Sitting of 14 July 1999

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

  Iran
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
  9.33 am
  Mr. Steve McCabe: I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise matters concerning our current approach to relations with Iran. I realise that other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so I shall not speak for overlong.
  My own interest in events in Iran really began in the early 1980s, when I got to know some young Iranians who had come to the United Kingdom to pursue their academic studies, but suddenly found themselves trapped, unable to return to their home. Many of them were unsure of what was happening to their friends and relatives. I do not think that I need dwell on the horrors that took place in the aftermath of Iran's revolution—suffice it to say that there has been much suffering, which has continued now for more than 20 years.
  My question is whether things are really improving in Iran, and whether we should adopt a more relaxed approach to President Muhammad Khatami. When Khatami came to power, there were high hopes in some quarters; but I contend that Iran is still a rogue state. It is a state with no respect for human rights and no respect for other religions, but it is prepared to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. It is a state that demonstrates outright hostility to women and rejects the basic tenets of democracy.
  Iran's record in human rights is a disgrace. It is a regime that glories in public executions—420 since Khatami came to power; and goodness knows how many more executions in private. It is a regime that delights in stoning people to death, even girls as young as 13. It is a regime in which, in a two-week period, more than 20 people might have their hands cut off. It is a regime that could easily rival General Pinochet's Chile in the number of people who mysteriously disappear.
  Recently, we witnessed the spectacle of members of Iran's Jewish community being arrested on trumped-up spying charges. We await guarantees of their safety, the protection of their religious beliefs, and their right to a fair trial. Today, can the Minister offer any assurances that those people will receive a fair trial, and that international observers will be allowed to oversee that trial?
  In April 1999, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights passed a motion of censure on Iran: the 44th such censure of the mullahs. Where, therefore, is the evidence of a new approach by the new regime?
  322
  We have been told that there have been concessions on the fatwa threatening the life of the author Salman Rushdie. Can the Minister say what those concessions are? Is he aware that, on 24 September 1997, the mullahs' Foreign Minister, Mr. Kamal Kharrazi, told CNN:
  "The death decree against Rushdie will never be rescinded"?
  Is it true—as Mr. Ansari, the chargé d'affaires in London said in October 1998—that the fatwa cannot be revoked, and that the British Government have accepted that? Is it true that, as far as Mr. Khatami is concerned, Salman Rushdie's life is just as much at risk as ever?
  One argument used to support Mr. Khatami's regime was that terrorism, and support for terrorism, would subside once he was in power. Why, then, have 35 Iranian dissidents, in countries around the world, been murdered by Iranian Government-sponsored hit squads during the reign of Mr. Khatami? When will Mr. Khatami's Government respond positively to requests from various Governments for information on the murders of Professor Rajavi, in Switzerland; of Mohammed Hossein Naghdi, in Italy; and of Zahra Rajabi, in Turkey?
  Why, on 10 June 1999, did the Iranian Government launch a Scud B missile attack, in violation of United Nations Security Council resolution 598, on an Iranian resistance camp?
  When Iraq acquires and threatens us with weapons of mass destruction, we take action to control that threat. Yet, in Iran, we have a regime that has already successfully test-fired the Shahab 3 missile, which could hit every major city in the region. They are a Government who are working to perfect intercontinental missiles.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and congratulate him on raising such an important subject at such a crucial time. Those of us who were on the 1988 delegation seeking the release of Terry Waite, John McCarthy and Brian Keenan at least got the impression that—despite what my hon. Friend absolutely rightly desrcibes in his excellent analysis of what is still happening in Iran—a small candle was still burning, and that there was still an opportunity to move towards pluralism. Does he agree that the new president would be well advised to consider what the students are trying to say, to take on board their message, and not to give the impression that there is the possibility of another Tiananmen square?
  Madam Speaker: Order. I was just going to inform the right hon. Gentleman that his intervention was an enormously long one.
  Mr. Clarke: I apologise, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. McCabe: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I agree with my right hon. Friend's comments and certainly agree that we should be concerned about what is happening with regard to students at the present time.
  In Iran we have a regime that has successfully tested the Shahab 3 missile. The Iranian Government are working to perfect intercontinental missiles that are capable of hitting European capitals. They have devoted $1.5 billion to missile development over a 10-year period—nearly $300 million in the past financial year. There is reason to believe that the regime also has a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.

  323
  Is it right that we should ignore the use of Scud missiles by the Iranian Government? Why should they have any immunity when they launch an unprovoked attack on the sovereign territory of a neighbouring country? When Libya stands accused of sponsoring terrorism, we break off diplomatic ties and impose sanctions. Why are similar standards not applied to Iran? How confident can my hon. Friend the Minister be that the Iranian Government are not engaged in acts of terrorism, in sponsoring terrorism and in the acquisition and production of weapons of mass destruction?
  Why do the British Government believe that Mr. Khatami is worth supporting? Does the Minister accept that Mr. Khatami draws his political strength from the clerics? Is he not a son of the theocracy? Is there anything in his words or deeds to suggest that he is not about preserving that tradition and that corrupt, rigid interpretation of Islamic law which suppresses his people and subjects some 70 million people to the obsessions and fantasies of the clerics?
  Mr. Khatami has yet to show any respect for democracy. He could, for example, allow free elections under universal suffrage. Instead, what we saw under his much vaunted city council elections was democracy Khatami style. Only supporters of the mullahs are accepted as candidates. In his version of democracy, there is no room for dissidents, different religions, agnostics or political opponents.
  Many Members of the House support the Iranian resistance movement. In February of this year, some 330 Members showed that support by condemning the lack of publishing freedoms in Iran and supporting the right to form political parties in Iran. There was a time when the resistance could quite clearly number the British Labour party among its friends and allies. What now is the attitude of the Foreign Office to the National Council of Resistance of Iran?
  I make it clear that under no circumstances would I be willing to support a terrorist movement. However, I do not regard the Iranian resistance as a terrorist group. I believe it to be a broadly based coalition, whose public statements and publications eschew terrorism and violent attacks on innocent civilians.
  Like many resistance movements, the national council does, of course, have an armed wing. In this country, we usually support freedom fighters. That is presumably why we have supported the KLA, the mujaheddin in Afghanistan and, of course, Nelson Mandela's African National Congress. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to consider what our relations with South Africa would be like today if we had heeded the advice of those who put trade before principle and sought to end our support for the ANC.
  The freedom fighters of the Iranian resistance do carry out attacks on military targets and centres of repression. They freely admit that they attack the revolutionary guards and the perpetrators of murder and torture, but they do not set off bombs in residential areas. They do not blow up buses and kill and maim innocent civilians, as do the henchmen armed and financed by Khatami's regime.
  324
  The National Council of Resistance of Iran has a history of condemning attacks on innocent civilians. It spoke out against the February 1996 bombings in Jerusalem, the 1995 Oklahoma bombing and the 1998 Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie.
  The NCRI has made clear its willingness to participate in free and fair elections.
  Now is not the time for us to desert our friends, especially as what we may be witnessing in the current demonstrations in Iran and the violent response to them by the authorities may well be the death throes of a corrupt, violent and profoundly anti-democratic regime.
  On May day, tens of thousands of Iranian workers defied the regime and held protests and marches in Tehran, Isfahan, Khorramabad and several other cities. Fifty thousand people protested in Sanandaj, the provincial capital of Kurdistan, in February 1999. The regime responded by attacking them with helicopter gunships.
  Even as I speak, large-scale demonstrations are taking place throughout the country. This may have started with students at Tehran university objecting to media restrictions, but the attack by the revolutionary guards on the student residences and the violent murder of innocent students have ensured that this is now much larger and is now a confrontation with the clerics—not just factions, not support for Khatami and his alleged reforms, but an all-out attack on the whole system.
  Our Labour Government have rightly called for an ethical dimension and respect for human rights to be part of our foreign policy. The United Nations special representative on human rights, the General Assembly of the United Nations, Amnesty International and the International Human Rights League have all expressed their concern at events in Iran, yet the Foreign Office has argued that under Khatami there have been significant changes. What are those changes?
  It is true that Khatami has worked hard to have the NCRI labelled a terrorist movement. That manoeuvre is part of an older and sordid affair, which has its origins in the secret negotiations with the Americans leading to the Iran-Contra affair. Can we really today want to be part of such politics? Do not ethics demand that we ask much more of Mr. Khatami?
  Why do we want to trade with, and have improved relations with, a regime that may well be on the verge of collapse? There is a real danger that we may be about to repeat the mistakes that occurred in the last days of the Shah. Just as Prime Minister Bhakteyar's promises and concessions were too little, too late to save the Shah, so too are Mr. Khatami's smiles and promises. He has had two years to show us his liberal credentials. If he is still unable to do so now, why should we continue to help him to shore up his crumbling regime when our real friends and the real representatives of the Iranian people may be only weeks or months away from assuming power?
  The mullahs have demonstrated over 20 years, irrespective of leadership, that they support violence, murder and terror. They have a complete disregard for democracy and human rights.
  I believe sincerely that it is time for the Foreign Office to change tack and to adopt a policy which judges Mr. Khatami and his supporters by their deeds, not just their words. It is time to adopt a policy that makes

  325
  abundantly clear our outright rejection of state-sponsored terrorism and our total commitment to the right of the Iranian people to participate in free and fair elections, and to enjoy a Government who respect human rights and religious diversity and support a pluralistic society.
  The resistance movement offers a much better prospect for such an outcome than does the present regime. It deserves much greater support than is currently on offer from the British Government.
  9.50 am
  Sir Sydney Chapman: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) for his choice of subject this morning. He spelled out the violence that exists in Iran, and my contribution to the debate can be all the briefer as I do not have to echo all the statistics that the hon. Gentleman gave.
  I remind the House that, under Mr. Khatami's regime, there is continued violation of human rights on an unparalleled scale. More than 400 executions have taken place, including four people hanged for the offence of being insulting to the leader. There have been at least 10 cases of stoning to death in public, and the House will know that, last March, 13 members of Iran's Jewish community were arrested on charges of espionage. Sadly, terrorism is a characteristic of the Khatami regime. Yesterday's events—when the students demonstrated in favour of democracy—are just another case of the brutal actions of the regime.
  The hon. Member for Hall Green told us about 44 United Nations and other international organisation resolutions condemning Iran. There is no evidence of moderation. We all want to promote trade wherever we can—that is in the interests of both parties. However, if an ethical foreign policy means anything, it is not seeking closer ties with Iran, given the present regime there.
  I had an opportunity to speak briefly to the Minister a little time ago, and he readily agreed to see me. We are now trying to arrange a time. However, I want to put on record my deep concern about Iran Aid, a charity whose London office is in my constituency. I am told that the charity has been able to help up to 15,000 Iranian children, mostly children whose parents have, in one way or another, suffered at the hands of the brutal regime.
  I am concerned that there seems to have been a persistent attempt to disrcedit Iran Aid. The Minister may know of information that I do not have, but I understand that some people have accused Iran Aid of links with terrorism. More certainly, Iran Aid has been subject to a inquiry by the Charity Commissioners, and a receiver manager was put in. It is worth reminding the House that this is the second inquiry by the commissioners, and that Iran Aid was cleared following the first inquiry in 1996.
  There is a deep feeling among some of my constituents that the Charity Commissioners have intervened only because of trumped-up allegations by two ex-volunteers of the organisation. Have the people making the allegations to the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the commissioners been checked out for probity?
  The Iranian Government treat the relatives and children of so-called dissidents as infidels—they are being shut out of Iranian society, abused and even killed. I have a great fear that the information that Iran Aid holds about those
  326
  children may be passed to the Iranian authorities. Action could then be taken against them and their families. I am anxious that information gleaned by the Charity Commissioners should not be passed on to the Iranian regime. That would have tragic consequences—indeed, there is evidence that it has had such consequences already.
  I realise that there are things that the Minister may prefer not to say on Iran Aid this morning, but I hope that he will be prepared to say them to me when we have our hoped-for meeting
  9.55 am
  Mr. Robin Corbett: As we speak this morning, the reality, rather than the rhetoric, of the regime in Iran is clear. Students and others are demonstrating in their thousands in Tehran and several other cities for the freedom and democracy that they have been denied, and which have been stolen from them, for the past 20 years, in the face of the brutality and organised thuggery of the mullahs, who are so fearful of change. That is the background to this short debate.
  When human rights were discussed in the other place on 22 June, my noble Friend Baroness Symons said:
  "It is important to note that some important changes have already taken place under the reformist government of President Khatami. That government remain committed to building a civil society based on respect for the rule of law."
  That claim now lies in tatters, smashed by the so-called reformist president who, around midnight last Thursday, sent security forces to attack students in their dormitories at Tehran university, injuring at least 1,000 and killing at least one. So much for the rule of law. How little has changed since January 1962, when the Shah did exactly the same thing to trigger his demise.
  The president is a claimed reformer whose Government hanged four people—as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) said—for insulting the leader. His is a reformist Government, who have allowed 420 executions, 10 public stonings and the organised murder of 47 opponents of the regime at home and 35 abroad. That speaks volumes about being
  "committed to building a civil society".
  In the debate, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary made more claims:
  "Progress with that commitment is most evident in the unprecedented freedom of expression which the press now enjoys."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 866.]
  This is a regime that has just banned the daily newspaper Salam, after it published a report that hardliners were planning new restrictions on the press. This is a Government whose Parliament only last Wednesday approved new press laws which severely restrict the freedom of expression of an already circumsrcibed press. Never have the claims of a Minister turned to tears so quickly, as this president has shown himself to be more mullah than moderate.
  Meanwhile, my hon. Friend the Minister of State—whom I am pleased to see here this morning—was telling readers of The Guardian on 1 July:
  "Thanks to British action, the ILO has passed an emergency resolution penalising Burma for its record on forced labour…We have persuaded the UN to pass a series of resolutions slamming Burma's human rights record. We have suspended government support for British companies doing trade with Burma."

  327
  Congratulations. Will the Minister now tell us whether he will do the same in the case of Iran? Will he withdraw the support of his Department, and that of the Department of Trade and Industry, for the 25th Tehran international trade fair, from 1 to 9 October, or will that still go ahead, despite current events in Iran? Whoever in the Foreign Office wrote the document on the trade fair deserves a medal, as it is headed, "New Optimism in Iran."
  I hope that the Minister will not argue that somehow Burma's human rights record is worse than that of Iran, so that we can, in effect, turn a blind eye to what the mullahs are doing and go ahead with participation in this international trade fair. I hope, too, that the Department of Trade and Industry will withdraw its support for a chamber of commerce mission from Northampton to Iran later this year.
  Earlier this year, 330 Members of Parliament—half plus one—signed a statement on Iran which said:
  "For Britain to change its policy now over Iran, without evidence to support claims of greater freedom of expression and better human rights, is to run the risk of repeating the mistakes in the last days of the Shah."
  The events of the past six days in Iran give me no reason to change that view. There is no evidence of change by Tehran, or willingness to change.
  I am grateful that my noble Friend at least seemed to retract the view that the National Council of Resistance of Iran is a terrorist organisation. It is no such thing. It represents a coalition of interests determined to offer the people of Iran a democratic, secular state that respects human rights and the equality of every citizen. The armed MKO with which it is associated is there precisely because there is no other democratic way in which the mullahs' regime can be opposed. It claims the support of the universal declaration of human rights for the right to
  "rebellion against tyranny and oppression."
  I hope that the Government will recall our ambassador to Tehran and follow the lead of the United States in issuing a statement like that of State Department spokesman James Foley, who said:
  "The rule of law cannot be achieved through repression of fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, association and assembly."
  That is surely the least that we can offer to the people of Iran as they reach out for freedom and human rights.
  10.1 am
  Mr. David Heath: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). Not even he can have realised how topical this debate would be when he applied for it. This is an especially opportune moment to be discussing Iran.
  There was some optimism when President Khatami was elected about two years ago, and a feeling that at last there would be a shift in the dynamics of Iran, with a move towards greater democracy. I join others who have spoken in questioning whether that has happened. Has there been increasing democracy? To understand the level of democracy in Iran, one must realise that parties in favour of secular government were not allowed to stand for election, so the country was already committed to the prevailing mullahism. In Iran there could be no Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat party.
  328
  Has there been an increase in openness and freedom of expression? The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has already shown that there has not. The press legislation was passed in the Majlis by 125 of the 215 members. What view is taken of independent journalists? Ayatollah Khamenei says that they are mercenaries who defend the position of the enemies of Islam and the Islamic revolution.
  There is no press freedom in Iran. The decision of the clerical court on 9 July to ban Salam clearly shows what is happening. It was banned for
  "violating Islamic principles, endangering national security and disturbing public opinion,"
  even though it was an organ produced by reformist clerics who were seen as allies of President Khatami.
  Is there increasing liberality? The fatwa against Salman Rushdie has been mentioned, but the position of the 15 Khordad foundation—a Government-organised nongovernmental organisation that has recently increased the bounty on Rushdie's head—has not. We have heard about the suppression and oppression of groups such as the Bahais and the Jewish community, but not about the position of women and the repression that they still suffer in Iranian society.
  What is the right level of engagement with the current Government of Iran? What can we do economically, culturally or diplomatically to promote human rights and influence Iran in the right direction without providing succour to a regime that has not shown the degree of liberality for which we had hoped?
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman makes thoughtful speeches and is a careful man. What evidence does he have of the repression of women in Iranian society?
  Mr. Heath: There is a considerable amount of evidence, not least from those women who are in exile from Iran purely because they cannot live under the regime. I know that the hon. Gentleman has great experience of the region and understands well the differences between the Islamic fundamentalist way of doing things and the western way. I appreciate that there are many ways in which we can be misled about the repression of women by overt symbolism rather than the genuine condition, but I believe that there is abundant evidence that Iranian society represses women.
  We must recognise Iran's precarious geopolitical position. It sees itself as surrounded by enemies. Iraq is an ever present threat on its borders. I hope very much that the Government of Iraq will not take the present troubles in Iran as an opportunity to renew hostilities. Iran sees a Turkish-Azeri-Turkmen axis developing on its northern border and regards it as potentially hostile. It is also worried about Afghanistan.
  Even taking all that into account, we must ask whether our Government's policy of constructive engagement is yielding the desired results. Are there ways in which we can encourage the small moves towards greater liberality without giving sustenance to the conservative elements in Iranian society?
  I do not agree with the hon. Member for Erdington when he says that we should recall our ambassador. I think that Nicholas Browne has an important job to do and I welcome the fact that he is there. At this moment

  329
  above all, we need a British presence in Tehran to express our view about liberalisation and human rights. I do not by any means underestimate his task; he has an extremely difficult job, especially in the current circumstances.
  There was a cartoon in Le Monde last week of President Khatami with one foot on a minaret and the other on a demonstrator's placard. That shows the position that he is attempting to adopt. It is a precarious and unsustainable position. The Government of Iran must decide where their future lies and whether they want to maintain a policy of suppression guided by the reactionary impulses of the mullahs or to embrace greater liberalism and democracy.
  The test for our Government is whether the current policy is yielding results. That is always the test of constructive engagement. We now have annual human rights reports so that we can see the effects of our policies. The test for the Minister in replying to this debate is to show that we are getting results in Iran, and I suspect that he may find it difficult to do so.
  The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) made an important point about the position of Iran Aid, and I have had constituents write to me about that. At first sight, it is a puzzling situation. I would like it to be pure coincidence that, on 20 July, the Minister's predecessor announced a crackdown on Iranian dissident groups and three days later we had the action of the Charity Commissioners in the case of Iran Aid. Many people find it puzzling that, almost a year to the day later, there have been no replies from the Charity Commissioners about the alleged problems.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to shed some light on the position of Iran Aid, because many people feel that something is not right about its treatment. It may be that the Minister cannot do that in the context of this debate, but I hope that he will find a way of letting the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet know the true position.
  10.11 am
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am out of tune with virtually all that has been said in this debate and I had better present my credentials for saying that. Eighteen months ago, my wife and I went to Iran on holiday. In the circumstances, I should say bluntly that I accepted not a penny from the Iranian Government. The trip was organised by the British museum travel company. The deputy head of the western asiatic department of the museum was the guide to the party, and there were other Parsee speakers.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned the position of women. My wife had to wear the chador the whole time, but the Iranians are a warm and hospitable people and we were able to speak to many women. It is an oversimplification to say that women are repressed in Iran. They are emerging quickly to positions of much responsibility, both in business and the public service, besides teaching. If comparisons are to be made with Pakistan, for example, it is clear that Iran is a very different society.
  We must be careful about blanket condemnation of the mullahs. Terrible things may have happened in the past, and I do not doubt that recent events have been heart-rending. I can report to the House only my personal experience. I was involved in long conversations in the holy city of Qum with the mullahs. Some of them spoke English and we had translators for the others.
  330
  Their attitude can be summed up in what one of them said to me. He said, "We love your Virgin Mary and we respect your Jesus Christ. It is only the British Government that we do not trust." That is a result of unfortunate relations between the countries that go back to the time of Dr. Mussadeq and the whole history of relations between Iran and the west.
  Some of us hoped that there had been a great improvement. Since his name has been mentioned, I pay tribute to Mr. Ansari for the work that he has done in trying to bring about better relations, which have received approval in various Foreign Office statements. The Minister will know from his briefings that the late Derek Fatchett was becoming optimistic about relations with Iran.
  I do not want to say that everything that my colleagues have said is wrong, but I will put one point to them. Iran has enormous problems. It is a very young society, with more than half the population under 15. On recent events in Iran, I just reflect that it is one enormous megalopolis. Given the heat in sweltering July—it is one of hottest Julys that they have experienced—one can understand why tempers are tinder-dry. That does not justify everything that may or may not have happened, but it behoves us to show some understanding.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that the last thing we should do is withdraw our excellent former chargé d'affaires, now the ambassador in Tehran. I was on a private visit and did not meet our diplomatic staff, but their reputation among the non-political people we met in Iran is extremely good. The Foreign Office deserves all credit in that respect.
  I say "in Iran" because we should be careful about distinguishing Tehran from the rest of Iran. Isfahan, Sharaz, Hamadan, Kashan and Tabriz are totally different from the capital city. It is a huge country and we should be careful about generalisations.
  I have one request that may seem trivial in the face of the events reported today, but it is important. Iran contains some of the greatest remnants of ancient civilisations in the world. We had the good fortune to visit Persepolis and Passagardae in the south and Sulamaniyah in the north, and, because it was a cultural visit, we saw many of the old mosques. They are in a serious condition and anything that Britain can do to help to save them from road and pollution problems would be welcome. One of the tragedies of the awful Iran-Iraq war was that the oil refineries near the Iraq border had to be hastily moved to an area between Sharaz and Isfahan. The result was that Persepolis had never known pollution like it. In those circumstances, technical help from the west is urgently needed to save part of the history of Persia and of the world
  10.18 am
  Mr. David Atkinson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on initiating this debate on Iran, which is timely in view of the student revolt taking place in Tehran, which may—as he suggested—prove to be a defining moment for that country. This debate enables me to refer to a parliamentary visit I made to Iran nearly four years ago. The conclusions I reached then are, I believe, even more correct today in the light of what is taking, and has taken, place in Iran.

  331
  My conclusions, like those of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), are different from the negative approach that the hon. Member for Hall Green and others have adopted to our response to the political situation in Iran.
  Like other hon. Members, my interest in Iran has been longstanding and was motivated by the appalling atrocities perpetrated by the ayatollahs' regime which overthrew the Shah, by its promotion of Islamic fundamentalism, its support for international terrorism, its intolerance of other religions and, especially, by its failure to protect its Christian citizens. In particular, I have been appalled by the testimonies of the members of the Bahai community, including some of my constituents who have sought my help over the years in obtaining visas for their families to be reunited in this country.
  Because of my involvement with the Christian human rights organisation, Christian Solidarity Worldwide—it is well known to many right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess)—I was approached four years ago by the then Iranian chargé d'affaires, Mr. Ansari, who has already been mentioned and is now the ambassador, when he told me that I should be aware that the regime was moderating its policies. I told him that I wanted an all-party group to go and see the situation for itself. He arranged for us to receive an invitation from the Majlis, the Iranian Parliament.
  In the end, only two of us went. Others were warned off by the MKO, although our visit was welcomed by the Foreign Office. Our charge in Tehran accompanied us to most of the meetings, to which he would not otherwise have had access.
  Our programme was as we had requested. We wanted to pursue issues including human rights, women's rights, protection of Christians, the persecution of the Bahais, the Salman Rushdie affair, support for international terrorism, and so on. We met political Ministers, religious leaders, women's leaders, representatives in the Majlis, people from the media and business, and many others.
  We did not mince our words with the regime. We said that as long as the Majlis was subject to srcutiny and veto under the law of shariah, as interpreted by the council of guardians, there could be no tolerance, freedom or democracy in Iran.
  We were also surprised to find that embryonic party groups had established themselves in the Majlis, and that there existed an organisation for defending victims of violence and prisoners of conscience. There was a growing role for women in all walks of life, including the legal profession and the judiciary. There was also a tolerance—within limits—of Armenian Orthodox Christians, who make up the largest Christian community and who are part of Iranian heritage and tradition.
  I concluded that what we found had the potential and momentum for considerable progress to be made, given the right climate. Although we perceived no tolerance for the Bahais, we obtained invitations for CSW and other human rights organisations to make fact-finding visits similar to ours, and for Amnesty International to investigate internally the veracity of its reports on behalf of the MKO.
  332
  Everyone we met in connection with the issues that were of importance to us emphasised that dialogue and contact were more conducive to change than is international isolation. That is why I urge support and encouragement for those internal forces pressing for reform in Iran.
  I also wish to press for a visit by the all-party British-Iranian parliamentary group, which I believe is chaired by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), to develop contacts with the Majlis. I found that there was an interest among the Majlis in establishing an Iranian-British parliamentary group. I also urge support for fact-finding visits to be undertaken by CSW and Amnesty International on their own terms, as I was promised.
  Moreover, minorities such as the Armenians, Roman Catholics and the evangelical Christians need to be supported and shown that they are not forgotten. Personal contact in Iran and in Britain is the best way to achieve that. Visits for religious conferences, for example, should be classified as acceptable for the issuing of visas to Britain. However, I agree that, as long as Iran disrciminates against and persecutes the Bahais and those who convert from Islam to Christianity, it cannot be fully accepted into the international community.
  Since my visit four years ago, there has been some encouraging progress, most notably that achieved since the election of President Khatami, who promised to make Iran a more democratic and pleasant place. He has used his popular support cautiously to test the limits of the clergy's tolerance, although regrettable problems still arise—the mayor of Tehran was imprisoned, there was a clampdown on the Bahai institute of higher education—an organisation similar to our Open university—the leading liberal newspaper Salam was closed, and recently there have been arrests of Iranian Jews.
  I have signed early-day motion 712 on the Jewish community in Iran, but it would be wrong to make judgments until all the facts and evidence are known. In any case, I do not consider that the continuing pressure for reform in Iran and for the introduction of liberalisation—to which I believe President Khatami is genuinely and courageously committed—will be better served by boycott, sanction, isolation and support for the MKO-NCRI.
  We should encourage Iran to expand its economy, increase its trade and open up to the real world. That will allow prosperity to grow and will extend the western influence so long denied by the Ayatollah's regime. I urge the hon. Member for Hall Green and those who have supported him in the debate to go to Iran. They will then see for themselves that although the country that they desrcibe remains unacceptable in many ways, it is moving in the right direction. Such visits can only add to the momentum for change.
  10.25 am
  Mr. David Amess: I seem to have won the booby prize in this debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) is a very great friend of mine. We did not compare notes beforehand, and it is clear that our views are rather different. However, I recognise that he is an expert on the question of human rights, and I shall certainly not dismiss what he has said.

  333
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on securing this debate. I offer him my sincere praise for his splendid and brave speech, and I agree with every word that he uttered. I also thought that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) made a splendid speech: he and I had the privilege some weeks ago of addressing a conference on these matters.
  I do not want to get involved in the politics of the matter, but the new Labour Government flagged up—in a most immodest way—the notion that their foreign policy would be different from that conducted in the 18 dreadful years of Conservative Government. The new Government said that they would adopt an ethical foreign policy, and although the Minister of State is fairly new to his job and may make some barbed comments about policies that I have supported, I seek from him a defence of the Government's approach.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) disputed the suppression of women in Iran, but how can the Government's foreign policy be considered ethical in the light of what it condones in Iran? We are approaching the millennium, but in the four years of President Khatami's rule there have been 420 executions and 10 public stonings. Women are suppressed and religious minorities persecuted. There have been 47 political killings, in Iran and abroad. In crackdowns on Tehran university students, several have been killed and thousands wounded, while 1,000 have been arrested. In the past month, the number of fingers cut off men amounted to 21.
  What has any of that disgraceful story got to do with the Government's ethical foreign policy? I am sure that the Minister of State will argue that the new regime should be encouraged, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East suggested, but I do not accept that.
  I hope that the Minister will explain why the Labour party has changed its view on the matter. There is no dispute that the Labour party formerly practically recognised the National Council of Resistance as the democratic alternative to the clerical regime. In 1984, the NCRI' s representatives were official guests of the Labour party. The council's president, Massoud Rajavi, visited the UK at the invitation of the then leader of the Labour party, Mr. Neil Kinnock. In 1985, Mrs. Rajavi was officially invited to the Labour party conference, where the Labour leader declared the party's support for the NCRI, and specifically lauded Mrs. Rajavi's efforts towards the establishment of democracy. That cannot be disputed. It happened, and although there was a huge intake of new Labour Members at the general election, many of those involved in those events are still Members.
  Relations continued until 1997; that, too, is indisputable, because the Labour conference adopted a resolution that condemned the Iranian regime and Khatami and supported the Iranian people's resistance. The Foreign Secretary was in the chair when the resolution was discussed, and it was later endorsed by Labour's national executive committee. Given the Government's style, I cannot believe that they had not carefully thought through what the NCRI was all about. The Foreign Secretary, at least, must have known.
  334
  What has changed since Labour came to power? I am puzzled. I am perhaps lowering the tone of the debate by saying all this—
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)indicated assent.
  Mr. Amess: The Minister seems to think so, but why should I not lower the tone? The Labour Government support an ethical foreign policy, but there is nothing ethical about events in Iran over the past four years, and nor is Labour's change of policy ethical.
  We are told how splendid it is that political parties, including the Servants of Construction and the Islamic Iran Participation party, were licensed in 1998. But my research shows that those parties are factions of the ruling regime. To wheel them out as examples of improved democracy is a load of garbage. We are told that the Islamic Council's elections are a sign of change in Iran. The Government peddle the official line that the first local elections are due this month to put power in the hands of the people. But there is plenty of evidence to confirm that the elections are not free, and they cannot be construed as restoring freedom or transferring power to the people.
  I fully accept all that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East said, and he and I may discuss these matters privately. However, regardless of what hon. Members may wish, the situation on the ground demonstrates that the Iranian Government are unstable. The hon. Member for Hall Green did not know when he asked for this debate that the current events would be happening in Iran, and he has given the Minister a wonderful opportunity to put his feelings on the record. It would be a mistake to believe that our support for Khatami will save or moderate the Iranian regime. That approach would merely tarnish our relations with the Iranian people and drive them towards more anti-western radicalism.
  Some of my critics may say that my highly partisan contribution has lowered the tone of our debate, but I am glad to have put on record the paradox that the Government who believe in an ethical foreign policy are not pursuing one in Iran. For the sake of decency, will the Minister say something supportive about the resistance movement?
  10.34 am
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on obtaining this debate. He speaks from the heart, and I can take something from his speech, and from all the others that we have heard, even if I do not agree with all that has been said. The hon. Gentleman has given the Minister of State a golden opportunity to set out the Government's attitude to current events in Iran. On the press wires this morning, I read that the United States of America has called on the Iranian Government to protect the student demonstrators against repression, and I hope the Minister can tell us what action our Government are taking in response to the alarming reports and frightening pictures of the past 48 hours.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) spoke briefly but powerfully about Iran Aid, the charity based in his constituency which helps children. The attempt to disrcedit it is well known, and I

  335
  hope that the Minister will tell us what he knows about that. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) also spoke forcefully about what he sees as a lack of progress in Iran, particularly the retrograde step of legislating to curb the press that has resulted from recent events. Will the Minister comment on our Government's attitude towards that legislation?
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) makes a measured and thoughtful speech in every debate in which he participates. He speaks from great personal experience; unlike him, I have not travelled to Iran. I always listen carefully to him, but he and I must part company on the subject of women. I had some ministerial responsibility for women during the previous Government, and I know from my extensive reading that the treatment of women in Iran is reprehensible. Adultery is still punished by stoning. In a court of law, the testimony of a man is automatically taken over that of a woman. It takes two women to challenge the statement of a man. That cannot be right in a modern society in the modern world.
  I should like to know whether in his visits to Iran the hon. Gentleman saw separate entrances for men and women to government institutions, universities and airports. Women are often searched for cosmetics, and it would be interesting to hear whether the hon. Gentleman can confirm what I have read. If those things happen, they must be condemned out of hand. I could give many more examples.
  Unlike some hon. Members, I believe that there is much reason for hope in Iran. Two years after his election victory, President Khatami has indicated that he would like to move towards the tolerance and political liberalisation which could form the bedrock for transition to an Islamic democracy. There is much room for progress, although the hon. Member for Linlithgow was right to say that women have moved into senior managerial positions and that the doors have been opened a little, if not yet enough. That is a glimmer of hope.
  The United Kingdom has improved its bilateral relations with Iran, not least because of the progress made in the holding of elections and in the regime's move from confrontation towards international tolerance and reconciliation. Relations with Saudi Arabia have been rebuilt, which amounts to a striking difference from the policy of previous regimes. The fatwa imposed on Salman Rushdie was a major stumbling block for the UK, but its lifting resulted, rightly, in a symbolic upgrading of diplomatic relations to ambassadorial level.
  I would however like the Minister to comment on the points that hon. Members have raised about the fatwa on Salman Rushdie. President Khatami has certainly tried to change direction, not least because he recognises the need for foreign investment and the fact that it will not be forthcoming unless there is radical change. There has been some increase in press freedom, despite recent events, and certain powers have been decentralised in the President's attempt to reposition Iran both regionally and internationally.
  Therefore, on the whole, I want to be optimistic; but I certainly do not want to be less than realistic about the barriers that still exist and which hon. Members have touched on today.
  336
  Iran Han has huge assets of oil, gas and other minerals, a reasonable education system and a significant business and industrial base. However, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, Iran is a young nation. The population has doubled in 20 years and to improve the standard of living for Iranians will require some drastic economic reforms and ambitious targets.
  There have been some moves towards privatisation—the buy-back contracts for oil and gas, for example—but the process is not far advanced and will certainly need to be progressed to attract investors. I want the Minister to tell us how he sees the economic future for Iran and the trading possibilities for this country with Iran.
  Despite the progress that I have mentioned, there are still some dramatic questions about Iran, not least major human rights issues. An article by a journalist called Adam Indikt last week started with the recollection of a conversation that he had had with an Amnesty International worker. When he asked for the most recent report on human rights in Iran, the worker replied, "What human rights?"
  One of the most prominent cases has been the arrest of the 13 Jews from Shiraz and Isfahan in southern Iran, who were accused of spying for the Zionist regime and world arrogance. I want to know what the Minister has done about those arrests. What representations has he made to the Iranian Government? Benjamin Netanyahu, in association with Prime Minister Barak, has contacted the Prime Minister on the issue, but I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what progress our Government have made in making representations about the arrests, and whether the Prime Minister has made any representations to the President of Iran.
  Obviously, there are questions concerning the outcome of any trial, but the Minister is on record as saying:
  "Clearly, if they"—
  those Jews—
  "are…put on trial we and other members of the international community will be monitoring that trial very carefully."
  If possible, I want the Minister to say today how he anticipates such monitoring taking place and how he will make strong representations on behalf of those detainees and their families, as he and the Prime Minister have been requested to do.
  In my constituency I have a community of Bahais. The attitude of the Iranian authorities towards the Bahais is no secret. Hon. Members mentioned that today—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who made an excellent speech that was both optimistic but critical and realistic, and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). The Bahais are a gentle people. They do no harm to anyone. They are good people and yet they suffer the most amazing oppression and are harassed solely on religious grounds. Again, I hope that the Minister will tell us what progress he has made with representations on behalf of Bahais who are so concerned about their relations in Iran.
  There is an awful lot for the Minister to pick up and I am conscious that time is moving on. Although I would like to mention weapons of mass destruction, the development of the nuclear programme and the security of the region, I want to give the hon. Gentleman time to respond to the various questions from both sides of the Chamber.

  337
  I expect the Government to pursue all avenues that are of interest to British citizens and are in the interests of this country. However, I hope that the Government will not lightly dismiss the serious issues of human rights, the proliferation of weapons in the region, and the freedom of information and speech; and that they will have the courage to speak out whenever necessary, using their new-found diplomatic status with Iran. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us the comfort that we have all sought in this debate.
  10.45 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) for this opportunity to discuss the Government's policy towards Iran and I congratulate both him on the topicality of his choice and other hon. Members on their contributions.
  The Government pursue a twin-track policy towards Iran, in line with our European Union partners, encouraging the reforms under way there while maintaining significant pressure on areas of concern. We believe that it is right to pursue a better relationship with Iran, but recognise that there will be obstacles to be overcome.
  Events overnight give further cause for concern and we will continue to monitor the situation closely. Notwithstanding those concerns, there have been positive developments in Iran in the past two years. The Iranian Government under President Khatami have undertaken a programme of significant change—enforcement of the rule of law, facilitation of freedom of expression and a more open and co-operative foreign policy.
  The Iranian Government have made significant progress with that programme. The effort to establish a civil society based on the rule of law has also made progress. Democracy has been extended. The first local elections took place on 26 February and showed overwhelming popular support for the reforms that are taking place. The Iranian Government are steadily improving their relations with their neighbours, in particular in the Gulf, which is an especially welcome development. Iranian co-operation is vital for future stability in that region.
  The views of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) notwithstanding, real progress is being made towards freedom of expression. I hope that he will accept that that is exemplified by the profusion of hundreds of new publications dealing with a range of previously sensitive subjects. About 200 new publications opened between May 1997 and December 1998. There has been a significant increase in their circulation and the clear majority support reform.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: When I last spoke with the late Derek Fatchett, I got the impression that he had the possibility of a ministerial visit in mind. Has my hon. Friend had the chance to think about that possibility?
  Mr. Hoon: That possibility is still in mind and we will consider it carefully, depending on the circumstances and when appropriate dates can be arranged.
  338
  The trend towards more open press discussion is apparently irreversible. My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington mentioned the closure of certain publications, but many of those reopened under a different name, so a vigorous debate is taking place in the press. Any examination of those publications demonstrates that previous issues, including human rights, which could not have been discussed are now openly discussed in a vigorous and lively way.
  Reference has been made to the local elections and I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington was rather disparaging about them. The reality was that they were vigorously contested. There were real candidates on both sides and male and female candidates participated, offering a lively political debate to the Iranian people.
  Mrs. Gillan: Before the Minister moves from the subject of the press, will he comment on the reasons for the court closing the liberal Salam newspaper on 7 July and the new legislation that has been introduced to curb Iran's free press? That is a retrograde step and I want to know the attitude of the Minister and our Government to it before he leaves his passage on the media:
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those observations. I will not pretend—nor will the Government—that all developments take the same direction. Some developments are positive, but I realise that, in a fast-moving situation—especially recently—there are retrograde steps, as the hon. Lady says. However, there is also progress; I want to get that message across.
  There is a debate. Candidates were elected because they represented reformist views and because they stood against candidates who represented more conservative views. The political parties established in Iran will not be of the kind that we are used to in this country, but that does not mean that there is not a vigorous debate between those who want greater reform and those who take a more conservative approach. Reformist candidates won about 70 per cent. of the votes in the local elections.
  A matter of great symbolic significance is the arrest last year of a number of officials from the Ministry of Intelligence for the alleged murder of some intellectuals. The Minister of Intelligence was dismissed, and a senior police officer was tried on allegations of torture. That demonstrates that the Iranian Government will not tolerate extra-judicial murder or activity outside the framework of the law. It is right to mention those matters because their symbolic significance cannot be overestimated. In recent weeks, the Iranian Government have again stressed the importance of building solid political and civil institutions to underpin their domestic reform agenda.
  Several hon. Members have rightly expressed concern about the demonstrations in Iran during recent days. Pro-reform demonstrations led by students began in Tehran last week, and spread to other cities in Iran. Attacks on those largely peaceful demonstrations were condemned by the Iranian Government at the time. However, tension has increased and, overnight, there has apparently been a regrettable increase in violence.
  I hope that hon. Members will accept that it would not be wise or sensible of me to comment on those fast-moving and complex events. I emphasise that it is

  339
  primarily a matter for the Iranian people to resolve within Iran. However, we urge all groups in Iran to refrain from violence. Today, I have been in touch with our embassy in Tehran, and we have been kept informed of events as they developed. The picture is far from clear, but the Foreign Office will be issuing updated travel advice for Tehran.
  That is one side of the picture. I accept that outstanding concerns remain about Iran' s human rights record. The Government believe that human rights are an important component of our foreign policy. Our policy towards Iran takes full account of the human rights situation there. Both in our bilateral dealings and in the EU' s dialogue with Iran, we support and encourage change and, whenever appropriate, take up particular human rights issues.
  Most recently, we have been anxious about the detention of several members of the Jewish community on espionage charges. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House on 5 July, we and our EU partners have raised those concerns with the Iranian authorities. Before that news broke on 7 June, the German EU presidency, on a visit to Tehran on 20 May, had already expressed the concern of all EU member states over those detentions. That was followed up by a formal EU representation in Tehran on 30 June. On 10 June, I made a statement expressing the Government's concern about the detainees. On 1 July, I invited in the Iranian ambassador, and pressed for a fair trial, access for visitors, and legal representation. I understand that visits have now been allowed.
  Many of our EU partners have taken similar action. Our ambassador in Tehran has also raised our concerns bilaterally with the Iranian authorities. We welcome the Iranian Government's recent confirmation, following those arrests, that they are responsible for individuals of every religious persuasion in Iran—specifically including the Jewish community—and for guaranteeing a fair trial. We shall continue to monitor the situation, and will take further action as necessary. Our priority will be action that is most likely to help those who have been detained.
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) raised the position of the Bahais. Persecution of the Bahai community in Iran has been of serious concern for some time; I assure him that that remains true. We and our EU partners have raised those questions with the Iranian authorities on many occasions. Persecution of individuals on religious grounds is totally unacceptable. The EU-sponsored United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution on Iran, adopted on 23 April, once again reaffirmed international concern about the plight of the Bahais.
  The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the Christian community in Iran. Like the Jewish and Zoroastrian communities, that community is recognised under the Iranian constitution and represented in the Iranian Parliament by a dedicated deputy. Christians are free to practise their religion. However, they have faced persecution in the past, and we and our EU partners continue to monitor developments.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned the position of women—as did the
  340
  hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). There have been some important developments for women in Iran. Despite some legal constraints on the jobs that women can undertake, they play an increasingly visible and active role in Iranian politics and society. Over the past two years, we have seen the appointment of Iran's first four women judges and the first woman vice-President. Female candidates were particularly successful in the local elections on 26 February; in Tehran, two women won the third and fourth largest number of votes—recording more than 700,000 votes. There has been some progress. Women were also elected in several other cities.
  However, it is important to emphasise that much work remains to be done. We and our EU partners will continue to encourage ban to resume co-operation with human rights mechanisms, especially through the UN. We are keen that the visits of the UN special representative, Maurice Copithorne, should be resumed. We shall continue to maintain pressure on ban through UN resolutions, where appropriate. Such resolutions record progress, but they also point out abuses.
  Mr. Corbett: Will my hon. Friend comment on the point that I made in relation to his Department's support for the 25th international trade fair in Tehran, given his magnificent withdrawal of support for trade between this country and Burma?
  Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is too experienced a Member of the House to believe that it is possible to make neat comparisons between different countries. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham raised the question of trade, so this is an appropriate time to deal with it.
  Iran is already an important market for many UK companies, especially those involved in the manufacture of capital goods. There are substantial exports and a considerable interest in trade with Iran; several outward trade missions and exhibitions will take place during this financial year. That benefits UK companies, and will go a long way towards rehabilitating the UK-Iran relationship.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green and others have spoken of Salman Rushdie. Last September, the Iranian Foreign Minister made an unequivocal statement of the Iranian Government's position on the threat to Salman Rushdie, and made it clear that his Government will take no action whatever to threaten the life of Salman Rushdie or anyone associated with his work; nor will they assist or encourage anyone else to do so.
  The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) raised the subject of Iran Aid. That is a matter for the Charity Commission, which has been conducting a statutory inquiry into the charity. Although it is not a matter for Ministers, I shall of course be delighted to discuss it in more detail with the hon. Gentleman.
  The Government remain committed to the development of our relations with Iran, and we find encouragement in the reformist policies of the Government of President Khatami. We will continue to encourage those reforms, while pressing for improvements in those Iranian policies that cause us particular concern. We believe that policy to be right, and intend to continue to develop our relationship, to the benefit of both nations.

Urban Renaissance
11 am
Mr. Anthony Steen: Here we go again: the same Minister, and the same hon. Member trying to persuade the Government to do better, to do more and to do it quicker. I am glad that the Minister for London and Construction has heard my previous speeches because we have known each other for a long time and he knows that I hold his job in high regard, and him in relatively high regard too.
We must congratulate the Government on commissioning "Towards an Urban Renaissance", and Lord Rogers on a tour de force. The report contains the same aims and ideals to which we all aspire and which were well rehearsed at the Rio Earth summit in 1991, where "sustainable development" and "integration" became the new buzz words.
Many of the conclusions in "Towards an Urban Renaissance" are similar to those in my book "New Life for Old Cities", which I published in 1982. My book only received coverage in the leader in The Daily Telegraph; it was not launched as dramatically as the Rogers report, and I did not have such a distinguished team of advisers. However, much of the report draws comparisons with my work of the early 1980s. During the intervening 17 years, the problems, strangely, have remained, and solutions still need to be found.
I was an inner-city Liverpool MP for nine years and have been an MP for south Devon for 15 years. In addition, I have worked as a social worker, community leader, youth worker and director of two national charities, one of which was launched by the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, in the late 1960s. The House may therefore feel that my experience has some relevance.
Every Government, for as long as I can remember, have launched urban initiatives with a fanfare of trumpets and announcements from the Front Bench. In the '60s and the '70s, there were social programmes. I believe that the Minister worked in the voluntary sector at the time, and he will remember the urban aid programme and its good work; the community development project; educational priority areas; and 1,001 other schemes with similar names.
The '80s saw a shift from social schemes such as the community development project to economic schemes. There were public-private partnerships to assist in urban regeneration. "Partnership" was the buzz word of the '80s. Free ports, development corporations and enterprise zones were dotted all over the country. In the early '80s, we saw my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) swinging—if that is the appropriate term—into Merseyside, where he sought to inject new private finance. I remember that he frequently held breakfasts with the leaders of all the political parties. As I was the sole Conservative there, I always felt slightly left out because I was not asked to those breakfasts. If my right hon. Friend cannot achieve an urban renaissance, who can?
The Rogers report highlights the fact that in England, urban areas account for 90 per cent. of the population, 91 per cent. of the economic activity and 89 per cent. of the jobs. Unemployment in the inner cities runs at almost double the rate elsewhere, and 1.3 million residential and commercial buildings are currently empty. It is no wonder
342
that, according to the report, one in four people living in urban areas thinks that things are worse there. The problem of lack of public transport is well rehearsed and it is high on the agenda.
In the late '80s, the cry went up, "Let's utilise derelict public land for urban regeneration." Our Government introduced the public land register to identify land for that purpose, and about 200,000 acres was identified. However, privatising the major public utilities—British Rail, gas and the water companies—to which much of that land belonged meant that land passed from public to private ownership overnight, so the public land register figures decreased dramatically as the privatisation of those utilities went ahead. We do not have much idea of the extent to which there is private vacant land because there is no register for that. We do not know exactly how much public vacant land there is—although we have a very good idea—because the register was closed in 1996.
One way to ensure that land is used, whether it is public or private, is to penalise financially those who hold on to it for commercial gain, rather than commercial use. Business rates could be doubled every year as long as the land remained unused without good reason. Although that sounds a draconian suggestion, the only way to ensure that private and public vacant, derelict or dormant land is used is to take a stick to the landowners to encourage them to develop their land. The best way to do that would be to use the business rate mechanism to punish them. There are so many thousands of acres of under-used land in cities that the idea strikes me as fitting in well with the Government's policy that 60 per cent. of all new house builds should be on brown-field sites.
The Rogers report is a wish list of things that cannot be achieved without political will. Regeneration cannot take place only with public money. Partnerships between the public and private sectors are a start, but without the political will, they are not enough. In addition to having the political will, we must lift the restrictions and burdens that suppress enterprise. We cannot change the location of Liverpool, which faces the United States, not the European Union. Nor can we change the pattern in which freight now comes by air rather than sea. The real change is to cultivate and sustain the enterprise culture, while protecting the community from possible abuses.
If our principal cities are to be places to which people will return to live and work, we must do more than tinker with the edges of council estates or refurbish listed buildings. If we are to inject enterprise so that our cities buzz like Hong Kong, we have to start by changing the attitude of the people living in those cities. There must be fewer rules, fewer regulations and fewer restrictions to inhibit enterprise. In effect, I am calling for a cultural sea change. The Government can provide the basic infrastructure and the climate in which city regeneration can and should happen.
Approximately 50 per cent. of the population of Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester and Glasgow has poured out of those cities since the end of world war two. The principal reason for that was the demolition of the inner-city slums and the cry that we must provide "homes fit for heroes". As the bulldozers smashed slums in the inner city, new slums were being built on the outer edges of cities. The inner city remained a repository for the old, the unemployed and immigrant communities, whereas the outer city was for upwardly mobile, younger people who moved there from the inner city but created new slums on

343
the arc of council estates that surround many of our principal cities today. London may be the exception, but by and large people prefer not to live in inner cities, regarding the new towns and green-field sites as attractive places to bring up their families. If we want to make our inner cities comparable with Boston, Baltimore and Atlanta, there has to be more than the will; we need a financial carrot so that if the developers develop inner cities, they get the cream and strawberries, but if they build on green-field sites, they pay a financial penalty. There has to be some incentive.
The whole House—certainly the Conservative party—was disappointed that the Chancellor did not include that in his Budget, as we were all looking to him to carry out what we thought was the Government's policy towards urban regeneration and give people incentives to build in inner cities. The Rogers report also makes that point.
Local authorities cannot be expected to put the cities right. Their track record, however well-meaning, has been rather lacklustre. They are capable of spreading butter on the bread, but they have no idea about the ingredients or about how to bake the bread. It is not their fault; it is simply not their job.
Lord Rogers' s report lacks the political dimension without which the possibility of many of his recommendations being put into practice is unlikely.
Urban regeneration will not happen without a cultural and economic sea change. That entails a shift from increasing centralisation and enforcement to spreading responsibility and opportunity across an entire community. Downtown Atlanta is exciting and vibrant because the neighbourhoods hold real political clout and power and the mayor, who is the chief executive as well as the political leader, has maintained strong links with business communities, enabling him to drive through billion-dollar programmes to rebuild Atlanta. Did any of the money come from central or local government? I think not. It came from lifting restrictions and offering incentives to private enterprise. Britain lacks the climate in which cities can revive themselves.
The United States has offered real tax breaks and virtually no planning constraints, bar certain regulations ensuring that new buildings are safe. By constraining developers, British planners have unwittingly colluded with bad design and, in addition, have imposed their limited vision on our entrepreneurs, innovators and developers. If developers were given free rein, they would not build ugly buildings, because ugly buildings do not sell. They would build attractive buildings with high-quality design, because bad design does not sell. The market will see to that. Good design will sell. In any case, one can hardly imagine any of our major cities looking any worse if they did not have planning restrictions. Some of them look disgraceful despite all the planning restrictions that have been passed down over the years.
Each year, the srcutiny Committee, on which I have the honour—I am not sure that it is a privilege—to serve, approves around 2,200 rules and regulations from Brussels, each of which has some tiny impact on our daily lives. Those rules and regulations add layer after layer of additional bureaucracy. Additional fire, health and hygiene regulations make the regeneration of our cities that much more difficult, and there is no limit on public
344
funds to be found if one shouts any of those three buzz words. There is always public money to deal with a fire risk, a health hazard or unhygienic conditions.
Cities such as Liverpool cannot be revived so long as there are competitors that are better placed to attract new enterprise. The Chancellor had an opportunity to offer in his Budget incentives linked to regeneration. The Rogers report relies heavily on local authority initiatives, assuming that local authorities are the engine for regeneration. Local authorities cannot take on that burden, largely because their traditional and accepted role is that of agents of Government. They merely do what they are told and the Government pay them. They have very little scope for enterprise, as they have very little money left over. Their hands are tied by central Government and they have very little spare cash, as most of their resources are spoken for by salaries. They may have a few bob left over, but they cannot fund massive change and city regeneration.
Where neighbourhoods are revived, it is usually because of a few exceptional leaders or an injection of special help such as the projects in the 1960s and 1970s initiated by Labour and Conservative Governments. Regrettably, people in the poorest areas have become too dependent and expect the state to do whatever is necessary to look after them. What I call the council estate mentality presents a problem for urban regeneration. In the inner cities and elsewhere, it robs people of the emotional ability to change the location and environment in which they live. They are totally unhelped by their local authority, often for good reasons.
Instead of public officials in town halls dealing with thousands of people in the community, we need those thousands of people to be active and fewer officials. In fact, if local government were scaled down, with correspondingly less bureaucracy and fewer rules and regulations, that might be sufficient to kick-start urban regeneration and self-help. Creating an elite to deal with urban regeneration and ordering change, as Rogers has proposed, is unlikely to do very much, but if planning regulations were lifted and taxation dramatically reduced, inner-city regeneration would occur spontaneously.
There is a new joker in the pack, and I am not referring to the Minister—although, if the hon. Gentleman plays it properly, it could be the catalyst for urban regeneration and inner-city revival: it is the 4.4 million new homes that were planned to be built by 2011. The Government have quite rightly reduced that number to 3.8 million, and I welcome that. The last place that such homes should be built is in the countryside, however; they should be in urban areas. That is why I welcome the Government's commitment to building 60 per cent. of new homes on brown-field sites—the sites that I identified in another of my excellent publications in the late 1980s, called "PLUMS—Public Land Utilisation Management Schemes". I proposed a glorious auction whereby every bit of vacant public land would be sold to the highest bidder with a covenant that they had to develop it within two years. Sadly, that did not happen, although it nearly did, as I shall explain in a moment.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, I have read his booklet, "PLUMS". What he suggests is very close to the idea of site value rating. Does he consider that the taxation of the value of sites in a number of cities overseas ensures that

345
brown-field sites are developed? Will he also congratulate the local authority, a quarter of which is in his constituency, on achieving well over 60 per cent. of new house building on brown-field sites?
Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman always has a little dig. It is clear that he would like me to congratulate the Liberal local authority on achieving 60 per cent. brown-field site development. Whatever the political complexion of a local authority, if it achieves 60 per cent. it has done very well. However, local authorities must do a little better. I hope that with the hon. Gentleman's help—and a quarter of mine—we might be able to get the Torbay unitary authority up beyond 60 per cent.
A problem with site valuation that is tied up with all the rules and regulations is historical value. A great deal of land has a value on it which it cannot command. If the Government and local authorities remain committed to historical value, they will not be able to get rid of it. I have a feeling that it is not possible to write down values at local authority level if they have reached an astronomically high level as a result of historical increment. That may need to be considered in the context of brown-field site development. Is that what the hon. Gentleman was considering?
Mr. Sanders: No. This is becoming quite an interesting debate—certainly between the hon. Gentleman and me. Putting a tax on the value of land to ensure that it is properly developed is a way of reducing the number of derelict sites in inner cities. 1 have in mind particularly taxing boarded-up shops, which are subject to a council tax reduction. Yet that reduction in footfall affects neighbouring businesses. That seems unfair to businesses that are still trading.
Mr. Steen: On this occasion, the hon. Gentleman has made rather a good point. All devices need to be considered to ensure that urban regeneration is occurring in the round and not only where there are individual Government projects. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention in this instance and I hope that the Minister may be able to throw some light on the point that he has made.
I have mentioned the need for 60 per cent. of new developments to be on brown-field sites. I move on to the Government's consultation paper, planning policy guidance note 3. The new word is PPG3. As I walk down the Corridors in this place I hear colleagues asking, "What is going on with PPG3?" I hope that the Minister will tell us what is going on with it. There is a high level of expectation that any day now—I hope that it will be today—he will say something meaningful about the implementation of PPG3. I think that it is an excellent document. It was discussed widely throughout the country by interest groups, forums and focus groups. Many groups throughout the country were concerned that the Government should get PPG3 right.
The document contains a rather unusual idea—a sequential approach to building. I have never seen it before and it is extremely interesting. If the Government pull it off, it could be the beginning of a 20th-century urban renaissance. The idea is that green-field development would be halted until city sites had been used up. That would force developers to fill unused,
346
under-used, vacant, dormant and derelict land in both the public and private sectors. If that was accompanied by tax incentives, urban regeneration would really take off.
If anyone doubts that successive Governments have failed, they should study the population shifts in our major cities. In the 1950s, Liverpool and Manchester were each represented by 11 Members. At the 1997 general election, that number had declined to five. The populations of Manchester and Liverpool declined by more than 50 per cent. between 1950 and 1997. Other principal cities throughout the country showed similar trends.
Developers need to be directed both to the inner city and the outer city. Some of the worst conditions remain in the outer city. There needs to be a central Government commitment to renew antiquated infrastructure. Rail links are only just able to cope and they are often unreliable. Main downtown stations are not properly served. If people are to flood back to the cities, the public sector must dovetail with private enterprise to provide the necessary schools, hospitals and recreational facilities. I am at a loss to understand why the Government have gone on talking—perhaps they have not, but we have—about road building. Why do we not have new rails? Instead of having new roads planned, why do we not ensure that in the next 10 years new railways appear throughout Britain? That is what I would like to see.
Mr. David Drew: Is that the new deal for the motorist?
Mr. Steen: Let us not worry about that. Let us worry about a new deal for the railways.
There is no point in building in the inner city if people have to commute to the outer city, to motorway intersections where many of the new business parks are located. The mismatch is a national problem. People criss-cross cities throughout the country and beyond, spending hours travelling in opposite directions, when the job could be just down the road. Jobs should be closer to home or people should be working at home.
Some say that high-rise flats are things of the past. However, high-rise, high-density housing can be beautiful and can provide alternative high-quality living. It is to be found throughout Europe and in the capital cities of the world. Middle-income earners will buy such properties, even on the 18th floor, if the flats are properly managed and there is a swimming pool and, particularly, a gym. Such housing needs to be well designed and made of high-quality materials and located in a community that is vibrant, exciting and safe.
Every Government, from Wilson's to Thatcher's, and including the new Labour Government, have initiated an urban inner-city strategy. However, they have been piecemeal and have succeeded only spasmodically because they have been based on small projects rather than on the social and economic regeneration of our cities. The best way of regenerating run-down cities is to offer special incentives to developers as well as additional financial incentives to those who choose to live in areas such as Brixton in London, Toxteth in Liverpool and Moss Side in Manchester.
There are fairly radical views that could be laughed at, but I do not see why. For example, what I said in the 1980s about selling off derelict land was laughed at. I wrote my book "New Life for Old Cities" 17 years ago.

347
People said that what I advocated could not be done. Seventeen years later, however, people are now asking, "Why cannot we give tax incentives to those people who live in the poorest parts of a city?" Instead of paying 20 per cent. tax, they would pay 10 per cent. There would be an incentive for them to make money. There might be the problem of the yuppies returning, and so on, but we would be regenerating the areas about which we are all complaining.
Planning policy guidance note 3 could provide the rocket fuel by changing priorities and refocusing development from the countryside to the cities. I accept that there are problems. We have a problem with structure plans, which are fixed and are the basis for local authority local plans. I invite the Minister to advise district councils that, in preparing their local plans, they should be calculating the figures for new house build on the basis not of 4.4 million units but of 3.8 million. He has got himself in a bit of a fix. He has reduced the national figure from 4.4 million to 3.8 million, but county structure plans have already been fixed on the basis of 4.4 million. Local authorities are making local plans on the false original figure. The Minister should make a little adjustment so that local authorities do not continue planning for a figure which the Minister says is unsustainable nationally.
Unless PPG3 forces county councils to reduce the present projections in line with the Government's new target, we shall not even start to change thinking on numbers. We need to find the political will, which must go beyond one Minister and one Department—however good their work may be.
The vision of urban regeneration which Lord Rogers's report favours should herald a Cabinet commitment to a city pincer movement to squeeze out poverty and bad housing from down-town areas and out-of-city council estates, and replace them with new modern buildings for upwardly mobile young people, who can resettle in the area with their families—rather like settlers in the holy land in the 1950s and 1960s—as part of the urban regeneration dream.
This country has produced fine reports over the past 30 years, but little has changed. When I spoke in successive debates in the 1980s on these matters it was like preaching in the wilderness. When I suggested the privatisation of public land, everybody thought that I was mad. But they were wrong. When I suggest the privatisation of public land now, everyone thinks that it is a jolly good idea. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley who had the vision of urban regeneration necessary to take it forward, and to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), who was on the verge of implementing my proposals on the auctioning of public vacant land when he was promoted.
Cities remain sad places. In her book "The Life and Death of a Great American City", June Jacobs focused on how America has reformed its ailing north-eastern cities, rebuilding them as places where people where people want to live and work. Professor Alice Coleman of King's college has done amazing work in this country on how to rebuild safe inner-city council estates. I pay tribute to both of them, and I warmly welcome Lord Rogers's report.
348
The aspirations of the report would largely be killed off if it were placed in the unimaginative hands of local government for action. I have explained why. City councils often reflect the deprivation of the people living within their boundaries, rather than having the people needed to rebuild run-down communities and restore confidence by attracting new investment and funding. Only Government can provide the climate and fund the infrastructure. A pilot scheme for the city, with low taxation for those who return to live in it and incentives for those who build in it, could produce a Hong Kong mentality in microcosm across an entire population.
I am sorry that my party never ran with the ideas that I formulated and proposed to the House time and again. As a practising community worker, I thought I knew what I was talking about. Let us hope that the new Labour Government seize the opportunity for real regeneration of our cities, while also recognising the importance of protecting our rural heritage and our countryside.
11.31 am
Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to take part once again in a debate initiated by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who deserves a prize for persistence, if nothing else. Given his wonderful self-justification and explanation of why his books did not sell as well as they should have done, and why his ideas were not taken on board as they should have been, perhaps his time has come, and the Government will reread some of his proposals.
The hon. Gentleman was a little churlish in some of his remarks about the impact of the report by Lord Rogers and the other members of the task force. I pay tribute to their work, which is a blueprint for the way forward. Their ideas could produce valuable work. The report contains more than 100 recommendations, and it is easy to say that many of them will fall by the wayside, but I hope that each will be considered by the Government in due course.
Although I was unable to attend the launch of the urban task force report, I know that there were slightly different interpretations in the press of what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said. From what I have read, I think that he gave the report a warm welcome. The Government are committed to an urban White Paper and, linked to that, a rural White Paper, so they will have to be judged by what they do.
The Government certainly intend to make a start on the biggest national issue—the decline of our cities. That affects everything that we do, whether we live in the city, in a village, or, as I do, in a market town, because they are all inextricably linked.
I invited the task force to visit two of my market towns, Stroud—the main market town of the constituency—and Nailsworth. It was an enjoyable day. Members of the task force were open-minded and they listened, and I hope that the evidence that they took back helped to make the report the weighty document that it is. Unfortunately, we seem to have slipped out at the final editing stage, but I am assured that the ideas that we presented to the task force played an important part in its considerations.
We should not deal with the report in isolation, or see it merely in relation to the inner city. It has much greater resonance than that. The welcoming remarks of the

349
Council for the Protection of Rural England sum up why it is such an important document:
"Urban renewal is essential if we are to tackle effectively the problems and pressures facing our rural areas. We now have a route map towards an urban renaissance. The Government as a whole needs to follow it with vigour and determination."
The CPRE's director, Kate Parminter, said:
"Paradoxically the renewal of our towns and cities is the key to tackling some of our most pressing rural problems."
I heartily concur. My main purpose in inviting the task force to visit the Stroud area was to enable its members to study problems on a different scale from those of our cities. Market towns, too, have experienced decline and face problems of their own. It is increasingly recognised that if we are to deal with the problems of the cities, we must deal with the problems of the market towns, and that we ignore rural decline at our peril.
I shall make five points—briefly, as I know that other hon. Members want to speak. My starting point is the urban-rural connection. If we adopt the report's recommendations, we must appreciate their knock-on effect on rural Britain.
As the hon. Member for Totnes said, housing development is a central issue, although it should not be seen as the only one. I myself could be accused of being obsessed with housing development and housing numbers, but other factors, such as where jobs, shops and leisure facilities are located, are important, too. Our postbags are full of letters from people who do not want a particular housing development, or do not want it on the proposed site, and so on.
The report revisits the questions of how we will achieve the goal of 60 per cent. of development on brown-field sites, how we will introduce a sequential test, and how we will manage the land supply more successfully than in the past. All those aims require us to get the relationship between urban Britain and rural Britain right. It is generally accepted, as the hon. Gentleman argued, that that relationship has been unsatisfactory for a generation, if not longer.
My second point is that to put matters right, we must revise and improve the planning mechanism. That is central to Rogers's argument. It is easy to cast aspersions, but we know that the planning process has been misused and even abused. People are dissatisfied. They think that it has been over-centralised and that local decisions do not hold sway.
The hon. Gentleman was a little unfair to local authorities. I agree with him that they do not have the means of reforming the planning process, but they can provide community leadership, which is vital to the Government's aim of making local government fit for the 21st century. That community leadership must work with the private sector, the public sector and the independent and voluntary sector.
Mr. Steen: I am a great supporter of local government, and would not want anyone to think otherwise, but I just do not think that it has the tools to do the job. if it had, it could make some progress, but unfortunately, local authorities' track record is not as good as the hon. Gentleman or I would like.
Mr. Drew: I do not disagree with that. We must renew local government, not it its traditional role as the only
350
funder, but in partnership with other sectors. We must get the planning process right. I am pleased that the Minister for London and Construction and the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning have spent time on issuing consultation documents. People might say that that is a cop-out and avoids action, but I do not agree. We must take people along with us by ensuring that planning proposals are, if not universally popular, as consensual as possible. We all want the same outcome; the question is by which means we achieve it.
Given his interest and background, it is not surprising that Lord Rogers has a lot to say about the role of urban design in successful planning. I welcome much of what the report says about the need for that design factor to be paramount to make people want to live in our urban centres. We all know why they do not want to live there, and we must turn that round. Britain's cities are, if not unique, at least unusual by comparison with many continental cities that we all visit from time to time, which seem to be able to attract people to live in them. Even if those people have places elsewhere, their main residence is still in the city. As the hon. Member for Totnes made clear, the outward drift of people has become a torrent in Britain. We must turn that round, because we cannot afford to go on as we are.
Fiscal mechanisms are important. The criticism of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was a little premature, because we have been waiting for the report for some time. It would have been wrong to introduce legislation, and certainly to introduce changes through budgetary mechanisms, beforehand. One is always open to criticism if one makes one's mind up in advance of a report. I hope that the fiscal measures suggested in the report are treated seriously. They do not involve a green-field tax, which some would feel is not a particularly adventurous decision. None the less, it is right to make it more difficult to develop green-field sites, whether by way of impact fees or any other means.
In addition, it is important to harmonise the VAT regime and ensure that developers and owners have real incentives to use the more urban settings and bring contaminated land back into use. So much of our inner-city landscape has been blighted, and putting it right will cost real money. It is no good talking as if that will occur as a matter of course. There are significant problems, and we must offer incentives.
I also welcome the renaissance fund of £500 million over 10 years. The hon. Member for Totnes said that it was small beer—unfortunately, it is—and he talked of the need to put in place some form of catalyst. The fund is a start, but much greater resources will be required. We are trying to solve the problems of our cities for the next millennium.
If I have a criticism of the report, it is that, although I agree that planning is the key, it looks more at structural approaches than at people. To encourage people back into our cities we must get the schools and the health service right. Therefore the social and economic environment—and, dare I say, the political agenda—must be put in place. The report was intended to consider the planning agenda, so it would be daft if it did not concentrate on that, but I hope that the two White Papers will ensure that there is an underlying emphasis on how people's lives can be improved. If that is done, the outward drift will at least

351
be slowed down, and eventually it will be turned round. That is a criticism, but I understand why there is not much in the report about that aspect.
Planning is at the forefront of the way in which we genuinely want to turn things round, but more central to achieving that than anything else will be the way in which we improve transport, not just in the urban centres but in the rural areas. Transport is crucial to everyone's lives, and if we do not get that right, everything else will fall by the wayside, regardless of whatever wonderful new plans are put in place, and regardless of our attempts to improve design.
I welcome what the report says about planning for a different transport system. Some of its proposals, such as home zones, may be a little zany, but there is genuine evidence of the need for people to accept reductions in the number and use of cars—for example, by accepting parking space for one rather than two, three or even more cars. That seems a fairly minor matter, but try persuading planning authorities, let alone the people who submit plans, that it is the right approach.
We must change attitudes. We have the ambitious target of reducing car journeys by 65 per cent. That will be difficult to achieve. We know the problems and the pain that it will cause, and we know that people must be encouraged to consider alternatives. It is important to encourage rather than to make people take action, because people must have a choice. But we cannot pretend that our cities can survive into the next millennium unless we consider the thorny problem of transport and ensure that people have alternatives—not just those who live in the cities but those who travel there to work or for other reasons.
I welcome the report. I hope that it will do more than see the light of day and cause a bit of pzazz for a few hours. I hope that it will genuinely form the basis of the urban and rural White Papers, and help people to understand that this debate can affect their lives for the better. I hope, too, that it will ensure that appropriate resources will be provided. We are all grateful to Lord Rogers and everyone else involved for what they have done.
1.48 am
Mr. Richard Allan: I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate. He has inspired me to look up his books in the Library. If they refer to concepts such as site value rating, they will be excellent bedtime reading for a Liberal Democrat, as we find such things fascinating in the extreme.
Mr. Sanders: Better than mogadon.
Mr. Allan: Indeed.
The report is an excellent contribution to the debate on urban policy. I have been conducting an urban policy review for my party, and often, while reading the report, I wished that I had thought of something that was in it. We may have to review our review.
Cities have had a bad press. Many people love living in cities. Most people in Britain do so. I love Sheffield, and I think that I speak for most Sheffielders when I say
352
that I live in Sheffield because I want to. Nobody forces me to stay there. We can overdo the suggestion that cities are a zone of desperate flight out when in fact they are tremendously attractive places in which to live. I hope that we can move the agenda on to talking up cities a little more, talking about their advantages, particularly in terms of access to facilities.
Within striking distance of my home I have two excellent universities, two large and comprehensive hospitals offering a full range of services, two professional theatres and any number of amateur theatres to provide me with entertainment, and I can walk down Ecclesall road near my house and choose between 15 and 20 good restaurants. Not many rural dwellers have access to such a range of services. Those are real things that affect real people. To be able to walk out of one's door and have access to such a range of services is one of the principal attractions of living in a city. The real challenge is how to extend those advantages to everyone throughout the urban areas, and how to deal with some of the problem parts of those urban areas.
There is a huge difference between one part of a city and another. I am fortunate enough to represent the relatively well-off part of my city, but I know that, in terms of all the indicators—such as educational expectancy, and even life expectancy—there is a huge disparity between my area and other areas. We need to spread the advantages of living in some parts of a city across the whole urban area.
I want to discuss some key elements in the report. Mixed-tenure housing is crucial. Sheffield contains large estates where there is single-tenure housing, meaning that there is only one kind of tenant—the council tenant. It also contains housing association areas, where virtually everyone receives housing benefit. One problem is people's inability to stay in their areas; as soon as they can trade up, they get out. We should adopt some of the report's suggestions and bring about more imaginative sets of housing tenure. If we can do that, as people move up the social and economic spectrums they will choose to stay in their own areas, rather than fleeing to attractive suburbs.
Most cities suffer from the same inability to retain people in deprived areas as they move up the social spectrum. That is largely because the quality of housing that people expect as they move up the income scale simply is not there. Not many areas blighted by deprivation contain four and five-bedroomed homes with gardens. Sheffield has bold plans to redevelop some of the larger areas. I think that when cities redevelop they should concentrate on mixed tenure, rather than simply providing new housing with the same tenure as before.
A particularly bizarre scheme involves housing associations paying tenants to move out as soon as they have jobs and can afford their own housing. When those people are able to contribute to the local economy because they are in work, the housing associations want to replace them with people on housing benefit. That makes sense in terms of the housing association's role as a social housing provider, but I do not think that it does the areas concerned any good to bribe people to move out as soon as they become financially active.
Density is another important issue. The hon. Member for Totnes mentioned high-rise living. As we redevelop, there is a trend towards lower-density housing, but there

353
is now scope for us to consider, for instance, new urban terraces. Terraced houses were very attractive in Georgian times: people do not think of terraces in Bath as being deprived housing. I think that we can move back towards higher-density housing if we can overcome some of the other problems, such as transport and parking. If we simply redevelop all inner urban areas with much lower-density housing to make them more attractive, we may miss some of the benefits of being able to absorb extra housing stock in urban areas.
Attracting jobs into cities is vital. In terms of job creation, the north-south divide is very evident, but I think that it can be reversed. There was a fair amount of scepticism when the Midland bank—or HSBC, as I think we are now supposed to call it—moved its headquarters to Sheffield and began shipping in people from other parts of the country, but I understand that the staff love it there. They do not want to move away from Sheffield, where they have a tremendous quality of life.
If firms are bold enough, they can put jobs into cities in the north, in particular, without experiencing the problems that some may fear. EDS, the computer company, has just brought several hundred jobs in information technology into Sheffield. It understands that Sheffielders love Sheffield. It knows that if it recruits Sheffielders it will keep them for a few years, whereas if it sets up a business in the south-east—as it has in the past—it will train people, and a year later they will be gone. Urban areas, especially those outside the south-east, have a great deal to offer in terms of recruitment and retention. We should take advantage of that, rather than simply tipping the whole population out of the north and into the M4 corridor—where I am sure they are often unwelcome, because of the extra development requirements that they impose.
As the report points out, new technology is a key aspect. I hope that we can take advantage of the universities that are generally found in our urban areas. Cambridge is a leading example of the university cities that have introduced science parks. York is trying to do a similar thing with its "science city York" initiative, using the university to add value to the local economy. I hope that the Government will encourage that trend and work with universities to enable them to add value in that way. Such action can give us a leading market edge. It will be easier for us to attract jobs into urban areas if there are high-quality universities producing high-quality graduates who can offer the industrial marketplace something that other areas cannot. Our cities need unique selling points, and universities can provide them.
The brown-field site development initiatives are welcome, but, as has been said, they require incentives. I would look favourably on a green-field development Act, especially if it enabled us to absorb the extra money from such development and recycle it into the brown-field clean-up. The absence of such a virtuous circle often presents a barrier. British Gas sites, for instance, are often left empty because of the phenomenal costs of cleaning them up. Not everyone can put up a dome to help with those costs.
As the report suggests, compulsory purchase orders need looking at. We need to assemble attractive packages of land, but new development is often prevented by the holding of "ransom strips", which means that developers cannot secure the attractive packages that will make their developments viable.
354
We should also examine the role of city centres. Sheffield has a famous—or infamous—shopping centre, Meadowhall. It was recently sold, and I understand that some of the proceeds will fund the anti-euro campaign—courtesy of Mr. Paul Sykes, one of the developers of the site. Given that many shopping facilities have moved out of the city centres, we should consider their future role.
There are some very hopeful signs. I do not often praise the former city council regime in Sheffield, but I praise it for having introduced a new redevelopment scheme to make our open spaces in the centre more attractive. There is, I think, a significant role for the city centre as an area of public open space, offering entertainment and service facilities of every kind and, perhaps, moving away from the model of the centre as primarily a shopping area. Of course we need shops, but we should accept that time moves on and that city centres can provide more than a monoculture of retailing. Certainly Sheffield is trying to provide more attractive facilities to bring people in.
As has been said, public transport is important, and mistakes have been made. I hope that the Government will think about that, and also that they will consider the issue of equalisation of VAT on refurbishment and redevelopment. There is also the question of local authorities and the repairing of listed buildings. Authorities are often scared to act because they fear that they will not be able to recover the money. I hope that the Government will consider ways of supporting local authorities wishing to serve repair orders on the owners of listed buildings who allow them to fall into disrepair, and guaranteeing the money if the authorities fail to recover it.
I commend the report and hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government intend to act on its recommendations.
11.58 am
Mr. Shaun Woodward: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing this important debate. I also join others in congratulating Lord Rogers and the members of the urban task force.
There is no doubt that it is right for us to consider this issue—albeit, as my hon. Friend said, yet one more time. The question is, what will now be done? Hon. Members have rightly praised aspects of the report, but where do we go from here? The report contains 105 recommendations, and yesterday the Government proudly claimed that they had already implemented one of them. That leaves 104. At that steady rate of progress, the Government should have worked through the report by 2003.
The Minister is clearly anxious for the White Paper to be published soon. It will be interesting to see whether the Deputy Prime Minister is prepared to take on what are undoubtedly powerful political interests. The crucial question is whether he will win the battle for money from the Treasury—and, indeed, where the extra money will come from for investment in public transport and housing. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to tackle local authorities, and ensure that their planning powers are loosened? Hon. Members have rightly mentioned that. The need for urban regeneration arises from the need to find 3.8 million extra homes in the next 25 years. Again, the crucial question is: where will they be?

355
In some respects, the report makes uncomfortable reading for the Government. Lord Rogers highlights the failure so far to meet the Government's targets on brown-field sites. As he says:
"Our model leads us to estimate that on the basis of current policies, just over two million dwellings will be developed on recycled sites over the 25-year period of the housing projections. This equates to 55 per cent. of the projected 3.8 million extra households being accommodated on brownfield sites. In other words, if we continue on the current path, we will fall short of the Government's target."
The Deputy Prime Minister's response to that was interesting:
"We shouldn't become obsessive about the figure."
That is an extraordinary signal for him to send. It is precisely the wrong signal to send to local authorities and to those involved in planning. As long as such sloppy signals are sent, green field will be built on and brown field will remain vacant. Such indifferent sloppiness from the Deputy Prime Minister will have a continually devastating impact and the targets will be missed.
By the same token, as we can see from the report, if the Deputy Prime Minister were to adopt a more rigorous, exacting attitude, enormous benefits would accrue and many areas of the countryside would be saved. Indeed, if he had read the report in detail, he would have seen that the potential for things to get worse in relation to the proportion of housing to be developed on previously developed land is considerable. We could fail to hit not just the target of 60 per cent. but the target of 55 per cent. Even worse, it could easily fall to 47.4 per cent.
By the same token, if the Government were to discount their sloppiness and go for a rigorous approach, as Lord Rogers rightly points out, increasing average density of new development on previously developed land by just 10 per cent. would allow them to hit the 60 per cent. target. He recommends other ways in which the Government could improve on their appalling record.
The report makes uncomfortable reading for the Deputy Prime Minister for other reasons. Despite Government claims, the report shows that Government spending on inner-city regeneration is behind Conservative levels when we left office. As the report says—[Interruption.] The Minister nods.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)indicated dissent.
Mr. Woodward: Let me refer the Minister to page 286 of the report, which is headed, "The big numbers". It states:
"Following the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review…the Government promised to increase its regeneration expenditure over each of the next three years. In real terms, however, the increase in expenditure only means that by 2001/02 we will have just overtaken the amount that the previous Government was spending in 1993/94."
Mr. Raynsford: What happened after that?
Mr. Woodward: The report shows that the levels in 1995, 1996 and 1997–98 were above the Government's levels in 1998–99. If the Minister doubts it, he should turn to page 286 and see for himself.
356
The Deputy Prime Minister must know the trouble that he and his Ministers are in with the report. Schemes to cut VAT rates on construction will not endear him any more to the Treasury. His disastrous transport policies will not win support in the country if he adopts the report's proposal to cut road spending. Perhaps the Minister could tell us this morning whether he intends to cut road spending further.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) rightly drew attention to the report's emphasis on the importance of public transport, yet the Deputy Prime Minister continues to preside over some of the worst transport chaos in decades. If we had to take just one example, we would take London. Let us look at investment levels on the tube in London. In 1996, the Government put in more than £1 billion. This year, it is half that: £564 million.
People cannot get to work in London. They cannot get from work to their homes in London. How on earth does the Minister intend to persuade people to follow the report's recommendation and to come to live in the capital when the Government have engineered chaos on its public transport?
People do not need Lord Rogers's report to tell them the truth. The Government have cut spending on the tube and it is getting worse by the day. The Deputy Prime Minister still has no proper agreement and implementation date for his PPP—the public-private partnership. He will almost certainly not be able to hand over London Underground to the mayor next April or May. He still has no agreement for extra money to finance the tube next year and beyond.
The report rightly highlights the fact that it is no use adding to all the derelict land throughout the nation and demanding that it be covered in new houses if no one wants to live there. Houses follow jobs, as all those Ministers who live in Admiralty Arch and Dorneywood know.
The report does not confront directly the fundamental loss of jobs in the north, which has led to the north-south migration. People are leaving the north in huge numbers. The Government continue to preside over that tragic collapse of northern urban areas. After two years, there is still no clear policy on how to reverse it.
At the heart of the report lies the following question: who will pay to halt the decline in our inner cities? Where will the money come from? It will be interesting to see whether the Minister even begins to answer that question.
Briefing before the report was published—unfortunately, as always with the Government, there is a fair amount of leaking before reports ever find their way to the House—estimated that, net, it would cost between £1 billion and £2 billion a year to implement the report's recommendations. The report believes that inner-city regeneration could best be achieved by, among other things, cuts in council tax in inner-city areas, cuts in stamp duty and, crucially, cuts in VAT on conversion properties.
In addressing that crucial question—it is crucial; it will be interesting to see whether the Minister addresses it this morning—the report says on page 255:
"Refurbishment or conversion of existing residential properties carries full VAT at 17.5 per cent. New housebuilding incurs no VAT, nor does conversion of commercial buildings for housing. There is therefore a strong case for harmonising the different rates, preferably by removing VAT on refurbishments or conversions of residential buildings, or introducing zero-rating."

357
Therefore, as the report says:
"It is essential that the UK presses the European Commission to enable harmonisation to occur without the need to impose VAT on new build housing development."
The crucial question for the Minister is: are the Government pressing the European Commission to enable harmonisation to occur without imposing VAT on new houses? If they do not, if the Treasury does not make extra money available and if the Minister's only solution is to cut VAT on converted property and to raise VAT on new houses, anyone who wants to buy a new home, any young couple, any starter group embarking on a new home, had better realise that the report carries a serious probability—unless the Minister will tell us today that he rules it out: a 5 per cent. tax on new homes over the next 25 years. Perhaps he will tell us whether the Government have plans to introduce that 5 per cent. tax, or say categorically that there will be no 5 per cent. tax on new homes, now or in the foreseeable future
There is no question but that harmonisation at 0 per cent. across the board would be welcomed by everyone. However, how will that be paid for? [Interruption.] The Minister rightly says, "Dream on." We look forward to seeing the White Paper, but can he tell us when it will appear? Will it be like his Department's Railways Bill, which was cancelled last year by No. 10 and delayed this year by No. 10? It is now anyone's guess when it will arrive, let alone be implemented.
Sadly, the true fate of the report rests in the hands not of the Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister, but of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the Deputy Prime Minister's extraordinarily unwieldy and stagnant empire, it is not he but the Chancellor who makes the decisions. The Chancellor will decide which, if any, of those policies can be implemented. He will make the money available and he will tell the Deputy Prime Minister whether he can have his report.
From where will the money come, if not from the Treasury? The Minister nods, but perhaps he will answer that question. Will it come from current revenues—if so, what will be cut? Will it come from new taxes—if so, on whom will they be levied?
As so often, the success of the Deputy Prime Minister's policies rests in the Chancellor's hands.
Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend is, as usual, making a very powerful speech, for which we are grateful, but I think that he needs to deal with one point. He is going down the track—successive Governments have gone down it, as has been apparent in all the projects—of thinking in terms of injecting funds into bits of the inner or outer city. I was talking about creating an entirely new climate in which cities will regenerate themselves, rather than about pushing in bits of money to create an action area here or a rejuvenation or regeneration there. Although I support my hon. Friend's argument entirely, could he deal with that matter too?
Mr. Woodward: My hon. Friend makes an important point, on which he expanded at length in his speech. He is also quite right. However, that matter is not the report's fundamental tenet, as that wonderful new Labour document is all about going to the Chancellor for money—or going to the taxpayers and finding new ways of fleecing them to pay for regeneration. The
358
report is not about enabling individuals to be free from the planning miasma that has developed, and it will be interesting to hear whether the Minister has anything to say about that.
I ask the Minister: what will be the report's fate? As The Independent recently inquired:
"But action? For all his bluster, it is hard to point to many of the Deputy Prime Minister's achievements. This is either Mr. Prescott's chance to show his worth, or, more likely, the final proof that nothing concrete will emerge to help our inner cities without a change of minister."
12.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on raising this issue and, above all, for his tenacity, over a long time, in expressing his concerns about the importance of urban regeneration.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned his own two books on the subject—"New Life for Old Cities" and "PLUMS"—and, rather wistfully, commented that the first of them was published 17 years ago, when he found himself preaching in the wilderness. I am sorry for that, but, hope that, as I make my speech, he will realise that the Government are committed to pursuing policies designed to give effect to many of the ideas that he has expressed. Although I cannot accept all those ideas, many of the views that he has expressed today and in those books chime very closely with the Government's approach to regeneration.
The urban task force's report has attracted great interest, and I very much welcome hon. Members' comments on it today. The report has been widely welcomed, and the welcome that has been extended to it outside the House has been reflected in the comments made today by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I add my congratulations to my noble Friend Lord Rogers and all his team on a very comprehensive and detailed analysis of one of the most crucial issues confronting our society.
The hon. Member for Totnes mentioned London's relative success, but some northern cities—such as Manchester and Leeds and others—have also shown relative success. The nub of the issue is that, although some urban areas are successful, in past decades others have suffered serious decline. There has been an exodus from inner cities, driven by a lack of confidence in schools, fear of crime, an unhealthy environment, economic setbacks—such as loss of industry—and poor housing. One of the key challenges facing us is to make Britain's towns and cities not only fit to live in but thriving centres of human activity in the broadest sense, comprising economic and social activity, and other activity enticing people to move to and live in those locations.
The Government are trying to promote new thinking in reaching that objective, which is why we asked Lord Rogers and his team to undertake the study. The task force was asked to consider the reasons for urban decline and to recommend how to breathe new life into urban areas.
The task force's report was published on 29 June, setting out its vision for the future of our urban areas. It called for well-designed, more compact and better connected cities that support a range of diverse uses

359
within a sustainable urban environment, with good transport links, and within a framework that is adaptable to change. We welcome the task force's broad vision and the various forward-thinking recommendations in its report.
It would be premature now to provide a full response to the task force's specific recommendations—of which, as all hon. Members will know, there are more than 100—as they merit detailed consideration. However, we shall be doing that in the next few months, before we publish a White Paper on urban policy.
The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) and others have asked when the White Paper will be produced. The Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that we shall be producing it within the next 12 months. As it will be the first urban White Paper for 20 years—and should be prepared thoroughly and carefully so that it addresses all the issues—we are not committed to a fixed publication date. It would be a mistake to rush out a White Paper simply to give a quick response on an issue that really does merit thought and care.
We have, however, been able to respond immediately to one of the task force's recommendations—to create urban regeneration companies. The day after publication of the task force's report, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning launched the "Liverpool Vision". As the hon. Member for Totnes, in an earlier life, represented a Liverpool constituency, I am delighted that the city of Liverpool has benefited first from the Government's response to the task force's recommendations.
We also have invited a proposal for a second pilot, in east Manchester. We expect early results from the pilots to provide valuable information to feed into the urban White Paper and to provide a model for similar urban regeneration companies in other towns and cities across England.
The urban White Paper will deal with the challenges that must be met if we are to secure an urban renaissance. We must have cities that are prosperous, sustainable and socially cohesive, and offer attractive living and working environments. The urban White Paper will provide a framework showing how policies can be integrated effectively to achieve those objectives.
The task force rightly emphasised that there is no single solution to the problems faced by urban areas: we have to deal with economic, social and physical problems as a whole. The hon. Member for Totnes spoke, perfectly reasonably, about the limitations of local authorities' ability to achieve on their own a turnaround of urban areas. Although they have an important contribution to make, their contribution must be part of a wider partnership—and there must be the full engagement of the business sector, the voluntary sector and local communities. It must be a broadbrush and holistic approach.
I also noted that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the achievements of some American mayors. It is an interesting issue, as it suggests that there may be models of local government that may be more successful than others in helping to galvanise those partnerships and creating impetus for change. He will be aware that the Government are seeking to promote innovative thinking
360
in local government on how best to meet the challenges facing local authorities. He will also know of my own role in creating a framework for London where there will be a directly elected mayor who we hope will perform exactly the role of acting as a leader for London, bringing together all the parties and helping to galvanise London in various ways.
Mr. Steen: I take the Minister's point, but the problem in London is the candidates.
Mr. Raynsford: I shall make no comment on that.
Planning is an essential tool in turning the vision for urban areas into reality. The hon. Member for Totnes rightly focused on planning issues, in which he has shown particular interest over the years. The Government have started work on modernising the planning system and welcome the overall direction proposed in the task force's planning proposals, many of which reflect our "Modernising Planning" initiative.
There is widespread support for our policies from a surprisingly diverse range of bodies, including the Confederation of British Industry and the Council for the Protection of Rural England. A recent CPRE press notice said:
"The Government's new planning policies begin to put teeth into its commitment to protect the countryside and revitalise the towns. They should have a significant impact on the geography of new building and help to contain urban sprawl."
I quote that press release, bearing in mind the comments by the hon. Member for Witney, who used several selective figures, combined with a certain amount of political bluster, to imply that all the problems have arisen in the past two years and that nothing that went on in the previous 18 years, when the Conservatives were in government, contributed to the problems. A brief study of history will reveal that the impact of economic decline during the recessions of the early 1980s and early 1990s, and of the "let it rip" development mania of the 1980s, in which developers were encouraged to develop wherever they wanted—green-field site or not—entirely gives the lie to his extraordinary claim that the problems are associated with the present Government. I am not making a party political point when I say that we are seeking to deal with problems that have a long history. We are seeking to tackle them in ways that genuinely address the economic, environmental and social problems, to try to ensure a more sustainable and better basis for future planning.
We have already taken several steps. "Planning for the Communities of the Future" marked a break with the past and set out our objectives for an urban renaissance. It signalled a departure from the days of "predict and provide" in planning.
The hon. Member for Totnes mentioned the transfer from the previous arrangements to the current ones. That must be handled in an orderly way, taking into account the fact that structure plans and local plans in different parts of the country differ in their preparedness, but we are making that transformation. PPG3, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is an important part of that process.
I very much welcome the very positive support that the hon. Gentleman has given to PPG3. We believe that it is the right way forward. It will help to encourage

361
redevelopment in urban areas and to focus on quality, both of which are vital. We should be thinking as much about the quality of new development as about the numbers, because in the past one of the great banes of housing and planning policy was thinking mechanistically about numbers instead of thinking about quality and creating environments that people would want to live in and enjoy living in.
Mr. Steen: I think that we agree about PPG3. The only snag is, when will it happen?
Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the procedure in respect of issuing planning policy guidance is that the document must be issued first for a period of consultation. We are considering the responses to PPG3, and we shall make a more definitive statement in the relatively near future. However, PPG3 is a material consideration already, as a draft document, and authorities may have regard to it in considering appropriate planning matters. Once the process of issuing new planning guidance starts, that becomes an influence on future planning decisions, so the impact of PPG3 policies, which the hon. Gentleman welcomes, should already be starting to be felt.
Mr. James Gray: I presume that the Minister will wait to hear the outcome of the consideration by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs of PPG3 before he comes out with the final version.
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Select Committee, is well aware that we consider Select Committee reports very carefully. We do not always agree with everything that they say—he would not expect that—but we will look carefully at the Committee's conclusions.
Mr. Steen: Assuming that PPG3 comes into effect, whether or not it reproduces the original consultation document, the implication is that local district councils—planning authorities—will be able to refuse planning consent on green-field sites. If they do not have a city in their district, can they point to the neighbouring town and tell the developer, "Develop there"? What happens if the developer who wants to develop on the green-field site in the district council area appeals to the Secretary of State? Will the Secretary of State be able to turn down the appeal, pointing to PPG3 and saying, "Look in the city next door"?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, under the plan-led system, we are seeking to encourage an approach in which sites are identified in advance—in which there is a more proactive approach to planning—so that developers are encouraged to consider appropriate sites. As I shall mention, the national land use database is designed to make it easier to identify brown-field sites in urban areas for development.
However, the hon. Gentleman must accept—as we all do—that, even if we achieve the 60 per cent. target, a certain proportion of development will continue to take place in non-urban areas. Indeed, there is a need, for the vitality of rural areas, for some development to take place in many of those areas, to provide employment and
362
opportunities for people who must live there. A balance must be maintained. We cannot have a mechanistic approach which automatically refuses any green-field development. The purpose of the sequential approach that we are adopting is to steer development towards brown-field areas wherever possible.
I mentioned the national land use database. The hon. Member for Totnes highlighted the lack of knowledge about the extent of vacant urban land. We must have a better understanding of where the land is and where it is available. The national land use database published its first results on 20 May. I find it slightly shocking that that is the first effort of its kind to identify such land. Obviously, it must be developed. Although we only have the initial findings at the moment, it is a step in the right direction and will help us to pursue our policies.
In all these initiatives we are attacking the causes of urban decline and people's tendency to look for alternatives to urban sites for development. We want to reinvigorate cities and encourage people to return to and develop in cities. If we can reverse the decline—if we can make our urban centres more vibrant, exciting and pleasant places in which to work, live, and play—we shall have gone a long way to protect the countryside from unreasonable pressures for development.
I stress, therefore, that the Government are not only focusing on urban areas. We shall publish a rural White Paper to express our concerns for the countryside and the need for appropriate policies relating to rural areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made several very pertinent comments. He has taken a serious interest in the subject of development in both urban and rural settings and the inter-relationship between the two, which is rarely the subject of the careful thought of which he gave us the benefit this morning. From his perspective, the inter-relationship between urban and rural areas is hugely important.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) spoke about the benefits of city life and the need for more diverse tenure patterns and for more diverse mixed developments in city centres. I wholeheartedly concur with him. We believe that a greater diversity in tenure patterns and a mixture of residential, commercial and retail activities in city centres helps to keep vibrancy and avoid their going dead at night, which was often the problem of mono-tenure or mono-activity cities where all the business closed in the evening, people left and the areas were often very unwelcoming and sometimes crime-ridden. Bringing people back to live in the city centre can help to create greater security and vitality. There is an enormous amount to be said for that.
The hon. Member for Witney raised several issues, including that of fiscal instruments. The task force did make several recommendations on fiscal instruments, which the Government will want to consider carefully before replying. As he knows, final decisions on taxation are a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it was always thus, even under Conservative Governments. I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will want to respond on several of those issues in due course.
The future is about harnessing growth to promote a better quality of urban living and to bring back life to the hearts of our towns and cities. Achieving an urban renaissance goes hand in hand with relieving pressure on the countryside. The task force's report is a challenge to

363
the Government, public agencies, the private sector, local neighbourhoods and individuals. We must all play a part in ensuring that cities and towns become places where we are proud to live and to work. We need to think positively and work across all sectors to make an urban renaissance a reality. This is not a short-term programme—it is about long-term sustainable development.
The task force's report sets out the task before us. It has already started a major public debate about the quality of life in our towns and cities. The Government will continue to work in taking up that challenge.

