportunity of reading Hansard. I may well return to this subject at a later stage, but for the moment I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 110 to 114 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 61, line 44, at end insert (", conducted in a location appropriate to the person")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is designed to ensure that the interviews take place in premises which are appropriate for claimants. It highlights the important obligation on the part of the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service to ensure that interviews are conducted in premises which are accessible to as many disabled people as possible, including wheelchair users and those with sensory impairments. There are other disabled people, including those with learning difficulties, who have essential dietary, toilet and personal care routines that need to be taken into account.
Some people may wish to ensure that they have a companion with them for the interview, and of course we have already touched on that, although, as I would suggest, there may be a difference between having a companion with them and someone who is an advocate. There are also those who may be quite unable to take part in an interview without support. For some people an interview at home at a convenient time might be the preferred option. However, it should not be assumed that just because persons have a particular disability they should automatically be interviewed at home.
We should also perhaps refer to home interviews, in the light of what the noble Baroness has explained to us regarding the interview process this evening. She stated that the personal advisers would be working together as a team within the interview centre; of course that advantage is lost when an interview takes place at home. Many people with mental health problems, for example, find home interviews by the Benefits Agency stressful and intrusive, as their home may be the only place where they can feel safe.
There is no reason to believe that the idea of a work-focused interview would be any less threatening. The claimant should be consulted and given the opportunity to choose between an interview at home and an alternative location. So we shall be looking to the Minister for assurances on that. The single work-focused gateway should be implemented, we believe, as a service to individual claimants. It should take account of individual needs rather than rely solely on what is convenient for the interviewer. Personal advisers must be flexible enough to take account of individual circumstances.
We therefore feel that the location of the interview is very important and that the option should be left entirely with the claimant to decide where the interview should take place. We should bear in mind what the noble Baroness has said in relation to advisers and their ability to work together; if the interviews take place in the home there may be some disadvantage in terms of the amount of expertise available. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: This amendment is interesting in that it seems to be directed at the simple principle of what is appropriate for an individual with certain special needs. I would hope that the Minister would be able to embrace this concept when she replies. We spoke earlier about having pigeon-holes for various people and we are trying to put people into various pigeon-holes according to their varying needs. I would suggest that having this degree of flexibility within the whole process is important. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that it will be present and that she will be able to tell us where to find it when we look through the Bill.
Lord Rix: May we also have an assurance that home visits are not a policy of last resort?
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Again, I hope to persuade noble Lords that this amendment is not necessary. The amendment presses for the interview to be conducted in an appropriate location. The "one" service is designed to improve the service that we provide to clients of the benefits system. It is a central part of what we are trying to do. We see the interviews very much as an opportunity and as important in the life of clients. We want them to take place in appropriate and pleasant surroundings in which they will feel confident and relaxed and will be forthcoming. We are not talking about a situation in which the language of sanctions and the like applies. We are attempting to achieve a totally different culture.
There are many aspects to this. We will ensure that all "one" delivery sites provide access for disabled people, and facilities to enable them to use the service effectively. We will make provision for home visits by personal advisers where that is appropriate. For example, if a client has caring responsibilities that mean it is impossible to leave home, the personal adviser will consider conducting the interview there.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked for an assurance that the home visit would not be a last resort. We do not know what proportion of interviews will be conducted on home visits; it could perhaps be 20 per cent. So it will certainly not be a last resort. The only point at which a home visit will be a last resort is in the case of someone failing to attend, especially for a deferred interview, or for a "trigger" interview, and we are not confident that we have made contact with that person. At that point, a home visit will be a last resort to make sure that the person
276
is at the given address. Only in that context do we see it as a last resort. But we expect the initial interview to take place in an office made available to disabled people. If that is not appropriate, a home visit will certainly follow.
In the pilot areas we have selected sites on the basis of minimising the chances of anyone having to travel more than 45 minutes to their local office. We want the environment to be relaxed, friendly and helpful; and we want people to notice the difference on entering.
As a result of the pressures that noble Lords have properly put on me during the course of discussion to give undertakings about the atmosphere and culture of the "one" interviews, I hope that I have been able to reassure the Committee in terms of the number of specific commitments that I have made. In the light of that reassurance I hope that noble Lords will accept that there is no need to place the requirement for the interviews to be conducted in an appropriate location on the face of the Bill. That is at the heart of what we seek to do. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: A great deal is being taken on trust. In relation to so much of what we are asking, we have to wait and see. In that sense, we are dealing very much with a framework. Therefore, I ask the Minister to bear with us. It is important that we raise a number of these amendments. We have no idea merely from reading the Bill what we are in for.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. That was in no sense a criticism. It is exactly what a probing amendment should do; namely, to extract commitments from the Government by which their pilots and other schemes can be judged. It is entirely appropriate at Committee stage. So I assure the noble Baroness that in no sense is any criticism implied—on the contrary.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the noble Baroness; no criticism is taken. We seek reassurance. With regard to the location, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept and take on board the importance that we place on accessibility in terms of the interview location being an integral part of the system; and also that, where individuals are invited for interview, the option of interview in the home could be included in all invitation letters. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 62, line 5 after ("training") insert ("or benefits")
The noble Baroness said: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 116 and 117, which we shall take together. These amendments have the support of the Disability Benefits Consortium.
The amendment seeks to broaden the scope of compulsory interviews which new claimants will have to undertake as a condition of receipt of benefits. In

277
the Government's earlier consultation paper, Support for Disabled People (Cm. 4103), the single gateway scheme was described as,
"The mechanism for ensuring that people, including those with a long-term illness or disability, are given a personal adviser who will help them assess information on work, benefits and other government services".
As currently drafted, the Bill describes the interview as "work-focused". That term has been defined by the Government as an interview,
"conducted for such purposes connected with employment or training".
It was said earlier this evening—I make no apology for repeating it—that the term "work-focused" was misleading and did not reflect the objectives of the interview or the full range of support that should be offered to a claimant. The aim of these amendments is to make explicit the Government's earlier intention that interviews should perform the dual role of advising people with disabilities of the range of benefits to which they are entitled and, where appropriate, supporting claimants' efforts to find work.
The Disability Benefits Consortium is concerned about the description "work-focused", in that the Government place a disproportionate priority on getting people into paid employment at the expense of the provision of other kinds of support. We suggest that if that is replicated in the training of personal advisers and the evaluation of the success of the scheme, disabled people will be denied individualised support and access to valuable information about benefits.
It is simplistic to assume that welfare and work are either/or choices for many people with disabilities. Where paid work at some stage is a realistic possibility, it will often be necessary to work toward that goal through a support package that involves health, social services, education and training. People with learning disabilities may need job-coaching and the ongoing assistance of social services to take up employment. Those with sensory impairment may require communication support to try out employment. Personal advisers should take account of an individual's circumstances and act as a signpost to other avenues of support.
Severely disabled people who can work also need benefits to compensate for low earnings. They also need help with the extra costs incurred as a result of their-disability. Welfare and work are needed to deliver a degree of equity between disabled and non-disabled people in terms of extra costs and reduced incomes. Personal advisers should encourage people to claim in-work benefits to which they are entitled. For people with profound and multiple disabilities, including mental health problems, the nature and severity of their condition may rule out paid employment. A recent survey by the mental health charity MIND investigated attitudes to employment and benefits among people with mental health problems. The largest category who commented on what would help them to get work said that poor health was the most significant barrier. Comments included, "I would if I was well" and, "I would work if they gave me enough time to finish therapy". We believe that if there is to be an interview
278
for such claimants, it must focus on the welfare of the individual, including access to benefits, rather than solely on paid work. I appreciate that the Minister has given us considerable reassurances on that matter this evening.
In addition, others may find that caring responsibilities rule out paid employment. We believe that an interview will be beneficial to people in those circumstances only if the personal advisers recognise carers' contributions to society and centre interviews on the welfare of the carer. For many claimants, the benefits system is a source of confusion. There is evidence that people with disabilities do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled and perhaps are unaware of the range of support that is available. All claimants need up-to-date personalised advice on the appropriate range of benefits. That should be an integral component of the interview and made explicit on the face of the Bill. To that end, I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I congratulate the noble Baroness on thinking of these particular amendments. The}/ precisely encapsulate the misgivings which many of us, most notably the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, expressed earlier this evening. People are very individual. Here we are dealing almost entirely with those who are already exempt from the actively-seeking-work rules. Therefore, there can be no question of skiving or scrounging. These are people who have perfectly good reasons for not going to work. They are individuals. Their circumstances are very different. None of us from the outside is able to judge them with great precision.
The language of the Bill, especially on page 62 at lines 7 to 11, explains why a number of us have had misgivings. It states that the interview is for purposes connected,
"with a person's existing or future employment or training prospects or needs, and (in particular) assisting or encouraging a person to enhance his employment prospects".
From one point of view, those words may be viewed as entirely benign, but they sound rather as though everyone, however handicapped, is expected to have employment prospects. That impression may well be misleading. But if it is a misleading impression it might be in the Government's interests to dispel it.
In particular, the word "encouraging" is capable of ambiguity. In the sense that it is used in one-to-one, personal friendship situations, it is entirely benign; but there is another sense, with perhaps a faint suggestion of inverted commas involved, where it becomes very much the same kind of euphemism as the title of the caring Whip in another place.
The amendment encapsulates the difference between those two meanings. If the noble Baroness's amendment were accepted, the benign interpretation would clearly be intended. That, I think, would relieve a great deal of anxiety among a large number of people and might do a great deal to improve the Government's reputation and

279
to persuade people like me to make fewer speeches on the issue. The noble Baroness might think that that was a rather good thing.
Lord Rix: The definition of a "one" interview should accurately reflect the broad range of functions associated with it. Two of the central functions should be simplifying the benefits claims process, and advising claimants what benefits may be available to them. I therefore see no reason why that should not feature on the face of the Bill, or why we should not at least receive one of these splendid assurances that we have heard from the Minister today.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 seek to widen the definition of "work-focused interview" set out on the face of the Bill. I share the intentions underlying the amendment, but I hope to be able to give noble Lords the assurances that they seek—despite the ironic intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Rix—in order to enable them to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rix: The intervention was heartfelt, not ironic.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Again, I shall consider that. As I say, I agree with the intentions, but it may be worth spelling out a little further how clients will go through the claim process.
When someone of working age who is not in full-time work makes contact with the "one" service to claim benefit, he or she will need to go through an initial stage called "Start-up". This will be prior to taking part in a work-focused interview. The purpose at this stage is for clients to provide basic personal details, register their intention to claim benefit, and be issued with the appropriate claim forms. Giving people integrated, personal support at this stage will make it easier for them to access the benefits system.
One of the key elements of this early stage is for staff to identify whether there are other benefits to which the claimant may be entitled. Considering the training programme and the number of days spent in training staff to familiarise themselves with the full range of benefits and their entitlement, I am sure that that will not be overlooked by them.
Most people will then be required to take part in compulsory "one" interviews with a personal adviser. These interviews will be a more in-depth investigation of an individual's circumstances, and an exploration of the barriers that may prevent participation in the labour market.
Personal advisers will encourage clients to improve their employment prospects where relevant, even if they are some way off from being job ready; for example, if they have a very young child and may not be considering going back to work for several years yet. They will work with their clients to identify and take steps to overcome any barrier so that they are better able to seek work and to that end that second interview could well cover such areas as child care, housing, training and the availability of in-work support.
280
Although this interview is primarily about identifying the barriers to work which a client may face, it will also provide a second and further opportunity for staff to explore benefit entitlement. For example, personal advisers will ask clients about any caring responsibilities that would make it difficult for them to look for work. I would expect in that situation that the personal adviser will uncover the fact that many people may be entitled to invalid care allowance which they are not currently claiming and will advise the client to make a claim.
Personal advisers will also ensure that clients are aware of the in-work support which is available through the tax and benefits system should they move successfully into work. For example, if a client has a disabled child, if they were to go into work and it was thought appropriate, perhaps because of the child's school hours, that they needed WFTC, then they would be entitled to claim double the level of tax credit under WFTC than if the child was not disabled.
As your Lordships will be aware, Clause 52 also allows for further work-focused interviews to take place throughout a client's time on benefit. These will provide further opportunities for personal advisers to ensure that people are aware of the benefits they may be entitled to claim. The personal adviser will also be the central point of contact for any queries the client may have about benefit.
Talking with lone parents who have gone through the New Deal, what has struck me time and time again is the way that they regard their personal adviser on the New Deal as a friend. This comes up quite spontaneously. "She has helped me do this; she has taken me shopping for work clothes; she has trained me in interviews; she has driven me to the interview; she has looked after the child while I have had the interview; she has been a real friend to me." This comes up time and time again. We hope to get the same culture into "one".
The reference to benefits in this amendment, I take it, must be wider than the relevant benefits referred to elsewhere in the Bill. As I say, both at the initial orientation interview and at the "one" interview we plan to use the interviews to provide advice on any benefits to which an individual may be entitled. If this encourages take-up, for example for ICA which has still not happened, we will be delighted.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that, in the light of these assurances, there is no need for the amendment. Obviously, primary responsibility for claiming the benefits will remain with the client, but staff at all stages of the process already play, and will continue to play, an important role in making sure that people do in fact claim the benefits they are entitled to. As I said, the entitlement conditions for the benefits which are available are an essential part of the training for every member of staff. At a quick look, it looks as though at least 13 days are spent on benefit entitlement and a further five on the CSA as part of the basic training programme.
I do not think it would be appropriate to go further and include a mandatory discussion about benefits within the definition of work-focused interviews. The