St. Vincent's Hospital, Middlesex
12.30 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the future of St. Vincent's hospital, Eastcote, Middlesex. The hospital lies in an ideally peaceful location—at about the highest point in my constituency—on Haste hill, on the edge of Ruislip woods nature reserve. From the windows of one of its sadly now-unoccupied wards, one can look down across the broad sweep of Middlesex towards London airport at Heathrow.
St. Vincent's has been in this perfect setting for some 75 years. It is a religious medical charity, registration No. 1014889, and a company limited by guarantee, No. 2721809, under the auspices of the Sisters of Charity of the order of St. Vincent de Paul. Their tradition of devoted, selfless care of patients has been St. Vincent's enduring characteristic to this day, and that tradition is maintained by the admirable clinicians and staff who work there.
That is exemplified by the inspiringly radiant photograph and the warm tribute to three St. Vincent matrons in the May 1999 newsletter of the hospital's dedicated league of friends. The newsletter says:
"Our Photograph shows three generations of Matrons who between them have served St. Vincent's for 56 years. Sister Angela Murray first came to St. Vincent's in 1943, and was appointed Matron in 1959. She was later followed by Sister Carmel Cussen who first came to St. Vincent's in 1964, and was Matron for 20 years, until Jacquie Scott took over from her at the beginning of last year."
I pay tribute to Jacquie Scott and all those under her who are driving the process of change forward and seeking to ensure a long-term viable future for the hospital. The newsletter continued:
"Sister Angela and Sister Carmel have guided St. Vincent's through many great changes in both the world around them, and in the services provided by the hospital. Jacquie Scott, who, in keeping with the times, has the title of Director of Nursing rather than Matron, has also been appointed Head of the Hospital, and she will undoubtedly be guiding the hospital through many more changes in the coming years.
Sister Angela is at last retiring to her native Lanarkshire, where we wish her well, while Sister Carmel will continue to be available to us, as she resides in the Sisters' home at the hospital and is now able to devote her time to pastoral care. So, although Sister Angela's departure undoubtedly marks the end of an era, it is all part of the continuous process of evolution of the service that our hospital provides, under the care of the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul."
It is instructive to give a brief outline of the hospital's history. At the turn of the century, Archbishop Bourne, who later became Cardinal Bourne, set up a home for 25 boys, mostly victims of tuberculosis and polio. Without this home, their chances on the streets of London—as hopeless incurables and social outcasts—were slim.
In 1906, the fate of the home and the children was in jeopardy through lack of funds, as the Archbishop failed to obtain financial support. The future looked bleak until, in 1907, an old coaching house was found in Clapham, and the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul agreed to take over its running. This was founded as the St. Vincent's home for crippled boys.
Three years later, Mr. McCrae Aitken, a surgeon, visited the home and treated 19 of the children. As a result of his skill, 12 were earning their own living within three

365
years. The work expanded and, in 1912, the home moved to Eastcote, Pinner, and became known as the Eastcote cripples home. That is its present location. An operating theatre was built and a physiotherapy department added in 1923.
In 1923, St. Vincent's adopted the name of St Vincent's orthopaedic hospital, becoming only the second orthopaedic hospital to be opened in this country. In 1925, a ward of 20 beds was opened for girls, and this was followed by yet another ward in 1930, which accommodated a further 25 patients. St. Vincent's continued to treat children and it was only during the second world war—when it had to care for casualties—that it first began to admit adult patients as part of the emergency medical service.
In the post-war period, the hospital's orthopaedic work has, until recently, continued on a major scale, although, as I will explain, it has had to be phased out to a large degree. The hospital has had a high reputation and was always immensely appreciated by the local community, which has selflessly supported the hospital's summer fetes and other activities and has recently helped to finance the opening of a shop on the site.
The range of services provided by the hospital includes work on joint replacements, care of the young chronically disabled and treating patients with severe multiple sclerosis and those who have had strokes or brain injuries. In 1996, the name was changed to St. Vincent's hospital to reflect the fact that orthopaedic surgical work was being phased out and to demonstrate that the hospital had a wider role as a community hospital.
Following a joint fund-raising appeal by the hospital and the Alzheimer's Disease Society, a specialist unit day centre for Alzheimer's patients called the Templeton centre was opened in 1997. The Holding Hands appeal did a wonderful job, and the Templeton day centre—named after its inspired promoter, Hazel Templeton—has as its object to provide high-quality care for those with dementia and to provide assistance and facilities on the site for their carers.
In 1998, a change of Government policy insisted that NHS patients should be treated in NHS hospitals where possible, and not in so-called private hospitals. Although St. Vincent's is a wholly charitable institution, it was considered a non-NHS hospital, and that led to the decision to phase out orthopaedic surgery.
The board and management at St. Vincent's agreed to continue serving the community, and that work continued in its current community hospital role. It is worth looking at the circular issued on 3 September 1997 from the NHS headquarters in Leeds and, in particular, paragraph 17—which, paradoxically, comes under the heading, "Ensuring Fairness." The paragraph said:
"In preparing for the new approach, Health Authorities, GPs and NHS trusts should explore the scope to make maximum cost-effective use of local NHS capacity before contemplating recourse to private sector hospital provision. Where care is nonetheless commissioned from private hospitals, the reasons must be reported to the Regional Office."
This is an extraordinary ideological predilection to support NHS hospitals, regardless of local circumstances and the cost-effectiveness of other institutions such as St. Vincent's, which is a wholly charitable hospital whose profit—when there is one—is always ploughed back into the care of patients.
366
With the demise of the internal market, change and adaptation have been uppermost in health care planning, and never more so than at St. Vincent's hospital recently, which has had to adapt drastically and fast.
GP fundholding ended this March and was replaced by primary care groups on 1 April. Both systems were set up to arrange health services for all local residents. They were intended to work with the providers of local health services to ensure that local people receive the best possible treatment and care, but, in the transition from fundholding to the new PCG approach, St. Vincent's suffered and, whereas once there was a thriving orthopaedic surgical unit providing care at operative, post-operative and rehabilitation and discharge stages, the hospital can now provide only non-surgical care management.
In 1998, orthopaedic surgery ended at St. Vincent's, and the Hillingdon health authority decided to build up the orthopaedic surgical facilities at Mount Vernon hospital nearby. Anomalously and strangely, surgical work is being reduced at Mount Vernon overall; the rationale between the first decision and the second is hard to fathom, especially as the other hospitals in the area to which orthopaedic patients are referred have historically had long waiting lists whereas St. Vincent's has always been short.
In November 1998, 48 members of staff were made redundant, extending right across the board to clinical, medical, surgical and ancillary staff. The hospital has only two wards open: a busy physiotherapy service and an X-ray department, which is also likely to close in the very near future. We do not know what services will be commissioned by the NHS at St. Vincent's. The future is extremely bleak unless favourable decisions are taken. Very little time is left if this cost-effective and dedicated institution is to survive.
St. Vincent's has a small contract with Northwick Park Hospital NHS trust to provide in-patient services focusing on post-operative rehabilitation for orthopaedic or trauma patients who have had surgical procedures and require more time to get back on their feet or are waiting for social services decisions. Many people have to wait many weeks for decisions about residential or nursing home places, so the service at St. Vincent's is very relevant and worth while, enabling Northwick Park to free precious beds that would otherwise be unnecessarily occupied.
St. Vincent's also offers respite beds, but they are not NHS funded. Physiotherapy is an expanding service, which St. Vincent's has provided for the local population since its inception. The service is immensely appreciated and the physiotherapy department, which has contracts with both Hillingdon and Harrow, has a waiting list, on average, of only two weeks, whereas the district general hospitals in the area have waiting lists of about six months.
The Government have made it clear that NHS patients are to use so-called non-NHS establishments only if there are no NHS facilities available for the service required. That is wholly illogical. St. Vincent's is cost-effective, with the lowest possible overheads. There are double standards involved, as about 98 per cent. of the work done at St. Vincent's has always been for the NHS.

367
The community services development plan for Hillingdon for the financial year 1999–2002 for services for older people is due for publication on 23 September. The content of that crucial document will decide much of the future, if not the eventual viability, of St. Vincent's.
I know that the hospital's geographic location in the north of the Hillingdon borough poses certain problems, because we have the excellent Northwood and Pinner cottage hospital—which was already in existence as a great war memorial hospital—and Hillingdon health authority is determined to build up Mount Vernon as a community hospital and to run down its burns and plastics unit and its oral and maxillofacial unit, which did greatly admired cleft lip and palate work that was prized by local people.
St. Vincent's can make an invaluable contribution to the health service in many sectors, including the care of older people and respite management; physiotherapy and occupational therapy; radiography; the provision of a healthy living centre; locality phlebotomy; post-operative rehabilitation; in-patient provision for those waiting for residential or nursing home placement; out-patient services in chiropody and rheumatology; and day-care surgery.
St. Vincent's is exactly the kind of small unit that the Government should support if they genuinely believe in a wide range of health care provision for our people. In the whole period from 1979–97, I had occasion to request only one Adjournment debate on hospitals in my constituency: I asked in 1979 about the future of the accident and emergency department at Mount Vernon. In this Parliament, I have had Adjournment debates on 6 March 1998, on the future of Mount Vernon, and on 27 December 1998, on the future of Harefield hospital. This is the third time that I have had to request such a debate.
It seems that the Government are obsessed with big private finance initiative hospitals, such as the Paddington basin project or the great new hospital project in the west of Hertfordshire whose location we still do not know. If that is to the detriment of dedicated charitable institutions such as St. Vincent's, it will be a great tragedy. With good will and imagination, such a tragedy can be averted. The hospital can continue its admirable work if only it can have the contracts and backing that it and its staff fully deserve.
12.48 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on his success in securing this debate. I appreciate the importance of this topic to his constituents, for many of whom St. Vincent's is a much-loved and respected local hospital.
I do not believe that there is any connection between the Government's success in getting under way the PFI hospital-building programme—the largest ever in the history of the national health service—and the future of St. Vincent's. Nor do I believe that the connections made by the hon. Gentleman between other policies and what is happening at the hospital will stand examination.
St. Vincent's hospital, which is under the pastoral care of the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, has a long history of serving the community and the public at large.
368
Beginning in the early 1900s, it later began to provide surgery and treatment and in 1925 it expanded further to include facilities for girls as well as boys. The advent of the second world war meant a further change of direction, with services being provided for adults or casualties of the war as part of the emergency medical service. The hospital has continued to develop services over the years.
This debate provides me with an opportunity to pay tribute to the work of such charitable organisations. In the past, and in the present day, they have proven to be beneficial for their communities. I, too, wish to pay tribute to all those who have worked, or are working, at St. Vincent's hospital. It is clear that local people have benefited greatly from their endeavours over the years and the hospital has been, and continues to be, an important provider of local health services. It currently has a reputation for providing an excellent physiotherapy and rehabilitation service, and I am aware that local NHS patients have been very happy with the care and treatment they have received at St. Vincent's hospital.
The House will be aware, of course, that St. Vincent's hospital is a hospital outside the NHS and it might be helpful to set out several aspects of the relationship between the NHS and the private and voluntary sectors. Under the new arrangements for commissioning health services, general practitioners and consultants retain the clinical freedom to refer patients for the most appropriate treatment, and we would not have it any other way. However, it is still the case that health authorities, GPs and NHS trusts should explore the scope to make maximum cost-effective use of local NHS capacity before contemplating recourse to independent sector hospital provision.
When care is none the less commissioned from private hospitals, the reasons must be reported to the regional office of the NHS Executive. That was set out, as the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood said, in the planning and priorities guidance for 1998–99, which was issued to the health service in September 1997. The same applies to any hospital outside the NHS, be it a charitable organisation such as St. Vincent's or a voluntary sector provider of health care services.
It is clear that NHS facilities should be utilised where available and contracts with voluntary and private health care providers will be subject to the same standards of quality and effectiveness as NHS service agreements. The NHS has a responsibility to place its contracts with, and to commission, the voluntary and private sector only when it is most cost effective to do so after ensuring that the quality of services provided meets NHS standards. However, we accept that people should be free to choose private health care if they wish.
Ministers' relationship with the NHS is different from our relationship with the private and voluntary sector. We manage the NHS: we regulate the non-NHS sector. There is quite a difference. We have recently brought forward for consultation proposals for the regulation of the private and voluntary health care sectors.
The decision to commission services provided by voluntary and private health care providers is a local one and it will continue to be made locally and in the interests of patients. It is not the case that decisions are taken irrespective of local needs or circumstances. Indeed, two local health authorities currently have service agreements with St. Vincent's hospital. The local health authority of

369
the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood—Hillingdon—has a service agreement with St. Vincent's hospital for physiotherapy and for rehabilitation services. That service agreement covers 8,200 physiotherapy contacts and a rehabilitation service for 12 long-stay residents as well as on-demand respite care. Hillingdon health authority and primary care groups will invest more than £730,000 at St. Vincent's in 1999–2000. The health authority and local primary care groups are of the view that St. Vincent's provides excellent physiotherapy and rehabilitation services and that that investment decision, made locally, ensures that cost-effective, high-quality services are available to Hillingdon residents.
Brent and Harrow health authority and the five primary care groups in Brent and Harrow also have a service agreement with St. Vincent's hospital for physiotherapy services. That covers 3,500 treatments for local patients and means that more than £56,000 is being invested in St. Vincent's. That reflects the high regard with which the physiotherapy service is viewed by many Brent and Harrow GPs and by patients in the area. So far as I can establish on the information available to me, the transition from GP fundholding to primary care groups has had no impact on the utilisation of physiotherapy services by the doctors in the two local health authority areas.
It is true that St. Vincent's used to provide a variety of other services. It used to provide orthopaedic services for both NHS and other patients. It no longer does so following a hospital board decision, taken in summer 1998, to cease offering orthopaedic surgery as one of the hospital's services. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood suggested that that was a reflection of the priorities guidance to which I referred earlier. My understanding is that the hospital was experiencing difficulty in maintaining surgical facilities to modern standards, given the prohibitive cost. That was certainly an important factor in the decision. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, a wide range of services is offered at St. Vincent's, including facilities for younger chronically disabled, post-operative rehabilitation, respite care, physiotherapy, and radiography.
Given that health authorities and primary care groups have a responsibility to ensure that they make the best use of the public money that they receive, Hillingdon and Brent and Harrow health authorities and PCGs have decided that it is more cost-effective and appropriate in terms of ensuring that their populations receive the highest quality of care to look to St. Vincent's hospital to provide physiotherapy and rehabilitation services. I must reiterate, however, that those decisions are made locally. I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate that it would be unfair for Ministers to get involved in such decision making. We want health authorities and primary care groups to have responsibility for local decisions because of their expert knowledge of the health care needs of the
370
local population. Our responsibility as Ministers lies in setting the strategic direction of the NHS, not in deciding which local service is most appropriate.
We are determined to ensure that the NHS in London provides Londoners with top-quality care. That is why better GP premises are being provided, new hospitals are being built, and more resources are being invested in mental health and community services. We also have a London region of the NHS looking at the capital's health needs Londonwide and providing Londonwide plans for improvement. A document, titled "The modernisation plan for the NHS in London 1999–2002", sets out what is planned for the next three years and beyond. So we have targets in place and we need to ensure that they are delivered
The key objectives of the Government policies for health and social services are longer, healthier lives; a reduction in inequalities in health and health care; and an NHS which is modern, dependable and there when it is needed. We want to focus on improving the health of all Londoners, including addressing cultural, social and ethnic diversity, and we want to work effectively with others to reduce inequalities in health. We also want to ensure that all Londoners have fast and convenient access to quality local services and that London continues to lead the way nationally and internationally.
I wish to make it clear to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood that I understand that there are no plans to disinvest from the services that are currently provided at St. Vincent's hospital. I understand that that on its own may not be sufficient to secure its future, and I understand why that is a cause of concern. If the St. Vincent's board were to decide not to offer the services any longer, the local health authorities and primary care groups would need to consider how to ensure that people requiring those services were treated. That would, as I have said, be a local decision.
The Hillingdon health authority, local GPs and patients share the concern about the future of St. Vincent's. Hillingdon health authority has been in regular contact with the hospital, and discussions have been held to try to find a solution for the problems facing St. Vincent's. The hospital is seen as an integral part of the local health economy along with local NHS providers, and the health authority is encouraging St. Vincent's to look at what opportunities may exist locally and has entered into discussions with local social services on how to take that forward.
I am confident that St. Vincent's hospital is being included in local discussions and is viewed as a stakeholder when future service provision is under consideration. A local community conference will be taking place in north Hillingdon on 29 July and St. Vincent's hospital will have every opportunity to be involved and to contribute to that conference. Its role must, however, be viewed in the context of the needs of the local NHS and of other NHS providers in the area.

Employee Share Ownership
1 pm
Mr. Denis MacShane: I am grateful for the opportunity to have this Adjournment debate.
I strongly welcome the proposals in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget statement seeking to double the level of employee share ownership in the United Kingdom. I should declare an interest. I am an unpaid member of the board of Job Ownership, one of the organisations working in this sector. I have long been a supporter of employee share ownership plans, which I saw in practice in the United States—where about 9,000 firms with about 10 million employees are organised as ESOPs. Some are big, such as United Airlines, the world's fourth biggest airline, which has about 88,000 members in employment, but ESOPs have also saved small steel firms that otherwise might have gone out of business.
In addition, I saw how ESOPs, in the form of care assistant firms, gave employment to black women in the poorer parts of Boston. Those women would otherwise be without work and I was impressed with the way that they were able to make a living and feel that they owned their jobs. Also, as many hon. Members will be aware, the success of silicon valley is based on employee share ownership.
The structure works well: ESOPs have outperformed conventionally owned firms in productivity, share value and overall economic performance, both in the United States and the UK, where there are a small number of such firms. Savings put into employee-owned firms have grown faster than savings put into firms listed in the FTSE or Dow Jones indices.
We need more creativity and entrepreneurship, and more ownership of our economy, but we also need more than one model of ownership. The previous Conservative Government, in their long reign, believed in the public limited company, which is a monopoly form of ownership. I want the UK to adopt the competitive market in forms of ownership that is evident in the US. Giving employees a stake in their company seems to make the firm's success their success. It is a third way between state nationalisation and the plc, in which institutional shareholders own the stock, managers manage and workers who are not stakeholders in their own economic future do as they are told.
In 1969, almost half the UK's marketable wealth—broadly speaking, stocks and shares—was owned by individuals. Today, the figure has shrunk to just 16 per cent., according to the Office for National Statistics. As Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher sold large chunks of the UK to Sid, but Sid's reaction was to sell on as quickly as possible to cash in the windfall.
Far from creating a share-owning society in the UK, the Conservatives presided over a remarkable concentration of ownership. Today, just three groups—insurance companies, pension funds and overseas investors—own two thirds of all the shares in UK companies. Although I have no problems with overseas investment and ownership, in the next century we should seek to return more of the ownership of Britain's marketable wealth into the hands of more of the British people, so that in the future they can be shareholders in their companies and in the country.
372
Some UK employee-owned companies offer interesting success stories, and I shall mention just one. I often wonder whether the Sloane rangers and Chelsea shopaholics, for whom the Peter Jones store a little way down the road from here is the sine qua non for shopping dreams, know that they support an employee-owned firm. The John Lewis Partnership is one of the world's most successful trading companies in the retail sector. If it were quoted publicly, it would be firmly in the FTSE 100 index. It owes its success to its ownership by its employees.
Ever since the first employee share ownership schemes were introduced by Lord Healey when he was Chancellor, successive Governments have sought to promote the concept. I have never fully understood why the matter has been exclusively for the Treasury. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, in her previous incarnation, was Minister for Small Business at the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope that she will agree, when she replies to my speech, that we need not only tax arrangements to encourage employee share ownership but the active promotion of the concept.
I was disappointed that the recent DTI document on small enterprises contained no reference to ESOPs. In the United States, ESOPs are an important part of the process of handing small and medium-sized firms on from founders or owners who want to get out of the business. Those owners look for buyers, and in this country the buyer too often will be a bigger firm happy to absorb productive capacity to limit competition. The possibility of selling to employees is commonplace in the United States, but it is not part of the culture of business succession here.
When plans are being finalised for next year's Budget, I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will consult her colleagues at the DTI and those responsible for regional development agencies and ask them to do some hot gospelling on behalf of employee share ownership.
We have some excellent outfits in the UK. I have already mentioned Job Ownership, and wish also to mention the Employee Share Ownership centre and Pro-Share, which does extremely good work. Capital Strategies was launched a couple of years ago, and the Unity Trust bank has much expertise in the sector. Specialist accountants and lawyers have worked hard to promote different forms of ESOPs.
There is a growing European interest in the concept. The European Commission is now seriously considering promoting employee share ownership in Europe. The EU estimates that up to 700,000 small and medium-sized firms go out of business every year because there is no obvious ownership successor: they simply shut down or are absorbed because the transmission of company knowledge and marketing cannot be assured.
The problem in the former communist countries of central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union and its successor states is to create capitalism when there are no capitalists and a market economy when people have no experience of ownership. Employee ownership can help to bridge that gap, as it has already done in some instances in those countries.
I hope that the UK will become Europe's centre of excellence for employee share ownership and that we can export successful models to other countries in Europe.

373
I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister, as she goes through the legislative process in the next 12 months, to go in for a little joined-up government on ESOPs.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor set himself an ambitious target when he said that he wanted to double the number of ESOPs in the UK as a result of the measures to be introduced in the next Finance Bill. I welcome his decision to announce a general strategic policy objective, but then allow a year for discussion and consultation. In opposition, I sat on Finance Bill Committees and I saw how Treasury weevils hollowed out proposals to promote employee share ownership and allowed only miserable little measures to reach the statute book. The new process is more sensible and allows proper discussion and consultation.
It will be difficult to balance all the interests involved, but I hope that the proposals that my hon. Friend will take to the Chancellor for approval will be bold, simple and easy to grasp. The Government should raise the issue of employee ownership to the status of a new theory and practice for ownership and partnership, so that more British firms can be wealth creators, world beaters and job makers.
What needs to be achieved? We need to move the idea of employee share ownership and involvement to firms that are below the level of the big, FTSE-listed companies. Although many such large firms already run good share-save schemes, they are the big fish in our company pond. We must ensure that all employees have access to company shares. In any future privatisation. I should like at least 10 or 20 per cent. of the stock to go to employees. In Ireland, 20 per cent. of Telecom Eireann stock went to employees, and in France, Air France is privatising and 3 per cent. of stock is reserved for employees.
There may be a case for promoting employee buy-outs to form ESOPs in public sector operations, including some in local government. If more public services were delivered by men and women who owned the relevant organisation, there might be fewer scars on our backs and less frustration among Ministers and councillors who pull levers in Whitehall or in town halls without any result.
Partnership and trust are key concepts of British commercial history. I am talking not about industrial relations, but about fiscal relief given for decades, if not centuries, to professional partnerships to help them to promote themselves. The legal concept of a trust exists to protect wealth against too easy or frivolous dispersal. The Treasury should consider providing serious fiscal relief for employees who put part of their existing or future earnings into an ESOP. All successful market economies work on credit—paying back what one borrows from future earnings. That exciting theoretical concept underlies ESOPs as everyone involved in the economic process could take a stake in what would be earned in future rather than finding the money from the limited savings that most ordinary employees can call upon.
We need changes in company law to make it easier to establish and administer a trust as a form of ownership. Will my hon. Friend concentrate on tax relief that could be offered to an employee-owned trust and used to borrow against the company's assets? The Treasury should seek to expand ESOPs into the small and medium-sized enterprise sector. Jointly with the DTI, the Treasury should also organise regional conferences to get the ESOP message across.
374
Will my hon. Friend be careful not simply to expand schemes in big companies? When in opposition, I helped to expose the scam that profit-related pay became. A perfectly good idea—linking pay to a firm's performance and profits—was turned by clever financial directors of big companies into a tax-reducing dodge that cost £4 million in lost revenue without fulfilling the purpose for which the scheme was intended. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was forced quickly to shut down the scheme, so we must ensure that ESOPs serve the real purpose of involving employees in their firms rather than becoming a tax-avoiding fiddle.
I should like to see made concrete the ambitions of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to double the number of participants in ESOPs and firms operating as full ESOP companies. Options are a simple way to provide incentives, especially in start-up firms, but a measured form of options would command wider support if it met three simple criteria: all employees must be able to participate; there must be a balance between options linked to a trust or a permanent form of shareholding and those that can be cashed in immediately; and fiscal relief must be limited to prevent the kind of abuse that would arise if options acted not as a true incentive but as a top-up to the handsome salary and perks of fat cats.
Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and like my hon. Friend, I am a Labour Member of Parliament. By definition, we are poor. However, I have no objection to people becoming wealthy if, en route, they create wealth and spread it among others. The problem is not how many millionaires there are in South Yorkshire or in Hornsey and Wood Green—it is how few there are. If my hon. Friend's new employee share ownership package helps to create and spread more wealth, she will earn a modest place in history.
Employee share ownership could be a significant new step in the economic organisation of our nation. Owning shares in the company for which one works is no substitute for proper pay, and ESOPs do not do away with the need for proper partnership relationships between employees and managers. Evidence from both the USA and the UK implies that ESOPs work best when the workers and trade unions are involved in their creation. We need merely ask pilots or machinists unions in America about United Airlines to see the truth of that.
I strongly welcome new Labour's share ownership policy. I urge my hon. Friend to be radical and bold, and to bring to the House next spring a package that will give as many employees as possible a stake in their own business. Thus will we make employees the owners of their economic destiny.
1.15 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Mac Shane) on obtaining the debate and on the manner in which he has advanced his argument. His knowledge and expertise on these matters are well known, and he has demonstrated them again today. I am grateful for his encouragement on this important matter, and I assure him that we are keen to make progress.
The Government are firmly committed to increasing employee share ownership. Research in both the United Kingdom and the United States of America implies a clear

375
link between employee ownership of shares in the company for which they work and an increase in productivity, particularly when modern management promotes active participation in the business by employees. Employee ownership schemes and the other policies that the Government have pursued over the past two years provide a package of measures to promote productivity.
Employees who are also owners have a real and identifiable interest in how their company does. They can benefit directly as stakeholders, and that increases commitment and motivation. They become more aware of their companies' aims and objectives because they own part of the companies, even if it is a small part. Quite simply, employee share ownership can bridge the gap between employees, managers and shareholders by aligning more closely the interests of the work force and those of the owners of the company. It offers a way of working in partnership. We are committed to people working in partnership in many different ways. Where employee ownership works properly, the results are wonderful. Employee owners have an incentive to contribute more actively to the development of their business by raising productivity, from which they can benefit directly.
Employee ownership is not supported only by the Government; companies have experienced the benefits. A senior manager from Fl Group, an information technology company, has said that its directors believe that the
"cornerstone of workforce share ownership has been a key feature in developing a culture of shared success in the group, helping to foster a high level of workforce commitment and loyalty."
If I had to pick out one word from that quote, it would be "culture", to which my hon. Friend alluded.
The second reason why the Government support and promote employee share ownership is that through the tax system we can encourage participation by all employees, not merely the few senior staff. The current Inland Revenue approved schemes have enabled many lower-paid employees to become shareholders in the company for which they work.
The third reason why we support and promote employee share ownership is that it can be a useful and cost-effective tool for some companies, especially smaller entrepreneurial businesses and start-up companies—again, my hon. Friend has mentioned that today and in previous discussions—to help them attract and retain key employees in an increasingly competitive global market.
The qualifying employee share ownership trust, or QUEST as it has become known, offers tax advantages to companies, particularly small companies, to set up ESOPs. We are looking at a number of representations about QUESTs made by some of the organisations that my hon. Friend mentioned. In particular, there are concerns that QUESTs are not being used for their originally intended purpose, which was, as I have said, to help small family-owned firms transfer ownership to their employees.
At present, three tax-advantaged share schemes are designed to promote employee share ownership in the UK. Those enable employees either to acquire shares free or to buy them through an option arrangement. Although
376
those schemes have been popular with employers and employees, they have not sufficiently harnessed the ability of employee share ownership to encourage corporate vitality, to create partnership in business and, importantly, to boost productivity.
The Government want to reward long-term commitment by employees. We want to encourage the new enterprise culture, in which everyone contributes and benefits from success. The way that we are going to do that is by taking a fresh approach to the whole subject. I take my hon. Friend's point that it is a question not merely of the design of the new scheme, but of being evangelical about the whole concept. I certainly regard that as part of the approach that we will adopt.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set a target to double the number of companies that offer shares to all their employees. We are not going to do that just by tweaking the existing schemes. Instead, after consulting widely, we have announced a revolutionary new scheme, which unites the interests of employer and employee in a new partnership.
That scheme, aimed to promote shares for all, will for the first time offer employees the opportunity to buy shares in their company out of their pre-tax salary. By owning shares directly rather than simply through share options, employees will have a real opportunity to make the company in which they work succeed. They will also enjoy greater tax benefits the longer that they hold their shares. Companies will also enjoy tax breaks for introducing and operating the scheme. All in all, this will be the most tax-advantaged share scheme ever introduced in the UK.
The Government want to get this right. We want a scheme that meets our objectives and is attractive to employees and companies. To achieve that, I have asked an advisory group, made up of representatives from leading share scheme practitioners, companies, academics and trade union members—some of them mentioned by my hon. Friend—to work with the Inland Revenue to play a key part in the development of the new scheme. Using people in that way is a radical new idea. It is, perhaps, a third way ahead, to echo my hon. Friend. It is one that has been successful so far and I am grateful for the great contribution that we have made.
We are also listening to companies directly though the focus groups that Pro-Share, a leading supporter of employee share ownership, has organised. We are also extending the consultation process across Departments—my hon. Friend also made that point. That includes the Department of Trade and Industry as well as the Revenue and the Treasury. The initiative is a good example of how the Government are bringing private and public sectors together to create policies that work well in practice.
Let me reassure my hon. Friend. We are not merely looking at public limited companies; the Government also recognise the particular difficulties faced by small businesses and start-up companies. I have therefore asked the advisory group to consider the problems that small companies have when operating share schemes to find out what we can do to make this easier for them. They have already made a number of useful recommendations, which will help small companies give shares to all their employees.
At the same time, the Government recognise that one of the key constraints on growth for small ambitious companies is the quality of its management. I know that

377
that area interests my hon. Friend. It can be difficult for companies to attract high-calibre managers from mature companies to a more risky venture. Therefore, I have also asked the advisory group to consider a specifically targeted scheme, known as the enterprise management incentives scheme. That will help small, higher-risk companies to attract and retain key managers. That is essential for our productivity and growth and for the entrepreneurs of the future.
Of course, we recognise that other forms of employee ownership and participation are also important. Businesses are able to and do operate employee participation policies without shares. The John Lewis Partnership, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is a good example of that.
We will be publishing draft clauses for the new schemes later this year for further consultation. The finished legislation is to be included in next year's Finance Bill.
These measures will give companies new tools to promote partnership with employees and also a means to increase productivity. I am pleased to say that there are clear indications that companies both big and small are excited by the prospect of these new schemes.
My hon. Friend was right to say that we need to bring about a change of culture. He was also right to say that this is an issue not merely for the Treasury or the Revenue, but for the Department of Trade and Industry and other interested Departments.
We have a task—to engage our companies, particularly the new high-growth sector, with possibilities and schemes of this kind that can take the productivity and growth agenda forward. We are determined to do so.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing today's debate. It really takes the agenda forward. I can assure him and the House that we will discuss this matter further.

Major Milos Stankovic
1.28 pm
Mr. Martin: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the case of Major Milos Stankovic, MBE, of the Parachute Regiment. I last did this in an Adjournment debate 19 months ago. A great deal has happened since then. The injustices suffered by this serving major of the British Army have continued and intensified. His has been a long and lonely ordeal. At the same time, the excuse available to the Government last time, that this was an operational policing matter, has faded because the Ministry of Defence police have investigated and that phase is over.
What else is new is that there is an increasing awareness in the country, the House and the British Army of the importance of this case and its scandalous nature. In that respect, I am especially grateful to see the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) and the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) here. I pay tribute to them and thank them for their personal and special interest in this case on behalf of Major Stankovic and his mother—an elderly lady, who has suffered immeasurably from the ordeal through which he has been.
Mr. Colin Breed: I reinforce the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. Mrs. Stankovic is my constituent; she and the whole family have experienced considerable suffering. That should be taken into account when considering the case of Major Stankovic—the matter has had wide ramifications within the family.
Mr. Bell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
Some background is in order. Major Stankovic is a British citizen; he is a serving officer in the Parachute Regiment of the British Army. As it happens, his father was a Serb and his mother is partly Serb and partly Scottish. They both fought against the Germans in Yugoslavia during the second world war, and were lucky to escape with their lives. They came to this country and made a new life. Milos was born a British citizen; and he is a British citizen. He was educated in British schools. He was accepted into Sandhurst and the Parachute Regiment, and embarked, as a captain, on a conventional military career. He undertook tours of duty in Northern Ireland and with the UN force in Kuwait.
In autumn 1992, when the wars of the dissolution of Yugoslavia began, the British Army was looking for someone in its ranks with knowledge of Serbo-Croat. Two officers had such knowledge; Major—then Captain—Stankovic was one of them. He was renamed Captain Mike Stanley by the Army, in order to mask his family's Balkan connections. The other officer was renamed Captain Costello. Together, and in rotation, they acted as interpreters and advisers to General Rose and General Smith—successive British commanders of UNPROFOR in Sarajevo, and did signal service.
Together, they were the key players in a covert operation, known to insiders as Schindlers. At the height of the war, that operation was responsible for spiriting out of Sarajevo 200 people—Muslims, Serbs and Croats—and reuniting them with their families abroad. Stankovic has

379
been desrcibed as the Schindler of Sarajevo. He served longer in Bosnia than any other British soldier. He was the go-between—the liaison officer—between UNPROFOR and the Bosnian Serbs. His job was to get close to them, to get them to trust him, to understand them and to report back on them. He did that. He unblocked convoys; he saved lives; and he set up the cessation of hostilities agreement in December 1994. He did all that. In December 1993, he risked his life to save a wounded Muslim woman, under fire, in a street in Vitez in central Bosnia. He was awarded the MBE by the Queen at Buckingham palace. In the spring of 1995, he was allowed to return to normal regimental duty with the Parachute Regiment, which he did with distinction. Two years later, he was accepted into the Joint Services Command and staff college, which, as the Minister is aware, is the necessary step to further promotion. It was there, on 16 October 1997, that the Ministry of Defence police came for him. They arrested him under the Official Secrets Act 1911 on suspicion of spying for the Bosnian Serbs.
A word about the Ministry of Defence police is in order. It is a relatively new force and does not seem to share the accountability of other police forces. It had had no previous experience of a case of that kind and no experience of the realities of the Balkans; nor did it possess even those fragments of knowledge that might have illuminated—like a parachute flare—the landscape of its ignorance.
The Ministry of Defence police arrested an officer with a quite unblemished record; they threw him into a cell where they wanted to hold him incommunicado for eight hours while they ransacked his house. From his house in Farnham, they took not only his diaries of Bosnia and his souvenirs, but everything that they could find—an old copy of Playboy, Christmas cards and a piece of sandpaper. They did not know what they were looking at, and they did not know what they were looking for.
The police disturbed a collection of medals and photographs that he kept in his home as a shrine to his father. From his mess uniform, they seized and confiscated his medals. When the list of witnesses was made known to us, we discovered that they had interrogated a Ministry of Defence official and inquired of him whether Major Stankovic was entitled to those medals. That was the first instance of the clear prejudice and animus against Major Stankovic. Of course, he was entitled to the medals; there were four of them—the UN Kuwait medal, the general service medal, the UN Bosnia medal and the MBE. All of them were earned the hard way; none of them came up with the rations.
The injustices multiplied. We discovered that the Ministry of Defence police were trying to turn neutral witnesses into hostile witnesses. A distinguished former soldier, who knew Stankovic well, had recently left the service and set up a private business. He was threatened with damage to that business, if he did not co-operate with the MOD police in the way that they wanted. We have documentary proof of that.
Another distinguished ex-soldier, who had held command, testified to the MOD police that, to his certain knowledge, Stankovic had acted in Bosnia with loyalty and propriety at all times. The investigators told him that, in that case, he might be interested to know what Stankovic had written about him in his diary. Stankovic's
380
diary contained the kind of personal assessment that any man might make in his diary of another. I protested personally about that to the chief constable of the MOD police—Mr. Walter Boreham—and pointed out that it was a flagrant attempt to turn a friendly witness into a hostile one. The chief constable could not even see the point. That is what is wrong with the MOD police; they have no sense of the difference between right and wrong.
There was another strange gap in the evidence. A key witness was Lieutenant-General Sir Mike Jackson—a true British hero, who now leads the NATO force in Kosovo, and is the colonel commandant of the Parachute Regiment. He submitted written evidence to the MOD police, stating what he knew about Major Stankovic. However, when we saw the list of witnesses provided by the MOD police, there was a declaration on the front cover that General Jackson had refused to give any evidence. That was a demonstrable lie. The Ministry of Defence police proceeded with their case on the basis of that kind of mendacity, half-truth and lying.
The greatest injustice of all was the length of time taken over the case. From the time of the arrest to the time when the papers were handed over to the Crown Prosecution Service was 13 months and two weeks. During that time, Major Stankovic was left to twist in the wind. The CPS examined the papers for almost five months, concluding, on 23 April this year, that there was no case to answer. Of course, there was no case to answer, because there was never any evidence.
The spotlight now turns on to the Ministry of Defence itself. There are questions that the Ministry and its advisers must answer. Why was Major Stankovic taken out of the staff college, thereby certainly ruining his career? Where was the presumption of innocence? It could not possibly have been on security grounds, because officers from foreign armies, who have no British security clearance, study at the college. No documents with a level higher than restricted circulate at the staff college.
Why was Major Stankovic not allowed a soldier's friend for the first two months after his arrest? That is the basic right of even the humblest private facing the possibility of a serious charge. When a soldier's friend was nominated—Brigadier Andrew Cumming of the 9th/12th Royal Lancers—why did the MOD police try to block that?
Why did a colonel sign a memorandum for internal distribution at the Ministry of Defence, warning serving soldiers who had been asked by the major's lawyer to give evidence on his behalf? The soldiers were warned that they did not have to do so. That means that those serving soldiers had an obligation to give evidence to the potential prosecution—the Ministry of Defence police—but were advised against giving evidence to the defence. We know for certain that some of them felt that they were intimidated and that, if they had given that evidence, their careers would have been affected. This is not a Kafkaesque police state; this is Britain, which is a free country with a loyal Army to defend it.
My next question relates to the cost. I believe that to prepare his defence—which he had to do—Major Stankovic has run up legal fees of up to 10 times his salary as a serving major. I shall not ask the Minister what contribution the Ministry of Defence has made because I know the answer, which is that not one penny piece has come from the legal defence fund.

381
I assure the Minister that the Army is watching carefully. It is aware of the injustice, and if Major Stankovic is not well treated, that will have serious repercussions throughout the ranks. Yesterday, I received a letter from a serving soldier who knew the major well in Bosnia. He said:
"This case is something that astonishes and angers me in equal measure. I hope fervently that some of those responsible will be held to account for the appalling way he has been treated. Only then will I be convinced that there remains some hope that the rest of us will be fairly treated in future."
Major Stankovic is entitled to answers to further questions. Who were his shadowy accusers in the first place? Did the accusations come from the intelligence service of a foreign power? If so, which intelligence service of which foreign power? Who signed off those accusations in the Ministry of Defence in the summer of 1997? I doubt whether the decision could have been made at a level lower than that of the Chief of the General Staff. Major Stankovic is entitled to an answer to those questions.
What about the rest of the major's career? Where is the apology? Where is the reinstatement? Where is the sense that the duty of care has not been exercised? He is entitled to answers on all those points.
I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you saw in The House Magazine last week a perceptive piece by Anne Perkins about this case, in which she drew a very apt analogy when she said that this is the British Dreyfus case. Alfred Dreyfus, a French officer of Jewish origin, was arrested over 100 years ago, also on suspicion of giving information to a foreign power. He was the victim of the anti-semitism of the French army and political establishment at that time. His sword was broken on the square and he was sent to the penal colony of Devil's island.
Major Stankovic's ordeal may not seem that extreme, although I suspect that it seems so to him, but he, too, is accused of not being one of us. It is the very qualities for which he was valued in Bosnia, such as his ability to make the mental leap across the linguistic and ethnic divide and to translate the people as well as the language, for which he is now being penalised.
The time has come for reparations. There are very few people who can act quickly to ensure that there is justice in this case. The Minister is one of them, along with the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chief of the General Staff. I am sure that they are all aware of the importance of this case.
One other officer has a significant role to play: the major general who sits on the board that oversees the Ministry of Defence police, who seem to me to be unaccountable in a way that no civilian police force is. They are the equivalent of a police authority. Have they been asleep at the wheel for the past year and three quarters? Do they merely rubber-stamp the orders of the chief constable, Mr. Walter Boreham?
Mr. Julian Brazier: Name the general.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.
Mr. Bell: Last December, I received an assurance from a senior general that when the Ministry of Defence investigation and that of the Crown Prosecution Service
382
had been completed and the case returned to the Army, it would be dealt with very quickly. We have been waiting for 10 weeks, and Major Stankovic was told that he would receive an answer within two weeks. We need clarification.
1.45 pm
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady must have the Minister's permission if she wishes to speak.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson)indicated assent.
Mrs. Bottomley: The House and my constituent, Milos Stankovic, are greatly in debt to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) for raising this case in an Adjournment debate. Having raised this case myself and having visited Major Stankovic in Farnham recently, I know that it is hard to exaggerate the suffering and distress that he has been caused. This is an appalling case. There are questions to be answered about his career and the uncertainty and lack of information. Those questions have been well set out by the hon. Gentleman.
The case now raises wider questions. How will others be encouraged to serve in such sensitive situations if they feel that they may become vulnerable to accusation and the destruction of their career? More than that, their lives may be destroyed. If it were not for Major Stankovic's courage and fortitude, his situation would be even more precarious.
We have reached a point where the integrity of the Ministry of Defence police is in question. Everyone in the Ministry needs to consider not only how they can make good this matter to Major Stankovic, but how they can work to regain any respect and confidence in the accountability, management and supervision of the Ministry of Defence police. We are all aware that Major Stankovic has acted with great courage. The number of individuals who have been prepared to comment on his integrity, service and ability is formidable.
I have written to the Ministry on numerous occasions in recent months and to the Defence Committee, asking whether it would be prepared to examine the matter. I appreciate its reasons for rejecting that request, but the issue comes back to the Minister and his Department. How can he reassure my constituent, Major Stankovic, and his family—and, furthermore, the House and the country at large—about this matter?
1.47 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): I recognise that several hon. Members have a genuine interest in this case. That has been particularly demonstrated by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) and the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), who have spoken in the debate. I am very pleased that the debate was secured. I hope to be able to answer the specific points, most of which were raised by the hon. Member for Tatton. If I run out of time, I will be happy to try to answer his questions in writing.
I want briefly to explain my obligations in this matter. First, I have an obligation to be mindful of the public interest and the security and defence of the nation. I have

383
to be mindful also of the strict application of the Official Secrets Acts. I take that obligation extremely seriously. I also have a responsibility to refer any allegations of a breach of the Official Secrets Acts to the appropriate channels.
It is not my obligation to intervene on investigations undertaken by the Ministry of Defence police. It is their responsibility to investigate allegations, and I know that they do so in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service, which decides whether charges should be pressed. However, in the case of the Official Secrets Acts, the Attorney-General must also be brought into the calculation.
In relation to Major Stankovic's current situation, it is not my responsibility to decide whether further action should be taken against him. It is a matter for the Army chain of command to decide whether there was a breach of Army regulations or whether it could lead to administrative action.
I am also strongly aware of my obligation to ensure fair treatment for every serving member of our armed forces in whatever service and whatever circumstances. I take that responsibility equally seriously with my other obligations and responsibilities.
I now turn to the points that the hon. Gentleman raised in relation to the activities of the Ministry of Defence police. One allegation was that the MOD police had ransacked Major Stankovic's house. A second was that the MOD police showed prejudice by their action in relation to his entitlement to medals. Another allegation was that the MOD police had tried to convince witnesses who would otherwise have been seen as neutral to support the evidence that they had brought to the case and that at least one individual's business had been threatened if he did not comply.
The hon. Gentleman has made serious allegations. He will know that it is not my responsibility to investigate the details. That would be a matter for the Police Complaints Authority. If the hon. Gentleman and others believe that the MOD police did not act properly, they should know that the MOD police are subject to the same srcutiny as other police forces and I suggest that they raise the matter through the Police Complaints Authority.
Mr. Bell: I accept the Minister's point. Will he ensure that the board to which the Ministry of Defence police is theoretically accountable takes note of those allegations, if necessary, asks Major Stankovic's lawyer to appear before it and holds the chief constable to account, which it has never done before?
Mr. Henderson: I have every confidence in the MOD police. In fact I attended their most recent board meeting.
If there are referrals to the Police Complaints Authority, the results of any investigation would be subject to monitoring by the Minister of Defence board and by Ministers. I give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee that I will do that should those allegations be made through the Police Complaints Authority.
The hon. Gentleman asked why it took 13 months and two weeks before the Crown Prosecution Service decided that no charges should be brought against Major Stankovic. Hon. Members will be aware that, in most
384
democratic countries, legal processes are often slow acting because balances are built in and there is an obligation on those investigating to make sure that they get to the bottom of the evidence. In this case, 88 witnesses were interviewed, some on two or three occasions; 107 statements were recorded and tens of thousands of documents had to be examined, many of which had to be translated into English. I hope that those figures give a flavour of the complexity of the investigation that was undertaken by the MOD police.
In relation to the further delay since April, given the speed with which legal processes operate—as hon. Members will know from personal and constituency experience—it is not an inordinate delay from 15 April until now. After the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to press charges because of insufficient evidence, the Army chain of command then had to decide whether there were sufficient grounds to consider taking further evidence which might lead either to charges that could lead to a court martial or to charges that could lead to administrative action. The consideration was that the Army chain of command needed access to at least some of the documents that were held by the MOD police. It took from 15 April until 13 June before a request was made for those documents. Given my knowledge of legal processes, I do not think that that was an inordinate delay.
On 25 June, just over a week later, Major Stankovic's solicitors were informed of the request for that documentation and, on 30 June, they objected to the release of some of the documents. The MOD police are taking advice on whether to release those documents to the Army chain of command. Hon. Members and serving officers in the Army will understand that until the legal processes have been undergone, it would not be proper for the Army chain of command to take a further decision on what the future holds for Major Stankovic.
I hope that I have explained why there have been delays and that the House will accept that they were not inordinate. There certainly has been no attempt by anyone in the MOD or the MOD police to delay the proceedings.
The hon. Gentleman asked why Major Stankovic was taken out of the staff college. He was able to consider classified information there and that would not have been appropriate, given the charges that he might have faced, so it was decided to transfer him to regimental duties where that would not be a problem.
The hon. Gentleman asked why Major Stankovic was not allowed a soldier's friend. In fact, he was allowed a soldier's friend.
Mr. Bell: He was not allowed a soldier's friend for two months. What kind of justice is that?
Mr. Henderson: I understand that, within the normal time scale, he was allowed a soldier's friend, but I shall investigate further to find out whether there was any delay of which I was not aware and write to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman then asked why serving soldiers were warned about giving evidence. The answer is that serving soldiers were told that they could give evidence if they wished and if they had relevant evidence to give. As we have a duty of care, we explained to those serving soldiers that if they decided to give evidence they would have to be mindful that they could not disclose any secure information or they could get into difficulty.

385
The hon. Gentleman asked who the accusers were. I know that the House would not expect me to answer that, as it would be improper. No police authority will divulge its original source of information. It will be a different matter if the case gets to court.
In respect of the future career of Major Stankovic, now that there are no charges to face from the Crown Prosecution Service, Major Stankovic can return to a normal career in the Army, once the Army chain of command has examined the documents from the MOD police and has made a judgment as to whether there were other irregularities which could lead to a court martial or to administrative action. On the assumption that that does not happen and he is again granted security clearance, I see no reason why he should not re-establish his career in the Army. Indeed, I would expect that. I am determined that justice be done and be seen to be done and that everyone who serves in our armed forces should be treated fairly.
386
As I said in my introductory remarks, I have wider responsibilities and I need to consider the public interest and the security of the nation. I take that very seriously and it has to be balanced against the rights of any individual in any circumstances. I hope that I have answered the points that the hon. Gentleman raised—
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No.10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Kuwait) Order 1999 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Commonwealth
    Dr. Rudi Vis: What steps her Department is taking to strengthen the Commonwealth's role in development activities. [89752]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): About 57 per cent. of our bilateral programme goes to Commonwealth countries. We are also supporting work with Commonwealth Youth, local government, media and science organisations and a large programme of Commonwealth scholarships and fellowships, as well as other programmes administered by the Commonwealth Secretariat. At the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh our agenda for poverty eradication was adopted, and we hope this will be taken further at the next CHOGM in South Africa in November.
    Dr. Vis: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that trade is vital in assisting development in Commonwealth countries? What is he doing about that, with particular reference to the next multilateral trade round?
    Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is right. I did not mention trade, and he is right to ask me to do so. Britain is contributing to the trade and investment access facility, which was set up at the CHOGM in Edinburgh in November 1997. One of the best examples of British assistance that I have seen is the regional negotiating machinery in the Caribbean, where we are helping to improve the capacity to negotiate and put forward a case in the trade round. With three trade rounds coming up—the discussion on free trade areas of the Americas, the post-Lome negotiations and the next World Trade Organisation round—it is vital that Caribbean countries have that capacity. I am proud that Britain is helping them in that way.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Despite the Minister's statements, does he share my concern about the fact that the economic growth of countries in the developing world—South Africa, for example—has been harmed by the Chancellor's sale of our gold reserves? Does he regret the fact that the Government's actions have sent the markets on which those countries depend plummeting? Was he or the Secretary of State consulted about the Chancellor's decision? Did his Department object or make any protest about the effect that the sale would have, and has had, on some of the poorest countries in the world? Perhaps he will tell us what is the point of his Department giving aid with one hand when another Department takes away countries' economic health and strength with the other.
    Mr. Foulkes: I think that the hon. Lady has missed the point. The price of gold has been decreasing
    388
    progressively. Other countries are selling gold. We advocated the sale of the gold of the International Monetary Fund to help to pay for the debt cancellation for developing countries, so as to help those countries. We are talking about a small fraction of the amount of gold held in the world. The hon. Lady is becoming agitated when she need not. I hope that she will support us in getting the IMF gold sold, so that debt cancellation can be swift and effective.

    Horn of Africa
    Sir Teddy Taylor: If she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Ethiopia and Eritrea. [89753]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Recent estimates suggest that nearly 4 million people need humanitarian assistance in Ethiopia because of crop failure, and a further 400,000 because of displacement as a result of the war with Eritrea. In Eritrea, some 268,000 people need emergency assistance as a result of the conflict. Since January 1998, we have provided £6.8 million in humanitarian relief to the two countries.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the horrendous suffering and loss of life in the dispute between those two countries appear to be almost on the scale of the first world war, and as the issue seems to be a piece of land of no great value or significance, could the Government play a role by inviting representatives of both countries to London and bringing them together to try to stop that crazy and appalling war, which is killing so many people and achieving nothing, and in which we have a responsibility as another nation of the world?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right. The war is very like the first world war, with many deaths, and young men being flung at each other over a barren piece of land. Both sides have accepted the Organisation of African Unity's proposals but not each other's good faith, so the war continues. Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries in the world, and we cannot help it to feed its people better if the war goes on. We have been doing all that we can bilaterally, by supporting the OAU process, and at the United Nations to try to get a settlement, and we will continue to do so.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend recall that Eritrea got its independence from the Ethiopian empire after many years of hard struggle, and is a very small country with a much larger, more powerful neighbour? Is it not tragic that the conflict continues, and that the people of the region have suffered many decades of conflict and poverty? Is it not time that far more was done to protect small nations in Africa from large and powerful neighbours?
    Clare Short: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said, except the implications of his last sentence. It would not be fair to suggest that the conflict was Ethiopia's fault. As the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said, the war is disastrous. It is not in the interests of either country, and is a tragedy for the development of both. It is even more tragic that both sides have accepted the OAU proposals

    389
    but not each other's good faith, so the killing goes on. Both sides need peace, and we should do all that we can to bring that about.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Crop failure adds to the misery that both countries are experiencing. The Minister knows of the expertise in agricultural colleges throughout Britain—in none more so than Myerscough agricultural college in Lancashire. What initiative is she taking to use such expertise in countries such as Eritrea and Ethiopia?
    Clare Short: Unfortunately, I do not know of the wonderful college in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, so I do not know whether it has expertise in tropical agriculture, but we support a worldwide research programme and the application of the best research to agricultural methods in countries such as Ethiopia, which cannot grow enough food for their people. We work extensively with the scientific community in Britain. I shall find out whether we have any engagement with that college and write to the hon. Gentleman.

    Cairo Conference (Population)
    Mr. Martyn Jones: What key actions were agreed at the recent United Nations General Assembly special session on the five-year review of the international conference on population and development plan of action, Cairo 1994; and if she will make a statement. [89754]
    Mr. David Chaytor: If she will make a statement on the recent Cairo plus five meeting on population control, maternal mortality and reproductive health. [89756]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The recent UN General Assembly special session reaffirmed the breakthrough made at Cairo five years ago, which stressed the need to provide all people with the information and opportunities necessary to control their fertility and protect their sexual health. We also agreed key future actions to curb the spread of HIV, to reduce maternal mortality and to improve education and access to services for young people. The agreement included key targets and milestones to ensure that the policies are effectively implemented.
    Mr. Jones: I support the stand made by my right hon. Friend on reproductive health issues in her speech to the special session. As one way in which to push forward the decisions taken at Cairo is for all countries involved to give their full donation up to the 4 per cent. OECD recommended level, has my right hon. Friend made any progress in ensuring that other countries involved in the Cairo decision will put that full 4 per cent. into the projects?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for our position. With regard to financial support, it is important that reproductive health care is not seen as a separate programme, but that basic health care systems should be in place for everyone in the world, providing reproductive health care, inoculations for children and all the other basic care that people need. That makes it less
    390
    easy to define the money spent on reproductive health care. At the UN special session we agreed targets to roll forward improvements in services across the world. That requires co-operation between donors, the World Health Organisation, the World Bank and local Governments to improve health services and reproductive health services, and that is how I hope services will develop.
    Mr. Chaytor: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which she has pursued the issue at international level. Is it not a frightening prospect that there are now 40 million HIV sufferers in the world, more than half of them young people—of whom half are women—and that the maternal mortality rate in poor countries is 500 times worse than that in western Europe? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that she will continue to ensure that the issue has a high profile? Will there be a Cairo plus six?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. There are now 40 million people with HIV or AIDS. The disease is concentrated in Africa, but it is now spreading in Asia and Latin America. Half the new infections are in young people, half of whom are young women. One of the issues discussed at the UN special session was the need for proper sex education for young people. Traditionalists tend to say that that will encourage sexual activity, but they are wrong. Young people who know about their sexual health tend to delay their sexual activity and protect themselves much more, and that is crucial for the largest generation of young people that we have ever had. Since Cairo, there has been no improvement in the number of women who die as a result of pregnancy-600,000 a year. My hon. Friend is right to say that we must make faster progress. There will not be another special session next year, but we have milestones by which to measure progress.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the Secretary of State on her speech to the special session. I read it carefully and I agree with every word. Recognising, as she does, that unprotected sexual intercourse leads to unwanted pregnancies, abortions and disease—indeed, it is reported that rape has now become a recreational activity in South Africa—will she undertake that her Department will make emergency contraception available in all the projects that it supports in Africa and Asia? Will she also suggest to her Cabinet colleagues that, to set an example, emergency contraception should be more easily available in Britain?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support. In the preparation for the special session we had a big argument about emergency contraception for refugees. The traditionalists argued that it should not be made available to women many of whom are fleeing having been raped, such as those from Kosovo. It is unbelievable that anyone should suggest that such women should not be entitled to emergency contraception. I am pleased to say that, in the end, we won that argument. I agree with the hon. Lady that all forms of contraception should be available, but, wherever possible, we should give people knowledge and control over their sexual lives so that they do not have to have to resort to abortion or even emergency contraception. None the less, the services must be there for people to make their own choices.
    Mr. John Bercow: To what extent does the right hon. Lady intend to press for the development

    391
    of the role of the private sector in the provision of reproductive health services to complement the allocation of public resources?
    Clare Short: I support the hon. Gentleman's point. We are working in many countries to make comprehensive services available. That includes public sector, private sector and non-governmental organisations, and sometimes subsidising the cost of products, making them available through the private sector. We need to make provision through all outlets, so that everyone has access to contraception in the best way possible.
    Mr. Jim Murphy: My right hon. Friend will know of the great efforts that have been made in South Africa to combat the growth of AIDS, notwithstanding all the other priorities that the new South African Government have. What does she think is being done, and what can be done, to help that Government to overcome the increasing epidemic?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right; I think that the AIDS epidemic is growing faster in South Africa than anywhere else in the world. A big effort is now being made, but there was a delay at the beginning.
    Uganda and Thailand teach the big lesson. Uganda has stemmed the increase in infections through public campaigns, both from the President and in every village. People in Uganda now know how to protect themselves; condoms are available, and the incidence of AIDS is no longer increasing. Other countries, including South Africa, need to learn from Uganda. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited South Africa, he announced big new support for the programme to combat the spread of AIDS and HIV there.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: Conservative Members fully support the provision of the best possible education about health care, sex and reproduction for everyone in the developing world. However, does the Secretary of State accept not only that her comments in The Guardian two weeks ago—she branded the Catholic Church as pursuing a disgusting and unholy agenda and being in favour of more women dying—were gratuitously offensive, but that they clouded an important message about family planning that needs to be communicated skilfully and tactfully? Does the right hon. Lady now regret those insensitive and insulting remarks?
    Clare Short: I do not know whether you, Madam Speaker, have received a message from the Vatican to the effect that the hon. Gentleman has been appointed to represent its interests. Given that the Catholic Church is my Church, however, and given that I have many contacts with it, I do not accept the idea that he should represent it to me; I consider that entirely inappropriate.
    The sad reality for the Catholic Church is that most Catholics throughout the world do not think that its teaching on contraception is right. I am one of those people. I think that the Vatican's attempt, behind closed doors in New York, to reverse the progress made in Cairo—progress that gave people the right to choose for themselves—was deeply wrong. It had allied itself with some fantastically reactionary countries, such as Sudan, Libya and Algeria, in its endeavour, and, in the early days, it was succeeding. But when this became a matter of
    392
    public knowledge, it was driven back. I am glad about that, because I think it important for people to know the truth.
    Mr. Streeter: None of that excuses the intemperate language used by the Secretary of State, which has masked an important message. Why does she not model herself on Geri Halliwell, the United Nations goodwill ambassador, who recently spoke out about reproductive health care, but in a skilful and tactful way, and got the message across? If a former Spice Girl can get it right, why cannot the Secretary of State?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman's ever more desperate attempts to generate publicity are not very impressive. He was quoted in the Daily Mail as saying something very different: he aligned himself with the reactionary forces who do not believe that people should have choices and control over their sexual health. Perhaps he would like to tell us whether he supports the declaration agreed by all the countries of the world at the United Nations. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Question?"] Indeed, I do not usually ask the hon. Gentleman questions; but if he has any aspiration ever to become an International Development Minister, he ought to tell us whether he will act responsibly in that area.

    Kosovo
    Mr. Tom Brake: What assistance the Government are providing for demining activities in Kosovo; and if she will make a statement. [89755]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): We have provided resources, through the United Nations mine action service, to establish the co-ordination centre in Pristina. We have also funded the Halo Trust to survey the main areas of risk, and the deployment of 12 rapid response teams. So far, we have committed £1.7 million to this work.
    Mr. Brake: I welcome that news, but can the Minister tell us how many casualties have been reported as a result of land mine incidents? Can he also tell us what has been done to educate and inform refugees in the camps of the dangers before they return to Kosovo?
    Mr. Foulkes: We are not certain about the exact number, but it is about five a day. That is tragic, but there are fewer casualties than we feared initially. We are funding education programmes, and we are helped by the fact that the Yugoslav army has identified 425 of the 625 mine fields. We have information about the unexploded ordnance, and we are passing that information on to people, particularly families with young children who might be vulnerable.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: I applaud the work of the Halo Trust and the brave men who work for it. How do the Government see Serbia's role in helping to clear the mines?
    Mr. Foulkes: Serbia has been very helpful in providing us with detailed information about where the mines were laid. We must admit that that has been helpful in our work of trying to clear mine fields as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: I welcome what the Minister has said, but has he had any discussions with the

    393
    Ministry of Defence to ensure that Royal Engineers can assist in that vital work before the winter sets in and snow covers up the mines, although it will not lessen their destructive impact? Will he accept my assurance that hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the money being put into the reconstruction of Kosovo, and believe that we should give as much as we can, commensurate with the amount that we spent on bombing Serbia during the conflict?
    Mr. Foulkes: I have already said that we have put in a significantly large amount. Other countries and agencies are, of course, also contributing. The armed forces are undertaking some mine clearance, but that is increasingly being taken over by civilian organisations, which we are funding. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that Britain is making a substantial contribution to mine clearance, just as it has to all humanitarian work in Kosovo.
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: What assessment she has made of the educational and medical needs of refugee children in Kosovo; and if she will make a statement. [89757]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Assessments of children's needs are the responsibility of the United Nation mission in Kosovo. We are providing financial and other support to the World Health Organisation and UNICEF, which, among other things, are trying to ensure that all children are back at school by September.
    Mr. Coaker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Following my visits to the area, may I ask whether she agrees that one of the most important things for children in Kosovo is psycho-social support, which is necessary to help them overcome the trauma that they have experienced over the past few months? Will she also do all that she can to help children in the region who have special needs?
    Clare Short: There are two views on psycho-social support for people who have been traumatised, but the predominant view is that getting back to normality is the most important thing—getting children back home and back to school, and getting normal society up and running. They might need additional help, but what they really need is a sense of normal life returning.
    As for children with disabilities, obviously we have to stop people. particularly children, being hurt in mine accidents, but we need to get the schools and the health systems up and running. Rather than providing special projects, we need to support the UN mission and the World Health Organisation in getting the health and social services working in Kosovo—and that is what we are doing.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: I in no sense disagree with the exchanges so far, but will the Secretary of State remember the importance of ensuring that people who have children in their care, such as teachers and others, are advised and encouraged by those with experience of dealing with traumatised children? It is important that teachers come to terms with the difficulties that their pupils are suffering.
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right, but the question is how best to do that. Much effort was made to
    394
    provide counselling after the mass rape of women in Bosnia. Putting the same amount of money and energy into getting people's lives back to normal and getting their homes into some sort of order seems to have a more immediate impact, so we need to concentrate on both things.

    Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
    Mr. Andrew Reed: What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on measures to increase the priority given to poverty reduction within the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. [89758]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I—good timing; my right hon. Friend has just arrived—strongly believe that the purpose of debt relief is to enable Governments to tackle poverty more effectively. We welcome the G7 Cologne statement that the central objective of the HIPC initiative is to release resources for programmes to reduce poverty. The second phase of that review is under way, and is examining ways in which the link between debt relief and poverty reduction can be strengthened. We have submitted our ideas to the review team and will push for a strong poverty link to be agreed at the annual meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in September.
    Mr. Reed: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply—and the Chancellor for coming to listen to my question. Does she agree that, in the past 11 months, we have made tremendous strides, and gone much further than many Labour Members would have dreamt possible? However, will she ensure that, while we are on that roll, we manage to push in the forthcoming negotiations for real change in the IMF structural adjustment programmes, so that they—unlike current programmes, which many believe push the poorest into increasing poverty—really make a difference to the world's poor?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Although we want deeper and quicker debt relief, we also want the general IMF conditionality to protect social spending benefiting the poor, and the economic policies that promote economic growth and will reduce poverty. We are currently working on that side of the equation. Although we have made good progress on deeper debt relief, we do not yet have all the funding for it that was agreed at Cologne; we need countries to come forward and make pledges. We hope to persuade the European Commission to make a considerable pledge, so that we can operate the improved formula agreed at Cologne.
    Mr. William Cash: Does the Secretary of State, who mentioned her close working relationship with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, accept that there is very deep disquiet about the relationship between gold sales and the reduction of third world debt? Does she accept that Mr. Bobby Godsell, the president of the Chamber of Mines of South Africa, and Mr. Motlatsi, the president of the South African National Union of Mineworkers, are in the United Kingdom precisely because there is such deep disquiet? Does she also accept that there is no point in

    395
    selling gold if the effect of such sales is to depress the opportunities of people in South Africa, and in other parts of Africa and the rest of the world, to get jobs? Does she agree—I hope that she will answer this question—that there is no point in causing job losses that would cause even more poverty than that caused by debt?
    Clare Short: I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman supported many of the previous Administration's policies, but he probably did support their policy of gold sales to fund debt relief—[Interruption.] Conservative Members supported gold sales to fund debt relief, and it is not a good idea for them suddenly, when the idea has become popular, to change their minds. Although we are all concerned about the people who work in South Africa's gold mines, there has been a long-term decline in the gold price. Around the world, banks are no longer using gold to back their currencies. The pretence that Britain's recent decision explains the recent decline in South African gold prices just does not hold up.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Debt relief is of great importance to my right hon. Friend—as it is to the rest of the Labour Government—but she has always been noted for her fair and blunt speaking. Does she believe that the countries that we are trying to help through debt relief fully understand her message that we cannot tolerate corruption in those countries, and that debt relief is sometimes subject to their putting their own houses in order?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Some of the enthusiasts for debt relief say that it should be unconditional, but we have made it absolutely clear that it should not be unconditional, but must be designed to reduce poverty, and that the countries concerned will have to bear down on corruption. We are ensuring that, in the detail of the way in which debt relief is linked to poverty reduction, debt relief will not be used to support corrupt regimes that are simply wasting resources. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

    Water Companies
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: When she last met representatives of the water companies to discuss the aid which they donate to developing nations. [89759]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): My right hon. Friend recently met the outgoing director of Water Aid, and earlier this year, on a visit to Nepal, saw some of Water Aid's projects. We greatly respect Water Aid's work, and the generosity of the water companies' staff and customers. We also recognise the importance of the increasing commercial activities of a number of United Kingdom water companies in developing countries. We are seeking to ensure that they recognise the fundamental right of the poor to affordable, safe and reliable water and sanitation services.
    Mr. Fabricant: What a welcome change in tune. Only two years ago, the Secretary of State said to me:
    "I am not aware of any work done by private water companies in Africa."—[Official Report, 25 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 835.]
    I am pleased that she is now meeting the water companies.
    396
    Is the Minister aware that, in the past year alone, privatised water companies helped 600,000 people in Africa, and provided more than £2 million? Is he aware of the valuable work that they did in assisting womenfolk in Africa, who have the burden of work in having to take water one, two and sometimes three miles to their homes from insanitary water holes?
    Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman should not get too excited. Of the £9 million spent annually by Water Aid, £1 million comes from the water companies, which spend less than 0.01 per cent. of their profits on Water Aid. They could do a great deal more.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the Prime Minister think that it is right that this country should be selling off its precious gold reserves in order that it can instead invest in depreciating euros?
    The Prime Minister: The monomania of the Conservative party on Europe is astonishing. The gold price has actually been falling for two years, so if it carried on falling and we did not sell, we would lose money. I should have thought that even today's Conservative party could make that sum work out.
    Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that people throughout the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic are resting their hopes today for peace on the actions of the Northern Ireland politicians? Does he further agree that the people will not forgive, forget or understand if their politicians fail to seize the best chance for peace for a generation?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that all the politicians in Northern Ireland make their very best efforts to secure this chance for a lasting peace and settlement in Northern Ireland. To that end, we shall table amendments today in line with the Good Friday agreement, but amendments that will reflect, I think, many of the comments that were made on both sides of the House in yesterday's debate.
    In particular, those amendments will focus upon ensuring that decommissioning happens, in accordance with the timetable that has been laid down by de Chastelain, in the Bill; making it clear that any breach of that timetable will lead to the automatic suspension of the institutions; and ensuring that we can clearly and formally identify the parties that default either in decommissioning or in devolution.

    397
    We have listened very carefully to the comments made in the House yesterday. We shall therefore table further amendments in an effort to provide a basis upon which all people can agree this last step in the Good Friday agreement process. If they can, Northern Ireland faces the prospect, for the first time in a generation, of a secure, stable and peaceful future.
    Mr. William Hague: The Prime Minister has obviously made an important announcement about the Northern Ireland legislation, and we welcome the fact that the Government are now ready to amend the Bill. Obviously, the Opposition hope that this means that the Government are responding to the genuine concerns, expressed in the debates last night, about the lack of failsafes in the legislation, and we anxiously await the details.
    On other matters, I know that the Prime Minister will be aware of the case of Heather Begbie, whose parents took the Government to court for breaking their promises on the assisted places scheme. Will he now honour the pledge made to that 11-year-old girl and hundreds like her, that he would allow children on that scheme to receive support until the end of their education—or does he, like the lawyer representing the Secretary of State at the hearing, claim that pre-election promises are irrelevant?
    The Prime Minister: We have not broken any pre-election promises. On the contrary, let me read what we actually said before the election.
    "If a child has a place at a school which runs to age 13, then that place will be honoured through to 13."
    It was a manifesto commitment that we phase out assisted places, and we did so to provide smaller classes for the five, six and seven year-olds in this country. Far from breaking a promise, we have kept the promise.
    Mr. Hague: How can the Prime Minister talk about reducing class sizes when class sizes have now gone up in secondary schools, primary schools and nursery schools? He has not even kept that promise. Before the election, he wrote to parents:
    "Any children already on the scheme will continue to receive support until the end of their education."
    Which of those words is he going to try to get out of? Is not this a saga of misrepresentation and broken promises? If he had any sense of shame, would he not now redeem his promise? Will he do so?
    The Prime Minister: First, let me correct the right hon. Gentleman on the facts. For the first time in 10 years, class sizes are falling, not rising. From this September, an extra 160,000 five, six and seven-year-olds will be in class sizes of under 30 because we have phased out the assisted places scheme. As for breaking promises, let me read, for example, a quote from The Daily Telegraph, weeks before the election. It reported:
    "David Blunkett, the Labour education spokesman, said…Pupils with assisted places who are in primary education will have them honoured to the end of the primary stage.'"
    That was made absolutely clear throughout, which is one reason why we won the court case and did not lose it.
    Mr. Hague: Here are the Government's figures for the average class sizes of maintained primary schools: 1997,
    398
    28.1; 1998, 28.3; 1999, 28.4—an increase in every year so far. The Prime Minister says that he has not broken his promise. Here are the words of the judge in this case—Mr. Justice Kay, Queen's Bench division—when he handed down his judgment:
    "It is a sorry state of affairs when a Secretary of State has to explain away his own letters as mistaken…and a statement of the Prime Minister as an incorrect representation of policy".
    The Prime Minister made a commitment to these children and he broke his promise—just like the promises on waiting lists, on class sizes, on taxes, on tuition fees, on grammar schools and on junior doctors. When it comes to broken promises, he is now for the many and not the few.
    The Prime Minister: First, the words that he has quoted were written after the election, not before it. Secondly, we made it clear in the manifesto that we would phase out the assisted places scheme. That was one of the five pledges that we made. Thirdly, we have passed legislation which makes it clear that we will see children through to the end of their primary school stage—but we were not going to use taxpayers' money to fund them afterwards.
    The right hon. Gentleman talked about the many, not the few. First, he is wrong—we have brought down class sizes in primary schools. [Interruption.] He is wrong, and I will set out the figures for him. Secondly, he said that we have been for the few, not the many. Class sizes this year will fall for five, six and seven-year-olds—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is enough.
    The Prime Minister: Class sizes will fall for 160,000 five, six and seven-year-olds. That will mean that, over the two years of this Government, 280,000 fewer children will be in class sizes of more than 30. As the right hon. Gentleman is now saying that he would keep the assisted places scheme, he would be spending £50 million on 1,600 pupils. We say that that £50 million should be spent on smaller class sizes for 160,000. That is what I mean by saying that we are for the many, not the few,
    Mr. Andy King: Did my right hon. Friend notice that the Leader of the Opposition, wisely in my view, avoided any question on the economy? [Interruption.] Could that be because last year he said
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Let us cool it. It is not bucket and spade time yet. Will the hon. Gentleman now put his question very succinctly, bearing in mind that the Prime Minister is responsible only for Government policies and not for those of the Opposition?
    Mr. King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition spoke—[Interruption] He spoke of a downturn caused by Downing street, but unemployment has fallen by 80,000 this year. [Interruption.] Will my right hon. Friend release some Government officials to assist Conservative Members with their forecasting?
    The Prime Minister: I can see why the Conservatives wanted to shout the question down. Fortunately, I am

    399
    responsible for Government policy, not Opposition policy. Let me tell the House what Government policy has delivered. Unemployment is down, and employment up 400,000, at record levels. We have record levels of inward investment. Does my hon. Friend remember the Conservatives saying that it would all dry up if Labour came to power and that if we introduced a minimum wage 2 million jobs would go? Employment up, interest rates down, inward investment up: that is new Labour working.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown rose—
    Hon. Members: Oh no!
    Mr. Ashdown: Do not worry; it is almost the last one. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hooray!"] That is the best cheer that I have ever had.
    As the Good Friday agreement hangs by a thread, may I warmly welcome the important statement that the Prime Minister made? I and many millions of others hope that it will finally provide the reassurance to enable the process to go forward. I suspect that there is not much more that we can say to assist the process, so I shall turn to another subject.
    As the Prime Minister considers his reshuffle in the near future—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Not you."] It is far too late for me. I ask the Prime Minister to reflect on the fact that we now have twice as many Ministers as when we governed half the world. The previous Government increased the number of Ministers even as they sold off all the public, nationalised industries and hived off three quarters of the civil servants to arm's-length agencies, and the current Government have shown reluctance to reduce the number, despite the fact that we have devolved large amounts of power to Scotland and Wales. For how much longer can we justify Governments of the day asking everybody else to do more with less while they do less with more?
    The Prime Minister: It is a bit unfair, if the right hon. Gentleman is not taking a ministerial job, to wish away everyone else's. Ministers are amply busy with the tasks that they do. He says that Ministers do not have the same responsibilities as before, but often they have more. Considering the economy, education, today's crime figures or the lifting of the beef ban, Ministers are doing a rather good job.
    Mr. Ashdown: If the Prime Minister simply looks at the most recent Scottish and Welsh Question Times, he will see that that is not the case. We have devolved power to Scotland and Wales, but there are still seven Ministers in the Scottish and Welsh Offices. Of the nine questions asked at a recent Scottish Question Time, only three were relevant. He has a real opportunity to set a standard for the rest of the Government and show that now that we have devolved power he can work with a smaller Government, and he might start with the Scottish and Welsh Offices.
    The Prime Minister: We have already said that devolution makes a difference, but, in relation to the overall duties that Government Ministers carry out, the position is as I have said. I shall await with interest the question from the right hon. Gentleman at the next Question Time.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: I am glad that we have been reminded that the reshuffle
    400
    is in the air, and I hope that the Prime Minister will not presume that I am grovelling for preferment if I bowl him a soft one. Does he agree that, at a time when Britain still has deep concentrations of those who are food poor, it is scandalous that the European Union spends £600,000 a day paying farmers to plough back food that has been produced, instead of distributing it? It also pays farmers £27 million a week to grow nothing.
    Will the Prime Minister join me in calling for a revision of those policies so that we distribute the food that has been produced freely to the poor and look to a shift in subsidy priorities away from non-production to organic production, conveniently thereby parking the GM wagon at the wayside, with about the same promotion prospects as I suspect I have?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend should not be so modest. It was such a good question that he should keep his pager with him at all times. [Laughter.] That is not a promise. His point about agricultural production is right, but there will be more pressure on the European Union than it yet realises as a result of the World Trade Organisation negotiations. We would have liked bigger cuts in agricultural production subsidies at the Berlin summit, but a lot of progress was made and it will benefit British consumers to the tune of about £1 billion a year. A lot more can still be done, and the WTO negotiations will provide us with an ample chance of pushing through free trade measures around the world. That would benefit many of the poorest and most developing countries.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: If the accident and emergency unit at the Royal hospital, Haslar, in my constituency were to be closed, there is no doubt that lives would be lost in ambulances on the congested roads to the remaining hospitals. What will the Government's message be to the bereaved?
    The Prime Minister: When I was in Portsmouth, I made it clear to people that although the Haslar hospital is a Ministry of Defence hospital, not an NHS hospital, we have to ensure that the services that are available at that hospital are available elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the reasons why we granted one of the new hospital projects to Portsmouth was precisely because we understood the difficulties any closure might cause.
    Mr. Steve McCabe: Has my right hon. Friend seen the Opposition's astonishing attack on traffic-calming measures? When I was responsible for those matters on Birmingham city council, we were overwhelmed by the level of public demand. I seek his assurance that this Government will not abandon safety schemes that we know dramatically reduce injuries and save thousands of lives, especially children's lives.
    The Prime Minister: The evidence is that those road-calming schemes have cut accidents and deaths by some two thirds in the areas affected. That is a considerable record, and it would be disastrous to abandon them. I am also still waiting to hear from the Opposition how they can abandon the fuel duty escalator—which, after all, they introduced—for this and subsequent years, which would leave a £10 billion hole in the public

    401
    finances. When we were in opposition, we used to be asked occasionally where the money would come from; it is about time they were asked that.
    Mr. William Hague: Now that the Scottish Parliament is up and running, English and Welsh Members do not vote on purely Scottish matters. Why does the Prime Minister think that Scottish Members should vote on matters concerning only England and Wales?
    The Prime Minister: Because they are all United Kingdom Members of Parliament and we should have one class of United Kingdom Member of Parliament.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has already created two classes of Members of Parliament—those who vote on matters in their own constituencies and those who vote only on matters in other people's constituencies. Does he agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who has said that he simply does not have the brass neck to vote on purely English business? In his previous answer, was the Prime Minister ruling out, for this Government, decisions on England and Wales being made by English and Welsh Members of Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: The position is the same as it was when Stormont was in existence, for example. In those circumstances, that would be the position again if devolution happens in Northern Ireland. There is one class of UK MP in this Parliament. That is the way it should stay.
    Mr. Hague: There is no longer one class of MP. Is not it clear from the Prime Minister's answer that he does not want to face up to this question, that he has not thought through the consequences of what has happened in Scotland and Wales, that he has not understood that making a success of devolution requires the fair representation of the voters of England, and that, if he refuses to make such changes, he will have weakened the United Kingdom and gerrymandered the British constitution?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree with that, for a number of reasons. First, the right hon. Gentleman forgets to point out that all Members of the House vote on overall expenditure in Scotland and Wales. Secondly, he says that it is wrong for Scottish MPs to vote on purely English matters, but he was quite happy for English MPs to vote on nursery vouchers in Scotland and on the removal of responsibility for water services. Most of all, he was quite happy for them to vote to impose the poll tax on Scotland.
    I believe that the settlement that we have is sensible. The choice that should not face people in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland is between the old system, which had failed—that is why there was so much pressure to change it—and the break-up of the United Kingdom. The real supporters of the Union are those who are able to modernise it and wish to do so.
    Dr. George Turner: The House will want to welcome today's good news on the lifting of the beef ban. My rural constituents will certainly breathe a sigh of relief. Step by step, this
    402
    Government are putting right what the previous Government got wrong. For the next step, will my right hon. Friend assure me that the rural White Paper to be published this autumn will pay particular attention to planning and transport in rural communities, to redress the damage done by 18 years of Tory neglect?
    The Prime Minister: On BSE, we are delighted with the decision to lift the beef ban, although recovering the lost export markets will not be easy. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can shout and bawl about that, but when we came into office there was not a prayer of getting the beef ban lifted. That has come about because of the hard work of Ministers here, and also because the Government have a constructive rather than destructive attitude to Europe. That is why we got the beef ban lifted, and it is another example of new Labour working.
    As for the rural and countryside issues, I am sure that the White Paper will address them, and that it will make particular mention of the fact that this Government have put extra resources into rural transport.
    Mr. James Clappison: But does the Prime Minister think it right that Scottish MPs should be able to vote for a ban on hunting in England, when English MPs have no right to vote on the same subject in Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: As I said, that is precisely the situation that applied under Stormont. These arguments went on in the 1960s, and it was felt right to carry on with the system that we have. I believe that to be the best option, especially as all MPs, including English MPs, vote on the total budgets for Scotland and Wales.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: May I ask my right hon. Friend to guess which Administration, at their mid term, presided over inflation rates of nearly 12 per cent. and unemployment at 2.8 million? Will he compare those figures with those achieved by his own Administration at their mid term, when inflation is at 2.3 per cent., interest rates at 5 per cent. rather than 12 per cent., and unemployment is down to just over 1.25 million? With record numbers of companies wanting to come and invest in Britain, what is the secret of our success? Is it that we are keeping to the principles and policies on which we ran for election?
    The Prime Minister: Everyone remembers the recessions of the early 1980s and 1990s under the Conservatives when interest rates were at 10 per cent. for four years or more. When we came into office, the national debt had doubled and borrowing was at record levels. We sorted out the public finances, got interest rates down to the lowest level for more than 30 years, achieved record levels of employment and saw unemployment down to its lowest level in more than 25 years. The Government have laid the foundations for economic success after years of—it is time to repeat this phrase—Tory boom and bust.
    Mr. John Townend: When the Government decided to sell gold, did they anticipate that the price would fall by 33 cents to $2.55 an ounce? Did the Prime Minister realise that that would adversely affect the economies of third-world countries, particularly

    403
    South Africa, and put black miners' jobs at risk? Is it not nonsense to spend more money on overseas aid to South Africa while undermining that country's major industry by putting pressure on prices? Will the Prime Minister undertake to meet the delegation from South Africa and to say that there will be no further gold sales?
    The Prime Minister: It would be rich to take lessons about South Africa from the Conservative party, which supported apartheid for many years. Let me deal with the latest Tory obsession—gold sales. We sold gold on the technical advice of the Bank of England, and lots of other countries have also sold gold. As I have said, the price of gold has fallen over the past couple of years. It is entirely sensible to have our reserves in a broader portfolio, and that is what we have done. Other countries have done it, too.
    The Conservative party's utter obsession with Europe leads hon. Members to link gold sales to the euro in some bizarre way. Argentina and Switzerland are also selling gold, and what that has to do with the euro I do not know. It is only Tory obsession that makes them raise this matter. We acted on technical advice, and sales were carried through perfectly sensibly. We got the best deal for the country.
    Mr. David Kidney: Does not today's Public Accounts Committee report on the flotation of Railtrack prove beyond doubt that the privatisation of the railways was a gigantic rip-off? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the Government will make greater demands on Railtrack to rejuvenate the rail network, including the west coast main line which serves Stafford?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, it—[Interruption.] Well, the Tories should apologise for having sold the railway system for the price that they received. They do not like to hear the facts. The railways were sold for £1.9 billion and are now worth £7.8 billion. Even a Tory can work out that that is not a good deal for the taxpayer. The prospect of increased investment in the railways by the Labour Government, and the introduction of the Strategic Rail Authority that will return some co-ordination to the fragmentation of privatisation, will make sure that people receive a better service.
    Mr. Richard Allan: The Prime Minister will be aware that plans for objective 1 funding for disadvantaged areas such as South Yorkshire are being finalised. He may also be aware that experience from other areas such as Merseyside revealed difficulties with matched funding. Will he do all that he can to ensure that Government funding in objective 1 areas can be used as matched funding so that we may maximise European Union-funded regeneration opportunities?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, as I have said before, we will get the very best deal we possibly can. The hon.
    404
    Gentleman must accept, however, that this issue arises only because we achieved at the Berlin summit the best deal on structural funds that the UK has ever had. We must make the best use of that money, a principle to which we are as dedicated as the hon. Gentleman. I make no point against the hon. Gentleman's party by saying again that it was only because of our constructive, sensible and engaged attitude towards Europe that we managed to get a decent deal for Britain.
    Mr. David Winnick: Is it intended that Foreign Office documents relating to Michael Ashcroft should be put into the public domain as they are certainly in the public interest? Do the Government intend to refer all matters relating to Michael Ashcroft to the Committee on Standards in Public Life? Are not such actions necessary in view of Mr. Ashcroft's role in political life in Britain and in funding the Conservative party?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, the Neill Committee is there and available for such matters to be dealt with and I am sure that they will be.

    Elections (Scotland and Wales)
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What assessment he has made of the operation of the systems for electing members of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.
    e Prime Minister: I believe that the Scottish and Welsh elections, which were carried out for the first time in the United Kingdom under the additional member system, operated effectively, and I pay tribute to all those officials and others who helped to ensure that that was the case. Of course, we shall look into how the detailed arrangements worked in practice.
    Dr. Lewis: Is it not blindingly obvious, even to the Prime Minister, that what proportional representation did in Scotland and in Wales was, as usual, to deprive the winning party of a working majority and force it into coalition with a party that came not even second or third, but fourth—namely, the Liberal party? Will he now assure the House once and for all that that distorting and undemocratic system of proportional representation will never be used for Westminster parliamentary elections?
    The Prime Minister: I really do not understand the Tories at all. If we had used the old system, there would have been no Tories in the Scottish Parliament and only one in the Welsh Assembly. The hon. Gentleman should be thanking me for my unprecedented generosity.

Beef Exports
3.31 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about beef exports.
I am very pleased to inform the House that, this morning, the European Commission adopted a decision that has the effect of lifting the beef ban for the whole of the United Kingdom. Its decision is that the date-based export scheme, on which we have been formally negotiating since October 1997, should start to operate from 1 August this year. From that date, it will be possible to export to other European Union countries boneless beef from cattle born after 1 August 1996 in any part of the UK.
Other conditions will have to be met. To deal with the risk of maternal transmission, no animal will be eligible for export unless its dam can be proved to have lived for at least six months after its birth without developing BSE. The date of birth and the identity of the animal must be established beyond doubt.
I negotiated one significant change with the Commission, however. Although the slaughterhouses must deal exclusively in cattle that meet the requirements for export, they can also deal in other species. That is a commercially important point for operators.
My Department and the other Agriculture Departments have worked in close consultation with all parts of the industry to ensure that they are geared up to make the best possible use of the scheme. The next steps will involve a final inspection and approval by my Department of exporting plants, after which exports can start. Everything is in place for that to happen from 1 August.
One company is poised to start exporting as soon as possible after the 1 August start date and others will follow. The Government will do all that they can to ensure that the scheme delivers benefits to our beef producers and traders and that it helps to build confidence within the agriculture industry at home and to rebuild confidence in British beef among our European Union partners.
The decision is an important breakthrough for the industry after the bleak time since March 1996 during which our beef industry has been afflicted by the export ban. My objective, however, is to get the UK market back on the same terms of trade as our competitors.
Today's decision is the result of a negotiation that has lasted for nearly two years. I pay tribute to the hard work that has been put in along the way by Ministers and officials in a number of Departments. It is an excellent example of well-organised, inter-departmental collaboration across Government in successful pursuit of a significant, national objective. The outcome also shows clearly the benefits of the Government's new approach to doing business in Europe. In stark contrast with the ludicrous Tory beef war, which produced nothing except our own isolation from Europe, Labour leadership in Europe and our constructive approach towards our European partners has clearly been shown to succeed.
Mr. Tim Yeo: The Opposition warmly welcome the news that beef exports will restart on 1 August. That is an important step forward, but the Minister will know that it is not only about today's
406
headlines; it is the start of a long process of winning back markets that are crucial to the survival of British beef farmers.
Several questions arise. The Minister made some uncharacteristically political comments at the end of his statement—no doubt inserted with the forthcoming reshuffle in mind. In view of those comments, is he aware that many beef farmers are bitterly disappointed that eight months have passed since he last made a statement to the House that the beef ban was to be lifted? During those eight months not a single ounce of beef was exported from the British mainland. The Minister told the House:
"I can say that it is my objective to have the date-based export scheme up and running and past its Commission inspection by next spring."—[Official Report, 25 November 1998: Vol. 321, c. 191–92.]
It will now be well into August before that objective is achieved. Spring has been a long time coming this year for beef farmers.
Will the Minister confirm that, after his statement of 25 November, more than four months passed before the European Commission inspectors were even invited to Britain to examine the facilities through which beef exports would be channelled? Is that what Labour mean by "well-organised, inter-departmental collaboration"? As it has taken Labour two years and three months to get the ban lifted, and as today's statement confirms that the lifting is very partial, does the Minister really believe that beef farmers will see that as a triumph for the Government's new approach to doing business in Europe? Alternatively, was the verdict of beef farmers the one that was delivered on 10 June?
Will the Minister confirm whether the lifting of the ban applies only to European Union countries, or also to those outside the EU? Will he say which slaughterhouse has been approved for export? How soon are others likely to be approved, and how many are likely to take part in the scheme in the foreseeable future?
What help will the Government now give to exporters to rebuild their markets? For example, will the Government help with the running costs of the scheme for slaughterhouses during the initial period when exports build up? Has money been set aside for that purpose? Does the Minister agree that the experience in Northern Ireland shows that help is indeed needed?
How soon will British service men abroad be able to eat British beef? Does the Minister agree that Labour could boost confidence in British beef if they lifted their absurd ban on beef on the bone? Does he agree that Labour could boost confidence in British beef if 42 Labour local authorities ended their ban on beef on school menus? Will he confirm that his statement means that a slaughterhouse, which deals with cattle that meet the export requirements, can sell into either export or home markets?
As the Minister states that cattle born after 1 August 1996—for example, cattle which are now 35 months old—can be exported, does that mean that the over 30 months scheme is now being phased out? What will the final inspection of exporting plants by MAFF involve? Is he aware that the ending of the calf processing aid scheme on 31 July this year will have immediate and adverse consequences? Is he worried about the possible animal welfare problems that may result? Has the Ministry sent out a leaflet advising farmers how to slaughter calves on their own farms?