281
intention behind the amendment—helping people claim benefit—will already be met through the service we are putting in place. As I pointed out, finis will take place primarily at the start-up stage and further discussion at the work-focused interview may not always be appropriate. I hope that your Lordships will accept that under the "one" service we are ensuring that our staff put emphasis on helping people claim the benefits to which they are entitled. Secondly, joining up the employment service, the Benefits Agency and local authorities on one site will ensure that expertise about the whole range of benefits is available in one place. I hope, with that explanation, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the noble Minister for her explanation. I thank also the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support and speech, one of the many, and also the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for his support.
I listened to what the Minister said. I regret that she is not prepared to accept these amendments. I shall read with interest in Hansard her reassurances that much of what I have made reference to will happen in practice. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 62, line 24, at end insert—
("(1A) Regulations shall be made specifying the maximum period which may elapse between the refusal of benefit and the hearing and determination of an appeal, and shall provide, if the appeal has not been heard and determined within such periods, for the applicant to be deemed to have had his case upheld.")
The noble Baroness said: The amendment relates to the maximum period allowed between the refusal of benefit and the hearing and determination of appeal. We believe that the amendment is straightforward. It seeks to ensure that regulations will be made which will clarify the appeal process for those who have been refused benefit because of non-compliance with procedures for a work-focused interview. We should like to know what will be the maximum period between failure to comply with the requirement to take part in an interview, refusal of benefits on that basis and the hearing of an appeal against refusal.
Secondly, what will the appeal procedure be? Thirdly, how many steps will there be? How many opportunities will there be for a claimant to appeal against refusal of benefit? Who will sit on the appeals board, whatever it is to be called? If the appeals board decides to refuse benefit, what will happen to that person? We referred to that when discussing Amendment No. 92E and the other side of the gateway.
As Mr Edward Leigh asked in another place, will the result of non-compliance after appeals mean that those who refuse to take part in the work-focused interview will be suited only to being wrapped in a blanket? I should hope not and therefore we seek clarification in
282
relation to the appeal process. If, after the final stage, the person does not accept that he or she must attend an interview, what will happen? I beg to move.
Earl Russell: This is a good amendment. It may concentrate the department's mind wonderfully. However, in passing, I must express a slight regret that it is not just that little bit better; that it does not specify that there shall be no loss of benefit before the appeal. That would have been an even better amendment and we might think about it in the future.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, I can see the charm of that; anybody who might otherwise lose the benefit will promptly appeal, after which, as regards the passport fiasco, "You have seen nothing yet!".
The amendment proposes a special arrangement for appeals by people who fail to participate in a work-focused interview either at the beginning or during the benefit claim. It proposes that, where an appeal is lodged because a decision has been taken to reduce or refuse benefit, should the appeal not be heard within a given period the appellant's case will be treated as upheld. Regulations would lay down the maximum period which should elapse between the refusal of benefit and the determination of the appeal.
As invited by the noble Baroness, it might be helpful if I briefly set out how the decision-making process for work, particularly as it has changed as a result of the DMA Act. The noble Lords, Lord Higgins, Lord Razzall and Lord Goodhart, and I sparred happily over that during the course of last year. As Members of the Committee will be aware, under Clause 52 entitlement to benefit is dependent on a client participating in the "one" interview both at the point of claim and at various trigger points throughout an individual's time on benefit following the occurrence of certain specified events; for example, when the youngest child becomes five, 11 and so forth.
Depending on whether the decision is made in respect of an initial or a triggered interview, a failure to fulfil this requirement would mean either that the claim was not accepted—that the claim had not been made effectively—or, if it was a triggered interview, that the amount in payment is reduced.
The personal adviser who conducts the interview will take a decision on whether or not someone has attended or taken part in an interview. This is not a decision which will be taken lightly and the personal adviser will ensure that the client understands the consequences of his or her actions and that he or she has every opportunity to play a full part.
As a result of the DMA Act our dispute resolution procedures encourage anyone who is unhappy with a decision to contact the decision-maker within one month of the notification. That allows an opportunity to examine the reasons behind any decision and to correct any error. Those procedures will apply to decisions on a failure to take part in a work-focused interview as well as other decisions. The arrangements form part of the changes that demonstrate the Government's commitment to reducing delays in the appeal system.

283
They will enable disputes to be dealt with quickly and will avoid formal appeals. In addition, changes to the composition and administration of appeal tribunals will ensure that any appeals that are not resolved at the dispute stage are heard more promptly.
It is appropriate that there should be a further right of appeal, beyond the opportunity to trigger the dispute procedure, against any decision that a client has failed to take part in a work-focused interview. Clause 52 will introduce a new Section 2B into the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to ensure that clients have a right of appeal under Section 12 of the Social Security Act 1998 against a decision that they have failed to take part in a work-focused interview, that they failed to show good cause for such a failure or that they are liable to suffer any particular consequence as a result of failing to take part.
That shows our intention to help and encourage people to meet the requirement placed on them to take part in a work-focused interview when appropriate. We have provided opportunities for those who feel aggrieved to challenge a decision that they have not taken. That can be done within the system inside a month or by using the full appeals procedure.
We do not feel that the amendment would be a sensible way to proceed. A provision that results in all appeals not heard within a specified time succeeding, regardless of whether the original decision was sound, would lead to some perverse outcomes. It would also encourage more people to appeal in the hope that their case would not be heard in time and benefit would be paid. The more people who appealed, the longer it would take for cases to be heard. The system would then be clogged, making it impossible for those with a legitimate grievance to have their case heard promptly. Such a system would serve no one well and would become the classic self-fulfilling prophecy.
The amendment would not result in fair decisions or a good appeals service through the independent appeal tribunal for all clients. I urge noble Lords not to pursue it. Our proposals would give clients every opportunity to participate in the interview, which is not onerous. When a decision is taken that a client has not participated, existing dispute procedures that were introduced under the DMA Act and the appeals procedures, which we hope will now be more streamlined and speedy, will ensure that cases are dealt with promptly and at the right level. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness has enunciated a slightly dangerous principle. She is saying that people should not be given appeal rights because that only encourages them. Where does that principle stop?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Earl is unfair. I said that if we continue to pay people benefit while they
284
appeal, there is every encouragement for anyone who has had benefit taken away to appeal so that they continue to have money paid.
Earl Russell: I hear that. Now will the noble Baroness answer my question? Where does that principle stop?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not know what the noble Earl is asking.
Earl Russell: I am asking how many other legal rights and how many other rights to sue for justice the noble Baroness is going to apply that principle to—the principle that it only encourages people.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This is unfair. No one is suggesting that anyone's rights to appeal should be restricted in any way. On the contrary, by introducing the new disputes procedure in the DMA Act, we are strengthening people's ability to have errors corrected speedily and properly. In no part of the social security system does benefit continue to be paid while somebody is appealing against a decision to discontinue benefit for whatever reason. That would give people a reason to appeal irrespective of the circumstances, even if the appeal was hopeless and beyond the range of the law. I am not saying anything beyond that.
Earl Russell: The Minister ought to read some of her speeches on the Jobseekers Act 1995.
10 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her explanation. Again, this is a probing amendment to try to ensure that there is a proper safety net for claimants. I should like to read in Hansard what she said in relation to the point at which benefits are removed. It has a number of implications. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 119:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
ANNUAL REPORT TO PARLIAMENT ON WORK-FOCUSED INTERVIEWS
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall report annually to Parliament on the operation of the work-focused interviews, with specific reference to—

(a) the number of those moved from the interviews into work; and

(b) the number who, having moved into work, leave work after—

(i) 6 months and

(ii) 12 months.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall take into consideration the following—

(a) the number of interviews which are postponed, deferred or cancelled,

(b) any cost implications for businesses, and

(c) the levels of fraud detected.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) all relevant non-governmental organisations,

(b) all businesses involved with the operation of the work-focused interviews, and

(c) any organisations which the Secretary of State may think appropriate.

(4) The period for any consultation under subsection (3) shall be three months.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is extremely important. It requests an annual report to Parliament on work-focused interviews. Given the importance of that whole process, there should be proper monitoring of how it has developed and of the successes and failures of the initiative.
The Committee will note that the amendment asks for a number of points to be covered in that annual report. We ask that:
"The Secretary of State shall report annually to Parliament on the operation of the work-focused interviews, with specific reference to—

(a) the number of those moved from the interviews into work; and

(b) the number who, having moved into work, leave work after—

(i) 6 months, and

(ii) 12 months".

The amendment states also that:
"For the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall take into consideration the following—

(a) the number of interviews which are postponed, deferred or cancelled,

(b) any cost implications for businesses, and

(c) the levels of fraud detected.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) all relevant non-governmental organisations,

(b) all businesses involved with the operation of the work-focused interviews, and

(c) any organisations which the Secretary of State may think appropriate.

(4) 'The period for any consultation under subsection (3) shall he three months".
We note that the pilots presently being conducted will last for three years, but we think it is very important to have a proper and full evaluation of those pilot schemes before full implementation takes place. We stressed that earlier this evening, but in relation to this clause, it is extremely important that a number of points should be set out clearly on an annual basis, starting with the results of the work-focused interview pilot schemes in the first three annual reports to Parliament.
I stress that we welcome the work-focused gateway. It builds on the principle behind the jobseeker's allowance which we instituted. But we question a number of practices and procedures which have not been set out on the face of the Bill. We want to know that this initiative will acheve what it sets out to achieve.
In relation to local authorities, we believe that the proposals as they stand give too much scope to local authorities to show discretion in postponing interviews or simply not having them at all.
At present, claimants have to spend a minimal amount of time in contact with Benefits Agency workers. This new system will place an enormous amount of additional work on those workers. Under the new system, Benefits Agency staff must allow up to an hour for interviews with claimants. That will put a massive strain on an already over-burdened system. With the opt-out provisions in the Bill, the choice which will face Benefits Agency staff will be either to undertake the interviews and have a huge backlog or to postpone, defer or cancel them. We believe that that is an uncomfortable choice for them to have to make.
We have consistently pointed out that compelling people to attend interviews, although welcome, is not the panacea Ministers pretend. It is what lies on the other side of the "one" initiative that matters. The whole idea of the work-focused gateway depends on the availability of jobs. We believe, therefore, that our reference in the amendment to reporting on how the interviews impinge on the workforce and on the success of placing people in work is important.
Over the past two years, policies implemented by the Government have increased the burden on business by nearly £40 billion. The introduction of the minimum wage, the social chapter, the working time directive, working families' tax credit and the new Employment Relations Bill are all increasing costs for employers.
We believe that we should know those costs on an annual basis. Over the lifetime of this Parliament, this Labour Government are introducing around £40,000 million in taxes and regulatory burdens on business. Those burdens relate to the windfall tax, the Budgets of 1997 and 1998, the national minimum wage, the working time directive, the introduction of works councils and parental leave. That all adds up to a total of £39·3 billion. Again, that has a direct impact on the whole focus of getting more people into work. We want more people in work, but we believe that the cost implications for businesses cannot be ignored. We believe that the costs should be stated in an annual report to Parliament.
The figures that I have given represent an average of £10,788 for each business in the UK. As 98 per cent of all businesses employ fewer than 20 people, that represents a significant burden for most. We believe that these measures are all working counter to the Government's alleged objective of getting people back into work and we severely question how effective the work-focused single gateway will be.
Further—I referred to this earlier—although in theory the New Deal for lone parents was a good idea, we do not believe that it has been the success described by the noble Baroness. However, many among the minority of employers who have recruited staff through the scheme admit that they would probably have taken on the youngsters anyway without the need for an expensive state subsidy. We therefore have to question the extent to which we pay in order to get people into work. Tesco, for example, has opened 23 new stores in the past 12 months and recruited around 14,000 staff but only 22 "New Dealers".
We believe that there is a contradiction in terms. Again, that is the reason for our Amendment No. 119. On the one hand, we have a work-focused interview while on the other hand provisions in the Bill include recipients of incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance being compelled to attend interviews. Those benefits, however, are, by definition, for people who are not able to work. We certainly believe that engaging disabled people in the gateway and encouraging them to work is important and right, as do the disability organisations. However, it is also crucial to ensure that genuinely disabled people are not pushed into situations and interviews for which they are not well enough. We have referred to that already tonight, but I stress that an annual report to Parliament should make reference to whether such initiatives are a success in terms of the compulsory aspect of the interview.
It is therefore essential that sensitivity and care are taken in calling genuinely disabled people to interview and ensuring that they do not simply receive a letter stating that they have to attend a work-focused interview or they will not receive any benefit. I appreciate that the Minister has given us some reassurance on that point tonight, and we are grateful for it.
We believe that cost and training should be monitored on an annual basis. We suggest that the cost of implementing the "single gateway" will be huge. We have estimated that employing the personal advisers alone could cost up to £100 million. The Government will also have to ensure that the personal advisers are fully trained and qualified in order to advise properly the range of individuals with whom they will be in contact. Too many existing job centres are inaccessible to disabled people and do not have the facilities to provide information in Braille or on tape. This, together with the fact that untrained staff are trying to assess the potential of people with a wide variety of disabilities, could lead to a shambles.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not want to invade the noble Baroness's speech, but we discussed whether premises will be accessible to disabled people when we considered a previous amendment. I thought that I gave assurances then that the noble Baroness found satisfactory.
Baroness Buscombe: I do not mean to be too repetitive, but it is important to explain why we have moved Amendment No. 119. It is important to monitor the success, or otherwise, of the whole process. We accept the Minister's reassurances about access, but an enormous cost will be involved. That cost factor—forgive me if I have not been clear on this point—will make an enormous difference to the overall cost of the initiative and we believe that we should have access to that information.
We have a right to receive a report on an annual basis. It is important to amend Clause 53 to allow Parliament to scrutinise closely the effectiveness of this welfare reform. That is why we believe that the amendment should be placed on the face of the Bill. We must ensure
288
that all the aspects to which we have referred are expressed and monitored through an annual report to Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I support the amendment. The discussions in Committee today have made clear that this new kind of interview is not yet completely clear and it is not easy to predict how it will be operated. It is something new and experimental. I believe that it is especially necessary that there should be an annual report in the first few years to see how the system proposed is operating in practice.
If the Government, for some reason, oppose having an annual report on this new system of interviews—I recognise that they may not find the wording of the amendment satisfactory—what do they propose to introduce in its place? How do they intend to inform Parliament and the public about how the system is operating?
Lord Hardy of Wath: I have no objection to an annual report if my noble friend wishes to produce one. However, much of the information it contained could be obtained easily in due course from answers to parliamentary questions. One would also expect Select Committees of this House or the other place to examine the matter very carefully.
I was puzzled by the noble Baroness's reference in her excellent speech to the burdens that the Government are placing upon businesses. She mentioned the large number of small businesses that exist in this country and then proposed imposing yet another burden on them by requiring the Government to consult them—thus adding to the grumbles that small businesses make about being distracted from their business purposes by more consultation with a government department.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: I like the idea of an annual report to Parliament. If the matter is discussed on the Floor of the House, it enables other bodies to see what the report contains and to add other information to the argument. That should not be overlooked. If the Minister casts her mind back to when she was in Opposition, she may remember how helpful it often was to have those outside bodies, as it were, "feeding the flames of the argument".
However, the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, found a flaw in this amendment—it was spotted by one of my noble friends. I suggest therefore that the principle is fine, though the wording may need changing.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This new clause seeks to formalise the process for reporting progress on the introduction of work-related interviews. It seeks to place on the face of the Bill a requirement for the Government to publish specified information in relation to the operation of the "one" service.
Before I develop what we intend to do, perhaps I can respond to a couple of the points made by the noble Baroness. I am puzzled, as was my noble friend Lord Hardy, about the propriety of why collecting statistics from business—apparently related to such