407
The Minister stated that Labour's objective is to get the UK market back on the same terms as that of our competitors. However, this agreement fails to do so. Does he agree with those farmers who say that the potential for beef exports remains limited while the existing restrictions are in force? Will he give top priority to the removal of the remaining restrictions? Will he fight inside Europe for the export of beef on the bone and of live cattle to be resumed as soon as possible?
If the right hon. Gentleman is to avoid the charge of having done too little, too late, much greater urgency is needed to secure the removal of the remaining restrictions than was demonstrated in the months following his previous statement on this subject to the House last November.
The Minister has our congratulations on what he has achieved so far, but he will earn our support and, indeed, the thanks of beef farmers if he recognises that it is the first step along a long road and that the Government still need to make strenuous efforts to reach the goal of a thriving beef export market.
Mr. Brown: I thank the Opposition spokesman for his congratulations. I have to say that I hate to think what he would have said to me if he had turned against me. What a whingeing, grudging welcome he gave to what is, after all, an important announcement for one of our key agriculture industries. Before dealing with the points of detail, I observe that among all the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, there was no mention of what caused the ban to be imposed in the first place or an acceptance that perhaps the previous Government had something to do with that ban being imposed and the failure even to make a start on getting it lifted. Those grudging remarks come ill from a member of the party that got us into this mess in the first place.
Let me try to respond to the barrage of rather small points that were put to me. The calf processing aid scheme comes to an end on 31 July. I said that in the debate last week, and I have not changed my mind since then. We also discussed the OTMS in last week's debate. The matter is under review, and I am waiting for advice from the relevant scientific committee. The hon. Gentleman referred to local authorities. I am writing to them—
Mr. James Paice: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that last week.
Mr. Brown: Well, that does not make it wrong this week. The position remains the same, and I know that most Members of the House will not be surprised by that.
The position on beef on the bone has not changed. I want to lift the ban as soon as I can, but that will be in response to the professional advice of the Government's medical advisers.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) referred to the start date of 1 August and said that beef will start to be exported again well into August, but 1 August is the start of August. How can that possibly be grudgingly desrcibed as "well into August"?
The hon. Gentleman asked whether people are ready to go ahead with exports. I said in my statement that they are, at St. Merryn's in Cornwall. They believe that they
408
already have markets lined up and are ready to start exporting immediately after 1 August. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Which markets?"] Hon. Members may shout, "Which markets?", but that is a commercial matter for the exporters. The Government's role is to make sure that trade can be facilitated. The Opposition ask what we are doing to help to win back the markets. Surely the first thing to do is to make it legal to export beef to those markets, which is exactly what I have done.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk went on to say that I should provide illegal state aids to assist British beef to get back into the export markets. What view does he think the Commission would take of that? What message would that send to our European partners, who, without any selfish interest in this matter, have stood by us when we have been able to work constructively with them to prove our case? Surely our case has been proved by the strength of our arguments.
The hon. Gentleman asked about third countries. The ban on British exports was worldwide and it will be lifted from 1 August, so, subject to the rules of the domestic Governments, which we shall address on a case-by-case basis, it will be possible to sell directly to the European Union and third countries.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the timing and asked why the ban was not lifted in the spring rather than in the summer. When I met members of the National Farmers Union at their conference in the spring, I told them candidly that the date for lifting the ban might be later than they hoped, but I would rather get it right than do it early, and the farmers cheered because they knew that that was in the national interest.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), on the excellent way in which they have handled the issue since the general election? The key decision in lifting the ban was that taken by Labour Ministers after the general election to establish the cattle traceability centre in my constituency. That reassured people throughout the European Union. May I express the hope that when the BSE inquiry is finally published it exposes why the Tory Government refused to take that critical decision, because, had it been taken earlier, it would have led to the beef ban being lifted earlier?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is on to a very good point. Cattle traceability is crucial to the date-based export scheme and I pay tribute to his hard-working constituents in the British cattle movement service. I also pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), for having done so much to smooth our way in the European Union and to get the important negotiations off to a good start.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I warmly welcome today's news. Does the Minister agree that this afternoon it is probably worth us all maintaining a sense of perspective and patriotism about this development? It is rather disappointing that, perhaps for understandable reasons, the Conservative spokesman seems unable to exhibit either. Is not the true perspective that an industry that was worth in excess of half a billion pounds to this country in 1995 was effectively closed down? In addition to the terrible deaths

409
and human tragedies, in the past two to three years there has been an alarming rise in the number of suicides in farming as a result of the extreme pressure that this issue and many others have created on the British agricultural sector. Therefore, in welcoming today's news, we can learn the lessons of the past.
Does the Minister agree that a lesson from the recent past is that when the ban was lifted in Northern Ireland, welcome though that was, it was a very long haul indeed to re-establishing credibility in the European markets and achieving market penetration? Will the Minister work with the Meat and Livestock Commission and the British agricultural sector on a wholesale marketing campaign across the continent, bringing correspondents, food writers and agriculturists from there to here as well as publicising our domestic market over there to ensure that we get back on track sooner rather than later? Finally, does he agree that it would help the re-establishment of credibility to lift the ban on beef on the bone? In the longer term, let us hope that such a dreadful tragedy for all concerned can be prevented from ever recurring, not least by the establishment in due course of a properly funded and independent Food Standards Agency.
Mr. Brown: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, in particular his welcome for the Food Standards Agency, which is an important step forward. He will be pleased to learn that I am meeting Don Curry of the MLC at 5 o'clock today to discuss what the Government can do to help.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that BSE has been a national tragedy for our country. So far, 43 lives have been lost to new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and some £4 billion of public money has been spent, mostly on public protection measures, some of which have acted as pretty powerful market interventions. The figure that he quotes for the industry losses in 1995 are right, although, as part of the tragedy, the shutters came down on exports when they were running at an all-time high, so the industry has been hit hard.
My objective has been to make sure that the public can have absolute certainty in the beef on the United Kingdom market as that is the only market available to the domestic industry and to make sure that we could get back into exports in an orderly way and command the confidence of overseas consumers. That is exactly what we have done.
Mr. Martyn Jones: May I assure my right hon. Friend that farmers in my constituency will be wholeheartedly delighted with today's news? It is probably the best thing that has happened in my area for some time. I am sure that they will contrast the hypocrisy from the Conservatives with my right hon. Friend's statement.
May I add my comments to those of the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy)? My farmers think that the MLC has not done as much as it could have done to promote British beef. Will my right hon. Friend stress that once again to Don Curry of the MLC, whom I am glad to hear that he is meeting later today?
Mr. Brown: I take my hon. Friend's point and thank him for his welcome for the announcement. The opportunities to support British beef overseas have been
410
limited because we have been able to export only through the Northern Ireland certified herd scheme. A date-based export scheme, which I expect will be the successor scheme in Northern Ireland, will broaden the pool of animals that is available to exporters. The scheme should provide much more in the way of opportunities, and it is that which I want to explore with the MLC.
On the domestic beef market, such is the effort that has been made by the MLC and the Government in emphasising the tough-minded nature of public protection measures that beef consumption is now higher in the UK than it was at pre-BSE crisis levels.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The decision of the European Union to lift the beef ban is obviously good news. I am the first to acknowledge the hard work that the right hon. Gentleman, his Front-Bench colleagues and officials have done. I think that they deserve the congratulations of the House.
That said, would I be right in saying that most of the steps that the right hon. Gentleman has taken to get the ban lifted were based on the policies and plans that the previous Conservative Government put in place before the last general election, which laid the foundation for the lifting of the ban? Has not the lifting of the ban exposed the illogicality of adhering to the domestic-based 30 month rule as from now? Is it not right to say that, from August 1996, we can be certain about the quality and integrity of the cattle feed being fed to animals? Having regard to that fact, and also to the fact that a cull was carried out to eliminate the risk of maternal transmission, we could now properly lift the 30 month rule in respect of cattle born after August 1996.
Mr. Brown: I accept that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is on to a strong point on the OTMS. I am awaiting scientific advice on precisely the point that he has raised. I thank him for what he said about the work of officials. Officials in my Department have made heroic efforts with their counterparts in the European Union to explain what we are doing and how we are meeting the technical requirements of the scheme. In that, we have been assisted by officials in the Foreign Office and in other Government Departments as well as by other Agriculture Departments.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that the guidelines on the technical implementation of the scheme were set down under the previous Government. My criticism relates to the way in which that Government went about trying to achieve those guidelines. The beef war on Europe was a ludicrous policy and ended crumbling in the British Government's hands. There was no country on our side and 14 which were pushed into positions against us. The present Government have repaired that damaging approach. Our approach has enabled an outcome to bear fruit for an important domestic industry.
Mr. David Drew: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend. Contrary to what the Opposition spokesman said, this was never going to be a one-off event. There had to be a great deal of hard work behind the scenes to get the markets reopened.
Alongside the work of the MLC, does my right hon. Friend accept that we can learn from Europe inasmuch as the role of producer co-operatives there is often key to

411
production and marketing strategies? Will he talk to all the farming organisations with a view to increasing collaboration so that we can make a sustained effort to export our beef?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I made a similar point in my speech at the royal show last week. The point is relevant to the beef sector and, dare I say it, to the dairy sector as well.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to confirm that there is no proven scientific evidence that CJD in humans is linked to BSE in cattle? I remind the right hon. Gentleman that his Government have been asked repeatedly to use their best offices to persuade local authorities and health authorities to source their supplies of meat in this country. Why has that still not been done?
Mr. Brown: Of course it has been done at inter-departmental level. I gave the House an assurance in the previous debate that I would personally write to each procurement authority, although, as the hon. Gentleman knows, normal links between Government and competent local authorities and health authorities are maintained through the relevant Ministries, not through direct contact with mine. As for the first statement that the hon. Gentleman invites me to give the House, I hope that he will understand if I decline.
Mr. Huw Edwards: May I assure my right hon. Friend that his announcement will be warmly welcomed by the farming community in Wales, which will meet at the royal Welsh show in Builth Wells next week? It will be particularly welcome to the farmers from my constituency whom my right hon. Friend met recently as representatives of small family farms, and who were tremendously appreciative of the assurances that he gave. The announcement will help the campaign in my constituency for a new, up-to-date livestock market, which will be a great boost to the farming community in Monmouthshire and the whole of south-east Wales.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I look forward to my visit to the royal Welsh show next week, Agriculture Council permitting. It is my policy to discuss my Department's approach not just with the representatives of farm unions, but with individual farmers. I learn a lot from that.
Mr. Peter Luff: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, that my robust enthusiasm for the truth got me into some difficulty with you during Prime Minister's Question Time. I know that you and the Minister share that enthusiasm for the truth.
May I ask the Minister what proportion of pre-ban export levels has been set in the business plan of his Department for the recovery of beef exports? Will he reconsider the recommendation in the Select Committee on Agriculture's report on the beef industry that the Government should give extra assistance to the beef industry to help it to recover lost beef export markets?
Mr. Brown: I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I think that I could do more harm than good
412
if I did anything that even approached introducing state aids, which would be regarded by our colleagues in the European Union as unlawful. As I am one of the key complainants when others do that, it would not be a good idea for me to start doing it, particularly in the beef sector.
I do not have a business plan for the industry. It is a private sector matter. My determination is to work with the private sector to do everything that the British Government properly can do to help. That is quite a lot, but it does not run to direct extra state aids.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement, which is the best news that farmers in my constituency have had for many years. I pay tribute to the work done by his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). As far as I know, the only abattoir that will be available for beef for export is in Cornwall. Does my right hon. Friend have any advice to offer farmers in Wales, 200 miles away from that abattoir?
Mr. Brown: I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes about transport issues, and I hope that the devolved authority may be able to help with local market conditions. I am still looking hard at the overall costs on the abattoir sector, and hope to have something to say about that shortly. My hon. Friend should take the delay in making an announcement as good news, rather than bad. I am still fighting the sector's corner in Government.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I welcome the Minister's announcement today. Will he take the opportunity of condemning local authorities that refuse to put beef on their menus?
Mr. Brown: It is not my habit to go about condemning anyone. I want a constructive dialogue with everyone, particularly with those from whom I am looking for help.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I welcome the news and congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his team on their achievement. I have two brief comments. First, will he please redouble his efforts to ensure the adequacy of dedicated abattoirs? Secondly, when he meets the MLC later today, will he make the point that local branding will probably be of great assistance in marketing on the European mainland?
Mr. Brown: The local marketing initiative is primarily a matter for the MLC, but I take a close interest in it and see the advantages that could be offered. I expect to explore these matters with Mr. Curry and his team when I meet them at 5 pm.
On dedicated abattoirs, the hon. Gentleman is on to a good point. I was conscious of the impact of that on the market in the negotiations with the Commission, which is why I negotiated a slight change, which means that the abattoirs can handle other livestock products, although not cattle intended for the domestic market as well as for the export market. I know that the change has been welcomed by the industry.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I ungrudgingly congratulate the Minister on delivering the deal, but may

413
I add a note of caution on the timetable? If the Commission is to be involved, my understanding is that the new Commission will not take control until September because there are a series of European parliamentary hearings and we have to wait for the new European Parliament to come into being.
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman investigate the continued importing of sub-standard pigmeat into Britain from other EU countries, which is a source of growing concern?
Mr. Brown: I have no evidence that pigmeat that does not meet our hygiene requirements is entering Britain for human consumption, but I am always willing to consider specific cases, and, if the hon. Lady wants to put a specific case before me, I shall have it examined by Department officials straight away.
There is no doubt that the Commission has competence. Today's announcement is the Commission's final step in getting the date-based export scheme up and running. My Department's inspections remain, but I am satisfied that that will not be a problem.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: On behalf of Cheshire farmers, I congratulate the Minister on his achievements and warmly welcome the lifting of the export ban on de-boned beef. However, may I impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the importance of lifting as soon as possible the ban on beef on the bone, and of the Government throwing their weight behind marketing initiatives in the future so that we can regain our position in European and world markets?
Mr. Brown: May I say to the hon. Lady without doing her any harm with her party leadership that I do not disagree with anything that she has said and intend to take all those matters forward inasmuch as it is lawful for me to do so?
Sir Robert Smith: I welcome the Minister's statement, but does he recognise that the farmers in my constituency will obviously feel even more restored when they see the beef leaving Britain for EU markets? To that end, will he reassure them that he does not regard this as the end of the crisis for them, and will attempt, where possible, to keep to the minimum the costs and burdens that they face, which competition on mainland Europe does not face?
Mr. Brown: I am very conscious of the hon. Gentleman's last point, but I am afraid that, because of the nature of the scheme, it is inevitable that costs are involved in it that will not be faced by competitors, even within the EU. It is my objective that the UK market should operate on exactly the same basis as the rest of the EU market as soon as possible. I accept that we are not there yet, but this is an important step on the journey.
As for seeing the meat off, I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will almost certainly be present to wave the beef out of Britain when it leaves at the beginning of August, and perhaps this is an appropriate moment for me to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work that he has put in to get the scheme up and running.
Mr. Richard Livsey: I warmly congratulate the Minister, as will the farmers in
414
my constituency, which is the premier beef-producing area of Wales. The point made by Welsh Members about a dedicated abattoir is especially important now that an all-Wales co-operative has been formed for the meat industry. When the right hon. Gentleman visits my constituency to attend the royal Welsh show, will he pay particular attention to that point, because it is important that we are able to export Welsh beef direct from Wales?
Will the Minister also take note that, with the expiry of the calf scheme, cull cow values will still be immensely depressed and that the dairy industry is still being badly hit by that circumstance?
Mr. Brown: The points about the dairy industry have all been made to me and I am conscious of them, but I do not want to offer any false hope that somehow the calf processing aid scheme will be extended further. I obtained two extensions and can do no more. It comes to an end on 31 July.
The hon. Gentleman's point about a dedicated abattoir for the industry in Wales is a good one, and officials of my Department stand ready to work with the industry to help bring about that outcome if there is a will in the private sector to dedicate an abattoir to de-boned beef exports and, if it is deemed necessary, other animal processing for the domestic market.
Mr. Paul Keetch: As the representative of England's premier beef industry, may I say that the Minister's decision today will be welcomed by Herefordshire beef farmers and the wider Herefordshire rural community? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall his visit to my constituency some months ago when he and I met Mr. Peter Symonds, whose family have been breeding Hereford cattle now for well over 300 years? Does he recall hearing Mr. Symonds express the fear that some of the imported meat on our shelves does not conform to the high standards that we now have in the United Kingdom—not just for beef, but for pigmeat, poultry and other meat? Will he review food labelling again, to ensure that we can be certain that the food that we buy conforms to UK standards, which are now clearly the highest in the world?
Mr. Brown: I remember the visit very well. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the souvenir photographs that he sent me afterwards, showing three magnificent creatures, one of very high value!
Of course I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, and I shall bear it in mind.
Mr. Paul Marsden: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his predecessor, his ministerial team and his officials on all their hard work. I think that they deserve far more credit than has been forthcoming from Opposition Members.
Will my right hon. Friend investigate the possibility of increasing the transmission of Government information directly to farmers, through the MLC, so that they know how to go about re-entering the critical beef export market which, before the ban, was worth about 30 per cent. of production?
Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. He makes a good point about the need to ensure that the quite complex mechanisms through which the scheme operates are explained properly, so that individual farmers can decide whether to take part. Although the date-based export scheme is slaughterhouse-led, I hope that, as it grows, the methods of operating it will become commonplace in the livestock industry, and will facilitate a steady increase in exports from the United Kingdom. I shall certainly discuss these matters with the MLC at 5 pm today.
Mr. John Maples: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I gave notice of it to you, and to the Foreign Office.
This morning, the Foreign Secretary held a press conference on the Falkland Islands, and published an agreement that is vital to the islands' future dealing with access for Argentine citizens and the resumption of flights from Chile—flights that were only ever cancelled as a result of the Government's incompetent handling of General Pinochet's arrest. The Foreign Secretary has not done the House the courtesy of making a statement here, either before holding the press conference or at all. This is the third occasion this week on which the Foreign Secretary has failed to come to the House. We have become used to the fact that he does not expect to have to apologise, but it seems that now he does not expect to have to explain either.
I know how much you, Madam Speaker, deplore the practice of Government announcements being made to the press before they are made to the House. I hope that you will be able to prevail on the Foreign Secretary to make a statement tomorrow.
Madam Speaker: I think that the Foreign Secretary is wise enough to know when it is right to come to the House when there is new policy or a change of
416
policy. I have not been informed by any Foreign Office Ministers that they seek to make a statement on the issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that on Monday you made a clear ruling that all Members have the "privilege and the responsibility" of taking part in all the business of the House. It appears from Prime Minister's questions today that your ruling has not reached every Member. A number of questions suggested that some Members representing Scotland and Wales were "half' Members of Parliament, and should not take part in discussions and decisions on certain matters. Do you agree, Madam Speaker, that that could come about only as a result of the establishment of an English Parliament? Will you consider the matter further, and decide whether we need a clear written ruling to establish that all Members of this House are full Members of the United Kingdom Parliament?
Madam Speaker: I have no intention of being tedious and repetitive. What I said on Monday, or whenever it was, stands.
Mr. Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the convener of the much-maligned Scottish group of Members of Parliament, I am, in fact, raising a different point of order. Have you had any indication that the Secretary of State for Scotland will come and bring the House up to date on the Kvaerner negotiations? We learn from today's newspapers that the Kvaerner shipyard on Clydeside has been saved, but further negotiations are needed to reverse the 241 redundancy notices that were given yesterday. Is there any way in which the matter can be brought before the House? That would enable me to commend the work of the Secretary of State for Scotland in saving the yard.
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that any statement is to be made today. All Members who raise points of order about statements would be wise to look at the annunciator. It is always printed there by about noon, so that we are all aware of what is happening in the House.

Children's Rights Commissioner
4.10 pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the establishment of a children's rights commissioner to promote the rights and interests of children in England; to make provision for the powers and duties of the commissioner; and for related purposes.
The Government can be a great Government for children. We have commitments to end child poverty; we have the establishment of a national voice for children in care—a new national organisation for young people in care; and regional children's rights officers have been proposed for children who live away from home.
We have commitments on raising educational standards; we have commitments on the integration of children with disabilities; we have new measures to stop paedophiles from working with children; we have new overseas adoption laws; and we have new protection for children who give evidence in criminal proceedings on physical and sexual abuse. Quality protects, new deal and sure start—details were published yesterday—bridge the gap for 16 to 18-year-olds and are powerful evidence of the Government's commitment.
I could spend the next nine minutes listing the commitments, but they will be great developments only when they really seem to work, and they will really work only when we recognise the fundamental issue at the heart of all policy relating to children: the powerlessness of all children.
After all, children have no vote. They have hardly any voice. There are many worthy initiatives, but a voice depends on the good work and good will of thousands of people in different situations. Often, those people are officials working in the most obscure parts of the land—and often they are overworked—in situations where standards can differ. They are employed by authorities that can change, whose priorities can shift and whose good intentions can be dissipated under the weight of events. I know that because I have been there and worked in those situations. All hon. Members know that powerless people are often overlooked. Even in a well-developed democracy—even in the best-developed democracy—powerless people are easily ignored, unless they have a strong, independent, statutory voice at the heart of Government.
A children's rights commissioner is needed to promote consistently the rights and interests of all children everywhere in the land, ensuring the implementation of the fundamental human rights that are embodied in the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Such a commissioner is needed to enable the voices of all children to be heard in government, in local authorities, in statutory voluntary agencies and in private bodies.
When roads, public transport schemes, leisure facilities and all the mundane realities of development are proposed, more and more adults are, thankfully, involved in consultation. Surely, at this stage in our national life, we should consider whether children might have a unique perspective and something important to say about the issues that affect their lives so dramatically.
A children's rights commissioner is needed to ensure that children are aware of their rights and that they are able to complain. We protect children when we give them
418
real opportunities to complain. "Children's rights commissioner" is a grand title for a very simple concept. All I am urging is that the Government should take a clear, hard and honest view of a fundamental problem, and take a common-sense approach to dealing with it.
Let us have an identified person who could draw attention to the impact on children of new Government policy—someone who could raise important issues in an annual report; assist with development of structures enabling children to participate ever more in the life of the community and in decision making; ensure that current complaint systems work well for everyone; and be the identified and identifiable person of last resort when a child knows that things are going wrong. That person should be the humane, sensible and knowledgeable person who could absolutely raise the roof when it matters. He or she should be someone steeped in sound principles, who listens to children and is fearless in standing up with and for children and young people.
A good Government can do so many things, but a great Government will heed the voices of children, and hear the sound advice of more than 100 child care organisations. It would take far too long to list all those organisations, but they include the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, UNICEF, Save the Children, Barnardos and the Royal College of Paediatrics.
A great Government would also implement the recommendations of the all-party Select Committee on Health, and learn from the success of similar posts—in Norway, Sweden, Austria and New Zealand. A great Government would recognise the strength of feeling on the issue among hon. Members on both sides of the House, including our valiant Independent Member.
The proposal is the epitome of concern for human rights and joined-up government. It is the key to ensuring that worthy intentions in respect of children really deliver the goods. The issue will not go away from the House. Whatever happens to the Bill, the issue will remain, and it will resonate in the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and, I very much hope, in the Northern Ireland Assembly, too.
A children's rights commissioner could transform the way in which we understand children and childhood. A commissioner could transform our democracy for the citizens of the future. The creation of such a post is profoundly important and would be profoundly good. I challenge a really great Government to accept the concept, and to implement it now.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hilton Dawson, Mr. Martin Bell, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mrs. Joan Humble, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Bob Russell, Mr. Donald Gorrie, Ms Julie Morgan and Mr. Jonathan Shaw.

Children's Rights Commissioner
  CHILDREN'S RIGHTS COMMISSIONER
  Mr. Hilton Dawson accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a children's rights commissioner to promote the rights and interests of children in England; to make provision for the powers and duties of the commissioner; and for related purposes: 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 139].
Orders of the Day
  Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      TIME-LIMITED DISPOSAL OR WASTE MANAGEMENT LICENCES
      '.—(1) Where

      (a) a disposal licence under section 5 of the 1974 Act became a site licence by virtue of section 77(2) of the 1990 Act (conversion, on the appointed day, of existing disposal licence under section 5 of the 1974 Act into a site licence),

      (b) the licence has expired at a time ("the time of expiry") falling before the day on which this Act is passed but not earlier than the appointed day,

      (c) the licence authorised the carrying on of activities in or on land in England or Wales, and

      (d) relevant activities have taken place at a time falling not more than one year before the day on which this Act is passed,

      the licence shall (subject to subsection (7)) for all purposes be deemed not to have expired but to have become, at the time of expiry, a site licence continuing in force in accordance with section 35(11) of the 1990 Act.
      (2) Subsection (3) applies where

      (a) a disposal licence under section 5 of the 1974 Act expired at a time ("the time of expiry") falling before the appointed day (so that it was not converted into a site licence by section 77(2) of the 1990 Act),

      (b) the licence authorised the carrying on of activities in or on land in England or Wales, and

      (c) relevant activities have taken place at a time falling not more than one year before the day on which this Act is passed.

      (3) The licence shall (subject to subsection (7)) for all purposes be deemed—

      not to have expired, and

      to have been subsisting on the appointed day and (accordingly) to have become on that day a site licence by virtue of section 77(2) of the 1990 Act,

      and the site licence which the licence is deemed to have become on that day shall for all purposes be deemed to have been one that continues in force in accordance with section 35(11) of the 1990 Act.
      (4) Where—

      (a) a site licence in force immediately before the day on which this Act is passed—

      (i) became a site licence by virtue of section 77(2) of the 1990 Act, and

      (ii) will expire on or after the day on which this Act is passed (if it has not previously been revoked entirely, or had its surrender accepted, under Part II of the 1990 Act), and

      (b) relevant activities have taken place at a time falling not more than one year before that day,

      the licence shall for all purposes be deemed to have become at the beginning of that day a site licence continuing in force in accordance with section 35(11) of the 1990 Act.
      (5) Where subsection (1), (3) or (4) has effect in relation to a licence, the terms and conditions of the licence as continued in force by that subsection shall, except so far as providing for the expiry of the licence and subject to subsection (6)(b) and (c), be such as were
      420
      in force immediately before the relevant time (unless and until varied under Part II of the 1990 Act); and "the relevant time" means—

      (a) where subsection (1) or (3) has effect in relation to a licence, the time of expiry;

      (b) where subsection (4) has effect in relation to a lcence, the beginning of the day on which this Act is passed.

      (6) Where subsection (1) or (3) has effect in relation to a license (but without prejudice to the generality of that subsection)

      (a) activities carried out during the interim period which (by virtue of subsection (1) or (3)) become authorised by the licence shall be treated as authorised at the time they were carried out (even though at that time their being carried out amounted to a contravention of section 33(1)(a) or (b) of the 1990 Act or section 3(1) of the 1974 Act);

      (b) anything done in relation to the licence before the time of expiry but purporting to take effect after that time (such as the serving of a notice under section 37(4) or 38(12) of the 1990 Act, or in pursuance of section 7 of the 1974 Act, specifying a time falling during or after the interim period) shall be treated as having had (or having) effect as if the licence had not in fact expired;

      (c) anything which during the interim period purported to be done in relation to the licence (such as a modification of the licence or the revocation, suspension, transfer or acceptance of the surrender of the licence or the carrying out of consultation, exercise of functions under section 9 of the 1974 Act or section 42 of the 1990 Act, imposition of requirements during a suspension or bringing or determination of an appeal) shall be treated as having had effect as if the licence had then been in force;

      (d) any fees which (by virtue of subsection (1) or (3)) are treated as having become payable before the passing of this Act shall be taken to have become payable at the time they would have become payable had the licence not in fact expired; and

      (e) the holder of the licence shall be treated as having been, during the interim period, an authorised person for the purposes of section 34(1)(c) of the 1990 Act.

      (7) Where subsection (1) or (3) has effect in relation to a licence, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 33(6) or 38(10) or (11) of the 1990 Act as a result of anything done or omitted to be done during the interim period becoming (by virtue of subsection (1) or (3)) a contravention of any condition of the licence or (as the case may be) a failure to comply with any requirement imposed under section 38(9) of the 1990 Act.
      (8) Nothing in this section affects any criminal proceedings which have been concluded before the passing of this Act.
      (9) The waste regulation authority (within the meaning given by section 30(1) of the 1990 Act) shall notify the holder of a licence affected by this section of the fact that the licence is so affected and of how it is so affected.
      (10) For the purposes of this section "relevant activities", in relation to a licence, are—

      (a) any activities authorised by the licence or, in the case of an expired licence, any which would have been authorised by it had it not expired, and

      any precautions or works required by the licence to be taken or carried out in connection with or in consequence of those activities or, in the case of an expired licence, any which would have been so required had the licence not expired.

      (11) In this section—
      "the 1974 Act" means the Control of Pollution Act 1974;
      "the 1990 Act" means the Environmental Protection Act 1990;

      421
      "the appointed day", in relation to a licence, means the day which in relation to that licence is (or would have been if the licence had not previously expired) the relevant appointed day for licences (within the meaning of section 77 of the 1990 Act);
      "the interim period", in connection with a licence in relation to which subsection (1) or (3) has effect, means the period beginning with the time of expiry and ending immediately before the day on which this Act is passed;
      "site licence" has the same meaning as it has in Part II of the 1990 Act by virtue of section 35(12) of that Act.'.—[Mr. Meale.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.19 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 3 to 5.
      Mr. Meale: First, I want to explain that one of the deficiencies of the waste licensing scheme originally introduced under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 was that those who held licences for waste operations, such as landfill sites, could simply hand in their licences and walk away from their responsibilities. In line with the polluter pays principle, that was rectified in the revised licensing scheme introduced under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
      As the House is aware, the 1990 Act provides that a site licence remains in force until a surrender application is made to the environment agencies. What is more, it precludes the agencies from accepting surrender applications unless they are satisfied that environmental pollution or harm to human health is unlikely to occur. The issue that the new clause and the amendments address, therefore, is time-limited licences that were originally granted under the 1974 Act.
      The transitional provision in section 77(2) of the 1990 Act contains two statements on those time-limited licences. One is that they are to be treated as 1990 Act licences until they expire. The other is that they may be surrendered only in accordance with the 1990 Act. We are removing that. It is obviously anomalous to require a licence holder to apply to the environment agencies to surrender his or her licence while the time limit remains in force, but to allow him or her to walk away from his or her responsibilities when the time limit expires.
      By way of a further example showing the need for these changes, I can inform the House that a review carried out by the Environment Agency has revealed that many licences originally granted under the 1974 Act, and inherited from the former waste regulation authorities in April 1996, are subject to time limits and that, in some cases, the licences have expired without either the agency or the operator being aware of it. In some cases where the licence has expired, the sites are continuing to be operated, and of course to be supervised by the agency, as though they had valid licences. As the House is aware, it is a criminal offence to operate those sites without a licence. Therefore, the current situation is clearly unacceptable.
      422
      The amendments therefore have two main purposes. The first is to validate what has happened since the expiry of those licences that have already expired. The second is to ensure that all licences—those that have expired and those that are subject to time limits that will expire in future—are subject to the surrender provisions of the 1990 Act. In simple terms, that means removing the time limits in licences that have not yet expired.
      As I said, the main considerations are the application of the polluter pays principle and the need to ensure that the environment and human health are properly protected. Those objectives could not be achieved if, on the basis of time limits originally set under the 1974 Act, the operators of landfill sites and toxic waste treatment plants could now walk away from their responsibilities. In the Government's view, the balance falls in favour of removing those time limits and ensuring that the environment and human health are properly protected.
      Mr. Damian Green: It is unusual for such a substantial new clause to be introduced at this late stage of a Bill's passage, so I am grateful to the Minister for kindly explaining privately, in advance of the debate, the purpose of both it and the amendments. However, I have several questions about the need for the new clause and the regulations to which it gives rise. I should be grateful if he would address those when he winds up the debate.
      As the Minister explained, the new clause was tabled because it had been discovered that the Environment Agency and many operators of sites did not know that they were operating illegally and had been doing so for some years. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would tell the House when that fact came to light. Why did it take the Environment Agency so long to discover that illegal operation?
      What procedures does the agency have to check the validity of licences? Clearly, the House will want to know that this problem will not happen again. Can we be reassured that every existing licence will be covered, and that the operator and the agency have a clear idea of the timetable under which the licence will be operational? Have they set in train some kind of warning system to enable site operators to know when their licences may be about to run out?
      Does the Environment Agency have the resources to implement the new system that the new clause and the consequential amendments will produce? Clearly, there has been a failure in the system, but it is more important today for the House to consider how we avoid a similar failure in the future. One of the things that will have to happen if the Environment Agency is not to go down the same route again is to ensure that it has adequate resources to cope.
      Mr. James Gray: Is my hon. Friend concerned that, under the new regime, the number of sites to be licensed will increase from 2,000 to 6,000, and that many of the 4,000 new sites will be small businesses, farmers and others who may not be all that sophisticated in administrative terms? Is he concerned that they might also fall through the net?
      Mr. Green: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The agency must be up to the mark in its existing activity in this area—which it has not been up to now. It will have

      423
      an extra load put upon it by the extra number of sites that will be included. As my hon. Friend rightly says, many of those will be small businesses or farmers who may not be particularly sophisticated in dealing with paperwork. It is all the more important that the Environment Agency knows that it has the system and the resources to cope with the new burden that we will put on it.
      Of the 202 licences which have expired, are there any instances where the site operator has, not unreasonably, walked away and shut up shop? He may have thought that the licence had expired and, therefore, that nothing else could happen legally. Are there instances of anyone walking away, leaving a hole to be filled?
      The Minister has said that one of the reasons for the new clause and the amendments is to validate past activities. I am not clear from the clause, or from the Minister's helpful letter, whether they also validate the past inactivity of people who may not have fulfilled all their obligations in closing down a site—quite inadvertently. Will those people be liable for prosecution?
      My underlying point is the extreme delicacy of introducing retrospective legislation. Clearly, this clause is well intentioned and I accept the Minister's good faith. But however we wrap it up, it is retrospective legislation, and we should tread extremely warily when we go down that route. Will anyone be liable to any fees, penalties or other obligations under the new clause which they would not be subject to were the clause and amendments not to pass? If so, the House should pause at that point.
      As a matter of principle, we should be reluctant to endorse retrospective legislation which imposes any new obligations, particularly if, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has pointed out, some of the recipients are small businesses. It is clear from what the Minister said that anyone who has got caught up in this is likely to have been so inadvertently and cannot be blamed.
      The new clause makes it clear that it will not affect any criminal proceedings that have been concluded before the Act comes into force. Are there any on-going proceedings that would be affected? Have there been prosecutions for non-compliance with a licence that the Environment Agency and the person operating it wrongly thought to be in force? Has the Minister considered the legal complications involved if someone had apparently not complied with the terms of a licence that had in fact already expired? The Environment Agency would be vulnerable to judicial review.
      4.30 pm
      Perhaps most importantly, what changes will be made in the Environment Agency to ensure that such a mistake does not happen again? It is clearly embarrassing for all involved that the loophole has emerged. It is serendipitous that the House is proceeding with a Bill that allows that loophole to be closed relatively easily. The Bill and the new clause give extra powers to regulators such as the Environment Agency, and I am sure that the House will want to know that the agency's processes have been improved to ensure that no more loopholes appear.
      Mr. Tom Brake: I, too, thank the Minister for writing to me in advance explaining
      424
      the reasons for the new clause. It is obvious that the loophole must be closed, so my party will support the new clause. Waste operators must not be allowed to walk away from their responsibilities because of a drafting error.
      I am surprised that the loophole was missed. It may be an unfair question to ask the Minister, because he was not responsible, but why were 12 per cent. of the licences simply forgotten about? Did something happen back in 1990 to cause that? As the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said, why has it taken so long to identify the problem?
      I look forward to the Minister's response to the question about prosecution for inadvertent noncompliance. That is an interesting point. I understand from his office that there have been no cases, but I would like him to confirm that.
      Mr. Meale: I am grateful to the hon. Members for Ashford (Mr. Green) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) for their questions, which clearly need answers before we proceed.
      For the benefit of those who do not know the full facts about the number of licences around, the latest figures are that there are 7,353 licences in England and Wales, 202 of which, as the hon. Member for Ashford rightly said, have expired but are being treated as though they were still in force, and 677 of which will expire in the future. That means that 879 licences—12 per cent. of the total, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said—will be subject to the effects of the new clause and the amendments. There is no problem with expired licences in Scotland, but there may be some licences—estimated to be fewer than 100—with time limits that may expire in the future.
      I was asked about retrospection and whether the new clause would be unfair on businesses. I repeat that it is a criminal offence to dispose of waste without a waste management licence. In cases in which a business has been disposing of waste after the expiry of its licence, the new clause will validate those activities and remove the threat of criminal liability to both the licence holder and to third parties who have transferred waste in good faith.
      I was also asked why the loophole has come to light now. It did so because we now have a national body, the Environment Agency, which can identify national issues such as this. Before the establishment of the Environment Agency in April 1996, there were 83 separate waste regulation authorities in England and Wales. As soon as the issue came to light in one of its areas, the agency carried out an urgent review to establish the national scale of the problem. The chairman of the agency informed the Department of the results of that review on 19 May. We considered carefully the implications, and our conclusion was that there was a serious problem that needed to be resolved during the passage of the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Ashford also asked about site operators and whether the new clause would mean that they would be able to abandon their sites and walk away from their responsibilities. On the contrary, the purpose of the new clause is to apply the polluter pays principle and, by doing so, to ensure that all licences are subject to provisions under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Under section 39 of that Act, licence holders must apply to the Environment Agency to surrender their licences.

      425
      The agency is precluded from accepting that surrender unless it is satisfied that environmental pollution or harm to human health is unlikely to occur.
      I was asked whether the problem was the Environment Agency's fault. While the Government recognise the difficulties faced by the agency in the past three years, it is a matter of concern to us that the situation arose. We have made those concerns known to the chairman of the agency and it is also our intention to require the agency to review all the affected licences within the next 12 months to ensure that they are all fully up to srcatch.
      The question was raised of reimbursement of the charges that were levied. We do not agree that that will be necessary, and legal advice obtained from the Environment Agency is that a right to repayment of charges may arise if we do not enact the new clause. I repeat that even though the licences were not in place, the inspection formula was, and all the sites were being examined during the whole period.
      I was also asked about prosecutions by the agency in connection with expired licences. We have no uncompleted criminal proceedings and no completed proceedings.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: I apologise for having missed my hon. Friend's initial speech, but I was in Committee. I understand the point that there have been no prosecutions of people for not having site licences in the past. Have there been any prosecutions for assumed violations of site licences that were not in place? Is it possible for the House, perhaps through the Library, to obtain information about the 202 sites involved?
      Mr. Meale: So far, the agency's review has revealed no prosecutions on the basis of expired licences, nor any penalties levied. The new clause is retrospective and would apply in such cases.
      The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) asked about the burden that the new clause would place on businesses. The necessary legislation was already in place and the agency carried out inspections thoroughly throughout the period. The amendments will ensure that those inspections are validated and that the process is continued.
      Finally, I can tell the hon. Member for Ashford that the Government are confident that the Environment Agency provides a system that can deal with these matters fairly and justly and ensure that the public are protected.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second Time, and added to the Bill.

    Schedule 1

      PARTICULAR PURPOSES FOR WHICH PROVISION MAY BE MADE UNDER SECTION 2
      Mr. Meale: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 7, line 41, after 'information', insert '—
      (i)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 2.
      Mr. Meale: During the Committee proceedings on the Bill, we had an excellent debate about the public's right
      426
      to full information about the pollution in their midst. That was in response to amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake).
      Pollution is an intrusion. For the moment, it is impossible and unrealistic to eliminate it altogether, but the least that people can expect is to be fully informed about exactly what the factory down the road is putting into their community, street and homes.
      In May, we launched the Environment Agency's new pollution inventory. People now have access to up-to-date information about emissions from the installations that the agency regulates under the integrated pollution control regime. It is proving extremely popular: the inventory website is receiving an average of 700 to 800 visits a week.
      It is our ambition that it should be even more informative. I know from our debate in Committee and from the correspondence that the Department has received that there is a great deal of support among Labour and Liberal Democrat Members for expanding the inventory.
      The Environment Agency will shortly be consulting on extending the inventory to cover the landfill sites and sewage works that it regulates. I am pleased to announce that my Department will be consulting on the possibility of including information on emissions from the 13,000 or so installations that local authorities regulate under the local air pollution control system.
      Mr. Green: The Minister says that information will be gathered from the 13,000 sites regulated by local authorities. That will add another burden on those authorities, so do the Government propose to give them any money to meet the extra costs involved?
      Mr. Meale: The hon. Gentleman and I know that Ministers, regardless of how lowly or powerful they are, cannot give such cost commitments. However, we are confident that the mechanism that is in place will allow local authorities to regulate under the local air pollution control system, and to generate the information that we require so that people can access it centrally.
      4.45 pm
      We shall not prejudge the consultation's outcome, but shall listen carefully to what industry says about costs or any other implications. The Bill contains the power to cover additional installations, but does not permit information to be gathered on energy use and the destination of waste from installations. Those matters are the subjects of amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which are enabling provisions.
      Energy use is an area already crowded with policy initiatives, and we hesitate to add more without careful thought. A great deal of information will be produced because of the energy efficiency requirements of the new integrated pollution prevention and control regime. There are negotiated agreements on energy use and it is possible that carbon trading regimes may be established. It is by no means certain whether further measures for information gathering will be necessary, but it would be sensible to take the opportunity that the Bill provides to enable such information to be gathered in future.
      Mr. Green: Is the Minister saying that the amendments are being inserted in the Bill at this late stage even though

      427
      the Government think that they may not be necessary? Are the Government tacking an enabling power on to the Bill without having any intention of implementing it? I may have misunderstood the Minister, but that is what he seemed to say.
      Mr. Meale: No. The amendments are enabling amendments. It is better to include any expansion in the scope of the inventory in the Bill so that we can achieve it if possible. Expansion would be considered only after thorough consideration of the costs and benefits and after full consultation. Our key concern will be to place the minimum burden on those providing information. We would not expect businesses to have to track the journey of their waste through its multifarious stages.
      We are keen to promote continued development of the pollution inventory, but at a sensible pace and after proper dialogue. Our first priority is to consult on broadening the scope to cover landfill sites, sewage works and local authority-regulated installations. We may later consider including energy and waste information. The Government are committed to modernising Britain by involving people more closely in decisions that affect their lives and by changing the culture of secrecy that has prevailed until now. Access to information about pollution is vital to a fair, modern and open society. In the United States, it has become a powerful force for environmental improvement, and the same will be true in the UK when the Bill becomes law.
      Mr. Green: The Minister's introduction has left me more alarmed than I was when I read the amendments. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) is not here because the amendments seem to be a partial victory for her. In Committee, she tabled a more detailed amendment proposing a long list of new obligations on firms to provide information. The Minister for the Environment instructed his troops to vote against that amendment, but said that he would consider it sympathetically. I had looked forward to hearing whether the hon. Lady would be satisfied by the Government's partial move in her direction. Perhaps the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) will tell us whether he is satisfied.
      The Minister introduced a new and disturbing point in his remarks. The Government appear to be including in the Bill powers that may or may not be worth while and may or may not place onerous responsibilities on business. That flatly contradicts what the Minister for the Environment said repeatedly in Committee, which was that trying to define matters too closely on the face of a Bill such as this was bad practice and would lead to inflexibility.
      The Opposition tabled various sensible amendments to tone down the powers of the Secretary of State. We were constantly told that putting such provisions on the face of the Bill would lead to inflexibility and clog up parliamentary proceedings. Having insisted on that, it is not good enough for the Government to table amendments that would do precisely the same and add new and possibly onerous burdens on business without any particular intent, or certainly any explanation of why those are urgently needed now when they were not needed during any of the previous lengthy stages in the passage of this Bill.
      428
      During the passage of the Bill, we discussed the necessary balance for the provision of information to enable an intelligent debate about environmental issues. The idea that the more information was provided the more likely we were to avoid some of the more hysterical debates that sometimes arise on environmental matters was certainly non-controversial on both sides of the Committee. Ministers agreed that one needed a balance and there was not simply a right to completely free information. Indeed, the Government introduced a clause to allow commercial confidentiality to be used as a reason for not providing information in certain circumstances.
      When the Minister replies, I want him to consider the costs that will be put on business and, possibly, agricultural and other operators by gathering the information that is required under the amendments. Amendment No. 2 would gather information
      "on energy consumption and on the efficiency with which energy is used".
      Those will be interesting statistics and, in the long run, they will no doubt be useful. However, are we expecting everyone who runs a pig farm to gather that sort of information? While that will not be an onerous burden for big and sophisticated businesses, it could be extremely onerous for smaller businesses. It is not clear from what the Minister said that he has done any sensible cost-benefit analysis of what those provisions would involve and of the full extent of the obligations. The efficiency with which energy is used can cover a multitude of measurements. It is not clear from the Bill how much detail will need to be provided.
      Similarly, the Government will be entitled to information
      "on waste within the meaning of the regulations and on the destinations of such waste".
      Does that mean the immediate, the ultimate or all the intermediate destinations?
      Since one of our objections to the Bill throughout has been that it would give Ministers powers that are too sweeping, the amendment is a step in the wrong direction. This is the Bill at its worst. Presumably, to give some sort of sop to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North as I said, the Government have decided to add a little more information. They have not thought through what that will mean in practice; still less are they defining the practical effects.
      The Minister has said that these are simply enabling provisions, but enabling provisions that do not appear to be based in anything concrete and do not have any particularly urgent purpose can be dangerous. It is deeply regrettable that he has introduced such an amendment at this late stage.
      Mr. Brake: I speak in favour of the amendments that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and I drafted. Obviously, I am disappointed that, in response to the question posed by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), the Minister has not accepted the full-blown amendment, but I consider it a partial victory that the Government have taken on board some elements of that amendment. That will widen the scope of the available information about emissions, to include, as the amendment suggests, "energy consumption" and "efficiency". At a time when we are discussing climate change and the reduction of carbon dioxide, it is most important that we know those figures.

      429
      The amendment will help to identify waste and its destination. The Government are—or should be—pushing hard to reduce the amount of waste that is generated, and to reuse or recycle waste where possible. The information will be helpful in that respect. The information is needed and it will be used. I hoped that the amendment would receive the support of Members on both sides of the House, but that appears not to be the case. I shall support the amendment.
      Mr. Gray: I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) about some of the implications of the amendments. They fulfil some of the primary requirements of all new Labour measures—to be centralising, to collect information and to be bureaucratic. They go a long way towards providing information that statisticians and the Office for National Statistics may find useful in some future analysis. However, they will not do much to help reduce pollution in the United Kingdom, which is, presumably, the main purpose of the Bill.
      There is no upside, but the amendments seem to have some potential downsides. We are talking about quite small businesses, as I pointed out in my earlier intervention, which may be relatively unsophisticated. Some of the pig farmers and chicken farmers in my constituency will be affected by the Bill; they will face significant bureaucratic problems in making available to the Government every piece of information relating to what they have done with the products of their farms. I will not give a graphic account of those products on this occasion. As a result of the Bill, farmers, who may be on their uppers, will already be faced with some bureaucratic interference. The amendments will mean that they have to undertake more paperwork for no particular reason.
      We have just debated new clause 1, which tries to put right the anomaly that 12 per cent. of all sites that should have been licensed have not been licensed. The point was made that the measure will affect relatively unsophisticated businesses, which—through no fault of their own—have apparently failed to license their site, or have failed to renew their licence. We are now discussing the establishment of a new, bureaucratic and centralised regime that will require those same businesses to produce complicated information for no purpose, apart from satisfying the curiosity of the Office for National Statistics.
      There is no upside, but potentially a large downside to the amendments. In that context, I am concerned about the possible costs. Accountants and bureaucrats of all sorts will be involved. People will have to be employed—perhaps lawyers. There will be costs involved in the production of the information. More important, it is worrying that if businesses fail to provide—through some slip, or through overwork, or lack of sophistication—the information that is demanded of them, there might be penalties. What will those penalties be? In years to come, my constituents may find that, if they fail—through no fault of their own—to comply with the requirements of the Bill, they will be taken to court and penalised. That may cost them significant amounts. Unless the Minister can explain the measures more clearly than he did in his introductory remarks—which I found rather difficult to follow—it seems that they will result in considerable costs for my constituents.
      430
      The amendments will achieve very little. I hope that the Minister will be able to advise the House of the purpose of the amendments and of the safeguards for small businesses—especially the chicken and pig farmers in my constituency who may be affected.
      5 pm
      Mr. Meale: I shall respond to hon. Members' queries, the first of which came from the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who is leading the debate for the Opposition. He asked why we are introducing a detailed amendment at this late stage. The Bill has always allowed for the extension of the pollution inventory. The amendments respond to specific points made by hon. Members in Committee and cover information about energy and waste.
      The hon. Gentleman implied that the pollution inventory simply piles extra burdens on businesses. We are discussing cases in which owners of businesses say to their neighbours, "In the interests of my business, I shall have to put this substance into your home." I accept that, to a certain extent, we tolerate that practice as the price of living and working together as a community. However, it is clearly unacceptable for the same business owners to say that it is too much of an effort for them to be courteous enough even to explain what the substance is. The pollution inventory is a fair and proper initiative which should be introduced.
      Mr. John Gummer: I am striving to understand the Minister. I agree with him in principle, so I am not being antagonistic, but if the pollution inventory is so important, why did not the Government originally include it in the Bill? I have come late to the debate, and I apologise to the House for that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, when the Government table such an amendment this late in the proceedings, many hon. Members who are concerned that they should understand it have to go to a great deal of trouble to be present. Will the Minister explain why the pollution inventory is being included in the Bill so late in the proceedings if it is as important as he says?
      Mr. Meale: It is very simple. We have responded to hon. Members from both sides of the House who urged us, in Committee, to take that action. We listened, we learned and we adopted that proposal.
      I turn now to the accusation that the benefits do not justify the costs. Information about energy use could be of great benefit. For example, it could bring best practice to the fore and promote the spread of energy efficiency measures, which would cut costs for businesses and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, more information about quantities and patterns of waste disposal can only help our efforts to minimise waste, thereby saving money and improving our environment.
      Any proposal to use the powers would proceed only in the light of a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis and full consultation with industry and, of course, other interested groups. As I said earlier, we shall proceed with the expansion of the inventory at a sensible pace.
      Mr. Green: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall speak again. I am impelled to do so by the Minister's non-explanation for the amendments. He

      431
      said simultaneously that they are tremendously important and will help to cut greenhouse gas emissions and have various other effects, which Conservative Members think desirable, and that a cost-benefit analysis will happen at some unspecified time in the future.
      It is not appropriate for Ministers to come to the House with legislation and say vaguely that it will be helpful to business, increase the provision of information and benefit the environment, and then to say casually, "At some time in the future, we shall try to gather the facts that may or may not back up the assertions that we have just made."
      Ministers are doing things in completely the wrong order. Not only are the amendments being introduced at a peculiarly late stage in our considerations of the Bill, but Ministers have had several weeks since the Committee proceedings to respond to the suggestions made to them, and they appear not to have gone to the trouble of gathering any facts to back up the sop that they giving to the Liberal Democrats and Labour Back Benchers.
      The explanation for the amendments is inadequate, and I invite the House to vote against them.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 335, Noes 132.

      Division No. 239]

      [5.4 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Burgon, Colin

      Ainger, Nick

      Burnett, John

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Alexander, Douglas

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Allan, Richard

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Ashton, Joe

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cann, Jamie

      Austin, John

      Caplin, Ivor

      Ballard, Jackie

      Casale, Roger

      Banks, Tony

      Caton, Martin

      Barnes, Harry

      Cawsey, Ian

      Barron, Kevin

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Chaytor, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Chidgey, David

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Clapham, Michael

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Benton, Joe

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Berry, Roger

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Best, Harold

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Betts, Clive

      Clelland, David

      Blackman, Liz

      Coaker, Vernon

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cohen, Harry

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Coleman, Iain

      Brake, Tom

      Colman, Tony

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Connarty, Michael

      Breed, Colin

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon(Dunfermline E)

      Corbett, Robin

      Cotter, Brian

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cox, Tom

      Browne, Desmond

      Crausby, David

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Burden, Richard

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      432

      Cummings, John

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack(Copeland)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Hurst, Alan

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hutton, John

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Illsley, Eric

      Darvill, Keith

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jamieson, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Dowd, Jim

      Drew, David

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Edwards, Huw

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Efford, Clive

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Etherington, Bill

      Keetch, Paul

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Kemp, Fraser

      Fisher, Mark

      Khabra, Piara S

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kidney, David

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Flint, Caroline

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Flynn, Paul

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Follett, Barbara

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Laxton, Bob

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lepper, David

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foulkes, George

      Levitt, Tom

      Fyfe, Maria

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Galloway, George

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Gapes, Mike

      Linton, Martin

      Gardiner, Barry

      Livingstone, Ken

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Livsey, Richard

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Love, Andrew

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Godsiff, Roger

      McCabe, Steve

      Goggins, Paul

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gorrie, Donald

      McDonnell, John

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Grogan, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Gunnell, John

      McNulty, Tony

      Hain, Peter

      MacShane, Denis

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McWilliam, John

      Hancock, Mike

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hanson, David

      Mallaber, Judy

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Healey, John

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Heppell, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Martlew, Eric

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Maxton, John

      Hill, Keith

      Meale, Alan

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Merron, Gillian

      Hood, Jimmy

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Moffatt, Laura

      433

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

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

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Snape, Peter

      Norris, Dan

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Oaten, Mark

      Spellar, John

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Olner, Bill

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      O'Neill, Martin

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Öpik, Lembit

      Stevenson, George

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Pearson, Ian

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Pendry, Tom

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Stringer, Graham

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pike, Peter L

      Stunell, Andrew

      Plaskitt, James

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pollard, Kerry

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pond, Chris

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pope, Greg

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Timms, Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Todd, Mark

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Touhig, Don

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Trickett, Jon

      Purchase, Ken

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Rammell, Bill

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Rapson, Syd

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Tyler, Paul

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wallace, James

      Rooker, Jeff

      Watts, David

      Rooney, Terry

      Webb, Steve

      Rowlands, Ted

      Welsh, Andrew

      Ruane, Chris

      White, Brian

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Salter, Martin

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Sawford, Phil

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wilson, Brian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Winnick, David

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wise, Audrey

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wood, Mike

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Wyatt, Derek

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Singh, Marsha

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Jane Kennedy

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Butterfill, John

      Amess, David

      Cash, William

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Baldry, Tony

      Chope, Christopher

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Clappison, James

      Body, Sir Richard

      Collins, Tim

      Boswell, Tim

      Colvin, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Brady, Graham

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Brazier, Julian

      Day, Stephen

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Duncan, Alan

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Burns, Simon

      Evans, Nigel

      434

      Fabricant, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Fallon, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Norman, Archie

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fraser, Christopher

      Page, Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Paice, James

      Garnier, Edward

      Pickles, Eric

      Gibb, Nick

      Prior, David

      Gill, Christopher

      Randall, John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gray, James

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Green, Damian

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Greenway, John

      Ruffley, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Noriolk)

      Hammond, Philip

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hawkins, Nick

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Spring, Richard

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Steen, Anthony

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Streeter, Gary

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Swayne, Desmond

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Syms, Robert

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Key, Robert

      Tredinnick, David

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Trend, Michael

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Viggers, Peter

      Lansley, Andrew

      Walter, Robert

      Letwin, Oliver

      Wardle, Charles

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lidington, David

      Wells, Bowen

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Loughton, Tim

      Whittingdale, John

      Luff, Peter

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Wilkinson, John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Willetts, David

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Wilshire, David

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Woodward, Shaun

      Madel, Sir David

      Yeo, Tim

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Malins, Humfrey

      Maples, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mates, Michael

      Mrs. Jacqui Lait and

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 2, in page 7, line 41, at end insert—
      '(ii) on energy consumption and on the efficiency with which energy is used;
      (iii) on waste within the meaning of the regulations and on the destinations of such waste;'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Schedule 2

      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 3, in page 10, line 37, at end insert—
      ' In section 77(2) (waste disposal licences: transition from Part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974), at the beginning insert "Subject to section (Time-limited disposal or waste management licences) of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999,".'.
      No. 4, in page 10, line 39, after first 'I', insert 'of the Act'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

      Title
      Amendment made: No. 5, in title, line 2, after 'pollution;', insert
      'to make provision about certain expired or expiring disposal or waste management licences;'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
      Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
      5.19 pm
      Mr. Meale: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      We believe that the Bill will bring significant improvements to the system of environmental regulation. When it is approved, we shall have a more comprehensive, coherent and flexible set of regimes, and with the integrated pollution prevention and control directive it will be part of a level European playing field for all our industries and communities.
      5.19 pm
      Mr. Green: As the Bill reaches its final phase, it is a shame that the Minister could not give a more substantive account of its various phases. It is worth noting how rocky its passage has been. The Government's first attempt to introduce the Bill in another place had to be withdrawn after the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation said that it was a skeleton Bill and inappropriate for the delegation of secondary powers. Their Lordships took the Bill radically to task.
      It would be churlish not to admit that, since then, the Bill has improved as it has gone through its various stages. It is worth the House acknowledging that, in large part, that is a tribute to the existence of an independent second Chamber, which provides a range of expertise, knowledge and experience, not least from former Members of this House, who improved the Bill as it went through the other place. We tried to improve it in Committee, but of course the Government used their majority to reject our efforts. As we have just seen, they have continued to use their majority, in some cases to make the Bill marginally worse.
      Mr. Gummer: Did my hon. Friend notice that the Government's majority was two down on what it might have been, because two senior Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions were not present for the Division? Might that be because they, too, did not understand the Minister's explanation of his amendment, which was as opaque as any explanation that I have ever heard?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are on Third Reading, and we would not want to dwell on amendments that have already been disposed of.
      Mr. Green: I shall not dwell, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall merely ponder why Ministers in the Department could not turn up to vote for their own Bill.
      Mr. Meale: I feel obliged to comment on that. One of the reasons that Ministers were not present for the vote
      436
      was that they would have had to travel from Eland house in Victoria. I understand that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was partly responsible for the Department moving there.
      Mr. Green: I greatly regret that London's traffic jams have become so bad under this Government that Ministers cannot get from their Department to the House to take part in an unexpected vote. That did not happen when my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was running the Department, because traffic was running better in London then than it is now. I am grateful to the Minister for pointing that out. It is the first honest admission about transport that we have had from those on the Government Front Bench for some time—they have admitted that it has got worse under them.
      At no stage have we opposed the principle of the Bill. It was a Conservative Government who signed up to the European directive on which its good parts are based. We recognise that much pollution, particularly air-borne and water-borne pollution, can be tackled only on a supranational level. We were happy to sign up to the directive and supported the Government's intention to put it into effect at national level.
      At every stage we have sought to improve the Bill and although we have succeeded to some extent, thanks to their Lordships, we have not done enough for our own satisfaction or, more important, for those who will be most affected by it, including many of the new businesses, particularly farmers, that will be brought under its provisions.
      It is appropriate on Third Reading for me to go through our main reservations about the Bill. Perhaps the most fundamental is a constitutional objection. The Bill gives far too much disrcetionary power to the Secretary of State. Under clause 1, he can regulate
      "emissions capable of causing any…pollution."
      That is an absurdly wide power to give to a Secretary of State.
      Of course, we know that most Secretaries of State would not interpret that as widely as the Bill would allow, but it is not a principle of good legislation to write into the Bill such a wide power for a Minister. For example, naturally occurring chemicals such as radon or some dioxins are pollutants. They occur naturally in the atmosphere, but they would fall under the powers given to the Secretary of State. Is he to play God and regulate the natural world? I know that the Deputy Prime Minister has some delusions of grandeur, but I do not believe that even he would go that far. As the Bill is drafted, breathing out could be regulated by the Secretary of State as a polluting activity. I invite the Minister to consider whether this is good legislation.
      A secondary point is that too much is left to regulation, and not enough is written into the Bill. Perhaps most dangerous is the fact that, under the Bill, new criminal offences can be created through secondary legislation. That is an extremely dubious constitutional practice.
      Most people have a concept of Parliament making law and the citizens obeying the law. They believe that we in Parliament are here to discuss the details of laws and to pass laws. There is a set of law enforcement agencies that enforce them. To allow Parliament to be bypassed in the

      437
      creation of criminal offences could have serious consequences, which I hope the Government do not live to regret.
      My reservations have been strengthened by the paean to regulation offered by the Minister for the Environment on Second Reading, when he spoke lovingly of
      "a flexible, interactive form of regulation"—[Official Report, 8 June 1999: Vol. 332, c. 502.]
      He became almost lyrical about the type of regulation that the Bill would introduce.
      I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is sincerely and passionately devoted to regulating business. I shall quote his exact words, as there was some controversy between us about what he had said. He stated:
      "We do not, in principle, favour deregulation as such."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 June 1999; c. 24.]
      That is what he said and I am sure that that is what he meant. That statement clearly has wider implications, but it has particular implications for the Bill.
      We all want an integrated pollution control system, but to gain wide acceptance throughout the community such a system must be respected by those being regulated. If they think that it is unfair or arbitrary, they will object and try to get around the rules. People think that laws are fair partly because they think that the laws have been passed properly by Parliament, after discussion. The Bill allows Parliament, and this Chamber in particular, to be bypassed in the discussion of laws. In the long run, that will not contribute to a good system of integrated pollution control.
      Our second main objection is the fact that the Bill gold-plates the European directive to an alarming degree. I have already said that we signed the directive and have no objection to its being put into national law. However, we object to the fact that the Government have taken the opportunity to add wide powers to be taken by the Secretary of State through secondary legislation and in other administrative ways. We do not need such wide powers in order to implement the directive. Clause 1(1)(b) and (c) refer specifically to activities other than those listed in the directive. That is straightforward gold-plating, giving the Secretary of State wide disrcetionary powers.
      We have not yet had a convincing explanation why clause 1 is drafted so widely. This is the last chance that we shall have, so we should let the Minister explain to us why the Bill does not do what it purports to do—implement the directive—but goes much further. I should be fascinated to know why the Government think that the Bill needs to be drawn so much more widely than the directive requires.
      Many businesses have a reasonable fear that the ground of regulation is shifting in ways that will become increasingly arbitrary. For newcomers to the Bill, that is the great BATNEEC versus BAT debate—the best available technology not entailing excessive costs versus the best available techniques. There is a clear difference. We have had many fairly theological debates about whether there is a difference. Ministers have claimed at various stages that there is no difference, that there is minimal difference, that there is no practical difference, or that there is only a small difference. But the language itself is different.
      Not entailing excessive costs is a clear limit on the regulation which business can understand. BAT involves many more weasel words—that the best available
      438
      techniques should be used bearing in mind the likely costs and benefits of a measure and the principles of precaution and prevention. I should be delighted if the two meant the same thing but, as they stand, they do not. I should be pleased if the Minister took advantage of his last chance to give a detailed explanation of the practical difference between BATNEEC and BAT. It may sound rarefied, but jokes are already emerging about what that will mean.
      A parody of BATNEEC has already appeared called CATNIP—the cheapest available technology not involving prosecution. We all hope that businesses will not go down that route. There is a danger that if people do not think that a regulation is fair, they will try to evade it or bend the rules, and that would not benefit anyone. It would not benefit the law nor the environment. We want people to think that the regulations are fair so that they will obey them implicitly, both in the spirit and the letter. My real worry about the Bill is that people will think that the regulation is unfair and, therefore, seek to evade it rather than to apply it enthusiastically.
      We welcome the principles behind the Bill and acknowledge that it has been improved on its rather tortuous route through both Houses, but we still have reservations about how it will work in practice. I assure the Minister that we shall monitor its effects with great care to ensure that businesses are not over-regulated and that it achieves its underlying purpose of improving pollution prevention and control. We want to see the Bill work. We hope that it will, but we are not sure that the Government have given it the best chance of doing so.
      5.33 pm
      Mr. Gray: It is a pleasure to participate in the Third Reading debate of this flimsy little Bill. I followed its progress from its introduction in the other place to its Second Reading here but, sadly, I was unable to serve on its Standing Committee because of commitments elsewhere. However, I have watched its progress with some interest.
      It is extremely disappointing that, two and half years into this green Government's hold on power, this is the first environmental Bill that they have introduced—and what a flimsy little thing it is. The Government could have done something about air pollution in a much bigger way, or about water pollution. Their tiny Bill on water charging did not mention water purity. They have introduced no other environmental legislation. That stands in stark contrast to their claims before the general election that they would be the greenest Government ever. I think that the expression was that every piece of legislation would have a green tinge. They said that they would be greener than green, but we have seen only this flimsy little Bill, which merely enacts something which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) rightly points out was initiated by the previous Conservative Government.
      The Conservative Government signed up to the European legislation which requires this Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is in the Chamber this afternoon, was then Secretary of State for the Environment and I was one of his two special advisers. It should not be inferred from that that we necessarily agreed on the measure. I seem to recall that I advised my right hon. Friend that I thought that his proposed action would not be sensible, to which he said, "That is precisely why I intend to do it."

      439
      But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford rightly said, it was the Conservative Government's idea, and this little Bill merely puts that into effect. However, it does so with some significant downsides.
      The Bill has not been thought through properly. The original Bill was badly flawed, as was pointed out in a number of procedural ways in the other place, largely by my noble Friends. Some significant amendments were made to the Bill there, so that when it came to be debated on Second Reading in this House it was marginally better. However, having gone through a lengthy and turbulent process in both Houses, the Bill still has some significant flaws, which is a real worry.
      First, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford correctly highlighted the centralising power in the Bill. It gives the Secretary of State extraordinary powers that he has not had before. It is not exactly a Henry VIII Bill, but it is along those lines. It says, "I, the Secretary of State, know what is good for the country and for air and water pollution. I do not need to put it in the Bill and spell out what we intend with regard to regulation. I need only sit in my room and decide what will be regulated and how that will be done." Some of the centralising powers that the Secretary of State accrued to himself were watered down in the other place, which I welcome, but, none the less, the powers given by the Bill to the Secretary of State are typical of new Labour, which says, "We know best. We are the nanny state. We are the bosses. We understand what the world needs. We don't intend to discuss it with the world. We don't intend to go out to consultation. We don't intend to put details in a Bill which can be read and whose processes can be followed in Parliament."
      Ministers in their eyrie, high in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, will decide what is best and lay it down by regulation. Admittedly, on this occasion, they will do so by affirmative rather than negative resolution, but it still has the stamp of the control freak so typical of new Labour.
      In particular, the Opposition are concerned about a number of detailed effects that the Bill will have on businesses, both large, small and agricultural. Large businesses already largely comply with the Bill. I would be surprised if many did not already do so, although some may not, in which case they will doubtless welcome the strength of the Bill to remind them what they have to do. However, the number of sites to be regulated has been increased from 1,000 to 6,000, and the 4,000 extra sites are largely small businesses. They are the very businesses least able to understand the Bill and to conform with it.
      During the Bill's passage through the other place, the Federation of Small Businesses raised its severe concerns about the Bill with the Government but, far from taking note of that and inviting the representatives of the federation in to discuss the Bill's implications for small businesses, the Government failed to acknowledge the federation's letter and it has attacked the Government fundamentally for that.
      On Second Reading, I invited the Government to say what they intended to do to ensure that the Bill did not bear down particularly heavily on small businesses. I invite the Minister again today to tell us what he has done during the month or two since Second Reading to consult the Federation of Small Businesses and others.
      440
      I would be interested to know if they have had a meeting. It would be useful if they had. I hope that he has invited its representatives in and, if so, I welcome the fact that he listened to the Opposition's recommendation. I should like to know what he said to them and what they said to him, and what, in particular, he intends to do when the Bill becomes law to ensure that it does not bear down particularly heavily on small businesses.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford raised the issue of the difference between BATNEEC, or best available technology not entailing excessive costs, and BAT, or best available techniques. I certainly feel that nothing could be more sensible than to provide the best available techniques without excessive expenditure. It must be sensible to say, "Let us work out the cost-benefit analysis. We are not going to gold-plate our environmental provisions. We want the country to be as clean as it can be, we want the air to be as clean as it can be, and we want the water to be as clean as it can be. However, we will be cautious in implementing that. We will consider how much this will cost business, and how much the economy will be damaged by the achievement of demonstrably worthwhile environmental ends."
      I enjoyed my hon. Friend's reference to CATNIP, an acronym that I shall use in the future. I do not think that the Government are considering the damaging effect on business; they are merely paying lip service to environmental benefit. Cost-benefit analysis should be involved in all environmental legislation, but I suspect that the Bill tends towards gold-plating.
      I am concerned about the effects of the Bill on certain businesses. The small businesses on which it will bear down are not belching fumes into the air. We are talking about, for instance, small landfill sites and small farmers. On Second Reading, the Minister suggested that the chicken and pig farmers that the Bill would affect were large farmers. By no means are they large farmers; they are very much towards the small end of the spectrum. The average chicken farm and the average pig farm will be affected.
      What consultations has the Minister had with bodies other than the Federation of Small Businesses—the National Farmers Union, and the Country Landowners Association—to discuss the effect on our hard-pressed farming industry? Thanks to what the Government have done to them, these people are on their knees in any event; this may be the straw that breaks their backs. It is easy to knock the landfill operators, but many are struggling to provide a worthwhile service, and the Bill will bring extra pressures to bear on them.
      The effect of the Bill on farmers involves a curious conundrum. The Labour party is in favour of outdoor farrowing, because it thinks that it is green and more organic. It would also like more free-range hens, because that system sounds better and suits it better. I am not sure that the party understands the implications of either system. The truth is, however, that if pigs are outdoors, it is almost impossible to control what happens to their dung. The only way to control a pig's dung is to keep the pig indoors, standing on slats. The dung falls through the slats on to the concrete floor below and is easily removed.
      The same applies to chickens. If chickens are out of doors or in barns, it is almost impossible to separate their dung from the earth, or from the soil at the bottom of the barn. The conditions laid down by the Bill are therefore

      441
      difficult to apply. The fact is that the less animal-friendly farms are, the easier it will be to comply with the conditions and terms of the Bill. We must think carefully about this. What effect will the Bill have on the pig farmers and chicken farmers in my constituency? Are we, perhaps, driving them towards the establishment of conditions on their farms that, by many other standards, would be considered non-animal friendly?
      We must also consider the conditions that we are imposing on our farmers—in the Bill and elsewhere—to which overseas countries do not conform. It is hardly known that most of the chicken that we eat here is bred in Thailand.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the subject of the debate.
      Mr. Gray: I accept your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point was that, if we bear down heavily on chicken farmers in this country without bearing down equally heavily on chicken farmers in Thailand and France who are competing with ours, we are doing our chicken farmers a disservice.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is what I was trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman. What he is saying is wide of the Third Reading debate.
      Mr. Gray: I understand your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am simply saying that, if we are considering allowing the Bill to become law, and if it affects pig and chicken farmers in my constituency and elsewhere in England—I am certain that it will, because of the constraints involving the clearing up of dung—we should surely consider whether the same provisions will apply to the overseas farmers with whom we are competing.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman that this is the final stage of the Bill's passage. If he was concerned about these matters, he could have raised them in amendments or on Second Reading. What he cannot do is go wide of the Third Reading debate.
      Mr. Gray: I happily accept your admonitions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not least because I assume that my colleagues will take part in our next debate on the subject. [Interruption.] Of course, they may well take part in this debate in the meantime.
      Conservative Members have no difficulty with the broad principle of the Bill: indeed, we wholeheartedly support it. After all, it was our idea in the first place. None the less, we feel that it has a number of flaws that prevent it from achieving the high standards that we would normally expect of legislation produced by my erstwhile colleagues in the Department. They desrcibe this as a tiny little Bill, tidying up a few loose ends, but I believe that it will have significant consequences for small businesses, for landfill sites and for both chicken and pig farmers.
      This is a gold-plated Bill. It is, as it were, a gold-plated bath, and we are in danger of throwing a number of babies out, along with the gold-plated bath water. Doubtless it will be passed, as will all other Bills in this place; but it is worth recording at this stage that Conservative Members have significant reservations about the way in which it will affect our constituencies.
      5.47 pm
      Mr. Brake: The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill, which will be of major assistance in pollution prevention and control. It has been much improved during its passage through the other place and this House. I am disappointed that the Opposition have not felt able to be more supportive, although I am not entirely surprised. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) does not believe in climate change, and the shadow Secretary of State does not believe in traffic calming because it constitutes an impediment.
      I should like the Minister to consider two points. First, I remind him that I am expecting a letter explaining to me whether the arrangements for offshore installations will cover the storage of nuclear waste at sea. That has been discussed in the past. Secondly, I feel that the Bill has missed the opportunity to deal with flawed legislation in the Environment Act 1995, which introduced a new section 2A into the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to deal with contaminated land.
      Unfortunately, the 1995 Act also introduced an anomaly, whereby certain types of environmental harm that are currently the subject of statutory legislation fall outside the scope of existing or new controls. In practice, that applies to circumstances in which significant harm is caused. The new definition will exclude many types of nuisance that are currently controlled, and which do the most harm to the environment and to ecosystems. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and my local authority, the London borough of Sutton, believe that simple amendments to the Bill could have dealt with the problem. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond, although I realise that an amendment is no longer possible. I wish that I had received the information on Second Reading, because the Minister has been receptive to amendments. It was identified as early as 1996 by the Environment Select Committee. I hope that the Minister will pick up that point, or perhaps provide some information on it in the near future.
      I am pleased that the Bill has made swift progress. I look forward to its receiving Royal Assent.
      5.50 pm
      Mr. Gummer: I will not detain the House long, although I am surprised that no Labour Member has bothered to detain the House at all on Third Reading.
      The Bill is important. I congratulate the Government on introducing it. It is largely sensible and intelligent now that it has gone through both Houses. I commend in particular the work in the other House to make the Bill sensible.
      It is important to recognise that pollution is no respecter of national boundaries. There is no possibility of having a national environment policy that could work; we have to work on a larger basis. We contribute half the air pollution that we produce to the rest of Europe, and half the pollution here comes from the rest of Europe, so policy has to be based on the European directive, to which I agreed and which was moulded by the United Kingdom in our role as leader in the environmental world. I am pleased that the Minister has introduced the Bill.
      I found the Minister's explanations of some things incomprehensible; they were rather difficult to follow. I suspect that the Bill has been cobbled together as we

      443
      have gone along. What saddens me is that it could have been much clearer. I say in a spirit of support, rather than opposition: if the legislation is not well founded, we will do great harm to the environmental cause.
      If people are frightened by broad powers that are ill defined, they will not believe, as I want them to believe, in the importance of the environment, but will view it as a heavy burden on them. I therefore beg the Minister and his colleagues to try to be clearer about such Bills, so that people can feel that they want to work with them rather than that the provisions are filled with hidden dangers and hidden fears.
      Some of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) are not as worrying as he may believe them to be, but he is right to raise them. Those are precisely the concerns that arise from so weak a Bill that is so poorly drafted.
      None of us could take much from the comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesman on climate change. As someone who has been fighting for recognition of climate change ever since I have been in politics—I have done so ever since we started to see it—
      Mr. Brake: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gummer: I should like to finish the point first.
      I take it ill that the hon. Gentleman's party refused to support proper efforts to reduce domestic consumption and wastage of energy when that is responsible for 38 per cent. of the energy that is used in this country. The one party that can say nothing about climate change is his party, which has constantly taken the populist view and never done anything that might damage it electorally. That has been not only my view but that of all environmentalists. [Interruption.] I understand very well, so we do not want to hear lectures from the Liberal Democrats.
      All we are saying to the Government is that it is the right Bill to introduce. It is a sensible policy. It is based on a European approach that is exactly right, but can they get away from legislation that frightens people unnecessarily, so that the legislation clearly defines what people's responsibilities are and does not give Governments powers that could be used—not, I am sure, by the Minister—in far too draconian a manner?
      It is not a big thing to ask, but anyone reading the debate, particularly the Minister's answers both in Committee and now, would have to say that ease of understanding is not notable. Indeed, some people have been unkind enough to wonder whether he understood his answer to the House. I would be the last person to say that, but I have read many of the debates and I find it pretty hard to believe that he actually understood the point that he was trying to explain because no one reading the explanation could possibly understand it.
      I ask him very carefully about that simply because, out there, many people want to support the Minister's environmental policy, but can do so only if they feel that he understands their problems, doubts and difficulties and is prepared to reach out to them with an explanation that is comprehensible. In that spirit, I support Third Reading, but I hope that he will try better in future.
      5.55 pm
      Mr. Meale: I shall try to answer the range of queries that were raised. I apologise to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). He was promised a letter on nuclear storage in the sea. I will ensure that that is followed up as quickly as possible. I assure him that the United Kingdom is under an international obligation not to dump nuclear waste at sea. We are consulting on other matters, but I will reply as soon as possible.
      In relation to the hon. Gentleman's query on contaminated lands, I knew nothing about the amendments. I am surprised that they were not tabled. Nevertheless, I understand the point about the lateness of the day. I will take the matter up and write to him on the matter.
      I do not want to disillusion the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). He said that, shortly, breathing would have to be regulated. That could already be done under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which was introduced by a Conservative Government.
      I found absolutely amazing the comment of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that the Government had done very little on the environment; I hope that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) would agree with my analysis. Days after coming into office, the Deputy Prime Minister called a water summit and, from that, laid down a plan of action, which has built on the successes of the previous Government in achieving high-quality water standards. It has enabled the water industry to plan a multi-billion pound investment programme, which will proceed over the next few years.
      Mr. Gray: May I clarify that point? I was not saying that the Government were not green. I wholeheartedly support a number of the things that the Government have done: for example, some of their policies following the Kyoto negotiations. The point that I made was specific: it is the first and only environmental legislation. I was criticising not what the Government have done, but the amount of legislation that they have introduced.
      Mr. Meale: If the hon. Gentleman looks at some of the joined-up government that has been undertaken, and some of the decisions that have been made, he will see that environment policy is having an effect across the board. I remind him—the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal will agree because he attended some of the conferences—that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, with others from all parties, supported all the efforts at the world conferences in Rio and Kyoto, where we reached a level of agreement, and Buenos Aires.
      Mr. Gummer: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Deputy Prime Minister has been commendable in his fight on climate change, particularly in Kyoto and Buenos Aires. The thing that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) was pointing out was that many of us have been waiting for legislation to implement the necessary actions that the conferences recommended. We keep asking for that; it has been two and a half years. I hope that the Minister will be able to find time for such

      445
      legislation. It is not his fault; it is the Chancellor's fault—we know whose fault it is. The Minister is very green. It is just that the Chancellor is not.
      Mr. Meale: All I can say is that we are gaining some momentum in trying to achieve our policies. We are a little quicker in our resolve in relation to the environment than the previous Government, who were in power for 18 years.
      The hon. Member for Ashford said that more small business would be controlled under the Bill. That is because of the coverage of the integrated pollution prevention and control directive, which the previous Government accepted.
      The hon. Member for North Wiltshire asked various questions, the first of which was on the National Farmers Union. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has held extensive discussions with the NFU and raised the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised today—on outdoor pigs, and the Bill's effects on that type of farming. Outdoor pigs will not be controlled under the Bill's provisions.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Small Business Federation and the Country Landowners Association. The Small Business Federation was consulted on the Bill on three occasions, on each of which it was very constructive. I am not quite sure how many times similar contact has been made with the CLA, but departmental officials regularly contact that organisation. However, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and provide some details on the matter.
      I tell the hon. Member for Ashford that the Bill was not withdrawn, but recommitted because of some fairly substantial Government amendments to it, which we tabled to meet the points made by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I should also tell him that the previous Government, in the Environment Act 1995, conferred powers on the Secretary of State to create criminal offences by regulation. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal will remember that Act.
      As for claims that the Bill will confer too much power on the Government, we have ensured that proper parliamentary control will be retained. The regulations
      446
      will be subject to affirmative procedure when they are first made, and thereafter for certain important amendments. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee thought that such provision would be adequate when it considered the Bill. We have also given an undertaking that any future amendments to the regulations that change their provisions and that were previously included in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will be brought before Parliament for consideration under the affirmative procedure.
      There are, moreover, instances in which it is right to replace primary legislation with regulations, as a set of regulations is a much more flexible instrument than primary legislation. It is also clearly in the interests of those being regulated that any problems can be resolved.
      As for claims that the directive is being gold-plated, the Government think that the situation is quite the opposite. We have repeatedly made it clear that the Bill's purpose is to allow coherent implementation of the IPPC directive. Industry would clearly suffer extra costs if it had to continue with two separate pollution-control systems.
      Claims have also been made in the debate that business is worried about additional VAT costs. Labour Members believe that it is a complete myth—it is scaremongering to say—that the directive's use of the term "best available techniques" entails less regard for cost-effectiveness. The United Kingdom's use of the term "best available techniques" includes "not entailing excessive costs". Hon. Members who served in the previous Government, who negotiated that particular directive, should know that.
      The directive clearly states that "available techniques" should mean those developed on a scale allowing implementation in the relevant industrial sector under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration costs and, of course, advantages. Moreover—as the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal will be aware—if we do not implement the directive, in legally identical terms, we would be subject to infraction proceedings.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      INVESTMENT POLICY
      '.—(1) The Corporation shall at the end of each complete financial year after registration make a report to the Secretary of State on its investments during that twelve month period and on its policy on future investments.
      (2) The Secretary of State shall as soon as practicable lay a report under subsection (1) before Parliament.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      6.4 pm
      Mr. Gary Streeter: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 1, in clause 18, page 8, line 23, leave out from 'association' to 'unless' in line 24 and insert
      ', investment policy and statement of business principles'.
      Mr. Streeter: Conservative Members wish the Commonwealth Development Corporation to succeed. We believe in the CDC and, for most of the past 50 years, the CDC has flourished under Conservative leadership. Our concern—which is reflected in the new clause—is that, after the Bill is passed by the House and the CDC becomes a partially privatised company, gradually, it will move away from its developmental objectives. We expressed that concern in Committee; it is our greatest concern about the Bill; and we now return to it.
      It has been established that, after the company is privatised, it will have to increase its return on capital invested from the current 7 to 8 per cent. to about 18 per cent. per annum, so that investors will receive a return on their investment. The company will be under pressure to deliver after the Bill has been passed. Indeed, managers are already making changes—on the ground, in the field, in sub-Saharan Africa—looking for different types of investment to make.
      We also know that the Secretary of State is keen for a switch from loan to equity-based investment—but that is not the only change; the type of company in which the CDC is investing is changing. The CDC is increasingly looking for more high-yielding, profitable companies, regardless of whether those companies employ large numbers of people in the developing world or particularly benefit local economies in sub-Saharan Africa or Asia. The CDC is looking for yield and return to shareholders.
      Although that is a terrific incentive, which we support for companies around the world, the CDC is a different type of company. For 50 years, the CDC has received taxpayers' investment. The company was established to invest in pre-emerging markets—to go where no other investor would go. We simply do not want that important niche activity to be blown away by the Bill.
      Therefore, the question that we ask—which is dealt with in the amendments—is whether the Government have adequately protected and safeguarded the new CDC's developmental objectives. New clause 1, and other
      448
      suggestions that I shall make later in my speech, are intended simply to build another line of defence to ensure that such important safeguarding is provided.
      It would be sacrilege if all the careful foundations laid over the years by the many people who have worked for that excellent company were destroyed. It would be more than tragic if, in future, the CDC's high reputation for helping thousands of people in the developing world were to be wasted as the company moves away from its developmental objectives and all that it has held dear as shareholders apply pressure on the board of directors to increase returns.
      I should make it clear that I am not talking about this Secretary of State, the current board of directors, or the board of directors that will be appointed after the Bill is passed—no one in their right mind would think that any of those people would deflect the CDC from its developmental objectives—but about a CDC that, at some point, after shareholder pressure builds and a board of directors accedes to it, goes in a direction that everyone concerned with the Bill does not want.
      We want to ensure that the entrenchment about which the Secretary of State boasts so loudly is watertight.
      In Committee, the Minister made some interesting comments on that matter, putting in a nutshell what the Government feel that they have done to safeguard and entrench the company's developmental objectives. He said:
      "It is important to have not just a belt and braces approach"—
      looking at him, I suspect that that applies to his personal life, too—
      "but other safeguards."
      My remark was unkind, and I withdraw it instantly. He went on to say:
      "We have the golden share, the 25 per cent. shareholding, the two directors, the statement of investment policy, the statement of business principles and the memorandum and articles of association. We therefore have six elements tying the CDC."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D,, 17 June 1999; c. 23.]
      The Minister has—fair enough—identified six safeguards; that could not be clearer. I should like briefly to examine each of them in turn, to ensure that the Government have done enough.
      We have been told that the first safeguard of the CDC's developmental objectives is the 25 per cent. shareholding. However, it is worthless as a safeguard. It does not prevent 75 per cent. of the shareholders passing the special resolution that is needed to change the memorandum and articles of association. It cannot prevent a change in the investment policy. The fact that the Government will retain 25 per cent. of the company is utterly worthless as a safeguard; that one did not come up to the mark.
      Secondly, we were told that two of the directors would be appointed by the Department for International Development. However, at another time in Committee, we were told that the board would probably consist of 11 people, two of whom would be appointed by the DIFD. Of course, some of the investors would want their own representatives on the board, and those representatives will be the most susceptible to succumbing to pressure to shift the company away from its developmental objectives.

      449
      In the Secretary of State's terminology, two out of 11 may be a majority. I can imagine meetings in the Department for International Development. Ten or 11 people might be present, and all might oppose the motion except the Secretary of State, but the motion would be carried. I can understand that that might happen in the Department for International Development, but she must realise that two directors can easily be outvoted in a board of 11. Those two placed directors cannot protect or safeguard the developmental objectives on their own. Therefore, I am afraid that, as a safeguard, the presence of two such directors is utterly worthless.
      Thirdly, we come to the statement of business principles, which we embrace and support. I quoted it extensively at Second Reading; I do not intend to do so again. It is a very worthy document. Who could disagree with the principles set forth in relation to business integrity, the environment, health and safety and social issues? However, that statement of business principles does not differ significantly from the business principles that any major multinational corporation would adopt. I have looked at business principles adopted by BP, Shell and Marks and Spencer, and they are all rather similar. There is nothing in those business principles that would cause the company to adhere to its investment policy or to its developmental objectives. That was the third safeguard that the Minister set out, and it also is a damp squib.
      Fourthly, the Minister said that the memorandum and articles of association were part of the safeguard; but there is no general protection in the memorandum and articles as a whole. I assume that the Minister was referring to article 51, which relates to investment policy. I believe that it is worth reading. Article 51(A) says:
      "CDC will have an investment policy to cover the conduct of CDC's investment business. The policy must be designed to achieve CDC's objective of maximising the creation and long-term growth of viable businesses in developing countries and achieving attractive returns for shareholders."
      Those words are more or less now contained in the mission statement. However, that paragraph merely points us towards the investment policy.
      Article 51(B) says:
      "The policy must include a particular focus in the conduct of CDC's investment business on benefiting poorer countries. especially those in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia."
      Who could disagree with that? However, it simply points us towards the investment policy; it does not add to it or buttress it.
      Article 51(C) says:
      "The directors will conduct the investment business of CDC in line with the investment policy. They will establish procedures which enable them to see whether the investment policy is being complied with by CDC and, to the extent relevant, its subsidiary undertakings."
      We already know that the company is to be run, according to this piece of paper, in line with the investment policy; but, as I shall show, that investment policy is not watertight. That policy, the only safeguard in relation to the conduct of the company, does not contain the necessary safeguards.
      Finally, article 51(D) says:
      "The directors will report each year in CDC's annual report on CDC's compliance with the investment policy. This report will contain sufficient information to allow a reader to make an informed assessment of the investment business of CDC and its subsidiary undertakings as against the requirements of the investment policy."
      450
      That is a very welcome statement. No doubt, the company's annual report will contain information about the investment policy and whether the directors are complying with it. We welcome all that, but it merely points us towards the investment policy, which I shall consider in a moment.
      The report referred to in article 51(D) is simply a report by the directors, not to Members of Parliament or to some compliance committee, but to the shareholders—the very people who, in future, might put the directors under pressure not to comply with the investment policy.
      Therefore, the memorandum and articles of association—the fourth safeguard—are not in themselves a safeguard. They simply point to the investment policy.
      The fifth safeguard that we were assured of was the golden share. Article 51 says that there shall be no change in the investment policy without the consent of the special shareholder—that is the Secretary of State, the holder from time to time of the golden share. That is welcome. It means that the investment policy cannot be reduced or diluted without the Secretary of State's specific approval. We welcome that; we support that part of the memorandum and articles of association. However, it tells us nothing about the existing investment policy. It adds nothing to the safeguard, or otherwise, constituted by the existing investment policy, and, if the existing investment policy is flawed—as I say that it is—the fact that the Secretary of State must give her consent to any change to it does not help us at all.
      We come to the sixth and final safeguard that the Minister told us about in Committee. The other five do not satisfy Opposition Members.
      5 pm
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the golden share, what additional powers is the hon. Gentleman seeking? What is he saying ought to be there that is not? The golden share operation is very complicated and can be subject to all sorts of interpretations—as we know from experience over the years—but what exactly is the hon. Gentleman asking for?
      Mr. Streeter: That is a very fair question; the answer is this. I am asking, first, that we get the investment policy right in the first place, because that is the thing that is being entrenched; and secondly, that we incorporate into the Bill new clause 1, which at least will place on the company an obligation to report to the House, so that, annually, we who have superintended this company for 50 years might see the extent to which the investment policy is being complied with. Who knows, the Minister may spring to his feet in a second and agree.
      We say that the first five safeguards are utterly irrelevant and worthless and have no value in themselves, so we turn to the investment policy. The question that we ask is, does that policy prevent a future CDC moving away from its developmental objectives? I accept that the Secretary of State and the Minister genuinely believe that they have entrenched the developmental objectives in this way, but I do not think that they have succeeded. I remind them that I am talking about a future CDC, under pressure to perform—to move from an 8 to an 18 per cent. return—whose shareholders put pressure on the board to invest in high-yielding, high-performance companies. That is the context in which such a change might happen.