289
issues as the national minimum wage, the WFTC, DDA and all the other matters she clearly regards as an unacceptable burden on business—should be part of the dimension of this debate concerning the statistics of the "one" programme.
The noble Baroness also spoke of 1;he New Deal not being successful. I know in some detail what is happening with the New Deal for lone parents. If we can persuade lone parents to come into the New Deal, n will be extremely successful. But it is voluntary. Lone parents do not necessarily come forward in response to letters and, because there is not the "one" interview to bring them into the scheme, they do not know what they are missing. I am also worried about that aspect.
Twice tonight the noble Baroness said that we will be spending £100 million on personal advisers. As a piece of entirely personal curiosity, can she write to me and tell me where that figure comes from? I do not recognise it from any of my sources. However, I understand and share the desire of Members of the Committee to ensure open access to information on the progress of the "one" service. It is entirely reasonable that Parliament should wish to judge the effectiveness of such an important and radical initiative. That is why we are placing great emphasis on the evaluation of the pilots. We will be collecting and publishing not only information sought by this amendment—my criticism would be that the amendment does not go far enough in that respect—but a whole range of other information. That will be crucial in evaluating whether the introduction of work-focused interviews improves the extent of labour market participation and provides claimants with a more efficient service tailored to their individual needs.
In response to the noble Baroness, we will be publishing information on the number of people who get jobs, the number who are referred onto training programmes and claimants' views of the service they received. We will be collecting data on an ongoing basis on all the key stages of the new process, including the numbers taking part in work-focused interviews, the number of interviews which are deferred and the number of referrals to specialist help.
Over and beyond the bare statistics, we will also be conducting a full, in-depth evaluation. It will have qualitative as well as quantitative elements, remembering that by the time pilots are finished around 450,000 will have passed through them. For example, it will assess the experience of both clients and employers, and explore their views on the effectiveness of the "one" service. We intend to evaluate the policy, its delivery, the costs and benefits of the programme and all aspects of benefit claiming through the "one" service. We will also identify—a point that has not been raised tonight—the extent to which the "one" service maintains the security and integrity of the benefit system.
So details of the evaluation will start to become available as the pilots progress. I can assure the Committee that information will be available at the appropriate time. We expect the summer of next year for the qualitative assessments of the non-compulsory pilots; probably summer or thereabouts for the more quantitative evaluation. But to place the requirement on
290
the face of the Bill risks being unduly restrictive both as to the timing of the publication and the nature of the material provided. In the light of the assurances that I have given today and the enthusiasm of the Government to publish their findings and share melt research, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Addington: I believe that the most important part of this amendment is the report to Parliament and that it allows for debate within Parliament. Can the Minister give me some indication that the Government expect to have a debate on the findings on a regular basis which will allow input from outside bodies to be fed to those who are not involved directly in the parliamentary machine in order to raise new points that will be helpful to the whole system?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Apart from all other ways of drawing attention to the content of the research, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is an expert in tabling Unstarred Questions as opposed to Starred Questions drawing attention to recent reports such as those from Shelter, Mind, the Nuffield Foundation and others which over the years he has asked the House to debate at, I am sure, appropriate length. I expect no less stringent scrutiny of the Government's research than the noble Lord asks us to attach to the reports of other organisations.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her explanation. I am surprised that she was puzzled by my reference to business. It is tremendously important that we have the cost implications for business not least because of the burdens which have been placed on it since this Government came to power. There is no question but that this initiative will have implications for business.
As regards the training programme, I have stated that we estimate the cost as being £100 million. As the Minister believes that that is not in any way an accurate figure, can she say what she believes the cost will be?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Baroness has mentioned that twice tonight. On what basis does she produce her figures? At the moment we are talking about 200 personal advisers and there will probably be 2,500 of them in due course. I have already spoken about training. We estimate that the average cost will be about £2,000 per head. Obviously, they will be earning EO salaries, which is approximately between £16,000 and £18,000 each.
Most of them will be currently in service. Some will be drawn from the New Deal. Most of them already exist within the employment service. They will be doing a lot of the work in any case. If the noble. Baroness has some basis for her figures other than speculation, I would like to hear it. We have no figures of that kind. I shall be interested to know. On the ground of the

291
diffusion of useful knowledge, perhaps the noble Baroness will share with us the kind of information that I am doing my best to share with her.
Baroness Buscombe: I am happy to provide the Minister with that information. As regards the level of professionalism that we are asking for on the part of the personal advisers, £2,500 is not a lot of money.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The training programme that we have been talking about over 35 days or seven weeks means that the upfront investment in their skills is around £2,000. I am trying to give the Committee an indication of how seriously we treat the training element and how much we are investing in human capital in the personal advisers in what we all accept is an important initiative.
Baroness Buscombe: I am not sure that the Minister has understood. I was suggesting that as regards the level of professionalism and training which we have been reassured this evening will take place, £2,500 per person is not much money. We suggest that it will cost more. That figure does not pay for a lot of training.
I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment and have on the face of the Bill a requirement for an annual report. I thought that this Government were keen on annual reports to Parliament. I am pleased that the noble Baroness has reassured us that we shall be receiving ongoing information as regards the cost implications and the successes and failures concerning both the pilot schemes and full implementation if the scheme goes ahead on the results of those schemes.
I revert to a statement I made earlier this evening which was a plea on our behalf that we may all have the opportunity to debate the successes and failures and evaluate the results of the pilot schemes before the scheme is fully implemented. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Schedule 7agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Incapacity for work: personal capability assessments]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 65, line 17, at end insert
("provided that in making the assessment under paragraphs (a) and (b) above. account shall he taken of the types of jobs available in the locality")
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and that of my honourable friends—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Did the noble Lord refer to his "honourable friends"?
Lord Higgins: I meant to say "noble friends", but perhaps at this time of night I can refer to both.
292
When making an assessment under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of this clause, our amendment seeks to ensure that,
"account shall be taken of the types of jobs available in the locality".
This matter was debated at considerable length in another place. This clause is concerned with personal capability assessments as far as concerns people taking jobs. We shall deal with that aspect in greater depth when we discuss the Question on whether this clause should stand part of the Bill. After a personal capability assessment had been carried out and a person had been told that he was regarded as being fit for work, it would be unfortunate if it then turned out that there was no job appropriate to that level of capability in the particular location. It seems to us that that is something which ought to be taken into account. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have a very full answer in front of me, but I wonder whether there is a basic misunderstanding here. A person's incapacity benefit will depend, as now, on whether he satisfies the all-work test, which is the 15-point score. That situation will not change. I cannot believe that the noble Lord really wants the question of whether someone receives IB to depend on whether, for example, he lives in Croydon or Cumbria as regards the local job prospects. As I have said many times before, that will remain unchanged.
When it comes to the personal capability assessment—for example, looking at what people may be able to do and what training they may be able to have—that will, of course, involve some consideration of the local job prospects in the sense that it would be foolish to train people for jobs that had become obsolete in various ways. However, the point is that their benefit does not hinge on anything to do with the employment situation. Indeed, under this assessment, we shall be talking about what people may do, what training they may have, what childcare needs they may have, and so on. That will be independent of the local employment situation in so far as those skills or those needs for information are generalist. Obviously, it may equally be appropriate to take into account the local job situation in terms of the opportunities available to people; but that cannot affect their benefit level.
Therefore, before I read out a long speech, I wonder whether there is some basic misunderstanding between myself and the noble Lord. The benefit is a national one which depends on a national test. It does not matter where a person lives; it is not related to employment prospects. However, it may be relevant to consider such prospects when dealing with the personal capability assessment as regards what people can do, what opportunities are available, and what training may be appropriate. But surely that should be seen as an opportunity and not as a threat. Obviously, once in receipt of benefit, any disabled persons entitled to IB need take no further action if they do not wish to do so.
Lord Higgins: The issue may become clearer if the Minister were to refer to the Hansard report of the debates in another place. Essentially, if someone is

293
found to have the ability to take a job, we are saying that that needs to be related to the type of job available in the locality.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If someone receives IB, he is neither expected nor required to take a job. Whether people receive that benefit depends on the all-work test and not on the employment situation in the area. The personal capability test has nothing to do with whether or not someone is expected to take a job; it is a compulsory interview but any action following it is entirely up to the person involved.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: We are clearly somewhat at cross purposes here. We shall need to consider what the noble Baroness said. I still think it is appropriate in assessing whether someone is capable of doing a job that the kind of job he or she is considered capable of doing should be a relevant consideration. However, at this hour of the night I do not wish to delay the Committee further. There are other extremely important amendments for which people have been waiting a long time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 120A:
Page 65. line 17, at end insert—
("(c) for the doctor conducting the personal capability assessment to provide both the claimant and the person who shall conduct the claimant's work-focused interview under section 2A of the Administration Act (work-focused interviews) with an assessment of the claimant's future incapacity for work based on a medical prognosis of the claimant's disability or disease.")
The noble Lord said: I shall speak as briefly as possible. The amendment suggests that a copy of the assessment of a person's capacity under the all-work test should be given to that person. On the grounds that some 60 per cent of people who fail this test appeal, and half of that number have their appeals upheld either by the appeals tribunal or the adjudication officer, I should have thought that allowing them to have a copy of the doctor's assessment might be appropriate. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My concentration may have slipped but what benefit was the noble Lord referring to when he gave the figures for appeals? Was he talking about IB, DLA or SDA? He could not have been talking about the personal capability assessment because it has only just come in in the past fortnight.
Lord Addington: I was talking about the all-work test.
Lord Hardy of Wath: I express some sympathy with the approach which the amendment suggests. I speak from my experience as a Member of the other place some years ago. At that time a doctor was practising in my area and was causing a number of people considerable anxiety and their Member of Parliament considerable rage. I refer to one case where the doctor
294
arrived at a constituent's house to examine a lady who was very ill. He did not take his coat off and he did not stay in the house more than two minutes. Nevertheless, he decided that the lady was fit and well despite the fact that her weight had dropped from 12 to seven stone in the previous week. Three weeks later she died of cancer. I received a letter of remorse, apology and regret from a Minister in the previous government, although that did not bring the family involved much comfort.
I believe that from time to time governments need to ensure that those engaged in the public service should recognise that their job is not to defend the taxpayer or to save public spending. The amendment may not he acceptable but the compassion and care which I think is suggested in the amendment should be encouraged.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This amendment does two things. First, it provides for both the claimant and the personal adviser to receive a report following a personal capability assessment. Secondly, it states that the report must consist of a medical assessment of the person's future incapacity for work.
The key issue here—I think that it is an important one—is the question of providing information to claimants. It may help if I put the matter in context by dealing with the other issues first. In response to the previous amendment I explained the whole thrust—I hope—of our proposals for the personal capability assessment which is to provide personal advisers with information about what the person can do despite his or her medical condition. We want to do this in a way that will be relevant, useful and helpful in the "one" interview.
To recap, the PCA will be a single medical assessment process which will produce two entirely separate things: first, advice for the benefit decision-maker on whether the entitlement criteria for incapacity benefits are met—the all-work test—and, secondly, a capability report for the personal adviser.
The provision of the capability report to the personal adviser is already fully covered in the Bill. Clause 67 provides all the necessary powers for information relevant to work-focused interviews to be passed to personal advisers. It is complemented by provisions in Part II of Schedule 8 which ensure that the PCA can go beyond what is strictly necessary for the purposes of determining entitlement to benefit. However, I do not think that that is where the noble Lord's concerns lie. Nor do I think it necessary to specify that the capability report should provide an assessment of the claimant's future incapacity for work based on medical prognosis. It assumes that the personal adviser needs to know whether the person is incapable of work for benefit purposes now and whether that is likely to remain the case in future.
The personal adviser clearly needs to know whether the medical condition is likely to change so as to make particular types of work more or less likely. But the personal adviser really needs to know what the person can do despite his condition—or what he could do with the right help and support. That is what the report is about.

295
It is also important that we do not set its precise content in legislative stone. We are carrying out development work on this and it will be on trial in the "one" service pilots over the course of the year.
I shall now return to the main issue. I do not think the question raised was really about the information going from the medical assessment to the personal adviser. I suspect that the noble Lord is pressing—certainly I would in his situation—for the information to he available to the claimant when he or she sees the PCA.
We believe that it may be unhelpful for the Bill to specify that the claimant must he sent a copy of the capability report by the doctor. There is no question of these reports being kept secret. The requirements of open government are set out both in the current code of practice and in the Government's proposed freedom of information legislation. We shall ensure that people are able to see the contents of the report. Access to information is not the issue.
It seems to me that, in a way, the question is a second-order one. It is whether people should routinely be given a copy of the capability report and, if so, whether they should get it before their work-focused interview. That is something on which the Government have a genuinely open mind and are considering carefully as a part of the development work. It is not perhaps as straightforward as it may seem. One could have information, for example, which related to a terminal illness or a prognosis which is not already known to the claimant, whether because he has not been informed by his GP or whatever.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the personal advisers will have that report. It may be right that all claimants should have copies as a matter of course. My own view at the moment—but obviously we are considering the matter—is that the right way may be to make it clear that people can have a copy, and then it may be appropriate for them to be sent a copy if they signal that they would like one. It is clear that it would be most usefully done in the context of the interview itself. As 1 have said, we have an open mind on that.
There is no question of the claimant not being entitled to see the report. I am not sure whether sending it out routinely is the right approach. It may be that we should indicate that people are entitled to see it, in which case that may meet the noble Lord's concerns. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington: I thank the Minister for that answer. It is one of the more helpful I have received. It is also very important, of course, that the Government ensure that everyone knows that they are entitled to see the report. When one is dealing with any form of bureaucracy, most of the problems start with what one can do and what one knows one can do. I hope that the Minister will be pushing the matter forward. We may bring forward further amendments to see how far she has got in the process of ensuring that the information
296
is available to people and that they know it is available to them. But, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 120B not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): Amendment No. 121, the Lord Higgins.
Earl Russell: I am sorry. Should it not first be the Question on Clause 56 stand part?
The Chairman of Committees: I shall be coming to that.
Lord Higgins: I was under the impression that the clause stand part debate was linked with Amendment No. 120B. Am I mistaken?
The Chairman of Committees: The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is perfectly correct. I am very grateful indeed for the information from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who did not seek to move Amendment No. 120B. I shall therefore be calling Clause 56 stand part as on the order of the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 121, the Lord Higgins.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I, too, am baffled. I thought Amendment No. 121 was after Clause 56 and that, therefore, the Clause 56 stand part debate should go ahead.
The Chairman of Committees: If it is of help to the Committee, according to the Marshalled List, after Amendment No. 120B, which was not moved, come Amendments Nos. 121, 122 and 123. We then come to Clause 56, as amended or not, stand part.
Lord Higgins: I am as baffled as the Minister. I was under the impression that clause stand part was linked with Amendment No. 120B.
Earl Russell: I think I owe the whole Committee an apology. I took the decision not to move Amendment No. 120B at short notice. I had not noticed—and should have done—that there were several amendments in Clause 56 to come before clause stand part which the groupings had taken out of order. If I have caught people short, I am sorry to have done so but, having not moved Amendment No. 120B, I cannot go back on it. We will come to clause stand part in due course. It is all my fault and I am sorry.
Lord Carter: I think we have to take it in order now and so we have to dispose of Amendments Nos. 121, 122 and 123 and then deal with Clause 56.
The Chairman of Committees: I have already called Amendment No. 121. In view of what the noble Earl, Lord Russell said, he has no need at all to apologise to

297
your Lordships. I, for one, from the Chair am very grateful to him for the indication he was kind enough to give me just now. Amendment No. 121.
Lord Higgins movedAmendment No. 121:
Page 65, line 36, at end insert?
("() Before exercising any power to make regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult organisations representing disabled people and shall take reasonable account of their submissions and concerns.")
The noble Lord said: The amendment suggests that before the Government take any powers to make regulations under this clause the Secretary of State should consult with organisations representing disabled people and take reasonable account of their submissions and concerns. This is an important amendment. It is well known that the voluntary organisations in the field of social security have immense expertise and perform an incredibly valuable function. Therefore it is entirely appropriate that they should be consulted on these matters before any change is advocated.
We will come to the kind of changes that might be advocated when we reach clause stand part. My understanding is that the Social Security Advisory Council is somewhat restricted in the extent to which it can advise on these matters. So it is most appropriate that machinery should exist for this consultation. It is also most important that the Government should take such views into account. As will become apparent in a moment or two. they are not doing so at the moment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This amendment would introduce a specific requirement for the Secretary of State to consult with groups representing disabled people before making regulations under Clause 56. As I am sure your Lordships know, the provisions for PCA simply mirror the provisions for the all-work test. There is no change in the way the test operates as the gateway to benefit. The regulations to be made under the clause will re-enact unchanged the regulations that currently set out the detail of the test.
This detail was the subject of intensive consultation when it was introduced by the previous government, and we see no reason to repeat that exercise. I should stress that the Government believe that we have a general responsibility to consult widely on our proposals. We have done so up to now and I can assure your Lordships that we shall continue to do so in future without any need for a statutory requirement to consult specific groups. We are talking to organisations which represent disabled people in a number of contexts across the whole of our agenda and across many departments of government, and we shall continue to do so.
We fully realise that these organisations often do not agree with us but we value their contributions to the policy debate and we think carefully about what they say. We have consulted widely on all the measures in the Bill which relate to benefits due to sick and disabled people. We sent the consultation document out to a wide range of people and we discussed details on several occasions with the Disability Benefits Forum. We
298
considered their responses, particularly where they were critical of the proposals, as well as all other points made to us.
On the positive side, one of the issues about which the Disability Benefits Forum was specifically concerned was the age 20 cut-off for young disabled people's entitlement to incapacity benefit, which would disadvantage those entering higher education or training. In response to those concerns, we have brought forward the amendment to allow us to extend the age cut-off to 25 for those people.
The work of the forum has now ended following the resignation of some of its members. The Government regretted the decision. I certainly did, as I was involved some time ago in helping to set it up. We found it helpful, and it made an important contribution to our thinking. But the end of the Disability Benefits Forum as a result of the movement of the forum members does not mean that the department has turned its back on consultation. On the contrary, the DSS continues to work with disability organisations on detailed issues affecting sick and disabled people. For example, we are exploring with colleagues across government the implications of the Disability Rights Commission for future consultation arrangements. We also meet regularly, on an informal basis, to discuss these issues.
The noble Lord was right. There was a general statutory requirement to submit most draft social security regulations to the Social Security Advisory Committee. When the committee considers it appropriate, it will put the regulations out for public consultation. At that point the Social Security Advisory Committee will routinely consult disability organisations.
I have made clear that the Government already have frequent and wide-ranging contacts with organisations representing disabled people. I hope and believe that they will continue to give us the benefit of their advice and expertise. I hope that I have shown to the satisfaction of the Committee that a statutory requirement to consult disability organisations is unnecessary. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: I thank the Minister for that response. Will she clarify two points? First, so far as concerns the Social Security Advisory Committee, is it right that it has no remit to deal with regulations made within a stated period—I believe it is usually six months—of a newly made Act of Parliament and therefore would not necessarily be consulted on these issues? Secondly, has the forum now ceased to exist altogether?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord is correct on the first point. Normally, the Social Security Advisory Committee does not scrutinise regulations made within six months of Royal Assent on the relevant primary legislation. That is for the reason that there has usually been extensive consultation and debate during the preparation and passage of a Bill. So the effort is to avoid a repeat debate.

299
On the second point, yes, the members of the Disability Benefits Forum have left the forum; so it no longer exists.
Lord Higgins: In the light of those remarks, we can pursue some of the points that arise later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Communities: I must point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 122 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 123.
[Amendment Nos. 122 and 123 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 56 shall stand part of the Bill.
Earl Russell: I told the Minister when I gave notice of my intention to oppose the clause that my intention was probing in the first instance. I regret that the Minister has told me in the past few minutes some of the points I was probing to discover. She said in relation to Amendment No. 120 that the substance of the all-work test and the regulations under which it is imposed would remain unchanged. And in relation to Amendment No. 119, she said that the score is quantitative—15 points and you pass. That will remain unchanged. In effect, the Minister has told me that the points that I regard as the worst features of the all-work test are to continue. I was very sorry to hear that.
Of course, we agree on the point that the Minister has just invoked. We agree that it is a good thing that a test should look at what people can do as well as what they cannot do. However, the Minister may not quite understand that my objection to the all-work test has always been its formulaic quality. It is qualitatively very much the same line of argument as exists between us, and will continue to do so, on the CSA.
The record of the all-work test is an extremely poor one. The Minister is familiar with the incapacity benefit leavers tracking study. That indicates that it is a very poor predictor indeed of people's future chance of obtaining work. People who are found unfit to work are just as likely over the next few years to obtain work as those who are found fit to work. That does not suggest to me that the test is doing its job very effectively. My noble friend Lord Addington referred a moment ago to the number of appeals. Some 60 per cent of those who have their benefit disallowed appeal. Of those who appeal, more than 52 per cent have their benefit reinstated. Apart from the tracking study evidence, that alone suggests that the test is not doing its job particularly well.
There are a number of good reasons for this. Some of the main reasons that people are prevented from working are ones that a quantitative test cannot measure. In particular, a quantitative test cannot measure pain. There are days when one feels that pain can be measured in decibels, but unfortunately that is not true. Pain is probably one of the biggest factors that prevent people
300
from working. I do not see how one can quantify by a test acute back pain or migraine, yet those ailments prevent people from working.
The test cannot quantify fatigue. However, with acute respiratory illness, which is one of the conditions that frequently prevents people from working, fatigue over a period of time usually makes work impossible, unless it is carried out in small amounts. A test cannot measure endurance. A test by its very nature can test only once the capacity to perform a certain function over a limited period of time, but any attempt to do serious work must involve the ability to go on conducting the function over a period of hours, days, weeks and months. No quantitative scoring test can possibly assess these matters. These are quite important defects.
The other problem, which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, attempted to address in Amendment No. 120, is that there is not a single activity known as work. I apologise to the noble Lord for not assisting him, but I did not think that I should say the same things twice. If one looks at the occupants of the mobile Bench in this House, to say that they are incapable of work is manifestly absurd, yet there are many types of work for which they are unfit. One can assess a person's fitness for work only in terms of the work of which he or she is physically and mentally capable. I take the case of the unemployed former miner or ship-builder referred to by my noble friend Lord Goodhart at Second Reading. It is no use telling him that there is a lectureship in Egyptology at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. He is not qualified for it. It is probably no use telling him that there is a vacant job as a computer operator.
Training can do many things, but as years go on it becomes true that one cannot teach an old dog new tricks. There are exceptions to that, but one will not know in advance what they are. Therefore, there is no such thing as being fit for work. One may be fit for particular types of work while one is totally unfit for other types of work. One must consider whether the person is fit for any work that he or she is capable of doing. One must give up using a formula and, like it or not, face up to the fact that people are individuals and are very different from one another. If one is to test for fitness to work and regard people as individuals, even if one uses a scoring system—although I have deep misgivings about such a system, it may be part of a relevant assessment—one must rely on an assessment of the individual by a medical practitioner, or practitioner, at rather greater length than is usually possible in the all-work test. One must look at the whole person in the whole situation. If one does not do so, one will continue to make mistake after mistake.
Lord Higgins: Perhaps I may add to the remarks of the noble Earl. I understand that Clause 56 ensures that the Government will replace the all-work test with a personal capability assessment. The assessment will effectively consist of the existing test plus some additional questions on the person's capability for work. But it is well known that the all-work test as it stands—the Government will continue that as part of the assessment—is open to considerable criticism. So much so, that, for example, the National Association of

301
Citizens' Advice Bureaux has suggested that the proposals in the clause should be rejected and a more satisfactory test introduced which is more related to the work situation and less stressful for the claimants. In support of that view the CAB produces considerable evidence which states that some 60 per cent of people have had their benefit disallowed as a result of failing the all-work test and have appealed against the decision. Of those who appealed more than half had their benefits reinstated either as a result of the appeal tribunal or because the adjudication officer changed his view.
In addition, it cites a number of examples. I shall not weary the Committee at this time of the night by quoting them at length. It refers, for example, to a client who failed the all-work test, but the examining doctor insisted that his answer to every question relate to a good day when in fact he had some days when he felt well and others when he felt unwell. A London CAB reported a client who failed the all-work test after an interview which lasted only five minutes. The situation reported to me by former constituents suggests that the integrity of the test is open seriously to doubt. It is not unusual for it to he conducted in a less than sensible manner and that is unsatisfactory.
It would be helpful if we could have the views of the Minister on how this fits in with the lengthy debates on the single focus gateway. It arose on a previous amendment. We are told that these interviews will be very extensive and may last up to an hour. The staff will he heavily trained, and so on. In comparison, these interviews seem to be conducted on a superficial basis. Perhaps the Minister can tell us to what extent she has received reports that those investigations are not carried out satisfactorily. Can the noble Baroness also tell us in simple terms how the continuation of the all-work test, now called personal capability assessment, will fit in with the arrangements for the single focus gateway intervals? I am not clear how this fits together. It would be helpful to know.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was not surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, criticised the all-work test. I was a little surprised at the stringency of the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He was deeply critical of something his own government introduced—was it only four years or so ago?
The basic criticism of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was that the all-work test was formulaic: that it analysed matters which could be counted rather than those which could not. It is true that the test is based on the mechanical functional capacities of individuals: whether one can lift a bag of potatoes, climb the stairs, and so on. The noble Earl is right on that. Where I think he is not necessarily correct is in his belief that doctors are not required—they are—to take full account of pain, fatigue, and fluctuating conditions. It is because the existing all-work test, with its points score of 10 for mental health problems and 15 for physical health problems, emphasises what people cannot do and therefore does not see the whole person and is not holistic that we seek to introduce the other half, the personal capability assessment, in order to ensure that
302
we have full and proper information about what a person can do as well as their functional capacities and what they cannot do.
It is true that the survey referred to by the noble Earl shows that we have to do more. That is right and it is why the Government strengthened not only the Disability Rights Commission, which was long overdue, but has introduced a new deal for disabled people, the disabled person's tax credit, linking rules from eight to 52 weeks and so forth. We take the criticisms that disabled people still find it hard to go into work even if they are coming off incapacity benefit. That is why we are seeking to make those avenues possible.
Thirdly, the noble Earl criticised the doctors' interviews, based on the CAB reports. I have no reason to criticise the CAB's statement that a certain interview took only five minutes, but my information is that the average doctor's interview lasts for 40 minutes. If there is criticism that the interviews have been cut short, or the claimant feels that he has not been treated properly, or his condition not properly assessed, that person should seek to complain through his MP, the CAB and so forth.
I asked to see in what proportion of interviews there was a follow-up complaint by the person or his carer that medical examination by the doctor was inadequate, incomplete, failed to consider certain functions and so forth. I found that about 500 complaints were made, or less than half of 1 per cent of all interviews conducted by those doctors. Perhaps people were inhibited about making those complaints, but it shows that, with obvious exceptions, for the most part people regard those medical interviews as basically satisfactory.
I hope that I have addressed the points raised by the noble Earl, but if I have not I should be happy to write to him with further details.
11 p.m.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that reply. She was a little ungenerous to criticise the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, since if she had listened carefully to what he said she would know that he was confessing plainly to having learnt from experience through cases in his constituency. That is something all of us have to do and if the noble Lord has done it I am glad that he has.
I am aware of the instructions the Minister quotes about the need to take account of pain and fatigue, but it seems to me to be in potential conflict with the assessment of incapacity simply by a numerical score on the list. I do not see how those issues can be reconciled, and in practice the numerical score takes priority.
I understand and respect the Minister's determination to do better. It is exactly what she says on the CSA. In both cases, she will not do better, however hard she tries, because she is barking up the wrong tree. You simply cannot do it by this formulaic approach.
The clause stand part debate has been an ideal vehicle for probing what the Government wanted to do, but a Division deleting the clause would not achieve my objectives. Therefore, I must think hard before the Report stage about the drafting of an appropriate