      451
      I said in Committee that the investment policy, the text of which I now hold in my hand, would allow a future CDC to agree to invest in listed companies only—perhaps one, two or three of the top listed companies in one, two or three places, such as India, Zimbabwe, Kenya or sub-Saharan Africa. If the CDC invested in only one or two companies in one or two of those places—I accept that sub-Saharan Africa must feature—it would be complying with the wording of the investment policy.
      The Secretary of State did not disagree with that proposition. She said that Zimbabwe, India and Kenya have problems. We know that, but in each of those countries there are blue-chip companiescopper-bottomed companies. Would the letter of the investment policy prevent a future CDC board investing in one or two listed companies in South Africa only, where some of the world's most successful and wealth-creating companies are based? It certainly would not. I stand to be corrected by the Minister or the Secretary of State, but I can see nothing in the investment policy that would prevent a new CDC from investing on the South African stock exchange only.
      Nothing in the investment policy says how many companies the CDC must invest in, or what type of company it can invest in. Two or three minor provisions prohibit it from investing in certain types of company, but it can invest in any type of high-performance, high-yield company that it wishes, irrespective of the fact that it is not a spread or a mix or a portfolio mix that contains job-creating companies and is benefiting the local economy. We know that 70 per cent. of investment must be in the list of countries attached to the investment policy, but the list includes almost all the world. The list includes many poor countries, but it includes also many countries in which there are thriving businesses and stock exchanges.
      There is also a provision that 50 per cent. of the investment must be in sub-Saharan Africa. As I say, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya all have copper-bottomed companies that the CDC could invest in. I do not think that the investment policy is watertight. It does not do what the Secretary of State told us it would do, which is to entrench the developmental objectives. I do not take great pleasure in saying that—I just think that we could drive a coach and horses through the policy. The test is not the likelihood of a future board investing in the way in which I have suggested, but whether it has the legal ability to do so. It is clear to me that it does.
      It is no good me bleating about this unless I make a specific suggestion as to what to do. The new clause suggests that the company should report to the Secretary of State on its investments and policy each year, and that that report should be tabled in the House of Commons. That does not close the loophole. It would be after the event, but it would at least give the House an opportunity, at an early stage, to debate such a breach of the investment policy and to do something about it.
      In Committee, the Secretary of State referred to an obligation to produce an annual report, and the Department produces an annual report. However, the report is not debated as a matter of course in the House of Commons. The annual report deals with everything that the Department is doing in that year. How much space
      452
      will there be to analyse in detail the investment policy of the new CDC? We want a specific report, dealing with the extent to which the new CDC has complied with its investment policy. Let the House decide whether the 50 years of investment by the British taxpayer is being honoured and safeguarded by the new CDC.
      In Committee, the Secretary of State said that the Select Committee could look into the matter from time to time. The distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), is here this evening. I wonder whether the Committee would have the right to investigate decisions made by a company in the private sector—a company with 75 per cent. of its shareholding owned by private investors. Would the Select Committee have the right to call for the directors to attend the Committee? Would it have the right to investigate as it needs to?
      I do not think that the safeguards are adequate, and the Minister and the Secretary of State should consider agreeing to the new clause, saving us all the bother of a division. If they accept it, an annual report will be presented to Parliament, so that we can srcutinise what the company is up to. We must be in a position to monitor the company and to act quickly.
      My second helpful suggestion is to change the investment strategy now, before the Bill goes through. We have five paragraphs on the first two pages of the investment policy which deal with general principles and provisions. However, the investment policy lacks a catch-all provision that is designed to express the spirit that lies behind the past 50 years of the CDC, as well as the future, in terms of the mixed portfolio and its investment in companies which generate jobs and benefit the local economy.
      When those expressions are found in the policy statement, there is a caveat about the opinion of the directors or the profitability of the company. Let us have a clear statement in the investment policy, setting out the spirit of the developmental objectives pursued by the CDC prior to this Bill becoming law.
      In future, the measure would give an aggrieved shareholder the right to go to law to claim that the company was breaching its investment policy. At the moment, we can drive a coach and horses through the policy. However, a paragraph setting out the spirit of the CDC past and future would give an ethical investor—who may be worried that the company is moving away from its developmental objectives—a chance to go to law and seek redress. There would be something for a court to hang an order on. At the moment, that is not there.
      Mr. Dalyell: The imputation is that the CDC has invested, if not improperly, at least in grey areas. Is there any evidence of investment that is unsatisfactory? The hon. Gentleman ought to produce it if he is saying that.
      Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman—whom I deeply respect—has missed the point. Previously, the CDC has not been under pressure to produce a financial return. Once the Bill goes through—when the hon. Gentleman will be voting for privatisation—the CDC will move from a return on capital invested of about 7 per cent. to one of 18 per cent.
      My argument is that there will be shareholder pressure on the board of directors to deliver a new level of profit. Increasingly, the board will move away from investing in

      453
      the beneficial, long-term, job-creating local economies of which the company has been so proud in the past towards high-yield, fast-return, high-tech companies. There is nothing wrong with such companies, but the CDC was designed to open a new niche in development overseas, on behalf of the British taxpayer, in pre-emerging markets and countries. Our fear, that the CDC will move away from that special niche, caused us to table the new clause.
      There are concerns that the Government are trying to do something that they cannot do—find a third way for the CDC. Of course, there is a case for the sale of the CDC, and we all want private sector investment. There is a case for fully privatising the company to attract a large sum of money which we can invest in the developing world. There is a case also for retaining the CDC in the public sector and for finding other ways of opening the windows and attracting private sector investment while the company remains publicly accountable and under public control.
      Is there a case for burdening the company with regulations—and expecting it to fly in the private sector—so that the price on sale would be reduced, while setting up a creature that cannot live up the expectations of private investors and will be tugged, year after year, away from its developmental objectives?
      The new clause reflects our belief that the Government are trying to find a third way for the CDC which simply does not exist. We very much hope that the Government will listen to our arguments, make sure that the developmental objectives are safeguarded and accept the amendment.
      Mr. Dalyell: It behoves those of us who were not on the Committee to be brief, and I simply wish to ask two questions.
      First, the history of golden shares is rather unsatisfactory. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister has any comment on the operation, or lack thereof, of the golden share. It is always given as a failsafe but, in fact, is seldom used. If there is a crisis or difficulty, the golden share is not quite a satisfactory fall-back, as is often made out.
      Secondly, thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister's position with the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I had the good fortune three years ago to be a member of the IPU delegation to Nepal. It is in the context of Nepal that I ask whether the CDC's attitude to risk has been all that it might be. I have just come from a little ceremony at the Nepalese embassy. I was able to talk about those matters, knowing that this business was coming up.
      Is risk sufficiently taken into account in the operations of the CDC when it comes to investment in countries the figures for which suggest that they are very poor? Nepal may seem very poor from the figures, but it is run in such a way that there is very little child malnutrition or illness; it is impressively run in many ways.
      6.30 pm
      The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Nepal's gross domestic product per head is $200 and almost all the women are anaemic. There is great poverty and high infant mortality. The country is very
      454
      romantic and attractive, but the people's poverty is very great. We must work more effectively with Nepal on children's education and development.
      Mr. Dalyell: I am glad that my right hon. Friend, whose visit to Nepal was extremely successful, takes the attitude that something must be done.
      Dr. Jenny Tonge: I am speaking in support of amendment No. 1, but I urge Ministers to consider the new clause seriously. There is little difference in it from what is already in page 25 of the articles of association. It requires more detail and would have to be presented formally, but it would not substantially alter the spirit of the Bill and would give more information and make everyone a lot happier.
      Amendment No. 1 is not designed to slow down the Bill. The Liberal Democrats support getting more money into development and changing the way in which the Commonwealth Development Corporation is run, but we are concerned about the conflict between development and getting a good return for the shareholders, which the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) eloquently set out. As the Select Committee heard, the problem is trying to serve both God and mammon.
      We want to strengthen the Bill and make it less ambiguous.
      Clare Short: This is an enormously important matter. Both opposition parties, in their misunderstanding, paint a depressing future for developing countries. If those countries cannot attract private sector investment that will get a reasonable rate of return, their prospects for economic development are disastrous. Both the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and the hon. Lady are suggesting that sustained economic development in developing countries through the private sector is impossible. That is clearly not the case.
      Dr. Tonge: I entirely agree that developing countries need investment and we all want them to have it, but to attract that investment they often have to cut corners on sustainable development and the good of their people and environment.
      As the Bill is currently drafted, the Government will hold a golden share that gives the Secretary of State special rights under the articles of association. Clause 18(3) requires any alteration of those articles that require the Secretary of State's approval before they can be altered to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. That is worrying, as it implies that there is a choice as to which articles require the Secretary of State' s approval before they can be altered.
      Under article 51(F) of the articles of association, any alteration to the investment policy would require the approval of 50 per cent. of shareholders and the special shareholder. Under article 52(E) any alteration to the statement of principles and policies may be made by the CDC board by a majority vote, including at least three members of the business principles committee.
      The articles of association, the investment policy and the business principles appear to be in descending order of importance as to how far away from the Government and the Secretary of State they can be before any change is made, but the Bill's aims will be met only by adherence

      455
      to business principles and to the investment policy, which sets specific targets for the percentage of new investments made for the benefit of poorer countries: at least 70 per cent. of investment by the CDC, or improved investment vehicles, over any five consecutive periods, has to be, in the opinion of the directors, for the immediate or prospective benefit of poorer countries.
      In the old CDC, an additionality test was applied. That will no longer happen and, according to the Library research paper, any investigation of potential investments will have to include an assessment of compatibility with the CDC's ethical values or business principles. That is clearly set out in the technical box in the research paper, and the potential mismatch between commercial viability and development value is also clearly summarised.
      Under the previous legislation, the CDC was charged with the task of assisting overseas countries in the development of their economies. The term "development" is significantly missing from the Bill and there is only limited mention of it in the accompanying documentation. Instead, the CDC argues that its business principles will support and reinforce the development focus.
      As the hon. Member for South-West Devon said, codes of conduct and business principles are wonderful things and come in very glossy brochures, but they are not always adhered to in practice. If we want proper development to occur through sustainable and ethical investment, the real control that the Secretary of State and the Government need is of the business principles. They are the key, because they direct the investment policy—a change for the CDC—that is controlled by the articles of association. Why then can the business principles be changed with only the lightest touch from Parliament via the Secretary of State's nominees on the business principles committee, with no direct reference to the Secretary of State or Parliament?
      I beg the Secretary of State to accept our proposals and ensure that the business principles, and thus the investment policy, cannot be changed without the agreement of Parliament.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: I wonder why Ministers are opposed to the concept of an annual report. It may be because they are rather schizophrenic about what exactly the new company will be. They are trying to persuade the House that it can have all the virtues of a private company but meet the objectives of a publicly owned company. Article 51(A), which was referred to by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), clearly states:
      "CDC will have an investment policy to cover the conduct of CDC's investment business. The policy must be designed to achieve CDC's objective of maximising the creation and long-term growth of viable businesses in developing countries and achieving attractive returns for shareholders."
      Paragraph (B) states:
      "The policy must include a particular focus on the conduct of CDC's investment business on benefiting poorer countries, especially those in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia."
      The Government will refer to that article in defence and say that it will ensure that CDC will help the poorer countries, but as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) pointed out, there are
      456
      many successful large companies in those poorer countries which will inevitably have to attract the investment of the new CDC if it is to meet its obligations to its shareholders. If I know anything about company law, it will be required by law to act in the best interests of their shareholders.
      The Government have tried to convince the House that we will be able to meet the objectives because of the articles of association, but if one reads them one comes to the inevitable conclusion that the defensive mechanisms against preventing the company from becoming like any other investment company in the private sector are not as strong as they should be. Given that there is some doubt on the subject, surely it is not too much to ask for an annual report to Parliament so that we can be convinced that the company is meeting the objectives that we all share.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): I can understand why the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) is concerned and I shall deal with his point later. He has not been involved in the Second Reading and Committee stage, so I understand why he may not fully appreciate the safeguards contained in the Bill. However, I despair of the Opposition Front Benchers. They sat through Second Reading and Committee and heard the Secretary of State's clear explanations—and mine—but they seem incapable of understanding, or they are unwilling to understand.
      I do not know whether the problem is my inadequacy, but I shall try again—
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: It will be a waste of time.
      Mr. Foulkes: Well, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I am a helpful cove so I will try again. I must tell the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) that there was ample opportunity to table amendments in Committee. Indeed, she will recall that we did not use one of the sittings that we were allocated. We were willing to hold another sitting to deal with any amendments, but no one took up the opportunity. I assure her that all her concerns, which we share and understand, are adequately covered in the Bill. I hope that she will accept that assurance and not press her point.
      An amendment containing provision for an annual report was tabled in Committee and my right hon. Friend Secretary of State dealt with it extremely well. She explained that the CDC will be required by the Bill to make an annual report to the Secretary of State, who is required to make an annual report to Parliament. That can, if the Opposition wish, be debated in Opposition time or the Government can make time to debate it. The hon. Member for South-West Devon said that it would not be debated as a matter of course, but there is no guarantee either that a CDC annual report would be debated as a matter of course because provision for that is not included in the amendment.
      The Select Committee also has powers. It has an effective Chairman and its members know what they are talking about. The Committee can, if it wishes, call the Secretary of State, or myself, or officials before it to ask questions about the CDC and its investment policies.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Bowen Wells: I thank the Minister for his kind remarks. Can he confirm that as the Government will always hold the golden share unless Parliament decides otherwise, the Select Committee will always have the power to call Ministers and officials in front of it to explain the policy that the CDC is adopting?
      Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman has, as usual, gone straight to the point and grasped it. The Select Committee will be able to do that.
      The hon. Member for South-West Devon again gave the hypothetical example he gave in Committee that the CDC might invest only in the top three listed companies in Kenya, India and Zimbabwe. That is not likely, not only for developmental reasons but for good investment reasons. Any organisation in its right mind would not have such a portfolio and that is a totally unlikely scenario.
      The Government have carefully considered what the CDC's development role should be and how it should be complementary to the role of others. The CDC's aim is to maximise the creation and long-term growth of viable businesses in developing countries, especially the poorest countries, to achieve attractive returns for shareholders and to implement ethical best practices. Practical measures to implement those are entrenched in the CDC constitution.
      The hon. Member for South-West Devon referred to my contribution in Committee in which I desrcibed the relevant six elements. Then he took one and said that it was not enough. He took another and said that that one was not enough. He went through all six, but he failed to understand that it is the combination of all of them that will work. For example, the golden share will give the necessary rights over changes that a share of 25 per cent. might not be able to block. We are protected by the golden share, the investment policy and the business principles.
      The hon. Member for South-West Devon also raised the question of whether the sectors in which the CDC invested would change over time. They are already changing to take account of the CDC's present obligations. For example, in India, the CDC has invested in the first private sector internet access provider. That will help business access information and generate new business opportunities related to the internet. In Africa, the CDC has invested in the expansion of cellular telecoms, which have a significant effect on business efficiency.
      The CDC is investing in new areas, helping development and getting a good return, but it is not ignoring traditional sectors. For example, in Belize—a country that the Opposition know well, for reasons I will not go into—CDC Industries is in the process of completing a $40 million investment in the citrus industry. In Bolivia, the CDC has invested £3.8 million in Banco Sol, a micro-finance institution which finances 85,000 micro-enterprises in Bolivia. The CDC is helping development and getting a good return.
      The hon. Member for South-West Devon also raised the question of the two directors and said, in a glib and superficial way, that two would not form a majority over 11. Even I can work that out. However, he did not say that the business principles committee will have four members and the Secretary of State's two nominees must be on it. The board of directors cannot change business
      458
      principles unless a majority of the business principles committee—at least three—agree. If the Secretary of State's nominees do not agree, a majority of three cannot be achieved. Even the hon. Gentleman can work that out.
      I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that we do not envisage changing the role of the golden share or abandoning it. It gives power to stop change. The occasions that he mentioned happened under a Conservative Government. We are determined to use the golden share if the necessity arises, but we do not think that it will, because the CDC board that we envisage will want to operate on the investment and business principles that we have agreed with it.
      Finally, on amendment No. 1, we can understand why it has been tabled, but it is not necessary. The mechanisms that we have set out will provide the proper protection. Parliament has a role. Unless Parliament agrees otherwise, the CDC is required to have an investment policy designed to achieve the objective of maximising both the creation of and the long-term growth of viable businesses in developing countries and of achieving attractive returns for shareholders. We have that power at the moment.
      No change can be made to the investment policy, for example, without the approval of the majority of ordinary shareholders and the consent of the special shareholder, the Secretary of State. The investment policy therefore cannot be changed without her approval.
      The method for changing the business principles is different, because the issues raised are different. Change to the business principles and policies can be made only by a majority of the board which, as I said earlier, is to include at least three of the four members of the business principles committee. The hon. Member for South-West Devon talked about belt and braces, and rather unkindly said that I am the sort of person who needs them. The Bill provides for two sets of both—or even three, given what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. The matters that have been raised are adequately covered.
      Dr. Tonge: I am still worried that the CDC's—and the Minister's—trousers will fall down. The business principles are key to the success of the whole operation, yet they are less controlled than the investment policy. My earlier point was that it should be the other way around.
      Mr. Foulkes: I should certainly be acutely embarrassed if my trousers fell down. The CDC would be embarrassed if anything went wrong with the links between its investment policy and business principles. However, I urge the hon. Lady to consider the matter again. The investment policy is far more important, in the context about which she is worried, than the business principles.
      Dr. Tonge: The Bill states clearly that the investment policy is determined by the business principles, whereas the old CDC adopted a process of additionality.
      Mr. Foulkes: The matter has been explained, in Committee and again today. Of course all the elements are important in different ways, but they are deeply entrenched. We expect CDC's investments in all sectors to make a contribution to development and to achieve attractive returns. That will give us the best of both worlds, and I urge

      459
      the hon. Member for South-West Devon, in the light of my third—and I hope lucid—explanation to him, to withdraw the unnecessary new clause.
      Mr. Streeter: The Minister is being uncharacteristically complacent. His belts do not fit and his braces are slack. The Bill contains a real risk that the developmental objectives of the company will be lost. The 50 years of careful and patient investment by the CDC and this country's taxpayers are being placed at risk by the Bill. The Minister is too complacent to accept that, and I urge the House to vote for the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 309.

      Division No. 240]

      [6.54 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Allan, Richard

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Amess, David

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Fraser, Christopher

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Gale, Roger

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Garnier, Edward

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Baldry, Tony

      Gibb, Nick

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Blunt, Crispin

      Gorrie, Donald

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gray, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Green, Damian

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Greenway, John

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Grieve, Dominic

      Brady, Graham

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Brake, Tom

      Hammond, Philip

      Brazier, Julian

      Hancock, Mike

      Breed, Colin

      Harvey, Nick

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hawkins, Nick

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Burnett, John

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Burns, Simon

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Burstow, Paul

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Butterfill, John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Cash, William

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Johnson Smith,

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Chidgey, David

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Chope, Christopher

      Keetch, Paul

      Clappison, James

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Collins, Tim

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Colvin, Michael

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Lansley, Andrew

      Cotter, Brian

      Leigh, Edward

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Lidington, David

      Day, Stephen

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Livsey, Richard

      Duncan, Alan

      Loughton, Tim

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Luff, Peter

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Evans, Nigel

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fabricant, Michael

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Fallon, Michael

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Flight, Howard

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Madel, Sir David

      460

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stunell, Andrew

      Maples, John

      Swayne, Desmond/

      Mates, Michael

      Syms, Robert

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Moore, Michael

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Norman, Archie

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Oaten, Mark

      Tredinnick, David

      Öpik, Lembit

      Trend, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tyler, Paul

      Page, Richard

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Paice, James

      Viggers, Peter

      Pickles, Eric

      Wallace, James

      Prior, David

      Walter, Robert

      Randall, John

      Wardle, Charles

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Robathan, Andrew

      Webb, Steve

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Wells, Bowen

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Ruffley, David

      Whittingdale, John

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Sanders, Adrian

      Wilkinson, John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Willetts, David

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Willis, Phil

      Shepherd, Richard

      Wilshire, David

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

      Woodward, Shaun

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Yeo, Tim

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Spring, Richard

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mr. Keith Simpson and

      Streeter, Gary

      Mrs. Eleanor Iaing.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Caton, Martin

      Ainger, Nick

      Cawsey, Ian

      Alexander, Douglas

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Allen, Graham

      Chaytor, David

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clapham, Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Austin, John

      Banks, Tony

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clelland, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Clwyd, Ann

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Coaker, Vernon

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Cohen, Harry

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Coleman, Iain

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Benton, Joe

      Colman, Tony

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Connarty, Michael

      Berry, Roger

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Best, Harold

      Corbett, Robin

      Blackman, Liz

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Boateng, Paul

      Cousins, Jim

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cox, Tom

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Crausby, David

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Browne, Desmond

      Cummings, John

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Burden, Richard

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Burgon, Colin

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Dalyell, Tam

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Campbell, Alan (Tynernouth)

      Darvill, Keith

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Davidson, Ian

      Cann, Jamie

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Casale, Roger

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      461

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Illsley, Eric

      Dismore, Andrew

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jamieson, David

      Doran, Frank

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dowd, Jim

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Drew, David

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Edwards, Huw

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Efford, Clive

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Etherington, Bill

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Fisher, Mark

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Flint, Caroline

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Flynn, Paul

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Follett, Barbara

      Kemp, Fraser

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Kidney, David

      Foulkes, George

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Fyfe, Maria

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Gapes, Mike

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Laxton, Bob

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Lepper, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Leslie, Christopher

      Goggins, Paul

      Levitt, Tom

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Linton, Martin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Lock, David

      Grogan, John

      Love, Andrew

      Gunnell, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hain, Peter

      McCabe, Steve

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Hanson, David

      McDonnell, John

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      McFall, John

      Healey, John

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Heppell, John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hill, Keith

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Hoey, Kate

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Martlew, Eric

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Meale, Alan

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Merron, Gillian

      Hurst, Alan

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hutton, John

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Mitchell, Austin

      462

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mullin, Chris

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Snape, Peter

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Soley, Clive

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Norris, Dan

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Stevenson, George

      Olner, Bill

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Pearson, Ian

      Stott, Roger

      Pendry, Tom

      Stringer, Graham

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pickthall, Colin

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pike, Peter L

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Plaskitt, James

      Pollard, Kerry

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pond, Chris

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pope, Greg

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Timms, Stephen

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Todd, Mark

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Touhig, Don

      Purchase, Ken

      Trickett, Jon

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Rammell, Bill

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Rapson, Syd

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Vaz, Keith

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rooney, Terry

      Watts, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      White, Brian

      Roy, Frank

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Ruane, Chris

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Salter, Martin

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wilson, Brian

      Sawford, Phil

      Winnick, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wise, Audrey

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wood, Mike

      Sheerman, Barry

      Worthington, Tony

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Wyatt, Derek

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Singh, Marsha

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Clive Betts and

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mr. Kevin Hughes.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), further proceedings stood postponed.

    City of London (Ward Elections) Bill
    As amended in Committee, considered.
    7.8 pm
    Mr. John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gave notice to Madam Speaker that I would raise this point of order, which relates to the point that I made on Second Reading. You will recall that I asked whether the Bill was compatible with section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and whether legal advice had been sought and published.
    We have debated the Northern Ireland Bill this week—it contains a clear statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that it complies with the Human Rights Act 1998. I believe that a similar statement should be attached to all future legislation. Section 19 of the 1998 Act requires that the Minister
    "in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading of the Bill"
    make a statement about the compatibility of the Bill with the convention rights defined in section 1 of the Act. The Northern Ireland Bill states that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following statement:
    "In my view the provisions of the Northern Ireland Bill are compatible with the Convention rights."
    That seems to be the procedure for legislation as regards human rights. On Second Reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you suggested that this was a matter for the courts. I can appreciate that, but clearly individual Ministers or promoters of Bills must now ensure that they comply with the Human Rights Act.
    The issue to which I am referring is specifically in relation to the convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms as amended by protocol 11. Article 3 of that protocol, which is headed, "The Right to free elections", states:
    "The High Contracting Parties"—
    that is, the individual countries that have signed the convention—
    "undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature."
    It does not refer to businesses.
    We are now operating in a supra-national political and legal environment. Of course, we are governed by Parliament, which is sovereign, but it is no longer totally so in relation to that legislation. Therefore, I asked earlier at the Private Bill Office whether that legal advice was sought, whether the Lord Chancellor had given his opinion, and if so, what it was—should it be published or at least laid in the Vote Office or the Library?
    In my view, if the House knowingly and wilfully proceeds to introduce legislation that is contrary to the convention, that is one thing. That is a decision of the House, individual Members promoting the Bill and Ministers who may support it. However, if hon. Members blunder into legislating contrary to the convention, without advice, it is a dereliction of duty on behalf of the Lord Chancellor or the Officers of the House in not affording us such advice. I would welcome your views, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan haselhurst): Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of
    464
    his point of order. I hope that I can resolve the matter in fairly simple terms. In the case of a private Bill, the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is a matter for debate and not for the Chair. The House will be aware that section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us, obliges a Minister in charge of a Government Bill to make a statement of compatibility before Second Reading. No similar provision occurs in the case of either private Member's or private Bills.
    Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can I clarify the matter? Is any hon. Member who seeks to promote legislation in debate in the House liable, therefore, to digress against the convention on human rights, which we have incorporated in legislation? If we enact this legislation—I hope that we do not because it contravenes everything that we stand for both in terms of human rights and party policies—does that mean that the City corporation, if it instigates some form of election under the legislation, is open to legal challenge? I would be grateful if, at some stage, in addition to the advice that you have provided, the Lord Chancellor could be consulted and we could have some advice on that matter, too.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It might be relevant to report to the House that, as Chairman of the Select Committee that considered the Bill—we spent several days on it and heard petitioners—I can confirm that that issue was not raised by any of the petitioners and did not come before the Committee at any stage.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) does not do himself a service because he has illustrated that that is a matter for debate; it is not a matter on which the Chair can rule.
    Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Previously, I raised a point of order about declaration of interests. Under the heading, "Declaration of Members' Interests" in the code of conduct, the principle is clearly established that Members
    "shall fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members' Interests".
    Paragraph 5 of the code of conduct states clearly:
    "The main purpose of declaration of interest is to ensure that fellow Members of the House and public are made aware, at the appropriate time when a Member is making a speech in the House or in Committee or participating in any other proceedings of the House, of any past, present or expected future pecuniary interest".
    It also mentions miscellaneous interests.
    We are debating legislation that would give companies and banks within the City of London the right to a vote and, therefore, the right to an interest within the City corporation. I do not believe that any hon. Member has so far declared any interest in relation to this matter. However, I cannot believe that there is no hon. Member or member of the Committee who does not hold some form of bank account or have some interest in a body that is located within the City of London.
    I have a Co-operative bank account—there is not an awful lot in it, but I still have it. That bank is located within the City. That is an interest, because that company will now have a vote in the City corporation elections if the Bill is enacted.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The position is clear. Any hon. Member who believes that he has in interest

    465
    relevant to any matter that comes before the House should declare it. If any hon. Member feels that there has been a failure to disclose, there is a procedure for reporting and investigating that.

    Clause 2

      INTERPRETATION
      7.15 pm
      Mr. McDonnell: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
      "'relevant employee" means a person whose principal or only place of work on the qualifying date is ordinarily the hereditament in respect of which the entitlement to appoint a voter arises and who works for that qualifying body.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 13, in clause 3, page 2, line 42, leave out '£200' and insert '£1,000,000'.
      No. 16, in clause 3, page 3, line 12, leave out from 'greater' to end of line and insert—
      'number of employees of the qualifying body.'.
      No. 17, in clause 3, page 3, line 20, after 'values:, insert
      'the number of relevant employees'.
      No. 19, in clause 4, page 3, line 28, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 30 and insert—
      'conduct a ballot of all relevant employees to elect its voter or voters.'.
      No. 30, in clause 8, page 5, line 4, leave out 'appoint' and insert 'elect'.
      No. 31, in clause 8, page 5, line 7, leave out 'appointed' and insert 'elected'.
      No. 33, in schedule 1, page 6, line 7, leave out from 'scale:' to end of line 24 and insert—

      Number of Relevant Employees

      Maximum Number of Persons whom that Body may Elect

      Up to 1,000

      1.

      For every 1,000 over the first 1,000

      1 for every thousand relevant employees

      No. 35, in schedule 1, page 6, line 28, leave out'rateable value' insert 'number of relevant employees'
      Mr. McDonnell: On Second Reading, there was considerable dissatisfaction with the Bill. The Committee was established and petitioners petitioned against the Bill. There have been some minor amendments, but they are insignificant.
      The statement from the Committee draws attention to the fact that the Bill remains flawed—extremely flawed. A number of proposals are recommended in that statement to make further improvements. As it is a matter of debate, the Committee did not consider human rights, or the contravention of the Human Rights Act 1998, even though that matter was raised on Second Reading. It was a dereliction of the duty of the Committee not to discuss that matter in Committee or to seek legal advice. However, the Committee set out a number of detailed recommendations—
      Mr. Robert Jackson: The hon. Gentleman accuses the Committee of dereliction of duty, but we were confined
      466
      to the requests that were put before us by petitioners. It was our duty to consider those. Human rights were not raised by any of the petitioners.
      Mr. McDonnell: I should have thought that any Committee should take into account the Second Reading debate and the matters raised in it, if only for the background and the environment in which it considers the legislation. I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to explain why the Committee did not take cognisance of the Second Reading debate. The human rights convention was a critical issue in that debate, yet the Committee blatantly ignored it. Members of the Committee pursued its practices and considered the matter, possibly thereby incurring some liability in the future.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot pursue a Second Reading matter. He must deal with the amendment that he is moving.
      Mr. McDonnell: In mitigation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that I was provoked to enter into debate on that matter because of the intervention, but I will not test your patience any further.
      The special report lays out a number of interesting suggestions for the City corporation and, in that respect, I congratulate the Committee for at least identifying the fact that the Bill is flawed and stating that it should be part of a wider reform process. In other words, it is the first step on a long path to establish some form of democratic government within the City corporation to protect the rights of the residents. It is in that context that I tabled my amendments.
      The need for reform is beyond doubt. The City of London corporation accepts the need for reform, although it does not implement reforms. Indeed, in an almost jocular way, it ignored most of the recommendations that have been made so far. The statement agrees that reform is needed, but the tragedy is that none of the recommendations can be contained in the Bill. That most significant point was made by the Chairman and other members of the Committee. The Bill will do little to achieve a process whereby we can have confidence that the corporation will reflect the interests of its residents or even of its business community.
      The statement includes a range of recommendations for the promotion of reform. However, most of them rely on the good will of the corporation—that is why I tabled my amendments. It has taken 600 years to rely on the good will of the corporation.
      Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. McDonnell: I will give way if my hon. Friend wants to correct the number of years.
      Mr. Thomas: A thousand years.
      Mr. McDonnell: That is a millennium achievement for the corporation.
      The amendments attempt to redress the balance, because the Bill fails to tackle the problems of the democratic deficit of the corporation. Most of the

      467
      recommendations in the special report of the Committee rely on the corporation to review boundaries, to examine internal or external boundaries, or to obtain legal advice on its powers. The corporation does not seem to have enacted even that recommendation—or, if it has, none of us is aware of it. If the corporation has obtained legal advice and hon. Members have seen it, I should be happy to read a copy of it. In relation to the recommendations on boundary review, why can not the corporation use the boundary commission like any other local government body? We have received no commitment in writing from the corporation that it has approached the boundary commission.
      In the statement, there is an admission that the right of veto on the common council of the City of London still exists. Before I tabled my amendments, I hoped that there would be one letter from the corporation stating that it would withdraw the veto. We can all remember cases of individuals who were vetoed, even after their election. The classic example is Mr. Malcolm Matson. I understand that he communicated with several hon. Members before Second Reading.
      The amendments attempt to move the measure forward within its own constraints. I tabled other amendments, which were not selected. They would have ensured that the residents had a controlling vote. It may have been rather ambitious to attempt to abolish the business franchise through my amendments.
      The corporation is the last vestige of undemocratic privilege within our system of government that is formally constituted in legislation. It is the last hurdle—the last hedge that we must go over.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I detect Second Reading general arguments in what the hon. Gentleman has said so far. He must now turn to the specific and narrow terms of the amendments if he wants to persuade the House that they should be accepted.
      Mr. McDonnell: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there is a background to the amendments that needs explanation. It is the undemocratic nature of the existing system. We must explore that to ensure that the amendments tackle the problems that are part of the undemocratic privilege exercised by the City of London corporation.
      Mr. Michael Connarty: I commend my hon. Friend for filling in those details for some of us who did not follow closely the Second Reading debate. I hope that the Chair will not interrupt so much in future.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that comment. It was quite disgraceful.
      Mr. Connarty: I apologise if the Chair is offended. However, Back Benchers should be defended by the Chair. I hope you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will defend our right to hear someone who is clearly knowledgeable, so that we can fill in the background. I apologise if you were offended by the way that I put it.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The role of the Chair is to ensure that the debate, whatever its content, is
      468
      conducted within the rules of order. We cannot have Second Reading debates taking place in the middle of a debate on specific amendments. Second Reading has taken place and the text is available to all hon. Members. If an hon. Member does not know what was said, that is no reason for it to be repeated. I have given the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) considerable leeway so that he can refer to the background to his amendments. However, it is my duty to tell him and the House that when we are discussing amendments, it is the amendments themselves that must be discussed.
      Mr. McDonnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I ask a question about amendment No. 13? I understand that that amendment would give relevant employees the right to stand for election as a voter. If the amendment were passed, would every employee in a City establishment—within the square mile—have the right to stand as a voter representing that company? I have more than a passing interest in the matter; I am a council house tenant of the City of London corporation and a peripatetic constituent of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who is one of the supporters of the Bill.
      Mr. McDonnell: I am not sure whether there are any amendments on peripatetic voting, but 1 advise my hon. Friend not to suggest that to the corporation. Even if we cannot achieve full, universal, adult suffrage for the corporation—as there is in the rest of the country and in America and in most European and other states—at least, given the argument that it is a business district, the employees who make the wealth of that area should be able to vote. That is the purpose of my amendments. [Interruption.] I do not know whether that was an intervention or a sedentary comment.
      Initially, I wanted to establish universal suffrage, but that was rejected by the corporation. In Committee, representatives of the City of London Labour party—I apologise for not being able to consult them directly, because I should have welcomed the opportunity to discuss the amendments with them—proposed that votes should relate to the number of staff employed by bodies within the City. They referred to that system as the payroll vote. That is what my amendments suggest.
      Under the existing system, the vote is cast by the business itself, rather than by a person who is either a local resident or an employee who daily earns his or her living in the City. Even under the proposals in the Bill, the vote will be owned by the business. The amendments would ensure that there is at least some link between those who reside or work in the City and the exercise of power by the corporation. On Second Reading, we did not discuss the existing system.
      I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you think that my remarks go beyond the amendment, but it is important to recognise how the system operates at the moment and the way in which we want to reform it.
      7.30 pm
      As hon. Members know, the court of common council is one element within the corporation. It comprises 25 aldermen, including the lord mayor and about

      469
      130 common council men. I appreciate that the corporation has offered to reduce that number as part of its reforms. In effect, that body becomes the government of the City because it operates the functions of local government. It is therefore the key body that we want to influence. We want to ensure that it has some connection to those who live in the City and, more importantly in this debate and what is permissible within the context of the Bill, those who work there. Other elements of the corporation include the court of aldermen, which has 25 members, and the common hall.
      In our discussions to date, the main concerns that we have expressed relate to abuses of the system and out-of-date facets such as the way in which it is dominated by individual companies. The corporation can be fixed by those companies, the residents' vote can be overridden and the businesses that have begun to flourish in the City over recent years have no role and no say. The Bill is an attempt at least to give those businesses an input into the operation of the City.
      On what basis, however, should those businesses have any input whatsoever? Surely, that input must be based on the interests of their employees. They are the people who earn the wealth for the company, who reside in the City for much of their time in employment, who are directly affected by the corporation's decisions and who therefore have the right to have a say in those decisions.
      Mr. Robert Jackson: I hope that before the hon. Gentleman concludes his speech, he will give his answer to the question that was in the minds of members of the Select Committee about the practicalities of compiling a register for all the employees who work in the City, so that they can participate in the exercise that he desrcibes.
      Mr. McDonnell: That is a good point, which I intended to address later in my remarks, but I shall deal with it now. That issue was raised in response to the corporation's proposals, and concerns were expressed about how one would conduct an assessment of the number of employees within a particular business. However, national insurance numbers, payrolls and taxation by the Treasury give us the necessary information.
      That information will be compiled and used under the Employment Relations Bill, which has passed through both Houses of Parliament. Under that legislation, ballots will be held among work forces to determine trade union membership and recognition. I do not, therefore, see any outstanding impediment to identifying the number of employees in a company and on a particular site.
      Mr. Tony Colman: I understand that the City of London Labour party did not press that particular amendment when the matter was considered in the Committee. Will my hon. Friend explain why the amendment was not pressed?
      Mr. McDonnell: I cannot speak for the City of London Labour party, but I shall try. From my discussion with party members at the end of the Committee proceedings—I apologise to Kate Green and her friends if I have got this wrong—I understood that the corporation was not willing to accept the amendment. I can therefore understand the petitioners' approach. They were keen to ensure that the maximum number of their recommendations for improvement were accepted.
      470
      In my last conversation with Kate Green, who is the secretary of the City of London Labour party, I accepted that the party would have to compromise on several issues, but I thought that we should try to press the matter further. That is the role of individual Members of this House when petitioners come up against a brick wall. In this case, the corporation was that brick wall because it refused to budge and to accept any further compromise. In such cases, it is the right and the job of Members of Parliament to protect individuals and organisations.
      If there had been a chink of light in the corporation's position or any sign of compromise, we could have allowed the Committee to meet again to examine the reforms in more detail. I should have welcomed that. However, members of the City of London Labour party—and, perhaps, the members of the Committee, but they can comment for themselves—may have thought that the corporation would not budge any further so it was not worth them making any more effort.
      Mr. Jackson: May I suggest an alternative interpretation of the attitude of the City of London Labour party, which is that it came to the conclusion, as we did in the Committee, that the approach that the hon. Gentleman suggested was not practical? The sources to which he referred may well enable a census to be taken of the number of employees, but if we are talking about giving a franchise to individual employees, we must consider the problem of establishing a valid electoral register when hundreds of thousands of people work in the City and there is a tremendously rapid turnover.
      Mr. McDonnell: I understand the practical problems, but I do not think that any of them are insuperable. The most recent estimate of the number of people working with the corporation's boundary was about 250,000 employees. There is a turnover in most constituency electorates. In London constituencies, that turnover can be anywhere between 20 and 30 per cent. of the electorate, and in some instances it is even higher. However, I do not believe that mechanisms cannot be found to overcome those problems.
      There is an incentive for employees to come forward and register and, if necessary, to supply verification of their status if they want to vote. The incentive of providing a vote to individual employees would encourage people to come forward, register with the town clerk and provide sufficient information such as a wage slip or a letter from the employer. That would overcome the problems envisaged by the Committee and others. Perhaps we should adjourn the House now and invite the City of London Labour party to provide us with evidence on how to proceed.
      Dr. Godman: The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) raises a difficult but legitimate question about eligibility. However, I offer my hon. Friend the analogy of employees in companies that have works councils. In all such companies of which I am aware, every employee, no matter how new, has the right to vote for representatives on the works council. In those circumstances, we do not apply the same criteria as we do in elections for local government, the Westminster

      471
      Parliament or, dare I say it, the Scottish Parliament. The analogy of the works council might be helpful in dealing with an admittedly difficult question.
      Mr. McDonnell rose—
      Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. McDonnell: Will my hon. Friend first let me respond to the previous intervention?
      A useful comparison can be made with works councils, but forms of industrial democracy will develop from the Employment Relations Bill. For example, we shall have the opportunity to ensure that there are accurate registers of people who are employed by a particular company when there are ballots on trade union recognition. We already have the trade union rights commissioner, who can investigate individual claims and disputes about trade union membership within a particular company.
      I do not think that the problems will be insuperable, because there is such expertise within the corporation. I pay tribute to the high quality of its staff and officers. Their ingenuity could overcome problems through co-operation employers' bodies.
      Mr. Mackinlay: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and 1 apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not being able to contain myself when I tried to intervene earlier. However, I thought that my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) were far too generous to the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson). I find it breathtaking that he can trot out the nonsense that it will be difficult to compile a register. Our registers are a snapshot in time in terms of our territorial rights to be elected. I cannot see how anyone can suggest with any credibility whatsoever that one cannot have a snapshot in time in respect of who is on the payroll of companies in the City of London on a particular date. It is breathtaking in the extreme that anyone could advance such nonsense in the House.
      Mr. McDonnell: I am a man of temperate language and moderation, a man of the middle of the road if not the middle way.
      Let me return to the point that I was making about the practicalities. The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who chaired the Select Committee, may not recall the final statement by the City of London Labour party. It accepted that to amend the Bill to incorporate the principle of payroll votes would be a fundamental change. At that stage, it was anxious that such a proposal might be ruled out of order, but as a result of my amendments, that was not the case. It stated that such a change
      "would require substantial redrafting and may not be possible without substantially altering the Bill to such an extent that it would not be before this Committee, but would be re-presented."
      If we agree tonight that the Bill should be amended in that way, the City of London corporation will be saved the time, money and expensive lawyers involved in having the Bill re-presented.
      472
      Mr. Haines, who was representing the City of London Labour party continued:
      "We take the view that the first steps towards City reform outlined in the Bill will not be the last."
      That was certainly the burden of our discussions with the City corporation. By all accounts, they were constructive meetings that were conducted in good humour. The City of London Labour party representative continued:
      "We will monitor this new franchise and how it works in practice. We are pleased to have the opportunity to put the case for payroll votes now on the record for future consideration if required."
      That statement gave us the incentive to move our amendments tonight. The City of London Labour party was clearly constrained by the fact that it thought that such a proposal went beyond the Bill. That is clearly not the case, therefore we can discuss it tonight.
      The amendments seek to empower people who work in the City. I find it fascinating that my amendments would return the City corporation to its original roots and objectives and to its original method of representation. I am a traditionalist in that I seek to return the City corporation to its worker traditions.
      In the middle ages, the City comprised workers, business people and tradespeople who set up an organisation to represent their interests. It was a protosoviet—an embryonic workers' council. Although it was bourgeois, Trotsky would have appreciated it. In my opinion, the City corporation has the same line of ancestry as the Petrograd soviet. It was a group of workers coming together to seek representation. The amendments return to the tradition of employees and workers demanding some say about their working environment where they spend eight to 12 hours a day, or longer.
      I have gone through the history of the City of London. The idea of freemen of the City of London goes back to Roman times. It involved business men who were engaged in various trades and who had specific rights. The system continued into the middle ages without charter or incorporation. In its statement on the origins of its constitutional functions, the City corporation desrcibed itself as a commune. Its ancestry is clear. It is Marxist history—E. P. Thompson all over again. After the royal sanction, the City corporation established its rights on behalf of the workers—the freemen who worked in the City—through the guilds. It is fascinating that the rights of individual employees pervades the history of the City of London.
      7.45 pm
      Some of us come from a guild-socialist background through the trade union movement. The operation of guilds within the City corporation embedded the vote on the basis of work and the production of wealth. A PhD on class analysis may well evolve out of that.
      Mr. Robert Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who is being extremely patient. His historical analysis is most interesting. If the City owes its origins to power having been seized from below and not to an act of concession from the Crown or indeed from Parliament, is it altogether appropriate to talk in terms of Parliament imposing legislation on it?
      Mr. McDonnell: That is a valid point. The hon. Gentleman seems to be proposing that Parliament should

      473
      not act, but there should be a revolution. A Conservative Member appears to have made a revolutionary statement. If we pursue that analogy, workers in individual companies should demand the right to vote. Perhaps we should encourage them to do that.
      The privileges that were bestowed on individual freemen were limited. The history of the City corporation is quite useful in terms of how registration evolved from the original right of individual workers and guild members to vote. Restrictions came about later. The hon. Member for Wantage is right to refer to interventions from above, as wealth and power eventually undermined the rights of individual workers to have a say in respect of their working environment and the present contorted, distorted, abused system developed.
      It is important to distinguish between those who create wealth and those who gorge on it. There is often confusion between the City and the City corporation. The City corporation is not the City. A good analogy was drawn in the Select Committee: it is as if Stratford on Avon was claiming to be the Royal Shakespeare Company. The City is a different element from the City corporation. The City corporation is simply a local government body that has engaged in profligate abuse of the financial resources for individual gain or personal enjoyment—the best free lunch in the country. Those who work and create wealth in the City have no relationship with the corporation because of the historical restriction of individual rights to vote.
      The Bill is an attempt at least to allow businesses some say, but it does not involve the creators of the wealth. It gives a vote to the owners of businesses, but not to the individual workers. That is why over the years the Labour party pledged to abolish the City corporation. It was frustrated by its refusal to reform. Successive manifestos on which we fought elections in London included the abolition of the City corporation.
      Mr. Mackinlay: Hon. Members may be aware that I am not a member of the London Labour party although my constituency is close to London. Will my hon. Friend tell the House when the Labour party altered the policy to which he has referred as—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is quite outside the scope of the amendment.
      Mr. McDonnell: I shall try to draw my hon. Friend's intervention into the scope of the amendment. There was a debate throughout the 1970s and 1980s within the Labour party on industrial democracy, and bizarrely the issue of the City corporation arose. There was a discussion about whether a range of reforms would include a stepping stone towards democratic reform within the corporation. The discussion involved an extension of the number of businesses that would be able to vote. There was even a discussion at that early stage about empowering individual employees or workers to have some say with regard to the corporation.
      To my concern, shortly before the 1997 general election the Labour party's proposal to abolish the corporation on coming into government was dropped. I do not think that the issue was debated in any great detail within the London Labour party. If it had been, we would have had the opportunity of having a similar debate to the one in
      474
      which we are now participating. We would have been able to discuss a range of reforms. At that stage there would have been an opportunity on a continuum between abolition to status quo to insert into the debate some democratic discussions involving the work force within the City.
      One of the issues that arose on Second Reading was the special nature of the City as a business district, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson). If a Member wants a business district in his constituency, let him have it and not intrude on London. That reflected the debate that took place during the 1970s and 1980s, which focused on who in business, if the City was a business district, should have a say. It was considered that that say should not be confined to the owners of businesses or to boards of directors, who are largely absentee landlords. It was thought that those engaged in the creation of wealth for a company should have a say.
      Unfortunately, the Labour party dropped the abolition proposal and there was not a semblance of a debate. There was then consultation within the—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman enough of the history. He must now return to his amendment.
      Mr. McDonnell: The reason for drawing on the history, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was to explain how we have arrived at the present situation. However, I understand your point.
      In response to the demand for reform, the City corporation proposed introducing periodic re-election for aldermen, ending the procedure of allowing the court of aldermen to veto an individual—that has yet to be enacted or introduced—and streamlining clarification of the main procedures whereby an alderman progresses to become sheriff and subsequently Lord Mayor. It made a commitment on a steady reduction in the size of the court of common council from 330 members plus 25 aldermen to 100 members plus 25 aldermen. However, there was no discussion at that stage of employees having the right to vote.
      In "CityView" in March 1998 the corporation became very confident. The article states:
      "The Corporation's proposals, the principles of which have been accepted by the Government, set out to improve the existing system and then extend the franchise to embrace a wide range of City businesses and organisations."
      There was no discussion about the organisation of the business vote or about the consultations that businesses would have to undertake with their employees or others about the exercise of that vote. Having drawn this to the attention of the Front-Bench spokesman at that time, a letter winged its way to the City corporation saying that its phrase,
      "the principles of which have been accepted by the Government"
      namely its proposals—was not true at that stage. There had been no acceptance by the Government and consultation was still taking place.
      I think that the corporation's minor reforms were set out under duress, and that is the point of the amendment. Every reform that the corporation has suggested has been like drawing teeth. They have all been forced under duress. That is why the debate is taking place.

      475
      The proposals for reform set out by the corporation undermine the influence of residents. In addition, they take no account of the corporation's work force. Clause 4 refers to "workforce". It is a breakthrough. It is the light at the end of the tunnel. The corporation recognises that there are more people in the corporation than those who own businesses. These are the people who earn the money. Clause 4 states:
      "A qualifying body which is entitled to appoint more than one voter pursuant to section 3(1)(c) above shall ensure that the appointments"—
      not elections—
      "which it makes reflect, so far as is reasonably practicable, the composition of the workforce."
      This is the first time that there has been a reference to workers in any legislation involving the City corporation since the middle ages. It recognises for the first time that there is a work force within the City boundaries. We should be cheered that there is an opportunity to amend the Bill in a practical way that could be welcomed by the corporation, although it might feel under duress initially.
      I accept one of the arguments against the extension of the vote to employees, which is that it will contradict to some extent arguments raised on Second Reading and arguments discussed in Committee and elsewhere about the need for the strengthening of the residents' vote and the acceptance of universal adult suffrage to elect the City corporation. Those of us who believe in universal adult suffrage must accept that if employees have the right to vote, that will contradict residential rights. However, I accept that because it is a compromise.
      I have examined other legislation that has come before us this year in our process of democratic renewal of the United Kingdom to ascertain whether there were references that we could embody in the City corporation that would ensure universal adult suffrage and some involvement of employees, workers and businesses within the decision-making processes. In Scotland, the franchise is straightforward. It is based upon that of local government. The position is exactly the same in Wales, as it is in Northern Ireland. It is interesting that in Northern Ireland we are now establishing a civic forum of some sort. That involves civil society, which includes employers and employees' representatives, for example. There is some movement in the discussion that is taking place about the representations of individual employees.
      However, in the democratic renewal of London that we set out in our Green Paper, "A Mayor and an Assembly for London", and in the context of London government, I shall argue why it is so important that residents and employees, rather than businesses, have a vote.
      8 pm
      In the Deputy Prime Minister's foreword to "A Mayor and an Assembly for London", he stated:
      "When this government was elected less than a year ago, we embarked on a programme of democratic renewal in Britain. An essential part of this is modernising government in London".
      At that stage we were campaigning for the Greater London Authority and the structure of the assembly.
      476
      The City corporation is part of that structure, and the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear that we were proposing
      "new arrangements tailor-made for London with a powerful directly elected Mayor with hands-on responsibility for transport, economic development, strategic planning and the environment."
      The directly elected mayor will have significant powers and huge resources, which are to be exercised through consultation in the construction of strategies in each of those areas.
      The Deputy Prime Minister refers in his foreword to Londonwide solutions to
      "congestion, pollution, poverty and social exclusion—all of which reduce the quality of life for Londoners",
      which under the subsequent legislation must be exercised in consultation with the London boroughs and with the common council, which is counted as a London borough.
      What is significant in the new structure of government in London is that the mayor will be elected and the assembly will be elected, but, in the development of those strategies, the mayor will have to consult every London borough and the common council of the City corporation. Under the Bill before us, the common council will receive its mandate from 5,000 residents, but that mandate will be swamped by the business vote which will be determined not by the people who create the wealth of those businesses, but by those who own them. In some cases, those people do not even have to attend their business in the City.
      If the mayor and the assembly are to determine the important strategies for London overall and for my constituency in particular, I want the vote of the City corporation, which will determine its input into the consultations, to be determined by residents, or at least by residents and workers in the City corporation area. That is the significance of the amendments.
      Under the Greater London Authority Bill, the court of common council of the City corporation will be consulted on the mayor's development of the transport strategy, the London development agency strategy, the London biodiversity action plan, the municipal waste management strategy, the London air quality strategy and the London ambient noise strategy. I shall give an example relating to my constituency.
      The London ambient noise strategy is critical in my area, and in west London generally, because of Heathrow airport. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) has led some important debates in the House on the impact of air traffic noise on residents in west London. In the development of the noise strategy for London, the mayor will consult my borough, of course, but will consult on an equal basis with the common council of the City corporation. At present the decisions of that City corporation will largely be dominated not by the residents or the people who work in the area, but by the businesses.
      That means that the noise strategy for my area will be influenced not on any democratic mandate, not by people who are interested in living and working in London, but by people whose sole interest, in many cases, is to make money out of London. People who live or work in London know what the noise is like, they know about the problems of congestion and waste, and they have a view on those matters. Of course businesses have a transport interest, but for them, profit will always override environmental concerns.

      477
      I want my environment protected by the new strategic authority for London, the London mayor and the assembly, but I want it protected in consultation with democratic institutions—people who are aware of the experiences of Londoners, and of what it is like to live and to work in London. If the City corporation has a role in all those policy areas without the democratic mandate of the residents or the people who work in its area, that will undermine the credibility of the new structures of governance of London.
      Mr. Shaun Woodward: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can he explain to the House the difference, if there is any, between his position and that of the City of London Labour party, which stated recently:
      "We accept that the common council will be better able to serve the financial City if the electors to which those representatives are accountable include those financial institutions."
      Can the hon. Gentleman explain his policy and the difference between that and the policy of the City of London Labour party, and whether he subsrcibes to the policies of those on his Front Bench?
      Mr. McDonnell: I cannot speak for the City of London Labour party, although from discussions I believe that its views are very similar to mine. It is trying to get the best possible deal for local people. I can understand that. The best deal at present is to try to amend the Bill in such a way as to enhance the democratic rights of local residents, so that they are not swamped by businesses. The City of London Labour party has had to accept a series of compromises in its proposals to the Committee. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I will provide him with a copy of the minutes of the Committee.
      The City of London Labour party accepted that the extension of the democratic franchise to employees was a subject for another day, as it could not be included in the Bill. I am at one with the thrust of the argument. I shall give way if other members of the Committee want to come in, but that is the thrust of the discussion that took place in Committee.
      The City of London Labour party is trying to get the best that it can from the legislation. I shall explain to the hon. Gentleman on another occasion the concept of transitional demand, which he may not have come across in the Conservative tradition. The City of London Labour party is trying to ensure that at least some minor improvements are made, even if we cannot go the whole way.
      I am trying to explain my position on the amendments, and at a later date I shall be happy to explain my overall position, but I could sum it up in one word: abolition. I accept, as do the City of London Labour party and the other petitioner, Mr. Malcolm Matson and others, that we must take what we can. Even if we cannot get universal adult suffrage, which exists throughout the rest of the country and which we fought so hard to achieve, at least let us get a recognition of the fact that businesses exist only as a result of their workers, and that we should give the vote to the employees.
      I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman. I shall be happy to explain to him in further detail the overall policy to be pursued through abolition of the City corporation and its division into the individual boroughs or transfer to
      478
      the auspices of the new mayor and assembly. It would be a wonderful financial base for the new strategic authority for London, but I am afraid that we have missed that opportunity. I tried to move an amendment to that effect on the Greater London Authority Bill, but we never reached it.
      I return to the import of the City of London corporation's role and the need to ensure that it will be representative of residents and employees. Within the new structure of London government, it will have a say equal to that of those other authorities which have a direct democratic mandate. Therefore, my amendments seek to ensure that, if we cannot go to the full extent of the democratic mandate, we at least move towards a halfway house. That recognises that there may well be a special area with large numbers of people working within it who should have their own say.
      There are opportunities within the legislation to ensure a modernising approach which will gear up the new structure of the City corporation, which will come out of the Bill, to meet more effectively the challenges of the new structure of governance for London overall.
      If the new City corporation reflects its residents and those who work within it rather than just businesses, there will be a significant voice to be heard on issues such as traffic congestion. The workers within the City corporation endure a daily life of traffic congestion from one end of the square mile to the other. There have been some improvements, but we need to hear from those who work in that area what it is like there, what are their concerns and what can be done to improve traffic congestion but—because no traffic problem in London can be solved within the square mile—within the strategic approach that the new strategic authority for London will undertake. That is why it is critical to engage those people in this debate. It is not just a matter of consulting them, but of ensuring that they participate democratically in the debate. That can come only if they have the right to vote.
      Other aspects that I have identified within the new strategic authority are ambient noise, waste management, biodiversity and the London development agency. I do not want to stray too far from the Bill, but I hope that the London development agency will be the engine for economic growth within London. We need to take on board the voice of business, and that is contained within the composition of the London development partnership, which it is hoped will become part of the new London development agency. We also need to ensure that, within London's economic development programme, we take into account the voice of those with a hands-on approach to working within the City—in other words, the employees, the workers. I want them to have a say in the development of London's economy.
      In the new structure of governance for London, such people will be consulted. Clause 33 of the Greater London Authority Bill obliges the mayor to consult on all the strategies of the Assembly, the functional bodies, the London local boroughs and the common council. What better than to have feeding into the views of the City corporation the views of those who create the wealth within the City on issues such as our city's economic development. I would welcome their views to nourish the discussion.
      The amendments make the City corporation accountable to real-life people. I hope that they protect the residents' vote as best they can. In addition,

      479
      they introduce into the system not businesses, but workers: people who provide us with the economic base for Britain's future stability.
      8.15 pm
      Amendment No. 7 defines a relevant employee. I have lifted part of that definition from the clause that I mentioned earlier relating to the work force. The amendment seeks to define a relevant employee as someone
      "whose principal or only place of work on the qualifying date"—
      the date of registration—
      "is ordinarily the hereditament in respect of which the entitlement to appoint a voter arises and who works for that qualifying body."
      Clause 3 contains three classifications of those entitled to vote. The first is those who are
      "ordinarily in occupation for relevant purposes as owner or tenant of a hereditament—having a rateable value of not less than £200".
      The second is a "resident in that ward". The third
      "is a person appointed"—
      not elected—
      "as a voter in writing by a qualifying body".
      A qualifying body is defined previously in the Bill. Therefore, amendment No. 7 identifies a relevant employee as someone who works in a hereditament.
      In amendments that have not been selected, I attempted to ensure that only residents could vote. The clause goes on to say that a qualifying body would be able to appoint, not elect, a person as a voter only if it undertook a ballot of its employees. We have discussed the logistics of undertaking a ballot of employees.
      The proposal envisages a qualifying body registering itself with the City corporation, as would be necessary anyway because of the rateable value commitments, identifying to the town clerks, or the chief executive as he now is, the number of employees located within that hereditament, having that verified by the chief executive, and then, if necessary—in the event of an appeal, contest or whatever—the City corporation itself funding an independent commissioner to enable an assessment to be made in any disputes. Such disputes could arise from an individual employee contesting a matter, or his or her trade union representative.
      I thought hard about whether to build some concept of trade unions into the amendment, but I did not want to frighten the horses. To the City corporation it would be like a red rag to a bull. Nevertheless, there would be an opportunity for individual representatives to contest the calculation of the number of employees and the registration. If necessary, that could be part of any future report to Parliament about the operation of the system, which is contained elsewhere in the Bill.
      Amendment No. 13 may be the crux of the debate. Rather than have the appointment of a voter by whim, the onus must be on the qualifying body to go through some process in order to verify that the voter is acting in the interests not just of the individual company, but of those who work in that company, and those who can take a broader view in terms of the City corporation, the City area and its role in the governance of Greater London
      480
      through the Greater London Authority and the advice that it provides, along with other London boroughs, to the mayor of London.
      The current legislation proposes that, when there is a dispute about an hereditament that straddles more than one ward, a determination should be based on the rateable value. I suggest, in amendment No. 16, that the determination should be based, for electoral purposes, on where the greatest number of employees are. If a building or company was located across two wards, the vote would be cast in the ward where the most people were employed. The people involved could then participate in discussion.
      Amendment No. 17 provides for the appointment of voters to relate not just to rateable values, but to the number of employees. All the amendments are intended to reflect the concept of voters as individuals—living human beings—rather than buildings, as it were, or owners of businesses.
      Amendment No. 30 is, to an extent, an attempt to challenge the concept of the Bill. It proposes the replacement of the word "appoint" with "elect". If a ballot were introduced among employees, someone voting on behalf of the business concerned would not be appointed, but elected. The amendment may seem trivial, but every reference to democratic processes that we can introduce in the Bill will send a message. It will send a message to the corporation of London that the days of appointments are over and that the days of rotten boroughs are over. We now demand elections. We demand democracy; our cry is "Democracy".
      I actually consider amendment No. 33 to be quite weak. I apologise for it. Schedule 1 establishes a principle relating to rateable value. The original proposal was amended in Committee; I welcome that amendment, which resulted from pressure exerted by petitioners. Originally, the relevant rateable value of an hereditament occupied by a qualifying body was £200 up to £10,000; that has now been amended to £200 up to £20,000. In the case of rateable value of more than £20,000 but not over £1 million, the maximum number of persons who can be appointed will be
      "1 for every complete £20,000 of that rateable value, plus 1 for any further amount thereof less than £20,000".
      On Second Reading, we were anxious about that purchasing of votes. I admit that the amendment may not be as well worded as it might be. I have suggested that there should be one vote for every 1,000 employees. I now understand the problem that that entails. It is not a practical problem; the problem is that rather than being rateable value, the currency is now employees. A body can now purchase a vote according to how many employees it has. Perhaps we should suggest to other Ministers that that arrangement could be part of the new deal. It could provide an employment creation scheme in the City. I jest, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Amendment No. 33 suggests one person for every 1,000 employees. That is a crude calculation. I have heard that there are about 250,000 employees in the square mile, although there may be more. The problem with the amendment is that, if a firm is broken down into a number of individual units, the one vote is there for up to 1,000 employees. That confronts us with the same issue with which we were confronted by the employment rights legislation: how do we define a particular unit?
      Perhaps we shall be able to solve that problem later. Perhaps we shall be able to amend the amendment in another place. The Minister shakes his head, but one never

      481
      knows: there could be a revolution in the Upper House at some point in the near future. Perhaps their Lordships will recognise that this could provide them with a bargaining gambit for their future survival.
      Anyway, I want to ensure that the trade is not in individual employees, and that we do not reach a point at which companies break themselves down in order to gain the required number of votes, rather than being honest. Of course, instead of requiring one for every 1,000, we could have specified one up to 1,000, and then one for every 10,000 thereafter. That would have provided an incentive, and it was my original intention; but, again, I should like to return to the matter at a later stage.
      Amendment No. 33 is consistent with the principle that we have established. We are, in effect, throwing out the words "rateable value". This is not about rateable value: it is not about how much land someone purchases, how much he owns and what his wealth is. It is about real people: it is about thousands of workers and what they bring to our city overall—not just the City of London, but the city of London according to the old Greater London council boundaries.
      Amendment No. 35 is similar to amendment No. 16. It, too, deals with circumstances where there is more than one hereditament in the same ward. Again, we reject the idea that there should be an aggregate of rateable value, but suggest an aggregate of relevant employees. We want to be fair to individual companies and to enable them to exercise their right to vote, although they may not be based on a particular unit or may have split their operations between different areas in a particular ward.
      The overall process that I envisage is a dialogue with the corporation about the practical implementation of the amendments. I welcome the corporation's views on the concept of the definition of a relevant employee. I understand some of the difficulties that have been experienced with that definition, and I understand the point made in Committee—I think that it was the only valid point in this regard—about the change that has taken place in the operation of City companies. Employees used to be located in the City itself, operating on a day-to-day basis; nowadays, they hot-desk. An employee of a company may visit the site only once every three or six months. We need to construct a definition of a relevant employee that takes account of modern industrial and commercial practices in the City.
      Other people may be employed in the City and therefore count as relevant employees according to this definition, but may share a contract with a number of companies. Where will their ballot take place? It may be carried out on the basis of proportionality, or they may opt for a specific company.
      I would welcome the corporation's views because I think that it could advise us on a number of issues. I would also welcome a discussion with the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the south-west branch of the Trades Union Congress and the south-west branch of the Confederation of British Industry. As we know, working practices in the City change day by day, and that is bound to affect definitions in the legislation.
      The argument that the City has put forward in promoting the Bill is that one of the things that does not change is ownership of property. That is not true either. There is as much change of property and difficulty of definition of property as there is change of employee and difficulty of definition of employee.
      Mr. Mackinlay: I bet the British Oxygen Company has an office there.
      Mr. McDonnell: If that was an intervention, I would welcome it.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me make it absolutely clear: we are not going to have sedentary comments interrupting speeches.
      Mr. McDonnell rose—
      Mr. Mackinlay: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. McDonnell: Certainly.
      Mr. Mackinlay: Does the BOC, for example, have an office there? If so, that is a classic example of where those things could be sold like chattels; indeed, the employees could be sold like chattels.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. McDonnell: I would not want to get into a dispute about the BOC, as it is located in my constituency as well. I suppose that the following point is a declaration of interest: I hope that it will sponsor the Hayes horticultural show, which I have just re-established.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend has made a point about what he called hot-desking in the City. People there can rent a desk for a short time and move on. I am unclear about something in relation to the Bill; I would be grateful if he could explain what his amendment means in this respect.
      If votes are to be distributed for a particular building, does the owner of the leasehold who sublets those desk places decide who has the vote, or does an amalgamation of the people who are the tenants of the leaseholder of the building decide how the vote will be allocated for that particular place? As part of a wholly extraordinary system of voting, that seems to be the most bizarre aspect imaginable.
      Mr. McDonnell: We can approach the matter through a definition of the business that is located within the boundaries of the City corporation. The corporation is right: we can base it on some concept of rateable value to a certain extent. Having identified that that company operates in the area, the company is invited—the Bill does it, anyway—to acquire a vote.
      If the company so wishes to acquire that vote—it can do so under the Bill as it now stands, anyway—it will be just a small step on to say, "If you wish to acquire that vote, you must ballot your employees in the exercise of that vote. To do that, we need to verify the number of employees that you have. The number will determine how many votes you gain."
      Therefore, we seek to establish a self-reinforcing, self-interested system. In many respects, it could be a model for concepts of industrial democracy elsewhere.
      Mr. Corbyn: I want to press my hon. Friend a little. In trade union recognition legislation, there are problems about who is to decide what is a work force and what is not, but, clearly, where the building has the vote,

      483
      if you like, and where a number of people there are self-employed—indeed, they might be self-employed for short periods—how do we decide which group of people has some say, or otherwise, in the selection of those who will be eligible to vote under the legislation?
      Mr. McDonnell: It is a problem. We need to establish a mechanism, as we do in other areas, under which there is an incentive for the company to register—it will want to influence the City corporation. Having done that, the mechanism needs to incentivise the company to engage its work force, and to incentivise the work force itself to ensure that it works with the company to define where it is located, how it wants to be involved and how it will become engaged in the democratic process in the area.
      It is not that different from the early processes that this country went through in establishing a democratic process overall. In some of the debates in the Chamber about the Great Reform Bills that were passed, all the arguments were advanced; people said, "How can you identify where people are? There will be problems of corruption in terms of multiple voting." It is not beyond the wit of man to devise a system whereby we can engage workers themselves, so that they have a role and a say within not just their firm, but their locality. There is a ready mechanism.
      There is a classic example in my constituency. It was referred to in Committee by Mr. Malcolm Matson. There is almost a mini-city in my constituency. It has virtually 60,000 inhabitants. They do not live there; they work there. It is called Heathrow airport. However, those people have no say whatever—there is no democratic engagement—in the processes that govern that working area; that is what it is.
      There is one road left within the boundaries of Heathrow; it just comes within it. The houses there are largely bought up now. We used to canvass them years ago. Again, the proposals in the amendments are a model for the workers within Heathrow to have a say not over the wider area in my constituency, but within that defined area of Heathrow. The aim is to give them a say in what some of the companies are undertaking.
      In that instance, the company that controls the whole area is the British Airports Authority. Since its denationalisation, it has retained its planning powers—for example, it still has the power of compulsory purchase.
      The Minister and I had a discussion about the matter on another occasion. The statements that were made at that stage had to be corrected because, within that area, the BAA exercises a role almost like that of the City corporation. The model for the City corporation gives opportunities for engagement in those sectors of the working locality where employees have a right to have some say. That is what the amendments propose.
      I refer to the proposals of the City of London Labour party during its discussions in Committee. It recognised that the principle of the payroll needed to be examined further. It accepted that there were some problems, but did not accept—the hon. Member for Wantage, who chaired the Committee, has now left the Chamber—that they were practical problems involving the operation of the system; it said that they were to do with the drafting of the Bill.
      484
      I can understand that, because the City corporation was determined to ensure that there was no movement on the original Bill. However, I have been at other situations where sponsors of Bills have been willing to discuss and to amend their Bill before presentation to Committee. That did not happen in this case.
      Mr. Mackinlay: As I understand it—perhaps my hon. Friend will clarify the matter for me—although the intention behind his amendment is to extend the franchise to employees, the arguments that he is advancing to support it are the same as those that were used by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and his parliamentary colleagues when they amended the law to grant the right, elsewhere in England and Wales, to stand in local authority elections on the basis of "principal place of work". The arguments that they used were that people identify with their work, and that, although some people may not sleep in a certain area, they identify with their place of work because they live, sleep and breathe work.
      The previous Conservative Government—on the basis that people identified with, shared in, and were proud of, where they worked—advanced the argument that the law should be amended to extend the right to stand for election to municipal office. The Official Report will show that such arguments were advanced by, among others, this Bill's principal advocate, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. I should think and hope that he might reflect on the fact that those were powerful arguments not only then, but now in our consideration of the Bill.
      Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend is right—there is undoubtedly an irony in all of this. If Labour Members stand for anything, we stand for people's right to exercise their democratic wishes to achieve their ambitions and objectives—which we would identify as socialism. The irony is that, here we are, almost at one with the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) in arguing for some form of recognition that elements within industry or commerce should have a role to play in the City of London corporation and should exercise a vote. Ironically, that runs counter to much of what we stand for. For that reason, I have been arguing that my amendments are transitional onescompromises—and an attempt to ameliorate the Bill's provisions, so that the work force might have a vote.
      Mr. Phil Sawford: I served on the Committee, and I sought clarification on the matter of declarations of interest, as I knew that the Labour party was one of the petitioners. At no time did anyone advise or suggest to me that I had an interest in the City of London simply because I had a bank account. However, as the issue has arisen, I shall declare such an interest: I have a bank account, which is usually in deficit.
      Throughout the Committee stage, I felt that we were restrained by the Bill's scope in the type of amendment that we could table. However, I settled for a type of

      485
      uneasy compromise that I felt made some moves in the right direction. The special report that accompanied the Bill stated:
      "the Committee is, however, of the view that neither the Bill nor the additional assurances"—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but interventions are increasingly stretching into mini-speeches. Could he make his point now, quite briefly?
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Sawford: It finished:
      "can entirely remedy the problems in the governance of the City."
      I simply draw the attention of my hon. Friend to that fact.
      Even at the end of the Bill's Committee stage, the Committee members, with the restraints that we were under, still felt that much more needed to be done.
      Mr. McDonnell: I accept that point. Although I had some anxieties about it, I think that the Committee, within certain bounds, did a reasonable job. Earlier in the debate, I expressed my anxiety that the Committee would not be able to take proper cognisance of some of the issues raised in Second Reading, and therefore would not be able to give the advice that was required of it.
      When, for example, the City of London Labour party suggested enfranchising the work force, in a payroll vote, the Committee should have sought advice on whether it should seek such an amendment from the City of London corporation. I think that, at that stage, the Committee could have been sufficiently forceful to ensure that the corporation accepted the amendment being promoted by the City of London Labour party. I believe that moral pressure could have been employed to ensure that the amendment was accepted. I regret that advice on the matter was not taken by the Committee at that point, so that such an amendment could have been tabled. It was a valid issue in the Bill.
      When I drafted amendments to enable that to happen—again I apologise to the City of London Labour party for not consulting it on my amendments' detail, which is most probably why they are not particularly eloquent ones—and sought the Private Bill Office's advice, I was told that the Private Bill Office would check whether it would be in order to amend the Bill in such a manner. My amendments were in order, and they were selected.
      If Committee members and the City of London Labour party petitioners had been made aware of that fact, the point on the amendment could have been made more forcefully. The City of London corporation could have compromised on that issue, as it has on so many other, relatively minor ones—except for the right to veto, which is an important one. If that had happened, we would today have been debating a fundamentally different Bill. We may not necessarily have been happy with such a Bill, but we would have been closer to being able to say, "Some form of democracy is being practised in the City of London corporation."
      Mr. Colman: My hon. Friend has spoken about compromise. We have all received a letter from the City of London Labour party, which supports the Bill in its current state. Does he agree that the worst possible
      486
      situation would be for the Bill to fall, because, if it fell, the status quo would persist and we would not make the advance that, I believe, everyone accepts that the Bill represents?
      Mr. McDonnell: That is a valid point to raise when we are discussing an amendment, because the amendment seeks to amend the Bill, not to defeat it. If it were a wrecking amendment, it would not have been called. Therefore I take my hon. Friend back to the point that I made—I shall not delay the House—in relation to the earlier intervention.
      When representatives of the City of London Labour party appeared before the Committee, they said:
      "We have commended to the corporation an alternative proposal that votes should relate to the number of staff employed by bodies within the City—a system we refer to as a payroll vote."
      I shall not waste the time of the House by reading out more of the detail of the minutes, but they show that the representatives were obviously of the view that such an amendment could not be made to the Bill. I commend them for it.
      I had a conversation with Kate Green, secretary of the constituency party—one of the best advocates for the Labour party that the party could have. In a considered way, working with her colleagues, she drafted amendments, discussed the matter in detail with the Corporation of the City of London, sought compromises and achieved some. Nevertheless, I believe that, if members of the constituency party had been aware that it was possible to amend the Bill in this way, they would have pressed further, and I believe that, in that case, the Corporation of the City of London would have provided us with something tonight that we could have debated, thus maintaining some semblance of a feeling that we were reforming.
      I would willingly give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Sawford), who served on the Committee, to allow him to say whether that is his impression, because I believe that there is a real opportunity here.
      Dr. Godman: In relation to amendment No. 13 and the view of the City of London Labour party on the Bill, might I remind my hon. Friend that the promoters of the Bill have promised, inter alia, that
      "the number of members returned by residential wards will be reviewed to protect their proportion on the Court of Common Council"?
      Does my hon. Friend know who will conduct that review?
      Mr. McDonnell: It relates partly to a later amendment on the report of the Secretary of State, which I should like to discuss at some stage. However, I shall answer that question because it partly relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney raised, which is that the review of the wards is a significant amelioration of the current system. Who won that amelioration? The City of London Labour party campaigners and Malcolm Matson and other petitioners. That is excellent, but, even in that regard, a compromise h as been accepted, because who conducts the boundary review? The Corporation of the City of London itself, because it does not come under the auspices of the boundary commission. In fact, one of the proposals that was advanced in the statement was that

      487
      the boundary commission should be involved in the redrawing of ward boundaries. I would welcome—it does not have to be written in blood—a statement from the City of London corporation, confirming that it will involve the boundary commission in that process.
      Mr. Corbyn rose—
      Mr. McDonnell: I shall press on, if I may.
      That situation is very similar to that regarding the City cash; this does relate specifically to my amendment. One of the reasons to empower employees in the system is to enable them to have the power to have some oversight of the corporation and its finances. Some say that £1.6 billion is sitting in the City cash—money which is not audited by the district auditor or by the Audit Commission. It is a separate account, hidden from view.
      Mr. Corbyn: If the boundary commission is not involved—and if the court of common council is, in effect, the boundary commission—is my hon. Friend aware whether any of its decisions, were they to be perverse, could be challenged by judicial review on the grounds of fairness towards those who live and work in the City of London?
      Mr. McDonnell: I am not a lawyer, although I have some historical experience of libel law which I wish to put behind me. I would suggest that anybody, including the City corporation, is open to judicial review on the basis of the Wednesbury principles of reasonable behaviour. In any decision, the City corporation—as a local government body—would come under those Wednesbury principles which, as you know, require any body or individual, alderman, councillor or whatever—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. First, may I remind the hon. Gentleman to use the correct parliamentary language? Secondly, he is getting away from the amendments. I would be grateful if he would return to them.
      Mr. McDonnell: I apologise for the language, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It requires one to take a decision, having taken into account all the relevant factors and dismissed all the irrelevant factors. That is a definition of the Wednesbury principles.
      The issue of the City cash is critical and relates to the boundary issue. The Committee observed that there would be the benefit of increased transparency if the corporation were to seek the opinion and experience of the boundary commission for England in conducting a boundary review. That is a request, and I urge the City corporation to accede to it.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Putney asked why the amendments that I tabled were not previously pressed by the petitioners in Committee, and why the Bill does not contain them. We will have received correspondence from the two petitioners. One, from Malcolm Matson, sets out the basic arguments against the Bill and asks us to vote against it. On the amendments, however, the City of London Labour party wrote to a number of hon. Members, explaining their acceptance of what I consider to be
      488
      considerable victories for the party in its petitioning of the Bill. However, the party accepts that there has to be a further process.
      The local Labour party was grateful to those hon. Members who supported and endorsed the proposed amendments by contacting the corporation. However, I am not sure how many pressed the issue of empowering the payroll vote, as is set out in the amendment. The Committee members and the petitioners were of a view that that was beyond the remit of the Bill, when clearly it was not. That is why we are debating the matter tonight.
      The Committee was minded to go further, and the City of London Labour party was able to strengthen the amendments, to the extent that the Committee produced a Bill which was substantially different and essentially more democratic. The Labour party's letter lists those reforms. However, it was unable to list any proposal or amendment similar to my amendment on empowering employees because, like others, those concerned thought that it was beyond the power of the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Putney prayed in aid the City of London Labour party, and said that we should accept what we have. If this does not happen, he suggested, there will be catastrophe—the status quo will continue for another millennium and we will never get the chance to make the body in some way accountable and democratic.
      The letter says:
      "The City of London Labour Party agrees that the amended Bill delivers less than the ideal reform to bring the City into line with democratic local government practice. Further reform will not be easy but is necessary. The Committee itself made certain suggestions. The challenge will be to find ways to advance them."
      The amendments take up that challenge.
      It was clear that those petitioners were frustrated in their proposals because of a view that was taken of the amendability of the Bill.
      Mr. Colman: Clause 7 clearly states that there will be a full review after not more than five years, and that gives us the chance to make progress.
      Mr. McDonnell: That part of the Bill is important. I have tabled a further amendment reducing that time from five years to two. I sought to embody the call for further reforms in amendments, so that the report to the Secretary of State would have to contain reference to progress on all those matters; but I was told that that was out of order and such amendments could not be tabled. It does not help to pray in aid clause 7, because it is so weak and ill defined and does not force the corporation to implement the recommendations in the statement. I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Putney is clutching at straws. I am, too. I am trying to achieve the best possible amendment of a poor piece of legislation.
      Mr. Connarty: I have some interest in the correspondence and petitions on behalf of one particular organisation. I hope that my hon. Friend will take it into account that the idea of giving the widest possible franchise is of interest to democrats regardless of whether they live in the City or in the adjacent area. Will he use more force in arguing on behalf of the democrats that if the provision that he seeks is in order it is justifiable to insert it in the Bill?
      Mr. McDonnell: I accept that point and my hon. Friend's remonstration. There is an argument that we are

      489
      setting a precedent in this Bill for a widening of the franchise in particular areas. That has some advantages and some dangers and—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are getting increasingly general. He is to some extent going over ground that he has already trodden. The House will be well aware that he has dealt in some detail with all the amendments in the group. Perhaps he should now move on to new ground or think of concluding his remarks.
      Mr. McDonnell: Can I take your advice on that matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Do you mean new ground in terms of arguments on this group of amendments, or moving on to new amendments?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Provided that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are specific to the amendments, I will allow him to carry on, but they are becoming increasingly general and unrelated to the amendments and, as I have already said, he has covered each amendment in great detail.
      Mr. McDonnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Paul Burstow: The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that amendment No. 33 might be inadequate or slightly defective in its drafting.
      What discussions has he sought to have or has he had with the corporation about the amendments, their effectiveness and workability?
      9 pm
      Mr. McDonnell: That is a good point, and I apologise to the City of London corporation for not having fully involved it in the discussions around the amendments. My only excuse—it is a reason as much as an excuse—is that the time scale did not permit it. The initial view that the payroll issue would not be contained in the Bill was thought by us all to be appropriate. Having tested that point late in the day because I thought it was ultra vires, I was able to draft the amendments only in the past 48 hours.
      Discussion of the amendments tonight gives us the opportunity of consultation with the City corporation before the Bill goes to the other place and then comes back to us. The mind frame on the Bill was set early on by the non-advice to the Committee or it failing to seek advice on the remit of the Bill.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman clearly did not understand what I said earlier. His remarks are again general in nature and he must, if he is going to continue, confine himself to the amendments.
      Mr. McDonnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was responding to an intervention. If that was inappropriate, fair enough. I will want to engage in as much consultation on the amendments as possible after they have been approved, as I hope, this evening. There is an opportunity, for example, to consult the City corporation on the detailed implementation of the amendments.
      490
      Amendment No. 33 is not adequate, but I moved it tonight to provoke debate. The issue contained in the amendment is whether the figure of £1,000 is correct. As I suggested earlier, perhaps it should be up to £1,000 for the first vote and £10,000 after that. One approach would be to make a proper analysis of the working population within the City corporation boundaries and then to work back from that, through the definition of relevant employees within individual companies, to calculate the distribution of votes in such a way that we would not introduce a system that would swamp the residential vote by employee or payroll votes. That is one way of tackling the individual problem highlighted in amendment No. 33. It would be a simple mathematical calculation and would be obtainable fairly easily from the information that we have. That is another issue for consultation with the City corporation and others. We need to engage in that calculation in discussions with the business representatives. I mentioned the LCCI and the CBI earlier and I have welcomed their involvement throughout, as well as trade union representation.
      The amendments would improve the Bill in an unexpected way and the City corporation will welcome them. It would welcome the voice of employees in its deliberations. I would certainly welcome the voice of employees in the Londonwide deliberations. There are arguments about the democratic nature of the City corporation being based solely on a business franchise.
      Mr. Corbyn: I am interested in what my hon. Friend has said about employees and residence. The City of London has many unique features, but an interesting feature that is not entirely unique is that most of its housing stock owned by local authorities is without the purview of the City of London. For example, there is a large City of London housing estate in my constituency. It is well run and I have no complaints about that, but do any of the amendments envisage a role for City of London tenants to have a say about how housing policy is managed?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That again is wide of the amendments before the House. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) ought not to respond to it.
      Mr. McDonnell: I shall therefore refer my hon. Friend to amendments that were not selected for debate.
      The thrust of my arguments has been to challenge the anti-democratic nature of the Bill, and to ensure that democracy is heard in the debate. On Second Reading and elsewhere, democracy has been very narrowly defined, based on voting either by residents or by businesses. We have introduced a wider definition which, if accepted, could introduce for the first time a concept of industrial democracy. That would be based not on the power of a particular firm, but on employees having a role in their firm and in their firm's locality.
      Some hon. Members will have engaged in the debate in the 1960s and 1970s, during the Bullock inquiry into industrial democracy. That debate was based on matters such as working practices, the work environment, health and safety and adequate representation. At no stage in that debate—
      Mr. Peter Brooke rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now proposed.
      Question put, That the Question be now proposed:—
      The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 62.

      Division No. 241]

      [9.8 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Gill, Christopher

      Amess, David

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Gorrie, Donald

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Gray, James

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Green, Damian

      Bayley, Hugh

      Greenway, John

      Beard, Nigel

      Grieve, Dominic

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Grocott, Bruce

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Gunnell, John

      Betts, Clive

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hain, Peter

      Body, Sir Richard

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Boswell, Tim

      Hammond, Philip

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Hancock, Mike

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Hanson, David

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Brady, Graham

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Brazier, Julian

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Heppell, John

      Browne, Desmond

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hill, Keith

      Burns, Simon

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Casale, Roger

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Hutton, John

      Chidgey, David

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Jamieson, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Jenkins, Brian

      Coaker, Vernon.

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Collins, Tim

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Colman, Tony

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cox, Tom

      Khabra, Piara S

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Davidson, Ian

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Day, Stephen

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Laxton, Bob

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Letwin, Oliver

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Dowd, Jim

      Lidington, David

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Loughton, Tim

      Fallon, Michael

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Flight, Howard

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fox, Dr Liam

      McNulty, Tony

      Fraser, Christopher

      Maples, John

      Gale, Roger

      Mates, Michael

      Garnier, Edward

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      492

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Meale, Alan

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Moss, Malcolm

      Streeter, Gary

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Swayne, Desmond

      Norman, Archie

      Syms, Robert

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Olner, Bill

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Page, Richard

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Paice, James

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Pickles, Eric

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Timms, Stephen

      Pond, Chris

      Trickett, Jon

      Pope, Greg

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Vaz, Keith

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Prior, David

      Wardle, Charles

      Randall, John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Raynsford, Nick

      Wells, Bowen

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Whittingdale, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Wilkinson, John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Rooney, Terry

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Roy, Frank

      Wilshire, David

      Ruffley, David

      Wilson, Brian

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Woodward, Shaun

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Mr. Robert Walter and

      Spellar, John

      Mr. Nick Hawkins.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Ashton, Joe

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Barnes, Harry

      Keetch, Paul

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Kidney, David

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Burstow, Paul

      Livsey, Richard

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      McDonnell, John

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Cann, Jamie

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Chaytor, David

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Pike, Peter L

      Coleman, Iain

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Rapson, Syd

      Cousins, Jim

      Sanders, Adrian

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Sawford, Phil

      Dalyell, Tam

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dismore, Andrew

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Etherington, Bill

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

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Steinberg, Gerry

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Gerrard, Neil

      Stunell, Andrew

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Wise, Audrey

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Wood, Mike

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Hood, Jimmy

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and

      Hurst, Alan

      Mr. Michael Connarty.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Mr. Brooke: On Second Reading, I took advice on the declaration of an interest in the Bill. I was told that I had no interest to declare, but, in order to make it clear beyond peradventure, I am content to refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests, and am happy to stand by anything that appears in that entry.
      The Second Reading debate was excellent, good-humoured and germane. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) when I say that so far this evening, we have heard a bit of a monologue.
      Mr. McDonnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Brooke: As my speech will be shorter than the one made by the hon. Gentleman, I shall wait a moment before giving way, although that is uncharacteristic of me.
      Under some compulsion from the House, the hon. Gentleman's amendments were put, and I shall speak briefly in rebuttal of them. The most enjoyable moment in his speech was when he got to amendment No. 33 and, in a manner worthy of the former Member for Burnley—who, on one memorable occasion, said, "I intervene upon myself, Mr. Deputy Speaker"—
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Was that Dan Jones?
      Mr. Brooke: As my hon. Friend says, it was indeed Mr. Dan Jones. However, I should rather not take interventions unless they are absolutely necessary.
      The substance of the remarks of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington in moving the amendments was contained in his observations on amendment No. 13, which he desrcibed as the key amendment. He looked forward to amendment No. 33, which amended the schedule; that amendment also dwelt on the process. The majority of the other amendments were either paving or consequential amendments, so I shall run through them quickly; I shall concentrate on amendments No. 13 and 33.
      I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that amendment No. 7 was a paving amendment. He took the view that amendment No. 13 was the key amendment. It would make an insertion in clause 3 so as to require the conduct of a ballot of relevant employees to decide who is to be appointed as a voter. No details are given about how such a ballot would take place, or about how the selection of candidates would be made. In any case, the amendment is inappropriate, because it harks forward to a proposed amendment to the schedule—amendment No. 33—which links the entitlement to appoint voters to numbers employed rather than to rateable values. As will be apparent under the substantive amendment to the schedule, that system is not workable for reasons to which I shall come.
      The hon. Gentleman spoke to amendment No. 16, to which I shall return because it is a little different from the
      494
      others. Amendment No. 17 appears to be consequential, as does amendment No. 19. Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are also consequential.
      Amendment No. 33 represents the heart of the hon. Gentleman's argument that, instead of an election system based on rateable value, we should have an election system based on payroll. The amendment replaces the existing scale of appointments in paragraph 1 of the schedule by a scale related to the numbers of employees. Qualifying bodies having up to 1,000 employees would receive one appointment, with one each for each subsequent 1,000. The possibility of using employees as an index was given detailed consideration before the promotion of the Bill. In the event, it became apparent that such a scheme would not be administratively workable.
      Mr. McDonnell: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that there was detailed consideration of the proposal before the Bill was promoted. Who was consulted in that detailed consideration? It was certainly not London Members of Parliament, London local authorities or many of those who were involved in the petition against the Bill. That consultation does not seem to have taken place.
      Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman knows well that the Government made it clear that, if the corporation was not to be abolished, it had to reform its franchise. As it was to be reformed through the business vote, the consultations and discussions, not unreasonably, took place with business interests.
      In the event, it became apparent that a scheme such as that to which the hon. Gentleman addressed his speech would not be administratively workable. Such an approach would also mark a departure from the current principle of business voting in the City, and would therefore set a precedent for commuter voting.
      Rateable value has been chosen as the basis of the system for reasons of administrative convenience. By contrast, the allocation of votes by reference to the size of a company's work force would represent a considerable burden on business. The House should be aware that in developing the proposals for reform, the corporation gave full consideration to allocating votes on the basis of the number of employees. They found that asking companies to furnish the town clerk with their employment details is not as straightforward a task as it may seem.
      Many firms hold their payrolls centrally in regional centres. That may include information on all employees, whether or not they work in the City, and extracting the information on employees working in the City may not be especially easy. At the same time, there is considerable volatility in the City work force, with a staff turnover of up to 26 per cent. per annum. That would mean that the number of people employed within a company—
      Mr. Andrew Dismore: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Brooke: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would let me finish my point.
      That would mean that the number of people employed within a company over a year will be highly variable. Adopting employment as a measure of entitlement to voting rights would therefore cause business greater

      495
      expense to comply with voter registration than is the case with rateable values. I shall now give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Dismore: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the difference between compiling a register of employees on a given day of the year, such as 10 October, and compiling an ordinary electoral register, as every local authority has to do—which is a much more complex job—on exactly the same date? Certainly in London boroughs the turnover of electors is greater than that of staff in businesses in the City.
      Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman has been involved in the City of Westminster, and he knows the rate of turnover there. I very much doubt if there is the same degree of turnover in his constituency. At any rate, an annual staff turnover of 26 per cent. is massive.
      It was also felt that if voting rates were allocated on the basis of employment, the scheme would become much more than just a modernisation of the existing business vote system. Allocating voting rights on the basis of employees rather than property would mean the introduction of a whole new principle into the British electoral system and might, as I said, provide a precedent for the introduction of the commuter vote.
      The rateable value of a property occupied by a qualifying body will, in any event, have some relation to the number of staff that it employs and thus the size of the payroll. Within each ward, therefore, the properties with the largest rateable values also have the most employees. Recognising that there might be some properties that carry high rateable values, but have few employees, the Committee amended the Bill to provide that a company or qualifying body cannot receive a greater number of votes than it has employees. That will prevent the potential abuse identified by the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Bell) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on Second Reading, whereby a qualifying body could sell voting rights to the highest bidder.
      The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will, as a result of the debate so far, be amply aware that the City of London Labour party is also of the view that the entitlement to vote ought to be related to the number of employees rather than rateable value. On day three of the Committee stage, Christopher Haines, chairman of the local Labour party, told the Committee:
      "We have commended to the Corporation an alternate proposal, that votes should relate to the number of staff employed by bodies within the City, a system we refer to as the payroll vote—However we recognise that to amend this Bill to incorporate the principle of payroll votes would be a fundamental change".
      The City of London Labour party chose not to press the amendment in Committee and I hope that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will withdraw his amendments tonight.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. McDonnell: I shall not repeat what was said in a lengthy debate earlier, but I thought that I had made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that the City of London Labour party, members of the Select Committee and other
      496
      petitioners were constrained in that way not because of any refusal to support the principle of a payroll vote, but because of advice that it could not be included in the Bill. Now that we have discovered that it can, I am sure that they would support the amendment.
      Mr. Brooke: I remind the hon. Gentleman that neither of us can rewrite history. The Select Committee sat in a quasi-judicial manner and made the determination that it did. The City of London Labour party chose not to press that particular element of its petition.
      I now turn to amendment No. 16 which I said was a little different. It seeks to amend clause 3(5) to provide that where a hereditament is in more than one ward it should be taken as situated wholly within the ward in which the larger number of employees are located. That is a wholly unworkable suggestion, as employees move around the premises rather in the same way as cattle move across the Irish border. It is unreal to attempt to make an assessment by reference to such a fluctuating quantity. The present arrangement is decided by reference to the greater part of the hereditament which is a physical entity, not a fluctuating quantity. For that reason I urge the House to reject amendment No. 16 as well.
      The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We had a full debate on Second Reading on the merits of the Bill and I do not propose to reiterate that tonight. It is not a Government Bill, but it is the product of the Government's desire to see the City of London reform and modernise its electoral arrangements.
      The City is a unique and ancient institution. Its customs and practices are held dear by many people, but it is clear that some of those customs and practices are archaic and do not contribute to good effective and accountable local government. The corporation has recognised this and the current Bill is part of its response.
      The Government welcome the fact that the City is beginning to face up to the need to put its governance on a more modern footing. We believe that the proposals in the Bill are a step in the right direction. They recognise the special and unique nature of the square mile and the need for an inclusive form of local government that reflects the needs of all those who have an interest. That must include the companies and institutions established in the City, the workers employed by them and the people who live there.
      Mr. John Cryer: Is my hon. Friend arguing that basing voting power on wealth or rateable value represents a modernisation of the franchise?
      Mr. Raynsford: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall make the point clearly. We propose changing the current franchise from one that is limited to sole traders and certain people with property interests and excludes the vast majority of firms that operate in the City. It is not essentially a business franchise. The change extends the franchise to businesses in general within the City and that is a step in the right direction.
      The Select Committee considered the Bill carefully and found that the measures within it were justified and that the Bill should proceed. It considered the detail of the Bill

      497
      and took evidence from its promoters and from petitioners against. As a result, the Committee asked for a number of amendments to be made to the Bill.
      Dr. Godman: I live in the City for some six months of the year. As is well known to my fair-minded adversaries, I am a council tenant of the City of London corporation. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that these developments will not in any way diminish the interests of the residents of the City who number some 5,000 compared with 250,000 people who come into the City every day? Some of my neighbours in Willoughby house in the Barbican are deeply concerned about the measures.
      Mr. Raynsford: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The matter was debated extensively on Second Reading. It has been established that while there has been an overall increase in the franchise because of the proposed extension of the business vote, the interests of residents are fully protected because the number of wards with a predominance of residents remains the same. Therefore, the number of councillors who are elected—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) before he leaves the Chamber, and to the House in general, that electrical devices of the sort that have interrupted our proceedings should be switched off or left outside the Chamber. Madam Speaker takes an extremely strong line on this.
      Mr. Raynsford: I was explaining, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the make-up of the electoral pattern in the City is such that the wards that are predominantly—
      Mr. Ivan Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the proceedings of the House. I shall make sure that it does not happen again.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful for that apology.
      Mr. Raynsford: I was in the process of explaining to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) that the number of representatives who represent residents in the City of London will not reduce. Indeed, against the background in which there will be an overall reduction in the total number of councillors, the interests of residents will not be adversely affected. I know that the matter was considered carefully by a number of people who were particularly interested in the issue.
      Mr. Gareth R. Thomas rose—
      Mr. Raynsford: I want to make some progress but I shall give way to my hon. Friend, who was a member of the Committee.
      Mr. Thomas: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that one of the reasons why those of us who sat on the Committee agreed to allow the Bill to proceed was the evidence that we received that there are so few voters in some of the wards that there is the potential for abuse, manipulation and a packed vote. Is my hon. Friend aware also that there is a strongly held view, at least by me,
      498
      that the City corporation's leadership must respond to the challenges laid down for it within the special report and bring forward reforms and suggestions on how the reforms outlined in the special report can be brought forward?
      Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes two extremely valid points. The process of reform is necessary because the current arrangements, as I have already said, are archaic and not conducive to proper and accountable systems of government. Secondly, as the Committee rightly stressed, a step has been taken in the right direction, but there is a need to go further. I have made that point personally to representatives of the City corporation on several occasions and I know that they take seriously my views and, above all, the views of the Committee. I believe that they intend to carry forward a further process of reform. They have given an undertaking that they will report on that within five years as part of the process. That undertaking was also given, I think, to the Committee.
      Mr. Sawford rose—
      Mr. Raynsford: I give way to my hon. Friend, who was also a member of the Committee.
      Mr. Sawford: My hon. Friend was in the Chamber when I said that the Committee felt constrained by the type of Bill that was before us. We felt that we were restricted in the sort of amendments that we could make to it. I drew attention to the special report, which clearly states that view.
      I learned a great a deal when considering the Bill. I learned of wards where there were no electors and of wards where there have been no elections for 25 years. I learned also of a veto system that prevented democratically elected people taking their place on the court of common council.
      At the outset of my consideration of the Bill I was reminded of a story about a chap who walked into a bank with a £18 note. When told that it was not legal currency and could not be accepted, the member of the bank's staff said, " We can change it for you. Do you want three £6 or two £9?" At the end of the Bill's—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order. The hon. Gentleman must take his seat when I am on my feet. That intervention was far too long.
      Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes better than anyone else could the case for reform. The status quo is untenable and the Bill is moving us forward in the right direction. I accept entirely, as I have already made clear, that there is a need to take the reform process further.
      The Committee asked for a number of amendments to be made to the Bill, covering a number of important issues raised by hon. Members on Second Reading. They include a test of "connection" with the City, which people nominated as corporate voters must satisfy; an inflation-proofing mechanism for the rateable value bands

      499
      and thresholds, to ensure that the size of the new business electorate does not increase just because property values rise; and a provision—
      Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise us whether the Minister is speaking to the amendment, the Bill, or Third Reading? What is he speaking on?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the Minister were not in order, I would have stopped him.
      Mr. Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am slightly surprised that my hon. Friend, who spoke for two hours, questions whether I am in order.
      The Committee proposed amendments to ensure that the size of the new business electorate does not increase just because property values rise, and a provision to ensure that, in appointing voters, companies have regard to the composition of the work force—a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington recognised in his speech as a significant forward move. I believe that all those represent sensible improvements to the proposals for the new franchise.
      The Committee stated in its special report that it does not feel that the measures in the Bill go far enough. I do not dissent from that view. We have welcomed the proposals, but have always regarded them as a first stage in the process of reform. There is clearly much more that the City could do to improve the accountability and transparency of the way in which it is governed, and to streamline its decision taking. The Committee's report provides a useful indication of the priorities for the next phase of reforms.
      If this Bill is prevented from proceeding in its current form, the City franchise will remain unchanged, and the drive for reform from within the corporation will be stifled. I do not think that anyone who cares about reform wants that outcome. Significantly, the City of London Labour party—one of the two original objectors to the Bill—is now prepared to accept the proposals as a first stage in the process of reform, and has written to express that view to hon. Members, as we have heard from several hon. Members tonight.
      By allowing the Bill to proceed, the House will be giving further encouragement—
      Mr. Connarty: My hon. Friend spoke about the principles that the Government were applying and the fact that certain groups would be aided by amendments to the Bill. One group that he mentioned was workers, but he did not—
      Mr. James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What possible interest can the Member of Parliament for Grangemouth have in the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should know full well that hon. Members' constituencies do not prevent them in any way from taking part in our proceedings.
      Mr. Connarty: I am grateful for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and hope to see it underlined again and again.
      500
      I am keen to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister how that throw-away phrase, "the enfranchisement of the workers", is linked to the logic whereby a company or body will appoint one or two people, according to its rateable value, and how that gives the workers anything. Is that a new departure—the third way—in industrial democracy?
      Mr. Raynsford: As I said earlier in my speech, and as was pointed out earlier in the debate, clause 4 specifically requires a qualifying body to
      "ensure that the appointments which it makes reflect, in so far as is reasonably practicable, the composition of the workforce."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington recognised that that was an important shift, compared with the Bill as previously presented. I believe that that is a significant step forward.
      By allowing the Bill to proceed, the House will be giving further encouragement to the City to continue the process of reform. The new electorate that the Bill will create, covering the full range of businesses operating in the City in place of the much more restrictive business franchise that previously existed, will become an added incentive.
      However, the amendments would fundamentally alter the way in which the Bill works. They have not been fully considered. Practical issues were raised by the Chairman of the Select Committee and by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who is sponsoring the Bill, about the difficulty of implementing the proposals contained in the amendment. Nor have the amendments been the subject of local consultation, as the City of London Labour party had to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: How many votes will the Worshipful Company of Skinners get?
      Mr. Raynsford: I would require notice of that question. However, I undertake to look into it and to write to my hon. Friend.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington admitted, amendment No. 33, the crux of the amendments, is a weak one. It would be inappropriate at this stage to insert the amendments in the Bill. The Government cannot, therefore, support them, and I hope that the House will not do so either.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Winterton: I fully support the measured remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke)—and, if I may say so without ruining his career, the constructive, positive and reasoned response to the debate by the Minister. He understands the City.
      I declare an interest in response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), with whom I have a great deal in common and whom I happen to admire immensely as a considerable parliamentarian, although he is out of place sitting where he is. The role played by the City provides a substantial advantage to the people of that area and considerable advantages to those who live within the City of London. I speak as an immediate past upper bailiff of the Worshipful Company

      501
      of Weavers—the oldest, but in no way the most senior company in the City of London. We trace our foundation back to 1130.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing a group of amendments. Perhaps he could come directly to them.
      Mr. Winterton: As one of my hon. Friends says, I am weaving a particular line in the case that I seek to make.
      The Minister, in responding to the amendments—
      Mr. Clive Efford rose—
      Mr. Winterton: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who happens to be an articulate and positive member of the Procedure Committee.
      Mr. Efford: I used to do quite a bit of weaving in the City myself, but no one has ever given me a vote.
      Mr. Winterton: Democracy is an interesting animal. In itself, it does not necessarily provide the quality of service which the people of London expect and which all the residents of the City of London receive from the City corporation.
      My brief contribution to the debate is to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster in the constructive remarks that he has made. If the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), who represents a Scottish constituency with great distinction, and the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), another distinguished and experienced Member of the House, can participate, I hope that the Member for Macclesfield, which is in the north-west of England, can also contribute, bearing in mind my intimate knowledge of the City of London. Although, as the hon. Member for Bolsover will know, I do not support many of the things that the City does in an economic context, I believe that it plays a major, positive and very beneficial role in local government.
      Mr. Skinner rose—
      Mr. Winterton: I give way to the hon. Gentleman with immense pleasure.
      Mr. Skinner: All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman is now in favour of the block vote, and has deserted "one person, one vote".
      Mr. Winterton: I have immense respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I like the point that he has made. I am highly principled: I believe in one man, one vote—or one man/one woman, one vote. We are dealing, however, with the City of London, a uniquely successful entity.
      Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Hon. Members: Go on.
      Mr. Winterton: I give way.
      Mr. Corbyn: A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman spoke of the City's good works and administration of
      502
      local government. He will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) say that the City has reserves amounting to £1.6 billion in its coffers. I represent a borough that borders on the City. We have 10,000 families on housing waiting lists. Does the hon. Gentleman think that some of that money could be better spent in Hackney, Islington—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention does not relate in any way to the amendment, and I ask the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) not to respond to it.
      Mr. Winterton: Of course I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a full answer to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), but, owing to my deep respect for the Chair, I will not give it.
      I merely say that I agree with the Minister that the Bill represents a considerable advance on what has preceded it, and I think that, for that reason alone, it would be inappropriate for it to be voted down. Bearing in mind the City corporation's assurance that it will continue to consider reform of what goes on in the City, I believe that the House should oppose the amendments, and support the Bill as it stands.
      Mr. Sawford: My speech will be short, as I intervened a couple of times earlier.
      I found serving on the Committee an enlightening experience. The Committee sat for several days, during which we listened to a good deal of evidence on behalf of the promoter and the petitioners. I learned a great deal about the inner workings of the City in that time, which led me to believe that it must be the most undemocratic, unrepresentative, unaccountable system left in this country. I felt, however, that it was making a genuine commitment to reform its methods of operation, and to increase its democratic accountability.
      The Bill proposes to extend the franchise by, in effect, giving votes to buildings. Votes would accumulate on the basis of the value of those buildings.
      Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend has examined the Bill. What evidence was there, in the response of the City of London corporation, of consultation with either individual businesses in the City or employees of those companies?
      Mr. Sawford: We were presented with a considerable amount of evidence that there had been consultation through the City of London corporation. There had also been residents meetings. There had been much consultation. The one group of people which probably had not been consulted in particular were employees. Residents and businesses had had consultation, but that brings us back to the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) is trying to include employees within the process.
      Although extending the franchise on the basis of property values is one way to give a broader franchise to people who are involved and who make their living in the City, it is very much on a corporate basis. The amendments would extend it to people who have a working interest, who make their living and earn their livelihood there. It is still less than full democracy.
      Mr. McDonnell: The Minister raised the issue of consultation with those employees. My hon. Friend has

      503
      alluded to that. In the previous debate, we proposed that, although there has been difficulty over consultation until now—the House has been constrained with regard to the Bill—if the amendment were passed, there would be a real opportunity for consultation. We could consult the City corporation, take the Bill to the other place and refer it back here, so that we could get the practicalities right.
      Mr. Sawford: As, I think, the only member of the Committee who has sat through the whole debate, it is not being disloyal to the Committee to say that the amendments were not considered. I am sure that others on the Committee were not aware that such amendments were acceptable within the terms of the Bill. Having looked at the amendments and considered their implications, I believe that there is a serious democratic deficit within the workings of the City of London corporation. No hon. Member can deny that. No democrat elected to the House can deny that.
      Mr. Dismore: I am sure that my hon. Friend has heard of the homes for votes scandal in the neighbouring Westminster city council, which gerrymandered elections. Is not what is proposed in the Bill—votes for business—an even greater affront to democracy?
      Mr. Sawford: I thank my hon. Friend. I make no comment on the Westminster situation. I would rather concentrate on the issue that is before us this evening. My hon. Friend is right—it is capitalism gone mad. We now give votes to buildings. The bigger the building, the higher its rateable value, the more votes are obtained.
      Mr. Brooke rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 101.

      Division No. 242]

      [9.58 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Brady, Graham

      Allen, Graham

      Brazier, Julian

      Amess, David

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Burgon, Colin

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Campbell–Savours, Dale

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Casale, Roger

      Banks, Tony

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Battle, John

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Beard, Nigel

      Chope, Christopher

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Clappison, James

      Berth, Rt Hon A J

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Betts, Clive

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Body, Sir Richard

      Coaker, Vernon

      Boswell, Tim

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Collins, Tim

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Colman, Tony

      504

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Khabra, Piara S

      Cox, Tom

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Crausby, David

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Iaing, Mrs Eleanor

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Leigh, Edward

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Day, Stephen

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Lidington, David

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Dowd, Jim

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Loughton, Tim

      Ennis, Jeff

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Faber, David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fabricant, Michael

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Fallon, Michael

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Flight, Howard

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Fraser, Christopher

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gale, Roger

      McNulty, Tony

      Gapes, Mike

      Mates, Michael

      Gardiner, Barry

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Garnier, Edward

      May, Mrs Theresa

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Meale, Alan

      Gill, Christopher

      Merron, Gillian

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Moffatt, Laura

      Gray, James

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Green, Damian

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Greenway, John

      Mortey, Elliot

      Grieve, Dominic

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Norman, Archie

      Hain, Peter

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Olner, Bill

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Hammond, Philip

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hanson, David

      Page, Richard

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Paice, James

      Healey, John

      Pickles, Eric

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Pollard, Kerry

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Pond, Chris

      Heppell, John

      Pope, Greg

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Hill, Keith

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Prior, David

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Randall, John

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Hunter, Andrew

      Roy, Frank

      Hutton, John

      Ruane, Chris

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Ruddock, Joan

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Ruffley, David

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Jamieson, David

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Singh, Marsha

      Jenkins, Brian

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Spellar, John

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Streeter, Gary

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Swayne, Desmond

      505

      Syms, Robert

      Waterson, Nigel

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wells, Bowen

      White, Brian

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Whittingdale, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Wilkinson, John

      Wilshire, David

      Timms, Stephen

      Wilson, Brian

      Touhig, Don

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Trickett, Jon

      Woodward, Shaun

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Vaz, Keith

      Mr. Robert Walter and

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Mr. Nick Hawkins.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Ashton, Joe

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Barnes, Harry

      Keetch, Paul

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Laxton, Bob

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Lepper, David

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Best, Harold

      McDonnell, John

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Burstow, Paul

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Cann, Jamie

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Cawsey, Ian

      Pike, Peter L

      Chaytor, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Rammell, Bill

      Cohen, Harry

      Rapson, Syd

      Coleman, Iain

      Rooney, Terry

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Salter, Martin

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Sanders, Adrian

      Cotter, Brian

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Cousins, Jim

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Sawford, Phil

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Dalyell, Tam

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Davidson, Ian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Dawson, Hilton

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

      Dismore, Andrew

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Efford, Clive

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Etherington, Bill

      Stringer, Graham

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Stunell, Andrew

      Flynn, Paul

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Fyfe, Maria

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Gerrard, Neil

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Watts, David

      Gorrie, Donald

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Wise, Audrey

      Hinchliffe, David

      Wood, Mike

      Hood, Jimmy

      Worthington, Tony

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Hurst, Alan

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and

      Mr. Michael Connarty.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 102, Noes 209.

      Division No. 243]

      [10.11 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Laxton, Bob

      Ashton, Joe

      Lepper, David

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Barnes, Harry

      McDonnell, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Bermingham, Gerald

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Best, Harold

      Olner, Bill

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Burgon, Colin

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Burstow, Paul

      Pickthall, Colin

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Pike, Peter L

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Rammell, Bill

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Rapson, Syd

      Cohen, Harry

      Rendel, David

      Coleman, Iain

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Salter, Martin

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Sanders, Adrian

      Cotter, Brian

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Cousins, Jim

      Sawford, Phil

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Singh, Marsha

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Davidson, Ian

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

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Dawson, Hilton

      Stevenson, George

      Dismore, Andrew

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Efford, Clive

      Stringer, Graham

      Etherington, Bill

      Stunell, Andrew

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Flynn, Paul

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Trickett, Jon

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Gorrie, Donald

      Watts, David

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Wise, Audrey

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Wood, Mike

      Hurst, Alan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Wyatt, Derek

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and

      Keetch, Paul

      Mr. Michael Connarty.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Alexander, Douglas

      Body, Sir Richard

      Allen, Graham

      Boswell, Tim

      Amess, David

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Brady, Graham

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Brazier, Julian

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Battle, John

      Browne, Desmond

      Bayley, Hugh

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Beard, Nigel

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Cann, Jamie

      Betts, Clive

      Caplin, Ivor

      507

      Casale, Roger

      Hanson, David

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Chope, Christopher

      Hill, Keith

      Clappison, James

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Collins, Tim

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Colman, Tony

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hutton, John

      Cox, Tom

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Crausby, David

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Jamieson, David

      Danvill, Keith

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Day, Stephen

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dowd, Jim

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Ennis, Jeff

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Faber, David

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Fallon, Michael

      Khabra, Piara S

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Flight, Howard

      Iaing, Mrs Eleanor

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Foulkes, George

      Lansley, Andrew

      Fraser, Christopher

      Leigh, Edward

      Gale, Roger

      Letwin, Oliver

      Gapes, Mike

      Levitt, Tom

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Garnier, Edward

      Lidington, David

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Loughton, Tim

      Gray, James

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Green, Damian

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Greenway, John

      Macdonald, Calum

      Grieve, Dominic

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Hammond, Philip

      McNulty, Tony

      508

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Soley, Clive

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Spellar, John

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Meale, Alan

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Merron, Gillian

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Morley, Elliot

      Streeter, Gary

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Norman, Archie

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Syms, Robert

      Ottaway, Richard

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Page, Richard

      Paice, James

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Pendry, Tom

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Pickles, Eric

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pond, Chris

      Timms, Stephen

      Pope, Greg

      Touhig, Don

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Randall, John

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Vaz, Keith

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Wells, Bowen

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      White, Brian

      Roy, Frank

      Whittingdale, John

      Ruane, Chris

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Ruffley, David

      Wilkinson, John

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Wilshire, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Woodward, Shaun

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mr. Robert Walter and

      Snape, Peter

      Mr. Nick Hawkins.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Debate to be resumed on Tuesday 20 July.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Lords] and Trustee Delegation Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Allen.]
      Question agreed to.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
  Postponed proceedings resumed.
  Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
    New Clause 3

      SALE OF SHARES OR OTHER SECURITIES
      '. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State—

      (a) in disposing of shares or other securities held by him; or

      (b) in directing a person to dispose of shares or other
      securities held on the Secretary of State's behalf

      to ensure that the price obtained for those shares or other securities is in the best commercial interests of the Corporation.'.—[Mrs. Galan.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      10.23 pm
      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      At this late hour, it is fitting that we return to consideration of the Bill and I am pleased to see the Secretary of State in her place. I understand that she will reply to the debate on the new clause. During the stages of the Bill, the Opposition have been greatly concerned about the way in which the shares and securities in the new Commonwealth Development Corporation will be disposed of and, in particular, the price that will be achieved. None of the replies given during our proceedings on the Bill so far has reassured me that the best possible price will be obtained for the sale of the Commonwealth Development Corporation.
      The new clause reflects those concerns, because we need to ensure that the price obtained is the best possible, and that the CDC is not sold off cheaply at a knock-down price.
      Clare Short: Unlike your performance.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Perhaps we might begin as we plan to continue, without sedentary interventions from the Front Benches or even the Back Benches.
      Mrs. Gillan: The right hon. Lady intervened from a sedentary position to cast aspersions on the privatisation programme of the previous Conservative Government. In the light of the report that came out today, I hope that she will undertake not to do for the CDC what she did for the Railtrack privatisation. That would make Conservative Members a lot happier.
      Clare Short: The hon. Lady should apologise.
      Mrs. Gillan: At least we are not talking down the price of the CDC. We are trying to ensure that appropriate safeguards are included in this privatisation process. In any case, methinks the lady doth protest too much. She has been telling us that this is not a privatisation process.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the Chancellor's disposal of the country's gold reserves, a statutory obligation of this kind is justified?
      Mrs. Gillan: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. I shall come to the question of the Chancellor's gold
      510
      sales later, as it will have a direct effect on the price achieved on the CDC privatisation. We must make no mistake: Labour Members, when they vote to support the Bill, will be voting for a privatisation.
      First, I shall look at some factors that could affect the price. I shall refer to the CDC's annual report for 1998, which contains some interesting facts and figures. The CDC's investments are listed in the final pages—a rather large population of relatively small investments. The number and variety of those investments mean that they are inherently difficult to manage. Also, realising the value of such a large and diverse portfolio will pose problems.
      The management problems need to be examined, as at no stage in our proceedings have we explored them properly. They would also, of course, affect the price. I hope that the Secretary of State will comment on the portfolio, and undertake to give the House an analysis of the business itemised between pages 65 and 73 of the report in terms of cost, estimated current values and the income stream produced. That is an essential element in setting out this privatisation so that potential investors can see what is on offer.
      I hope also that the Secretary of State will say what percentage of the portfolio produces an income stream. In how many cases is the income stream column blank? In other words, I hope that she will give an idea of the value of all the businesses, as any interested buyer will have to understand that it will be difficult or impossible to realise their value in practical terms. Unless information is readily available to investors, it may be impossible to establish whether we obtain the best price for privatisation.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend's remarks on price are directly relevant to our earlier debate on new clause 1. The more someone is required to pay for the CDC, the less willing he or she will be to do the corporation's traditional work in difficult markets and with difficult customers. The Government cannot have it both ways.
      Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend goes to the heart of the matter. The nature of the CDC will be fundamentally changed by its privatisation.
      The Secretary of State must tell us what effect the sale of gold has had on the CDC's three gold-mining investments—the Abosso and Satellite gold fields in Ghana and the East Africa gold mines in Tanzania. Has any of those operations been directly affected by the Chancellor's actions? We have heard alarming stories about redundancies and a crisis in South Africa. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is laughing; she is plainly amused by the thought of a crisis in South Africa. No doubt, like the Under-Secretary, she will blame the crisis on other countries selling their gold. However, has the status of those three investments been affected? If they can be damaged even by the actions of the UK Government, the risk involved in the CDC will be clear, and the portfolio will be even less interesting to investors.
      The Secretary of State must consider what buyers might be looking for. The price obtained for the CDC could be badly affected by the amount of Government management control of which the Under-Secretary boasted during our previous debate. The Under-Secretary must appreciate

      511
      that a full transfer of ownership and management—implying an ability to act commercially—would maximise the value of CDC shares. [Interruption.] The Minister says that I should be referring to the Secretary of State, but it was he who dealt with the previous group of new clauses and amendments, and he who trumpeted the control that he would retain over the CDC.
      The golden share and the ability to block CDC actions will also reduce the price. Rather than protecting the CDC, the Government will diminish its value. The Secretary of State must let us know why the vehicle she is using to maintain the CDC's character may work against our obtaining a fair price for it.
      The hour is late, and I do not wish to delay the House. The Under-Secretary earlier filled some of the gaps that he had left at the Committee stage. He also sent me a letter—it arrived only yesterday—on some points raised in Committee, particularly concerning the CDC's operating costs. [Interruption.] The Minister laughs and asks what is wrong with that. A considerable time has elapsed since the Committee stage, and the Minister could have made an effort to send the replies a little earlier than the day before the debate. That is how the Department has handled the Bill. The taxation provisions for the CDC were tabled at the eleventh hour. The whole passage of the Bill has been punctuated by the late arrival of information.
      To give the Minister his due, the letter did arrive, and I thank him for giving us the information. However, once again there are unanswered questions. I raised with the Minister the issue of the large rise in staff costs and operating charges. The staff costs rose between 1997 and 1998 from £13.2 million to £16.3 million, and the other operating charges rose from £11.6 million to £17.6 million in a 12-month period. I asked for a breakdown of the CDC's operating costs.
      Will the Secretary of State explain item five in the Minister's letter, which deals with the business change management costs and costs related to the preparation of the PPP, which stand at £1.8 million for the 1998 accounting period? How much does she expect those costs to be in the 1999 accounting period? Will they be similar, or will they be larger? That is an astronomical cost, and I presume that it will not be repeated. However, there must be some carry over into the 1999 financial year, and I hope that she will be able to tell us what those charges are to date.
      There is also an item on the increase in general administration costs, which is a round figure of £1 million. That requires further and better explanation. Even at this late stage on Report, the Department and the Secretary of State should give us a breakdown of that £1 million figure, which is a large increase in general administration costs on a relatively small budget. A financial director of any company would look at that item on the accounts and ask those questions. To reassure potential investors that this set of accounts is not profligate, to say the least, we should know to what that £1 million increase in general administration costs is attributed.
      The Minister's letter also refers to training costs. He says:
      "Training costs and costs directly related to preparation of the public private partnership are exceptional costs, but are expected to continue over the next few years."
      512
      Surely exceptional costs are one-off costs, but if they are expected to continue over the next few years they must have an implication for the privatisation of this company and the price that will be paid. At this stage, the Secretary of State should let us know exactly what those costs will be and why they will continue over the next few years. They are exceptional if they are continuing annually. Light needs to be shed on that.
      I have taken up enough of the House's time at this time of night. I am letting the Secretary of State off lightly, because so many questions need to be asked. I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said at the beginning of the last group of amendments. We want the privatisation of the Commonwealth Development Corporation to succeed. We are not content that this matter has been thought through, and we are certainly not content that a fair and good price will be obtained for this investment unless the Secretary of State and her Minister answers these detailed questions. I believe that, long before we get to the market, the Department will be forced to answer even more detailed questions. It is our duty to examine what the Department is doing, and to ensure that it gets it right. After all, the Secretary of State does not have much of a track record on privatisation, other than in talking down the prices of privatisations
      Mr. David Heath: It is a shame that we could not consider this new clause with new clause 2, which was not moved; it would be interesting to judge the effects of incorporation in sub-Saharan Africa on the price of assets on sale.
      In the latter part of her speech, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) addressed some interesting questions about the present functioning of the CDC and its finances. However, the early part of her speech and the main thrust of the new clause deals with the pricing of assets on their disposal. I cannot help but hear the resounding noise of stable doors being firmly closed, several years after some choice horses bolted from the public sector. The structures already exist—through the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee—to provide checks and balances in these matters. Furthermore, I believe that the Secretary of State does have the best interests of that partial flotation in mind, so that it can produce the assets that we hope will enable the corporation to do its job.
      The narrowness of the new clause causes me some concern. It proposes that the sole criterion to be used by the Secretary of State is
      "the best commercial interests of the Corporation."
      It is important that we receive the maximum return compatible with the other objectives set by the House and the Government for the change of status of the CDC.
      However, there are conflicting pressures; I hope that the Secretary of State will bear them in mind when the sale of the assets takes place. Those pressures will also bear on the board, which will have a duty under the Companies Acts to maintain the best commercial interest, but that will be qualified by the structures to be established under the Bill in respect of business principles and investment policy. The interests will not be purely commercial; there will be a commercial interest tempered by the need to produce effective development in those parts of the world where it would otherwise not occur.

      513
      If the sole criterion were to be the best commercial interests of the corporation, a different picture would emerge. There would be a different distribution of assets within the corporation before flotation; there would undoubtedly be an increasing asset base at the expense of effective investment in many parts of the world. The sole shareholder—the Government with the Secretary of State as their embodiment—should have a range of other interests in mind: development, which we have already discussed; other policies of the British Government, which may or may not be in conflict with the commercial interest; and the diversity of the eventual share holdings, because a diverse ownership of the company will produce that vitality in investment that we want.
      The potential buyers of the business will want to consider other factors, such as the exceptional tax status that has been invoked as the main thrust of the Bill. I still have some residual concerns as to that tax status, although I am willing to suspend some of my disbelief in order to see the measure through. However, I am worried about the way in which profits and dividend will be apportioned between the tax-exempt parts of the company and those that are not exempt. I am concerned about the potential for windfall earnings during that seven years of grace, if the golden share is disposed of. Although 1 pay tribute to the Minister's willingness to provide lucid answers to those points, he did not entirely convince me in Committee. Some matters remain opaque.
      All those factors must be borne in mind. That is why I must reject the new clause; it puts too close a straitjacket on the Secretary of State, by asking her to consider only the commercial interests of the corporation in finding a price.
      As I said, of course we want to see the maximum return on the investment that the Government and the British people have put into the company over the years, but we also want a successful flotation and continuing interest to ensure that there is investment in developing countries in the future. A basket of criteria is involved, and the amendment will not provide the Secretary of State with the freedom of choice that will allow her to do her duty by the House and the Government.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Hogg: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). He is wrong because he has failed to focus on the purpose of the new clause. His remarks would have some force if we were discussing the general investment policy of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. There is a distinction to be drawn between the CDC's general investment policy and the price at which one subsequently seeks to dispose of shares. They are not the same. Clearly, the disposal of shares reflects in part the pre-existing investment policy, but the two considerations are different, and it is fair-minded of the hon. Gentleman to acquiesce on that point.
      I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who spoke from the Front Bench. Reading the new clause, it seems to me that we are doing little more than asserting in the Bill the obligations that are already those of directors under the Companies Act 1989. I find it difficult to
      514
      understand why Ministers should resist the incorporation of a general statutory obligation into the Bill, unless they have a private agenda.
      Mr. Heath: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is a difference between the obligation on directors and the obligation on the shareholder, who is the Secretary of State? The Secretary of State has other interests that she must consider in determining what is the appropriate disposal price.
      Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point because he reinforces my concern. We must remember that when the CDC has been privatised, there will be many private investors who will hold up to 75 per cent. of the equity. They have a right to expect that their equity price will be protected against the depredations of a Secretary of State who may be minded to dispose of equity for a price other than a commercial one. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.
      Mr. Foulkes indicated dissent.
      Mr. Hogg: The Under-Secretary shakes his head, but he is a little premature because he has not yet heard my argument. If he wants to intervene, I will of course give way. If not, perhaps he would be well advised not to interrupt.
      The point is that we are discussing the equity in the CDC, in which there will be many private investors. If we are to encourage private investment in the CDC, it is essential that prospective investors feel confident that their investment will be treated in a proper commercial way. The new clause would do no more than assert that in the Bill. Prospective investors will be entitled to be concerned about the security of their investment if there is no statutory protection.
      The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome observed that there might be other, proper considerations that the Secretary of State could take into account. If I were an investor, I would not want the value of my shares to be determined at the disrcetion of the Secretary of State, however well intentioned she might be. I should want the value of my shares to be determined by straightforward commercial criteria.
      Mr. Foulkes: Well, we know that.
      Mr. Hogg: Of course I should want that. If the hon. Gentleman wants to get investment into the CDC, he would be well advised to ensure that the investment is safe. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) is right to gesture to the Under-Secretary that if he wants to keep the debate short, he should keep quiet. I praise the hon. Member for Hove. After the 19 or so years in which the Under-Secretary has been a Member of the House, I should have thought that silence would have been commended to him by experience and practice.
      Mr. Crispin Blunt: He is a well-known control freak.
      Mr. Hogg: The Labour party is full of control freaks.

      515
      I may be enjoying myself, but there is a serious point to be made about the protection of investors.
      Mr. Heath: I am listening carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument which might have some force if it were envisaged that the sale of shares should take place in a series of tranches—a sequential sale—so that the Secretary of State would be affecting the price of shares that were already held by members of the public. However, that would not and could not apply if the shares were sold in a single block.
      Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for coming some way towards my position. He should come the whole way, however, as giving the Secretary of State the ability to crystallise the value of an equity holding—as that is what happens when there is a disposal for value—also determines the value of the residual equity. Giving the Secretary of State the right to dispose of shares other than at their commercial value also crystallises the value of shares held by the other equity holders. The price might be less than the commercial value so that would be wrong.
      This is not idle speculation. Anyone who is aware of the Government's policy on realising the gold reserve will recognise that they are not to be trusted with the realisation of assets. Not only have they managed to sell the gold reserve at a low value, but they have had a permanently diminishing effect on the gold reserve held by others; and, incidentally, they have diminished the employment in South African and other gold mines for which the Secretary of State for International Development and the Commonwealth Development Corporation have some responsibility. So we are absolutely justified in being very cautious.
      Moreover, new clause 3 has another great benefit. When one sets out a duty, as new clause 3 does, one also presrcibes a remedy. If the Bill states that the Secretary of State has a duty to realise at commercial value and it then appears that the Secretary of State is not doing that and there is some private agenda or other motive such as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome alluded to, it is possible for a private investor to go to the court, first for an injunction—I hope that we are all in favour of the rights of the citizen—and, secondly, alleging loss arising from misfeasance on the part of the Secretary of State.
      The proposal set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham is very desirable. It crystallises within the Commonwealth Development Corporation an obligation which is extraordinarily similar to that imposed on a board of directors. It provides a protection to prospective investors that means that there will be more prospective investors and it provides them with a remedy. The House should seek to assert and protect all those measures—[Interruption.] I am awfully glad to see that on this matter I have the support of the Deputy Chief Whip.
      Mr. Leigh: As I said on Second Reading and in respect of new clause 1, many of us who take an interest in the future of the corporation are concerned about whether the unique work that it has carried out over the years can continue. Opposition Members are also concerned about
      516
      whether the articles of association that the Government tell us are adequate and the golden share are sufficient to ensure that.
      As the articles of association make clear—it will be inevitable in what will be a privatised company—the corporation will have to put the shareholders' interests first. We receive assurances from the Government that by retaining the golden share the Government will be able to ensure that the corporation continues the valuable work that it has undertaken in the past, not only in difficult markets in countries where other investment institutions may be less than willing to take an interest but in helping smaller, struggling companies in those difficult markets.
      We live in the real world and we all know that if the new clause is voted on in a few minutes from now, the Government will vote it down. However, I hope that it will crystallise some of the arguments. When the Secretary of State responds, we must try to get out of her more information about how the sale will be financed to ensure that the traditional work of the corporation is maintained and protected.
      This privatisation is quite different from many others with which we were involved with in the past, which were fiercely opposed by the Labour party. They were often difficult privatisations. There was considerable public interest. We were concerned with British Gas and British Telecom, for example. They were difficult but at least we were dealing with companies that were fundamentally commercial. They were engaged in what would become, once they were privatised, very profitable work.
      We are now undertaking a different sort of privatisation and not one that the previous Conservative Government were prepared to undertake because of the unique difficulties that would be faced. When we were dealing with large monopolies in the highly successful market that appertains in this country, it was easy to obtain a good price. There was argument about whether the best price was obtained, but let us not go back over all that.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan haselhurst): Order. Indeed, let us not go back on all that, nor on the hon. Gentleman's speech during an earlier part of the proceedings on the Bill. I must ask him to direct his remarks specifically to the duty of the Secretary of State to obtain the best price in the commercial interests of the corporation. That is the point that is under consideration.
      Mr. Leigh: That is the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be easy for the Secretary of State to obtain a very good price if it became generally known that the Government were watering down their commitment to maintain the traditional work of the corporation. I do not think that we have received adequate reassurances so far that the Government are prepared to sell the corporation for rather less than they might otherwise hope because they are determined to maintain the traditional work of the corporation.
      It would be easy for the Government to obtain an extremely good price for the corporation. Will they do that, or are they prepared in the marketplace to remind people in the most forceful terms possible of the articles of association, of the existence of the golden share and of their determination to maintain the corporation's work in very difficult markets? If they do all that, the price that they obtain may be very different from what it would be in the open marketplace.

      517
      The Government cannot have it both ways. They must be honest with the House and with others who take an interest in these matters. They must make clear their aim. If it is to maintain the corporation in its present form following a pseudo-privatisation and to maintain its ethos—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary is shaking his head. If the Government adopt that approach, they will not get a very good price. They will find that investors fight shy. I suspect that investors will see through what the Government are saying. They will see through the sham reassurances that have been given. They will realise that the golden share and the articles of association mean very little. Previous privatisations have always started with a golden share—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is repeating himself, in territory where I suggested that he should not be treading.
      Mr. Leigh: I am coming to the end of my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      On the issue of price, we are entitled to obtain a reassurance from the Government that they will not undersell the traditional work of the corporation
      11 pm
      Clare Short: This is a rather depressing set of events. We all agree that it is an important principle of democracy, and the tradition of the House, that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose, but that does not mean that it is the duty of the Opposition not to understand anything that is discussed on Second Reading or in Committee. There is either a complete incapacity on their part to understand, or a necessity continually to repeat mantras, which means that none of our proceedings have created any understanding on the part of those on the Opposition Front Bench. That is regrettable and disappointing.
      All parties claim—I believe that it is the position of the Liberal party—that the Commonwealth Development Corporation is a precious asset, and that the creation of a public-private partnership would enable its development interests to be entrenched. That could not be achieved by a privatisation, but through the change that we are making, we can get more private sector involvement into very poor countries which are not attracting much private sector investment, thereby enhancing their economic growth and demonstrating that a good rate of return can be gained by the private sector in those countries. Everyone agrees that that would be a success, and that it is a shared objective, but much of the discussion proceeds as though we had not previously agreed on that principle.
      The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made clear the purpose of the new clause. The official Opposition are trying to impose on the Secretary of State a duty, when disposing of shares,
      "to ensure that the price obtained for those shares or other securities is in the best commercial interests of the corporation."
      However, on new clause 1, the official Opposition stated that they were anxious to retain the development objectives of the corporation, and therefore that commercial objectives must not be primary.
      Two absolutely contradictory new clauses have been moved tonight, but it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose and not to be coherent or intelligent or to
      518
      understand the purpose of the Bill. They have argued for two entirely contradictory sets of objectives. That is interesting and notable.
      Mrs. Gillan: The hour is late.
      Clare Short: That partly explains it.
      We agree with the Opposition that the CDC needs a strong balance sheet that will equip it for the challenges under the new structure. Both the Government and the CDC have a strong interest in the partnership leading to the CDC's long-term success. We agree that that should be achieved through financial restructuring, and that that should not be dependent on the proceeds from the sale. Those proceeds are important, but they are no substitute for the effectiveness of the financial restructuring and the track record created by it.
      Restructuring is likely to involve the conversion of existing Government debt into equity or commercial debt with an appropriate repayment profile. We need a track record so that any private-sector interest considering investing in the new partnership CDC can see the likely rate of return. The purpose of the restructuring is to give the CDC a capital structure that balances the needs of the business, the capacity for future growth and financial prudence.
      Opposition Members are game-playing for purely ideological reasons and pretending that this is a privatisation, and that they are against the outcome of a privatisation. As we said repeatedly in Committee, a straightforward privatisation would mean that, within a short time, the CDC would move out of the poorest countries and into investment in countries with a safer rate of return. It would cease to be a development instrument. Conservative Members claim to be opposed to that, but the new clause requires that—the biggest and fastest rate of commercial return on the sale, although that is not the objective of the exercise.
      Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
      Clare Short: I will, but I shall come to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say. He is quite clever, and thinks that he is enormously clever, but what he said today showed that he had not attended to the Bill's detail and the arrangements that are being made for the partnership, or to previous proceedings, so what he said did not make sense.
      Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Lady does not advance her case by insulting her opponents. I suggest that she addresses new clause 3, which deals with the realisation of the equity. That is different in kind from the fashioning of the investment policy. She may well be right to say that, in the structuring of the investment policy, there is a case for having regard to the broad developmental considerations, to which she has referred, but, in realising the equity, does she not understand that she has the same kind of duty that the board of directors has to ordinary equity holders?
      Clare Short: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman listens for a little while, he might understand better the whole structure of the arrangements that we are making,

      519
      and then he would see that his arguments do not hold up and that the point that he made just now is not of much value to the House.
      The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said—
      Mrs. Gillan: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
      Clare Short: No. I would like to proceed.
      Mrs. Gillan: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
      Clare Short: No, I am sorry.
      Mrs. Gillan: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
      Clare Short: No. That is the third time. Is that clear?
      The hon. Lady claimed that she was greatly concerned about the way in which the shares were to be disposed of and the price that they were likely to obtain, then she made a series of points that were not connected with that. For example, she talked about the disposal of Railtrack. As you allowed that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I presume that an answer to that is in order.
      The way in which Railtrack was privatised, the increase in the subsidy from the public sector and the factoring of the railways, astonished the markets and meant that the price obtained was low in terms of the assets being privatised. The hon. Lady might have read the press today, but I bet that she has not read the prospectus for the sale. Had she done so, she would have seen that the policy commitments that I put in there on behalf of the Labour party said that we would use the regulatory regime, in the way in which the new regulator now says that he will use the regulatory regime, to ensure that the railways operate efficiently in the interests of the—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that honour is satisfied on that point now. May we return to the Bill?
      Clare Short: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but surely an ill-informed insult cannot be made and the short answer not be provided. That is surely not the usual practice of the House.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
      Clare Short rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I am on my feet, the right hon. Lady will sit down. I decided that enough had been said and that honour had been satisfied. We must now return to the subject matter of the debate.
      Clare Short: As the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said, Railtrack was sold—
      Mr. Leigh: Mr. Deputy Speaker has told you to stop talking about that.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Lady. The hon. Gentleman would do well to leave me to judge these matters. I do not need his advice.
      Clare Short: Railtrack was sold cheaply because the commercial sector was astonished by the privatisation.
      520
      Proper regulation will ensure that it acts in the interest of the public. That means that the rate of return will be lower, and that is relevant to the question of a public-private partnership, how one secures a public interest, and whether one obtains a high price at the point of sale. That is relevant to the CDC.
      Mrs. Gillan rose—
      Clare Short: No, I shall not give way.
      The hon. Lady went on to say that the Opposition were not talking down the likely interest in the CDC's partial flotation. It may come in tranches or in one block. That is yet to be determined. It does not have to be sold at one time.
      Either the official Opposition do not understand the structure, or they are trying to talk it down by saying that it will not work. They cannot have it both ways, and, because I want to be charitable, I shall conclude that they do not understand. That is probably the reality.
      As for the question of gold sales—I am not sure that this is in order or relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
      Mr. Leigh: Try it.
      Clare Short: Remarks have been allowed. Can they be answered? May I invite you to make a ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Lady is stretching things to the limit. The raising of matters as comparative examples in debate does not provide a platform for discussion. All that I seek is a sense of proportion. I am not saying that the right hon. Lady cannot refer to such matters, but I believe that she went on far too long—even beyond the extent of my ruling—on the previous matter.
      Clare Short: We shall all look at Hansard tomorrow, and see how much time was devoted to the subject of gold sales in the earlier speech. I accept your ruling that the point cannot be responded to, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I feel that there is a slight imbalance.
      Mrs. Gillan: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Clare Short: No.
      If it were the duty of the Government to secure the maximum commercial return when the shares were sold, either as one block or in tranches, it would be impossible to entrench the development interests about which Opposition Members claim to be so concerned. The whole structure of the partnership—the requirement that there should be an ethical investment strategy, and an entrenched requirement to invest in the poorest countries—is there not to maximise the return when the shares are sold, but to develop a public-private partnership, and to ensure that the private sector invests more in the poorest countries. If Opposition Members pushed the new clause to a vote, they would be trying to secure the highest possible short-term price for the shares, and trying to diminish the strength of the new Commonwealth Development Corporation.
      Let me say to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—is that right? It is an unusual-sounding constituency—that the structure

      521
      of the public-private partnership does not depend on the fickle intervention of a Secretary of State. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, that would cause unpredictability for the markets, and would be likely to affect the price. This does not depend on political intervention. Those who buy into the new arrangements will know that they are buying into a development organisation, seeking a return that is reasonable for the private sector, but not the maximum commercial rate. Those who seek the maximum rate should invest in a different organisation.
      It is difficult to discuss these matters thoroughly and rationally at such a late hour, but we are talking about a public-private partnership that seeks to build on the best of what the CDC has achieved in the past. We consider it to be a complete misapprehension on the Opposition's part that there can be only highly labour-intensive investments with a low rate of return in developing countries. It is perfectly possible for the CDC to move to equity investment, to secure a reasonable rate of return, to persuade the private sector to hold some shares in it, to increase private-sector investment in the poorest countries, to increase their rate of economic growth, and to increase private-sector investment generally.
      That is the purpose of the organisation. The new clause would destroy that objective, and we ask the House to reject it.
      11.15 pm
      Mrs. Gillan: I used to have respect for the Secretary of State, but, after that performance, I will have to revise my opinion of her. I made the points on the new clause in good faith. She overreacted. She has not answered a single point that was made by Conservative Members. Observers of her performance will be bitterly disappointed because she has let down both herself and the Commonwealth Development Corporation.
      Observers will find it difficult to understand why the Secretary of State did not accept the new clause. In particular, she has signalled to the market that she is willing to sell the CDC off cheap to her friends—at a low price. That is a betrayal of what the CDC has stood for during its 50-year existence. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary says from a sedentary position that I am making cheap political points. I will give way to him if he wishes to intervene. He is saying that I am talking the CDC down. I have not talked it down, but the Secretary of State has. She is going to sell it cheap.
      I asked the Secretary of State, reasonably, to provide us with an analysis of the portfolio of all the businesses in the annual report. She did not reply. She has not addressed the management issues that we raised, on which the price will turn.
      The more control that is exercised by Government as the golden shareholder, the more the opportunity to make commercial returns diminishes. To spell it out for the Minister and the Secretary of State, if there is 75 per cent, ownership and 45 per cent, management control, that will be poor for value and poor for the price at which the CDC can be sold. The reverse, of course, would be good for the price at which the CDC could be sold.
      A crippling influence on the price flows from Government and the proposals on control. The Secretary of State has let the House and all potential investors know
      522
      that she is willing to sell the CDC cheap. I and other Conservative Members have been appalled by her performance.
      Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Lady confirm that, in Committee, when we discussed the matter in detail, she and her colleagues did not divide the Committee on one occasion? We provided four days for the Committee. That time was not taken up. She could have asked all those questions in Committee. She is making cheap party political points, undermining the whole basis of the CDC. It is a disgrace to her and to the House.
      Mrs. Gillan: It is good to see that the age of chivalry is not dead and that at least some men on the Labour Benches rush to the defence of the ladies in their party. However, the Minister's reaction only goes to make my point.
      We were not going to divide the House on the matter, but this evening's performance has led Conservative Members to believe that the Secretary of State does not know what she is doing and that the CDC will suffer. Therefore, I will press the new clause to a vote.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 21, Noes 293.

      Division No. 244]

      [11.18 pm

      AYES

      Blunt, Crispin

      Iaing, Mrs Eleanor

      Boswell, Tim

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Brady, Graham

      Lidington, David

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Fabricant, Michael

      Stanley, Rt Hon David

      Garnier, Edward

      Streeter, Gary

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Tredinnick, David

      Hammond, Philip

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Hawkins, Nick

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Mr. Eric Forth and

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Mr. Edward Leigh.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Ainger, Nick

      Burgon, Colin

      Alexander, Douglas

      Burnett, John

      Allen, Graham

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Austin, John

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Barnes, Harry

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cann, Jamie

      Beard, Nigel

      Caplin, Ivor

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Casale, Roger

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Caton, Martin

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Benton, Joe

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Chaytor, David

      Best, Harold

      Clapham, Michael

      Betts, Clive

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Blackman, Liz

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Boateng, Paul

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Clelland, David

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Clwyd, Ann

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Browne, Desmond

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      523

      Cohen, Harry

      Hutton, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Colman, Tony

      Illsley, Eric

      Connarty, Michael

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jamieson, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cox, Tom

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Crausby, David

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Darvill, Keith

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Dawson, Hilton

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dismore, Andrew

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Khabra, Piara S

      Doran, Frank

      Kidney, David

      Dowd, Jim

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Drew, David

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Efford, Clive

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Laxton, Bob

      Ennis, Jeff

      Lepper, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Leslie, Christopher

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Levitt, Tom

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Linton, Martin

      Flint, Caroline

      Livingstone, Ken

      Flynn, Paul

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Follett, Barbara

      Lock, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Love, Andrew

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Foulkes, George

      McCabe, Steve

      Fyfe, Maria

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Gapes, Mike

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Macdonald, Calum

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McDonnell, John

      Gerrard, Neil

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McNamara, Kevin

      Godsiff, Roger

      McNulty, Tony

      Goggins, Paul

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Grogan, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hain, Peter

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Meale, Alan

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Hanson, David

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Mitchell, Austin

      Healey, John

      Moffatt, Laura

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Heppell, John

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Morley, Elliot

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mullin, Chris

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Norris, Dan

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Olner, Bill

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Hurst, Alan

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      524

      Pendry, Tom

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stevenson, George

      Pike, Peter L

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Plaskitt, James

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Pond, Chris

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Pope, Greg

      Stott, Roger

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Stringer, Graham

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Stunell, Andrew

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Purchase, Ken

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Rammell, Bill

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Rapson, Syd

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Timms, Stephen

      Rendel, David

      Tipping, Paddy

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Todd, Mark

      Rooney, Terry

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Roy, Frank

      Touhig, Don

      Ruane, Chris

      Trickett, Jon

      Ruddock, Joan

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Salter, Martin

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Vaz, Keith

      Sawford, Phil

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wareing, Robert N

      Sheerman, Barry

      Watts, David

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      White, Brian

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Singh, Marsha

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Wise, Audrey

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Wood, Mike

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

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

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Soley, Clive

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Spellar, John

      Mr. Keith Hill and

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Jane Kennedy.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 25

      INTERPRETATION: COMPANIES AND SHARES.
      11.30 pm
      Mr. David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 10, line 31, leave out from 'nominee' to end of line 32.
      Hon. Members who served on the Committee will recognise that the amendment has some similarities to the discussion that we had on clause stand part on what was then clause 24 and is now clause 25. Yesterday, I received a letter from the Secretary of State which attempted to elucidate the reasoning behind the original wording of the Bill. I thought that I might have struck a slightly curious position when I realised that neither the Ministers in Committee nor the civil servants—which was the crucial thing—quite knew why that part of the clause had been put in. I realise now that it was a slightly tortuous formulation.

      525
      There is still an ambiguity in the Bill which I would like to test with Ministers. If I understand the Secretary of State's letter correctly, clause 25(2)(b), which has the effect of allowing a company to be placed between the Secretary of State and the CDC, is inserted there for one purpose, and one purpose only—to qualify clause 25(4), which deals with associated companies.
      If I understand it correctly, where an associated company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the CDC, it qualifies as a company that is wholly owned by the Crown, and therefore qualifies for associated company status. I do not entirely understand why the Bill is drafted as it is, as an ambiguity is introduced. There is a possibility that a future Government could interpolate a company between the Secretary of State and the CDC, and that is acknowledged in the letter to me.
      Would not it have been easier to qualify clause 25(4)(b), which refers to a company that
      "is wholly owned by the Crown"?
      Why not make it "wholly owned by the Crown or by a company that is wholly owned by the Crown" at that point? Or—perhaps this is an easier way of dealing with it—why not rely on the ordinary understanding of the Companies Act 1985 provision dealing with wholly owned subsidiaries, which provides a perfectly appropriate definition of a wholly owned subsidiary company which could have been interpolated in clause 26 in the definition section? That would have had the effect of allowing a wholly owned subsidiary of the CDC to be treated as an associated company without providing the ambiguity which the Bill provides.
      Will the Minister explain why the Bill is drafted as it is? I appreciate that it is difficult to change the Bill at this stage. Had I received the Secretary of State's letter a few days earlier, I might have tabled a slightly different amendment which would have had the same effect, but in a different way. If he does not explain, we will have to rely on the assurances that the Secretary of State gave in Committee and which I would be grateful if the Minister could repeat—that there is no intention on the part of the Government to interpolate a further company between the Secretary of State and the CDC.
      Mr. Foulkes: First, it is sensible and reasonable for the hon. Gentleman to raise the question, particularly in the terms and manner that he did.
      These are tortuous provisions, as are a number of the Bill's provisions. It is not the only such Bill that I have experienced in 20 years. I had the honour earlier tonight of celebrating 20 years in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends.
      If we had had the wisdom of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) when drafting the Bill, we might have done it differently. It is largely a matter of drafting style and a matter of taste by the parliamentary counsel. We employed a parliamentary counsel who suggested that it should be done in this way. In this case, as in others, he advised us to retain as much flexibility as possible, to cover all eventualities. The hon. Gentleman will remember that in Committee we discussed dealing with a number of eventualities, however unlikely.
      While the CDC is technically wholly owned by the Crown, we want to ensure that the rights that extend to it as a pic also extend to companies that are wholly owned
      526
      by it. I give the hon. Gentleman the absolute assurance and guarantee that we do not intend to put a holding company above the CDC as he feared. We foresee no circumstances in which we would want to do that, but the provision allows the flexibility to cover any eventuality.
      For example, at the moment we guarantee a loan from the European investment bank by one of the CDC's subsidiaries, CDC (Euro) Ltd.; the amendment would prevent us from taking similar action in the wholly owned period, notwithstanding clause 10, because the subsidiary could not be an associated company. That is why we included the provision. We might have done it more elegantly and less tortuously with the hon. Gentleman's advice at an earlier stage, but the effect remains.
      I hope that in the light of my reasoned explanation, the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Heath: With the leave of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] May I speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the hon. Gentleman for his right of reply.
      Mr. Heath: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I listened carefully to the Minister. I am of course flattered by what he said about my drafting skills or otherwise. I do not believe that they are exceptional. There is an ambiguity in the clause, but I accept entirely the intention behind the original wording. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 9, Noes 265.

      Division No. 245]

      [11.37 pm

      AYES

      Blunt, Crispin

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Brady, Graham

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Leigh, Edward

      Mr. Eric Forth and

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Mr. Douglas Hogg.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Browne, Desmond

      Allen, Graham

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Burgon, Colin

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Austin, John

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Barnes, Harry

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cann, Jamie

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Caplin, Ivor

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Casale, Roger

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Caton, Martin

      Benton, Joe

      Cawsey, Ian

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Berry, Roger

      Chaytor, David

      Best, Harold

      Clapham, Michael

      Betts, Clive

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Blackman, Liz

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Boateng, Paul

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Clelland, David

      527

      Clwyd, Ann

      Illsley, Eric

      Coaker, Vernon

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cohen, Harry

      Jamieson, David

      Coleman, Iain

      Jenkins, Brian

      Colman, Tony

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Connarty, Michael

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cox, Tom

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Crausby, David

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Darvill, Keith

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Davidson, Ian

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Kidney, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Dismore, Andrew

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Dobbin, Jim

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Laxton, Bob

      Doran, Frank

      Lepper, David

      Dowd, Jim

      Leslie, Christopher

      Drew, David

      Levitt, Tom

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Linton, Martin

      Efford, Clive

      Livingstone, Ken

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Love, Andrew

      Etherington, Bill

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McCabe, Steve

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Flint, Caroline

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Flynn, Paul

      Macdonald, Calum

      Follett, Barbara

      McDonnell, John

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Foulkes, George

      McNamara, Kevin

      Fyfe, Maria

      McNulty, Tony

      Gapes, Mike

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Meale, Alan

      Godsiff, Roger

      Merron, Gillian

      Goggins, Paul

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Mitchell, Austin

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Grogan, John

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Hain, Peter

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hanson, David

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Healey, John

      Norris, Dan

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Olner, Bill

      Heppell, John

      Pendry, Tom

      Hesford, Stephen

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Hinchliffe, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Pike, Peter L

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Plaskitt, James

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Pond, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pope, Greg

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Hurst, Alan

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Primarolo, Dawn

      528

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Stringer, Graham

      Purchase, Ken

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Rammell, Bill

      Rapson, Syd

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Rooney, Terry

      Timms, Stephen

      Roy, Frank

      Tipping, Paddy

      Ruane, Chris

      Todd, Mark

      Ruddock, Joan

      Touhig, Don

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Trickett, Jon

      Sawford, Phil

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Singh, Marsha

      Vaz, Keith

      Skinner, Dennis

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Watts, David

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      White, Brian

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Soley, Clive

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Spellar, John

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Wise, Audrey

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Wood, Mike

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Worthington, Tony

      Stevenson, George

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Mr. Keith Hill and

      Stott, Roger

      Jane Kennedy

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      11.49 pm
      Clare Short: Ibeg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The purpose of the Bill is to convert the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which was founded by the great post-war Labour Government in 1949, into a public-private partnership, in order to increase the amounts of private-sector investment going into the poorest countries in the world.
      if this were a straight privatisation, the investment pattern would move away from the poorest countries. That is why there has to be a partnership. If the corporation were to remain entirely in the public sector, the quantity of investment would be limited and it would have to be a lender of last resort so that it did not compete unfairly with commercial investment. Our objective is to reduce poverty in the world by assisting the poorest countries to attract beneficial investment and to grow their economies. We sought to entrench the public sector interest in an ethical code and by placing in the Bill a requirement to invest in the poorest countries. Anyone who seeks to invest in the CDC will know what it involves. There is no dependence on the use of powers by any fickle Secretary of State.
      Second Reading and the Committee stage provided useful clarification of the Bill's objectives and purposes, and I am grateful for the points made. There has been some conflict—some of it unnecessary—but we all enjoy

      529
      a bit of that. The Bill is a single stage in advancing the public-private partnership, and we must now restructure the company, create a balance sheet, decide when to take the CDC to the market to maximise the partnership's investment. That would in turn maximise investment in the poorest countries and reduce poverty. I commend the Bill to the House.
      11.51 pm
      Mr. Streeter: We support the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which has flourished for 50 years, primarily under Conservative leadership. We certainly support the objective of reducing poverty in the developing world, and we recognise the need to take the CDC into the next millennium in a new way.
      We continue to have some reservations about the means that the Government have chosen. We will not be able to judge the Bill's success or failure for many years. We will not know whether the Government obtain a fair price for the investment of the past 50 years. Nor will we know for years whether the new CDC will be able to raise its return on capital invested from 8 per cent, at present to the 18 per cent, that investors must receive. We shall not know for several years whether shareholders will achieve a proper return on their investment without bringing pressure to bear on the board of CDC to shift inch by inch away from its developmental objectives—the vital niche roles of investing in pre-emerging markets, creating jobs and changing lives.
      The jury is still out on the Government's Bill. We want it to succeed, but we are taking a step of faith. We have done our best to improve the Bill, but the Government have chosen to turn their back on our wisdom, preferring their own prejudices. I regret that they have done so, and I continue to hold grave reservations.
      The job is not yet done. Some big decisions remain to be taken, and the company go to the market at the right time. It must be floated properly, and the best possible advice is necessary. We call on the Government to rise to the challenge of delivering on promises that are important to us and to thousands of people in the developing world who have a right to look to the new CDC for jobs, hope and dignity in the years to come.
      11.53 pm
      Mr. Wells: The Select Committee on International Development issued two reports on the Bill, setting out detailed considerations that face the House. We are experimenting, and the Commonwealth Development Corporation will move into a different world to that in which it operated before the Bill came before us. It is not only a matter of enabling the CDC to borrow in the private sector, an objective aimed at by the Department for International Development, its predecessor the Overseas Development Administration and the CDC itself. Because of Treasury mumbo jumbo, borrowing by the CDC is part of the public sector borrowing requirement and has been deemed to be Government borrowing. If the CDC wanted to borrow for good reason to invest overseas in good, productive assets, it was prevented from doing so, and we wanted to free it from that.
      The Secretary of State and the Minister have explained that that is not the motivation for transforming the CDC. The Select Committee report accurately reflected what they said. A different CDC has been set before the House, which will begin to function in a new way.
      530
      Some things will change radically as a result of the Bill. I do not think that there is any difference between us on how they will change. The CDC will have to look for a much higher return on equity, so it will not be able to undertake some of things that it has traditionally undertaken, such as initial infrastructural development. It will not be able to undertake to plant a forest in Swaziland, which for 25 years earned no money, but was transformed into a viable, vibrant business in paper production and other wood products.
      The Department should replicate that activity but in a different way. It should set up a fund that works with the CDC and uses grant money from the Department to undertake infrastructural green-field site developments alongside the CDC, which it now cannot do. The Department could get the CDC to manage such developments in the initial stages. An example would be a farm producing avocado pears. We do not get them in the Tea Room at eight o'clock in the morning, when you normally have tea, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A farmer must wait seven years before a tree produces an avocado pear. For that seven-year period, it may be sensible for the Department to invest in the avocado pear farm, have it managed by CDC and then let CDC buy it or have it transferred—I would suggest buy it—when it comes to fruition. It could then take it into the commercial world. That is a serious consideration if we are to get the initial development that the CDC would not otherwise be able to undertake.
      There will have to be a closer relationship between the Department's grant money and initial pump-priming development—which the Department is interested in—and the commercial and private sector. The Bill will separate the two functions, and make each directly accountable.
      The Department will have to consider whether it will give additional loans to the CDC during the period from which it will be formed into a public limited liability company, with all the shares owned by the Government. As I understand the current Treasury rules, the CDC will not be permitted to borrow from the private sector. To develop the CDC—I know that this is in the Government's mind—we want more of its activity in the private sector to be in the least developed countries. I am glad to see in the Department's estimates a provision for lending the CDC up to £1 million, if I interpret the annual report and the estimates for the next three years correctly. I urge the Government to put aside some money to inject additional capital into the CDC when required during the period from which it will become a public limited liability company and before the shares are sold off in the future.
      My next point relates to the sale of the shares when the track record of the CDC has been established. At present, the CDC's annual report reveals that, this year, it made a loss for the first time in many years. It has traditionally made a return on capital of 7 per cent., falling to 6 per cent. It will need to build up its track record to between about 16 and 18 per cent. That requires a huge change in investment—in the direction of investment and in the type of people conducting business in the CDC. Those people will need to find investments and put deals together so as to make that sort of money in some of the least developed and most poverty-stricken countries of the world. Like the Secretary of State, I am convinced that it can be done—it must be done.

      531
      The Secretary of State has often said that she sees the measure as a catalyst that will pull in other private sector investment to the least developed countries. If we achieve that, that will be hugely beneficial to those countries. However, after we have established a record of good investment and returns, we shall have to sell the shares to private sector investors safely in order to undertake that catalytic role. If we do that, it will release more funds that will—I hope—return to the Department for International Development to be used for pump-priming investment in the least developed countries.
      I can see how that would enable the Government's proposals to work. The balance sheet structure will be crucial; that relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) about selling off the CDC for a fraction of its real value. If we are to avoid doing that, we must get the track record right. We must then sell the corporation to extremely discerning investors, who want an ethical investment in the least developed countries. I suggest that they would be looking for a supra-normal return because they are taking extra risks. However, that does not mean that the countries in which they invest will be exploited—rather it will encourage other people to invest there.
      If the CDC can pull of that kind of track record, it will make a huge contribution towards the solution of a problem that we have never been able to solve: how to get private sector investment into the least developed and poorest countries of the world. It will take some time to do so—perhaps between three and five years. On the other hand, there is the possibility of selling earlier. There are attractions in doing so, but it would mean that we should have to sell the value of the CDC at a discount. I am sure that the Secretary of State and those who succeed her will make a judgment as to that. However, there would be value in taking the course that I have desrcibed, because private investment could be attracted, not only in shares, but in the ability to raise private capital in the private market. That is a huge prize to be grasped at the right moment. We do not have to obtain the maximum value for the shares in the CDC, if we can find a way to expand it earlier than we might otherwise have done, hence achieving the objectives set out in the Bill.
      The Secretary of State has chosen to produce a unique taxation arrangement for the CDC. I have always argued that the CDC should never have had to pay British taxes—I made that point in Committee. The CDC was a vehicle for investment in overseas development. Many of the countries in which it invested did not make a tax charge on the CDC; it seemed immoral that the British Treasury should exact tax. In some cases, the CDC was paying more tax than it was returning in capital and interest to the Treasury. That was stupid because matters then had to be reversed through investment by the Department for International Development.
      With this unique taxation arrangement, the CDC avoids going offshore. Of course, its competitors operate offshore; they invest offshore and raise their money offshore, and there is absolutely no reason why they should not do so. The Secretary of State has set her face against that solution and produced a unique taxation arrangement that puts the CDC on an equal footing with its commercial competitors.
      532
      This is, however, a strange arrangement, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon objects to it, as demonstrated by some of the amendments and new clauses that he tabled in Committee and on Report. The situation is as broad as it is long and it does not make any difference in the end which arrangement is used. The Bill is psychologically and philosophically in line with the Secretary of State's thinking and the arrangement makes no difference to what we are trying to achieve.
      This is a huge step along a path that we have not yet trodden, and it will be an interesting experiment. If it works, we will all value it highly and commend it.
      12.6 am
      Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) for his contribution to what has been an extraordinarily acrimonious debate on a well-intentioned Bill. It has been interesting to hear the official Opposition defending God, on the one hand, in their new clause on investment policy, and mammon, on the other hand, in their new clause on share pricing. I suspect that it is yet another example of the increasing schizophrenic tendencies within the Tory party.
      The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill. There is the potential for more investment in developing countries. Foreign investment is already the largest source of financial flows to the third world and it is increasing rapidly. However, as hon. Members have pointed out, we need the right kind of investment.
      On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
      "We hope…that the new CDC will encourage by example much larger flows of foreign investment into the least-developed and poorest economies, by proving that such investment can be safe and profitable."—[Official Report, 24 May 1999; Vol. 332, c. 38.]
      She also said that the Government
      "expect the CDC to operate as an exemplary social, environmental and ethical business. That approach is reflected in its business principles and policies, which cover social, environmental, health and safety matters and business ethics, as well as a statement of the general principles by which the CDC will conduct its business."—[Official Report, 24 May 1999; Vol. 332, c. 43.]
      That is agreed.
      During the various stages of consideration of the Bill, I have tried to express my fears and reservations, particularly on the business principles and ethics of the new CDC. They are absolutely crucial because they replace the additionality test of the old CDC structure.
      I turn briefly to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's guidelines for multinationals. They have been in place for 20 years and are now under review. They have not had a substantial impact. Some say that things are getting better, but not by very much. Those guidelines could be valuable, and the CDC business principles could be even more valuable in setting an example to other big companies operating in the world.
      As I have said before, many multinationals that subsrcibe to the OECD guidelines produce wonderfully glossy brochures. However, I have here a dossier of complaints entitled, "Problems caused by Multinationals". It refers to labour rights and standards, communities and their environment, consumer protection, national Governments' development strategies, effects on local employment, threats to infant or indigenous industries and

      533
      more. It mentions all the usual multinationals. We have all heard of them, and I shall not go through the list of names because it is late. That is the result of business principles and ethical guidelines to which multinationals subsrcibe in glossy brochures, but in name only, as all hon. Members know only too well.
      The CDC must not let standards slip. It is clear from the countries that I have visited in a limited way in the past two years, and from Government officials that we have consulted, that they want investment and development. Regrettably, they often dismiss environmental and labour standards and sustainability as they are so desperate for growth in their economies. So it will be up to the CDC to make sure that things are done properly.
      The Liberal Democrats support the policy if the Government guarantee that it will not result in less money going to the aid budget and that the business principles and investment policies will really work. In three or four years' time, I do not want to be asking parliamentary questions about labour standards or the destruction of the environment in some country where the CDC is operating. That is why I have had reservations about the Bill, but I wish it well.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

    Trustee Delegation Bill [Lords]
    Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    12.11 am
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I am pleased to bring before the House for its final appearance this short Bill, which sets out to clarify the law relating to the delegation by individual trustees of their trust responsibilities and to improve the protection of beneficiaries. It is the consequence of a report by the Law Commission and it met with support on all sides in another place.
    The noble Lord Goodhart said:
    "I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly…I am sure that it will do considerable good and no harm."
    The noble Lord Kingsland said:
    "I believe the Opposition have absolutely no quarrel with it whatsoever."
    The noble Lord Falconer of Thoroton said:
    "It is unusual to encounter such relative complexity in so short a Bill, but I genuinely believe that this is a worthwhile Bill."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 January 1999; Vol. 596, c. 17–18.]
    In Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said:
    "The Bill will provide a helpful simplification of the law of trusts, and will correct one or two anomalies in decided cases. The Bill is uncontroversial and the official Opposition welcome it. I thank the Law Commission for all its work on this measure."
    On the same occasion, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) said:
    "We welcome the Bill…I congratulate the Law commission on its work. We hope that the Bill has a speedy passage through the…House."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 22 June 1999; c. 3–4.]
    I was grateful to the hon. Gentlemen for their constructive and helpful approach to the Bill. It mirrored the approach taken in the Second Reading Committee.
    Though short and technical, the Bill will be of some benefit, particularly to joint owners of real property, and I commend it to the House.
    12.13 am
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: At this fairly advanced hour I can be relatively brief. As the Minister has made clear, the Bill is a simplification of the law. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be pleased to see a group of lawyers speaking for all the major parties welcoming simplification.
    I should mention that after our Second Reading Committee a couple of small points were raised with me by some trusts experts. Although it is too late for any substantive amendment, in fairness to Macfarlanes, a major City firm which has partners specialising in trust law, I should mention a couple of points. Even after the Bill receives Royal Assent and becomes law, the Government may be able to consider those points and perhaps issue some guidance for clarification.

    535
    Clause 1 provides for the delegation of trustee functions where the trustee has a beneficial interest in the trust assets in certain circumstances and, as the Minister pointed out in Committee, this replaces the delegation of trustee functions under section 3(3) of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985, which is repealed by clause 4 of the Bill.
    The explanatory notes covering the Bill state on page 3 that the provision
    "will enable a co-owner of land to make effective provision for the disposal of the…land if he or she becomes mentally incapable."
    However, it is not entirely clear how this result might be achieved as the power of attorney provided for in clause 1 is not an enduring one. Macfarlanes was concerned whether, on the face of it, the power would lapse on the donor becoming, in some sad cases, mentally incapable.
    Macfarlanes other query related to the power of attorney under section 25 of the Trustee Act 1925, which is an enduring power. It felt that clarification was required. It wonders whether such a power, even if a donor becomes mentally incapable and the power—
    Mr. David Maclean: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. It seems that he has found a serious lacuna in the Bill at this late stage. Surely my hon. Friend should be advising us to vote against the Bill to enable the Government to reintroduce it at an early stage when they have dealt with the lacuna.
    Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I should tell him that although Macfarlanes is raising some points of clarification, it states that it welcomes the Bill. It feels that it is a measure that will help to simplify the law of trusts. From his experience of the law, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that any simplification of such a complex area of the law is greatly to be welcomed.
    I shall complete the point that I was making. The query was whether, if a donor becomes mentally incapable and the power of attorney is registered within the year, the power will cease to be exercisable after the year has elapsed. Clause 8 authorises an attorney under a registered power to exercise certain powers of appointment of new trustees. Macfarlanes was concerned that it might not be entirely clear how this would extend beyond the initial one-year term of the power of attorney. It may be that the Minister can deal with these points when he replies—
    Mr. Eric Forth: My hon. Friend is obviously trying to be helpful to the House, but he is in danger of having the opposite effect. He seems to be saying at one and the same time that the Bill will help to clarify the law, while going to great pains to explain how those whom he says are experts are telling us that there are points of difficulty. How can it be that if a firm called Macfarlanes believes that there are points that require clarification, the Bill still simplifies the law? This sounds to me like a lawyers' ramp to ensure that we think that the Bill will simplify matters when in fact it requires clarification, with additional legal advice being provided at great expense.
    Mr. Hawkins: I think that I can reassure my right hon. Friend. I understand his concern, but I should tell him
    536
    that Macfarlanes prefaces its helpful comments in seeking small points of clarification by saying that the policy behind the Bill is "greatly to be welcomed." The Law Commission recognised one or two difficulties in decided cases and the Bill certainly removes some of the difficulties that arose in the Michael Norton case of 1985. I can echo what my noble Friend Lord Kingsland said in another place: that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition welcome the Bill.
    12.18 am
    Mr. John Burnett: We welcome the Bill. I shall be interested in what the Minister says in response to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on the mental incapacity of a person who is the donor of a power of attorney or who has had powers delegated by trustees to him. However, tonight is not the night to be prolix, nor is it the night to be verbose.
    We discussed the Bill at great length on 17 March—[Interruption.] Well, at fairly great length. That was on Second Reading. I made a number of points to the then Minister of State and I received a lengthy letter of 29 March dealing with them. We also discussed the Bill at not such great length in Committee on 22 June.
    We welcome the Bill. I pay tribute to the Law Commission for its excellent work. This is a Law Commission Bill which will simplify the law. Nevertheless, I look forward to hearing from the Minister in response to the points made by Macfarlanes, a noted firm of trust lawyers.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

    PARLIAMENT
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    The House proceeded to a Division—
    MR. MIKE HALL and MR. DAVID HANSON were appointed Tellers for the Ayes; but there being no Tellers for the Noes, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
    Question agreed to.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Statutory Instrument)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    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

    DATA PROTECTION REGISTRAR
    That the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to the salary of the Data Protection Registrar shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,

    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.

    NHS Trusts
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    12.23 am
    Mr. Graham Brady: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise an important matter in the Chamber. There seems to have been a change of personnel on the Government Front Bench, and I compliment the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) on attaining the position of Minister.
    Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Get on with it.
    Mr. Brady: The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) has obviously had an enjoyable evening, but perhaps he can contain himself while we proceed with the important matters relating to the future of the health service, particularly the rather chaotic situation into which the Trafford Healthcare NHS trust—
    Mr. Philip Hammond: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather a chaotic situation when there is no Minister on the Front Bench to listen to such an important debate?
    Mr. Brady: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I was under the impression that a reshuffle had already taken place on the Government Benches, and I therefore congratulated the hon. Member for Delyn.
    I am delighted to see that the Minister for Public Health is now in her place. When she kindly agreed to see me with constituents of mine who work at Altrincham general hospital, representatives of Unison and the Royal College of Nursing, she was not only courteous but had clearly taken the trouble to acquaint herself well with the case, for which I am grateful.
    I sought a broader title for the debate not only to raise the chaotic handling of the future of Altrincham general hospital by the Trafford Healthcare NHS trust, but to consider what the episode tells us about the realities of the NHS two years into the Labour Government's tenure—a Government who were elected on lavish promises to reduce waiting lists and to improve pay and service provision in the NHS. They promised nirvana, but they are delivering chaos and cuts.
    There is constant spin about extra billions supposedly being spent in the NHS, but that spin cuts no ice with hundreds of my constituents who are waiting longer than they need for treatment. It cuts no ice with the 850 constituents who have contacted me to express their dismay at the proposed closure of wards at Altrincham general hospital.
    The spin cuts no ice with the 500 people who die every year unnecessarily because they have to wait too long for heart bypass surgery, according to Mr. Ben Bridgewater, a consultant surgeon at Wythenshawe hospital, which serves many of my constituents. Nor did the Prime Minister's rather flimsy and flippant answer to me when I raised that matter in the House a few weeks ago cut any ice with local people, or those throughout Britain who are concerned about the devastating problems which result from lengthening waiting times for treatment in the NHS.

    539
    The Government's spin does nothing to alleviate the suffering of the 456,000 people who are on the waiting list for the waiting list, an increase of 84 per cent, under the Labour Government. It does nothing to alleviate the suffering of the 153,000 who are now waiting more than 26 weeks on the waiting list for the waiting list, up 115 per cent, since the Government took office.
    If I can bring the matter more specifically to my region in the north-west of England, the Government's spin does nothing to help the 79,000 people there who are now on the waiting list for the waiting list. Those are the Government's own figures, showing an increase of 76 per cent, since they took office. In the north-west, 29,000 people are now waiting more than 26 weeks to get on to the waiting list. That is up a staggering 263 per cent, since the Government took office. This is a Government who promised an improvement in health services, not just for my constituents but for people across the north-west and throughout Britain.
    It is a remarkable day in the history of the NHS—a milestone under the Government—when we discover that four consultants at the North Hampshire hospital have today been found to be contributing money out of their own salaries to fund another consultant post at their hospital. That does not seem to tally with what we hear repeatedly from Ministers about additional funding for the NHS.
    The picture, confirmed by the NHS Confederation, which surveyed its members in May this year, is depressing. It found
    "declining confidence amongst health authorities and trusts about their financial health."
    Where are the extra billions when confidence is declining in the real world of the NHS—the confidence of the real people who are trying to manage an effective service for the benefit of patients throughout Britain? The survey also found that a number of important developments would be postponed. It said that the real impact of the problems would not be felt until 2000–01.
    The cost pressures identified by the confederation's members included those caused by the meeting of pay awards, drug costs and higher pension contributions, and those caused by having to increase funding for additional staff as a result of the implementation of the EU working time directive.
    The confederation went on to say that the problems were recurring, and that
    "consequently there will be a legacy of unachieved efficiency savings and ongoing recovery plans".
    That does not present the rosy picture that Ministers repeatedly try to paint of what the NHS is currently experiencing under Labour's stewardship. It is not by any means what the people were promised by the Government. It is a rather sorry picture.
    The confederation says that the problems will be felt only in 2000–01, but in Altrincham people are already feeling the harsh realities of the NHS under Labour. The chairman of Trafford Healthcare NHS trust is a Trafford Labour councillor, one of 232 Labour councillors who have been given political appointments by the Secretary of State since 1997. Some weeks ago he presented proposals for the closure of two of the three wards at
    540
    Altrincham general hospital. Before any Labour Members try to suggest that the scandal of political appointments in the NHS is a question of rebalancing the years of Tory appointments to the health service—
    Mr. Jeff Ennis: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Brady: If the hon. Gentleman paid some attention to the figures supplied to me by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, I think that he might be a little less content. The commissioner's office tells me that of those appointed to health authorities and trusts who declare any political activity whatever, 546 declare political activity on behalf of the Labour party, while 149 declare activity on behalf of the Conservative party.
    It is a scandal—what is more, it is a scandal that the Commissioner for Public Appointments has begun to recognise may have very damaging consequences for the management of NHS trusts. The commissioner's 1998–99 report—prepared by the previous commissioner, although published under the tenure of the new one—says that the trend of appointing Labour councillors to trusts and health authorities may lead to the loss of
    "the wider management and professional skills and competencies which those holding office need to fulfil the responsibilities".
    That is a worrying indictment of the policy of stuffing the boards of health authorities and trusts with Labour councillors—people appointed for political reasons rather than because they have the management and professional skills and competence required for the execution of the important functions that fall to them.
    A Trafford Labour councillor announced the plan to close two of the three wards at Altrincham general hospital on 10 May, one working day after local elections in the borough. Those elections were closely fought: Labour retained control of the borough council by just three seats. I suspect that the result might have been slightly different had there been proper consultation when the decision-making process was under way.
    In fact, there had been no consultation at all before the announcement of ward closures. There had been no consultation with the public; the community health council had not been consulted or, indeed, informed; the trouble had not even been taken to inform Salford and Trafford health authority of the proposal. This constituted a major change in health provision for people living in Altrincham and Sale, but no one was allowed to know about it until one working day after the local elections were safely out of the way.
    John Sargent, the chief executive of Trafford Healthcare NHS trust, told the chief officer of the community health council on the telephone on the day on which the closures were announced that they were needed because the Government had failed to fund the nurses' pay wards in full. One is prompted to wonder what damage the Government's recent announcements of £40,000-a-year super-nurses might cause to the health service. If the Government are not prepared to fund existing pay awards, what confidence can we have that they will fund any new proposals that they have introduced, although it is possible that they are just a gimmick and will not be brought into effect for any health service staff, meaning that they will make little difference to the provision of health services throughout the country.

    541
    I and Conservative councillors from Altrincham have joined staff at Altrincham general hospital to fight to preserve a much-loved local hospital and vital in-patient care, which is necessary for many patients with high dependency—patients who could not be cared for at home, even if the care programme were in place, which it is not.
    We have pressed the health authority to insist on proper and full public consultation and to wait for the King's Fund Research Institute report, which had already been commissioned by Trafford South primary care group before the closure plans were announced. The institute's review concentrates on the whole area of provision of services for the elderly in south Trafford. It is nonsensical that the trust even contemplated going ahead with closure of important services for the elderly without waiting for the outcome of that review.
    The trust, however, has continued to press for closure on the ground of supposed urgent financial need—a need that arose, it seems, a day after the local elections. That was the picture until this week. Those who occasionally question the importance of Parliament in national life may care to ponder whether there is any connection between this week's events and the fact that I had secured the debate.
    Perhaps it is just coincidence, but yesterday I was informed by staff at Altrincham general hospital that the chief executive of Trafford Healthcare NHS trust was to be seconded for two years and sent to the regional executive. The supreme irony is that his brief at the regional executive is to develop a new performance assessment framework for the NHS. How would one assess the performance of Trafford Healthcare NHS trust, which has not had the decency to consult local people about a profound change in health service provision that directly affects them, and which has behaved in a manner that raises serious questions about the competence of those involved?
    What are we left with if the chief executive is shunted off on to a two-year secondment? We do not know. When the provision of health care in my area is in the gravest doubt, we lose the chief executive of the NHS trust. According to the trust, we will gain an acting chief executive. We do not know who that will be. We do not know when the appointment will be made. We are left simply with more uncertainty, when what we need is someone to take a clear lead to sort out the mess in the provision of local health services.
    Today, staff at Altrincham general hospital have informed me that Trafford Healthcare NHS trust has issued a statement—it did not come to me directly, but it did go to staff at the hospital, which was an improvement on earlier performance. The statement sets out the trust's decision
    "to defer any final decision on the proposed bed closure until at least the spring of 2000".
    I am relieved and delighted that those of us who care about Altrincham and Sale, about the NHS and about proper health provision have won at least a stay of execution, but I say emphatically: Altrincham and Sale needs its hospital not just until next year, but for good. There is a real need in the area for in-patient facilities. There is a need for such facilities to benefit high-dependency patients who cannot be cared for at home. There is a need for them to provide respite care. My constituency needs hospital beds, not sham provision—undelivered promises—of community services.
    542
    If I may, I should like to give the Minister a warning. In 1997, the Labour party did not promise the British people increased waiting lists, ward and hospital closures, or massive politicisation of the national health service. They did not promise people in my constituency, or anywhere else, that they would reduce resources and close facilities. Although the Government talk about new billions supposedly being made available for the national health service, they only run down our health service. If they continue doing so, they will pay the price.
    12.40 am
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jo well): Form says that I should congratulate the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on securing this Adjournment debate, but I think that his constituents will judge whether he has used the time available to him as they would wish. He has spent most of the time available launching a rather cheap and unpleasant attack on national health service staff and a campaign of general smear and innuendo.
    I met the hon. Gentleman, and two nurses working at the hospital, to discuss what I took to be his real concerns about the future of his hospital, and we had a useful and productive discussion—which stands in marked contrast to his speech today. Nevertheless, in the time available to me, I shall try to deal with some points of substance, rather than the political smear in which he indulged.
    The Government have backed up our commitment to the national health service with a real increase in resources. In our first two years in office, we provided for the NHS an extra £2.25 billion, which has allowed an unprecedented number of extra patients to be treated. This year is the first following the comprehensive spending review. As we announced in July 1998, in the next three years, £21 billion extra will be made available to the NHS. Consequently, in England, NHS expenditure will rise by 5.1 per cent.
    Mr. Brady: Waiting lists will rise.
    Ms Jowell: I shall address the issue of waiting lists later.
    In Salford and Trafford, in the current financial year, the unified allocation is £310 million, representing a £19.5 million—6.72 per cent—cash increase. I should be very interested to hear from the hon. Gentleman if his constituents ever received such an increase when the previous Government were in office.
    Mr. Brady: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Ms Jowell: Let me finish this point.
    Those resources will allow the NHS locally to treat steadily increasing numbers of people, meet the pay awards for doctors and nurses, and begin the modernisation process that all of us—Ministers, doctors, nurses, other staff, patients, managers and members of the public—so badly want to see.
    Mr. Brady: If all that is true, is the right hon. Lady able to say why the Trafford Healthcare NHS trust should suddenly be in financial crisis? Will she also comment on the trust chief executive's view, expressed to the

    543
    community health council, that the crisis had been caused by the Government's failure to fund the nurses' pay award?
    Ms Jowell: I shall deal with that point in a moment.
    As I said, in the current financial year, the Trafford Healthcare NHS trust received a 6.72 per cent, increase.
    As part of our modernisation of the national health service, we are supporting the biggest hospital-building programme ever in this country. Since 1 May 1997, 31 major hospital developments, worth more than £2.9 billion, have been given approval to proceed under the private finance initiative. The PFI was much vaunted by the previous Government, but not a single hospital was started as a result of their PFI. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I remind the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) that Front-Bench spokesmen do not take part in half-hour Adjournment debates.
    Ms Jowell: Two of our developments are very close to the constituency of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale. They are the Central Manchester Healthcare NHS trust and the Manchester Children's Hospitals NHS trust joint venture, which is being redeveloped at an overall scheme cost of more than £200 million, and the South Manchester University Hospitals NHS trust, which is due to be redeveloped at an overall scheme cost in excess of £100 million.
    As part of developing consistency and care based on the best available evidence, providing the context in which care in new buildings will be delivered, the national service framework for older people will focus on those parts of the NHS that are especially important to elderly people. The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman specifically focus on the quality of care for elderly people. Above all, we believe that older people want to retain as much independence and dignity as possible; as members of the external reference group, the views of older people and those who care for them will be taken into account during the development of that framework.
    However, services must evolve and change to keep pace with local demand. In some places, that might mean new hospitals; in others, it might mean closing old ones, changing their use or using hospital facilities in new and innovative ways. It may involve transferring services that have traditionally been provided in hospital into the community, closer to where people live. Indeed, I believe that that was one of the original intentions of the proposals advanced in 1996 for the people of Trafford South, to which I now come.
    Altrincham general hospital is one of four hospitals that make up the Trafford Healthcare NHS trust. It is not a district general hospital in the conventional sense. The hospital provides a range of out-patient services, a minor injuries clinic and three wards with 42 dedicated rehabilitation beds for the elderly.
    In 1996, under the then Government, Salford and Trafford health authority carried out a full public consultation exercise, at the request of the Trafford
    544
    Healthcare NHS trust. Its purpose was to canvass public opinion on proposed changes to the hospital and to some community services for the population of Trafford South.
    Mr. Brady: I shall be brief. The purpose of that consultation was to assess opinion on the proposal to build a new community hospital. It had always been promised that Altrincham would not lose Altrincham general hospital unless and until that new community hospital was built.
    Ms Jowell: I shall continue to deal with the substance of this debate.
    The health authority received and considered a range of responses to these proposals. At its meeting in November 1996, it approved the provision of a new community hospital at Broadheath. It also accepted that there were genuine concerns about the overall reduction in the number of available in-patient beds, and deferred a decision until a review of rehabilitation services for older people in that area could take place.
    More recently, and against a background of having to balance a forecast end-of-year deficit of £2.2 million, the trust identified savings of £1.4 million. As part of its proposals to address the remaining deficit of £800,000, the trust proposed closing two of the three wards at Altrincham general hospital and increasing its investment in community-based rehabilitation services for older people.
    Regrettably, the trust's proposals for achieving its financial balance had not been formally discussed in advance with the health authority or members of the local health and social care community. Instead, on 4 May, they were agreed in a closed session by the trust board. Salford and Trafford health authority was advised by fax on Friday 7 May of the trust board's intentions.
    I fully appreciate and share the concerns of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West about the manner in which the trust has sought to achieve a substantial change in service provision. Understandably, the plans agreed by the trust board, and the way in which they were developed and announced, did not receive the support of the health authority or the community health council.
    On 18 May, in response to a question tabled by the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health confirmed that the regional office of the NHS executive had instructed the trust and health authority to agree a joint approach on the future of in-patient services at Altrincham general hospital and on the future shape of its community-based services.
    As a result, the trust board withdrew the decision that it had previously made on 4 May. However, at a public trust board meeting on 1 June, it once again endorsed proposals that involved the closure of two wards at Altrincham general hospital.
    The hon. Gentleman is aware that, at its meeting on 10 June, members of the health authority were unable to support the decision taken by the Trafford Healthcare trust. Instead, the authority noted the trust's decision and agreed to consult with key stakeholders about the nature, availability and adequacy of alternative services before agreeing to any closure of wards at Altrincham general hospital—a point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

    545
    The authority agreed also to take legal advice to determine the need for further public consultation and to review the full range of the trust's proposals for achieving financial balance, including the need for public consultation. I hope that the actions taken by the health authority address the hon. Gentleman's concerns and I understand that, in any event, no decision will be taken by the trust or health authority on the future of the elderly care wards at Altrincham general before spring 2000.
    Furthermore, this time scale will coincide with the publication of the national service framework for older people, which I mentioned earlier.
    The chief executive of Salford and Trafford health authority has indicated that the authority will want to consider also the report being commissioned by the
    546
    primary care group on services for elderly people, along with other relevant information, before taking any formal action to determine the future pattern of care.
    Hon. Members will find offensive the hon. Gentleman's claim about political bias in appointments. It is our determination to make sure that the best people are chosen to represent a wide range of community interests. As someone who has overseen the process and ensured that all appointments comply with the guidelines issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing that remark—
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at seven minutes to One o 'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police Interview Recordings
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 12 May 1999,Official Report, columns 170–71, if, in exceptional circumstances, by permission or on request by the interviewees (a) the Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres, (b) the Chairman of the Independent Commission on Police Complaints, (c) the Police Ombudsman and (d) representatives of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture may have access to an audio recording of an interview conducted in a holding centre. [86136]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 9 June 1999]The circumstances in which the persons mentioned can have access to audio recordings of police interviews with terrorist suspects in the holding centres are as follows:(a) There are currently no arrangements in place for the Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres to gain access to the audio recordings of police interviews with terrorist suspects.
  (b) Under the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Complaints, etc.) Regulations 1988, the Independent Commission on Police Complaints is to be supplied with such information and documents as it may reasonably require relating to a complaint or matter referred to it, for the purpose of enabling it to fulfil its functions. This could include listening to audio recordings of police interviews with terrorist suspects if considered relevant to such a complaint or matter.
  (c) Provision for a new Police Ombudsman has been made in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. Once appointed and operational, he or she will take over the functions of the Chairman of the ICPC, and in turn will have access to material (including audio recordings) considered relevant to a particular complaint or matter made or referred to him or her, as the case may be.
  (d) The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, established by virtue of Article 1 of the European Convention of that name, may have access to information which is necessary for the Committee to carry out its task. This would appear to include access to audio recordings if necessary for that purpose. In seeking such access, the Committee is required to have regard to applicable rules of national law and professional ethics.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the amount by which petrol prices would have to rise in order to reduce UK road traffic levels by one per cent. per year, cumulatively for each of the next 15 years. [89364]
  190
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government's fuel duty policy is primarily intended to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from road transport, as part of our strategy to tackle climate change. It is, however, also one element of the package of measures we are implementing, following last year's Integrated Transport White Paper, to tackle traffic growth. We will publish 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.

  Seaforth Dock System
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what responsibilities the Environment Agency has in respect of the dock system at Seaforth and its immediate environs. [90171]

  Mr. Meale
  The Environment Agency has powers and duties to prevent pollution of controlled waters including the River Mersey and adjoining dock area.

  Under Section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991, it is an offence to cause or knowingly permit any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter or any solid waste matter to enter controlled waters. It is similarly an offence to cause or knowingly permit the discharge of any trade effluent or sewage effluent into controlled waters except in accordance with a relevant consent. The Environment Agency is the enforcing authority.

  The Agency has issued Discharge Consent (no. 6992575) for the discharge of treated sewage effluent from a septic tank at Berth S6 of the Container Terminal. The Agency has a duty to inspect the premises and take samples of the discharge on a regular basis to ensure compliance with the consent.

  A Waste Management Licence (no. 192–03) is held by the Sheppard Group Ltd, for the storage and treatment of scrap metal at Seaforth Area B. Agency officers are required to inspect licensed sites to ensure that licence conditions are complied with and that the authorised activities are carried out in ways that protect the environment and human health.

  Rural Public Transport
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what help is available from his Department to improve public transport in rural areas. [90376]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The aim of our integrated transport strategy is to increase transport choice for all—including those who live in rural areas. In addition to the extra £700 million of funding to assist local authorities with the implementation of their local transport plans, we have made available a further £170 million over three years to improve public transport in rural areas.

  The bulk of this £170 million is being used to provide additional bus services in rural areas. We are allocating £32.5 million each year to English local authorities in Rural Bus Subsidy Grant for the support of new rural bus services, as well as making £15 million available for this year's Rural Bus Challenge competition and £15 million

  191
  for next year's Challenge. We have also set aside £4.2 million a year for the Rural Transport Partnership fund, to assist community-based transport initiatives.

  Lancashire was allocated £751,438 in Rural Bus Subsidy Grant for 1998–99, and the same amount for 1999–2000. In addition, the authority was allocated a total of £481,606 for its two successful bids under the 1998 Rural Bus Challenge competition, involving the creation of a new bus and rail interchange facility at Clitheroe and the establishment of a high quality bus corridor to include low floor accessible vehicles, improved shelters, and better provision of information for passengers.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each of the past three years the proportion of waste(a) glass, (b) paper, (c) metal, (d) cloth and (e) biodegradable material that has been recycled in each London borough; what is his estimate for the current year; and what are the boroughs' predictions for 2000–01. [90351]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 12 July 1999]This information will take some time to put together. I will write to my hon. Friend with the details and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many applications were received for(a) driving tests in each of the last 10 years and (b) driving theory tests in each year since their introduction. [90593]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 12 July 1999]The number of applications for all categories of practical tests for the financial years 1989–90 to 1998–99, and for the theory tests for the years 1996–97 to 1998–99 are as follows:

  Number of applications for

  Year

  Practical tests

  Theory tests

  1989–90

  2,056,271

  —

  1990–91

  2,076,211

  —

  1991–92

  1,942,421

  —

  1992–93

  1,756,152

  —

  1993–94

  1,731,115

  —

  1994–95

  1,720,373

  —

  1995–96

  1,871,351

  —

  1996–97

  1,608,438

  1,231,186

  1997–98

  1,380,491

  1,237,709

  1998–99

  1,460,832

  1,220,514

  Water Prices Review
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the likely impact on domestic and business water users from 2000 to 2005 of the periodic review of water prices to set prices for that period. [91163]

  Mr. Meale
  Under the Water Industry Act 1991, the regulation of water and sewerage undertakers' price limits is for the Director General of Water Services. In setting price limits, the Director General is also under a duty to 192
  ensure that the interests of customers are protected, and he will therefore have regard to the impact of the periodic review on customers.

  We believe that reductions in average water and sewerage bills can be secured. The Director General expects to announce draft price limits for each undertaker later this month.

  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has given to the Director General of Ofwat concerning the periodic review of water prices to set prices for the period from April 2000 to 2005. [91162]

  Mr. Meale
  Under the Water Industry Act 1991 the regulation of water and sewerage undertakers' price limits is for the Director General of Water Services. The Government have given guidance to the Director General on the environmental and water quality improvements to be delivered by 2005. This guidance was published under the title "Raising the Quality" in September 1998, and was supported by more detailed announcements of company programmes on 1 March 1999.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the current situation is in respect of providing a Channel Tunnel rail interchange at Stratford, East London, to serve East Anglia. [90708]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A new international and domestic station at Stratford remains integral to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link project, with construction planned as part of Section 2. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 provides powers for an open box over which the station is to be built. An Order providing powers for the station itself has been sought by London and Continental Railways (LCR) under the Transport and Works Act 1992. Following a public inquiry, the Secretary of State announced on 8 September 1998 that he was minded to approve the Order with modifications. But before reaching a final decision he required further information from LCR and other parties on pedestrian access, which is presently awaited.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions whom he plans to consult before approving draft Regional Development Agency strategies. [91050]

  Mr. Meale
  The Regional Development Agencies are currently drafting their regional strategies which will be issued for public consultation over the summer. They intend to submit their strategies to Ministers in late October. There is no formal approval process but we aim to respond to the strategies by the end of the year.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the actual and planned Government expenditure on the home energy efficiency scheme in each of the years from 1990–91 to 2001–02. [91475]
  193
  Mr. Meale
  The total expenditure on the Government's Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) in each year from the start of the scheme in 1991 is as follows.