303
amendment to get rid of a test which was from the beginning misconceived and has been proved by experience to be a disaster. Therefore, looking forward to a better amendment and a new engagement, I beg to withdraw my opposition to the Question that the clause shall stand part of the Bill.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Incapacity benefit: restriction to recent contributors]:
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 57 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I oppose Clause 57. It makes a major change that could devastate the lives of the many severely disabled people who would be affected. It could deny them £66 a week in incapacity benefit, for which they may have paid national insurance contributions for many years. Amazingly, the Government have produced no valid reason for the change. It is unjustified.
Severely disabled people currently get incapacity benefit if they have worked and paid the required amount of national insurance contributions for any—I repeat any—period of their working life. The clause says that the person needs to have done so in one of the past two years. The Government say that they are returning to the original intention of linking incapacity benefit to recent work. Where is the evidence that that was the original intention? The Government are merely proclaiming that it was. I doubt that there is a mention of it in the original debates. If there is a mention, I assume that the Government will quote it this evening. If that was the intention, why was it not mentioned in the legislation? Why were the conditions different from those now proposed?
My noble friend Lady Hollis is a superb advocate of government policy and we all greatly admire her. I look forward to her quoting chapter and verse in response to my invitation. What was said in the original debate? Why are the Government now proclaiming that incapacity is linked to recent work? Where is the evidence? Where is the justification?
When Ministers talk about linking incapacity benefit to work and original intentions, they should bear in mind the massive difference between now and Beveridge's time: the disparity between regional unemployment rates. The decline of heavy industry has led to high rates in some areas but not others. The Government have not answered and cannot answer the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on Second Reading that the clause is geographically discriminatory. For those who live in one place where they can get a job it is fine, but for those who live in another place where they cannot get a job it is just too bad. It is a lottery.
The Government are adopting a fairground lucky dip scheme for the payment of incapacity benefit. The clause gives a clear message to severely disabled people. It is metaphorically shouted from the rooftops, but it is never articulated by Ministers. The message is that those who are doubly unlucky—unlucky enough to become
304
disabled and unlucky enough to have lived in a high unemployment area for the past two years and been unable to get a job—will lose their full incapacity benefit of £66. Ministers will say, "We are terribly sorry about this, but it is your bad luck, not ours. All that we can do is enforce the law passed by Parliament". That is a probable scenario for the future if this House and another place passively accept this deplorable clause.
Those who are unlucky enough to become so severely disabled that they are too incapacitated to work but who live in a prosperous area and have a job can have their incapacity benefit. Is that not a fantastic scenario? It is like the goats and the sheep. It has nothing to do with incapacity. Those people may be gravely incapacitated. In fact, by medical definition, they are too incapacitated to work. But some receive the benefit and some do not. Where is the rhyme, reason or justification?
The sad irony is that the people denied their incapacity benefit have been paying national insurance contributions for many years, trusting that they would benefit if disability or illness made them unable to work in the future. That trust will be betrayed if this clause stands part of the Bill.
That calculating of the moral contract between government and people cannot be justified. The Government have failed to justify it. Somehow, I believe that the Government know that it cannot be justified. Why else should my noble friend Lady Hollis produce ludicrous examples in an effort to excuse the proposal? For example, on Second Reading, my noble friend scorned a person's right to claim incapacity benefit if he had made a minimal contribution some 20 or 30 years previously. She somewhat mockingly, perhaps jokingly called it a "down payment", giving entitlement to national insurance benefits for life.
I am afraid that providing extreme examples is an easy game. Everyone can play that game. For example, how about a person paying contributions for 40 years who then becomes unemployed for a mere two years and then becomes severely disabled? That person will receive absolutely no incapacity benefit if this clause is agreed to. I cannot believe that there is any justification for that.
My noble friend also displayed her unease about the clause by saying that the period in which a disabled person should have worked could—not "would"—be three and a half years rather than two years if he was fortunate enough to have had the right mix of tax and social security years. That is fine. But we are back to the fairground lucky dip. It is a lottery rather than a rational, social policy. Why is it that the three and a half years does not apply to everybody or, better still, five or six years? Then we should have a fairer and more equitable system instead of the good-luck, bad-luck syndrome.
I conclude by saying that if the Government want to make fundamental changes to a well-established and accepted system, that is fine. But they need to put forward a fair system which is buttressed by arguments based on justice and logic. They also need to give disabled people far more time to absorb the changes and react appropriately, as they wish.

305
I hope that the Government will think again about this clause between now and Report stage. If they do not, I shall table the Motion again and seek the opinion of the House on the matter.
Lord Higgins: I deferred to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, because he has such a long-standing record in these areas of disability, incapacity benefit and so on. But that should not in any way suggest that on this side of the Committee we do not entirely share his views which we believe, on the merits of the case, suggest that the clause should be withdrawn.
First, it is extremely unfortunate that this debate and the one which is to follow on whether Clause 58 shall stand part should take place at this hour of the night. In another place, ahead of the rebellion which took place there on these issues, the Government sought to time the matter so that it did not arise at prime time. That is why we have Clause 70 in this Bill. The Government totally failed in that. This evening, the Government have succeeded. There is widespread interest in these particular issues and it does not seem to me appropriate that we should be debating them now.
I have argued on many previous occasions that, to a large extent, the Department of Social Security has been taken over by the Chancellor and the Treasury. The reality is that before the election, and indeed afterwards, the Prime Minister made statements which said very clearly that they would reduce the cost of the welfare budget and were to use the money on education and health. There are a number of quotations from the now Prime Minister to that effect. Meanwhile, the social security bill is expected to rise by some £38 billion over a period of three years.
The reality of the situation is that the Government, the Treasury and the Department of Social Security now have three clauses in the Bill designed to claw back some of that money by measures which we, on this side of the Chamber and I think in all parts of the Chamber, regard as wrong. The Minister can, no doubt, tell us to what extent the Government expect to save money as a result of Clause 57. They have advanced various arguments, but the effect is to prevent long-term unemployed people claiming incapacity benefit. Even if it is true that in the past, as pointed out by the Disability Benefits Consortium, too many unemployed people had wrongly claimed incapacity benefit, the problem would be among the existing claimants. The provisions in the Bill apply only to future claimants. If the Government believe that there are people on IB who should not be, the proper way to deal with that is to introduce an appropriate test.
I have already indicated, and I make no apology for it, that it seems to me that the all-work test is not appropriate. We have to do better than that. However, at all events, that is the way to deal with this problem as regards the future, and not by penalising those who have contributed in the past. They may have contributed for many years and have only in the past couple of years not been in a position to do so. The Government will now withdraw benefit from them at the very moment they may find it important.
306
I shall not delay the Committee further. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, spelt out the basic arguments. We believe that this is wrong. I do not think it is possible to amend the clause in a way which is satisfactory. I think that it should be dropped from the Bill. I believe that there is a general feeling across the entire Chamber, that that is the appropriate thing to do. I support the noble Lord's comments. I believe it is a bad clause and that it should be rejected.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: I am grateful to my good and noble friend Lord Ashley and his co-signatories for facilitating this important debate.
Like my noble friend, I acknowledge the Bill's many good features about which I have spoken in previous debates; but also like my noble friend, I believe that the Bill would be much improved by the deletion of Clause 57.
All that governments do in office is compared with what they told the electorate in seeking office. But where in Labour's general election manifesto was there the vaguest suggestion that 170,000 people who now qualify would lose their entitlement to incapacity benefit?
No wonder my right honourable friend Tom Clarke, who led for Labour in explaining our policies for disabled people at the election, felt bound to speak and vote against the clause in another place. His speech kept faith impeccably with what he told the electorate on our behalf.
No convincing case has been made for what this clause proposes. Labour Ministers rightly condemn their predecessors for encouraging unjustified IB claims from unemployed people to cut an ever-lengthening dole queue. But the Bill's proposals on IB do not dispossess those who allegedly ought not to have the benefit.
Instead they pile handicap on handicap for many thousands of severely disabled people who, having paid national insurance for a contributory benefit, in good faith and over many years while in work, will lose the help for which they insured themselves.
Currently a person must have paid either Class I (employed) or Class 2 (self-employed) national insurance contributions, or a combination of both, on earnings equal to at least 25 times the lower earnings limit (currently £66) in any one tax year prior to the benefit claim. Under this clause a person will need to have made such a contribution in one of the last two tax years before the benefit year in which a claim is made. The result is that someone who has been unemployed for two years but who had paid contributions for 30 years before then will not qualify. However, someone: unemployed for 30 years who has worked for one of the: last two years will qualify for the benefit. This must be unjust.
Progressive illnesses often mean that people struggle on in work for the sake of their mental health, even though they are not earning sufficient wages to maintain a contribution record. They often have many years of full-time employment, paying national insurance contributions, before illness strikes. As the illness

307
progresses, they stay in work as long as they can but, with frequent absences, this may become part-time work.
A citizens' advice bureau in the Midlands reported on the case of a schoolteacher with multiple sclerosis. He eventually had to give up his job as his illness made it impossible for him to continue full-time work. He then worked part time marking exam papers. This disqualified him from claiming incapacity benefit since he was not considered to be undertaking therapeutic work and his earnings were below the level for paying national insurance contributions. The proposals in Clause 57 would mean that if, after two years, he had to give up his part-time work because of ill health he would not be eligible to re-claim incapacity benefit. This must be unacceptable to noble Lords in all parts of the Chamber.
The deep resentment felt by disabled people about Clause 57 is compounded by media suggestions that its proposals are justified by massive fraud in the disability benefits system. These suggestions persist, and are repeated in public debates, notwithstanding the findings of the benefit integrity project—BIP—inherited from the Major government, which involved DSS investigators in visits to the homes of more than 40,000 disabled people to check every detail of their entitlement to the benefits they were receiving. BIP's findings—about which my noble friend Lady Hollis has so helpfully reported to the House—are striking testimony to the honesty of disabled people in relation to the benefits system.
Frank Field, the then Minister for Welfare Reform, emphasising the Government's top priorities on 26th March 1998, told the House of Commons in a ringing declaration:
"Our commitment to the vulnerable is not negotiable".—[Official Report, 26/3/98; col. 686].
But current reality is that disabled people and the elderly poor, among other vulnerable groups—not least IB recipients—have fared much worse than most others over recent years.
In fact, the incomes of people dependent on disability benefits were frozen for 18 years after 1979 when the link forged by the last Labour government between benefits and average earnings was broken by the Thatcher government. Had that link been kept, IB would now be £24.15 a week higher. By breaking the link, the Treasury saved £18 billion on this benefit between 1980 and 1997—a brutal switch of resources from vulnerable to more fortunate groups. That, too, helps to explain the depth of resentment felt by disabled people about this proposed cut in spending on IB. They see it as a still further redistribution of resources from the less well-off to the least well-off; from those in need to those in greater need. They say it confuses reform with retreat and they ask, "What justice is there in penalising people who save and forego pleasure today in order to pay for safeguarding their future?"
For their part, Ministers talk of their concern that the social security system has become unsustainable. But what are the facts?
308
The UK is bumping along the bottom—in the relegation zone, as it were—of the league of 21 OECD member states in terms of the proportion of GDP spent on health, education and social security. And while it is true that social security costs more in Britain than health, education and law and order combined, the same is true also in most other developed countries.
Hype about social spending being out of control in Britain is contradicted also by highly expert recent advice from Christopher Daykin, the Government Actuary, that due to relatively low benefits here:
"Future costs of social security in the UK look more manageable than in other European countries".
There is no one more familiar with the facts or more skilled in interpreting them than the Government Actuary. And to clinch the argument he goes on to say that such countries,
"… also have a more significant problem of ageing than the UK, since we have already made significant changes which will keep future costs down".
Most disabled people want the Government to be tough on fraud and tough on the causes of fraud, not least when it is caused by administrative incompetence and corrupt private landlords. They say that failure to tackle low take-up frustrates the will of Parliament. They are not resistant to change. For there are many reforms disabled people want to see. They are appreciative, as I am, of helpful new steps that the Government have taken and will be taking and want them to succeed.
For them to succeed, they argue, Whitehall and Westminster must get the facts straight. And benefits for disabled people should be commended to the taxpayer, not as acts of compassion, but of enlightened self-interest and moral right. Ministerial preoccupation should be with value, as well as cost. And disabled people should be seen as givers, not only receivers. For there are marked cost savings in humanely assisting them to achieve their full potential as full and fully participating members of British society.
Lord Rix: There are Members of the Committee on all sides of this Chamber, and those who declare no political affiliation—myself included—who profoundly disagree with the Government's policy with respect to restricting incapacity benefit to recent contributors. Like the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I, too, am sad that such an important debate is taking place so late at night.
Over the various stages of this Bill we have heard many detailed expositions of the problems relating to this clause. I shall summarise the three aspects of the clause which are of most concern to me and indeed of those who have written to me on this matter over recent months. First, this measure does not represent a strengthening of the contributory principle; it represents an erosion of it, hitting hardest those who worked for a long period of time before unemployment and those who have intermittent work patterns for other reasons such as caring or looking after children. At Second Reading I gave an illustration of the way this change would impact upon a carer I know.

309
Secondly, this rule does nothing to help people with disabilities back to work. Worse still, the cuts will penalise those trying to go back to work—the very opposite of what welfare reform should aim to achieve. The Government claim that they wish to reduce the inactivity rate among older workers. That is a measure which I am sure bears no reflection on your Lordship's Chamber, particularly in this latter Session. However, I should like to explain briefly the way in which the effects of this clause run counter to that claim.
Many people, particularly towards the end of their working life, find their health giving way and consequently their national insurance record becomes fragmented. Currently a year's full rational insurance contribution at any one time during a working life ensures eligibility to incapacity benefit. People whose health is giving out know, therefore, that they can keep trying for work in the knowledge that no matter how chequered their work record becomes, their entitlement to incapacity benefit remains. Not so under the proposals in this clause. A person will need to have a fully paid contribution record during one of the previous two years before claiming benefit. Claimants will rapidly become aware that the only way to guarantee incapacity benefit is to give up aspirations to work and to claim benefit as quickly as possible as soon as one's health begins to deteroriate.
Finally, to my mind this clause does not help to restore incapacity benefit to its original intention or restore the link between benefit and work; rather it takes away a contributed benefit from people who may have worked for many years. As something of a double whammy the fallback benefit, the severe disablement allowance, is being abolished later on in this Bill, consigning those who may have worked for 40 years or more but who happen to become sick at. the wrong time to a future on means-tested benefits.
The Minister may be satisfied that with this situation on the ground that it is theoretically possible for some individuals, although undoubtedly fewer of them, to receive broadly the same amount of money from the state via means-tested income support. It is worth remembering that not everyone will be eligible for income support. A working spouse is sufficient to prevent that. Furthermore, the means-tested provision is something from which we spent nearly 30 years trying to escape because benefits of that kind carry with them the very disincentives which prompted the need for welfare reform in the first place.
11.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: Any amendment on a matter to do with disability which comes before us in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ashley of Stoke, Lord Morris of Manchester and Lord Rix, is one to which we on these Benches would listen very seriously indeed. When they say exactly what we thought already, we join with them with alacrity. We have more reasons for supporting the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, than I am going to give to the Committee at this time of night.
I shall mention one only. This clause leaves out altogether those with earnings below the national insurance lower earnings limit and therefore with no
310
contributions. Many people make do with a portfolio of part-time jobs, showing a great dedication to the principle of work and making a living somehow, but not building up a contributions record. An extremely high proportion of those people are women. This clause is severely discriminatory in effect.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was particularly startled by the noble Earl's last point. I am slightly out of order on the comments I was going to make. I make it clear that already 30 per cent of claimants for invalidity benefit are women. Over the next 15 years or so, we expect it to be about 50 per cent. So in saying that it is discriminatory against women I wonder whether the noble Earl is on the right clause. I assure him that by virtue of the national minimum wage an extra 250,000 people, mostly women, will be going over the lower earnings level and will be credited into the system. As a result, they will be entitled to incapacity benefit when they are not at the moment.
Whatever else is wrong with this clause in the view of the noble Earl, it is certainly not true to say that it is discriminatory against women. As I have said, women will form the biggest growth in the number of claimants partly because of the ending of the reduced married woman's contribution and in future because of the national minimum wage. I hope that the noble Earl will accept that point at least, even if our minds do not meet on other points.
Earl Russell: I accept that the minimum wage has made the position less discriminatory than it was before and I welcome that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the noble Earl.
I go back to the substantive point. The Committee has expressed anxieties about Clause 57 which amends the entitlement conditions for incapacity benefit to require payment of some national insurance contributions in one of the previous two tax years.
The Government's proposals are based on the clear principle that there should be a link between incapacity benefit entitlement and recent work. However, the contribution conditions are a particularly complex area of the benefits system and it may be helpful if I begin by clarifying some keys points about the practical effects of the Government's approach.
First, as I am sure Members of the Committee know well, the new rules do not affect current claims. Therefore, there is no question of benefit being taken away from existing recipients who remain on incapacity benefit.
More importantly, future claims which link back to a previous period of entitlement will also be unaffected. So people who leave incapacity benefit will be able to do so with a guarantee that if they have to return within the linking period, which this Government extended from eight weeks to a year for people in work, they will be able to do so without having to resatisfy the contribution conditions. To reinforce this we also intend to make a general exemption for people on IB in the

311
previous tax year. This will help people who try to work for more than a year and find that they cannot reclaim IB immediately because their contributions are in too recent a tax year.
The arrangements will ensure that there is no question of people trying to go back to work and being unable to get back on to IB because they have had no opportunity to re-establish their contribution record. That will be particularly helpful to people with intermittent or deteriorating conditions, and other people whose prospects of sustained employment are poor.
When people are in work they will, in any case, not have to work for all that long in order to satisfy the new requirements. As now, contributions on earnings equivalent to 25-times the lower earnings limit, currently £66 a week, will suffice. This is equivalent to just four weeks' earnings for someone on average male full-time earnings, or 12 weeks for someone on the national minimum wage. That period of work need not be continuous. So, here again, there is recognition of the needs of people with broken work records and intermittent health problems.
Where someone has met the minimum requirement for paid contributions in one of the previous two tax years, he can have been unemployed for the rest of the time and still qualify. Because of the time lag between tax years ending in April and the benefit year starting in January, it will be possible, as my noble friend Lord Ashley said, for some people to qualify for IB as long as three and a half years after leaving work. So there is no question of people losing eligibility for IB after a short period of unemployment.
The Government recognise that there are situations where it is unreasonable to expect people to have worked and contributed in the previous two tax years. The reforms in Clause 59, which will enable young disabled people to claim IB without having to satisfy the contribution conditions, are the clearest example in that respect. We have also made it clear all along that we shall maintain the status quo for carers. We shall provide in regulations for carers who currently qualify for IB after receiving invalid care allowance to continue to do so on the same basis as now—that is, through contributions paid in any tax year. I should emphasise that it will not be necessary for the person to have been working immediately before he or she started caring.
Therefore, to sum up, the Government's proposals include full protection for existing beneficiaries and people who go off IB for periods of a year or more. People will be able to qualify on the basis of just 12 weeks' work at the minimum wage and on the basis of work done as long as three and a half years ago. The current position of ICA recipients will be maintained.
However, the Government's proposals will not extend IB to groups other than the young disabled who are not eligible under the current rules. There is no doubt that the contributory system is complex. Indeed, some noble Lords may not realise exactly which groups do or do not currently qualify. I should explain that there are in fact two national insurance contribution conditions for
312
IB. The first, which Clause 57 amends, requires contributions to have been paid in one tax year. Currently, that can be any tax year, however long ago.
The second contribution condition for incapacity benefit requires contributions or credits equivalent to 50-times the lower earnings limit in both of the previous two tax years. Clause 57 leaves this position unchanged. People will continue to be able to satisfy this condition by credits alone; but, as now, if they have neither paid contributions nor received credits in both of the previous two tax years, they will not qualify. In this respect, the Bill does not alter the position of groups whose circumstances do not attract credits, including most people who are in work but earning below the lower earnings limit.
There was some confusion in the other place about the position of mothers with children who receive HRP (home responsibilities protection) for pension purposes. Perhaps I may make it clear that HRP is not the same as national insurance credits. Mothers with children cannot use it to claim IB. In order to get credits, mothers need to meet other requirements, such as signing on as unemployed, or being in receipt of statutory sick pay or ICA.
Because the second contribution condition already imposes a requirement which relates to the two most recent tax years, it is already possible for someone to have contributed in earlier years but fail to qualify for IB. It can be possible under the current rules for someone to have paid contributions for 30 years but fail to qualify due to failing the credit test of the past two years. That is not a situation created for the first time by Clause 57, as perhaps some noble Lords may believe.
As there has always been a second contribution condition, albeit not quite in the current form, it might even be said that the possibility of someone paying contributions for many years and then failing to qualify for benefit was foreseen by Beveridge. Certainly the founders of the national insurance scheme saw a distinction between retirement pension, where entitlement builds up over many years, and what used to be called short-term benefits for sickness and unemployment, which depended on more recent tests of eligibility. Of course the basis for that distinction is that whereas everyone needs to provide for their eventual retirement, benefits for unemployment and incapacity are intended to provide for people who have recently been working and whose income has been interrupted.
I know that my noble friend Lord Ashley found it difficult to accept that IB and its predecessors have always been intended as a replacement for earnings from recent work. I remind him—I am sure he knows this—that under the National Assistance Act 1948 the full rate of sickness benefit was not payable unless there were a certain number of contributions or credits in the last complete contributions year. That rule changed over the years; none the less since 1948 the contribution tests for short-term contributory benefits have always included a test of recent contact with the labour market. Over time, this test developed into what is now the second contribution condition which required contributions or credits in both of the two most recent tax years.

313
Therefore, it has always been the case that people who have paid contributions in the past but have no contributions or credits in the two most recent years will be unable to qualify for incapacity benefit.
The debates when IB was introduced in 1995 did not focus on the contribution conditions because the previous government decided simply to carry forward the existing rules for sickness benefits. I hope that I have established that it has always been the case that IB and its predecessor benefits were always intended as a replacement for earnings from work. It follows therefore that IB is not intended for people who are in other situations. Yet at the moment half of those on IB came on to benefit from unemployment. The way the existing contribution conditions work mean that a person could have been signing on as unemployed for many years but would still qualify for IB as long as they had paid the minimum amount of contributions in just one year before becoming unemployed. I know that my noble friend does not like this example, but currently it is possible for someone to do six months' work and then be unemployed for 20 years and still qualify for IB. We do not believe that that was in the expectations of Beveridge when the system was first set up. It has not been the expectation since and we do not think it right for this to continue.
That is not to say—I wish to emphasise this—that an unemployed person who becomes sick should be left without income or support. But in those circumstances the right benefit is not incapacity benefit which is always meant to be related to recent experience in the labour market; the right benefit is income support which already goes to many thousands of people who satisfy the medical test of incapacity but not the contribution conditions. In fact, most of those who do not satisfy the new contribution conditions and were previously unemployed will already be getting income-based JSA which is paid at the same rates as IS and therefore to that extent has the same qualifying income tests. They will also be able to qualify for the disability premium in due course. IS with a disability premium of £73.30 a week is more generous—or certainly higher in income—than basic long-term IB. Some 70 per cent of those who fail to satisfy the new contribution condition will get IS rather than IB and will experience no financial loss.
The. noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked me what sort of savings we envisaged. The savings for the first year are expected to be £25 million and in the third year £60 million. But these proposals are not about cutting expenditure because spending on incapacity and disability benefits will continue to rise by more than £2 billion in real terms over the life of this Parliament.
As I said at the beginning, the Government's approach is based on the clear principle that there should be a link between IB and recent work, as was envisaged by Beveridge. That link has been lost in recent years, primarily because of the growth in long-term unemployment which Beveridge, frankly, did not anticipate. Restoring that link is an essential aspect of the reform of the benefits system that the Government are determined to achieve. Within that framework safeguards need to be made, and are being made, for
314
certain groups. We believe that the overall approach is right in principle and, despite what has been said tonight, we do not believe that it will place unreasonable barriers in the way of people establishing their entitlements. We believe that it is right that IB should be related to recent work, and that is what Clause 57 will ensure.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I am grateful to my noble friend for responding to some of the points raised in the debate. She has heard the unanimous condemnation of Clause 57 that has been expressed on all sides of the Committee. I simply repeat the situation I have already mentioned—I am being quite frank with the Government, quite honest with the Committee—the Government must reconsider and think again. If they do not, this amendment will be brought forward on Report and we will call for a Division in the House.
Lord Higgins: Perhaps I may add that much of the noble Baroness's defence of the clause was listing people who will not be hit by it. I find the justification for those who are to be hit by it wholly unconvincing. I very much hope that we shall return to this matter on Report. I do not think the clause is amendable:; it must simply be eliminated. I hope that it will be brought before the House at a reasonable hour on that occasion.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Incapacity benefit: reduction for pension payments]:
On Question, Whether Clause 58 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I wish to oppose this clause as well. The clause introduces means testing for the first time for a major long-term contributory benefit. That is a very significant change. It is based on the clarion call from my noble friend of directing help to those in greatest need. That is a fine objective and a fine principle with which few of us would disagree. It is easy to argue that those who can afford it should help those who cannot. But we should look carefully at the consequences.
We are moving away from universal provision for everyone who pays contributions. That will damage trust in the Government. People will undoubtedly resent paying and not receiving the expected benefits. They will see this as a case of, to change a prime ministerial phrase, "nothing for something".
We should not forget that expectations are rising in this country and few will accept that poverty should be the automatic consequence of being unable to work. That is why occupational pensions are so numerous. In olden times, many people lived for the day because they could not afford to do otherwise. Now they are more able and willing to prepare for the future. But attitudes will change very quickly and very radically if the prudent find themselves little or no better off. That would be a major consequence of this clause.