  £million

  Year

  Expenditure

  1990–911

  1.5

  1991–92

  26.1

  1992–93

  33.6

  1993–94

  41.5

  1994–95

  83

  1995–96

  107.2

  1996–97

  76.1

  1997–98

  76.1

  1998–99

  76.2

  1999–20002

  76.1

  2000–013 allocated new HEES

  125.0

  2001–023 allocated new HEES

  175.0

  1 Expenditure in 1990–91 was for 3 months only.

  2 Estimated

  3 The Government have allocated a total of £300 million over 2000–01 and 2001–02 to tackling fuel poverty through energy efficiency improvements. Since this is a devolved function, the most appropriate method of dividing the moneys between the proposed New Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) in England and the separate programmes in Scotland and Wales will be considered shortly, taking account of the extent of fuel poverty in each.

  Voluntary and Community Transport
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the report commissioned by his Department on voluntary and community transport. [91548]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The report is being published today and copies of both the summary and full report will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The report contains a wide range of detailed information about the valuable role of voluntary and community transport operators and I very much welcome it as a focus for debate by all those involved in the funding and operation of this important area of transport.

  We will be circulating the report to all stakeholders in this area and inviting comment from them on its findings and recommendations.

  Outdoor Advertisements
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to improve the arrangements for control of outdoor advertisements. [91549]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have today issued a consultation paper with proposals to update, clarify and improve the arrangements for controlling outdoor advertisements. Comments are invited no later than Thursday 14 October 1999.

  The amendments which are proposed as part of the Government's drive to modernise the planning system also seek to make the current system more responsive to the rapidly changing nature of outdoor advertising. They would benefit business without spoiling the appearance of our towns and cities.

  Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish proposals for improving the rights of way system in England and Wales. [91759]

  Mr. Meacher
  I shall be publishing a consultation paper tomorrow setting out the Government's proposals for improving the rights of way system as part of legislation to provide a statutory right of access to open countryside for people on foot. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Sex Equality Legislation
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the Equal Opportunities Commission's proposals for changes to the sex equality legislation. [91643]

  Ms Hodge
  We have today placed in the Library copies of the Government's response on some of the issues addressed by the EOC in their proposals for changes to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Acts. In reaching our conclusions, the Government have taken into account the Better Regulation Task Force's report on anti-discrimination legislation and the Commission for Racial Equality's proposals for changes to the Race Relations Act 1976, on which we are also responding today.

  In considering the EOC' s proposals, our guiding principle has been to identify measures that will have the greatest practical impact on the lives of men and women. We will therefore: consult on changes in the way equal pay cases are dealt with to make them clearer and simpler; update the law to take account of developments in Europe on equal treatment; bring the functions of all public authorities within the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act; explore both legislative and non-legislative options to ensure public bodies promote equal opportunities between women and men; encourage the EOC to work with equality bodies and others to help employers and service providers meet their obligations under the current law by producing clear and accessible guidance and examples of good practice; and bring the EOC' s powers in line with the Disability Rights Commission. At this stage we do not consider that undertaking a major legislative overhaul, in the way the EOC suggests, will of itself achieve the practical changes that are needed.

  The Government are taking concrete steps to tackle key issues that affect women and men's lives. For example, the National Childcare Strategy created over 65,000 new child care places last year, enabling men and women to choose to work or study. The National Minimum Wage is benefiting women in particular, as they make up the highest proportion of those on low pay. Measures under the Employment Relations Bill on maternity and parental leave will help people to balance their working and home lives.

  Kosovo Refugees
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the EMAG arrangements for those local authorities which have taken on significant responsibility for the education of the children of refugees from Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [90788]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are grateful for the positive way Local Authorities have responded in providing for the needs of evacuees from Kosovo and for securing school places for the children concerned. A meeting has been arranged on 20 July between the Local Government Association, the Home Office and other interested parties to discuss the costs incurred by Local Authorities.

  The Department's Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant is able to provide specialist support for refugee education. However, all allocations of the Grant for 1999–2000 were announced on 4 March, and we have no present plans to review these.

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [89162]

  Mr. Mudie
  The total number of all Statutory Instruments (SIs) registered as General Instruments in 1998, 1992, 1985 and 1973 are shown in the following table.

  Year

  Number of SIs

  1998

  1,565

  1992

  1,692

  1985

  1,204

  1973

  1,260

  Source:

  Statutory Publications Unit. Stationery Office: Statutory Instruments are classified as General Instruments if they are in the nature of a General Public Act. SIs may also be registered as Local Instruments in the nature of local or private Acts. SIs implementing EC legislation will always be classified as General Instruments.

  It is not possible, without incurring disproportionate cost, to determine how many of these SIs were introduced to comply with European Community obligations.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of participants in the New Deal programme have left it to become self-employed. [89430]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  People who move off New Deal to start self-employment are recorded as having found work, and separate statistics are not collected. However, 2,635 young people have started on the Basic Awareness Session of the Self-Employment Route of the New Deal Employment Option; and 740 have started on the Test Trading stage. It is too early to provide meaningful figures of those who have subsequently moved from this stage into independent self-employment, but these will be available from later this year.

  "Learning to Succeed"
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the implications of his paper, "Learning to Succeed", Cm 4392, for community organisations that currently use the money they generate from training contracts via TECs to cross-subsidise community-based activities; and what steps he will take to ensure the use of community activities to increase access to education and training for Asian women and Asian Elders. [90357]

  Mr. Mudie
  "Learning to Succeed" makes clear that adult and community learning is a vital part of the Government's aim to create access to high quality, relevant learning opportunities for everyone. The new Learning and Skills Council will provide an opportunity to integrate adult and community learning provision more effectively with other learning opportunities. To this end, the Government propose to give the Council a national duty to arrange adequate and sufficient adult and community learning provision and to give to local authorities the changed duty to contribute to arrangements for provision at local level. The Council will develop a new funding system that caters for the needs of all post–16 learners, including those in adult and community education. Local Learning Councils will arrange provision in the light of plans drawn up by local Learning Partnerships. These new coherent arrangements should make it easier for individuals from all groups in the community to access a wide range of learning opportunities. We shall consult further on the detailed arrangements.

  Ethnic Community Teachers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action his Department has taken to encourage people from ethnic communities to enter the teaching profession; and if he will make a statement. [90357]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Teacher Training Agency (TTA) published a new Corporate Plan for 1999–2002 on 6 July. This makes promoting the recruitment of teachers the Agency's top priority. The Plan includes an aim to increase the recruitment of members of ethnic minorities to initial teacher training (ITT) from the present 6 per cent. to 9 per cent.

  The Agency has also persuaded the vast majority of providers to introduce an additional voluntary target for recruitment from the ethnic minorities. The average voluntary target for all primary and secondary ITT providers is 7 per cent. The TTA also allocates additional places to ITT providers if they achieve exceptional recruitment of ethnic minority trainees.

  Pre-school Education
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures the Government are taking to encourage the expansion of pre-school education. [90368]

  Ms Hodge
  We already fund three terms of free nursery education places for all four year olds whose parents want it. Over the next three years, we are making available £390 million to fund free early education places for three year olds. By April 2002, the participation rate of
  197
  three year olds will be very nearly doubled to 66 per cent. In 1999–2000, about £40 million of this additional funding will be allocated to the 57 Local Education Authorities with the highest levels of social need, creating around 48,000 places. From April 2000, Funding will be distributed across all Local Education Authorities.

  Age Diversity
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money has been spent on(a) producing and (b) promoting the Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment. [90705]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The initial consultation on the draft Code cost around £22,000. This includes the cost of designing, printing and distributing 21,000 copies of the consultation document and carrying out the consultation exercise.

  Costs for the final version of the Code amount to £100,000. This includes the costs for printing and distribution of 35,000 initial packs of the Code and guidance, the production of publicity fliers and posters for display in Jobcentres, libraries and Citizens Advice Bureaux: and initial advertising in human resource journals. Beyond this, an additional £70,000 has already been committed to support initiatives by partners to take the Code forward with employers.

  Table A: Expenditure in each year and the amount of government support

  £000

  1997–971

  1997–981

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  LEA's Education Capital

  n/a

  21,000

  31,313

  n/a

  Programme, supported by the following government initiatives:

  Annual Capital Guidelines4

  n/a

  196

  335

  552

  Supplementary Credit Approvals5

  n/a

  89

  95

  607

  New Deal for Schools6

  n/a

  900

  1,159

  2,681

  Class Sizes

  n/a

  n/a

  141

  848

  Removal of Outside Toilets

  n/a

  n/a

  156

  0

  Energy Management

  n/a

  n/a

  80

  0

  Security in Schools7

  n/a

  67

  84

  87

  National Grid for Learning7

  n/a

  n/a

  250

  500

  Grant to Voluntary Aided Schools (inc. Voluntary Aided Challenge Fund)8

  16

  379

  800

  613

  Grant to Grant-maintained Schools

  265

  241

  49

  30

  1 1996–97 and 1997–98: Annual Capital Guidelines, Supplementary Credit Approval, and VA grant: For 1996–97, Stoke was part of Staffordshire; it is not possible to disaggregate what credit approvals and grants would have benefited Stoke schools. New Deal for Schools, Reduction in Class Sizes, National Grid for Learning, and Security in Schools: None of these initiatives were running in 1996–97; nor, in 1997–98, were the initiatives for Class Sizes and the National Grid for Learning operational.

  2 LEA's Education Capital Programme: Please note, the total education programme is less than the sum total of the amounts allocated under government initiatives. This is because LEAs are not obliged to use credit approvals for the purposes for which they were allocated (see notes 3 and 4); also some of the grants are used for revenue purposes (see note 7).

  3 Education Capital Programme 1998–99: Please note, this figure is provisional only, based on estimates by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  4 Annual Capital Guidelines: This is used in the calculation of the LEA's Basic Credit Approval (BCA), where the LEA's capital receipts are taken into account. Just because a project has been taken account of in calculating the ACG, it does not mean that the LEA has to use its BCA for that purpose.

  5 Supplementary Credit Approval (SCA): Unlike BCA, receipts are not taken into account when calculating the level of SCA. However, unless the SCA specifically says otherwise, the LEA is not obliged to use the SCA for the purpose for which it was allocated.

  6 New Deal for Schools: Some of the grant figures for VA schools would have changed slightly in order to reflect the actual costs of the project.

  7 National Grid for Learning and Security in Schools: While the majority of the expenditure supported by the grant will be capital in nature, some will be revenue, and it is not possible to isolate the two elements.

  8 VA Grant: Capital grant is paid in respect of Governors' liability at a rate of 85 per cent. Actual amount of grant paid may change depending on the costs of project on tender.

  198
  We are currently assessing the initial impact of the launch of the Code last month and will be developing a forward strategy to raise awareness and support employers who want to implement the principles of the Code.

  I hope to make an announcement about the next phase of the Code's development in the autumn.

  School Capital Investment (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what capital investment in schools in Stoke-on-Trent has taken place in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000 to date; and what the planned levels are for the next two years. [90785]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is shown in the following tables. Table A shows the capital investment the Government have made in schools in Stoke-on-Trent in the four years up to 1999–2000. Table B shows the level of investment the Government intend to make for the following two financial years, provided resources allow; this represents only commitments arising from existing projects; we cannot indicate what investment we will make to Stoke in respect of new projects. In 1996–97, Stoke was still part of Staffordshire; it is not possible to determine how much of the grant and credit approval allocated to Staffordshire LEA actually benefited schools in Stoke.
  199

  Table B: Provisional Indicators: Amounts already committed as part of future ACGs and Grant provided resources allow

  £000

  To be part of:

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Annual Capital Guideline

  1,023

  83

  VA Grant

  0

  0

  NDS Grant

  712

  0

  Class sizes

  238

  0

  Note:

  In addition to all this, PFI Credits of up to £75 million have been allocated to support Stoke on Trent's PFI scheme to repair and maintain all maintained schools within the LEA. Stoke anticipate signing a contract by the ent of this calendar year.

  International Labour Conference
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which Minister attended the 1999 ILO general conference; and on what days. [91139]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I attended and addressed the 87th Session of the International Labour Conference on 8 June 1999.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [91059]

  Mr. Mudie
  Between 1 May 1997 and 14 April 1999, 2,026 parliamentary questions have been tabled to the Department for written answer on a named day; 75 per cent. received a substantive reply on that day.

  Home Tuition
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he has issued to local education authorities on the provision of home tuition for children suffering post-traumatic stress as a result of bullying at school; and if he will make a statement. [90758]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We issued on 8 July to all local education authorities Circular 11/99, "Social Inclusion: the LEA role in Pupil Support". This offers advice, among other things, on arranging education for children out of school for any reason, including post-traumatic stress as a result of bullying.

  School Exclusions (Drugs)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children have been excluded from schools as a result of possession or supply of controlled drugs on school premises in each of the last five years. [91134]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not currently collected centrally. However, the Department will begin collecting this information in the autumn, for the current school year, 1998–99, as part of the Government's 10–year UK Anti-Drugs Strategy.
  200
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance has been given by his Department to headteachers regarding the exclusion of pupils found(a) in possession of and (b) supplying controlled drugs while on school premises. [91131]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Circular 10/99, "Social Inclusion: Pupil Support", which was issued on 8 July this year, addresses these issues.

  New Deal (Private Sector Companies)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria will be used by his Department in assessing the performance of private sector companies delivering the New Deal. [91206]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There are three main criteria on which I will base my assessment of the performance of private sector companies leading New Deal. Day to day performance is regularly reviewed against the individual delivery contracts; comparative performance between Units of Delivery is measured by the published core performance measures and the evaluation of New Deal will assess the effectiveness of different contracting strategies.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Kosovar Refugees
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects Kosovar Albanians who came to the United Kingdom under the Humanitarian Evacuation Programme to return to Kosovo. [91007]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Kosovar Albanians who came to the United Kingdom under the Humanitarian Evacuation Programme (HEP) were granted leave to enter in line with close family members already settled in the United Kingdom or granted exceptional leave to enter for 12 months to provide them with temporary shelter as requested by the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in his announcement about the change of policy to the HEP and the consideration of asylum applications from citizens of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) on 15 June, stated that no Kosovar Albanian would have their stay curtailed nor would they be required to leave the United Kingdom until it was safe to do so.

  It is our intention to facilitate the return of any Kosovar Albanians who wish to return to Kosovo as soon as possible. In co-operation with voluntary organisations in the refugee sector, the British Red Cross, UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration, we will be providing a voluntary return programme. We expect the first flight to take place in the week commencing 19 July. For those without passports, the necessary travel documentation will be provided for those on the return programme. The programme will be available to those FRY citizens from Kosovo who arrived on the HEP as well as those who arrived in the United Kingdom independently.

  Prisons
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a system of
  201
  sanctions and rewards based on performance for public sector prisons, as considered by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons in his 1999 report on HMP Wormwood Scrubs; and if he will make a statement. [90582]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service already operates a system of performance-related pay for senior staff, which includes the governors of public sector prisons. In addition, the Prison Service has started to trial service delivery agreements which set clear targets for public sector prisons to deliver, both in terms of quantity and quality. These targets will translate into staff performance plans. A specific project has been established to explore further options to reward good, and sanction substandard, performance.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his estimate of the extra capacity which will be added to existing prisons in each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement; [90584]

  (2) what is his estimate of the number of new prisons which will be built in each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [90596]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service is building four additional prisons over the next three financial years. In 1999–2000, two new prisons are due to open. Forest Bank, near Salford, will provide 800 places and Ashfield, near Bristol, will provide 400 places. In 2000–01, a new prison will open at Onley, Rugby, which will provide 600 places. In 2001–02, a new prison at Marchington, Staffordshire, will open providing 800 places. Subject to legal agreements, the Prison Service also has outline planning permission for two further new prisons at Peterborough and Ashford (Staines) and an application for a new prison at Maghull in Merseyside is awaiting determination by the local planning authority. No decision has yet been taken on the start dates.

  The Prison Service is also providing an additional 1,100 new places at existing prisons in 1999–2000. No decision has been taken to build extra capacity at existing prisons beyond this period.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change procedures in his Department which relate to responding to details of serious problems in Prison Service establishments, with particular reference to those which are made in reports by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons; and if he will make a statement. [90583]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Responses to the reports and recommendations of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons are managed through a specific protocol which was introduced in November 1997. This requires a full response and action plan to be drawn up within 30 days of the publication of the report and updated at nine and 15 months afterwards. The original and updated action plan is sent to Ministers and to the Chief Inspector.

  The protocol was not applied retrospectively. It is currently under review.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken by Prison Service managers in response to the finding in Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons 1999 report on HMP Wormwood Scrubs that cell call alarms had been muted on A Wing in the prison; and if he will make a statement. [90588]
  202
  Mr. George Howarth
  A governor's order was issued immediately after Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons' inspection which required managers to make regular checks on the system. The checks include both random and regular visual checks of alarm panels in wing offices. Staff have also been briefed directly by the governor and reminded of their personal responsibilities to respond to cell alarms. Notices to prisoners have been published and displayed on wing notice boards reminding prisoners that cell call systems are for emergency use only.

  The broken mute switch referred to in the Chief Inspector's report has been repaired and the cell call system is now in full working order on A Wing.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those Prison Service establishments which are currently under special managerial attention; how long they are expected to remain under special managerial attention; and if he will make a statement. [90585]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The following Prison Service establishments are currently listed as requiring closer managerial attention:

  Brockhill

  Bullwood Hall

  Chelmsford

  Feltham

  Glen Parva

  Holloway

  Parc

  Wellingborough

  Wormwood Scrubs.

  All establishments are kept under review and no dates have been set for their removal.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the Prison Service's current projections for changes in the prison population in each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [90597]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Research Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office provided revised projections of the prison population in England and Wales in May, and a summary of the projection is included in the April 1999 'Prison Population Brief which is available on the Internet at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm

  Projections are provided according to various alternative scenarios. The middle variant projection assumes that Crown Court custody rates increase at 0.6 per cent. for males and 1.1 per cent. for females, and that sentence lengths increase by 0.2 months per year in the first two years (but by no more thereafter). A higher variant assumes that from 2001, in addition to the custody rate increases assumed in the middle variant, sentence lengths continue to increase after the first two years at 1.5 per cent. per annum for males and 2 per cent. per annum for females. The results are as given in the table.
  203
  These scenarios both assume that the amount of courts' business remains constant over the period. A third scenario, that sentence lengths and custody rates do not

  Long term projections of male and female prisoners, projected through to 2006, England and Wales

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  2005

  2006

  Higher variant: Total

  64,900

  67,000

  68,800

  70,000

  70,800

  72,000

  73,500

  75,000

  Male

  61,600

  63,200

  64,800

  65,900

  66,600

  67,700

  69,200

  70,600

  Female

  3,300

  3,800

  4,000

  4,100

  4,200

  4,300

  4,300

  4,400

  Middle variant: Total

  64,800

  66,500

  68,100

  68,800

  69,200

  69,700

  70,200

  70,900

  Male

  61,600

  62,900

  64,300

  64,800

  65,200

  65,600

  66,100

  66,700

  Female

  3.300

  3,600

  3,800

  4,000

  4,000

  4,100

  4,100

  4,200

  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Prison Service takes to monitor prisoners who are transferred from private to public prisons, with particular reference to the honouring of risk assessments conducted in private prisons. [90988]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Risk assessments on prisoners are prepared at prisons for a variety of purposes, including categorisation, sentence planning, release on temporary licence and home detention curfew. Contracted out prisons are subject to the same rules, procedures, guidance and policy for risk assessments as public sector prisons. Assessment processes at contracted out and public sector prisons are monitored during standards audits. Where prisoners transfer, the assessment will be the responsibility of the prison with final accountability for the decision in question, but in doing so, it would normally be expected to take into account any previous assessment undertaken by other prisons. Prisoners dissatisfied with decisions at contracted out or public sector prisons can make use of the request and complaints procedures.

  Wormwood Scrubs
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral statement of 28 June 1999,Official Report, column 28, on Wormwood Scrubs, on what date he asked Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons to re-inspect HMP Wormwood Scrubs within six months of the publication of the 1999 report on the prison. [90710]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Chief Inspector indicated in the preface to his report his intention to return to Wormwood Scrubs in six months' time. The formal request made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for him to do so was effective from the date of his statement to the House.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions he and other Ministers in his Department have met representatives of the Prison Service to discuss the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons on HMP Wormwood Scrubs published in 1997; and if he will make a statement. [90581]

  Mr. George Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Minister with responsibility for prisons, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Williams—and, until July 1998, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin)—hold regular meetings with the Director General of the Prison Service in addition to quarterly performance meetings to discuss the Prison Service's quarterly performance
  204
  increase further, leads to a prison population of 67,400 by 2006. Projections take into account known legislative and policy changes.

  reports. Issues arising from the reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons are discussed at these meetings as appropriate. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Williams also has regular meetings with other senior Prison Service officials and chairs the Prison Service Strategy Board which meets eight times a year.

  Prisons (Hepatitis C)
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the percentage of the prison population with hepatitis C; and what(a) preventive measures are taken against and (b) treatment is available for hepatitis C in the Prison Service. [90425]

  Mr. George Howarth
  A voluntary, anonymous survey of HIV and hepatitis and risk behaviour was conducted in 1997–98 by the Public Health Laboratory Service at eight prisons. The survey found prevalence of hepatitis C to be 7.4 per cent. of the prison population overall.

  The Prison Service has a strategy for preventing the spread of communicable diseases which covers training, education, prevention, risk reduction and harm minimisation. A pilot project on the provision of disinfecting tablets to reduce the risk of spreading hepatitis C through prisoners sharing injecting equipment has recently been completed. The Prison Service hopes to be able to extend this initiative across the remainder of the prison estate during the coming year. Advice and guidance is sent to prison governors and doctors on an ad hoc basis and covers the management of blood-borne viruses including hepatitis C. Every prison is expected to have a communicable diseases management team to deal strategically with the management, medical and social challenges involved.

  The treatment available for prisoners with hepatitis C follows that provided to members of the general public by the NHS with decisions about initiating further investigations and treatment taken only by specialists.

  Prison Service (Litigation)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will conduct a further study of the use by convicted criminals of small claims court procedures to take actions against the Prison Service. [91075]

  Mr. George Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked the Prison Service to conduct an assessment of the extent of litigation of all types by
  205
  serving prisoners and to report to him by the end of July. We will decide whether any further study is necessary in the light of the results of this work.

  Citizenship Applicants
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used to determine whether an applicant for citizenship is a political extremist. [90982]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are no such criteria. "Political extremism" is not a matter which is included in the guidance to staff on the good character requirement.

  Race Relations Act (Review)
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the Government's response to the Commission for Racial Equality's Third Review of the Race Relations Act 1976. [91696]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today placed in the Library, a copy of the Government's response to the Commission for Racial Equality's Third Review of the Race Relations Act 1976. In deciding their response, the Government have

  Panel members

  Mrs. Hilary Eldridge

  Director, Lucy Faithfull Foundation

  Dr. Dawn Fisher

  Consultant Forensic Clinical Psychologist, Llanarth Court Psychiatric Hospital

  Professor Don Grubin

  Professor of Forensic Psychiatry, University of Newcastle upon Tyne

  Dr. Moira Hamlin

  Clinical Psychologist formerly with University of Bristol Health Trust

  Dr. Norman Hoffman

  Senior Adviser, Abt Associates Inc, Cambridge Massachusetts

  Dr. Doug Lipton

  Senior Research Fellow, National Development and Research Institutes Inc., New York

  Professor Mike Maguire

  Professor of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Cardiff University

  Dr. Jancie Marques

  Chief of Programme Development & Evaluation, California Department of Mental Health

  Dr. William Murphy

  Professor of Psychiatry, University of Tennessee

  Dr. Frank Porporino

  Senior Partner, T3 Associates, Ottawa, Canada

  Professor Peter Raynor

  Professor of Applied Social Studies, University of Wales, Swansea

  Mr. Simon Shepherd

  Clinical Psychologist and Chief Executive, European Association for the treatment of Addiction

  The Panel will also include nominated representatives of the Home Office, the Prison Service, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation.

  The Panel will, under the Chairmanship of Sir Duncan Nichol, start work later this year.

  Metropolitan Police Committee
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the latest Annual Report and Annual Plan of the Metropolitan Police Committee; and if he will make a statement. [91698]

  Mr. Straw
  The Annual Report of the Metropolitan Police Committee for 1998–99, and the Annual Plan of the Committee for 1999–2000, are being published today.

  The Report gives information about the advice and other work which the Committee have undertaken for the past financial year. The Plan sets out the work which the Committee aims to undertake on tasks which we have agreed that it will undertake, again to support me in my role as Police Authority in the current financial year. A major task is to help prepare for the Metropolitan Police Authority, planned for July next year.
  206
  taken into account the Better Regulation Task Force's report on anti-discrimination legislation and the Equal Opportunities Commission's proposals for updating the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to which we are also responding today.

  The Government recognise that although significant progress has been made since the Race Relations Act 1976 was introduced 23 years ago, there is much to be done before we achieve a truly inclusive society. Institutional racism, as highlighted by the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report, has to be tackled in a number of ways, of which the legislative framework is only one.

  The Government want the public sector to set the pace and lead by example. This approach is reflected in our response.

  Prisons-probation Panel
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on the appointment of a joint prisons-probation panel to accredit the design and delivery of work with offenders designed to reduce re-offending. [91697]

  Mr. Straw
  The following independent experts have been appointed to the Panel:

  Copies of the Report and Plan are being placed in the Library. The Chairman of the Committee is writing with copies to a wide range of interested people and organisations, including all Members with London constituencies, all Members of the European Parliament whose constituencies include London areas, all London Boroughs, all Police Community Consultative Groups and all Lay Visitor Panels.

  I am grateful to Sir John Quinton, the Chairman of the Committee and all his colleagues for their advice and other assistance to me, and look forward in particular to working with them on the transition to the new arrangements for the governance of London's policing.

  Drug-related Crime
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the action he is taking to tackle drug-related crime. [91699]

  Mr. Straw
  I made an announcement earlier today and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member
  207
  for Lewes (Mr. Baker) of 5 July 1999, Official Report, column 332, what decision he has reached on whether there is a need to suspend, under the powers granted by section 13 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the certificate of designation held by Harlan UK Ltd. [91709]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Based on advice received from the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate, I am satisfied that there are no grounds under section 13 of the Act to suspend the certificate of designation.

  While the investigation into the allegations made against this establishment continues, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage.

  Freedom of Information Bill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the respects in which the proposals within the draft Freedom of Information Bill represent an increased restriction on access to information. [90719]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]There are no proposals in the draft Bill which represent an increased restriction on access to information.

WALES

  Deeside
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on objective 2 status for Deeside. [89670]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 2 July 1999]New objective 2 areas will not be known for some time. The Government must first submit proposals to the European Commission for their approval. The Government have recently consulted widely on what our priorities should be. The National Assembly for Wales is fully involved in discussions.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on assisted area status and its effects on Deeside. [89671]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 2 July 1999]We have today announced our proposals for new assisted areas to operate from 1 January 2000. The proposals have been submitted to the European Commission, which must now agree the final areas. I am confident that our proposal represents a good deal for Wales, with 71.5 per cent. population coverage, and a good deal for Deeside, as can be seen from the proposals which I have today copied to all Welsh MPs and MEPs.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of university and higher education entrants from each county in Wales in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [89940]

  Mr. Hain
  The number of entrants to higher education courses at Higher Education Institution in Wales from each county in Wales for the academic year 1998–99, is provided in the following table. Data for 1999–2000 are not yet available.
  208
  Further and higher education funding is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Number of entrants to higher education courses at Higher Education Institutions in Wales, by county, for the academic year 1998–991

  Unitary Authority

  Number of entrants

  Isle of Anglesey

  405

  Gwynedd

  798

  Conwy

  542

  Denbighshire

  485

  Flintshire

  440

  Wrexham

  677

  Powys

  770

  Ceredigion

  837

  Pembrokeshire

  845

  Carmarthenshire

  1,563

  Swansea

  2,594

  Neath Port Talbot

  1,125

  Bridgend

  1,240

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  1,589

  Cardiff

  3,282

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  1,819

  Merthyr Tydfil

  539

  Caerphilly

  1,608

  Blaenau Gwent

  357

  Torfaen

  855

  Monmouthshire

  952

  Newport

  877

  Wales

  24,199

  1 Provisional. Includes all higher education students in their first year of a particular programme of study.

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency, December Record 1998–99

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mr. Jay Abatan
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Attorney-General if he and the CPS will meet the hon. Member for Worthing, West in connection with the fatal attack in Brighton on Mr. Jay Abatan. [90748]

  The Attorney-General
  Criminal proceedings are currently being brought against two defendants following the incident which resulted in the death of Mr. Jay Abatan. So long as these matters remain sub judice it would not be proper for me, the Chief Crown Prosecutor, or his staff, to discuss the case with either the hon. Member, or his constituent who is a vital witness in the case. I understand that the Chief Crown Prosecutor for Sussex will be pleased to meet the hon. Member or his constituent when the case has been completed.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Millennium Compliance
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress being made by United Kingdom offshore oil and gas producers and oil companies to deal with the millennium bug. [91663]
  209
  Mr. Byers
  DTI continues to fulfil the role of "responsible body" reporting to the Action 2000 National Infrastructure Forum on the preparations being made by the oil industry and UK's offshore oil and gas producers to avoid any disruption due to the Year 2000 threat to computer systems.

  At the National Infrastructure Forum meeting in January 1999, the industry attracted an overall "amber" assessment against the standard colour code adopted by Action 2000. I am pleased to report that WS Atkins Consultants Ltd. have confirmed that the industry continues to make substantial progress both onshore and offshore.

  In detail WS Atkins found that over 80 per cent. of the industry now merit a blue assessment (no identified risks of material disruption), and that the remainder are on track to attain that rating once work scheduled during the normal summer shutdown period has been completed, and that residual contingency planning and external dependency issues had been finalised.

  The DTI has arranged for WS Atkins to carry out a further review at the end of September, to monitor progress on those outstanding issues and carry out a further programme of independent check visits to confirm that the scheduled work has been completed successfully. DTI will report on this work at the National Infrastructure Forum meeting in October 1999, and will continue to monitor the industry's progress throughout the millennium period.

  A summary of their report has been placed in the Libraries of the House, and copies have been made available on the DTI internet site.

  EC Voice Telephony Directive
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out the progress that has been made in implementing Article 8 of the EC Revised Voice Telephony Directive. [90789]

  Mr. Wills
  Article 8 of the Revised Voice Telephony Directive (RVTD) requires member states to take specific measures where appropriate to ensure equal access to, and affordability of, fixed public telephone services, including directory services for disabled users and users with special social needs. Regulations implementing Article 8 were made in 1998 (The Telecommunications (Open Network Provision) (Voice Telephony) Regulations 1998).

  Following a consultation exercise in 1998, Oftel has proposed further specific measures to improve access to telecommunications for the disabled. The Government are planning to consult on the detail of these proposals later this year.

  Industrial Development Advisory Boards
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the arrangements are for remunerating the members of Industrial Development Advisory Boards for expenses that arise in the exercise of their duties. [90659]

  Mr. Wills
  Members of the Industrial Development Advisory Board and the Regional Industrial Development Boards are entitled to claim travel and subsistence 210
  expenses incurred in attending Board meetings or on visits on behalf of the Board. Expenses are reimbursed at the rates applicable to senior civil servants.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the policy of his Department is on decisions taken by members of the Industrial Development Advisory Boards which do not reflect the priorities of his Department. [90665]

  Mr. Wills
  The Regional Industrial Development Boards are kept informed of the Departments priorities, eg as most recently set out in the Competitiveness White Paper (Cmnd. 4176). My colleagues and I consider carefully the advice of the Regional Industrial Development Boards before reaching our decisions on regional selective assistance applications.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what procedures his Department follows to ensure that conflicts of interest cannot arise in the case of the(a) members of the Industrial Development Advisory Boards and (b) those who advise them. [90666]

  Mr. Wills
  In the case of members of the Industrial Development Advisory Board and the Regional Industrial Development Boards, guidance from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments is followed to ensure that any potential conflict of interest is recognised.

  Officials who advise Board members are bound by the Civil Service Code which states that civil servants should not misuse their official position or information acquired in the course of their official duties to further their private interests or those of others.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will amend the membership criteria of the Industrial Development Advisory Boards to include representatives of elected bodies, trade union organisations and sub-regional development organisations. [90657]

  Mr. Wills
  The Industrial Development Advisory Board is appointed under Section 10 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. By virtue of Section 10(3) of the Act, the Board is to include"persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have wide experience of, and to have shown capacity in, industry, banking, accounting and finance".

  The Chairman and members of the Regional Industrial Development Boards (RIDBs) are selected for their regional knowledge of industry and commerce. I have made it clear that the RIDBs should take account of the strategic economic focus which is being provided by the new Regional Development Agencies in giving their advice on regional selective assistance cases.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidance he has given the Industrial Development Advisory Boards on responding to approaches from hon. Members prior to the consideration of applications for regional selective assistance. [90667]

  Mr. Wills
  Hon. Members should approach my colleagues and me on issues which they consider relevant to an application for regional selective assistance.

  North West Industrial Development Board
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list the members of the North West Industrial Development Board and the dates of their appointment; [90660]

  (2) when he next intends to announce an appointment to the North West Industrial Development Board. [90651]

  Mr. Wills
  The members of the North West Industrial Development Board and the dates of their appointment are as follows:

  Members

  Date of appointment

  Mr. Raymond Armstrong

  1 January 1999

  Mrs. Lorraine Clinton

  1 May 1998

  Mrs. Christine Coates

  1 January 1993

  Mr. John Dixon

  1 August 1997

  Mr. John Hancock

  29 March 1995

  NWIDB Attendance: May 1998—June 1999

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  December

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  Board Members

  G. Elliott

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  J. Dixon

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  No

  P. Hynd

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  D. McCall

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  A. Pilkington

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  A. Strachan

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  No

  Yes

  R. Armstrong

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  L. Clinton

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  C. Coates

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  A. Ruia

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  J. Hancock

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  K. Pathak

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Officials

  D. Rae

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  D. Higham

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  P Styche

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  D. Harrison

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  C. Rushby

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  J. Lappin

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  A. Davis

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  J. Long

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  D. Cooke

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  M. McCrae

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  P. Money

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  L. Fallows

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  C. Aspey

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  P. Dobson

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  H. Nicholson

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  I. Wright

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  M Henesey

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  S. McKeow

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  F. Duffy

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  O. Davies

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what guidance he gives to members of the North West Industrial Development Board on the exercise of their responsibilities on behalf of the Secretary of State; [90662]

  (2) what guidelines he has given to members of the North West Industrial Development Board on the policy of his Department towards the allocation of regional selective assistance to areas of high unemployment in the North West of England. [90664]
  212

  Members

  Date of appointment

  Mr. David McCall

  1 August 1997

  Mr. Kirit Pathak

  1 January 1999

  Mr. Anthony Pilkington

  1 January 1994

  Mr. Anil Ruia

  1 January 1994

  Mr. Anthony Strachan

  1 August 1998

  At the present time, there are no definite dates for the announcement of further appointments to the Committee.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the persons who have attended each of the last 12 meetings of the North West Industrial Development Board when applications for regional selective assistance have been under discussion. [90661]

  Mr. Wills
  The attendees of the last 12 meetings of the North West Industrial Development Board are listed on the table. Please note that meetings were not held in October or November 1998.

  Mr. Wills
  Members of the North West Industrial Development Board, the other Regional Industrial Development Boards and the Industrial Development Advisory Board give advice to Ministers from a commercial perspective on higher value RSA cases, within the RSA Scheme criteria.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions in each of the last five years decisions taken by the North West
  213
  Industrial Development Board have been subject to amendment by the Secretary of State under the Industrial Development Act 1982. [90663]

  Mr. Wills
  There has been one such occasion.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list by name of recipient all allocations of regional selective assistance in the last five years to organisations in the North West of England, the value of the assistance and the date of the allocation, in development and intermediate areas separately. [90668]

  Mr. Wills
  As the list requested runs to some 900 companies, I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of that letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in what circumstances pressures from competitors on UK commercial undertakings can be taken into account by the members of industrial development advisory committees or those advising them when considering applications for regional selective assistance. [90652]

  Mr. Wills
  Applicants are only eligible for regional selective assistance if they are making new investments. As well as the viability of the project, competition and job displacement are factors taken into account when considering applications.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what statistics are collected by his Department in respect of rejections of applications for regional selective assistance which lead to the cancellation of the proposed investment projects and a consequential loss of potential jobs. [90653]

  Mr. Wills
  The Department keeps a record of all regional selective assistance applications. It is not part of the scheme procedures, however, to continue contacts with unsuccessful applicants, and subsequent developments are not, therefore, routinely recorded.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate his Department has made of the number of jobs or potential jobs lost as a result of refusals of applications for regional selective assistance which have led to the cancellation of the proposed investment in each of the last three years. [90654]

  Mr. Wills
  No estimate has been made. It is reasonable to assume, however, that the figure would be small. Within available funds, the Department gives a sympathetic hearing to any eligible application and the main reasons for rejection are either on grounds that a project will proceed in any event without grant or that a project is not viable and would not, therefore, provide sustainable jobs.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate his Department has made of the cost of regional selective assistance per job created in the North West of England in the last five years. [90655]

  Mr. Wills
  The average cost per job resulting from Regional Selective Assistance offers accepted in the North West over the last five years is £4,019.
  214
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions in the last five years members of the North West Industrial Development Advisory Committee or those who advise them have had to stand aside from the consideration of regional selective assistance applications for reasons of either personal or professional conflict of interest. [90656]

  Mr. Wills
  There have been nine occasions of such instances as quoted by my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to review the workings of the Industrial Development Act 1982 in relation to the allocation of regional selective assistance. [90658]

  Mr. Wills
  I have no plans to review the workings of the Industrial Development Act 1982 for this purpose.

  Miners (Compensation)
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how long ex-miners will have to wait for payments once they have been assessed as eligible under the compensation scheme. [91161]

  Mr. Battle
  Details of the time-scales for claimants passing through the various stages of the assessment process for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease have still to be finalised. However, the intention is that individuals will receive an offer of compensation within 28 days of their detailed medical assessment having been completed and their eligibility for compensation established. Payment will then be made within 14 days of written confirmation that the offer has been accepted.

  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claimants he estimates will use the ex-miner compensation lung-test centre facility in Bristol; and when he expects testing of those people to be concluded. [91160]

  Mr. Battle
  To date a total of 108 claimants have been assessed at the Bristol spirometry centre and a further 19 claimants, who have yet to respond to a letter of invitation, remain to be tested. In addition, 12 claimants in the Bristol area have provided doctors' letters which mean they will receive domiciliary visits.

  Trade Mission (Turkey)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Ministers and Officials will be accompanying the outward mission to Turkey in September; and at what cost. [91177]

  Mr. Wilson
  British Trade International is supporting two outward missions to Turkey in September:

  Business Link Bedfordshire: 13–17 September

  Defence Manufacturers Association: 28 September–1 October.

  No Ministers or Officials from my Department will accompany either mission.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what quantities of spent fuel have been imported from Spain, and on what dates; what safeguards
  215
  arrangements cover the fuel; and what commitments there are to return the radioactive waste arising from reprocessing the fuel to Spain. [91171]

  Mr. Battle
  The timing and quantities of spent fuel imported to Sellafield for specific customers are a commercial and operational matter for BNFL and their customers. All civil nuclear material in the United Kingdom is subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the UK/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement. Since 1976 all new contracts for the reprocessing of overseas spent fuel have contained options for the return of wastes. BNFL's overseas reprocessing contracts prior to 1976, including those with Spanish utilities, do not contain return of wastes options.

  Post Office Appointments
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people have been recruited to the Post Office in the past 12 months from outside Northern Ireland; and what was their perceived religion. [91000]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I am informed that the hon. Member refers to recruitment to the Post Office within Northern Ireland. I understand from the Post Office that in the last 12 months it has not recruited anyone to fill a position in Northern Ireland who has recorded an address outside Northern Ireland.

  Manufacturing Jobs (Northern Region)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the number of manufacturing jobs in the Northern Region in May of each year since 1979. [91006]

  Mr. Battle
  Information on a consistent basis is available from June 1982 and is shown in the table. Estimates for May are not available as the data are collected quarterly. The estimates refer to the former North standard statistical region, which comprised the counties and former counties of Cleveland, Durham, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear and Cumbria.

  Year (June)

  Employee jobs in manufacturing, not seasonally adjusted

  1982

  300,033

  1983

  272,535

  1984

  259,224

  1985

  260,229

  1986

  254,788

  1987

  254,120

  1988

  259,208

  1989

  258,890

  1990

  252,979

  1991

  239,463

  1992

  230,377

  1993

  218,251

  1994

  225,630

  1995

  227,592

  1996

  239,870

  1997

  236,213

  1998

  225,270

  Biotechnology Industry
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the value of public investment in the biotechnology industry in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000 (i) in total and (ii) as a percentage of total investment in the industry. [87768]

  Mr. Battle
  This information is not available from official statistics.

  DTI and Research Council expenditure on support for technology transfer and innovation in the biotechnology industry is estimated at:

  £12.8 million for the year 1998–1999; and

  £15.6 million for the year 1999–2000.

  These figures do not include expenditure by other Departments or by the Research Councils on basic research in the bio-sciences. The figures do include Research Council co-funding of LINK programmes.

  Figures are not available for the total investment; but dedicated UK biotechnology companies themselves invested an estimated £319 million in R&D in 1997–78.

  Source:

  UK biotech '97—making the right moves, Arthur Andersen.

  Takeovers Directive (Spanish Reservation)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the(a) nature and (b) consequences of the Spanish Gibraltar-related reservation on the designation of competent authorities for the Takeovers Directive; and what representations he has (i) received and (ii) made on the issue. [90396]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  At the Internal Market Council on 21 June Spain maintained a general reserve on the proposed Takeovers Directive in respect of the designation of authorities for supervising bids in accordance with the Directive. Her Majesty's Government are considering currently whether any change to the relevant clause could be made which would safeguard Gibraltar's rights, while meeting Spanish concerns over the Directive. I have received no representations on this issue. Her Majesty's Government are liaising closely with the Government of Gibraltar and our European partners to find a solution which is acceptable to all parties.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what policies are being followed by her Department to prevent debt-relieved countries becoming indebted again. [89760]

  Clare Short
  The revision to the HIPC Initiative, which we hope will be finalised at the annual meeting of the World Bank and the IMF in September, will provide more debt relief to countries following sound pro-poor policies. This will increase the likelihood of countries achieving a permanent exit from their debt problems.
  217
  We provide all our aid through grants, not loans, and are encouraging others to do the same. We are also working to try to ensure that export credits are not provided for non-productive expenditure.

  We are working with the World Bank and the IMF to bear down on corruption and to ensure that the Bank and the Fund support economic policy and social spending that benefit the poor.

  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contribution her Department is making to the Government Review of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. [89764]

  Clare Short
  We are working closely with the Treasury to influence the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Review being carried out by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In the first phase, we submitted a joint paper on the need for faster, deeper and wider debt relief, and I am pleased that there is now an international consensus that more debt relief is required for countries committed to eradicating poverty. The second phase of the Review is currently under way and is examining how the link between debt relief and poverty reduction can be strengthened. We have recently submitted a further joint DFID and Treasury paper to the Review team, setting out our ideas and proposals. Decisions on this will be taken at the Annual Meetings of the IMF and the World Bank in September. Both papers are available in the Library.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will report progress in tackling and reducing the debt of the heavily indebted poorer countries, following the Cologne summit. [89766]

  Clare Short
  The Cologne Debt Initiative represents a major step forward in the effort to remove the debt burden of the poorest countries. We welcome the commitment to a major improvement in the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative so that it delivers faster, wider and deeper debt relief to countries committed to eradicating poverty. If agreed at the annual meetings of the World Bank and the IMF, the HIPC initiative will provide twice as much debt relief, twice as quickly. It is also important that there was a call to cancel outstanding aid debts. These amount to —20 billion owed to the G7 countries alone. The UK has already cancelled the aid debts of the poorest countries, and we are pressing others to follow our lead. The UK has also made the largest pledge to the Millennium Trust Fund—a total of —171 million. It is important that everyone plays their part in funding the enhanced debt relief, and we are calling on the European Commission to make a substantial contribution.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with NGOs on the progress of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. [89773]

  Clare Short
  I regularly meet representatives from the NGOs to discuss key development issues including debt. At a meeting last month with the Directors of those NGOs which form the British Overseas Aid Group (BOAG), we discussed the G7 initiative on debt launched at the Cologne 218
  Summit. We also considered the second phase of the HIPC Review, which is examining how the link between debt relief and poverty reduction can be strengthened.

  Serbia
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what humanitarian aid her Department is providing for Serbia. [89761]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We provide humanitarian assistance wherever it is needed, but it is essential to verify need and proper use. Applying these principles in Serbia is difficult in view of limited independent access. We shall consider requests for assistance through international humanitarian organisations. ECHO have allocated a total of 26.5 million euros for humanitarian assistance to Serbia, of which the UK share will be some £2.5 million.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about development assistance being given by her Department and the European Union to aid the return of Nigeria to democracy. [89762]

  Clare Short
  Britain and the EU provided significant support to the transition process which led to President Obasanjo's inauguration in May and the return of Nigeria to democracy.

  The challenge for the new Nigerian government is to redirect their resources towards growth and development aimed at removing inequalities and eliminating poverty. International assistance will be needed. Britain and the EU are ready to help Nigerian government efforts to bear down on corruption and adopt reforms that benefit the poor.

  AIDS
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what help the Government are providing to tackle the spread of AIDS in developing countries. [89763]

  Clare Short
  We are supporting HIV/AIDS work in 39 developing countries. We are also working with UNAIDS and other UN agencies to develop a more co-ordinated and intensified global response. We are funding research into development of new methods of protection against HIV, such as microbicides and an HIV/AIDS vaccine.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what spending on aid for sub—Saharan Africa by her Department(a) was in 1997–98, (b) is in the current year and (c) is planned to be in 2000–01. [89765]

  Clare Short
  Bilateral country programme expenditure in sub-Saharan Africa in 1997–98 was £332.36 million. A firm figure for 1998–99 is not yet available, but expenditure is estimated to be at least £400 million. Planned outturn figures for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are expected to be £450 million and £477 million respectively. In addition,
  219
  we make substantial contributions to multilateral organisations, where our share of assistance in 1997 amounted to £217 million, much of which is spent in Africa.

  World Poverty
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress she is making with her plans for halving world poverty by 2015. [89767]

  Clare Short
  Great progress has already been made this century— more people have climbed out of poverty in the last 50 years than in the previous 500—but we mustcontinue with our efforts at every level to meet this ambitious target. The plans for halving world poverty by 2015 are in place and set out in the 1999 Departmental Report, working both with our partners in country and internationally. It is achievable if the international system works together. It requires greater coherence of aid, trade, environment, agriculture and economic reform policies. We are engaging positively with all our partners to this end.

  Balkans
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what additional requests for aid she has received since March for those countries in the Balkan area affected by the Kosovo conflict. [89770]

  Clare Short
  Requests for international assistance from countries affected by the Kosovo crisis have been handled within the framework of Donor's Conferences.

  We have responded through our contributions to the EU and World Bank pledges which, to date, total some —200 million to Albania and —250 million to Macedonia. Bilaterally, we have committed £90 million in humanitarian assistance, much of which has been spent in Albania and Macedonia. We have also committed £10 million for technical assistance to the Governments of Albania and Macedonia to help strengthen their capacity to take forward key reforms and to help them absorb international assistance through improvements to their budgetary planning and assessment processes.

  We expect that the proposed regional Stability Pact will provide a framework for discussing the regeneration of the Balkan region. The EU will be a key participant in this process and in the international reconstruction effort in Kosovo.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to visit the Indian sub-continent before the end of the year to discuss the consequences of the conflict in Kashmir. [89771]

  Clare Short
  I visited India in March, before the start of the present fighting in Kashmir. I have no plans at present to visit the sub-continent again before the end of the year.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the aid which she plans to make available for the reconstruction of Kosovo. [89772]
  220
  Clare Short
  The EU, with the support of the World Bank, will assume leading responsibility for reconstruction within the overall UN-led civil implementation structure. They are co-ordinating damage and needs assessment and will organise donor conferences over the coming months to mobilise the necessary international effort. We contribute to EC funds and also intend to provide technical assistance to try to ensure that EC funds are well spent.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures her Department is taking to support reconstruction in Kosovo, with particular reference to assistance with mine clearance. [89776]

  Clare Short
  The EU, with the support of the World Bank, will assume responsibility for reconstruction within the overall UN-led civil implementation structure. They will organise donor conferences over the coming months to mobilise the international effort. We are working to ensure that the arrangements for managing EU assistance are effective.

  We have already committed over £1.7 million in support of humanitarian mine actions and we are ready to do more through the United Nations Mine Action Co-ordination Centre (MACC) Kosovo programme.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to visit the island of St. Helena to discuss improved transport links. [89774]

  Clare Short
  I have no plans to visit St. Helena. Later this month, the St. Helena Government will be receiving the Final Report of the preliminary desk study into the viability of air access to St. Helena. We will then discuss the report and possible changes in the scheduling of the RMS St. Helena with them.

  Central America (Hurricane Mitch)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to assist countries in central America with reconstruction after Hurricane Mitch. [89777]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) on 16 June 1999,Official Report, column 177.

  Montserrat
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her assessment is of the current humanitarian situation on the island of Montserrat. [89778]

  Clare Short
  The situation has improved considerably since the height of the volcanic activity in 1997. Accommodation has been or will have been provided by the end of the year for approximately 850 households—370 direct build houses, 338 self-build houses and permanent accommodation for 130 elderly people. Consideration is currently being given to providing the necessary infrastructure for a further 220 houses. It is
  221
  intended that all those remaining in shelters will be given the opportunity to build their own homes or move into direct-build housing by March 2001.

  We are supporting a health development programme to support the delivery of primary and secondary health care and to improve public health standards. Additionally, a major upgrade of the St. John's hospital is to be completed in August 1999. We are also assisting with the continued provision of education. A more targeted, comprehensive means-tested social support system is being developed to replace the current universal welfare scheme. Major investments have also been made to upgrade the infrastructure in the north of the island, including improvements to the roads, power and water supply and waste disposal.

  These measures will continue to be built upon, in the context of the Montserrat Country Policy Plan for the period 1998–99—2000–2001 agreed between HMG and the Government of Montserrat, to which DFID is contributing £75 million.

  IMF
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of IMF structural adjustment programmes on the economies of the third world. [89779]

  Clare Short
  Last year's review of the IMF's Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility (ESAF) recommended that the IMF should take more account of the social impact of their programmes, consider the quality of government expenditure and protect budgets in high priority areas such as health and education. We strongly welcomed this and are encouraging the IMF to work more closely with the World Bank to ensure that, in designing structural adjustment programmes, they take account of the impact on the poor. Following a proposal put forward by the UK, the World Bank is working with the IMF and the UN to develop good principles and practices of social policy, which will be drawn upon in the design of World Bank and IMF programmes. We continually emphasise the need for the IMF to build support for reform programmes, through discussion and consultation with civil society, so that they lead to economic growth which benefits the poor. A report on the implementation of the recommendations of the ESAF Review is expected in September.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has for additional measures aimed at encouraging developing countries to reduce the production and supply of illegal drugs. [89780]

  Clare Short
  We provide assistance to control the production of illicit drugs where this is part of sustainable policies for development. Current projects include support to farmers for alternative development in Pakistan, Peru and Bolivia; projects to reduce the demand for illicit drugs in South East Asia and Peru; and training and institution building projects for the Customs and the Police in the Caribbean. We will consider opportunities for the inclusion of drugs-related elements in current and future 222
  programmes, and we will continue to work with multilateral institutions which provide assistance to drugs-related activities.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance Her Majesty's Government have given to assist in water distribution in those areas of the world suffering from drought and rationing of water supplies. [89781]

  Clare Short
  DFID provides support in a number of ways to assist in addressing drought. Good management of water resources and drought preparedness planning are essential to mitigate the impact of drought. We are currently funding projects in a number of countries, including Zimbabwe and South Africa, to assist governments in such planning. DFID also actively supports the work of the UN agencies and the Global Water Partnership in long-term sustainable use of freshwater resources at country and regional levels. We provide direct assistance in the provision of water supplies in situations of drought. Recent examples of support include projects implemented by non government organisations such as Save the Children Fund (UK) and International Committee of the Red Cross in Malawi, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Guyana, and Bolivia.

  EC Development Assistance
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to improve the quality, effectiveness and poverty focus of EC development assistance. [89768]

  Clare Short
  There can be no doubt that the EC's development assistance programmes are not sufficiently poverty focused and are often ineffective. This is why we published a strategy paper at the end of last year containing 18 detailed proposals for strengthening our collaboration with the EC to improve the poverty focus and effectiveness of its programmes. We are pursuing implementation of this strategy vigorously, and I shall be making a speech in Brussels at the end of July setting out a reform agenda to strengthen the EC's role as we enter the new millennium.

  The share of EC official development assistance going to the poorest countries has fallen from 75 per cent. in 1987 to 50 per cent. in 1997. The UK has proposed that for the proportion of EC official development assistance going to low-income countries should increase each year from 2000 to 2006, reaching 70 per cent. by 2006.

  We will seek to ensure that poverty elimination is at the heart of the successor to the current Lomé Convention which provides the framework for the EU's aid, trade and political relations with 71 Africa, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

  We will also seek to work with other member states and the Commission to implement the Council Conclusions on the Evaluation of the EC's development assistance programmes. These Conclusions were adopted at the Development Council on 21 May and provide a good basis to take the steps necessary to improve the EC's effectiveness.

  UN Development Programme
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the impact on international poverty alleviation of making available the United Nations Development Programme's estimated requirement of —80 billion in the current year. [89769]

  Clare Short
  The United Nations Development Programme, together with other UN organisations and the World Bank, has calculated that —80 billion per year would mean basic social services would be available to everyone in the world in the next 15 years. This would have an enormous impact on international poverty reduction and achievement of the International Development targets, particularly in the areas of health and education. Current international overseas development assistance is —50 billion.

  The United Kingdom Government have made firm financial provision for an additional £1.6 billion of development assistance over the years 1999–2000— 2001–02. But it is increasingly clear that aid spending is effective in reducing poverty only when sound policies are in place in recipient countries. Where this is lacking, aid is best spent on technical assistance to support reform and support for civil society so that it is able to press for the adoption of policy to reduce poverty.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [91063]

  Clare Short
  Between May 1997 and 14 April 1998, 457 questions were tabled to my Department for a written answer on a named day; 95 per cent. received an answer on that day.

  Child Labour
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contribution her Department is making in the ILO's special programme for the eradication of child labour.

  Clare Short
  The ILO's special programme for the eradication of child labour—known as the International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC)—has been supported by a central donation and country based collaboration from the Department as follows:£ million towards the "core" activities of the IPEC programme in 1998–99;
  £58,000 for a baseline study of child labour in Tanzania in 1998–99 and preliminary planning expertise in 1999–2000;
  £750,000 over three years for collaborative work with Save the Children Fund in Pakistan, ILO/IPEC, Pentland Plc, the Sialkot Chamber of Commerce on removing children from the Football Stitching industry in Sialkot 1998–99 to 2000–01:
  £2.75 million to the IPEC programme in the Indian State of Andhra Pradhesh, 1998–99 to 2000–01;
  £100,000 to IPEC's Asia programme for collaborative initiatives to prevent child trafficking programme, 1997–98;
  £35,000 for IPEC preparatory work on child trafficking in Asia, 1998–99.

  Somalia
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps are being taken to secure representation for Somalia in the negotiations on the successor to the Lomé; Convention. [91090]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Somalia does not have a government and is not formally represented in the negotiations on a new convention. However, we are concerned that the Somali people should be able to benefit from Lomé. As part of the negotiations, we are therefore considering, with our EU partners, how to take account of countries like Somalia, who are members of the Lomé family but are not able to sign or ratify any future agreement. We are pressing hard to ensure that an equitable solution is reached.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to prevent growth in the number of deaths due to smoking in the developing world.

  Mr. Foulkes
  We view with great concern the estimate by the World Health Organisation (WHO) that, if current trends continue, tobacco will be the leading cause of disease burden by 2030, causing about one in eight deaths, and that 70 per cent. of tobacco-related deaths will be in developing countries. We strongly support the priority given to tobacco control by WHO through its "Tobacco Free" initiative, and the efforts to establish an International Framework Convention (ITC) for tobacco control.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to work towards a global ban on tobacco advertising. [91199]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We are committed to co-operating with other Governments in the establishment of an International Framework Convention (IFC) on tobacco control, which includes advertising. We have indicated our support to the World Health Organisation (WHO), who are co-ordinating this work and are discussing with them Britain's role in the first intergovernmental meeting to discuss the development of the framework. We are contributing £200,000 this financial year to WHO's "Tobacco Free" initiative.

  Nepal
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance is being given to Nepal to help improve its educational infrastructure. [89775]

  Clare Short
  Our Country Strategy Paper, a copy of which will be sent to the hon. Gentleman, highlights low levels of education as one of the main causes of poverty in Nepal. A large number of donors are active in the sector. Many are involved in primary education. We are working with the Asian Development bank to raise the quality of secondary education. We are also promoting community literacy by helping local NGOs to improve their delivery of literacy training. We plan to work with
  225
  Government, donors and civil society to promote a more co-ordinated approach to addressing needs across the entire education sector.

DEFENCE

  Tour Intervals
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average interval between operational tours for (i) Infantry battalions, (ii) Royal Armoured regiments, (iii) Royal Logistical Corps units, (iv) Adjutant-General Corps units and (v) Royal Army Medical Corps units. [85914]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]In the past three years, tour intervals (in months) for Infantry battalions, Royal Armoured regiments, Royal Logistical Corps units and Royal Army Medical Corps units have been as follows:

  Arm/service

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Infantry

  21

  22

  27

  Royal Armoured Corps

  25

  19

  30

  Royal Logistical Corps

  18

  18

  12

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  —

  —

  —

  Field Ambulance

  24

  37

  30

  Field Hospital

  12

  12

  12

  The Adjutant General Corps deploy as individuals, rather than in units and there are therefore no recorded unit tour intervals.

  For the current year (1999–2000), the interval would depend on the circumstances of the individual unit and the overall level of commitment; however, if there is a continuation of existing levels of commitment and undermanning this would be likely to result in tour intervals (in months) for 1999–2000 as follows:

  Arm/service

  1999–2000

  Infantry

  15

  Royal Armoured Corps

  12

  Royal Logistical Corps

  11

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  Field Ambulance

  20

  Field Hospital

  12

  These statistics reflect an unprecedented level of commitment. We are actively seeking to reduce the Army's level of commitment, specifically in Bosnia, and particularly for those arms and services that are most heavily committed, with a view to reducing overstretch.

  MOD Hospital Units
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if(a) terms and conditions of service of his Department's employees and (b) arrangements for priority treatment of service personnel are laid out in (1) legally binding contracts or (2) Service Level Agreements at his Department's hospital units at (i) Peterborough, (ii) Frimley Park and (iii) Derriford; and if he will make a statement. [88422]
  226
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]Revised Customer Supplier Agreements (CSA) are being introduced to replace the Service Level Agreements (SLAs) existing with the host NHS Trusts for our Ministry of Defence Hospital Units (MDHUs) at Derriford, Peterborough and Frimley Park. The new financial model underpinning the CSAs is explained in Health Services Circular 1999/112 and is also being used for the CSA at our new MDHU at Northallerton. The agreements will not include details of the terms and conditions of service for military personnel. However, provision will exist in the agreements for the release of military personnel for operations, exercises and training. The agreements also include a commitment to the achievement of DSCA Key Targets 2 and 3, as set out on 20 May 1999,Official Report, column 436, and to the operational priority treatment of patients referred under specific criteria.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of the contracts or Service Level Agreements governing relations between the relevant NHS trusts and his Department's hospital units at(a) Peterborough, (b) Frimley Park and (c) Derriford. [88424]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]Following detailed discussions with the NHS during 1997 and 1998, the principles of a new Service Level Agreement (SLA) have been developed to form a revised contract from 1999–2000 at the three existing Ministry of Defence Hospital Units (MDHUs) at Peterborough, Frimley Park and Derriford and at the new MDHU Northallerton. This model will also form the basis of all future MOD contracts relationships with the NHS for hosting staff or providing treatment. The new contract model which has been agreed with all partner NHS Trusts in principle, was published in a Health Circular 1999/112 dated 21 May 1999 and will form the basis of the agreements which will replace the existing SLAs. It is expected that the contracts between MOD and individual NHS Trusts will be signed shortly after minor financial negotiations have been completed. These contracts embody commercial arrangements between each Trust and the MOD negotiated on an individual basis and so I am withholding them under exemption of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Effective Management and Operations of the public service). However, a copy of Health Circular 1999/112 dated 21 May 1999 has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Married Quarters
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the number of married quarters, (b) the number empty and (c) the vacancy rate as a percentage in each year since 1992. [90629]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 12 July 1999]The information requested is given in the table.

  DHE occupancy and voids tracking—by financial year

  Date

  (a) Total stock

  (b) Total void

  (c) Void percentage

  1991–92

  74,109

  11,180

  15.09

  1992–93

  70,806

  10,809

  15.27

  1993–94

  70,320

  11,789

  16.76

  1994–95

  70,586

  13,464

  19.07

  1995–96

  70,409

  13,943

  19.80

  227

  DHE occupancy and voids tracking—by financial year

  Date

  (a) Total stock

  (b) Total void

  (c) Void percentage

  1996–97

  65,800

  13,142

  19.97

  1997–98

  64,238

  13,225

  20.59

  1998–99

  62,420

  13,568

  21.74

  Since its inception in 1985, the Defence Housing Executive has disposed of 8,000 properties and has targets to dispose of some 2,000 a year thereafter. Despite this disposal programme the total number of voids has remained fairly constant over recent years because of falling Service demand for family accommodation and decisions awaited on future deployments arising out of the Strategic Defence Review.

  Out of the current total voids stock of some 13,568, 3,360 are temporarily vacant awaiting incoming Service occupants. A further management margin has to be allowed to cater for family size, work location and family choice in relation to schooling etc. 1,930 properties are temporarily empty while undergoing refurbishment and modernisation. A further 2,000 properties are in the process of return to Annington Homes Ltd., for sale or demolition. The remaining stock is being assessed under a long-term housing plan in relation to military need and condition from which further disposal decisions will be made.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by grade the condition of married quarters in(a) England and Wales, (b) Scotland, and (c) Northern Ireland giving the totals for (i) each grade and (ii) each of (a) (b) and (c); and what percentage the total of each grade represents of the whole stock. [90628]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 12 July 1999]The grading of condition of married quarters, which is established for rent purposes, is as follows:

  England, Wales and Scotland

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  1

  27,942

  44

  2

  22,411

  36

  3

  8,857

  14

  4

  3,985

  6

  Total

  63,195

  Northern Ireland

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  1

  106

  4

  2

  1,299

  43

  3

  1,206

  40

  4

  376

  13

  Total

  2,987

  These figures do not refer solely to the condition of a property. They are based on a points system which identifies deficiencies and size and also takes into account the remoteness of the location to essential services.

  The figure for Scotland is not separately maintained. The Defence Housing Executive has additionally, for the internal programming and prioritising of upgrade projects,
  228
  put in place a marking system which is based on the Standard 1 for Condition definition, and which allocates points for a total of 106 property attributes dealing with for example Building Fabric, Kitchens, Energy Efficiency, etc. The worst marking of each individual group of the Standard becomes the overall Standard for the house for work scheduling. This is a very exacting standard which enables major deficiencies to be easily assessed and programmed.

  A stock condition survey has been undertaken to support and inform the Upgrade programme. This has been analysed by the marking system which prioritises against the deficiencies in the property and not simply its overall condition. For example,

  99.1 per cent. of the Building Fabric section complies with Standard 1

  98.0 per cent. of Bedrooms comply with Standard 1

  85.1 per cent. comply with Security requirements for Standard 1

  59.0 per cent. of Kitchens comply with Standard 1

  51.8 per cent. comply with Energy Efficiency requirements for Standard 1.

  DHE now has in place Regional Upgrade Construction Contractors and Project managers to progress the upgrade programme aimed at achieving Standard 1 for Condition in the major part of the Housing Estate by 2005.

  St. Malo Accord
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress made in(a) planning for non-combatant evacuation operations, (b) organising joint exercises, (c) improving links between operational headquarters, (d) co-ordinating naval deployments, (e) exchanging information on peacekeeping activities, (f) millennium computer compliance solutions, (g) common resourcing of logistics and (h) arrangements for dealing with the media in the light of the St. Malo Accord; which units, offices and desks are involved; and when the next ministerial meeting to discuss these issues is planned. [89822]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Signature of the Letter of Intent on crisis management and operations has allowed good progress to be made in co-operation with France, as shown particularly in Kosovo operations. Specific examples of co-operation covered by the Letter of Intent are: the posting of liaison officers into operational headquarters; the attachment of HMS Somerset, and latterly HMS Grafton, to the French FOCH Carrier Task Group in the Adriatic during the Kosovo conflict; the joint signing ceremony in New York on 25 June of Memoranda of Understanding between our respective Governments and the UN on troop availability for UN peacekeeping operations; and co-operation on media handling during the Kosovo conflict.

  Airborne Surveillance Capability
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government are taking to improve the UK's airborne surveillance capability. [90174]

  Mr. Spellar
  We are improving the UK's airborne surveillance capability in several ways. We have announced our intention to buy ASTOR, a high technology airborne ground surveillance system, which will substantially enhance our current capability. We are also
  229
  procuring RAPTOR, a long-range reconnaissance sensor pod to be fitted to Tornado GR4, which will provide a day/night real time capability. We are modifying the radar in the E-3D sentry aircraft to counter improvements in stealth technology and missile capabilities and we are also upgrading the electronic reconnaissance capability of the Nimrod R. Also, in addition to the Phoenix Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, UAV system, which has already successfully entered service, we are considering procurement of further UAV systems for surveillance purposes.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much spending his Department(a) has incurred to date and (b) forecasts it will incur on preparations for possible United Kingdom entry into the European single currency; and if he will make a statement. [91181]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]Any costs incurred to date would have been minor and accommodated within existing budgets. Their extent is not known centrally. Work is in train to establish processes for the identification and forecasting of possible future costs.

  Chinook
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the reports on the US Army's experience of Chinook incidents and accidents which his Department has evaluated in the last 12 months. [90417]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Over the last 12 months, the US Army have issued the following Safety of Flight Messages (SoFM) and Aviation Safety Action Messages (ASAM) as a result of incidents and accidents to their CH47 fleet. Each message has been evaluated for applicability to the RAF HC Mk 2/2A Chinooks and where appropriate the action taken is described as follows:ASAM—CH-47–98-ASAM-05 dated 17 September 1998— de-restricting the CH 47 fleet from roll on landings. Same details repeated within CH-47-ASAM-99–05 dated 22 April 1999.
  MOD Action taken—issue of Servicing Technical Instruction (STI) STUCHINOOK/318A dated 3 March 1999.
  SoFM—CH-47–99–01 dated 30 January 1999—Main rotor synchronisation shaft bearing support bracket—check for adequate clearance.
  MOD Action taken—issue of Preliminary Warning Instruction (PWI) PWUCHINOOK/293 dated 27 May 1999.
  ASAM—CH-47–99-ASAM-01 dated 9 February 1999— Mandatory maintenance requiring a one time inspection of Lag Dampers.
  MOD Action taken—issue of PWI/CHINOOK/288A dated 4 June 1999.
  ASAM—CH-47–99-ASAM-02 dated 16 February 1999—Mandatory maintenance requiring modifications to Boost Actuators.
  MOD Action Taken—None required, no applicability, RAF only use post modified Boost Actuators.
  ASAM—CH-47–99-ASAM-03 dated 23 February 1999—One time and recurring inspection of hoist/cargo hood control panel and water intrusion in cockpit.
  MOD Action Taken—Awaiting advice from Boeing on applicability to RAF Chinook.
  230
  ASAM—CH-47–99-ASAM-04 dated 16 March 1999—CH47D and 47E Fwd and Aft Longitudinal Cyclic Trim Yoke Bushing—Inspection and aircraft manual changes.
  MOD Action Taken—None required—MOD already has adequate inspection procedures in place within the HC Mk2/2A aircraft maintenance manuals.

  My Department has also evaluated an extract from the United States Army investigation report of a non-fatal Chinook incident in which the aircraft suffered an uncommanded 360 degree barrel roll. This incident result in ASAM CH-47–99–02 detailed above where no remedial action was required as the Chinook Mk2s in service with the RAF have an improved standard of actuators fitted which overcome the suspected cause of the US army incident.

  Kosovo Deaths
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the type of explosives that killed Lieutenant Gareth Evans and Sergeant Balam Rai in Kosovo; and if UK forces have been fully trained in the techniques and methods of disarming these explosives. [90392]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The munitions were from CBU 87 cluster bombs. As it is not possible to disarm this type of munition, the method for disposal is to destroy them. All troops deploying to theatre are briefed on the correct procedures should they encounter mines, unexploded ordnance or other explosive devices.

HEALTH

  Waiting Times (By-pass Surgery)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes there have been to the waiting times for heart by-pass surgery in each health trust since his answer of 18 March 1999,Official Report, columns 736–38. [87891]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on waiting lists by specialty are published quarterly in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Drugs
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many drugs have appeared in the NHS category D list in each of the last six months; and what is the average number of drugs which have appeared in the list over the last 12 months. [90052]

  Mr. Denham
  Between February 1999 and July 1999 the number of category D entries appearing in the Drug Tariff published by The Stationery Office each month were:

  Month (1999)

  Number

  February

  46

  March

  79

  April

  74

  May

  76

  June

  109

  July

  131

  231
  The average number listed per month between August 1998 and July 1999 was 60.

  Suffolk Health Authority
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) income and expenditure deficit or surplus and (b) the recurring deficit or surplus for Suffolk Health Authority for each of the past five years up to and including 1999–2000. [90360]

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

  The income and expenditure surplus/(deficit) and recurring surplus/(deficit) for Suffolk Health Authority

  £000

  Year

  Surplus/(deficit) for the financial year

  Recurring surplus/(deficit)

  1995–96

  (3,698)

  (3,601)

  1996–97

  (4,300)

  (9,271)

  1997–98

  (178)

  (9,449)

  1998–99

  1—

  1—

  1999–2000

  1—

  1—

  1 Not available

  Notes:

  1. 1993–94 is not comparable with subsequent years as the accounts included the provision of services which were transferred upon the establishment of a trust.

  2. 1996–97 and 1997–98 are not comparable with previous years due to change in accounting policy and a reorganisation of health bodies. Departmental funding from cash drawing to an accrual figure.

  3. Latest available figures are for 1997–98, therefore there are no figures for 1998–99 or for 1999–2000.

  Sources:

  Annual accounts of district health authorities 1993–94 to 1995–96

  Annual accounts of the health authorities 1996–97 to 1997–98

  Embryonic Stem Cells
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the controls on the importation of embryonic stem cells; and what estimate he has made of the number of such cells imported in the past year. [90624]

  Ms Jowell
  Research involving the removal of cells such as stem cells from human embryos is subject to strict control under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Such research would require a licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). The importation of human embryos is also subject to the provisions of the Act.

  The provisions of the 1990 Act do not extend to established cell cultures of embryonic origin. Such cell lines, including embryonic stem cells may be imported and used without requiring a licence from the HFEA.

  Emergency Admissions
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by health authority the total number of emergency admissions in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement [90401]
  232
  Mr. Hutton
  Figures for the years 1992–93 to 1997–98 have been placed in the Library.

  Nurses' Pay
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to limit the fees which NHS trusts may pay to nurses working for nursing agencies. [90528]

  Mr. Denham
  We are unaware of any occasions where National Health Service trusts have paid nurses fees while they are working for nursing agencies. Agency staff are normally paid directly by their agency, who in turn are paid by NHS trusts.

  The NHS Executive is working with the Social Partnership Forum to review the use of bank and agency staff and alternative approaches to employment flexibility, with a view to recommending good practice guidance to NHS employers.

  Cloning
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the new Commission of Inquiry into the HFEA/HGAC recommendations on cloning will be appointed. [90836]

  Ms Jowell
  I hope to announce the membership of the Chief Medical Officer's expert advisory group shortly.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) of 6 July 1999,Official Report, column 498, concerning national standards for care homes, what the closing date for the consultation will be. [90925]

  Mr. Hutton
  The consultation exercise has not yet begun. People will be given three months from the issuing of the consultation pack in which to submit their comments.

  Public Health Development Fund
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the proposed Health Development Agency will be responsible for spending from the new Public Health Development Fund. [90739]

  Ms Jowell
  The Public Health Development Fund will be administered by the Department.

  Health Development Agency
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to ensure that the proposed Health Development Agency will be able to operate independently of Government when exercising its public health monitoring functions. [90740]

  Ms Jowell
  We anticipate that the Health Development Agency will have the status of a Special Health Authority and operate at arm's length from the Department. The Agency will be accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the delivery of its agreed work programme and objectives.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Museums
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the museums that have benefited from capital funding from the National Lottery and the amount which they have received. [90613]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Current records show that National Lottery distributors have awarded a total of £588 million of capital funding to 526 museum projects. I have placed a full list of projects, with the amounts awarded, in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many hits the 24 Hour Museum website has received since it was launched. [90610]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In the period from its launch on 13 May to 4 July 1999, the 24 Hour Museum website received 3,436,155 hits.

  Libraries
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the(a) number and (b) percentage of local libraries that have IT capabilities. [90618]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The latest statistics on use of ICT in public libraries were collected late in 1997 and showed the following trends in the then 191 UK library authorities:

  Percentage

  Use of computerised book issue and discharge systems

  95

  Computerised catalogue system

  75

  Service points with public access to online catalogue

  48

  Public access to CDRom databases

  85

  Service points with access to Internet for public use

  5

  The Library and Information Commission is currently updating these data as part of the development of the Public Library ICT Network, which will link all public libraries, where practicable, to the National Grid for Learning by 2002.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much National Lottery money has been spent to date on grants for library ICT projects. [90617]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Lottery funding totalling £70 million for the ICT training of public library staff and the digitisation of material to support lifelong learning will be available through the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) from early 2000. A related £200 million NOF programme for Community Access to Lifelong Learning, focusing substantially on the development of the public library IT network and community grids for learning, will be the subject of consultation later this year.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the number and location of sites in Wales that can and will provide 234
  digital television services; and how many television viewers in Wales will not be covered by digital service transmitters. [90738]

  Janet Anderson
  Nine transmitters sites located in Wales are included in the launch phase for digital terrestrial television. They are as follows: Aberdare, Blaenplwyf, Carmel, Kilvey Hill, Llanddona, Moel-y-Pac, Pontypool, Pressely and Wenvoe.

  Coverage across each of the six multiplexes from the nine Welsh transmitters in the launch phase is as follows:

  Welsh transmitter

  percentage

  BBC

  70

  ITV/Channel 4

  63

  SDN (including Channel 4 and S4C)

  60

  MUX B ONdigital

  77

  MUX C ONdigital

  31.5

  MUX D ONdigital

  31

  British Library
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his estimate of the building costs of the new building for the British Library; and if he will estimate the value of contracts associated with this construction with companies based in(a) London, (b) the South East of England, (c) England, (d) Scotland, (e) Wales and (f) Northern Ireland. [90858]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]The British Library St. Pancras project is working to a cash estimate of £511.1 million. The final figure may increase slightly when all the outstanding claims and final accounts have been settled. Some 160 contracts were let for the project which was completed two years ago. The construction cost data were not collected by company on a regional basis but by type of product.

CABINET OFFICE

  Anti-discrimination Legislation
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the Better Regulation Task Force review of anti-discrimination legislation. [91665]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I have today placed copies of the Government's formal response to the Better Regulation Task Force review of anti-discrimination legislation in the Libraries of the House. The Task Force has made a timely, constructive and challenging contribution to the Government's thinking on these highly important issues. The Government are committed to eliminating all unlawful discrimination, and have accepted the majority of the Task Force proposals. We believe this response to the Task Force, in tandem with our responses today on similar issues to the proposals put forward by the equality Commissions, sets out in the strongest possible terms our commitment to a modern and diverse society.
  235
  The Government have accepted the Task Force's main recommendation, that a major legislative overhaul is not necessary at this stage, either in relation to the individual regimes, or in bringing them together. However, the Government agree that much more can be done to make the existing regimes work more effectively, by setting a lead in their own actions as policy makers, a service provider and employer; by encouraging the equality Commissions to act in a more targeted, strategic and joined-up manner; and by encouraging business to seize the initiative and adopt best practices more widely in this area.

  To help businesses comply, the Government will further encourage the Commissions to consult with employers on producing simple, clear advice and guidance which everyone (especially small and medium employers) can quickly and easily act upon. This will include clarifying employer obligations in some key areas. Our Civil Justice and Legal Aid Reforms, along with the new Community Legal Service, will help ensure that ordinary citizens will have better and fairer access to justice.

  Access Business Group
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what changes there have been to the membership of the Access Business Group, set up to consider how central and local governments' regulatory advice and service can be made more transparent, accessible and helpful. [91666]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Access Business Group was set up in July 1997 under my chairmanship. I have recently invited my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to join the group in view of the importance of small businesses to the Government's growth and productivity agenda. The other members are the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, in addition to Teresa Graham of the Better Regulation Task Force and Councillor John Ryan OBE, (Barnsley MBC) of the Local Government Association.

  Table 2: Staff in the Home Civil Service, by area—April 1998

  Scotland

  England

  London

  Rest of South East

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  UK1

  Permanent non-industrial staff

  41,940

  356,150

  83,960

  50,500

  23,030

  3,360

  430,460

  Permanent industrial staff

  3,500

  22,130

  1.410

  6,590

  3,460

  1,740

  32,800

  Casual staff

  1,930

  40,160

  2,310

  1,840

  1,270

  100

  17,670

  All staff

  47,370

  418.440

  87,680

  58,930

  27,760

  5,200

  480,930

  1 Includes staff in departments not on Mandate database

  Source:

  Civil Service Statistics and Mandate

  Table 3: Civil servant numbers by grade and area. Permanent, non-industrial civil servants—April 1998

  Scotland

  England

  London

  Rest of South East

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  UK1

  Senior Civil Service

  260

  2,640

  1,800

  140

  130

  10

  3,720

  Level 6–7

  1,410

  16,980

  6,890

  2,220

  820

  90

  21,130

  SEO/HEO

  5,440

  56,500

  15,830

  9,190

  2,470

  500

  70,060

  Data Series
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what new data series separated by gender, race, disability and age have been commissioned by his Department since June 1997. [90530]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Cabinet Office carried out a staff attitude survey in May 1999. The information that respondents were asked to provide included details of age, gender, ethnic origin and disability, and analyses of these categories were included in the survey's findings.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the number and percentage of civil servants employed at each grade in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) London, (d) the South East of England, (e) Wales, (f) Northern Ireland and (g) the United Kingdom in total at the latest available date. [90861]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Numbers and percentages of staff in the Home Civil Service in the areas and responsibility levels' specified are set out in tables 1 and 2. The full detail requested is not available for all staff. However, estimates covering 97 per cent. of permanent non-industrial staff in the Home Civil Service are set out in tables 3 and 4.

  1 Responsibility levels are an approximate assignment of staff to a level of seniority broadly equivalent to the former service-wide grades.

  Table 1: Staff in the Home Civil Service, by responsibility level—April 1998, UK

  Level

  Staff numbers

  Permanent non-industrial

  430,460

  of whom:

  Senior Civil Service

  3,720

  Level 6–7

  21,130

  SEO/HEO

  70,060

  EO

  105,070

  AO

  164,040

  AA

  66,440

  Permanent industrial

  32,800

  Casual staff

  17,670

  All staff

  480,930

  Source:

  Civil Service Statistics
  237

  Table 3: Civil servant numbers by grade and area. Permanent, non-industrial civil servants—April 1998

  Scotland

  England

  London

  Rest of South East

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  UK1

  EO

  11,530

  82,780

  16,960

  12,990

  5,310

  780

  105,070

  AO

  16,080

  133,930

  21,900

  18,470

  9,950

  1,150

  164,040

  AA

  7,560

  52,320

  9,230

  7,020

  4,540

  1,010

  66,440

  All grades1

  42,320

  348,900

  72,690

  50,090

  23,240

  3,530

  430,360

  1 Includes staff in departments not on Mandate database

  Source:

  Mandate

  Grade profile of each area. Permanent, non-industrial civil servants—April 1998

  Percentage

  Scotland

  England

  London

  Rest of South East

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  UK1

  Senior Civil Service

  0.6

  0.8

  2.5

  0.3

  0.6

  0.2

  0.9

  Level 6–7

  3.3

  4.9

  9.5

  4.4

  3.5

  2.4

  4.9

  SEO/HEO

  12.8

  16.2

  21.8

  18.4

  10.6

  14.1

  16.3

  EO

  27.3

  23.7

  23.3

  25.9

  22.8

  22.1

  24.4

  AO

  38.0

  38.4

  30.1

  36.9

  42.8

  32.4

  38.1

  AA

  17.9

  15.0

  12.7

  14.0

  19.5

  28.5

  15.4

  1 Includes staff in departments not on mandate database

  Source:

  Mandate and Civil Service Statistics

  Civil Service Salaries
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the current average salary by Civil Service grade. [90862]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The average1 salaries for non-industrial civil servants at 1 April 1998 are:

  £

  Responsibility level2

  Average salary

  Senior Civil Service

  56,120

  Grades 6 and 7

  37,520

  SEO/HEO

  23,850

  EO

  17,670

  AO

  13,140

  AA

  10,850

  1 Annual full-time equivalent salary including basic pay and pay related allowances

  2 Responsibility levels are an approximate assignment of staff to a level of seniority broadly equivalent to the former service wide grades

  Source:

  Cabinet Office—Civil Service Statistics 1998

  Departmental Salarie
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the number of his Department's employees by United Kingdom region, indicating the wage bill(a) in total and (b) by region in the most recent year for which figures are available, separately identifying the costs of London allowances and weightings. [90864]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Information in respect of the Department's agencies is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Therefore this response relates to the core Department only.
  238
  The Cabinet Office employed 1,130 staff during financial year 1998–99. All staff are based in the south east of England. The vast majority of staff are located in central London, although there are small regional offices in Norwich and Basingstoke.

  The wage bill for the Department during this period was £37,404,000. This figure includes National Insurance and superannuation costs.

  London allowances were consolidated into basic pay with effect from 1 August 1997 and therefore it is not posible to provide a separate figure for these costs.

  Ministerial Drivers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many drivers allocated to Ministers have been(a) stopped, (b) cautioned, (c) charged and (d) convicted of motoring offences since 1 May 1997, giving in each case (i) the nature of the offence, (ii) the date of the offence and (iii) the minister to whom the driver was allocated. [91273]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car and Despatch Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. Nick Matheson, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Nick Matheson to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 14 July 1999:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me in my capacity as Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of this Agency's drivers who have been convicted of motoring offences since 1 May 1997.
  The Agency only holds records for motoring convictions. It does not hold any information about drivers who have been stopped, cautioned, or charged but not successfully prosecuted with motoring offences. Since 1 May 1997 only one driver has been convicted of

  239
  two speeding offences whilst on official duty. Both convictions are dated 2 April 1999. I am reluctant to name the minister to whom the driver was allocated at the time because it would be easy to identify the individual concerned and this would constitute an invasion of privacy.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much expenditure his Department has(a) incurred to date and (b) forecast to be incurred, on preparations for possible United Kingdom entry into the European single currency; and if he will make a statement. [91089]

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

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 July. [89793]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.

  EU Meetings
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will list the meetings which have taken place in the last month between his adviser on European affairs and EU ambassadors; and for each meeting, if he will list those who accompanied him, and specify the purpose of the meetings. [90121]

  The Prime Minister
  A number of civil servants and special advisers in my office provide me with information and advice on European matters. In the past month, in addition to attending the meetings I hold with EU ambassadors, my advisers have had bilateral discussions on matters of mutual interest with the Danish and Spanish ambassadors. There was also a meeting with the Swedish Ambassador to discuss the situation in Kosovo.

  Arms Exports (Eritrea)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his Government's response to the involvement of a British company in an arms consignment destined for Eritrea, seized at Antwerp on 7 February; what assistance has been supplied(a) to that company and (b) to the national authorities involved; and what changes to departmental procedures have resulted. [86643]

  The Prime Minister
  We have no information on the seizure of an arms consignment on 7 February in Antwerp. But we are aware that a shipment of goods originating in Germany, destined for Eritrea, was seized by Belgian Customs authorities in Antwerp in August 1998. The Belgian Embassy in London notified us in November 1998 that a British company was involved in organising the shipment. The matter is currently before the Belgian courts.
  240
  The British company, JMT Charlesworth Ltd., applied in 1997 for a DTI-funded Export Marketing Research Scheme grant. The grants are open to British companies with less than 500 employees wishing to research specific overseas markets and are payable after the work has been successfully completed. This was a legitimate request and the company received a grant of just over £1,000 following their study of the market for used, refurbished trucks for sale to Eritrea and Ethiopia. Since the seizure of the shipment the company has received no assistance from the British Government.

  In line with our ethical foreign policy we supported UN Security Council Resolution 1227 of 10 February 1999 which demanded a cessation of hostilities between Ethiopia and Eritrea and called for a voluntary arms embargo. We announced on 15 February that the United Kingdom had implemented this arms embargo. We were also instrumental in the adoption by the European Union of a common position on 15 March 1999 implementing an EU arms embargo on Ethiopia and Eritrea.

  Human Rights
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those countries held by the Government to be in breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [90920]

  The Prime Minister
  While the Universal Declaration was not itself a legally binding treaty, it set the framework for human rights obligations in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESR). The ICCPR has been ratified by 143 states and the ICESR by 141 states. The UK ratified both these Treaties within 7 months of their coming into force in 1976. UN independent expert committees monitor the performance of individual states under these Treaties. The committees report their findings publicly, including failures of implementation. But neither they nor we attempt comparative assessments on what are wide ranging obligations.

  South Africa
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the discussions held by his advisers in South Africa in January on the issue of reconciliation; which policy advisers were involved; whom they met; what topics of United Kingdom interest were discussed; and what policy changes ensued. [90943]

  The Prime Minister
  I was accompanied by the Head of my Policy Unit and my policy advisers on criminal justice, and health and local government. As part of the ongoing and wide-ranging dialogue between the United Kingdom and South Africa, my advisers, together with FCO officials, had discussions with advisers in the Deputy President's office. These discussions, which took place in the run up to the recent elections, focused on the challenges facing an incoming Administration committed to a reforming agenda.

  Civil Wars
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those civil wars since May 1997 in which
  241
  he (a) made a decision to intervene and (b) decided against intervention; and if he will list the nature of the military intervention in each case. [90921]

  The Prime Minister
  Preventing and resolving violent conflict, including internal conflict, is a key foreign policy objective for this Government. Since May 1997 we have worked actively with our partners in the Security Council, European Union and elsewhere to find diplomatic solutions to conflicts around the world. Militarily, we have taken action with our NATO partners in Kosovo to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe; and with the United States in Iraq to prevent repression of the civilian population and Iraq's posing a threat to its neighbours. We currently have troops deployed to UN authorised or led peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Cyprus, Georgia, East Timor and on the Iraq/Kuwait border.

  Government Policies
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress made with putting into effect the Government policies set out in the Queen's Speeches in 1997 and 1998 [90869]

  The Prime Minister: Fifty-two Government bills became law in the 1997–98 parliamentary Session, including those to raise standards in education, delivering our manifesto commitment on constitutional reform, tackling crime, ensuring economic stability through Bank of England independence, and ensuring fairness at work through measures such as the national minimum wage.

  In the 1998 Queen's speech we undertook to bring forward legislation on a wide range of issues including modemising the National Health Service, delivering on our pledge to modernise the youth justice system, and through our welfare reform programme. Ten bills have reached Royal Assent and a further 18 are on course to do so before the end of the Session.

  The Government's Annual Report will be published towards the end of this month and this will detail progress on the Government's entire programme as set out in' the manifesto. The Report will also set out what the Government's priorities are for the coming years.

  European Commission
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the proposed appointments to the European Commission; and if he will list the experience and expertise of each nominated commissioner which is relevant to their portfolio. [91172]

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. Prodi announced on 9 July the people he and member states intended to nominate as Commissioners and their proposed areas of responsibility. The nominees will now be put to the European Parliament for approval, most probably at its September plenary.

  It is not for any Government to comment on other member states' nominees. The two British candidates are both extremely well suited to the posts for which they have been nominated.

  Advisory Committee on Business Appointments
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the members of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and if he will make a statement. [91667]

  The Prime Minister
  Sadly, Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield, who became Chairman of the Committee in February, died shortly after taking up his appointment.

  Lord Mayhew has agreed to become the new Chairman, and I intend to appoint shortly a new member of the Committee to fill the vacancy left by Lord Gillmore.

  The current membership of the Committee is as follows:

  The right hon. Lord Mayhew of Twysden QC—(Chairman)

  Sir John Blelloch KCB—(Vice-chairman)

  The right hon. Lord Shore of Stepney

  The right hon. Baroness Williams of Crosby

  Admiral Sir Kenneth Eaton GBE, KCB, FEng, FIEE

  Sir Denys Henderson

  Sir Bryan Nicholson.

  All the appointments are unpaid, and I am grateful to the members for the time they give to the Committee.

TREASURY

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to abolish the domestic flight return-leg exemption from air passenger duty; and if he will make a statement. [90813]

  Mrs. Roche
  We are considering how to respond to the European Commission's challenge to the domestic return leg exemption.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of his Department's employees by UK region, indicating the wage bill(a) in total and (b) by region in the last year for which figures are available, separately identifying the costs of London allowances and weightings. [90565]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]I refer the hon. Member to "Civil Service Statistics 1998" which is placed in the Libraries of the House. This will show total numbers of staff in Departments and Agencies and the number of employees by UK region for Inland Revenue, HM Customs and Excise, National Savings, the Office for National Statistics, HM Treasury and the Royal Mint.

  Figures indicating the wage bill, in total and by region are shown in the table. The costs of London allowances and weightings have been separately identified, where available.
  243

  Regional split of pay bill for Chancellor's Departments (1997–98)

  £ million

  Government office regions

  HM Treasury

  Inland Revenue (excluding Valuation Office Agency)

  Inland Revenue Valuation Office Agency

  Customs and Excise

  Debt Management Office1

  National Savings

  Office for National Statistics

  Royal Mint

  Government Actuary's Department

  London

  33

  170

  22

  160

  —

  3.9

  22.4

  0.5

  4.8

  South East

  —

  115

  18

  93

  —

  —

  16.3

  —

  —

  Eastern

  —

  61

  3

  93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South West

  —

  72

  7

  23

  —

  —

  0.1

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  —

  71

  10

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Midlands

  —

  75

  6

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  —

  93

  12

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North West

  —

  107

  10

  35

  —

  20.6

  2.3

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  56

  1

  23

  —

  —

  9.4

  —

  —

  North East

  —

  43

  2

  12

  —

  19.2

  —

  —

  —

  Wales

  —

  72

  5

  13

  —

  —

  16.3

  23.8

  —

  Scotland

  —

  113

  3

  30

  —

  29.9

  —

  —

  —

  Northern Ireland

  —

  24

  —

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  33

  1,072

  102

  555

  —

  73.6

  66.8

  24.3

  4.8

  Cost of London weightings and allowances

  20.124

  3—

  42

  8.1

  —

  0.3

  5—

  5—

  0.025

  1 The Debt Management Office came into existence on 1 April 1998, so no figures are available for 1997–98.

  2 London weightings for Treasury staff below Senior Civil Service level were consolidated into the pay system at 1 April 1996. The figure given therefore represents London Weighting and London Allowance for Senior Civil Service Grades only.

  3 The Inland Revenue consolidated London Weighting into basic pay on 1 August 1994. Separate London Weighting was no longer paid after that date; therefore the cost cannot be separately identified.

  4 The Value Office Agency pay structure does not separately identify London Allowances and Weightings, but a best estimate has been provided.

  5 London Weighting is absorbed into the Royal Mint and ONS pay scales; therefore figures are unavailable.

  Note:

  All figures in £ million—because of roundings, the sum of entries in each column may differ slightly from the total.

  Child Carers
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the tax system with a view to removing measures which disadvantage single earner families where the wife remains at home to look after children. [89894]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All aspects of the tax system are kept under review and the Chancellor has announced a range of measures in his Budgets benefiting single earner families, in which one partner stays at home to look after children. They include the Working Families' Tax Credit from October 1999 and the new children's tax credit from April 2001. In addition, he has announced substantial increases in Child Benefit, the first of which took effect in April 1999. As a result of the measures announced, a single earner family on average male earnings with two children will be £460 a year better off.

  Married Man's Tax Allowance
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reassess the married man's tax allowance to take account of the added financial responsibility of supporting a non-earning and dependent wife. [89896]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The higher personal allowance available to a married man became the married couple's allowance with the introduction of independent taxation in 1990–91. The Chancellor announced in his Budget statement this year, 9 March 1999,Official Report, columns 173–91 that, as part of a package of reform of income tax reliefs, the married couple's allowance would be abolished from 6 April 2000 for couples aged under
  244
  65 at that date. It will be replaced from 6 April 2001 by the children's tax credit, which will be worth up to twice as much for families with children.