315
The Government deserve credit for their new provisions for disabled people, but the poor should not be made to pay for the very poor. That is a fundamental principle in objecting to this clause. We need to look at the income levels of those whose occupational pension will be reduced to pay for other reforms. I am sorry to challenge my noble friend again on this issue, but the Government's proposal is that anyone with an occupational pension of more than £50 a week loses part of incapacity benefit for every extra pound of that pension. The consultation document indicated that that would be at the rate of 50p in the pound.
Any attempt to justify means-testing severely disabled people, and at a penal rate which is higher than the highest tax rate paid by millionaires, is to be deplored. The Government seek to give the impression that those with incapacity benefits are well off and that they are receiving a state benefit which they can do without. Nothing could be further from the truth and I think the Committee should scrutinise the figures with very great care.
Ministers, including my noble friend Lady Hollis, talk of "almost 100,000 people" getting occupational pensions of more than £230 a week and having incapacity benefit of £60 a week on top. Those are the figures which appear in Hansard and the press, but according to my noble friend's Written Answer on 30th June, this is just not true. The Written Answer says that £230 is the average pension of the 90,000 incapacity benefit recipients who have a pension of £150 a week or more. But £230 is the average figure: some will be above and some below, but we cannot be sure how many will be above. However, we can be sure that there will not be 100,000. The estimate I have been given is that some 40,000 people have occupational pensions of more than £200 a week.
I am afraid I must challenge the Government here. Does my noble friend accept that her figure of almost 100,000 people is wrong? Does she accept that only some 40,000 people have an occupational pension of more than £200 a week? If my figure is correct, just 6.6 per cent of a total of 600,000 people have both occupational pensions and incapacity benefit. That is a very small percentage: yet it is being used to justify the means-testing of a far larger group whose pension is very much lower. Forty-six per cent of incapacity benefit recipients with occupational pensions have a pension income of between £50 and £150 per week.
These are the people who in future will be hit the hardest. When the occupational pension income is as low as £2,652 a year, the incapacity benefit would be cut. It would be taken away completely when the occupational pension is £9,542 a year. These figures are for a single person and they are very, very low indeed. This is a blatant case of the poor paying to help the poorest, and I simply cannot agree with that. Far too many other people on middle incomes and well-off people should be doing it; taxpayers should be doing it, not poor, disabled people.
That is what is wrong with this clause. The message that this Government are giving to the vast majority of people is, "If you become disabled, beware. As far as
316
the Government are concerned, you will have a low income. You won't be the poorest in the land but you will be poor, and all the super-rich will be all right". For those people struggling to work despite a disability or an illness, as mentioned earlier, which they know will eventually incapacitate them, it is a really terrifying prospect.
This Government argue that there is double provision of pension and incapacity benefit. The facts are these. The Thatcher government removed the earnings-related element of the former invalidity benefit, claiming that there was double provision. The same tired old argument is being used again now. This Government refer to double provision. The idea was used again in our debates today. It is as if the previous cut never occurred, and the Government are rushing in brandishing a new idea. However, rather than double provision, it is a case of double jeopardy.
I hope that the Government will think again about the clause between now and Report stage. I repeat: if they do not, I shall again give notice of my intention to oppose the clause and, on Report, the House will be divided.
Lord Higgins: Incapacity benefit is a national insurance benefit awarded to people who are incapable of work and who, having contributed to the scheme all their working life, have entitlement to a payment to replace their earnings when they become too ill or disabled to work. The effect of Clause 58 is to remove that entitlement for people who happen to have pensions.
It is difficult to envisage any clause that would be objectionable on so many different grounds. I have already complained that we ought not to be debating this issue at five minutes to midnight. One can only hope that the BBC parliamentary channel will transmit the debate at a better time. In that context, I must say that the captions that appear at the bottom of the screen, impartial as they are, are done in a most extraordinary way. They are very effective indeed. I wish that I had similar research facilities.
This is a matter of very great concern to people outside this Chamber. This provision abuses the contributory principle. People who have contributed may find, in the circumstances described in the clause, that they do not receive their benefits. It is an extension of means testing, but in a curious way. Most strange is the fact that the clause is a positive deterrent to having a pension. As I said, this legislation is about five Bills rolled into one, but much of it is devoted to encouraging people to take out pensions. Yet in the same Bill, what do the Government do? They say that if people happen to have an occupational pension—a type of pension that the Government believe is the best thing that ever happened in the pensions field—they suddenly find themselves clobbered and their pension reduced at a rate of 50p for every £1 of pension income over £50 a week.
As I say, it is difficult to envisage any proposal that offends so many different principles at the same time. As with the previous clause, I do not believe that Clause

317
58 is amendable. The only thing for this place to do is to reject it. I hope that when we return to the matter on Report, it will do exactly that.
Lord Morris of Manchester: In the debate on Clause 57, I asked where, in our general election manifesto, it was suggested that 170,000 people who now qualify for incapacity benefit would lose entitlement. I ask now where it was stated that disabled people would be forced to take a cut in benefit of 50 per cent of any personal pension worth over £50 a week so that someone who has saved for years to provide a weekly pension of £75 will have their benefit cut by £12.50 a week.
Again, the proposals are justified by reference to "massive fraud" in the disability benefits system. The most precise figure used for the extent of such fraud was that given by the Prime Minister in an article in The Times on 15th January 1998. He wrote:
"We spend more on disability and incapacity benefits than we do on the entire school system. Benefit fraud, estimated at £4 billion a year, is enough to build 100 new hospitals".
But the figure of £4 billion, used also by the National Audit Office, was quickly shown to be entirely bogus. Indeed, it was dismissed that same day by my noble friend Lady Hollis, speaking for the DSS, who told this House that it was,
"based on old information from the previous government",
and that in the tens of thousands of cases investigated under BIP her department had,
"not found a single case of confirmed fraud".
After her disclosure—
Midnight
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene. It is right that reference was made to about 50 cases of suspected fraud. I am happy to confirm that, to the best of my knowledge, not one single case of fraud was confirmed. But I am sure that my noble friend will accept that when I made that statement I tried to set it in the context that the benefit integrity project revealed a very high level of error—of the order of 15 per cent—in the accuracy of entitlement to DLA. That was understandable because people got better and continued to draw their benefits without necessarily understanding that a change in circumstances triggered a change in benefit. I was very careful to emphasise that it was not about fraud. But that is not to say that there has not been, and there is not, a high level of error.
Lord Morris of Manchester: I am grateful to my noble friend. She will also recall that what BIP demonstrated was that there was a vast amount of under-claiming of their entitlements by disabled people. I shall document that as I proceed.
After my noble friend's disclosure, many thousands more disabled people were investigated in DSS swoops on their homes, bringing some to the brink of suicide, but not a single case of proven fraud was found. Yet the bogus figure of £4 billion in benefit fraud is still quoted as one of irrefutable truth. As recently as 19th May, in
318
an article prompted by strong resistance by Labour MPs to the Government's proposals to cut spending on IB, one distinguished journalist went further:
"Benefit fraud",
he said,
"still runs at £4 billion a year. Benefit abuse must be many times that sum".
As with fraud, however, so with abuse, the truth will out. Again, it came from my noble friend Lady Hollis. In a recent debate she revealed that there was,
"an under-claim of £5-£6 billion by disabled people",
of disability living allowance and attendance allowance alone. With her customary candour and decency, and notwithstanding the effect on her departments budget, she also said that she personally,
"would be cheering if that happened",
all of which shows that the real story is not that disabled people abuse the system, but that the system abuses them for they miss out on £5-£6 billion in help that Parliament intended them to have. Without it many of them are left doubly disabled and in double despair.
It is also disturbing that a reason often given by disabled people for not claiming their entitlements is fear of being branded as what some commentators call "something for nothing merchants". The same reason is given by frail elderly people, more especially single women living alone, for not claiming income support. For not only disabled people under-claim: over £2 billion a year in income support goes unclaimed by the most vulnerable of elderly people.
Higher take-up means higher spending, but it is for help that Parliament has approved for vulnerable people, and failure to deliver it frustrates the will of Parliament. Clause 58 does nothing to remedy under-claiming; indeed, it makes life harder for disabled people who, in saving and striving to help themselves out of poverty, deserve our admiration. I hope very much that this clause will be removed from the Bill.
Lord Rix: The decision to means test incapacity benefit against pension payments is one which I, like other noble Lords, have difficulty in accepting. This measure will directly penalise people who save sensibly for their future. Many people took government advice and have been paying into personal pension schemes. They feel deeply betrayed to discover that they are being penalised for doing this. The proposal undermines government efforts to persuade people of the need to make their own financial provision for retirement. I am also concerned because the principle behind the amendment may set a dangerous precedent that signals the end of universal entitlement to the basic state pension.
If governments were to take incapacity benefit from people who have saved to give themselves peace of mind for the future, what is to stop the Government doing the same for those who save for their retirement?
There are also problems with the way in which this aspect of the Bill is set to be implemented. A threshold of £50 means that someone in their late forties who has to stop work would start to lose incapacity benefit when

319
his income reaches just over £5,500. He loses all benefits once his income reaches £9,300 per annum. That hits people with very modest incomes. It is a myth that the means test will impact only on the wealthy.
I urge the Minister to think carefully about negotiating the threshold and the corresponding taper so that the system is more equitable for sick and disabled people.
Lord Goodhart: From these Benches, I strongly support everything said by each of the previous speakers in this debate. I add two brief points.
First, this clause creates a form of partial means testing. It is only partial because it goes only against one form of income—pension income. If one is lucky enough to have a substantial investment income, one is entitled to claim incapacity benefit and none of it is set off against one's investment income. That seems to be wholly inequitable. Indeed, the particular kind of income which is targeted here seems the one which is most actively to be encouraged: pension income. It would be more honest of the Government simply to say that incapacity benefit is to be abolished; and maintenance is to be claimed only by way of income support. I do not suggest that; far from it. But I think that this is a particularly unattractive form of means testing, and more so than the conventional means testing.
Secondly, this proposal will not only hit those who become incapacitated. It will hit many other people as well. It will do so because many who have mortgages to pay off now insure themselves against becoming incapacitated in order to ensure that they will be in a position to maintain their mortgage payments if they are unable to work through illness or injury.
The effect of these proposals is that those payments will be among the payments which lead to a reduction in the right to income support. The Minister looks a little doubtful about that. Perhaps I may refer her to that provision. The Bill states:
"In this section 'pension payment' means a payment of any specified description, being a payment made under an insurance policy providing benefits in connection with physical or mental illness, disability, infirmity or defect".
Quite clearly that would cover the mortgage protection policy that I describe. In those circumstances, individuals who now have that kind of policy will be well advised to increase their policy premiums because of the loss of incapacity benefit which they will face if they become incapacitated.
For those reasons, as well as for the reasons so clearly and strongly put forward by the previous speakers, we, too, most strongly object to the clause. In due course, we hope to be able to support a vote that the clause should be removed from the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Government are well aware of the concerns that have been raised about the proposals in Clause 58 under which some account will be taken of the income from occupational and personal pensions when future claims are made for IB.
320
In order to clear up any possible misunderstanding, I should stress that, as with the change to the contribution conditions, people who are already on IB will not be affected. They will continue to receive IB in full, as well as their pensions, for the duration of the current claim and any future claim which links to it.
However, for new claimants there will, under Clause 58, be a reduction in the amount of IB payable where the income from an occupational or personal pension exceeds a certain amount. The Government have proposed a reduction equivalent to 50 per cent of the pension income over £50. But the exact sums will be set out in regulations and the Secretary of State has always made it clear that he will review the level of the disregard before the introduction of the measure to ensure that it is fair and reasonable. I repeat that these figures are not set in stone. The Secretary of State made that clear at the Report and Third Reading stages in another place. In addition, the Secretary of State will be reflecting on the points made tonight.
What is at issue today is the principle of reducing IB, not the precise level of the reduction. I know that the principle troubles my noble friend Lord Ashley and many of your Lordships. IB is a contributory benefit and in the main the practice has been that it is paid in full regardless of other income. I say "in the main" because, contrary to some assertions made tonight, there have always been some income tests and earnings rules in the contributory system. For example, entitlement to adult dependency increases and child dependant increases in IB and retirement pension is subject to a test of the partner's earning and occupational and personal pensions. Equally, contribution-based JSA takes account of the full amount of occupational and personal pensions above £50 a week. Equally, in IB there are rules on therapeutic earnings, counsellors' allowances and so forth. So there have always existed some income tests and earnings rules within the contributory system. Furthermore, contributory benefits for unemployment have been abated for pension income for many years and at a taper of 100 per cent as a result of the policy of the previous administration.
What, then, is the principle behind the Government's proposal? The principle is the need to ensure that the IB rules reflect modern conditions and establish a fairer partnership between different types of support for people who are unable to work.
The post-war Labour government created a structure of benefits for working people below pension age which was intended to provide an alternative income if earnings were interrupted by sickness or unemployment. At that time it could generally be assumed that if people were not working they had no income. The benefits were therefore clearly designed to meet financial need—to defeat Beveridge's giant of want.
The essential purpose of IB and JSA remains the same today, but the circumstances have changed very significantly, both because of the very large increase in the coverage of occupational and personal pension provision and because of the increased prevalence of early retirement. Today, 86 per cent of men in full-time work are members of either an occupational or personal