  Vehicle Repairs (VAT)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the liability for VAT on work done by vehicle repair shops owned by insurance companies; and if he will make a statement. [91315]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have received a number of representations on the VAT treatment of vehicle repairs carried out by motor insurers.

  Customs are reviewing this issue.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of households which will become eligible for the new child care tax credit from October in each region of England and Wales; and what the projected change is in the number of claimants as compared with the family credit child care disregard. [90642]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that it is not possible to provide reliable estimates of the number of families who will receive the childcare tax credit as part of the Working Families' Tax Credit for each Government Region in England and Wales.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households in each region of England and Wales he estimates will become entitled to working families tax credit in October; how many additional households in each region will receive working families tax credit
  245
  compared with family credit; and what proportions these figures represent of the number of households in work in each region. [90641]

  Government office region

  Number of families in receipt of Working Families' Tax Credit

  Percentage of families in work

  Number of families in receipt of Working Families' Tax Credit who would not have received Family Credit

  Percentage of families in work

  England

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North East

  70,000

  9

  20,000

  3

  North West

  170,000

  8

  40,000

  2

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  120,000

  9

  40,000

  3

  East Midlands

  110,000

  7

  50,000

  3

  West Midlands

  160,000

  9

  60,000

  3

  East of England

  130,000

  7

  50,000

  3

  London

  140,000

  7

  50,000

  3

  South East

  150,000

  5

  70,000

  2

  South West

  110,000

  7

  40,000

  3

  Wales

  60,000

  8

  30,000

  3

  Total England and Wales

  1,220,000

  7

  430,000

  3

  Note:

  Figures for families are rounded to the nearest thousand and may not sum to totals.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) average and (b) maximum additional benefit is for claimants of working families tax credit as compared with family credit for each region in England and Wales. [90643]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that in 2000–01, the first full year of the Working Families Tax Credit, the average weekly gain for families in receipt of the credit, compared with Family Credit, is £24. This includes families who would not have been in receipt of Family Credit. Estimated average gains for each region of England and Wales are given in the table.

  The maximum gain from the Working Families Tax Credit depends upon the circumstances of individual families, in particular the number of children and the expenditure on eligible child care. It is not possible to forecast what this maximum gain will be.

  £

  Government Office Region

  Average weekly gain from Working Families Tax Credit

  England

  North East

  28

  North West

  22

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  24

  East Midlands

  25

  West Midlands

  24

  East of England

  22

  London

  23

  South East

  27

  South West

  22

  Wales

  22

  Correspondence
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to reply to the letter from Mr. Barnes of Barton Court Road, New Milton, of 22 March. [90761]
  246
  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates for 2000–01, the first full year of the Working Families' Tax Credit, are given in the table.

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue were asked to reply to Mr. Barnes, and did so on 13 July. They have apologised to him for the delay.

  Household Statistics
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of and how many households in the UK are accounted for by(a) married couples with children, (b) cohabiting couples with children, (c) single mothers with children, (d) single fathers with children, (e) single men and women under pension age, (f) single pensioners and (g) pensioner couples; [90326]

  (2) what evidence he has of the percentage of (a) men and (b) women who work until pension age without a career break, and of those who have breaks in their careers; and what are the average total time spent out of work for each sex, and the average length of time of each break in career; [90325]

  (3) if he will list for the most recent available date the percentage and number of (a) married couples and (b) cohabiting couples in which (i) both work full-time, (ii) both are unemployed, (iii) the man works full-time and the woman works part-time, (iv) the woman works full-time and the man works part-time, (v) both work part-time, (vi) the man works full-time and the woman is unemployed, (vii) the woman works full-time and the man is unemployed, (viii) the man works part-time and the woman is unemployed and (ix) the woman works part-time and the man is unemployed, showing figures separately for those with and without dependent children. [90324]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 8 July 1999]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
  247
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 12 July 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your three recent parliamentary questions (90324, 90325 and 90326) on households, families and career breaks.
  In answer to your question about couples according to the status of the 'husband' and 'wife' I attach two tables. Table la gives estimates from the spring 1998 Labour Force Survey (LFS) of actual numbers comparing the labour market status of the husband/man with that of his wife/partner for the four different couple types requested. For example, looking at the block for married couples

  Table 1a: Working age couples1 according to economic status of head and wife, marital status and presence of dependent2 children United Kingdom, spring 1998 (not seasonally adjusted)

  Thousand

  Status of wife/partner

  Status of husband/man

  All

  In employment: All

  In employment: Full-time

  In employment: Part-time

  ILO un-employed3

  Inactive4

  Married couple without dependent children

  All

  4,195

  3,092

  1,856

  1,236

  71

  1,033

  In employment

  3,417

  2,760

  1,691

  1,069

  55

  602

  working full-time

  3,226

  2,631

  1,634

  997

  48

  548

  working part-time

  190

  129

  57

  72

  *

  54

  ILO unemployed

  115

  54

  31

  23

  *

  53

  Inactive

  663

  278

  134

  144

  *

  378

  Married couple with dependent children

  All

  5,130

  3,562

  1,365

  2,196

  140

  1,428

  In employment

  4,617

  3,382

  1,279

  2,102

  111

  1,123

  working full-time

  4,476

  3,304

  1,243

  2,060

  104

  1,068

  working part-time

  140

  78

  36

  42

  *

  55

  ILO unemployed

  170

  56

  24

  32

  18

  97

  Inactive

  343

  124

  62

  62

  11

  208

  Cohabiting couple without dependent children

  All

  1,056

  938

  824

  114

  34

  85

  In employment

  964

  893

  791

  102

  21

  51

  working full-time

  932

  866

  771

  95

  21

  46

  working part-time

  32

  27

  20

  *

  *

  *

  ILO unemployed

  36

  19

  14

  *

  *

  *

  Inactive

  56

  25

  18

  *

  *

  27

  Cohabiting couple with dependent children

  All

  657

  388

  177

  211

  38

  231

  In employment

  537

  356

  163

  194

  22

  159

  working full-time

  512

  344

  157

  187

  21

  148

  working part-time

  25

  13

  *

  *

  *

  11

  ILO unemployed

  67

  16

  *

  *

  12

  39

  Inactive

  52

  16

  *

  *

  *

  33

  * Sample size too small for reliable estimate

  1 Working age couples are those in which the man is aged 16–64 and the woman is aged 16–59.

  2 Dependent children are those aged 0–15, and those aged 16–18 in full-time education.

  3 ILO unemployment—The International Labour Office measure refers to people who are without a job, available to start work within two weeks and who had either looked for work in the previous weeks or were waiting to start a job they had already obtained.

  4 Inactive—those who are neither in employment nor ILO unemployed are defined as being economically inactive.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey Household Datasets

  Table 1b: Working age couples1 accordling to economic status of head and wife, marital status and presence of dependent2 children United Kingdom, spring 1998 (not seasonally adjusted)

  Percentage

  Status of wife/partner

  Status of husband/man

  All

  In employment: All

  In employment: Full-time

  In employment: Part-time

  ILO un-employed3

  Inactive4

  Married couple without dependent children

  All

  100

  74

  44

  29

  2

  25

  In employment

  81

  66

  40

  25

  1

  14

  working full-time

  77

  63

  39

  24

  1

  13

  working part-time

  5

  3

  1

  2

  *

  1

  ILO unemployed

  3

  1

  1

  1

  *

  1

  Inactive

  16

  7

  3

  3

  *

  9

  248
  without dependent children you can see that there were 997,000 couples where the husband worked full-time and the wife worked part-time. Table lb shows this information in terms of percentage breakdowns. These analyses have been based on all working age couples i.e. couples where both the husband and the wife are of working age. Working age is defined as 16–59 for women and 16–64 for men.
  LFS estimates have also been used to answer your question about households by type of household and family (see table 2).
  Regarding your third question about those reaching retirement age and the incidence and average length of any career breaks they may have taken, I regret that the ONS cannot provide any directly relevant information.
  249

  Table lb: Working age couples1 accordling to economic status of head and wife, marital status and presence of dependent2 children United Kingdom, spring 1998 (not seasonally adjusted)

  Percentage

  Status of wife/partner

  Status of husband/man

  All

  In employment: All

  In employment: Full-time

  In employment: Part-time

  ILO un-employed3

  Inactive4

  Married couple with dependent children

  All

  100

  69

  27

  43

  3

  28

  In employment

  90

  66

  25

  41

  2

  22

  working full-time

  87

  64

  24

  40

  2

  21

  working part-time

  3

  2

  1

  1

  *

  1

  ILO unemployed

  3

  1

  0

  1

  0

  2

  Inactive

  7

  2

  1

  1

  0

  4

  Cohabiting couple without dependent chidren

  All

  100

  89

  78

  11

  3

  8

  In employment

  91

  85

  75

  10

  2

  5

  working full-time

  88

  82

  73

  9

  2

  4

  working part-time

  3

  3

  2

  *

  *

  0

  ILO unemployed

  3

  2

  *

  *

  1

  Inactive

  5

  2

  2

  *

  *

  3

  Cohabiting couple with dependent children

  All

  100

  59

  27

  32

  6

  35

  In employment

  82

  54

  25

  29

  3

  24

  working full-time

  78

  52

  24

  29

  3

  22

  working part-time

  4

  2

  *

  *

  *

  2

  ILO unemployed

  10

  2

  *

  *

  2

  6

  Inactive

  8

  2

  *

  *

  *

  5

  * Sample size too small for reliable estimate

  1 Working age couples are those in which the man is aged 16–64 and the woman is aged 16–59.

  2 Dependent children are those aged 0–15, and those aged 16–18 in full-time education.

  3 ILO unemployment—The International Labour Office measure refers to people who are without a job, available to start work within two weeks and who had either looked for work in the previous weeks or were waiting to start a job they had already obtained.

  4 Inactive—those who are neither in employment nor ILO unemployed are defined as being economically inactive.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey Household Datasets

  Households by type of household and family—Table 2 United Kingdom, spring 1998 (not seasonally adjusted)

  Thousand

  Per cent.

  One person

  Under pensionable age1

  3,266

  13.5

  Over pensionable age1

  3,497

  14.4

  Two or more unrelated adults

  769

  3.2

  One family

  Married non-pensioner couples2

  All

  8,881

  36.7

  of which with:

  No children

  2,743

  11.3

  Dependent children3

  4,934

  20.4

  Non-dependent children only

  1,203

  5.0

  Cohabiting non-pensioner couples2

  All

  1,619

  6.7

  of which with:

  No children

  930

  3.8

  Dependent children3

  640

  2.6

  Non-dependent children only

  48

  0.2

  Pensioner couples

  All

  3,219

  13.3

  of which with:

  No children

  2,859

  11.8

  Dependent children3

  30

  0.1

  Non-dependent children only

  330

  1.4

  Female lone parents with:

  Dependent children3

  1,363

  5.6

  Non-dependent children only

  559

  2.3

  250

  Households by type of household and family—Table 2 United Kingdom, spring 1998 (not seasonally adjusted)

  Thousand

  Per cent

  Male lone parents with:

  Dependent children

  156

  0.6

  Non-dependent children only

  146

  0.6

  At least one family plus others

  735

  3.0

  All households

  24,209

  100.0

  1 Pensionable age is defined here as 60 for women and 65 for men.

  2 Non-pensioner couples are those where neither the husband nor the wife is a pensioner.

  3 Dependent children are those aged 0–15 and 16–18 year olds in full-time includes those families with both dependent and non-dependent children.

  source:

  Labour Force Survey Household Datasets

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the subject and date of each written briefing prepared by her special advisers for all Labour Members since May 1997 and the total number and total cost to date of these. [89997]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Special Advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Model
  251
  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.

  Portcullis House
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will list the type and designation of the electrical cable used to wire (i) the lifts, (ii) the standby generation system, (iii) the emergency lighting system, (iv) the fire alarm system and (v) the smoke extraction system in Portcullis house. [90704]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  I have asked the Director of Works to write to the hon. Member and place a copy of his reply in the Library of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Communities Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the European Communities working groups which met over the last 12 months with a representative from his Department in attendance; if he will list the number of times each met; if he will indicate the nature of the Government's representation; and if he will make a statement. [88474]

  Ms Quin
  Officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office regularly attend more than 50 working groups, most notably those dealing with the EU's external relations.

  The frequency of meetings varies from group to group. For example, the ad hoc Lomé working group meets weekly, while the Euro-Med group meets monthly. The Government are always represented at these meetings by officials from the FCO or by officials from the UK's Permanent Representation in Brussels.

  There is no record of the exact number of times each working group has met. Given the large number of groups involved it would be extremely difficult and time consuming to compile such a record.

  River Danube
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of when the River Danube in Serbia will be open for normal commercial traffic; what assessment he has made of the effect of the blocking of the River Danube to commercial traffic on the economies of adjacent states other than Serbia; and what help is being given by NATO and the EU to adjacent states whose commercial and industrial traffic has been affected by the blocking of the Danube by destroyed Serbian bridges. [90004]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We do not know when the River Danube will be open for normal commercial traffic. We are in close touch with all the countries surrounding 252
  Serbia, and with the international financial institutions who are carrying out economic impact assessments. We have already contributed to packages of support for those countries, other than Serbia, most directly affected, and will continue to do so.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [91237]

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

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the consolidated report to the Council on the EU Code of Conduct on arms sales will be made public. [90700]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Member states have yet to decide whether to make public the consolidated report on the operation of the Code of Conduct. This is likely to depend on the extent to which the report, which has not yet been agreed, contains information which member states have agreed should remain confidential, such as details of individual licence refusals and consultations between member states. Any changes to the Code as a result of the report will by definition be made public.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance supplied to posts overseas on the application of the Working Time Directive. [90699]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of the guidance supplied to posts overseas on the application of the Working Time Directive/ Regulations. [90941]

  Yugoslavia
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for future support of Radio B-92 in Yugoslavia; and what measures he is planning to encourage the restoration of former management. [90941]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Her Majesty's Government will not offer any support to Radio B-92 as long as it is being run by the Milosevic regime.

  FCO officials have met with the exiled representative of Radio B-92 and are discussing means of restoring the station to its rightful owners.

  International Labour Organisation
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy regarding adherence to International Labour Organisation legislation; and which
  253
  human rights instruments (a) have been rejected, (b) are under consideration and (c) have been accepted in principle, where the United Kingdom had not fully acceded, since May 1997. [90944]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government are committed to supporting and promoting adherence to the standards and principles of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has lead responsibility for Government policy towards the ILO.

  Our commitment to the ILO is matched by action. At the International Labour Conference (ILC) in June 1999, we played a leading role in securing agreement to a new Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour, which becomes one of the ILO's core labour standards. At that Conference, we also announced our ratification of the ILO Convention 111 on Discrimination in Employment, one of the core labour conventions. At the ILC in June 1998, we played a key role in the agreement of a Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. And we are currently reviewing our position on ILO Convention 138 on Minimum Age of employment, the only one of the seven existing core labour conventions that the UK has yet to ratify. The UK has ratified a total of 66 conventions, which bears favourable comparison with other industrialised countries.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department announced the outcome of the Government's review of international human rights instruments in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) on 3 March 1999, Official Report, columns 756–57. Since then, on 31 March 1999 we signed the Second Optional Protocol to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and on 20 May 1999 we ratified protocol 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights. Both protocols concern abolition of the death penalty.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [91066]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  2,351 parliamentary questions have been tabled to the FCO for named day answer since 2 May 1997. Our existing database does not allow us to determine which of them received a substantive response on that named day without manually checking each question. To do so would incur disproportionate cost.

  Immigration Office, Islamabad
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many entry clearance applications for indefinite leave to remain from Islamabad have been made in each year since 1992. [90981]
  254
  Mr. Hoon
  The following are the figures requested:

  Year

  Settlement applications

  1994

  6,973

  1995

  7,869

  1996

  7,988

  1997

  9,183

  1998

  10,837

  Notes:

  1. The figures relate to applications in Islamabad for settlement entry clearance. The term 'Indefinite leave to remain' refers to the removal of conditions of entry by the Home Office after an individual subject to immigration control has spent a qualifying period in the UK.

  2. Information for 1992 and 1993 is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  3. Further figures on settlement applications for the years 1994–98 inclusive can be obtained from the Global Entry Clearance Statistics, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the average turn-round time for processing applications for(a) visit visas and (b) marriage visas from Islamabad has changed over the last five years. [90974]

  Mr. Hoon
  Non-settlement visa applicants dealt with at Tier 1 or 2 will normally have their application processed within 24 hours. The percentage of visa applicants dealt with at Tier 1 and 2 has risen from 52 per cent. in 1994 to 54 per cent. in May 1999. Only those processed at Tier 3 (non-settlement) or Tier 4 (settlement) will be recalled at a later date for interview. Waiting times for these two tiers have been collated only since 1996 and are as follows:

  Tier 3 (non-settlement)

  Date

  Waiting time (days)

  At 31 December 1996

  3

  At 31 December 1997

  11

  At 31 December 1998

  18

  Tier 4 (settlement)

  Waiting time (months)

  Date

  Queue 2

  Queue 3

  At 31 December 1996

  4

  6

  At 31 December 1997

  4

  5

  At 31 December 1998

  6

  7

  Note:

  Settlement applications in Islamabad are dealt with in four queues:

  Ql: Right of Abode claimants, dependent relatives over 65, special compassionate cases.

  Q2: Spouses, children under 18.

  Q3: Fiance(e)s, other categories.

  Q4: Re-applicants.

  Persons applying for settlement in UK in order to join a spouse or parent are dealt with at queue 2; those coming to the UK to marry and settle are dealt with in queue 3. The latter also includes other visa applicants and is not solely for the categories mentioned. Waiting times fluctuate during the year. Further details on waiting times are obtainable from the Global Entry Clearance Statistics, copies of which are held in the House of Commons Library.
  255
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for visitor's visas have been(a) made and (b) granted in each year since 1992; and how many in each year were from Islamabad. [90980]

  Mr. Hoon
  The following are the figures requested:

  Worldwide

  Islambad

  Received

  Issued

  Received

  Issued

  1994

  1,086,381

  980,054

  35,472

  25,187

  1995

  1,167,295

  1,042,667

  35,597

  22,130

  1996

  1,372,056

  1,240,341

  31,354

  19,730

  1997

  1,372,314

  1,243,987

  23,828

  14,726

  1998

  1,397,431

  1,246,034

  38,250

  26,737

  Note:

  1. Information for 1992 and 1993 is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Further figures on non-settlement applications for the years 1994–98 inclusive can be obtained from the Global Entry Clearance Statistics, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Argentina
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Argentina. [91145]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  British and Argentine delegations met in London on 13 and 14 July to continue their dialogue on South Atlantic issues of common interest. I led the United Kingdom delegation, which included Members of the Falkland Islands Legislative Council.

  I signed a Joint Statement with the Argentine Foreign Minister and exchanged letters recording understandings reached in these discussions on flights between the Falklands and South America, permission for Argentine passport-holders to visit the Falklands, co-operation against illegal fishing and other confidence-building measures. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  This agreement has the approval of the Falkland Islands Legislative Councillors. It is an important advance for our relations with Argentina and will encourage friendship and trust between Argentina and the Falklands Islands. It has our whole-hearted support.

  Mr. Al-Sayegh
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what factors underlie his conclusion that Mr. Al-Sayegh of Bolton holds both British and Bahraini nationality. [91055]

  Mr. Hoon
  Mr. Al-Sayegh is a Bahraini national by birth and also a British national, having been granted British nationality in 1995 through his marriage to a British citizen. The Bahrainis have assured us that Mr. Al-Sayegh has not lost or been deprived of his Bahraini nationality.

  Diplomatic Staff Cars
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the 256
  purchase, and use of, official cars for United Kingdom ambassadors and high commissioners serving overseas; what make of cars have been purchased over the past 12 months for ambassadors, high commissioners and other senior diplomatic staff overseas; and to which individual diplomats they have been supplied. [90951]

  Mr. Hoon
  1. Flag cars are provided for official use of Ambassadors and High Commissioners and are not specifically assigned to individual diplomats.

  2. Government policy is to advertise our requirements for flag cars in the Official Journal of the European Commission and to set up framework contracts with successful bidders against which individual cars are purchased as the need arises. The FCO currently has framework contracts, negotiated in 1996, with Rolls Royce, Jaguar, Rover and Land Rover.

  3. The makes of flag car purchased during the last 12 months are Rolls Royce, Jaguar, Rover and Land Rover, Volvo, Opel, Ford and a Grand Marquis in Caracas. Details, including the Missions to which the cars have been allocated, are shown in the attached list. The few cars purchased outside the existing framework contracts are used in countries where European cars cannot be properly maintained.

  BACKGROUND NOTE

  1. The FCO has, in the last 12 months, bought the following 45 flag cars:

  2. 1 X Rolls Royce, 15 X Jaguars, 6 X Rover 800s, 2 X Volvos, 1 X Opel saloon cars, 6 X Land Rover Discoverys and 12 X Range Rovers. A Grand Marquis was bought for Caracas and a Ford Mondeo for Ascension Island, as neither UK nor European cars could be supported in those countries.

  3. The Embassies and High Commissions concerned were:

  Model

  Post

  Volvo V70

  Almaty

  Rover 825

  Amsterdam

  Rover Sterling

  Anguilla

  Jaguar

  Ankara

  Discovery

  Antananarivo

  Ford Mondeo

  Ascension Island

  Range Rover

  Asuncion

  Jaguar 4.0

  Athens

  Jaguar Xj8 L

  Atlanta

  Volvo S80 F

  Barcelona

  Range Rover

  Beirut

  Jaguar S Type

  Bordeaux

  Jaguar Xj8 3.2

  Brussels

  Grand Marquis

  Caracas

  Discovery F

  Casablanca

  Range Rover

  Dhaka

  Rover 820 Sil

  Gothenburg

  Rolls Royce

  Hong Kong

  Jaguar

  Johannesburg

  Range Rover

  Kampala

  Range Rover

  Kingston

  Range Rover

  Lagos

  Jaguar Xj8 3.2

  Ljubljana

  Range Rover

  Lusaka

  Rover Sterling

  Luxembourg

  Discovery

  Madras

  Jaguar Xjv8

  Madrid

  Discovery

  Managua

  257

  Model

  Post

  Rover 820

  Milan

  Range Rover

  Montserrat

  Jaguar Sov

  Nicosia

  Rover 825 Si

  Oporto

  Jaguar

  Oslo

  Jaguar Xj8

  Peking

  Jaguar F

  Rome

  Range Rover

  Sana'a

  Jaguar Xj8

  Sofia

  Jaguar

  Stockholm

  Opel Omega

  Strasbourg

  Range Rover

  Tegucigalpa

  Jaguar Sov

  The Hague

  Discovery

  Victoria

  Range Rover

  Vilnius

  Range Rover

  Yaounde

  Discovery F

  Yerevan

  Market Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the title and purpose of each item of market and opinion research commissioned by or through his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, stating in each case whether the results were published. [89696]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]Since May 1997, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has funded three pieces of public opinion research centrally. A survey of opinion formers in Pakistan and a public image survey in the Eastern Caribbean helped to establish how Britain is perceived in these two areas, to highlight misconceptions, and to measure Britain's profile. Results of these two surveys have not been published. A survey on British public attitudes to Europe in 1997 helped us prepare for the EU Presidency; a copy of the results has been placed in the Libraries of the House. It would involve disproportionate costs to provide the information requested for work carried out by individual FCO posts.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the European Commission concerning the obstruction of movement between Spain and Gibraltar. [90143]

  Ms Quin
  Our Permanent Representative to the EU, Sir S. Wall, wrote to the President of the European Commission on this subject on 11 February, and again on 22 June. Our Permanent Representation was in regular contact with the Commission in the intervening period.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for International Development concerning human rights in Zimbabwe. [90136]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the International Development Secretary meet to discuss issues that relate to the work of both departments. Officials from both departments co-ordinate policy closely in the UK and in a large number 258
  of countries worldwide, including Zimbabwe. The Government's commitment to human rights is central to the work of both departments.

  British Subjects (Death Abroad)
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the treatment of the widow of a British subject who died in April this year in the Gambia, a constituent, whose name has been supplied to him. [90359]

  Mr. Hoon
  When a British National who is the customer of a tour operator dies overseas, the tour operator's representative normally takes responsibility for the necessary formalities. Our Consular staff provide advice and additional assistance as necessary.

  In this case, our Consular staff played a supporting role in liaising with the tour operator's representative, the clinic and the mortuary. They also offered to speak to the police.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what services the Consular Service provides in the event of the death of a British subject abroad. [90358]

  Mr. Hoon
  The services provided are set out in the Consular Services leaflet "Death Overseas", copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Western Sahara
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to send a contingent to the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara. [90438]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have no plans at present to re-introduce a contingent to MINURSO because of heavy commitments elsewhere. The situation is kept under regular review.

  Kuwait
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the recent elections in Kuwait. [90446]

  Mr. Hoon
  Elections for Kuwait's 50 seat National Assembly took place on 3 July. Twenty five MPs retained their seats; 16 new members were elected; the remainder being former MPs who have served in earlier parliaments.

  Iraq
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent UN Security Council discussions on Iraq. [90445]

  Mr. Hoon
  Discussions are continuing within the UN Security Council on the various draft resolutions on Iraq. The UK resolution seeks to translate the work of the three UN assessment panels on disarmament, humanitarian and Kuwaiti issues into action. It is now co-sponsored by the Netherlands, Argentina, Brazil, Slovenia, Gambia and Bahrain. We do not consider that the Russian and French draft resolutions offer a realistic basis for agreement in the Council. We are working in the Council to rebuild
  259
  consensus on Iraq and hope that the remaining Council members will also move quickly to endorse our comprehensive approach.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Sudan concerning the camps which they have set up for people displaced in the civil war in Sudan. [90529]

  Mr. Hoon
  The return of UK staff to Khartoum, announced on 25 June, will allow us the opportunity to have a dialogue with the Government of Sudan on a whole range of humanitarian issues.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current security situation in the Kosovo town of Mitrovica. [91231]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  KFOR is tasked with providing robust and even-handed protection for everyone in Kosovo. There has been some tension in Mitrovica where Serbs have tried to keep Kosovo Albanians out of an area of the city. KFOR has been present and escorted a relatively peaceful march through the affected part of the city by 2,000 people on 7 July. Most recently French troops broke up a demonstration on the bridge dividing the two areas on 11 July. KFOR has a strong presence in the area and has kept the situation under control, in line with their mandate under UNSCR 1244 to provide a secure environment for all the people of Kosovo.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) malicious calls and (b) well intended but unfounded calls were made to the Benefit Fraud Hotline in each of the last three years; what was each category as a percentage of the total number of calls; and what was the average cost of investigating each such call. [90448]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 13 July 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked Mr. Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many malicious and well intended but unfounded calls were made to the Benefit Fraud Hotline in the last three years; what was each category as a percentage of the total number of calls; and what was the average cost of investigating each such call. As Mr. Mathison is currently away from the office on annual leave I am replying.
  Calls to the Hotline and investigations costs are not collated in the format you have requested. We do not seek to establish the motives and intentions of the caller.
  It may be helpful if I explain that from its introduction on 5th August 1996 to March 1999, the Benefit Fraud Hotline has received 550,000 calls. Each case is scrutinised to establish whether a fraud investigation is appropriate. Of the above total 69% have
  260
  been referred to the relevant fraud section for further action. Of these, 33% resulted in the reduction, cessation or the identification of an overpayment of benefit. The estimated average benefit staving per call was £218.
  The Benefits Agency (BA) does not disclose the results of any investigation to any caller to the Hotline. Our aim is to provide a vehicle by which the public can become involved in protecting the benefits system. The BA believes that the Benefit Fraud Hotline provides a valuable and popular service to the public in helping to reduce the level of fraudulent claims.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Savings
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the percentages of households with(a) savings of up to £1,000, (b) savings between £1,000 and £20,000, in bands of £1,000 and (c) savings above £20,000; and if he will give the same data for households where the head of household is between 50 and 65 years. [91053]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  Households by amount of savings and where head of household is between 50 and 65-years-old

  Percentage of households

  Capital

  Households with a head aged between 50 and 65-years

  Total households

  Up to £1,000

  38

  48

  £1,000 but less than £2,000

  5

  6

  £2,000 but less than £3,000

  5

  5

  £3,000 but less than £4,000

  4

  4

  £4,000 but less than £5,000

  3

  3

  £5,000 but less than £6,000

  3

  3

  £6,000 but less than £7,000

  2

  2

  £7,000 but less than £8,000

  2

  2

  £8,000 but less than £9,000

  2

  2

  £9,000 but less than £10,000

  2

  1

  £10,000 but less than £11,000

  2

  1

  £11,000 but less than £12,000

  2

  1

  £12,000 but less than £13,000

  2

  1

  £13,000 but less than £14,000

  1

  1

  £14,000 but less than £15,000

  1

  1

  £15,000 but less than £16,000

  1

  1

  £16,000 but less than £17,000

  1

  1

  £17,000 but less than £18,000

  1

  1

  £18,000 but less than £19,000

  1

  1

  £19,000 but less than £20,000

  1

  1

  £20,000 or more

  22

  14

  Total

  100

  100

  Notes:

  1. The estimates are based on sample counts which have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors that control for region, Council Tax band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response.

  2. It should be noted that questions on assets are a sensitive part of the FRS questionnaire and have relatively low level of response, and hence a higher level of imputation compare to other parts of the survey. Responses are imputed in around 1 in 10 cases. Past evidence has suggested some under reporting of capital by respondents, and figures for income from these sources for pensioners are lower on the FRS compared to other surveys such as the Family Expenditure Survey.

  3. In the 1997–98 Family Resources Survey the head of the household is classified using standard procedures:

  In a household containing only husband, wife and children under 16 (and boarders) the husband is always the head of the household. Similarly, when a couple have been recorded as living together/cohabiting the male partner is treated as the head of the household.
  261
  In all situations where there are other relatives in the household where some or all of the household are unrelated, except that a husband always takes precedence, the person in whose name the accommodation is owned or rented is taken as the head.

  When the accommodation is supplied with a job or provided rent free for some other reason, the person to whom the accommodation is given in this way becomes the head.

  Occasionally more than one person will have equal claim to be the head, in these cases, where they are of the same sec, the oldest is the head; where they are of different sexes, the male is the head.

  4. All percentages have been rounded to the nearest integer.

  Source:

  1997–98 Family Resources Survey (FRS)(Great Britain).

  Social Security Administration (Scotland)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) of 6 July 1999,Official Report, columns 506–07, if his estimate assumed that (a) a separate Scottish system would require the provision of new buildings or (b) a separate Scottish system would be denied access to existing computer systems; and if he will make a statement. [90926]

  Mr. Timms
  No detailed assessment has been made of the costs of administering the Social Security system separately in Scotland. The estimate of £600 million in my previous reply, 6 July 1999,Official Report, columns 506–07, was based on assumptions which were made about the apportionment of the Department's central and fixed costs which include these elements.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the procedural steps for assessing eligibility, reviewing, appealing and making payment of(a) child support allowance, (b) housing benefit, (c) council tax benefit and (d) income support; and which of the offices of his Department and its agencies in Scotland handle each of these steps. [90866]

  Mr. Timms
  Applications for Child Support in Scotland are administered from the Child Support Agency Centre in Falkirk. Details of the procedure for applying for child maintenance and for review of assessment and appeals are set out in the booklet CSA 2008 "A guide to child support maintenance".

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit are administered by Local Authorities, or in some cases Scottish Homes in respect of Housing Benefit only. The procedural steps on a claim, including those for assessment, reviews, appeals and payments, are set out in the booklet RR2 "A guide to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit".

  Eligibility to Income Support is assessed and payments are made in each local office of Benefits Agency in Scotland. The steps involved are set out in the booklet IS20, "A guide to Income Support". All aspects of appeals are handled by the Independent Tribunal Service.

  Copies of all these documents are in the Library.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) of 6 July 1999,Official Report, columns 506–07, what were the total fixed costs for his Department in the UK; and if he will provide a breakdown by category of these costs for (a) his Department and (b) each relevant agency. [90928]
  262
  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the format requested. The costs of administering the Department and its agencies are set out in the Social Security Departmental Report 1999–2000 (Cm 4214).

  Social Fund
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish his annual report on the Social Fund for 1998–99 and the Social Fund Commissioner's annual report. [91644]

  Angela Eagle
  The Secretary of State's annual report on the Social Fund for 1998–99 (Cm 4351) was published today and has been laid before Parliament.

  The report records that total gross expenditure in 1998–99 was £558 million. This included 225,000 non-repayable grants and 1,801,000 interest free loans together worth £501 million and funeral, maternity and cold weather payments totalling £57.2 million. In addition, around 10 million pensioners in over 7 million households received winter fuel payments totalling £200 million.

  The Social Fund Commissioner's annual report has also been published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Executive Agencies (Report and Accounts)
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will make available the 1998–99 annual reports and accounts for each of his Next Steps agencies. [91645]

  Mr. Darling
  The 1998–99 annual reports and accounts for the Benefits Agency (HC 580), Child Support Agency (HC 533), Information Technology Services Agency (HC 518), War Pensions Agency (HC 527) and Contributions Agency (HC 523) have been laid before Parliament today. The Contributions Agency transferred to the Inland Revenue on 1 April 1999.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Organophosphorous Sheep Dips
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 1 July 1999,Official Report, column 267, on a report from the Institute of Occupational Medicine on the effects of exposure to organophosphorous sheep dips, when he expects to receive advice from the Veterinary Products Committee; and if he will make a statement. [91660]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have received advice from the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) on the implications of the IOM report for marketing authorisations of OPs and, in particular, OP sheep dips. A copy of the VPC's advice has been placed in the Library of the House.

  I have accepted the VPC's recommendation that marketing authorisation holders should be asked to submit practical and workable plans to improve and standardise the design of sheep dip containers. If such plans are not submitted within three months, action will be commenced to revoke marketing authorisations.
  263
  I have also accepted recommendations on emphasising the importance of handling OP concentrate safely in advice to farmers and in training and the examination which leads to the issue of a Certificate of Competence. We are giving urgent consideration to the recommendation that handlers of OP sheep dip concentrate should be required to hold a Certificate of Competence.

  The VPC made it clear that this is interim advice. The VPC will be offering further advice together with COT and the other independent advisory committees before the end of the year.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce the outcome of his review of quarantine regulations applying to animals originating from the United States and Canada. [90501]

  Mr. Rooker
  An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (1) pursuant to his answer of 7 July 1999,Official Report, column 554, if he will list the amounts of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphoric acid in residues of glufosinate-treated conventionally bred soya and genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant soya and the residues of glufosinate in conventionally bred soya and glufosinate and n-acetyl glufosinate in genetically modified varieties treated with glufosinate ammonium; and what the maximum permitted United Kingdom levels of retained residue are for each chemical; [91183]

  (2) if he will list the chemical residues retained as a result of crop treatment of (a) imported genetically modified maize and (b) imported non-genetically modified maize; if he will give the amounts of each retained chemical and the current maximum permitted levels for each chemical. [91047]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]: Glyphosate: Experimental studies indicate that two major residues may be found in soya and maize crops treated with glyphosate. The residues concerned are glyphosate itself and its metabolite aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA). These two residues occur in both conventionally treated and genetically modified (GM) glyphosate tolerant crops. However, the levels of the metabolite AMPA are generally higher in the GM crops.

  The maximum residue level (MRL) permitted for glyphosate in maize in the UK is 0.1 mg/kg. This was the lowest level at which glyphosate could be reliably detected at the time the MRL was set, so represents an effective 'zero'. No MRL has been set for AMPA, as it is of less toxicological significance to humans than glyphosate.

  The UK MRL for glyphosate on soya is 20 mg/kg. All maize and soya, including imports of GM and conventional crops, must comply with these MRLs.

  The Government carried out monitoring for residues of glyphosate in imported and home produced maize during 1998. The results of this monitoring, including information on the actual levels found, will be published
  264
  later this year. We are monitoring for residues of glyphosate and its metabolite in soya products during 1999. The results will be published next year.

  Glufosinate ammonium: In the case of glufosinate ammonium, the major residue in traditional soya varieties is glufosinate. In GM soya varieties, the major components of the residue are glufosinate and a metabolite n-acetyl glufosinate.

  No consent has been given to market genetically modified glufosinate ammonium tolerant soya in Europe, so setting an MRL for n-acetyl glufosinate has not been considered. There are currently no UK statutory MRLs for glufosinate ammonium, but any food treated with glufosinate ammonium must pose no unacceptable risk to consumers under general UK food safety legislation. The Government are monitoring for residues of glufosinate ammonium and its metabolite in soya products during 1999. The results will be published in the year 2000.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent reports he has received from the United States Department of Agriculture on(a) the yields of genetically modified crops grown in the United States and (b) the quantities of chemical treatments used for such crops compared to non-genetically modified crops; and if he will make a statement. [91048]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]I have received no such reports from the US Department of Agriculture.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what comparative assessment his Department has made of the herbicide-residue levels in(a) GM soya and (b) non-GM soya; and if he will make a statement. [90722]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]Data on residue levels of the herbicide glyphosate in both traditionally bred and GM soya have been submitted to the EU in support of the Maximum Residue Level (MRL). The data for traditionally bred soya were evaluated by EU experts and assessed by all EU member states, including the UK, by the MRL setting process. Subsequently, the data for GM soya were evaluated. The same MRL was set.

  No approval has been given for the marketing of glufosinate ammonium tolerant soya in the UK.

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [91016]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]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
  265
  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 for all our London headquarters buildings and our York building, which houses two of the Ministry's Executive Agencies and we are developing plans for all our other key buildings 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 and business travel, including extending and encouraging wider use of the Department's video conferencing network and promoting suitable car sharing schemes.

  Fishing Discards
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate by area in relation to each species of fish covered by quota, the amount of fish discarded from United Kingdom registered fishing vessels in the last five years; what proportion of the fish discarded in each case were(a) of a marketable condition and (b) undersized; and if he will make a statement. [90733]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 17 June 1999,Official Report, columns 216–18, and 8 July 1999, Official Report, column 626.

  Research work is continuing on why fish are discarded.

  Glyphosate
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of the use of the herbicide glyphosphate when it is applied to the land as an aid in conservation tillage schemes. [90599]

  Mr. Rooker
  I believe my hon. Friend is referring to the herbicide glyphosate. All pesticides are subject to strict statutory control and are approved only following thorough scientific evaluation of the risk that they pose to people, wildlife and to the wider environment. Only if this assessment shows that there is no unacceptable risk will approval be granted.

  Glyphosate has been approved as a herbicide since 1974. The environmental impact of its use in conservation tillage schemes would have been assessed at that time. Glyphosate is currently being reviewed by the EU Commission and the UK is playing an active part in this work. The review is expected to be completed by about late 2000.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [91067]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 15 April 1999,Official Report, column 322. All questions for a named day up to 14 April 1999 were tabled by 31 March 1999.

  Food and Drink Inspections
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those sectors of the food and drink industry which are obliged to pay for the inspection of their products. [R] [90383]

  Mr. Rooker
  In the food and drink industry, charges are made for the hygiene inspection of meat, milk production and fish. Where export certification is required, the necessary inspections are paid for by the industry. In addition, the industry also pays for the sampling and analysis of food of animal origin for residues of veterinary medicines, and the agrochemical sector pays part of the cost of the pesticide residue monitoring arrangements.

  Fruit and Vegetable Disposal
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total amount spent by the EU on the subsidising of dumping of surplus fruit and vegetables in the most recent year for which figures are available. [90421]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 12 July 1999]Unpublished EU figures give the total cost of compensation for fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market as £96.56 million1 for the financial year ending 15 October 1998.

  1 Source:

  EU Commission data, converted from ecu to £ using representative rate on 31 December 1998.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement explaining the total amount spent by the EU on the disposal of fruit and vegetables in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and if he will list the tonnage of each particular fruit and vegetable so disposed of. [90422]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 12 July 1999]The Government have no wish to see good food go to waste and have consistently opposed the system of paying compensation for produce withdrawn from the market, arguing that it distorts the market and encourages surpluses. The reform of the EU fruit and vegetable regime in 1996 was a step in the right direction, providing for reductions in withdrawal prices and volumes withdrawn over the first six years of the reform. The reform also encouraged greater use of free distribution to charities and other non-profit making institutions. A considerable amount of produce withdrawn in the UK has been distributed to such bodies in the past year.

  Provisional quantities of each product withdrawn in the EU during 1997–98 marketing years

  Tonnes

  Cauliflower

  172,928

  Apricots

  16,965

  Nectarines

  72,688

  Peaches

  89,616

  Lemons

  7,866

  Tomatoes

  240,828

  Aubergines

  4,050

  Pears

  86.208

  Table grapes

  133

  Apples

  357,615

  Satsumas

  4,033

  Mandarines

  1,836

  267

  Provisional quantities of each product withdrawn in the EU during the 1997–98 marketing years

  Tonnes

  Clementines

  68,964

  Oranges

  144,819

  Melons

  17,030

  Watermelons

  6,850

  Source:

  EU Commission data

  Dairy Hygiene Inspection Charges
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the levels of dairy hygiene inspection charges, or equivalent, levied in each European Union member state in sterling. [90856]
  268
  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is not currently available. I have asked for inquiries to be made about charges in other member states and I will write to my hon. Friend when I have further information.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many invitations(a) he and (b) the Minister have received to visit slaughterhouses since their appointments; and how many each has visited. [88337]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 July 1999, c. 554]My hon. Friend the Minister of State has visited slaughterhouses on nine occasions since 1 May 1997.

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.

Former Yugoslavia: Twinning
Lord Walpole Lord Walpole asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to build on the links between individuals which have already been forged by twinning with towns and cities in former Yugoslavia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, twinning links between towns and cities can be a useful means of promoting reconciliation. The Local Government International Bureau (LGIB) acts as a clearing house for all forms of twinning and technical co-operation with counterparts world-wide. The LGIB has sent an officer to Kosovo as part of a Council of Europe mission on behalf of the UN, to consider, among other things, ways to mobilise partnerships between European local and regional authorities.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's statement that the war was against the regime of Mr Milosevic and not the people of Serbia, what advice does the Minister give to the people of Norwich who are twinned with the people of Novi Sad? Can she indicate whether in future it may be possible for visas to be obtained so that members of Norwich City Council can visit Novi Sad and people from Novi Sad can come to this country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord indicates, the relationship with Norwich has persisted for some time, certainly since well before the recent hostilities. In general, the recent hostilities have been very much directed at the regime, not al the people of Serbia. Whether or not visas are granted to people to go to that country is a matter for the Serbian authorities. Where there is a real demonstration that local authorities do not support the Milosevic regime, it is for local authorities in this country to pursue those relationships. I stress that we want to know that the town concerned is not part of any Milosevic machine.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, that there is an important distinction to be drawn between our policy towards the regime of Milosevic and our attitude to the ordinary people of Serbia, with whom we have no quarrel. Further, does the Minister agree that there is much value to be gained from
328
exchanges between citizens and elected representatives of UK towns that are twinned with towns in the former Yugoslavia, given that these exchanges help to engender mutual understanding and advance our common effort to unite the whole of Europe into one family of democratic nations?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the wise words uttered by the noble Lord. We have no quarrel with the people of Serbia; the quarrel has always been with the Milosevic regime. We have debated this matter in the past, and I believe that the whole House is agreed on that point. Traditionally, twinning has been seen as a social activity that benefits those who take part and is of value to the community, but I believe that the noble Lord is right. There is a deeper potential here that involves educational and economic links, and technical assistance projects.
Lord Judd: My Lords, my noble friend refers to the educational dimension, which is obviously vital to the rehabilitation and reconstruction of post-war Yugoslavia. Are the Government looking with universities and higher education in Britain at what links can be forged there to strengthen a healthy approach to higher education and its values?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are looking across the whole spectrum of activities in the area of reconstruction. The EU is setting up an agency for reconstruction in which the United Kingdom will take an active part. As to reconstruction, the immediate tasks are the provision of emergency relief, rehabilitation, the provision of basic infrastructure, de-mining, the establishment of a proper police force, and so on. But the points that my noble friend makes about the longer term and the value of economic links, particularly educational ones, are very much ones that we take on board. I cannot give my noble friend any direct information about what is happening in the area of further and higher education, but I shall write to him if I am able to glean any further information on that particular aspect.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we recognise the good response that we have received from the World University Service with regard to encouraging links between higher education institutions. However, perhaps I may ask the Minister to go one step further in particular with regard to Serbia. She rightly said that the quarrel is not with the citizens of Serbia, but with its government.
There are two other areas where close twinning could be encouraged. The first is the excellent work being done by the Churches in relation to their links with the Serbian Orthodox Church which, as the noble Baroness knows, rather surprisingly has strongly criticised Mr Milosevic's regime. The second relates to work with the media, in particular the struggling media attempting to be independent of the government

329
in Serbia, where our own media—the BBC apart, which has an excellent reputation—might go a little further to be of real assistance.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. Not only the Orthodox Church, but a number of others in Serbia are now seemingly more prepared to voice their opposition to the Milosevic regime. That is to be welcomed. The work that the Churches have done is well recognised and we wish them well in furthering those endeavours.
On the media issues, we all know that one of the great problems during the recent military action was that the truth was not getting through to the Serbian people about what was being done and the appalling atrocities that were committed on their behalf. We have endeavoured to do what we can to ensure that a truthful story gets to the people of Serbia. For example, we have increased BBC World Service broadcasts to that part of the world. I believe that I have given details in your Lordships' House previously about how that is being done. But a free media in Serbia must be a key in establishing a democratic process. That must be well understood.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, have normal postal services yet been restored to and from Serbia; and, if not, when will they be?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I regret that I am unable to give the noble Lord the information that he requires but I shall endeavour to do so in a letter and shall place a copy in the Library of your Lordships' House.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, following the suggestions already made, does the Minister agree that after the disappearance from the scene of President Milosevic there is much to be said for developing between Yugoslavia and this country something akin to the Königswinter conferences set up with the Germans soon after the Second World War which have had such tremendous success, originally in helping the Germans back to democracy and later in developing mutual understanding between our two countries?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making that extremely interesting suggestion. I stress that any such suggestion could be considered constructively only after the disappearance of Mr Milosevic and those in his regime who have supported what he has done. We must remember that it was not Mr Milosevic alone who supported the appalling atrocities and the ethnic cleansing that we have seen; there have been many who have been only too willing to help him in that endeavour. But once we have seen the back of that regime, I shall convey the noble Lord's interesting suggestion to my ministerial colleagues as one which I believe is well worth considering.

School Milk: EU Subsidy Scheme
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are proposing to take to ensure that both United Kingdom primary schoolchildren and United Kingdom dairy farmers continue to benefit from the European Union school milk subsidy scheme.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister raised the subject at the last Agriculture Council where he received considerable support for our view about the value of the current scheme. I have also been working to improve the take-up of the scheme by local authorities and schools.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Does he accept that there is much work to be done in encouraging schools to take up the scheme? At a time when one in three children go to school without breakfast—this Government are pressing the issue of poverty—and when dairy farmers are in crisis, does the noble Lord believe that bringing together MAFF, the Department of Health and the Department for Education to consider improvement of the diet of our schoolchildren would be desirable? Cheese and yoghurt are available under the scheme but the Government choose not to take it up. Apples and pears are available under another scheme but are being thrown away. That would link Britain's farming industry with the diet of our schoolchildren. How does the Minister propose to encourage those departments to make use of the scheme so that it can be demonstrated to the European Union to work well?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I agree with the thrust of the noble Baroness's argument. One of the first initiatives I launched was to bring together those departments to see how we could advance the school milk programme. We have had regular inter-departmental meetings. We have been in touch with the Intervention Board. The Intervention Board has now taken steps to simplify the procedures. It will issue this week a leaflet to all local authorities explaining the benefits of the scheme and the mechanics of it with a simplified claim form. It has also issued a questionnaire to local authorities and schools to discover how the matter can be improved. So we have done a good deal.
At the June Agriculture Council my honourable friend argued strongly against the Commission's proposals to abolish the scheme and was supported, for instance, by Germany, France, I think Spain, Sweden and Austria, so we have the makings of the support of a qualified majority. As a result of the steps we have already taken, the take-up of school milk has risen since we came to power by upwards of 10 per cent whereas in the last three years of the previous administration it declined by 20 per cent. So we have had considerable success. There

331
is now a 25 per cent take-up in schools. It is a good scheme and we are fighting strongly not only to preserve it in Europe but to increase the take-up here.
I agree with the noble Baroness about the fruit. The regime has been amended a little, so fruit such as apples and pears withdrawn from the market can be distributed to good causes—hospitals and so forth—and schools will be included. The distribution of apples to schools will soon begin.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will be pleased to hear the Minister's response. However, a great deal of work is still to be done. I understand that the subsidy is to be cut by half in September and the whole scheme to be abandoned by July next year. With that in mind, will the Minister consider giving support to such groups as the women's food and farming union which can promote the use of milk within our schools?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, yes, such groups do an excellent job. Indeed, I have met them and they helped me to launch my defence of the scheme. Perhaps I may make it clear that as yet it is a Commission proposal built into the budget. It has not been formally proposed to the Agriculture Council, but when it is we shall strongly resist it and continue to attempt to build up the coalitions, which has been part of our European policy since we took over. We still hope that we shall be able to defeat the proposal.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that while milk is good for children it is now time to consider whether beef on the bone would be better for adults?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that today we are happy to announce that beef exports from Britain will resume. That is another success of the Government's policy. However, as the noble Lord knows, the issue of beef on the bone will shortly arise for consideration and an announcement will be made accordingly.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, what prospects are there for the United Kingdom dairy industry providing milk for schools when the ruling of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on Milk Marque will make it even less remunerative to farmers to keep dairy herds? My local farmer sold his herd simply because last year he produced more milk than he had ever produced and still managed to make a loss.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is true that our dairy industry has serious problems and we do whatever we can to support it. The report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into Milk Marque was an independent report and discovered serious abuses of the monopoly position. It made proposals to break up the industry and for interim measures which would diminish the monopoly of uses in selling practices. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry did
332
not accept the proposals to break up Milk Marque, but has accepted that there should be radical changes in selling practices.
I do not believe that a viable industry should be dependent upon bad monopoly practices. I believe that the industry is good enough to survive without that. It needs to have more and better marketing for more and better dairy products. That is the way of the future.

Electricity Trading Arrangements
2.54 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made in the review of electricity trading arrangements.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the review of the electricity trading arrangements is being led by the DTI and the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. We expect to publish a consultation document at the end of July which will contain details of the proposed new market. Final proposals will be published in the autumn. Legislation to implement the new trading arrangements will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time permits.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he accept that the changes proposed in the electricity market will surpass in their extent and complexity the changes which were introduced during the privatisation of electricity and could therefore affect everyone in this country? Will he further accept that many problems are as yet unresolved; for example, in the case of combined heat and power and renewable energy, in which I declare and interest, the present arrangements would definitely be prejudicial? I know that those matters are under consideration. Has the Minister anything to announce as regards their resolution?
Secondly, and more importantly, will he accept that the new arrangements will require major new computer networks at national system level and at the level of the generating and supply companies? I am sure that he hardly needs to be reminded that the combination of new computer systems at the same time as the introduction of massive new procedures can be a lethal combination. Will the Minister assure the House that, before the arrangements are introduced, the Government will conduct complete cost-benefit and risk analyses, publish them and have them fully debated?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it almost sounds as though the noble Lord is asking me to delay decisions rather than, as is more common, to speed them up. He is right that the issues are complex. We must look after the security of supply, price transparency, sufficiently liquid markets, the impact on combined heat and power and renewables, and the impact on the non-fossil fuel obligations. All those issues have been considered over recent months and will be considered during the consultation period.

333
As regards IT, the noble Lord is again right. It would be most unwise to implement other changes at the same time as devising a new IT system. On the other hand, the IT system that is necessary is basically a trading system, and plenty of examples are already available.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that in the review in question, the whole subject of net metering is investigated in considerable depth, whereby those individuals who currently produce electricity—presently primarily through the use of photovoltaics—are paid the same sum per unit as they pay?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand that that is an additional complication. On the other hand, anyone who seeks to preserve any aspect of the pool operation which we have had for the past nine years, and which was an absurd and perverse result of the way in which privatisation was carried out, needs to think very carefully.

Foxhunting
2.58 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which Ministers and officials have been in contact with the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) or the Political Animal Lobby to discuss policy on foxhunting and whether they will publish the memorandum of 21st May 1999 from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, Mr George Howarth, reporting a telephone conversation with the director of IFAW.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, as is appropriate and as part of their work. Ministers and officials have met—and will continue to meet—interested parties from all sides of the debate. As has already been made public, officials at 10 Downing Street held a meeting last Tuesday with representatives of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the League Against Cruel Sports and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. That followed previous meetings with the Countryside Alliance and other interested parties. Foxhunting was among a number of animal welfare issues which were discussed. As the noble Lord will recall, internal working papers on policy matters are not routinely published.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for going some way towards removing the veil of secrecy on what has been happening within government. Does he agree that the antagonistic policies of the Government towards those in the countryside would be more easily understood if they were rationally driven rather than financially driven?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, They are not financially driven at all. If we want to go into financially
334
driven policies of the previous government I am happy to spend a few hours doing that. One of the contributions given was by the Political Animal Lobby. That was published in our 1997 accounts. The recent donation has also been made public. That was £100,000. This morning I looked at a copy of the Daily Telegraph dated November 1997 and saw that the same lobby had given the Conservative Party almost £170,000.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, as regards foxhunting, can the Minister clear up a little confusion concerning the statement made by the Prime Minister last week on "Question Time"? He said that the Private Member's Bill had been blocked partly by the House of Lords. Surely we all recollect that that Bill never got to the House of Lords. Why did the Prime Minister mislead his audience? Was it ignorance?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is right in his recollection, which coincides with mine.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it has been commonplace for the animal lobby, in particular the IFAW, to donate moneys to all political parties; that the Labour Party has never been shy about publicising donations that have been made to it, unlike the party opposite; and that it is only by virtue of pressure that this information has become known about the Conservative Party? Does he also agree that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, seems to have a penchant for the sinister even when things are not sinister?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that has never been my experience of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. He and I are always on the best possible personal terms. I always regard his interventions as designed to be personally helpful to me.
Of course, pressure groups donate money. The important thing is that it is done openly. I remind your Lordships that over a period of 11 months the Home Secretary wrote six letters to various dignitaries in the Conservative Party asking about the donation from Mr Ma, otherwise known as Mr "white powder" Ma, presently residing in Taiwan.
Lord Renton: My Lords, would the Government hear in mind that foxes are very destructive of poultry and game and that therefore their numbers must be controlled? Killing foxes by trapping or poisoning is illegal and, incidentally, very cruel because they do not die at once. Shooting foxes and wounding them if they are missed causes gangrene, which is a horrible death. By contrast they are killed at once when hunted and hounds close in on them. Hunting is, therefore, the most certain and least cruel way of killing foxes.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have heard that view expressed in the past. I know that there are contrary views. Some, for instance, think that chasing an animal to exhaustion and tearing it to pieces is morally

335
unacceptable and, indeed, reprehensible. That is a quotation from a helpful article put in the Observer last Sunday by Miss Ann Widdecombe.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, moving away from the more gory and controversial elements of this issue, and given the obvious and very serious pressures on the Government's legislative programme, when and why did foxhunting become the major priority?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is not properly described as the major priority of the Government. The noble Lord will well recall that in our manifesto we stated that there would be a free vote on this issue, and we have fulfilled that. As the Prime Minister stated quite clearly, the present position is that the Government are actively considering how to take the issue forward and hope to make an announcement on specific proposals soon.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if this matter comes before this House, and for that matter, another place, there will be a free vote for all Members of our party, both Front Bench and Back Bench? Will it be the same for the Labour Party? Speaking for myself, I regard a ban on hunting as an unacceptable infringement of personal freedom. As my noble friend indicated, it will lead to greater suffering for foxes and other animals, plus a serious loss of jobs and amenities.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I would expect there to be a free vote in the Labour Party. Indeed, I hope that the shadow Home Secretary will have freedom of expression to express her views; but I understand that at the moment she has been banned.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, can the Minister advise the House of the extent to which the organisations which are campaigning against what they call cruel sports are now directing their attention towards the shooting of birds and the catching of fish? More importantly, what attention have the Government given to such activities?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this is part of a continuing dialogue and debate. In a free society people are entitled to have views even if I, personally, or indeed the rest of the Government, disagree with them.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Donner: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the cause of animal welfare would be better served by the Freedom of Information Act being able to give out information freely on what happens in animal laboratories?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is an extremely rigorous regime regarding animal experimentation. The Animal Procedures Committee, which is a statutory body, is an excellent committee. The statute forbids the disclosure of certain information.
336
I can tell your Lordships that the number of experiments carried out under licence in this country is lower than it has been since the early 1950s.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, further to the supplementary question by the noble Lord, Lord, Tebbit, is my noble friend aware that the Fireworks Bill, which is a Private Member's Bill with the aim of improving the safety of fireworks for the prevention of accidents to children, was amended in this House with the sole aim of preventing the anti-foxhunting Bill introduced by Mike Foster from making progress in the other place?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have heard that suggestion, but I do not think that it derogates from the underlying point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that I am pleased to hear that I can carry on fishing? Can he guarantee that Scottish Members of the other place, who will not be able to legislate on this matter in Scotland, will not be voting to ban, or indeed not to ban, foxhunting in England?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am pleased to hear that the noble Lord will be able to carry on fishing. Since the last election he has had more time, of course.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the apparent change in stated government policy, as given by the Prime Minister on "Question Time", was first cleared through the Cabinet?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it would riot need to be cleared because there has not been a change.

Business of the House: Northern Ireland Motions
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This Motion follows the Business Motion that I moved yesterday and is similar to the one I moved on 1st July. The purpose is to ensure that if the process in Northern Ireland goes as hoped, the final necessary secondary legislation can be laid before the House arid taken on this coming Friday. Whenever the legislation is timed there will clearly not be time for the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to report on it as it held its meeting for this week on Tuesday in the normal way.
The second limb of the Motion I move today, to suspend Standing Order 70, therefore allows a Motion to approve any secondary legislation laid before the House tomorrow or on Friday to be taken notwithstanding that the Joint Committee has not had the opportunity to report on it to the House.

337
The first part of my Motion today allows an order laid on Friday to be debated on Friday, as is anticipated. The Motion is purely an enabling Motion and if no order is laid, or if it is laid on Thursday, normal procedures will apply. I am sure it will be of interest to your Lordships to know that the Motion has the full consent of the usual channels and, as we have agreed, the Cross-Bench Peers have, once again, been consulted on this important issue.
Moved, That in the event that one or more statutory instruments relating to Northern Ireland are laid before the House tomorrow or on Friday next, a Motion or Motions to approve them may, notwithstanding the practice of the House, be moved that day without notice; and that Standing Order 70 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with to enable the Motion or Motions to be taken, notwithstanding that no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the instruments has been laid before the House.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Bill
3.10 p.m.
Brought from the Commons, and printed pursuant to Standing Order 48; read a first time.
Then Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of yesterday):
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Northern Ireland Bill, has consented to place her prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Once again we are bringing Northern Ireland legislation before your Lordships with little respect for the usual timetables. Let me acknowledge at the start the inconvenience to your Lordships in this. It is justifiable only when we consider what is at stake. As the Prime Minister has said, we have here the best hope for peace in Northern Ireland in a generation, but that prospect cannot be expected to last indefinitely. If momentum is not maintained, the process risks falling apart. That is why such a demanding timescale was set by the Prime Minister and Taoiseach in their statement of 2nd July, which is scheduled to the Bill, and that is the timescale within which the Bill has had to be prepared and put to your Lordships.
What the statement and this Bill are about is giving effect to the Good Friday agreement. Whatever we do, we have to remain consistent with that agreement. We cannot dictate in this House or in another place that particular political arrangements will operate in
338
Northern Ireland. They will operate only by the consent of political representatives in each community there. The Good Friday agreement represented, after decades of negotiation, a basis for such consent. There is no alternative basis in view. That is why we have to work within the agreement.
What the Bill aims to do is give both communities confidence that they can move forward by providing that, if their fears come to pass and a key player defaults on commitments, they will end up, through suspension, in no worse position than they are in now and that the default and the defaulter will be clearly identified. A review, involving the two governments and the Northern Ireland parties, must then agree how to put the arrangements back together again.
We are fully aware, of course, of the reservations that the Bill has engendered. We have heard them in Northern Ireland and we heard them expressed, often with passion, in another place last night. We put forward the arrangements that appear in the Bill because they seemed to us to be the best formulation we could arrive at to meet the mistrust and reservations on both sides of the community—and I emphasise to your Lordships that there are concerns on both sides. However, we claim no monopoly on wisdom. We are reflecting carefully on what was said in another place and we will reflect on what your Lordships say. If it is possible to improve the Bill, consistent with the Good Friday agreement, we will of course do so.
We have come a very long way in Northern Ireland since Good Friday 1998; we should not let ourselves think that all has been deadlock. Parties are now engaging with each other far more closely than before. There are welcome signs of closer engagement elsewhere in the community, too. That has been reflected in the dialogue and restraint on marches, which has meant that the grave disturbances of recent years have, mercifully, not been repeated this year. I think we should pay tribute to the efforts that the Orange Order, with the residents' groups, has made to ensure that the marches have so far passed off relatively peacefully.
On the substance of the political dispute, we are narrowing the gap all the time. However, we have not bridged it. With the passage of time, mistrust in both communities grows—both over the formation of a genuinely inclusive executive and over decommissioning. That is why it is urgent to achieve progress now.
The latest discussions began in Belfast on 25th June when three key 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 the decommissioning should be carried out in a manner determined by the Independent Commission on Decommissioning under General John de Chastelain.
On 2nd July, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach put forward new proposals based on those agreed principles. Under the proposals, the d'Hondt process to nominate Ministers in a new Northern Ireland executive should be run tomorrow. We should bring before your Lordships on Friday an order to bring about devolution. Devolution of powers would take effect from

339
18th July—that is, Sunday. General de Chastelain's commission would then set out the steps required and the modalities for achieving by May next year total decommissioning by all paramilitary groups. Within days of devolution, the process of decommissioning is to begin as specified by the commission. There should be a start to actual decommissioning within a few weeks. The commission is due to report progress in September, December and May, but it could make other reports if commitments were not being fulfilled. If there were a default at the beginning of the timetable, the commission could make a report without delay.
We have to underpin these arrangements with guarantees, and that is what the Bill does. It cannot give what some would see as ideal guarantees because they are not attainable. It does all that is practicably possible to ensure that no-one is worse off than they are now because of a failure by someone else to honour their commitments. Under the Bill, if commitments are breached, either on decommissioning or on devolution, the institutions set up by the agreement will be suspended.
Therefore. the Bill responds to the Unionist need for certainty that they will not have to sit in an executive with others if commitments on decommissioning and the sequence that I have set out are not met. However, it also responds to the need of nationalists and republicans for certainty that there really will be an inclusive administration. As a result of the way in which the Bill is structured, the failure to honour commitments is clearly identified—there will be no doubt who is responsible, which is fundamental to the overall approach. I will touch on the key points of the failsafe in the Bill.
Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the automatic and immediate suspension of the operation of the institutions established under the agreement if either decommissioning or devolution commitments are not met. In the case of decommissioning, the trigger is a report from the decommissioning commission 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. Northern Ireland Ministers will cease to hold office and all legislative and executive functions during, the suspension period will revert to Westminster, just as under direct rule.
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. The British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference will remain in place, but without the participation of Northern Ireland Ministers. A review, under the terms of the Belfast agreement, will begin as soon as practicable after the suspension, as set out in Clause 1(4).
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 would be within seven days
340
of suspension, without taking a vote. The second would be within seven days of the end of the review when the Assembly would 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. Since these bodies will have continuing administrative functions, it would not be practicable to freeze them immediately. However, during the suspension, the governments will not confer any new functions or policy directions on the bodies, nor will they establish new bodies. The draft treaty makes clear that the two governments will agree new arrangements to transfer the bodies' functions to the relevant departments in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic within a maximum of four months unless the suspension is ended. The Bill reflects that in a statutory duty on the Secretary of State.
The Bill is not a perfect solution. But it seems to us the best approach available in the circumstances. There are a number of issues that worry many in Northern Ireland, in another place and no doubt among your Lordships, and I should like to turn to those.
First, there is the issue of exclusion from ministerial office. The Bill means that if anyone fails to meet their commitments on either decommissioning or devolution the executive will not continue. That is categorical, automatic and immediate. I acknowledge that this is hard on the parties which are not in default. But it is wrong to portray it as a punishment; they are no worse off than they are now.
What we cannot do is form a new executive ourselves. As I have said, the devolved arrangements in Northern Ireland are only possible with a sufficient measure of consent between the parties. That is why we cannot prescribe automatic exclusion, which is inconsistent with the agreement. There would be no basis under the Good Friday agreement for continuing unless an executive, with representatives of both communities, could be formed.
The Bill remits the question of what to do after a suspension to a review, as prescribed in the Good Friday agreement. And the assembly finally decides the exclusion question. The meeting which the Bill requires after the review would be able to take the necessary action. In the end, whichever approach we adopt, everything turns on the same question—whether the parties themselves, on both sides of the community, are willing to go ahead without a party that has failed to honour its commitments. Realistically, any arrangements for devolution in Northern Ireland need support from the major parties on both sides of the community.
On a timetable for decommissioning, which is another understandable concern of many people, the agreement is absolutely clear. The Independent Commission on

341
Decommissioning under General de Chastelain is given a key role. In its report of 2nd 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 22 May 2000".
Thirdly, I know how difficult the issue of prisoners is for many people. The release scheme itself was for many the most unpalatable part of the agreement last April. Those who have suffered at the hands of terrorists, in Northern Ireland, in Great Britain, indeed among your Lordships, may feel this more than anyone. But again we must come back to the Good Friday agreement. Under the agreement, release of prisoners is linked to the maintenance of paramilitary ceasefires. This is reflected in the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. The Act provides that one of the factors the Secretary of State must take into account in judging whether ceasefires have been maintained is whether organisations benefiting are "co-operating fully" with the decommissioning commission.
The Secretary of State said yesterday—at col. 180 of the Official Report— that in the overall judgments she must make about whether the ceasefires are holding, she would pay increasingly close attention to the extent to which an organisation was co-operating with the commission. The test would become tougher as time went on.
It may be helpful to the House if I add a point which arose during Question Time in another place. It was raised by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Government have listened carefully to the debate in the other place yesterday, especially to the valuable contribution made to that debate by the right honourable Members for Upper Bann and for Huntingdon. The Government are considering making a series of amendments to the legislation in the light of what those two speeches contained. We shall be bringing forward those amendments in time for the debate tomorrow. I hope that is helpful to your Lordships.
We all recognise the difficulties the Northern Ireland parties face in moving forward from the present position. We have tried to give them as much comfort as we can in the Bill. We have not made it entirely easy for them, because we cannot. We cannot guarantee a smooth ride for everyone who fulfils their commitments if the process goes ahead now. But let us reflect on the advances decommissioning will bring. We will have all the Good Friday agreement institutions, and people in Northern Ireland will together take control of their affairs. We shall also have the constitutional changes, British and Irish; the principle of consent will be written into our law, and in the Irish Constitution, where it replaces the old Articles 2 and 3; and we shall have an expectation of decommissioning, which must very quickly be fulfilled.
There is a risk of failure. But we have provided what guarantees we could, and they are substantial ones. Suspension may seem harsh, but an innocent party is no worse off after a default on commitments by someone else
342
than now. And the consequences of not moving forward to devolution on this basis seem to us to be far worse. It would mean there is no prospect of decommissioning; direct rule continues; the constitutional changes are not made; and the coming together we have seen in Northern Ireland in the past two years, admittedly still imperfect, risks breaking apart.
That is not an inviting outlook. The Bill offers the chance of something far better. In the worst case, it risks no worse than we have now, but success means putting Northern Ireland on to a new and better path that so many people have sought for so long. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Dubs.)
3.26 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear and explicit description of the Bill and I welcome his statement, reflecting what the Prime Minister said in the other place, that the Government are seriously considering a series of amendments. In the light of that, I sincerely hope that some of what I am about to say will be redundant by tomorrow night.
In opening, I wish to make it clear that this party shares the Government's objectives and is still very much part of the bipartisan agreement, as was made clear by my right honourable friend Mr Mackay in another place several times last night. However, we have always reserved the right, as the Official Opposition, to criticise the Government when we thought that they were getting it wrong. There were some parts of the Good Friday agreement that we found unpalatable, as did many other noble Lords and people in the country; the early release of prisoners being one. But we supported and congratulated the Prime Minister on his commitment and achievement there.
Since the Good Friday agreement, the Government have followed a different route from that which we would have taken. Nevertheless we still support the Government, despite—the noble Lord also referred to an improvement in this—the Secretary of State's determination to continue using her "Nelsonian" eye when appraising continuing violence in relation to the cessation of prisoner releases. I am glad that she will toughen up on that.
Today might have been a day of rejoicing for all who have been involved in Northern Ireland affairs over the past 30 years, including 1.5 million of my fellow countrymen. But alas I fear that the Bill before us will fail the test of time unless it is very significantly changed. Why do I say that? The Bill had to address the most difficult problem of all to come out of the Good Friday agreement and the ongoing peace process: decommissioning and devolution of power. As I have said before in the House, Ulster people deserve a return to democracy. They want a devolved parliament, but not at any cost. The Bill is supposed to deliver that.
Democracy is about elected government without guns. Sinn Fein/IRA has been successful in the use of the bomb and the ballot box. That strategy must be stopped, and we cannot condone the Government's

343
insistence, which I hope is weakening, that David Trimble and the Unionist Party and other democratic parties must sit down with Sinn Fein before a single commitment to decommissioning has been made by any of the paramilitaries.
The Bill is the product of a less successful hot-housing set of negotiations at Stormont, led by the Prime Minister, with his colleague the Taoiseach to hand. The Prime Minister was weary after Kosovo and became more so as the negotiations dragged on. His determination, commitment and stamina were truly remarkable, and we thank him for them.
However, the truth about those sessions is that even the Prime Minister, with all his negotiating skills, was unable to move Sinn Fein on decommissioning. In order for devolution to work successfully, all parties concerned must be equal. The democrats must be safeguarded from the private armies. The Prime Minister has promised on several occasions—in the other place, at Stormont, on television and in newspaper articles—that he would not expect the Democrats in the Northern Ireland Assembly to share power with parties still backed by fully armed private armies. He has also promised that the Bill will provide a cast-iron fail-safe against that happening. I suggest that at this moment this Bill does no such thing.
We have repeatedly asked—and I take this opportunity again to thank the noble Lord and his colleagues for their courtesy in giving us the opportunity to comment on the Bill before it was printed and to discuss it with their officials—for only three points, with which my right honourable friend attempted to amend the Bill in another place last night. They are: a clear and transparent timetable during which period decommissioning has to take place, with automatic suspension if these obligations are not fulfilled; a clause which would automatically require the assembly to debate the exclusion of Sinn Fein in the event of the IRA refusing to decommission its arms and explosives; and a halt to the early release of terrorist prisoners if any of the paramilitaries—republican or loyalist—fail to decommission. I hope that some of that will be coming forward tomorrow in amendments hinted at by the noble Lord the Minister.
The fact that the Government were unable to accept any of those amendments last night makes me very suspicious and wonder why. If any of them had been accepted, I wonder who would have left the party.
The Bill, while legislating for decommissioning, delegates to General de Chastelain's independent commission the decision-making process. It does not even today provide a start date for the trigger mechanisms, let alone a programme that it can be judged against objectively; there are no benchmarks in the Bill or even attached to it in a schedule. What is more, that international commission is not open to judicial review.
The Bill provides no method whereby the Democratic parties, if they so decide, can, for example, continue the devolved process with the SDLP and without Sinn Fein. That seems very hard on the Democrats and the democratic process. Why should not Mr Hume and the SDLP feel a little of the pressure that Mr Trimble has been feeling for a year and a bit?
344
The Bill provides no sanctions or incentives for the loyalist paramilitaries to decommission, with the deterrent of prisoner releases. Again, why should the republicans be penalised in this, if there is absolutely no incentive or sanction in the Bill to persuade Loyalist paramilitaries to decommission?
Despite these criticisms, we still want to see inclusive, devolved government in Northern Ireland. We will continue to support the Government in their marathon efforts to bring about decommissioning. But? although we will not vote against the Bill tonight, we will continue to try to persuade the Government of their duty to support the democratic principle against terrorism; and remind the Prime Minister that he cannot off-load his Government's responsibilities onto an independent commission, as he appears to be doing here: he appears to be using General de Chastelain's independent commission as sole arbiter of the start, the progress and the finality of the decommissioning process. This is a highly political process and that is not the place where these decisions and this responsibility should ultimately lie. I believe that too much is being asked of this fine military gentleman, and that the Bill provides no safeguards. It is open to fudge and needs seriously amending. We on this side of the House will shortly be putting down amendments which we hope to debate tomorrow.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord the Minister, Lord Dubs, and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, have paid tribute to those in all the democratic parties who have laboured mightily over at least three years to produce a devolved structure of governance of great promise. widely supported and solidly based as we hoped it would be. The general aim was that such a permanent and enduring structure would provide a meaningful role for all the truly democratic parties, depending, of course, on the ballot box alone and not augmented, as other organisations are, by the Armalite.
But this wholly destructive Bill, a Bill of 10 pages, obliterates all that we thought we had achieved. The bulldozer is specified at the very beginning, in the Long Title, and in Schedule 2, which records that the two Governments have agreed to:
"suspend the operation of the institutions set up by the Agreement"—
the Good Friday agreement. The Long Title states that the Bill is to,
"Make provision for the suspension in certain circumstances of devolved government in Northern Ireland".
In the light of that sentence, perhaps the title of the Bill should have been "An Act of Vandalism".
The last occasion on which the Parliament: of the United Kingdom so indulged itself was in 1972, when it suspended and within a year obliterated the Stormont devolved government and parliament, all in one day. So there is a precedent for what we are doing now.
Twenty-seven years on, we are today invited to approve the mechanism to suspend Stormont's successor even before its first formal meeting. The

345
Secretary of State said in another place that the Bill is therefore an insurance policy. I fail to see the logic of that. The suspension contained in the Bill is fragile, flawed and unfair. Those very serious defects spring from the fact that the Bill destroys the concept of a coalition as most of us understand it, which normally would permit any element to withdraw, or even disqualify itself, without endangering the coalition as a whole. The Bill clearly specifies that if any maverick party or group were to be automatically suspended or to withdraw then, in other words, the innocent and the guilty would be equally punished. I am afraid that the Government in certain times of irresponsibility have seemed to lean towards penalising the innocent.
This calls to mind that little jingle:
"The rain, it raineth on the just
And also on the unjust fella:
But chiefly on the just, because
The unjust steals the just's umbrella".
David Trimble might feel a bit like that.
There is ample evidence, too, that spin doctors are beavering away under that guideline. Already David Trimble, leader of my party, who has made 15 concessions in 15 months and who has endangered his leadership position within the party, is being cast in the role of the villain of the piece, while Mr Adams can apparently not even spell the little word "Yes".
Clause 1 of the Bill contains a truly breathtaking provision to initiate a review, not just of the procedures up to now but of the agreement itself. In effect, it seems to be providing for a post-mortem before the death of the new government. That can hardly be regarded as a "confidence-building measure"—a phrase so much beloved of the Northern Ireland Office in the past year or so.
We understand that the review body will consist of the two governments, the White House (when it has time) and the Northern Ireland parties. So I suppose we can only hope that, if all of those diverse bodies can be herded into a compound and starved of sleep for days and nights on end, somehow or other they will manage to invent at least a few promising new phrases.
Yesterday in another place the Secretary of State stated that the nationalists, republicans and Unionists require certainty, and then went on to add that this Bill provides that certainty. I agree that they deserve certainty and therefore it would be sensible and constructive not to make the suspension order today. I simply do not understand why senior Ministers keep quoting phrases like, "Give peace a chance" and "move to a secure future" on the very day when we have a self-destruct Bill before us. Another phrase is, "We will never know whether terrorists will disarm if we refuse to put them to the test"; that has been current this past week.
That latter sentence compels me to deal, regretfully, with a very sensitive subject. It may be defensible to tell the general public that they will never know whether or not terrorists will disarm unless we put them to the test. But senior Ministers are not in that category; they are not the general public. They know the answer to that
346
question already. For example, they know that the IRA brigade in the southern areas of Northern Ireland has already made its decision—though they have not announced it—to reject decommissioning now and at any time in the future. As most noble Lords know, members of that brigade of the provisional IRA are not defectors; they are not break-away mavericks; they are the most dominant element in the terrorist operations in relation to Northern Ireland and even England.
I said that senior Ministers are aware of that decision, but it is possible I was being unfair to them. It is just possible that crucial information is being withheld from senior Ministers. I know from long experience since 1972 that there are examples where former Ministers found that certain intelligence services had their own separate agendas, even in the political and constitutional fields. In times past I have known the same intelligence sources to ask their CIA counterparts' question: "Shall we tell the President?".
I cannot believe that senior Ministers in Her Majesty's Government would be taking such hideous risks for peace and stability if they had in their possession information to which others already had access. They may therefore feel it prudent to take a raincheck before incurring any further risks, and thus perhaps even at this late stage of this legislation, prevent terrorists from doing lasting damage to ' all the achievements to which the Minister paid tribute.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and I shall never forget, for my part, that it was he who, for the first time for several years, led his party's negotiating team down to Dublin in the talks in 1992. That was an act of imagination and courage with which I associate the noble Lord. I always felt it was a thousand pities that those talks came to an end at the time and for the reason that they did.
However, I respectfully differ from him in the suggestion he made that the security forces, any of them, would wilfully conceal material from the government of the day. My experience—for what it is worth—leads me to be confident that there is no risk of that.
It is easy to understand and to sympathise with the fact that the Government are feeling something near desperation in that this settlement, for which they have laboured for so long and with such commitment, now seems so tantalisingly close and yet remains at great risk. They laboured long and not without substantial success, the most recent of which is the Drumcree experience of which, in my time, I have vivid memories and experience.
This Bill is evidence of the Government's understandable desperation and merits close attention. In these circumstances there must be a great temptation to apply yet further pressure to the only quarter in which such pressure has yielded positive results since the Good Friday agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, referred to the concessions made by Mr. Trimble. It is a pity that the Bill as at present constructed seeks to apply yet further pressure on the Ulster Unionists led by

347
Mr. Trimble, who is self-evidently at risk as has already been suggested. The concessions he made and the courage and imagination he demonstrated are factors which in my time I would have laid long odds against and they are greatly to his credit. It is therefore dangerous to apply further pressure in that quarter.
The pressure seems to be to go one step further; that is, sit down in the Executive with the representatives of Sinn Fein, never mind that the IRA has not decommissioned or even said that it will decommission to any great extent. That is the pressure that is being exerted, even though the IRA—as Her Majesty's Government acknowledge—is the terrorist organisation to which Sinn Fein is inextricably linked.
Yet the IRA has fiercely—and it must be said successfully—defended its arsenals and kept them intact. The IRA has demanded its place in the democratic executive while remaining backed by every item of weaponry and its massive destructive force.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, before the noble Lord continues—like many of his noble friends—simply to address this issue as anti-IRA, may I ask him this? When did the UVF, the UDA, the ULA or any Unionist organisation give a promise of decommissioning?
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, one Unionist organisation of that character has already begun decommissioning. The important point is that that did not result in it being told: "You have egg on your face. You have surrendered. You have laid down on your back". It decommissioned through General de Chastelain's commission and in consequence its leaders have been treated as statesmen. We are asking that that admirable example be followed by the IRA and other so-called "loyalist" organisations. But this is part of the harm of the structure of this Bill. The noble Lord looks surprised, but I can assure him that it is true.
What seems to me to be part of the harmful character of the structure of this Bill is that the only sanction it proposes is the suspension of the institution set up for devolved government in Northern Ireland. Those institutions, as all noble Lords will be aware, were sought as a prize by Unionists in particular. If the Government suspend the Executive and the Assembly they deprive those who are not at fault of that for which they have worked and secured as a prize. For the loyalist paramilitary organisations and their political parties it is no skin off their nose if those organisations are suspended because they are not represented on them, so that will not induce them to decommission.
Some people will say that the IRA cannot be expected to decommission if the loyalists are not doing so. The IRA will say that it has to protect its people. I can imagine those comments only too readily. I respectfully suggest that one harmful feature of the Bill is that the only sanction is the suspension of the devolved organisations. That will not influence the remaining loyalist organisations that have yet to decommission.
Another reason why the proposals are harmful is that there is no failsafe factor. They are not safe and they are not just. They are not just because they penalise the
348
innocent as well as those who are in default and they are not safe for the same reason. Penalising the innocent will give rise to resentment among the Unionist community in Northern Ireland at a time when we need to minimise resentment rather than exacerbate it. It is important for the Government to look for other means to secure compliance by the IRA. I took great heart from what the Minister said towards the end of his speech. I trust that my comments will encourage the Government to move in the direction that he suggested and will not lead them to change their mind.
The theme of the Bill is justifiable in certain circumstances and for a brief period. However, there must be genuine failsafe mechanisms that operate automatically. The Bill needs the same clarity and starkness that characterised the Prime Minister's assurances to Unionists at the time of the Good Friday agreement and the referendum and more recently. They are too well known and too numerous to need reciting today.
There has to be a penalty for default that will bear on the guilty automatically—a penalty that will hurt. All that we have at the moment is the automatic availability of a mechanism. We do not have the automatic operation of that mechanism. Anyone who has even glanced at the Bill knows that the mechanism can be operated only if there is a 60 per cent majority for it in the Assembly. Of course we accept the assurances of Mr Hume and Mr Mallon that they will not sit down with those who rely on terrorists, but we have not heard whether the SDLP would continue to sit on the Executive if Sinn Fein was expelled.
There is no precise timetable for compliance. Given the independence of General de Chastelain, that cannot yet be achieved, so there is no failsafe. That leaves halting the early release of prisoners as the only option. That would be an effective deterrent. It is significant how promptly Martin McGuinness denounced the Government for even thinking of it, as apparently they were doing, and warned them off any such notion. Why should he do that if the IRA was planning to decommission?
Halting the early release of prisoners can be achieved consistently with the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. On the entitlement to early release and the maintenance of a ceasefire upon which that depends, the Act tells the Secretary of State to take into account whether an organisation is co-operating fully with the de Chastelain commission. Clause 1(1)(a)(ii) of the Bill makes failure to co-operate with the commission by not taking any step required by it a matter that would result in automatic suspension. Why could it not also result in the automatic halting of prisoner release if that failure to co-operate persists?
The Government ignore at their peril—and perhaps no less importantly at the peril of the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party—the public's resentment at the continuance in the present circumstances of early release. It is seen as inconsistent with anything other than a discreditable explanation. That can be readily overcome by an amendment of the sort that I hope and believe the Minister held out promise of a few minutes ago.

349
In conclusion, I have greatly admired most of what the Government have done in Northern Ireland and I greatly admire the personal qualities of my successor. I have not kept my admiration under a bushel. However, I have always differed with the Government on prisoners. It is only because of my firm adherence to the Good Friday agreement and to the objective that it is intended to serve that I find my disagreement on that score at its sharpest tonight.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, at the risk of repeating myself, let me say that the Bill is about one issue alone: the decommissioning of arms. That issue should have been settled before the agreement was signed. It is beyond my comprehension why it was not. If it had been dealt with there would be no need for the Bill because all the other issues in it would be settled by now. That has been an obstacle ever since the signing of the agreement.
I am not a unionist. I have opposed Unionist politicians all my political life, but I understand their fears, occasioned by the murder of 302 policemen and many members of the British Army, and incidents of indiscriminate murder carried out by the IRA and by loyalists. Many members of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland have been cruelly murdered by loyalist paramilitary forces. There is no difference between decommissioning of the IRA and of loyalist paramilitaries.
I have been looking back over my many years in politics. An attempt is now being made to bring about inclusive government in Northern Ireland—a government containing Catholics and Protestants, unionists and nationalists. I have been through that experience. Brian Faulkner, the last Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, engaged with me and the SDLP at Sunningdale. We brought about an inclusive Executive, representing all the nationalist and unionist opinions in Northern Ireland. That experience was brought cruelly crashing to the ground by the activities of the loyalist paramilitaries, ably aided and abetted by the IRA terrorists. During the five-month existence of that Executive, the IRA was bombing and murdering every day in collusion with loyalist paramilitary organisations. The paramilitaries on both sides brought the agreement to the ground.
It is interesting to look back because the man now under siege in attempting to bring about an inclusive, all-party government is none other than David Trimble. In 1973, David Trimble was a member of an extreme Unionist party called Vanguard. He was using all his political ability to prevent the Sunningdale Executive from coming into being. I am delighted that he is now using all his energies to try to create that which he helped to break down in 1973 and 1974. I believe that David Trimble is genuinely trying to create a system of government in Northern Ireland that will be inclusive of nationalists and unionists. I know that there will be great difficulties in doing so. Those difficulties cannot be ignored.
350
In the executive envisaged by this legislation, there will be four parties. There will be the DUP, who are anti-agreement, and the UUP, who are pro-agreement. Sinn Fein will be called in, and there will be the SDLP. Given all the history of Ireland, and all the bitterness, suspicion and distrust we have had for hundreds of years, can one imagine those 10 people sitting around a table? I believe that the answer is yes. I have sat down with Unionists, who were my former political opponents, in an executive, and we found a good deal in common. Perhaps we had something which present people do not have. I had been a Member of the Opposition at Stormont when there was a Unionist Government. When the Executive was created, we knew each other because we had been parliamentary adversaries. The same criteria do not apply this time, so they will find it even more difficult.
I have listened to Sinn Fein say that David Trimble does not want Catholics or Fenians in the executive. I do not believe that that is right. I believe that he wants to bring about a community government in Northern Ireland and that he has had very little help from this Government. David Trimble is in a very tricky position. His executive—the people who combine to form the Unionist party—may reject him as the leader of the party if he appears to be settling for what is proposed.
The question has been asked as to what would happen if there were to be exclusion. I have heard General de Chastelain lauded to the high heavens on the basis of what a good fellow he is, with a good record, including a good war record. What has he been doing for these past four or five years? Why has he not made some approaches to people in possession of illegal arms over that period? Why can he not tell the Government that he has ensured that there will be decommissioning? He does not live in an ivory tower in Northern Ireland. He does not sit there with his other two colleagues, not taking in the impressions of everyone else. He must surely meet government Ministers. He must surely meet civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office. They are bound to have had the odd drink at a golf club somewhere in Northern Ireland. They are bound to run into each other. Then the Government say, "We can't talk. We don't know him at all. He is independent". I believe that it is incumbent upon General de Chastelain to do something now to try to get us out of what is an awful political position.
It is all about trust in Northern Ireland. I listened to some speeches in the other place yesterday. The Unionists have their backs to the wall. I remember going into Stormont in the early 1960s. At that time, Northern Ireland was a one-party state. The Unionists never brooked any opposition. They ran the whole show themselves. They never found themselves in any great difficulty when having to negotiate with their political opponents. That is why they find themselves in such a weak position now. Unionism has totally and absolutely splintered. I think that they admit that themselves. PR has been an absolute disaster for the party and its beliefs. In those circumstances, it is up to those people who see the advent of an executive to do everything they can to ensure that David Trimble is not brought crashing to the ground.

351
As I said, I listened to the debate yesterday. The Unionists now see themselves as being lectured to by the SDLP and being threatened by Sinn Fein and the IRA. At the moment, it looks to the Unionists as if there is a pan-nationalist front against them. Their backs are to the wall. Sinn Fein, the SDLP, the Irish Government, led by the Taoiseach, and Irish-American opinion have a good many representatives running around Belfast at the moment, all putting pressure on the Unionist leader, David Trimble.
Before there can be any hope of peace in Northern Ireland, it must be accepted that there are two communities. There cannot be victory for one over the other. You cannot defeat one and have triumph for the other. It must be realised that there is a unionist community in Northern Ireland. Its members are of Protestant background. They are not of the majority religion in Northern Ireland, but they are there and there they will stay. If we are ever to have any hope, that fact must be taken into consideration.
Over the past months, I have heard it said, "If you do not accept the Government's proposals, do you want to go back to what has been happening over the past 30 years?" Let us analyse that for a moment. We are asking ourselves whether we want to go back to the murder, mayhem, the killing of policemen and soldiers, and the bombing of Belfast, Manchester and London. There is an implied threat there, is there not? That threat is coming from the IRA: "If you don't do what we want, we will go hack to killing soldiers and policemen." I believe that to make any further concessions to the IRA under that threat would be a denial of every democratic concept we have. We must not allow ourselves to be placed in that position.
What would happen if Sinn Fein were to be excluded because the IRA had not decommissioned? This decommissioning is so symbolic. If the IRA wants to see an inclusive executive and wants two Sinn Fein members sitting on that executive, it could make a gesture by giving up some semtex. I would like to see it give up everything. It has no need to give up its revolvers and rifles and other paramilitary equipment. But semtex is an offensive weapon. It has nothing at all to do with bringing about an agreement in Northern Ireland. The IRA could make that gesture—a gesture which, I believe, would meet with the approval of its own supporters.
If the IRA is excluded and does not make any moves to bring about decommissioning, what will the executive do? There will be an automatic exclusion. I agree with everything that has been said. If the IRA refuses to decommission, then the Secretary of State can wipe out the whole executive, and the guilty will be there with the innocent. That is an extremely unfair threat to hold over the democratic parties in Northern Ireland. What would the SDLP do? The noble and learned Lord, the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has asked that question, as have many others. I predict—and I am a former SDLP member—that John Hume, the leader of the SDLP, will in no circumstances desert Sinn Fein. John Hume drove Sinn Fein from the political
352
gutter and gave it credibility in Northern Ireland. I cannot foresee any circumstances in which the SDLP will desert Sinn Fein.
There are other people in the SDLP. The SDLP is not unanimous in its support of Sinn Fein. There could he a split in Sinn Fein. There could be a split in the SDLP over its attitude to Sinn Fein. I know many SDLP members who detest Sinn Fein. Some of them have actually spoken in this House. But having brought Sinn Fein from the political gutter to political credibility, I cannot see that John Hume will ever desert it.
So what do we do? The Minister says that he is contemplating bringing forward some amendments tomorrow. I hope that those amendments relate to the speech made in the Commons yesterday by the former Prime Minister, John Major. I thought his speech was one of the most constructive and compassionate I have heard. I hope that what he said has borne in on the Government and that they bring forward amendments based on his proposals.
I do not wish to speak for too long here today—in fact I have spoken for too long already. Tomorrow may be the day to make further contributions. When I arrived this morning, I received a little missive. It has absolutely nothing to do with the debate, or at least so I thought. It has to do with freedom of action. It is about the sacking of the hereditary Peers. There is a quotation, which I think has some relationship to this debate:
"Men have sometimes been led by degrees, sometimes hurried into things, of which, if they could have seen the whole together, they would never have permitted the most remote approach. The people never give up their liberties except under some delusion".
Those are the words of one of the great parliamentarians of history, Edmund Burke. I believe that those words bear some relationship to what we are saying. I hope that the Government will do whatever they can to meet the genuine concerns mentioned yesterday by John Major and others. Perhaps if they do we can resolve this matter tomorrow night.
4.10 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it is a great pleasure, perhaps even a great honour, to follow the noble Lord who has just sat down. Quite apart from the fact that I agree with every word that he said, it gives me an opportunity yet again to pay tribute to his consistent courage in the face of terrorists who understand the danger that he has presented, at least over the past 30 years, to their methods of politics.
The Prime Minister and indeed the Secretary of State in another place have said repeatedly, particularly during the course of yesterday's debates in another place, that this question is a matter of trust. I believe that they are entirely right when they say that. I have just come back from a brief visit to Northern Ireland and I was not surprised to find that there persist there, as well as in a number of quarters on this side of the water, some perceptions which I think need to inform the attitude of those of us who are considering this legislation, because they certainly inform the attitude of many Unionists of all shades at this difficult time.