321
pension scheme, as are 77 per cent of women in full-time work. This compares with just over a quarter of men in 1953. Another significant change is that today far more people take early retirement. These changes are recognised in JSA, but not in IB.
As a result, IB is increasingly providing a top-up for pension income. That is indisputable. Over 600,000 current IB recipients—around one third—have income from an occupational or personal pension as well as their IB. Nearly 400,000 have pension income of £50 a week or more averaging £120 a week. Nearly 100,000 have pension income worth £150 a week or more, averaging £230 a week. Those amounts are substantial. I should be happy to go into greater detail about the breakdown of the holdings of occupational pensions alongside IB, but full details were given in an answer to Dr Roger Berry on Thursday, 17th June 1999 in the other place, where your Lordships can check the figures.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Higgins: What is the overall saving to the Exchequer?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We do not anticipate much in the first few years, but over the next 10 or 15 years the savings will grow considerably. The total savings from the occupational and personal pensions changes are estimated at £190 million in year three.
The amounts received in occupational and personal pensions are substantial. Nearly half the IB recipients who also receive an occupational pension are in the top two quintiles of income distribution. Before any noble Lord points out that disability living allowance is counted in assessing people's position in income distribution even though the benefit is intended for specific additional costs, let me say that even if DLA is excluded from the calculations, nearly half of those with occupational pensions are still in the top two quintiles.
The growth of pension provision affects the degree to which people today face want, which is the contingency that IB is designed to meet. In Beveridge's day it could be assumed that inability to work meant lack of income, but that Is no longer the case. Many people who take early retirement regard their occupational pensions as their main source of income and the true replacement for their earnings. For people with substantial pensions, IB is a secondary form of income—a supplement that the retired person may not even have anticipated in planning for retirement and that they may regard as an unexpected, though no doubt welcome, bonus.
The benefit is not performing the income-replacement role for which it was designed. There is considerable overlap and duplication with a form of income that is also intended to provide a replacement for earnings. The position is quite different from that which applies after pension age, when there is a clear and deliberately constructed relationship between occupational and second-tier pensions and the basic state pension.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked me what the implications would be for the state pension. The state pension comprises the basic pension and an earnings-related element in SERPS. People can choose to
322
have an occupational or personal pension instead of SERPS, so account is taken of occupational pensions in the state scheme. They are designed to be complementary. The basic state pension is a secure foundation and we believe that it is right that it should continue to be the foundation on which to build a second pension.
The Government's proposals are intended to inject some logic into the interaction between IB and private provision, to create a proper partnership that recognises that people with occupational and personal pensions are not in the same position as other IB claimants. Once a person has pension income above a certain level it is no longer appropriate for them to have IB as well. Below that there should be a gradual taper so that there are no clip-edge effects. The amount at which IB ceases to be payable will depend on the level of the disregard and taper, which the Secretary of State will keep under review, and the amount of IB entitlement in individual cases. For a single person on the basic long-term rate of IB, a £50 disregard and a 50 per cent taper would mean that some IB remained payable until the pension income was nearly £10,000. Someone with an age addition and increases for a partner and one child would need a pension of nearly £16,000 a year before IB was withdrawn completely. We believe that that strikes a fair balance between state and private provision while still providing an incentive to people to save for retirement. It is considerably more generous than the JSA. arrangements.
As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart pointed out, as well as providing for pension income to be taken into account, the clause also provides for regulations to be made that would enable permanent health insurance linked to the ending of employment to be treated in the same way.
Our intention in taking payments from PHI policies into account against IB is to create a level playing field with the treatment of payments into occupational and personal pensions. Therefore, we shall take account of PHI only where it has been arranged by an employer and the contract of employment has ended with that employer. We have discussed that with the Association of British Insurers and it agrees that that is the right approach.
Therefore, I should make it clear that occupational sick pay or its PHI equivalent will not be deducted from incapacity benefit; nor is it the intention to take account of other forms of health insurance; nor mortgage protection payments. The only sort of insurance that will be taken into account is permanent health insurance and then only when it has been arranged by an employer and the contract of employment has ended. It will not apply to personal health insurance, nor mortgage protection payments.
I should add that any regulations providing for new forms of income to be taken into account will be subject to the affirmative procedure and so will be guaranteed close scrutiny by Parliament.
We also recognise that there will be circumstances in which it will not be appropriate for occupational and personal pensions to be taken into account. Therefore, Clause 58 provides power for occupational and personal pensions not to be taken into account where the pension payments are in connection with the death of a member of the scheme or where an occupational pension scheme is in deficit or has insufficient resources to pay the full

323
pension. It includes a power to assume a notional income where a claimant deliberately fails to avail himself of an available pension payment so as to increase and maximise his benefit, which is a long-standing social security provision to prevent abuse.
I said at the beginning that the Government recognise that there are genuine concerns about the proposals in Clause 58. However, the Government believe that it is essential to modernise the rules of IB. I suspect that if Beveridge had anticipated the growth in private provision, he would have agreed. The Secretary of State has made it clear on several occasions that he will consider carefully the level at which pension income will be taken into account. But the principle of partnership and producing duplication between IB and occupational and personal pensions, which was not anticipated when IB and its predecessors were devised, is not something on which the Government feel they should compromise because they do not believe it would be right to do so.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I thank my noble friend for her response to the debate. No one does it better on behalf of the Government. But she has heard the condemnation of Clause 58 from all sides of the Committee. She knows where we stand. We want the Government to reconsider this matter. If they do not, we have spelt out clearly the course of action that we intend to take on Report. I stand by that, but I thank the Minister for her reply.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Incapacity benefit: persons incapacitated in youth]:
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 124A:
Page 68, line 1. leave out ("20 or, in prescribed cases,")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I must express my pleasure at enjoying a last waltz with the Minister. Such is my anticipation of the pleasures ahead that I insist on at least three circuits of the floor.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Is the noble Lord, Lord Rix, suggesting that we should dance to "Strangers on the Shore"?
Lord Rix: I begin by paying tribute to the Minister and the Government for raising non-contributory incapacity benefit to the level of contributory incapacity benefit for young entrants. Back in 1975, some of us, particularly those at MENCAP, were less than wholly convinced by the logic of giving someone with a few weeks' of work and contributions one level of benefit for long-term incapacity and giving someone whose ill health or disability prevented him ever working a much lower rate of long-term incapacity benefit.
The Government have partially corrected that anomaly and what they have done deserves credit and thanks. But having paid that tribute to the work that no doubt went on behind the scenes to secure that plus in the tally of welfare reform plusses and minuses, when the Minister responds, I anticipate a general rebuke to the effect that an agenda for change which was all plusses and no minuses would be inconsistent with the Government's commitment to maintaining tight control of public expenditure.
324
Reading the debates in another place, I am conscious that among the critics of some of the proposals in the Bill are those who want much more radical cuts in the welfare budget and certainly do not favour all plusses and no minuses. I need, therefore, to show my colours which are, I hasten to add, not party political colours, unless a disability party has emerged while I was not looking. My starting point is not that we are spending too much money on sick or disabled people, or that the wrong people are entitled to benefits, or that some people are entitled to too much benefit; my starting point is that benefits are too low, that too many people who are entitled to benefit are not receiving them, and that too few people are entitled to benefits. All research evidence seems to bear me out, as do the rates of benefit when contrasted with earned incomes and the costs of disabled living.
That is the background to what I want to say; but on this amendment to this clause I am saying something much more modest. The Government's proposals started with a cut-off age of 20. Below that age, people would qualify for the non-contributory incapacity benefit if they satisfied all the other conditions. Below that age, if receiving severe disablement allowance when the new rules came into force, they would transfer across to non-contributory incapacity benefit. The Government were quick to recognise the argument for catering for those studying between the ages of 20 and 25, and they raised the cut-off point selectively to 25 for that particular group, and only for that group, and only for new entrants.
So, as the Bill stands, for most people the cut-off point is 20. It is 20 for those already on SDA and at college and aged between 20 and 25. It is 20 for those at a social education centre receiving outreach education, but not actually at college. It is 20 for those who have had a gap in their education before the age of 20, perhaps looking for work, and who then go on to college. The magic age is 25 only for a quite narrowly defined although important group of continuous college students.
I have to say that for those young people with severe learning disability who follow the traditional route of recent years through special school and then into a specially designed college course, benefit is likely to be claimed and received from age 16. However, even those young people will not benefit from the transfer from SDA to non-contributory incapacity benefit and the extra income that goes with this if they are on SDA and over 20 when the rules change. For those who follow a mainstream route and do not claim benefit, and for whom recognition of the reality of being unable to work comes later, the age-25 concession would be really valuable, were it not so tightly limited.
My amendment is designed to simplify what is potentially a confusing and unfair situation by making age 25 the cut-off point for all purposes. Keeping to my main concern—young people with severe learning disability who are born with that disability, live with it and die with it—my amendment will mean that there are no uncomfortable distinctions made between them according to where they happen to be educated, or gaps in their education while agencies fight over whether they can continue their education. If they satisfy the other

325
conditions, they will be able to claim incapacity benefit at any time under age 25 and be able to transfer from SDA to IB if they are under 25 when the rules change.
All cut-off points are to a degree arbitrary. My amendment will not help those who have been on SDA since schooldays because of congenital disability but who are aged 25 or over when the rules change. However, it provides a fairer, tidier and more consistent approach than does the Bill as it now stands.
Perhaps I should conclude by noting that learning disability is, by definition, a condition in which extended education in a variety of settings is very much what is needed to help people to fulfil their potential. Indeed, a right to education up to age 25 is something for which we have long argued. Alongside that, I note the reality that no more than 10 per cent of people with severe learning disability of working age are in any kind of paid employment and most of those are in low paid and often part-time work. The benefit needs that I have touched on cannot be answered realistically by the argument that all of those concerned should be working. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Clause 59 provides improved help for young people disabled early in life. Amendment No. 124A seeks to extend the age limit for access to this new help.
I would like to take the opportunity to explain why we are proposing to make the changes in Clause 59. Severe disablement allowance is currently paid to people who do not qualify for incapacity benefit because they have not paid sufficient contributions. The original philosophy was to help people who never had the opportunity to establish themselves in the insurance scheme—particularly young people disabled at birth or at an early age.
However, SDA does not work. It does not provide many young people with the secure income they need. Because of the low rate at which it is paid, 70 per cent of recipients have to claim income support to top it up, and their SDA is taken into account pound for pound. So SDA does not provide any additional help—which means that it is of least help to those in greatest need This is why we are reforming the system to increase the benefits that we pay to people born with a disability or who incur a disability early in life and become disabled before the age of 20. As a result of the proposed change, people who are disabled early in life and are therefore unable to qualify for IB will gain by up to £26.40 a week. Some 175,000 people will gain in the long term, many of whom will never work in their lives. They will enjoy far greater security than they have known before.
Our main concern in reforming SDA is to help young disabled people, for the reasons that I have given. This is why the clause provides that, in most cases, people must have become incapable of work and made a claim before they reach the age of 20. However, as your Lordships will know, following consultation, we decided that the age cut-off should be extended to 25 in certain circumstances. We recognise that an age 20 cut-off could penalise young people who go into higher education or training. We therefore intend to prescribe in regulations that young people who go into higher education and training before
326
they are 20 can make a claim to benefit up to the age of 25. To qualify, they would need to make a claim within two tax years of leaving their course.
I know that the noble Lord has some concerns that this extension is still not wide enough to cover certain groups. However, we believe that our proposals strike the right balance. The amendment before us seeks to make age 25 the cut-off point for all claims. My Lords, we do not consider that to be justified; we believe that age 20 is a reasonable cut-off point in most cases. To extend it as suggested would run counter to the principle behind our reform since it would not concentrate help on those in greatest need.
By the age of 20, the vast majority of people who do not go into higher education or training will have had the opportunity to build up a contribution record for IB. With any age cut-off, there is the potential for someone to fall foul of the rules, but we believe that such cases will be rare. The noble Lord may be concerned about disabled people who remain in mainstream education beyond the age of 20. However, I hope that I can reassure him that disabled people who are in full-time education of any sort will be able to make a claim at the age of 19, providing they meet the other qualifying conditions. In addition, young disabled people may also be able to qualify between the ages of 16 and 18 if they attend a course specifically designed for disabled students.
We believe that the provisions already in the Bill, together with the commitments we have made regarding the use of the regulation-making powers, provide more than an adequate safeguard for the people whom we wish to help—namely, young disabled people who have not had the opportunity to work and build up a contribution record for IB.
Clause 59 represents a significant step forward in providing a more secure future for young disabled people, and we do not believe at present that there is any justification for extending the provisions further. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment tonight.
Lord Rix: I am sorry that my arguments have not persuaded the Minister to accept this amendment. Equally, her arguments have not persuaded me to drop it. However, I do not propose to proceed any further at this hour of the night. I shall return to the matter at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In order to prove that the last waltz does not last forever, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before one o'clock.

  Drug Related Crime
  Drug Related Crime
  Asylum Seekers: NHS Treatment
  Asylum Seekers: NHS Treatment
  Court Convictions
  Court Convictions
  Council of Europe Countries: Age of Criminal Responsibility
  Council of Europe Countries: Age of Criminal Responsibility
  Prisons: Mental Health Care
  Prisons: Mental Health Care
  Criminal Justice Act 1991: Publications
  Criminal Justice Act 1991: Publications
  Data Protection Act 1998: Implementation
  Data Protection Act 1998: Implementation
  Medically Assisted Reproduction
  Medically Assisted Reproduction
  Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999: Effects
  Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999: Effects
  House of Lords Judicial Office: Income and Expenditure
  House of Lords Judicial Office: Income and Expenditure
  Palace of Westminster: Foreign Language Guides
  Palace of Westminster: Foreign Language Guides
  Palace of Westminster: Line of Route Project
  Palace of Westminster: Line of Route Project
  Official Veterinary Surgeons: Issue of Improvement Notices
  Official Veterinary Surgeons: Issue of Improvement Notices
  Official Veterinary Surgeons: Hygiene Rules
  Official Veterinary Surgeons: Hygiene Rules
  Meat Hygiene Service: Telephone Calls
  Meat Hygiene Service: Telephone Calls
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips
  MAFF: Meetings with Consumer and Environmental Groups
  MAFF: Meetings with Consumer and Environmental Groups
  Cattle Passports: Fees
  Cattle Passports: Fees
  Cattle Diseases
  Cattle Diseases
  MAFF Veterinary Visits outside European Union
  MAFF Veterinary Visits outside European Union
  Poultry and Poultrymeat Imports
  Poultry and Poultrymeat Imports
  Hammersmith and Fulham: Pupil-Teacher Ratio
  Hammersmith and Fulham: Pupil-Teacher Ratio
  William Morris Academy
  William Morris Academy
  Disabled Students: Funds
  Disabled Students: Funds
  Sheffield: Schools Budget
  Sheffield: Schools Budget
  Scottish University Fees
  Scottish University Fees
  Judge Gee
  Judge Gee
  Mentally Incapacitated Adults
  Mentally Incapacitated Adults
  British Commercial Attaches: Central and Eastern Europe
  British Commercial Attaches: Central and Eastern Europe
  British Council Contracts
  British Council Contracts
  Management Training: Individual Countries
  Management Training: Individual Countries
  Former Soviet Union: Assistance Priorities
  Former Soviet Union: Assistance Priorities
  Paraguayan Chaco Project
  Paraguayan Chaco Project
  Kosovo Conflict
  Kosovo Conflict
  NATO: Consultation
  NATO: Consultation
  Peacekeeping and Security
  Peacekeeping and Security
  Ministry of Defence Actions: Accountability
  Ministry of Defence Actions: Accountability
  London Underground Public Private Partnership
  London Underground Public Private Partnership
  Stonehenge
  Stonehenge
  Non-EU Driving Licences
  Non-EU Driving Licences
  West Coast Main Line Upgrade Project
  West Coast Main Line Upgrade Project
  Genetically Modified Plants
  Genetically Modified Plants
  Museum Grants
  Museum Grants
  The Jewish Museum
  The Jewish Museum
  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: Restrictive Measures
  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: Restrictive Measures