353
Those perceptions are three. First, those who hold them are convinced that whatever Sinn Fein may say to the Prime Minister or to those representatives of the Government with whom it is negotiating, to its own supporters its message remains clear—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, mentioned this during the course of his remarks—and can be encapsulated as follows: "Don't worry, we won't give up an ounce of Semtex or a single rifle. We will use our rhetoric to get into the Executive and then no one will dare to kick us out".
The second perception that I found widely shared was the following—it is one to which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, gave his usual eloquent expression a moment ago—namely, that the SDLP would never dare to continue in an executive, or in a new executive, after Sinn Fein had been expelled. I have to say that as I listened to the debate in another place yesterday it is a perception that the leader of the SDLP did nothing to dispel in his speech.
The third perception—which I think underpins the rest, and the attitude of those of us who have been concerned about Northern Ireland over many years from perhaps rather a Unionist point of view—is that we have a suspicion. I make no criticism of this because I think that governments of both colours have the whole of the United Kingdom to think about. We have a suspicion that when confronted with the threat of a general return to violence a British government will always in the end give way to terrorists, and that they will ask the Democrats to make the concessions, not the terrorists.
I believe that the combination of these three perceptions means that any mechanism designed to link terrorist participation to their membership of an executive must be—in the words, I think, of the Prime Minister—cast iron if Unionist and other fears are to be allayed. I have to confess that in its present form I do not think that this Bill fills that particular requirement. In that I certainly agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew with his infinitely greater experience than mine in these matters.
Under those circumstances the burden on General de Chastelain would be enormous. We have already seen the pressures to which he has been subjected in delaying his report in the crucial moments leading up to the proposals last week. As we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, the burden on the SDLP—which I think has to possess great courage to participate in a reconstituted executive if Sinn Fein were to be expelled from it—is also great. Further there is the burden on the Government who have to face the possibility of taking actions which might lead to a general return to violence. That perhaps is a pressure at least as great as the pressure on the others.
Therefore, it seems to me important that this legislation should both give greater reassurance to those who need it and, if possible, relieve those responsible, in so far as we are able, from having to take decisions under intolerable pressure. Therefore, the mechanisms should be as automatic as it is possible to make them if this legislation is to have any chance of inspiring
354
confidence on all sides of the divide. I hope, therefore, when the noble Lord brings forward the amendments to which he referred—I pay tribute to him and to the Government for the emphasis which they have placed on their view that this Bill is not perfect and therefore that they are open to seeing its provisions amended—they will in some respects address the concerns that have been expressed in this debate. In particular I hope that—as other noble Lords have suggested—it will be possible to incorporate on the face of the Bill a timetable for decommissioning, perhaps as part of another schedule.
It seems to me that the first element of decommissioning should take place—as the Prime Minister suggested—a small number of days after the Executive has been formed. I would find it difficult to understand why that should not take place any more than five days after that. I believe that that would be an enormous reassurance to all of us if it were possible to put that on the face of the Bill. Any party that failed to observe the timetable laid down in such an amendment at any stage would clearly automatically lose the right to sit on the Executive. It would be the responsibility of General de Chastelain to make that decision, not the Secretary of State. I have already mentioned the great pressures that the general is under; but if the general were able to explain the reasons for his decision, that in itself would make a great contribution to public confidence.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew made clear, there is really no excuse for continuing to release terrorist prisoners if a terrorist organisation, or one that represented terrorists, were to be expelled from the Executive. I shall not add anything to what my noble and learned friend said in that respect.
It is curious that if Sinn Fein is expelled from the Executive, the Executive would dissolve and then have to reform. There is another reason, apart from the ones that noble Lords have adduced so far, why I think that this is not a good idea. I come back to the whole question of the SDLP. I sympathise with the SDLP and the great dangers that it might run at the hands of Sinn Fein under those circumstances. Therefore, from that point of view alone, it would be sensible for the Executive to remain in being after expulsion; then the SDLP would have to make a conscious decision to leave as well.
We should consider a little the question of the Patten report. We know that it is causing a great deal of anxiety, not only in the ranks of the RUC but all over Northern Ireland. I, of course, have not the faintest idea of what is in the report—I do not think that many of your Lordships do either, with the greatest respect—but clearly the nature of the RUC, or whatever it is to be called as a result of the report, will change in the light of normality returning to the Province. However, if there are still armed terrorists about, it would seem rather odd to change the nature of that police force and risk its not being able to deal with armed terrorists in the magnificent way that the RUC has so far managed to do. I hope that the Government will be able to answer my question of whether they see a link between the

355
implementation of the Patten report and the behaviour of terrorist organisations on both sides of the divide in the light of decommissioning and what we require of it.
Such amendments would greatly help build the trust which the Government and all of your Lordships believe to be so essential. As your Lordships have said, it has now come down to the difficult and intractable matter of decommissioning. In other conflicts decommissioning has been a pre-condition for peace after years of guerrilla war. Indeed, academic studies show that we are right to suggest that decommissioning should be a pre-requisite. We certainly regarded it as such in Kosovo, for instance; why should it be different in Northern Ireland? If the terrorists have exchanged the Armalite in favour of the ballot box, they can prove it by throwing away the Armalite. If they do not, why should we believe them? Indeed, why should those who believe in government through representative institutions be cast as villains for refusing to surrender to the blackmail of the men with the Armalites?
It is a matter of trust. I hope that when the Bill is amended we will be able to approve of it as a genuine contribution to the building of that trust and a way forward to defusing the extremely difficult situation that obtains in the Province at the moment.
4.22 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is always a special pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, if only in my case because of his grandfather's kindness to me when I first came here half a century ago. There were just a handful of Labour Peers then, but his grandfather was very constructive in his approach and was really the founder of the modern House that we know.
When it comes to Northern Ireland, the noble Viscount speaks from a considerable family tradition. In the corridor there is a picture of his great, great grandfather, the noble Marquess, bringing about the defeat of the Irish Home Rule Bill in 1893. Although I regard that as fairly disastrous, I must confess that my father and my mother's father were backing him up. So I do not pretend to be any better than he is in such a matter.
When it comes to his views on Northern Ireland, I am only sorry that instead of myself the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, is not replying. After all, when he went to Ireland in an official capacity in 1969, he came back and said "There are too many guns". Where were these guns? Whose guns were they? They were mostly Protestant guns. After all, it was the Protestants who brought the guns to Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, with general acceptance, sent the British Army to protect the Catholics from the maltreatment and terrorism of the Protestants. So we must look at this in a fairly broad minded way, as has been suggested by other noble Lords.
All of that apart, I come before the House in the rather rare capacity of a super loyalist; an almost obsequious member of the party. I am capable of disagreeing with my leaders on one or two matters—recently, for example, on the reduction of the age of consent for
356
homosexuals; I am much more sympathetic to the hereditary Peers than most of my colleagues; and on Tuesday, when we debated penal reform, I was criticising the Government quite sharply—but on this matter I am one hundred per cent loyal to them and the policy they are pursuing.
I am someone who has written on Irish history; who has been given a drink of Irish whiskey by Sir James Craig, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland in the early 1930s; and who, after all, if I may be allowed to make the point, spent a night as a guest of one of the leaders of the Ulster Volunteer Force, one of the paramilitary organisations. Surveying the whole issue historically, this initiative of my right honourable friend, backed up by that wonderful person who I do not know—I wish I did—Mo Mowlam, will be one of the greatest of history, Irish or English. I am one hundred per cent loyal and I wish them everything that is good.
As to tactics, we must leave that to them. Occasionally we must leave the tactics to our leaders, and I am ready to do so on this occasion. Whatever they think is best, at the moment my mood is to follow them and to wish them everything that is good.
Of course, that does not mean that one should ignore the problems with which they are faced or the problems of Mr Trimble. I pray for success for all those concerned. Above all, every night and four times a day I pray for Mr Trimble. He needs prayers more than any of us.
4.26 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, my name is down for the next debate on the Northern Ireland 1974 Act Order. That was a mistake because that debate was listed prior to my realising that this one was to take place. The House definitely will not have to listen to me twice.
I, too, thank the Minister for the manner of his presentation of the Bill and for the news that the Government will look seriously at amendments and bring them forward tomorrow.
I will speak briefly about the Bill. I will not go into too much detail because, owing to circumstances beyond my control, I will not be here tomorrow to hear the good news that the Government will bring to us.
I am not going to go back over the details of release of prisoners or decommissioning—or the lack of it—up until this time. Suffice to say that there are so many instances of the law-abiding society in Northern Ireland and the Government giving an inch and then going that extra mile while the terrorist organisations, on both sides of the divide and their political wings, have conceded absolutely nothing—not even an earthly tremble, let alone the seismic shift that the Prime Minister said he has detected. Perhaps we are sleeping, but I think not. Those of us who know Sinn Fein and the terrorists would perhaps consider that it was wishful thinking.
It has been very difficult to accept the steps that the Government have taken in recent months to appease terrorists, as some of us would believe—almost anything in order to avoid the threatened action by

357
terrorists using the weapons and explosives which they still hold on to. We are told that this week and the next couple months is the last chance for the Unionists to secure peace. Why is it always the Unionists who are berated with their "last chance"? It may be a last chance to emerge into peace and democracy, but the perpetrators of 30 years of terrorism are not being told that this is their "last chance". Their violence, on both sides of the community, has continued throughout this so-called ceasefire, and yet anyone would believe from what the Government have said that it is up to the law-abiding society to declare peace for now and forever; "Roll over on your backs, give in and it will all be all right". Many of us do not believe that. However, I accept that the amendments to be brought forward tomorrow may change what we are talking about.
How twisted and one-sided can we get? Is it the last chance for the terrorists and their political apologists to declare by their words and actions that peace is for now and ever? I do not doubt, indeed I know full well, that the Government want peace—but please do not let us accept that their yearning is any greater than mine and that of other people who have lived with terrorism and violence in Northern Ireland for so many years.
So we have this Bill before the House, supposedly to overcome the last obstacle to peace, and the forming of a devolved administration in the Province. Let me make one point first. The Bill would be totally unnecessary had the terrorist organisations made any move at all to decommission, demobilise, or whatever we wish to call it. Frankly, the Bill was not on the cards and need not have occurred had people acted honestly, as the impression seems to be they will act in future. We even passed an Act to enable weapons to be handed in with immunity for those involved. Nothing happened—hence this Bill.
Should the present impasse over weapons continue, the Bill will, in practical terms, punish law-abiding citizens by denying them the democratic right of government. That is of course if, as I suspect, there will be no decommissioning and the SDLP does not live up to its responsibilities.
Perhaps I may quickly run through the three scenarios of events that could occur in the next 10 months as a result of the Bill as presently drafted. The first is easy. The IRA appoint a negotiator or intermediary this weekend; declare their intention to decommission and, in the following months actually begin to do so. In that instance, we are in the clear—provided the vast majority of weapons are handed in by May next year.
The second scenario is that negotiators are appointed and the Executive is formed, but, owing to the lack of any practical decommissioning, the Secretary of State suspends the Assembly under Clause 1 of the Bill. However, the SDLP seems to have implied that it would not necessarily support the restoration of the devolved government, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said, without the political wing of the IRA if weapons continue to be withheld; it would not go into the Executive without them. So, we are back where we are now.
358
That is where the Bill has a major flaw. It should be amended so that, instead of suspending the whole system, those who are not living up to their obligations—in this case, Sinn Fein—should be expelled on their own from the Executive only. At that stage, John Hume in particular, and the SDLP, can either stay in the Executive or show how sympathetic they are to Sinn Fein by resigning from it, actively removing their support from the democratic process that has been signed up to, from the Good Friday agreement to the protocol of a couple of days ago and now this Bill. After all, John Hume is a Nobel Peace Prize holder. He is a democrat, someone who frequently condemns violence, and is one of the catalysts in the whole process. He should be given his last chance to see it through. Can he really stand as a world figure, as he presently is, and deny the right of democratic progress as a result of a relatively small group of people withholding weapons?
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount one question. What happens if the Protestant paramilitary organisations fail to give up any of their weapons. Will they be allowed to hang on to them?
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, the Bill is about the Executive and those who will be nominated to it. Therefore, it primarily refers directly to Sinn Fein/IRA because the other terrorist organisations have not obtained positions in the Executive. However, I entirely agree with the noble Earl and others, that all possible pressure should be put on the Protestant paramilitaries, and the Republican paramilitaries who are not truly on cease-fire. In turn, Sinn Fein would be faced with the fact that for once, perhaps for the first time, they cannot hold us to ransom and have a veto over this democratic process. That would seriously be the first time that any of us had seen that they did not have that power.
The third scenario is that the IRA do not appoint a negotiator and do not make a declaration in the next few days, and we can go no further. However, I believe that the second scenario is the one that will occur, and that a representative of the IRA will be appointee as an intermediary. It will probably not be an IRA person. I believe that we shall be back in the same situation as we had in regard to the victims' remains and the authorities will be talking through intermediaries. The representative will probably be a priest or a solicitor. In effect, it will be someone with whom General de Chastelain cannot really come to grips. And we shall be in for yet another fudge. That is where an amendment to the Bill could enable a timetable to be open and public. I suspect that it cannot be on the face of the Bill, but a proposal can be laid out openly and publicly when the matter is decided, after General de Chastelain has spoken to the groups concerned.
However, as the Bill stands I believe that we shall see fully armed terrorists in the Executive of part of the United Kingdom if David Trimble and the Unionists accept the Bill in its present form—and I suspect that they will not now be asked to do so.
By definition, the decommissioning timetable is flexible. There is no time-scale as yet, and it is up to the commission to set it after talking to the terrorists.

359
De Chastelain may have a date in mind for the first weapons to be decommissioned; it may he September, October, or whenever. Between now and then, I can see that Sinn Fein will halt the day-to-day violence of beatings, knee-cappings and intimidation. It is capable of doing so. It did so earlier in the process when they were suspended for a period of time. There was an election and it was in Sinn Fein's interests to do so, but then they started up again. So we should not suggest that Sinn Fein does not have the power. Over the past 30 years it has had short cease-fires with no violence whatsoever, especially at Christmas time, which it wishes to enjoy like anyone else.
However, when it is pressurised to produce weapons, it will say, "Look, everything is very quiet. Do you the Government and the decommissioning body really want to jeopardise that by suspending everything? It is up to you. We are still trying. Do you want to go back to all that violence tomorrow?". What shall we do then? Shall we introduce more hasty legislation to try to get round that point? I dread to think. I am not accusing the Government of laying themselves wide open to that, but I cannot see what else will happen. The Government and De Chastelain must have in mind what will happen in that case. But either way, the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland will be the losers, because the Government have allowed too many loopholes—and we hope that some of them will be filled in tomorrow—in the Bill as it presently stands.
I wish to make one more point on the wider constitutional picture. During the passage of the House of Lords Bill the Government have thrown scorn on the suggestion, which was not mine, that after the expelling of hereditary Peers this House might not be the ultimate defender of our constitution in a case where there is an overwhelming majority in another place. Here is a Bill that infringes our democratic rights and allows fully armed terrorists to take part in governing a part of the United Kingdom. I cannot imagine anything less constitutional. I say to life Peers, primarily to those on the Government Benches: this is the time to prove, when we are talking about fully armed terrorists in government, that you are prepared to make a stand on a vital constitutional issue; I hope that you will prove your independence by supporting the more important amendments that will come before the House tomorrow to make this a better deal and bring democracy to Northern Ireland.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I find myself in the position of agreeing with almost everything that has been said during the debate so far. Above all, I found myself agreeing with just about every word that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said—especially his remark about the prime defect of the Belfast agreement. He asked why there was nothing in that to resolve the issue of decommissioning at the very beginning. But of course the answer is clear, and the noble Lord knows it. Sinn Fein would never have accepted such a commitment—which causes us to wonder whether they will accept such a commitment now. How right he was to remind us of just what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, meant when he warned that the
360
penalty for this process failing would be violence. Why? If Sinn Fein/IRA is committed to peace, even if this process is put in the parking lot, as the expression is, for a period of three or four months, why should that provoke it to start killing again, unless killing is still on its agenda today? It does not say very much for what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, believes of the IRA's commitment to peace. I agree very much with the comments of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and others, and indeed the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that the Bill contains nothing that will put any pressure on loyalist terrorists or any terrorists who are not associated with Sinn Fein. There is a method of putting pressure on them: stopping the release of their prisoners. That is how to put pressure on them.
But here we are again, as ever, with Northern Ireland legislation: finding that it is being rammed through without adequate time for reflection, consideration and consultation outside this place. Again it is a rush. Every piece of legislation that has been brought forward has been in a great rush. Why the rush? Why cannot we have more time for consideration? After all, if the Government had given themselves more time for consideration, they would have persuaded themselves of the virtues of what my right honourable friend John Major said and what Mr Trimble said yesterday in the House of Commons. There was nothing dramatically new in it. Ministers could have thought of it had they given themselves a little more time for reflection.
Let us be clear what this Bill is about. It is about the breaking of the Prime Minister's word given to the people of Northern Ireland to persuade them to vote for the Belfast agreement. The Prime Minister promised that the spokesmen for the terrorists would not be admitted to government while the terrorists remained active. In his words,
"Those who use or threaten violence [would be] excluded from the government of Northern Ireland".
Only a week or so ago there was the attempted murder here on the mainland of a man who had been an IRA informer. Yet we now see the representatives of those who committed that crime being proposed as Ministers in the Executive. In his Question Time broadcast the Prime Minister confirmed that he regarded the IRA/Sinn Fein as one organisation. I shall come back to that point later. One question that we have to ask is whether his ally and partner in many respects as regards this legislation, Mr Ahern, the Taoiseach, considers it to be the same organisation. I understand that the other day he said that he had come to the conclusion that they were now separate. I shall return to that point later, too.
Clearly, the IRA is still using and threatening violence, but now it is proposed that it will take part in the Executive. The Prime Minister also promised,
"prisoners kept in unless violence is given up for good".
It has not been. The prison gates remain open and, even worse, as readers of the Sunday Mirror will know—it is not my normal reading, but it was last Sunday—at least some of those who were released were making telephone calls, which were tapped, indicating quite clearly that they were still committed to the path of violence. Yet the releases go on.

361
That is the background against which we are asked yet again to buy a pig in a poke. It is always the same pig and the same poke, and it has never been delivered yet. We are asked yet again to trust the Prime Minister, legislate in unseemly haste and concede more to Sinn Fein/IRA.
Yesterday in the other place the Secretary of State refused to make any concessions to allay the fears of the Ulster Unionists. It appears that the Prime Minister was a little more constructive today. I hope that we shall see the amendments very shortly. Indeed, when the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will be able to give us a clearer indication of exactly which of the propositions by Mr Major and Mr Trimble will be the subject of government amendments. No doubt the Secretary of State was supporting the view of Mr Martin McGuinness that any such concession would be,
"a very, very dangerous thing",
not that I would accuse the Secretary of State of appeasing IRA/Sinn Fein. Her policy smacks far more of the green flag than the white flag. Nonetheless, we have this Bill before us and before we decide whether it should pass—and I certainly would not support it in its present form—we shall have to try to improve it and seek better guarantees from the Government.
I put this point to the Minister. If General de Chastelain is confident that he will announce a breakthrough in the decommissioning process by the middle of next week, why not delay the formation of the Northern Ireland Executive until the middle of the week after? That does not seem to be outrageous, unless IRA/Sinn Fein is so impatient that it could not bear to wait another week. After all, if it is committed in a way which enables the General to say that he will make an announcement within the next few days, why not let it be made before the Executive is formed? Indeed, why not wait until the General publishes the timetable for decommissioning? Why cannot we have that timetable? The answer is in Schedule 2 to the Bill. The Government choose to bind themselves to meet the deadlines which they have themselves set out. But if Mr Trimble's Unionists do not accept the terms of this Bill, the deadlines cannot be met in any case. So the Government may find themselves between a rock and a hard place.
I also suggest to the Minister that this Bill would benefit from a clearer definition of the word "decommissioning". Therefore, will the Minister at least assure us that all the parties are agreed, including Sinn Fein/IRA, that decommissioning relates solely to terrorist arms and that there are no parallel commitments on the part of Her Majesty's Government to disarm the RUC or the Army in Northern Ireland in parallel with any disarmament by the IRA?
Perhaps it might be helpful to define decommissioning in the Bill in that way. It certainly could do no harm. If not, I can envisage Sinn Fein claiming that the IRA was unwilling to decommission until the Government did so too. I can find nothing in the Bill, in the Belfast agreement or in other legislation flowing from it which precludes Sinn Fein from
362
announcing that it had done its best to persuade the IRA to disarm, but had failed and so Sinn Fein had separated from the IRA.
What would the Government do then? Would they accept that and allow Sinn Fein to continue as a party of peace based on its democratic mandate at the Assembly elections while the IRA quietly went about its business and maintained its arsenal? What if the Provisional IRA finds that its weapons have been stolen by other republican terrorist organisations? Members of that organisation might say that, while they would love to decommission, their dastardly quartermasters had defected with the weapons which were now in the hands of the INLA or some other group. But the Provisional IRA could not be punished for that; after all, its weapons had been stolen from it, and it would be sinful to punish the innocent in that way.
No doubt the Minister will tell us that that is a matter for the General to decide, but that presents me with a difficulty. How does Parliament hold the General to account? I do not know him; I have never met him. How many noble Lords have? By what means can we be assured that he is not merely honourable but that he is robust in the ways of politics as well as war? What if the General declares that whatever agreement he may make, and with whoever he chooses to make it, has been broken? The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, put his finger on it. Would the Government then argue that things had been going so well in the Assembly and Executive—this event might not arise until the turn of the year—that it would be risking a renewal of violence if the Executive was suspended?
The Minister shakes his head. I hope that later he will do more than that and set out the position clearly, preferably in the legislation but certainly in reply to the debate. The argument would be that what really mattered was not where the arms were but whether they were being used. If all was quiet and peaceful, would it not be taking a terrible risk with peace to disturb things when they were going so well? Like the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, I suspect that that situation is one that we shall face some time before May of next year. Unfortunately, this Bill is shot full of holes which will allow such events to occur. It is a Bill which gives every encouragement, not to the Democrats, but to the bandits.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he consider the reputation and background of General Sir John de Chastelain who has served his government and the international community in a very good cause and whose reputation is above reproach?
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, of course I do that. But there are many men who have served their countries well, whose reputations are above reproach but who, when they have dealt with the IRA, have come singularly and badly unstuck.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, in agreeing with everything that has been said this afternoon. I was pleased that the

363
noble Lord began to ask questions about the details of decommissioning, what would happen if the weapons were stolen and so on. That is a minefield. It is almost certain that that will happen and make life difficult.
This Bill and the talks leading up to it relate to Unionist refusal to sit in government with any party with guns. Unfortunately, in no way does it help the Unionists or others; rather, it is a threat to them. It suggests that if they do not get in quickly the whole thing will come to an end and it will be their fault. That is not a very helpful way to sort out the problem. This problem goes right back to the time when the Good Friday agreement was first published. At that time Unionists realised that decommissioning was not a precondition for partnership in the devolved government of Northern Ireland.
Very soon feeling against the agreement became strong and the probability was that the referendum result would not be in favour of the agreement. The Prime Minister then made several statements, which have already been referred to, to assure Unionists that they would not be forced to sit in government with any party with guns and Semtex. As a result, the referendum was passed but, unfortunately, the Prime Minister did not keep to his undertaking. Again, he asks Unionists to take a risk for peace and to sit with Sinn Fein while the IRA thinks about destroying its arsenal. Failing that, the Assembly will he stood down and the Unionists will suffer as much as those who fail to decommission.
David Trimble has asked for some failsafe guarantees in this Bill to help him, but none has been included. Unionists and the people of Northern Ireland generally respect plain speaking and demand fair treatment. They detest ambiguous statements and the products of spin doctors. I cannot over-emphasise that they very much want devolution and the Assembly to work. There is a craving to make this work and to restore normal democratic government. Co-operation with the SDLP, or any democratic party, does not present a problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, emphasised, but to sit in government with Sinn Fein, as it is now, is too much to ask. Pressure has been placed on David Trimble and his team, which is much resented. Is it because the UUP is thought more likely to give way than the terrorists?
I believe that the present impasse has arisen because politicians on this side of the Irish Sea seem to look on Sinn Fein and the IRA as erring democrats who can be pulled back to see the light by kindness and favours. We who have had to live among them in Northern Ireland know quite a lot about them and know better. We know that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked. We also know that members of the present: leadership of Sinn Fein have in the past held high positions in the IRA. The IRA has said repeatedly that it will not decommission. This is no surprise because the IRA regards itself as the only legitimate army in Ireland with the right and duty to unite the island of Ireland. It has thought that way for 80 years. The IRA believes that it has a duty to use force of whatever kind it thinks necessary.
Mr Adams has said that the objectives remain unchanged. Neither the IRA nor Sinn Fein has said that the war is over. Sinn Fein has not accepted that the
364
all-Ireland referendum on the Good Friday agreement is a valid act of national self-determination. This leaves the IRA with the continuing requirement to be ready for a resumption of armed struggle. It is very significant that Mr Bruton, leader of Fine Gael, believes that this is the core of the problem in both parts of Ireland. The immediate objective of Sinn Fein/IRA is to prove that Northern Ireland is ungovernable by peaceful means, and the situation on the Garvaghy and Ormeau Roads is not unrelated to that objective.
Memories can be short, but we are still very conscious that the IRA has bombed and murdered about 2,000 people and so-called loyalists have acted with similar bestiality. Is it not the ultimate denial of democracy to force people to sit in partnership in government with unrepentant terrorists?
The Ulster Unionist Party position on this is supported by democrats throughout the world. It should be remembered that Mr Ahern, the Taoiseach, was strongly in favour of this for a few months at the beginning of the year. But the success of Sinn Fein in the European elections has been noted by nationalists north and south and the Dublin Government are now looking at Sinn Fein as a future party of some significance. The British Government have given Sinn Fein almost all it has asked for without it giving anything in return: early release of prisoners, the setting up of the Patten Commission, and so on. Sinn Fein has taken votes from the SDLP in Northern Ireland and for fear of losing further votes Mr Hume will not want to agree to vote for the expulsion of Sinn Fein. I have to pinch myself. Am I really a citizen of the UK, brought up to believe in democracy, watching our British Government pressing hard on a peaceful and democratic party in part of the UK to make it agree to sit down with armed terrorists as partners, even temporarily, to govern part of the United Kingdom? Is it democracy when a Government with a large and disciplined majority can do something as undemocratic as this?
I am concerned about the Bill. I note that the Minister said that amendments would be tabled. However, I believe that even his hands are tied. As the noble Lord has explained to us on many occasions, he has to consider the Good Friday agreement. It is the international agreement; and there can be nothing in the Bill which goes against that agreement. That means that what the noble Lord can do to straighten out the many problems is very limited.
I believe that there is only one thing to do. It is to put the problem in abeyance for the time being while people sit down and do a little straight thinking.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I agree with Sinn Fein in one matter at least, in this present dangerous and difficult situation, when it says that we must not forget the lessons of the past. It is right about that. The past I have in mind is not the early 1990s, nor even the early 1980s, but the early 1970s and the time of the Sunningdale Agreement and the power-sharing executive which was set up. It was an experiment which

365
nearly succeeded, but in the end failed. We would be wrong to ignore the lessons of that failure in grappling with the present situation.
At that time the power-sharing executive programme was under the towering leadership of Lord Whitelaw, whom we all miss—I miss him very much indeed. He was supported by his juniors, my noble friends Lord Windlesham—he was here a moment ago—Lord Kelvedon and myself. He was supported from outside the British Government by many eminent figures, of whom one was the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. We heard him today giving yet another courageous speech. There were many other extremely brave people. They were physically brave as well as politically and intellectually brave. It was not just their job or their opinions on the line: their lives were on the line. They supported that power-sharing executive; and yet it failed, despite the heroic efforts of the then Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, who will speak later in the debate, no doubt with his usual great authority and experience.
What are the two lessons I draw today from that sad experience, with all its efforts, when we came so near to success? They are simple lessons. One was that you cannot push the Ulster people as a whole, but specifically the Unionists and their supporters, too far. You can expect many concessions from them—and there were many then and there have been many this time round—but you cannot go on pushing them again and again in face of more disappointments, more half-broken promises, without any sign of concessions from the other side or any sign that their concessions are bringing a better world for the Ulster people. The attempt to do so then led to the Unionist side of politics unravelling, and the entire Province being trapped and paralysed by strikes, with violence breaking out again on both sides and another plunge into the dark era for the people of Northern Ireland. I shall come to the application of that lesson in a moment.
The other was a more difficult lesson, and possibly less welcome to some speaking on the Unionist-inclined side. It is this. If the Executive is formed but has to exclude both the more extremist parties, and, beyond them, the men of violence and terror—the real slaughterers—the power-sharing Executive will not just sail ahead on its own. Democracy will not be allowed to proceed untrammelled. The violence will take over again. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, this is a society of two communities and at the wings are violent propensities which will always come in through splinter and breakaway groups and not only destroy peace in Northern Ireland but the democratic procedures as well.
That applies just as much to the situation if there is no decommissioning as it applied to the situation in 1974. If there is no decommissioning, it does not mean that the democratic institution can go ahead without Sinn Fein, or whatever. It means that outside the democratic institution, violence will resume. The culture of violence which is already there will go on. It will frighten people. That fright will nibble away at the democratic process, and those who have tried to support the democratic process will be forced away from it. Violence will
366
gradually close over the democratic process just as the sea closes over the sand-castles on the beach. That is what happened before and that is what will happen again unless we have a policy and a procedure which can deal with the situation. I argue that the Bill falls short of that.
What emerges so clearly from those days is this. Let us suppose, as I fear is all too likely, that the decommissioning process is fudged or does not satisfy General de Chastelain. Let us suppose that somehow difficulties are found of the kind which my noble friend Lord Tebbit described with great percipience and imagination—these things could easily happen. The understandable idea that some democratic core can still go about its business; that Northern Ireland can be ruled democratically again as it wants to be with devolved legislation; that nothing else will happen and that the situation will be stable, is foolhardy. That idea is not founded on experience, memories, lessons from the past, or any realistic appreciation of what will happen in the future.
That idea has to go hand in hand with the other part of the policy that is not in the Bill. We had a debate in your Lordships' House—how many months ago? I cannot remember—on the horrors and atrocities of Omagh. Some of us said then that there is a missing piece of the policy. Of course we want democracy. Of course we want agreements. Of course we want to work towards the ideas and principles of the Good Friday agreement. But none of that will work unless at the same time the operations against violence and terrorism are organised at a level of co-operation nationally and internationally with Belfast—and the American Government may now be involved—and with a degree of intelligence and intensity on the whereabouts of weapons which will never be handed in, and with a degree of determination all round which ensures that violence does not undermine the democratic process.
It seems self-evident that part of that policy has to be a halt of the early release of prisoners. The early release of prisoners is fuel for violence. We know that it is. It is reported as such. It is known to be such. If we are to have a policy which ensures that democracy in the form of devolved legislation continues, with or without Sinn Fein and the decommissioning, it must go hand in hand with a policy of security and an effort against terrorism which includes the halting of the early releases. I am amazed that the early release amendment, which I hope will he tabled tomorrow, was not included in the earlier process.
I am a guilty party because I participated in the legislation which was rushed through Parliament 24 years ago and once again we are rushing through legislation. At least then we consulted the other party leaders before they had to stand up in Parliament and make their points and be greeted with the cry, "Oh good, let's have an amendment". At least there was some kind of consultation process. However, it appears that the views of the former Prime Minister—a man of authority who began this peace process—were novel to the Government when he rose from the green Benches in the other place and uttered them. I find it incredible that

367
he had not been consulted. Yet that appears to be the pace and style with which the policy is being cobbled together.
I believe that this is a sad little piece of legislation. It is missing the vital element of policy which must go with it. I have no idea whether it will work, but, as noble Lords have rightly said, it is another additional pressure on Unionists who, heaven knows, have bravely yielded on every front, often risking their own lives and certainly their political positions. It may or may not hold the position.
I hope that the threat in it will never be needed. I hope that the decommissioning will take place. However, if it does not and the violence-inclined parties remain outside, this Bill will not hold together 'the Good Friday agreement. It will not hold together the devolved executive, however much the Unionists and those who want democracy and moderation in Ireland want it. Much more will be required, even with the amendments that we shall debate tomorrow. It saddens me that once again we are proceeding with a policy of which half is missing. The half that is missing is the real determination of London, Dublin and even, bless them, the American Government, if they can understand what is happening in Ulster, to defeat, head off, suppress and destroy the terrorist element which remains hanging over peace and democracy in Northern Ireland.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Carew: My Lords, it is a special pleasure for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. I have watched his political career with great interest. Almost exactly 50 years ago, as head boy of my prep school, he reported me to the headmaster for messing around for which I was soundly thrashed. I want to thank the noble Lord for assisting me to grow up.
Apart from my education in this country and 10 years in Her Majesty's Armed Forces, my home has always been in the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, I want to say a few words in regard to the Bill and the Good Friday agreement. My father made his maiden speech in 1947 and I made mine in 1995. Both were on the subject of improving relations between people in the United Kingdom and Ireland.
Over the years, whereas personal relations between the UK and the people of the island of Ireland have been good., the politics have been exceedingly difficult. The Good Friday agreement was a major political step forward. No praise is too high for the efforts of the two governments and the respective parties in Northern Ireland. The agreement presents the best chance of peace in years and the people of the island of Ireland, by a huge majority, voted for that peace. Therefore, the opportunity must not be lost.
Her Majesty's Government are now on the brink of devolving powers to the Assembly with an inclusive Executive in Belfast. It is vital for that Executive to be inclusive. Unionists and Nationalists will have to work together; one without the other will not work. Over the years, we have all become aware of the mistrust between the political parties in Northern Ireland. Therefore, to
368
ensure the working of the Executive and decommissioning, a fail-safe device has been built into the agreement. The Bill provides those safeguards.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that decommissioning should have taken place at the time of the Good Friday agreement. Under the agreement, Sinn Fein gave a commitment to hand in all weapons by May 2000. But will a start be made before then? Will the IRA verify the commitments given by Sinn Fein? I understand that the Taoiseach stated to the Unionists that his personal belief is that the IRA will begin to decommission its weapons shortly after the Executive is set up and will complete the process by May 2000. However, the IRA must make a statement at least to the effect that decommissioning was not just an aspiration but an obligation that will be honoured within the timeframe of the Good Friday agreement. I believe that it is most important that the SDLP remains in the power-sharing Executive, even if Sinn Fein were expelled.
The Bill and the Good Friday agreement have, after lengthy discussions, come about by compromise. Whether it be the Bill before us today or a further amended Bill, there should be a final Bill that is acceptable to the parties in Northern Ireland. That final Bill will surely be the best way forward for peace in Northern Ireland.
5.16 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there has been a remarkable degree of unanimity among the speakers in today's debate. However, surely it is unprecedented for a Bill of such contention to be allocated a mere eight hours for all its stages in another place. Like my noble friend Lord Tebbit, I sincerely ask: what is the reason for this unseemly haste? If ever there were a case for consensus, surely this must be it.
Why are we here? When I see the Bill, I have a feeling of déjà vu. In order to gain an understanding of today's debate, one has to revisit the Good Friday agreement. I was present for almost all of yesterday's debate in another place and much was made of the overwhelming majority in northern and southern Ireland in support of that agreement. However, we need to remember the reason for that. It was the letter that was written in the middle of the night and handed to Mr Trimble, and the personal assurances given by the Prime Minister during that night to secure the acquiescence of Mr Trimble and many of his Unionist colleagues. That was conveyed to the wider public in Northern Ireland, supported by my right honourable friends John Major and William Hague. Others spoke publicly on the basis of the Good Friday agreement plus the personal assurances of the Prime Minister in that note and verbally. The latter was the ingredient which secured the vote.
There are many people in Northern Ireland who believe we have been let down. I count myself as one of them. I make no criticism of the Prime Minister for that because I believe that he made those assurances in good faith at the time. But the truth is that we have been let down. I accept that we can be clever with hindsight,

369
but, with hindsight, in one more day Mr Trimble should have insisted that those assurances were put into the agreement. We should then have been in a much stronger position and perhaps today's debate would have been unnecessary.
That is the reason why we demand from the Government that the three points raised in another place yesterday, together with the fourth put forward in the excellent speech of my right honourable friend John Major, should be incorporated in the Bill. If they are not, we shall repeat the fudge of the Good Friday agreement.
The Prime Minister at that time said, "Trust me". As I have said, I believe he was genuine; and we did. Now he must understand that we need more than words or parliamentary reassurances; more than, "It will be all right on the night", and more than some interesting spinning from No. 10 to reassure the wider public who are not aware of the technicalities of the Bill.
I agree with the comments made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that the central issue of the Bill is decommissioning of arms, not whether or not Mr Trimble and his Unionist colleagues sign up to the Bill and whether they take one more leap of faith. My noble friend Lord Tebbit said that we really need a proper definition of the word "decommissioning". I believe also that we need a proper definition of the word "breach" in the Bill, for what constitutes a breach may be interesting.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, regaled us with some alternative scenarios. Perhaps I may add another. General de Chastelain genuinely will, at some point, produce a timetable. The first stage of that timetable is the "two or three days". I do not know how that will manifest itself when the timetable is produced, but whatever the first stage is, when that time is reached it may be possible for the General himself to say, "Yes, we have reached the limits of my timetable but I believe in good faith that there are so many encouraging signs coming from Sinn Fein/IRA that it would be too insensitive at this stage to trigger the measures in the Bill". It may even be that if the general decides to trigger it, it may be said at the next stage of the process that this is too sensitive a time to trigger the mechanisms in the Bill. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew said, it is only the mechanism that is released, not the automatic exclusion. So we do need more definition.
My right honourable friend John Major asked in another place whether we could confirm that the British and Irish Governments were in agreement about the Bill. In reply Mr Murphy, the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, stated:
"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".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/99; col. 228.]
That is not a "yes". Are they in agreement on the Bill? May I extend the question asked by my right honourable friend to this: are the two Governments agreed about the amendments that we believe are coming tomorrow? It is
370
important that we hear that. Perhaps I may reinforce the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that we would also like the Minister today—before tomorrow—to give us some indication of what the amendments we see tomorrow will cover.
My right honourable friend also asked if the de Chastelain schedule could be published. I believe that that is not only desirable but essential. Again, Mr Murphy in another place said:
"The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we would encourage General de Chastelain to publish the full schedule and timetable for disarmament".
He continued:
"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".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/99; col. 227.]
With respect, I believe that it is a matter for Parliament to say whether that should be published, and not the general.
On past record, we know that the IRA is a past master at prevarication. Therefore, can we have a guarantee that General de Chastelain's determination of the timetable will be made in a matter of days? I am not sure whether the two or three days count from the publication of the timetable or whether we could wait weeks and months for it. It would be important to have that.
In response to the question from my right honourable friend John Major about whether literally any breach of the disarmament schedule would lead to suspension, Mr Murphy answered "Yes". That is why we need a proper definition of what constitutes a breach.
The Bill must be amended. If it is not, Sinn Fein/IRA will have won yet another round. It must be amended to provide greater clarity, more certainty and a transparent process within which those who default are excluded from the power sharing Executive and those who genuinely seek to tread the path of democracy continue in office. It really is a strange notion of fairness and justice when the guilty have the power of veto over the innocent. It is time now to really test the intention of the paramilitaries, including Sinn Fein/IRA. It is they, not Mr Trimble and his Unionist colleagues, who are the key to real peace in Northern Ireland.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, at one time I used to speak quite often on Northern Ireland matters. I was critical of the Anglo-Irish agreement, of the Downing Street declaration, and of a number of initiatives taken by the previous government. I have often been uneasy about the bipartisan approach.
Despite considering some aspects of the Good Friday agreement deeply unsatisfactory, I thought that as the people of Northern Ireland approved the agreement in a referendum it was not for me to complain so I have since remained silent. I can only say that perhaps some of those in Northern Ireland who voted yes may now

371
regret it, misled as they were by the promises of the Prime Minister which appear, if this Bill goes through as it stands, to be worthless.
Now, on the eve of the emasculation of this House and its transformation into a House which is unlikely to make too many difficulties for the Government, I feel bound to say a brief word, particularly as this extremely important Bill is being rushed through in an extraordinary way to meet a quite arbitrary deadline decided by the Government.
I agree with the concept of power sharing but it must depend on a genuine will on both sides to operate democratically, peacefully and constructively. I think it most important that there should be devolution of government to Northern Ireland.
There are good precedents for enemies turning into valuable friends. One of the most notable was the change of heart by Botha and Smuts after the Boer War, but Adams and McGuinness are not Botha and Smuts, not by a long chalk. It is hard to believe that they will change into peace-loving, constructive politicians; rather they are likely to continue to pursue their own agenda—Brits out, a Marxist united Ireland and perhaps in due course the ethnic cleansing of the Protestants in Northern Ireland.
My objections to what is going on are, first, the involvement of the Government of the Republic, a foreign power which has still not repealed Articles 2 and 3 of its constitution laying claim to Northern Ireland, although it is pledged to do so under the Good Friday agreement, and, indeed, the involvement of President Clinton. Mr Blair and Mr Ahern seem to act as though Northern Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom but an Anglo-Irish condominium.
Secondly, I dislike the methods adopted by the Government and their predecessors to promote power sharing, notably their constant pressure on the Unionist majority and only on the Unionist majority. Thirdly, there is the continued outright appeasement of the IRA with no response or quid pro quo at all from that organisation; most of all, of course, the release of terrorist prisoners like the Brighton bomber, Magee, condemned of the most terrible crimes. This is not only highly objectionable in itself but drives a coach and horses through our own criminal justice system. Are we not al! supposed to be equal before the law? If so, why should Irish terrorists be released after serving only a fraction of their sentences when the Kray brothers and Myra Hindley remained behind bars?
On the issue of appeasement, I recall as a former High Commissioner in Canada, the case of Mr Trudeau. In Quebec, some years ago, there was a terrorist organisation which killed a Minister arid kidnapped a British trade commissioner. Mr Trudeau is a liberal—a man of the left—and it was generally expected that he would do nothing except say, "Tut, tut". However, he was not prepared to tolerate terrorism in Quebec. He took the firmest measures and told what he called the "bleeding hearts" to, "Go on and bleed." Terrorism in Quebec was killed stone dead. What a contrast this approach of a vigorous young country with the timid,
372
ineffective efforts of our Government! It shows that in dealing with the British Government violence and the threat of violence certainly do pay.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that decommissioning is fundamental to genuine, peaceful power sharing and cannot be fudged by the Government. The failsafe measures promised by the Prime Minister to the people of Northern Ireland are not—or not yet—included in the Bill.
We continue to go along with the fiction that Sinn Fein is separate from the IRA when everyone knows that the two organisations, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said earlier, are inextricably linked. Experience also shows that no reliance can be placed on IRA promises.
I have read the report of the debate in the other place yesterday. I was impressed by the moderate and statesmanlike speech made by Mr Trimble. He moved amendments that were inexplicably voted down by the government majority. I was encouraged to hear the Minister's comments earlier about the likelihood of government amendments being moved in this House. If they meet the points put forward by Mr Trimble and the Opposition, the Bill may become less objectionable. If not, I think it would be much better—as Mr Trimble said yesterday—to take more time over the legislation and give ourselves the opportunity to get it right. To pass the Bill as it stands must be wrong.
5.32 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships for long. I want to make a plea, not a speech, on behalf of three-quarters of Northern Ireland's people who voted yes and who want to keep the process going. They want to live with their children in a peaceful community where money can be spent on education and health facilities, not on security and peace trips. I am worried that people who live in Northern Ireland can talk to each other only in South Africa, but that is a personal point.
I make a plea on behalf of those who still want peace and those who behaved very responsibly at Drumcree and Ormeau Park last weekend. Both sides are to be congratulated because their actions really made a difference. None of us believed that it could happen. Furthermore, the Royal Ulster Constabulary did not have to be the filling in the sandwich—a role that it has often played before. I remember how, on one occasion when I was away from the Province, my protection driver spent the whole night taking fire extinguishers to the wives of RUC officers as a protection measure. That is no way to live.
This weekend we saw movement for which no one could have hoped. I think we must recognise that that movement came from the streets and from the parties, not as politicians but as people making decisions abort their future. We cannot run Northern Ireland from outside Northern Ireland; we cannot run it from Great Britain. British citizens who live in the Province can get a feel for the situation, but the only real feeling is that one does not understand it. It is important that we do not make decisions here about Northern Ireland.

373
We have got things wrong in the past. We talk about Sinn Fein as if every Sinn Fein member has horns. However, that party has a big vote and we cannot deny the people their democratic rights. We argued against Sinn Fein on democracy grounds, but the voters need a democratic party and they should be allowed to make up their minds. We should not have had a policy of not shaking hands with Sinn Fein party members. That was very wrong. If we treat people like that, how will they treat us back? There is a lot of give and take to come. The question is: will that happen or does the damage run too deep? That is an important issue and we should not add to the problem.
When I was in the Province, those who had lost family members would say, "I can live with this if this is the last one. If my son's death means that no one else will be killed, we will be brave about it". Of course, that was not the case. Other people have been killed, and the latest tragedy occurred at Omagh. We lose faith, but the people who did not were those at the heart of the tragedy. We must learn from them and move forward.
There are always too many fingers in the pie when it comes to Northern Ireland: they all want to be "boys for success". As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, every American wants to be the one who came to save Northern Ireland. Most Irish immigrants to America left from the west coast of Ireland three generations ago, but Americans still have the view that horses and caravans travel up the west coast—and it is like that for those flying in to Shannon airport for a holiday. The Americans must learn that that is not what Ireland is about. They must not think that they can help by inviting Adams to sit at one table and Trimble to sit at another. At any dinner in America there is a Mr Plod the peacemaker. North America should realise the enormous investment opportunities and talent in Northern Ireland and, in that way, help constructively. However, I plead with America to stay out of Northern Ireland politics. I am sure that Northern Ireland policy will be viewed as a vote catcher in the New York state elections.
My noble friend Lord Howell drew attention to the fact that Northern Ireland cannot be run from Dublin. The situation is made more difficult by the two civil service departments: the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Northern Ireland Office Civil Service. The communications between the two services are sometimes strictly limited and Ministers can be fed differing policies. The aim of Northern Ireland Office civil servants is often to ensure that they do not miss the seven o'clock flight back to London. The Minister shakes his head, but I have seen it happen.
It is a very difficult situation. Someone suggested that General de Chastelain should have a drink in the bar and listen to and share views. It does not happen like that. One gets locked away in Stormont or Hillsborough and, if one goes across the road to the pub, some people look at the protection officers while others put their drugs away. It is very difficult to relax in that sort of atmosphere. We must weld the different groups.
We have been held back by a lack of responsibility in Northern Ireland. If people are not responsible, they do not behave responsibly. That is the case at national
374
and local levels. If a school is burnt down in Northern Ireland and the British taxpayer pays for it to be rebuilt, there is no pain in that—unless one's child attends that school. I hope, therefore, that this process will bring forward a great movement so that people can take ownership of it. I hope that we can still get it through with that ownership there. People should be able to say, "This is mine. If you do that, and we lose it, then it will be your children, my children and the future that will suffer".
The process will not be easy. It is up to the people of Northern Ireland. I have found somewhere at last where I agree with the Prime Minister when he says, "It is now up to you. I have done as much as I can". I believe that he should stick to that. Again, one of the problems has been, "If you don't like the message you are getting, go to Downing Street". Time and time again we have seen the processions up Downing Street and the crews waiting to take the message. The great thing about Sinn Fein is that it has always been better at spinning; second only, I believe, to Alastair Campbell.
All congratulations should go to David Trimble, who was the first person to take the Unionist message to North America. They used to believe that there was not a Unionist message. I once sat at the same table for the first dinner the Unionists attended in Washington. It was appalling. They felt that the North Americans were anti-Unionist. They were not anti-Unionist, they just did not know about the Unionists. Progress has been made. Let us not be negative. Let us concentrate on hanging on to what we have.
If I were still in office—I would love to be still in office: that is not to say that I am trying to usurp the Minister and in any case that is unlikely to happen—I would ask the Unionists, Sinn Fein, the other players and the paramilitaries whether any of those groups would want to be known as the one which ruined this final effort for peace, or whether it would want to be known as the hero big enough to make the gesture to save it.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, the mere fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, has risen to speak shows the great courage that she carries with her at all times. It was a privilege to hear what she had to say.
I apologise for arriving late. I had to present degrees this morning and I could not get back here in time. However, I have heard 95 per cent of the speeches.
Since 1967, Northern Ireland has been marked by a series of crises. It was in that year that the Provisional IRA came into existence, taking over from old IRA. Civil rights marches took place in West Belfast. On the walls was written, "I Ran Away", for the IRA. It played no part. A new organisation was set up and the republican movement fissured. The Official IRA went political and has representatives under different names in the Dail. However, it is the Provisional IRA that we are talking about. It is a new organisation based, of course, on the past. The Protestant paramilitaries are fissured groups, one of which is far larger than the

375
Provisional IRA. The crises which have marked the period have necessitated action by the government of the day.
In 90 per cent of what it says the Bill is very similar to other Bills introduced in the past 20 or 30 years. Technically, it is no different. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, but it is a place apart. The noble Lord, Lord Deedes, is no longer in his place. In 1971 I took a Labour Party delegation from the other place to Northern Ireland. The noble Lord led the whole delegation. We visited Long Kesh, as it was called at the time. One should not have a place such as Long Kesh in the United Kingdom. It was like a prisoner-of-war camp, with barbed wire, compounds and so forth. Northern Ireland is different, and we must not forget that. That does not mean that it is not a part of the United Kingdom, but to treat it as it were Sussex, Hampshire, Wales or even Scotland is a grave mistake. It is different in many ways.
Another point I have not mentioned for some time, although it is always on my mind, is that we underestimate the problems that Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland have to face. They are far closer to their electorate, and they are constantly in danger. I shall never forget the police guard I had, which was not much greater than that provided to Members of Parliament in Northern Ireland. It is a place apart.
Northern Ireland Members of Parliament form a powerful group. They are a small group which acts almost as a devolved group. The Government are asking for the Bill to go on the statute book because of the crisis that has arisen right now. The first crisis I came across—the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, mentioned it—was in 1974 when a power-sharing executive was set up. The late Lord Whitelaw had left the Province in December, before Sunningdale was signed. He played a most powerful part in the Province. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, says that he misses him. I do, too, as indeed do many noble Lords on this side of the House.
On my first day there I attended a meeting of the power-sharing executive. Brian Faulkner asked if he could come to see me. The noble Lord, Lord Orme, was the Minister of State at the time. We had decided to keep away from the power-sharing executive. It was running Northern Ireland, apart from security and constitutional matters. Brian Faulkner said to me, "I have come to tell you that the Sunningdale agreement is finished. We were pushed too far." Then he said, "I have been disowned by my own party." The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, will agree that that is what happened. I sent a fax—it was not called a fax in those days—to Downing Street saying, "I propose to go on saying that we support Sunningdale but the Prime Minister must realise that it is in grave danger." Eventually, it ended with a veto from the Loyalist side of the community, with the Ulster workers' strike. The noble Lords, Lord Fitt, and Lord Blease, will remember that. The strike was not a trade union strike, but rather one by trade Unionists, which was perhaps more powerful.
Four weeks later we had to have the same kind of legislation as we have now. I notice much the same wording. The legislation is being brought forward in
376
order that the government of the Province can be suspended by a suspension order. The whole purpose of the Bill is to make provision for the government of Northern Ireland should there be a breakdown. Clause 2 provides for what would happen should there be a restoration. It is exactly the same as happened before.
I wish that technical legislation well. However, there are questions I wish to ask about what else is involved. The key to it all is decommissioning. I wish to ask this question. I am operating from the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. I am not suggesting that they should take the place of the Bill itself, but the matter is set down clearly. The Explanatory Notes state:
"In relation to decommissioning, the condition is that the Decommissioning Commission … reports to the Secretary of State that there has been a failure to honour commitments relating to decommissioning".
Decommissioning is then defined. The Explanatory Notes continue:
"The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning was established in 1997 … The Belfast Agreement itself envisages the Commission monitoring, reviewing and verifying progress on the decommissioning of illegal arms".
Has it done that? Has it supervised and verified that decommissioning has taken place?
I wish to make a statement as well. There are two sides to the equation of violence in Northern Ireland. There are two vetoes: a loyalist veto and a republican veto. There is a veto by the SDLP, which never has been involved in violence. It has a veto as well, because it represents the Nationalist tradition in the Province. The Republican and Loyalist sides are the two sides of the equation. Sinn Fein is split; the IRA is split So are the paramilitary groups, of which there are many. This has always been the case.
We forget at our peril on this side of the water that in 1920, when southern Ireland, the 26 counties, became independent, there was a civil war in Ireland between the various wings of the IRA. There is a danger of that happening again. History should not be forgotten in that respect. What we are doing in this House and in another place must take that into account.
It is easy enough here, with the normal problems that may or may not arise, but Northern Ireland is a place apart and has to be dealt with as a place apart—a part of the United Kingdom, but a place apart. The Nationalist, the Unionist and the Republican Political parties have to be taken into account.
As regards decommissioning, of course something must be done, but I am sceptical. A certain amount of arms could be handed in, as well as semtex and agricultural nitrates. Large amounts of weaponry, much of it from the Middle East, from Libya and so on, will still exist. I am sceptical of the importance given to decommissioning, except in one respect. It is a totem pole. It is important, but we must not run away with the idea that it is so important that it will solve the problem, because it will not.
I remember how often this sort of situation has arisen, as may the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. I invited the heads of the Churches in Northern Ireland

377
to come and see me at Stormont. My noble friend Lord Orme was with me. It was the first time that they had been in my room and the first time they talked together in this respect, or so I thought. I talked about a cease-fire, and one of them said, "Never forget that in Ireland over the centuries the pike has gone back into the thatch", ready to be pulled out at another time.
It is important that there be a totem but it will not be the answer. Unless all the arms are handed in, violence will continue. In my view, there is only one way through, and that is for the three sides to work together. We may not like it. There are many things that stick in my throat when I read about them, but in other countries steps have had to be taken to bring men of violence onto the political scene.
Mr John Hume has done a remarkable job with the SDLP, a new party that came into existence around 1968. New parties emerge. Attitudes change. I never thought I would praise Mr Adams. He has accepted that the division of Ireland into two remains. That is a very important step, accepted by virtue of the Belfast agreement and all that goes with it. I ask noble Lords to look carefully at it.
Then, of course, there is Mr Trimble. To show that he has come a long way—and I praise him for it—I would tell your Lordships that I first knew him as someone on a motorbike, wearing a black suit and riding as an outrider for Bill Craig of the Vanguard Unionist Party, another breakaway group.
People in Northern Ireland have had to come a long way; they will have to go further before there is peace in Northern Ireland, because it has not come yet.
This is a technical Bill. We have seen it before. We need to examine carefully the amendments that come tomorrow. They are what really matter. The rest, of course, matters, but to make a song and dance about the Bill is a mistake. I ask noble Lords to look at the other Bills. We have gone through these technical matters about commencement orders and non-commencement orders previously. They can be found in the files.
I wish the Government well. I shall listen carefully to what is said about decommissioning. While I am sceptical, it is important for the people of Northern Ireland, particularly on the Unionist side. In this respect, I do not forget Brian Faulkner, who was driven too far. The politicians of Northern Ireland cannot be driven for ever, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said.
I look forward to hearing what the Government come up with. I ask these questions about decommissioning. What has been done about it since the Belfast agreement? Has anything at all been done about monitoring and reporting? It is very important, because unless something is done the whole edifice will fall to the ground.
5.56 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, my grandfather was adjutant of the Munster Fusiliers in Tralee in 1909. It may seem a long way back, but it is not nearly as far back as most Irish memories go. There was a foul
378
murder, and his sergeant-major said to him, "Captain Dillon, there has always been murder in Ireland".
We underestimate what drives the Unionist population. They have been a minority in Ireland and have been subject to, and are continually subject to, persecution and, if I may say so, ethnic cleansing, to which I will refer in a minute.
I had luncheon today with an old friend of mine who comes from Ulster. His mother remembered as a child his farmhouse on the borders of Donegal being defended by her father and two elder brothers with rifles against the IRA coming across the border.
It is also to be remembered that if the Unionists had not been frightened of the Southern Irish Catholics home rule would have happened in 1886 in peace and quiet. The problem has always been the fear of two minorities: the Southern Irish Catholics' fear of being beaten up by England and the English being frightened of Ireland in the old days, because the population of Ireland was very nearly as high as that of the rest of Great Britain—certainly two-thirds in the early 19th century.
In 1641 hundreds of Unionists and Protestant people were murdered. That is why they fought so strongly at Enniskillen, Aughrim and Derry. Even in 1922 there were 100,000 small Protestant farmers in Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal. Those people were bombed and burnt out.
The reason I drag up these historical instances is not to show off, to show that I know these obscure facts, but to try to help explain why the Unionists feel so frightened. They have felt frightened for a long time. They have made concessions to Mr McGuinness, who I know was wanted for murder when the Grenadiers were in Ulster 20 years ago, and Adams, who was quartermaster of the West Belfast Brigade. They have sat down with some pretty unpleasant people. They have conceded what we in this country have never conceded; they have conceded that they cannot kick out their government. If there is a general election for the assembly in Northern Ireland, it will not result in a change of government. They do not have that democratic right to change the assembly. They have been landed with it. We say that it is democratic, but it is not what we call democratic. We can sack Mr Blair, as we sacked Mr Major, and long may that last. They cannot do that. They have conceded all of these things.
The reason why decommissioning, to paraphrase Churchill, like the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, re-emerged after the ebb tide of war was that in the beginning decommissioning was too difficult. It could not be got through, so an attempt was made to finesse it. Ultimately, something as important as that cannot be finessed. As the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, said, the pikes go back into the thatch. I do not think it matters if there is a Thompson machine gun from the civil war of 1922, or even a rusting Lee-Enfield from the pitiful attempt by the IRA in 1949. What matters is large quantities of Semtex; that is nasty and dangerous stuff which can do a lot of damage.

379
Why is there suddenly this rush? The whole of the process of Ireland, at least since I carne to this House, has been one rushed Bill after another. When I first came here there was the suspension of Stormont—I believe it took place on a Saturday. Suddenly, Bills were rushed through. I repeat, as a sergeant major long-since dead said to my grandfather, there has always been murder in Ireland. There seems to be no point in rushing things. Why do we rush a Bill which says that if the bad guys behave badly, the good guys suffer?
I only wanted to make those two points. First, to put some plug and hope that somebody will know a little about why the Unionists behave as they do. Secondly, to ask that simple question: why do the good guys suffer if the bad guys misbehave?
6 p.m.
Lord Rathcavan: My Lords, I shall declare my interest as having spent much of my adult life in Northern Ireland and during the past 30 years or so there have been many moments of despair. No one who lives in Northern Ireland can avoid the edges of violence and not have friends or relatives who have suffered terribly.
When I visit the Western Isles of Scotland which, on a fair day, I can see from the top of the hills behind where I live, I envy the normality of life and the thriving tourist industry which supports so many in that beautiful part of the world. Our part is just as beautiful, but the tourists no longer make Northern Ireland a first choice destination for a holiday break in what should be the peak season of July and August.
The huge majority in Northern Ireland greet the opportunity for a new dawn with passion. I had hoped that this Bill, hastily drafted though it was and after so many positive achievements by government in the past year, would seize that opportunity. In its present form it has clearly failed to do that and is flawed. I agree with much of what has been said by many noble Lords today, particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, who did so much to lay the foundations on which this Bill has become feasible; and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who has such huge and first-hand experience of political life in Northern Ireland. His comments in these debates are always invaluable.
I welcome the Minister's commitment to bring forward amendments tomorrow at Committee stage. I hope he will capture some of the creative thinking that has been expressed here today and not repeat the negative mantras—that it is not in the letter of the Good Friday agreement—and that the Government cannot touch the independence of the Independent Commission on Decommissioning. The plausible reassurances spoken by the Prime Minister at various moments of pressure during the past year are just not contained in the drafting of this Bill.
I believe that the majority consensus of noble Lords who have spoken want the Government to indicate a more specific timetable for decommissioning. Expressions like, "a matter of days", "a few weeks" or "as soon as practicable" are not good enough. Everyone admires the commitment and the independent skills of General de Chastelain. In fact, I understand he is an
380
accomplished player of the pipes—I am not sure whether they are the Ilian pipes or the Scottish pipes; perhaps both—but he has put aside his favourite hobby for the duration of his task in case his music is perceived as partisan to one side or the other.
However, I am sure his commission would not object to having further directions from government for the next vital stages of decommissioning. After all, only last month the Government asked the commission to delay and possibly amend its recent report.
I believe that the consensus today is that the procedures in this Bill for the suspension and review of the executive are too cumbersome, too uncertain and contain too many cul-de-sacs. It is a dangerous maze. As the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, put it, if this part of the Bill is to inspire confidence it must be in cast iron and automatic.
The Bill must contain some reassurances, also in cast iron and not in candle wax, on the suspension of prisoner releases. It can be done, as many noble Lords much more experienced in drafting legislation than I have said. Unless some concessions along those lines are brought forward in amendments tomorrow, the Unionist Party, and its leader in particular, will be put in an impossible position. Comments and spin from Sinn Fein today and in recent days are ominous and threatening for much of what this Bill is trying to achieve.
I hope that the Minister and his colleagues in government will reflect deeply on what has been said here today and that he will not repeat the fudges, but will amend this Bill in a form that can be embraced by all parties in Northern Ireland.
6.5 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I wrote to the Minister with apologies to say that I would be five minutes late. Unfortunately, there was a two-hour delay from Brussels. I apologise deeply to him and to the House and ask whether I may be allowed to speak.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, despite judicious leaks to suggest that Sinn Fein/IRA is ready to try to persuade the IRA (as one Siamese twin to another) to decommission something sometime, the IRA remains loudly silent when it could so easily have spoken. That loud silence does nothing to reassure Unionists who are being urged from every side to take the leap of faith when all they have heard for the past three years is the repeated statement that the IRA will never decommission, though it demands the. demilitarisation of both Army and RUC.
What is the relative score in the game of Sinn Fein/IRA versus the civilised world as a result of the Belfast agreement? The political goal they share with the SDLP is greater power in Northern Ireland for the Catholic minority and the creation of cross-border institutions which could lead to a united Ireland. Though those last have created some disquiet for the majority, they are perfectly respectable aims, and less alarming

381
than they might once have been because of the Dublin Government's commitment after a referendum north and south to accept that so long as the majority in Northern Ireland so wish, Northern Ireland will remain a part of the UK. But the legislation to abolish Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution will only be, as I understand the Belfast Agreement, put through the Dail on the day the d'Hondt procedure triggers the creation of the new Northern Ireland Executive, where Sinn Fein/IRA expects two ministerial seats because of the 16 per cent vote it secured in the North.
So the Unionists have no guarantee yet of that vital quid pro quo. Sinn Fein/IRA meanwhile achieved three other vital objectives; the release of prisoners largely complete, many of them highly skilled terrorists with no other skills; a review of the RUC with the object at best of replacement with the people's police of paramilitaries, allegedly more closely attuned to the community, and at least of reducing and disarming it, in the name of the organisation. They also secured an inquiry into Bloody Sunday and a significant withdrawal of British forces from British soil. What quid pro quo has there been?
Martin McGuinness was named last year as Sinn Fein's link to the de Chastelain commission. We might have thought he would be talking about decommissioning. In fact it is said that he has never talked to the IRA about decommissioning. What then has he been discussing all these months with the general? I hope we shall now see the de Chastelain report. The Prime Minister said after the Belfast agreement, reassuring the Unionists who found nothing but vague and pious hopes about the end of violence and decommissioning in the Belfast agreement, that there would be no fudge with terror. But there has been. He said that the factors to be considered when deciding whether the terms of the agreement were being met on the release of prisoners should include an end to bombings, killings and beatings, the progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence and full co-operation with the Independent Commission on Decommissioning to implement the provisions of the agreement.
The beatings, the killings and the exiles have continued, even though the IRA could have stopped them completely in the run-up to the election. Can anyone wonder that the Unionists cannot believe that anything will change just because the Prime Minister now believes in a seismic change and Mr Ahern tells us that there has been a deeply important change in the Sinn Fein position and a hugely positive contribution to the search for compromise? Could we not be told by the IRA now that it is thinking again? Why does that have to be a secret? Why do we have to legislate when we do not know? What are we to make of the fact that over this critical weekend Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness were not in Northern Ireland, but were talking to the National Security Council in Washington?
The leaders of Sinn Fein/IRA have an agenda that they have put through with great success. It does not include decommissioning and they have said so. They
382
have recently demonstrated to their people and to the world that they have been able to force two sovereign governments to abandon their duty to law and order and to give an amnesty to murderers. While claiming to be caring terrorists, they have not delivered the bodies of innocent members of their own community—not opponents killed on the field of battle.
I do not know whether the Unionists will take yet another of the steps that they have been urged to take by three governments and by many in Northern Ireland of all persuasions. I deeply admire and respect what my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield said. She knows far more than I do about the feeling of the Province. I am looking at the issue from the outside, but we and the Government have a responsibility.
It is essential that the two governments put as much pressure on the SDLP as they have put on the Unionists to stay in government if Sinn Fein/IRA fails, as it surely will, to deliver on decommissioning. I understand that Mr Hume has so far said neither yea nor nay. He needs to be persuaded to say that he is going to stay. The Sinn Fein/IRA leaders must not be allowed to get away with murder yet again or with destroying the agreement now that they have got all that they want and their pay-off time has come.
The Irish Government should give a formal public commitment that if the Executive is stalled because of Sinn Fein/IRA's failure, they will still legislate on Articles 2 and 3 at once. Why should the Catholic Republicans who do not support the IRA and the ordinary Unionist population of Northern Ireland lose their guarantee of stability?
In the speeches that I have been able to hear, many noble Lords have said that a fixed timetable must be set—not referring to two or three days or two or three weeks—for Sinn Fein to deliver the IRA's commitment. It is undesirable to shelter behind an independent commission. Sinn Fein/IRA should not be allowed to hold out hopes that it has no intention of fulfilling. Sinn Fein's inclusion in government was important to the agreement not because it was a small party with 16 per cent of the vote, but because it spoke for the IRA. It has never mentioned the IRA's subsequent comment that, as the IRA was not part of the agreement qua IRA, it has no obligations to meet the conditions of the agreement. Surely the SDLP can speak and act for all Catholics.
Our Government must stop appeasing the IRA for fear of a bomb in mainland Britain. The Irish Government must stop appeasing it for fear of Sinn Fein members being elected to the Dail. They should also recognise that many in the South are now fearful of the IRA and would love to see something done about it. The American Government should start wondering what the average American would think about the Oklahoma bombers being asked to stand for Congress.
Gerry Adams—that statesman—is the same Gerry Adams who ordered the murder of people such as Jean McConville and who recently told the families of the disappeared that, although they would get some bodies back, they must bury them quietly and without fuss. Does that sound like a civilised statesman?

383
The Unionists have every right—and indeed duty—to stand for promises being kept and for law and order to be guaranteed for the ordinary citizen. That includes the families who have been forbidden for so many years to speak of the disappeared. That is a shame and a disgrace. They should not be the scapegoats for the failure of governments, North and South, to face down cowardly murderers who have learnt to manipulate democracy for their own ends.
Democracy has to be worked and fought for. If the Executive has to continue without Sinn Fein/IRA, I fear that we can expect a return to violence. We shall certainly be threatened with it. We shall have to be prepared to act against the IRA in any way that is necessary. I hope that our defence forces policy will be amended to recognise the possible need for a return to a major military commitment to protect the population and keep the peace. I do not want that to happen, but it could.
The situation cannot be resolved by spin, particularly as in Sinn Fein/IRA we have the master spinners. I find it hard to understand the point of assuring the Unionists that they can put forward amendments and that they will be listened to and consulted and then voting them down. I was happy to hear that the Minister has given assurances that that grave error may be partly redressed by accepting appropriate amendments in this House. I hope that we can rely on the Government to do that.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, on her safe, if not speedy, return from Brussels. I thank the Minister for his introduction. Over the past 18 months or so we have debated many Bills relating to Northern Ireland. In the complexity stakes this must be one of the most difficult.
Like many others, I am grateful for all the effort that the Prime Minister has devoted to the Province over the past two or three weeks. I was sorry that he was unable to attend the opening of the Scottish Parliament, the establishment of which was one of the main planks of his party's manifesto. He should have been there. He has since postponed an official visit to Poland. However, in spite of all his efforts, their culmination in the Bill is far from satisfactory.
If the Bill is successful, the Prime Minister will rightly be given the credit. However, if it is unsuccessful, the blame will inevitably fall on Northern Ireland's locally elected politicians. I am not a member of the Ulster Unionist Party and I have criticised its policies in the past. However, over the past year or so I have had nothing but admiration for the courage, imagination and flexibility of its position. I pay particular tribute to David Trimble, Ken Maginnis and Sir Reg Empey. In the short debate that followed the Northern Ireland Statement in your Lordships' House on 5th July, it was said that they had to stop the nit-picking. That is a little wide of the mark and palpably unfair. They are merely seeking to get it right.
Since the Good Friday agreement, the referendum and the Northern Ireland elections, we have had prisoner releases, the dismantling of security installations, the
384
Patten inquiry into the RUC and, more recently, a form of immunity for the murderers of the disappeared. In return, as I have said before, Sinn Fein/IRA has given nothing—not one rifle, not one bullet, not an ounce of Semtex.
The Bill would mean that the Ulster Unionists and others had to form an Executive with Sinn Fein without any guarantee from that party or the IRA that decommissioning would happen. Sinn Fein now claims that it is a separate entity from the IRA and that it cannot force the IRA to disarm. That view appears to find some favour with the Irish Taoiseach and the SDLP. An Executive could soon be formed and power devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is easy to be seduced by the vision that in two, three or four months the Assembly and the Executive will be up and running, the guns will be silent and the war will be over. Let us not upset the applecart, in that decommissioning has yet to begin. It is surely just around the corner.
The time to fudge must stop. The line in the sand must be drawn at this late hour. There must be cast-iron guarantees in place if decommissioning does not take place. At the moment, the effect of the Bill will be that if decommissioning does not take place, the whole Assembly and the Executive will be suspended. After the review, the Assembly may vote to reconvene and to exclude one or more parties from the Executive. However, it would appear unlikely that the SDLP will support an Executive without Sinn Fein's presence. We heard some trenchant remarks on that issue from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, earlier this afternoon.
As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, so perspicaciously put it in the debate last week,
"that would act as an impediment to the process".—[Official Report, 5/7/99; col. 614.]
I agree with him wholeheartedly on that. Thus, we should have the Alice in Wonderland situation of a democratically elected government being toppled not by the use of the gun, but by the possession of the gun.
We must have safeguards in place to strengthen the Bill and to render it more watertight. The refusal of Sinn Fein and the IRA to decommission must not be a reason to bring down the Assembly and the Executive. The Bill should, as an alternative, introduce measures whereby Sinn Fein is locked out of the Executive if the IRA does not decommission, but at the same time, the Assembly and the Executive should continue.
It should also be remembered that, apart from a token gesture last Christmas, the Loyalist paramilitaries have not decommissioned either. The exclusion measures currently in the Bill are no incentive for them to do so, as they do not have any representation on the Executive. For that reason, the Bill should include specific linkage between decommissioning and prisoner releases. In other words, if decommissioning does not commence in a very short and specified time, the release of prisoners from any non-complying organisation will be halted. The short specified time should be incorporated into the Bill, possibly in the form of a timetable drawn up by General de Chastelain and the decommissioning body.
Those measures and others in a similar, probably far better, vein, will make the Bill more secure. I hope that they will end, once and for all, the machinations of all

385
those who do not wish Northern Ireland well. If such amendments are put forward tomorrow—and I sincerely hope that they will come from the Government, although I share some of the views of my noble friend Lord Cooke of Islandreagh about the difficulties therein—I shall support them.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have been more or less silent on the subject of Northern Ireland for about 17 years since I spent a spell there as a Minister. I had almost decided to remain silent tonight, to your Lordships' great relief, no doubt, until I heard my noble friend Lady Denton speak. It seemed to me that she made points of such fundamental importance that they ought to be endorsed.
She said that Northern Ireland cannot be run from Westminster. That is perfectly true. Peace will not be made in Westminster; nor will it be made in Dublin. It will be made in the Province, and in the adjacent parts of the Republic of Ireland. It will not be made by Westminster and Dublin politicians. It will be made by the politicians who actually live in the Province and the parts adjacent to it, and by the shadowy figures who lurk behind them and threaten them. All we can do is to try to facilitate that process. We have been asked to do so by taking a leap of faith—a fairly considerable leap of faith in view of the state of the Bill as it comes before the House.
The Bill is intended to produce machinery whereby the process of peacemaking can be conducted in the Province. Those who have not lived there do not realise the huge task that that is. It is a great deal more difficult than it appears to those who read the newspapers in this part of the United Kingdom. We do not wonder whose footstep is passing us at midnight, and what is the sound of rattling metal at the end of the cul-de-sac where a body may be found the following morning. That is not part of our daily life. It happens in parts of Northern Ireland. People who have suffered bereavement—we mostly have not, but some here have—at the hands of terrorists, cannot imagine the difficulty of reconciling themselves to it. Let us not forget:
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God".
Indeed, those individual people are being asked to do something astonishingly difficult. It is not up to us to blame them if they find it difficult or want assurance.
The assurance is in the Bill in the form of two processes. The first is the decommissioning process; the other is what happens if it fails. If it is to give reassurance, it must be simple, so that it can be understood; it must be dependable, so that it can be trusted; it must be transparent, so that people can see that it is happening. That means that there must be timetables and also definitions, as my noble friend Lady Blatch said, so that people will know when the process has failed. It must be believable, which is where the "totem" referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, comes in. It is not we who must have confidence in the process—I must say that I myself have
386
very little—but the people whose lives and livelihoods depend on the result. It is up to us to provide the criteria in which they can have confidence.
If the decommissioning process is stalled, it must be known to be stalled. The necessary next action must be automatically and immediately taken, not debated. That means that we must know when, and that must be on the face of the Bill. I said that we were asked to give the Bill a Second Reading as an "act of faith". Indeed we have, because we have been told that there will be amendments, but we know not what those amendments will be. They must be substantial because we must try to stand impartially between those engaged in the struggle in Northern Ireland. We have seen many concessions given by one side and I, for one, find it very difficult to know what concessions have been made by the other. I hope that the noble Lord, in his reply, will answer that question which has been asked by many of my noble friends and others during this debate. I hope that the reason for not revealing the amendments is that they are still being discussed with Dublin. What we do must be on all fours with what is done in the Republic and what will be accepted in the Province.
I shall not go on longer. I should like to put on record my admiration for the huge amount of energy which has been put into the search for peace. I should like to endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lady Denton. There is a great mass of people in Northern Ireland who desperately want peace, but often, demonstrating that fact in conversation or in public can put members of their families at risk. I therefore ask the noble Lord to give us every possible assurance that the process will be transparent; that the amendments will be effective in the way that I have described; and, moreover, that if the Bill fails, the remedy will be not to punish one side only, and that one group of terrorists shall not have the power to stall the whole process. I believe that if IRA and Sinn Fein are indeed a single organisation, and if the SDLP is said to be unable to separate itself from Sinn Fein, it should demonstrate that fact itself. There should be no provision in the Bill that devolved power is withdrawn if the IRA does not decommission on its own. There must be another party to that.
I have spoken for too long. I repeat that we should give this Bill a Second Reading. But what we do at the end of the day depends on what is in the amendments that the noble Lord will bring to the House tomorrow.
6.29 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches support this Bill, but I warn the Minister that we plan to table a number of amendments. However, I am in somewhat of a quandary because I believe that our amendments have merit but, as the Minister said, some amendments will be brought forward by the Government. However, I believe that ours will be taken on board by the Government.
The purpose of the Bill is quite obvious; namely, it is a confidence-building measure as the process has reached an impasse. It seeks to give the Ulster Unionists the confidence to take the next step; that is, for Mr Trimble to set up the Executive. I believe that the

387
impasse has existed ever since the Good Friday agreement was signed. The nature of the wording of the Good Friday agreement has led to the difficult scenario that we face at the moment; namely, no inclusion without decommissioning. However, on the other hand, the Good Friday agreement does not include the proviso of decommissioning for the Executive to be set up.
The Bill is an amendment to the Good Friday agreement. We should not forget the purpose of the Good Friday agreement. It is easy to look too closely at its detail and forget the purpose. I believe that the Good Friday agreement is the only path to a devolved and inclusive government in Northern Ireland, and that inclusive government is the only way to attain a sustainable peace in Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness., Lady Denton, in a particularly fine speech expressed her confidence in the views of the majority of the people who live in Northern Ireland and their wish for peace. It is perhaps time that the politicians of Northern Ireland started to listen to the views of the majority rather than sticking to the particular wording of agreements.
The Bill has been brought about, and would only be enacted, in a worse case scenario. It will allow the process to continue and it allows other parties to enact the process. However, I do not think that anyone in this House or anyone in Northern Ireland believes that if the Bill is enacted the peace process will not have been dealt a heavy blow. The issue which has attracted the most attention this afternoon is that of decommissioning. A deadline has been set for May 2000.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but he has just said that this Bill would not be enacted except in the worse case scenario. My understanding is that it is likely that this Bill will be enacted the day after tomorrow. That is not the worst-case scenario; or, rather, it would be the worst-case scenario if it was enacted without our amendments.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness has put forward her opposition to the Good Friday agreement. If her viewpoint is that decommissioning, or a form of decommissioning, will never take place, she obviously has no faith in the signing of the Good Friday agreement in the first place.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, that is such a parody of what my noble friend has said. She just corrected what the noble Lord said in a matter of fact. Then the noble Lord waffles on about the Good Friday agreement and gets it horrendously wrong.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, there is obviously a difference of view between our two Benches on the purpose of the Good Friday agreement.
Lord Brookman: My Lords—
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I do not believe it is the—
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I share the view—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sorry. I can only allow someone to intervene in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, if he consents to give way, which he did not.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I very much hope and expect that the process of decommissioning will start
388
soon after the devolution order is enacted. I very much hope that some time next week we shall see the first moves towards the process of decommissioning taking place. It will be up to General de Chastelain to say whether or not decommissioning is taking place. There are of course many problems with decommissioning. I believe that many noble Lords have mentioned the problems of assessing whether full decommissioning has taken place. Indeed the IRA has a slogan which will cause it much difficulty if decommissioning is to take place; namely, "not one ounce and one bullet". If one ounce or one bullet is to be decommissioned, will that in a philosophical sense signify the decommissioning of the entire arsenal?
Another issue that has been raised concerns the release of prisoners. We on these Benches believe that the release of prisoners cannot be included in this Bill. In another place the prison sentences legislation was mentioned as a reason to halt prisoner releases. However, it is our view that the release of prisoners is bound to the cease-fire and that prisoner releases should be halted only on the breaking of the cease-fire.
I echo the sentiments expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, on the restraint shown by those taking part in the Drumcree march. The newspapers reported how few instances of violence occurred this year as opposed to the same occasion last year.
This Bill does not just contain provisions as regards a failure of Sinn Fein to decommission. It will assure all parties not just that decommissioning will take place but that all the political commitments in the Good Friday agreement will be met.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, especially those who supported the intentions of the Bill. Before I deal with some of the specific points that have been made I shall answer the question that has been put by a number of speakers concerning government amendments.
This afternoon the Prime Minister gave an indication of the amendments that the Government are thinking of introducing tomorrow. He said that the Government would table amendments today in line with the Good Friday agreement that will reflect many of the comments that were made on all sides of the House in the debate yesterday. Those amendments will focus upon making sure that decommissioning takes place in accordance with the timetable to be laid down by de Chastelain; will make it clear that any breaches of that timetable will lead to the automatic suspension of the institutions; and will ensure that we can clearly and formally identify the parties that default either in decommissioning or in devolution.
I appreciate that I was asked for more specific information. But I think that the House will understand that the Government are still discussing and considering the precise wording of the amendments. It is a little too early at this point for me to be able to indicate with absolute clarity what those amendments will be. I do not

389
wish to raise the hopes of your Lordships that the Government will reflect in specific amendments all the points made in the speeches. I do not want to leave the House with such high hopes. We are committed to bringing some amendments forward.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. What he has described as "the amendments" are surely what the Bill is already, as he described it to us in his opening speech.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I think we will go further than that. I was quoting what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said today. The noble Lord is enough of an old hand at this business to know that I cannot at this stage go any further. Of course he realises that. It is a good try but I am not going to fall for that one.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has, as usual, tried to be as helpful to the House as he possibly can. But perhaps he could help us a little further, if not now then a little later on. Can he give the House some indication of when the wording of the amendments might be available? If it is to be later tonight, that would be helpful to those of us who wish to take part in the remaining stages tomorrow. We need to consider not only whether we can go along with the amendments—which I hope will be possible—but, if we cannot, what our reactions will be.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I will certainly do my best to find out and try to give an answer—if an answer is available—before I sit down. The noble Lord will appreciate the difficulties. Discussions are still going on and, indeed, in fairness to this House, it is only right that the Government should also consider what has been said here today. That may influence any amendments the Government may feel able to bring forward tomorrow. If I can be helpful to the House before I sit down I shall certainly endeavour to be so.
Noble Lords, of course, have understood the enormous efforts which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made in order to give effect to the Good Friday agreement and to take it further. No one can say that the Prime Minister has not put all possible effort into trying to bring the matter forward.
A question was asked about the position of the SDLP. It is not for the Government to comment on the views of the SDLP. I shall simply refer your Lordships to the speeches made by both John Hume and Seamus Mallon in the other place yesterday for an indication of how the SDLP will take this forward.
The Government do not appease the IRA; we do not appease any paramilitary organisation. We are seeking to bring forward a permanent peace for Northern Ireland on the basis of an agreement that was supported by the vast majority of the political parties in Northern Ireland. That is what we are seeking to do. I believe firmly that the Good Friday agreement and what we have done since represents an attempt to achieve a balance in Northern Ireland—not simply to put pressure on one party, but a balance—and all sides had to make
390
concessions and compromises in order to reach the Good Friday agreement. That is still the case. I do not know whether it would be particularly helpful for me to go through a list of concessions made by one side or the other; they are certainly in the Good Friday agreement and will be known to your Lordships. I do not believe that the pressure has been all one way; the pressure to move forward is on all sides in Northern Ireland, not only on the Ulster Unionists. I agree that Mr Trimble is in difficulties and that a lot of pressure has been exerted on him for the last little while.
Before I deal with specific points, perhaps I may give the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, an answer. We will try to get out the amendments by this evening. However, they are still under discussion. If I have any further information before I sit down, I shall certainly give it to the House.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene on that one point. Can the Minister say whether or not an indication of the nature of the amendments at the very least will have been relayed to Mr Trimble so that it could possibly be of help to him during the course of his meeting?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am being asked all kinds of specific questions. I cannot give an absolute undertaking that that is the case. If I can give the noble Lord any undertaking to that effect before I sit down, I shall certainly do so. The House will appreciate the difficulties we are in with trying to move forward on the basis of the debate yesterday in the other place. We are trying to move forward in terms of the specific amendments which will be forwarded here today. That involves a great deal of discussion and consideration of the issues. I do not want to build up enormously high hopes that all the wishes of this House can be met; I am sure they will not be. A few of them may be; I cannot go any further than that.
Before dealing with the specific points, perhaps I may welcome the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I think this is the first occasion on which he has spoken for the Opposition on Northern Ireland issues since he was appointed to his post. Certainly it is the first time he has taken part in a formal debate. I welcome that. We have already had some informal discussions—I am sure they will continue—and I congratulate him.
I also thank the noble Lord for what he said about wanting to continue a bipartisan policy. It was slightly frayed at the edges on occasion, I would say, but—
Lord Glentoran: No, my Lords.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, he is saying no; he is shaking his head. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord wishes to continue the bipartisan policy. We certainly wish to do so. It was a policy to which we adhered when we were in opposition and we would wish it to continue. We need a bipartisan policy not for the benefit of any party here but for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. The point is sufficiently important to

391
restate. My right honourable friend Mr Mackay was criticised by the government party last night for edging towards a break in the bipartisan relationship. I state firmly on behalf of my party that we are right behind the Government in what they are doing. The bipartisan agreement stands firm.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am most grateful for that. I appreciate what the noble Lord said.
He commented that the Prime Minister has been unable to move Sinn Fein on decommissioning. Although I very much reject that conclusion, the issue is at the heart of what we are seeking to do with the legislation. The test will come very quickly once the legislation is in place.
Perhaps I may take as one of my themes something that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said in her speech. She said "We have to test the intentions of the paramilitaries". That is precisely what this legislation is about; we are testing the intentions of the paramilitaries. By moving forward in this way—hopefully with the agreement of the Ulster Unionist Party and other parties—the intentions of the paramilitaries will very quickly be put to the test. That is the justification for this legislation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. However, the point I was making is that the paramilitaries will be tested clearly and in a transparent way only if the amendments are included in the Bill. If they are not, it will not be possible for us to make clear judgments about whether or not there has been a breach and whether or not the paramilitaries are serious about decommissioning.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness is saying. If I were to respond to her in detail we would be having the debate that we are bound to have tomorrow. I think she will appreciate that we shall have to keep tomorrow's debate for tomorrow and to confine ourselves more to the general principles, albeit I shall have to answer some of the points of detail because of the questions that were put to me in the course of the debate.
Another key point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and by many other speakers today. That is the allegation that we are penalising the innocent; not so; emphatically not so. The Good Friday agreement has a procedure within it whereby these matters can be resolved by the review process. The Bill triggers an automatic move towards the review process if there is a breach of the modalities of decommissioning by any of the organisations with which the decommissioning body has been dealing. If there is such a breach, the procedure will be automatic.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if the IRA does not decommission, under the terms of the Bill the Assembly will be suspended. That seems to be a case of the good
392
guys being clobbered because the bad guys misbehave. Surely it should be the bad guys who are suspended, not the good guys; or am I being incredibly stupid?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, of course I shall not say yes. We do not have an Assembly at present. What we have said is that the legislation will take everyone back to where we are now. So there is no loss in that. Secondly, the review process will enable the Northern Ireland parties to decide whether they wish to exclude from ministerial office any members of any particular party in the Assembly. That is a process which will then lead to the possible exclusion—it may not—of members of a party from an assembly. If it were not done that way, how could there be an assembly based on consent and on both communities in Northern Ireland being represented? How can that be done unless the majority on each side agree that that is a decision that they want to take. We cannot impose it upon them. They must do it for themselves. We are setting up the context in which they can do that. It is up to the local parties and politicians; if they wish to penalise only those who; are in breach, they will have every opportunity of doing so. We are providing the context that will enable that to happen.
As I said earlier, we are putting pressure on all (he parties, and have done, both in the period up to the Good Friday agreement and since. That is my response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, who said that the temptation is to put pressure on only one party. Yes, at any given point more pressure may be applied one way or another. But taking the totality of what has gone on since the Government took office, we have put pressure on all the participants in an even-handed manner.
My noble friend Lord Fitt asked about General de Chastelain and the commission. The general's report is in the Library and is available to any Member of this House who wants to see it. The commission has been very active in Northern Ireland in dealing with the complex circumstances surrounding the issue of decommissioning. The annexe to the commission's report on 2nd July sets out some of the activities. If the noble and learned Lord would care to refer to that annexe, he will see what the details are. As the report makes clear, the commission is ready and willing to play a central part, as envisaged in the agreement and the joint proposal published by the two Governments on 2nd July, The Way Forward. The commission is prepared to move forward in the way that I have indicated.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, asked a series of specific questions. I shall attempt to deal with the main ones. He suggested that somehow I did not have confidence that those who are on cease-fire would stay on cease-fire. He referred particularly to the IRA. I should regret it if my opening remarks were taken as implying a lack of faith in the intentions of others. If we do not move forward with an Assembly and do not give effect to the Good Friday agreement, there will be a local political vacuum in Northern Ireland. There is a danger that the paramilitary organisations, some of which are not presently on cease-fire, will fill that

393
vacuum. The sooner we have a functioning Assembly, with local Ministers responsible for local matters in Northern Ireland, the sooner we can weaken further the position of the paramilitaries in their local communities. That is the philosophical basis for saying that, if we do not move forward, there is a danger that violence might increase again in Northern Ireland. It is that very outcome that we intend to avoid.
The noble Lord also asked about timing. He asked why we do not delay the formation of an Executive until after the first progress made by General de Chastelain in terms of decommissioning. I think the noble Lord understands that we are seeking to sequence the appointment of the Executive and the start of decommissioning. That has dogged the process for many months. We believe that, by the process of sequencing, we can help those involved to achieve a breakthrough, which has so far eluded us on the decommissioning process.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the Minister says that this is a matter of sequencing. He gives as his reason for putting the formation of the Executive before the start of decommissioning the possibility that something nasty might happen if it were the other way round. But surely, if Sinn Fein is committed to peace, it would not mind a scrap if the sequence were reversed.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, for 15 months since the Good Friday agreement we have been waiting for it to happen the other way round. Because that has not happened, we are now seeking to make progress in the way indicated. What we are talking about, and what the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach made clear is, that we are talking about progress within days of the Executive being set up—I repeat, within days. There is enough at stake to say that it is worth waiting a few days, because we shall then know exactly whether people are as good as their word and whether the process of decommissioning will start across the board for all the organisations in Northern Ireland which have illegal bombs and weapons. That seems a very reasonable proposition. Given how much is at stake, it is worth waiting just a few days to see whether people will deliver. That is the point.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said that those who threatened violence should be excluded from government. I have already dealt with that point, but the noble Lord referred specifically to the position as regards prisoners. The noble Lord quoted the Prime Minister. I do not believe that the Prime Minister has broken his word at all. It is precisely because the Prime Minister is endeavouring to achieve exactly what he said that we are dealing with this piece of legislation—in order to have the start of decommissioning for all parties in the Executive and others. It is not fair and proper of the noble Lord to suggest that the Prime Minister has not been true to his word or has not lived by his undertakings.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, also referred to an article that appeared in last week's Sunday Mirror about a prisoner who was released and about a threat made by
394
that person. Of all the prisoners who have been released in Northern Ireland under the scheme in the sentencing legislation, not one, so far as I am aware, has returned to terrorist violence. Two have committed non-terrorist offences. Beyond that, we have no evidence that any have done so. I believe that the article in the Sunday Mirror referred to someone whose surname was Magee, but it was not the Patrick Magee of whom the noble Lord made mention. I am trying to clarify the position.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I did not mention anyone's name. I said that, clearly, the transcripts of the tapes as they were reproduced in the Sunday Mirror indicated that a particular prisoner was absolutely committed to continuing the armed struggle, and he was released. It was not appropriate to take the matter forward; however, at some time it would be appropriate to inquire whether the Secretary of State was aware of the views expressed by that prisoner at the time of his release.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am not sure that it is helpful for me to proceed with this matter. I shall ensure that the noble Lord is given more information. However, I repeat, it is my understanding that the Sunday Mirror got hold of the wrong individual. If people are released under the Government's scheme for the early release of prisoners, the independent body that is supervising the process has to be satisfied that the prisoner will not resume paramilitary violence. It is on the understanding that they will not resume violence that these people are being released. So if there were an indication that a prisoner in that category had made that comment, I would be very surprised if the independent body would have designated him for release.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and other noble Lords asked for a definition of "decommissioning". It applies to paramilitary organisations. It has nothing to do with arms legally held by the police or the Army. It is to do with guns and bombs held illegally by paramilitary organisations. The wording in the Good Friday agreement refers to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. The joint statement of 2nd July refers to the decommissioning of paramilitary arms. There is no question but that it does not refer to any weapons held by the police or the Army in Northern Ireland.
A number of noble Lords asked how General de Chastelain can be "held to account"—I believe that that was the expression. As a noble Lord intervened to say earlier, he is held in the highest possible regard by all parties in Northern Ireland. I am not aware that anybody has cast doubts on the general's integrity or the thoroughness of his approach. I am not aware of anybody who lacks faith in his ability to do what is being asked of him.
But it is an independent body appointed by the British and Irish Governments. Under the agreement establishing that body, General de Chastelain is required to report periodically to both Governments and through whatever mechanisms they may establish for that purpose, the other participants in political negotiations in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is clear that proper

395
arrangements are in place. The general has the total confidence of the Government and, I believe, until the debate today, of everybody else who has been concerned in the affairs of Northern Ireland.
As regards co-operation between the British and Irish Governments and the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, they have been working very closely together. We are entirely at one on the policy and process that we are discussing. We are continuing to maintain close contact at all levels. The Irish Government share entirely our commitment to implementing the Good Friday agreement as soon as possible. We have kept them in touch with developments on this Bill and we continue to do so. We have not formally sought their agreement to it: we seek that only from Parliament.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, in a very interesting speech, referred to the position of the SDLP. I believe that I dealt with that in saying that it is not for the Government to deal with what that party believes. I refer the noble Viscount to the comments made in the debate in the other place. He said that he was suspicious that we were giving way to terrorists. That is emphatically not so. We are not giving way or conceding to them; we are trying to maintain total integrity in the process that we are putting forward.
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that General de Chastelain is dealing with the disarmament of all paramilitary organisations, loyalist and republican, and not just with the decommissioning of IRA weapons. He is dealing with the problem across the board.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked why there was a hurry. I believe that the answer is clear. Fifteen months have elapsed since the Good Friday agreement. It is simply not proper that we should wait and do nothing. We have made repeated efforts. We made them at Hillsborough some weeks ago. As a Government we have made repeated efforts, in concert with the Irish Government, to bring the Good Friday agreement forward to enable an assembly to be set up. The experience of that agreement is that by setting a deadline it concentrated minds and we achieved that agreement. I do not believe that that would have been achieved had not Senator George Mitchell set a deadline for the local politicians. I believe very much that by setting a deadline now we are increasing the chances of moving forward. To say that we are in a hurry after 15 months is misjudging the time-scale.
I am very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, spoke this evening. I am delighted that she is here and at what she said. I smiled at one point when she spoke about if she were doing my job in Northern Ireland. People there remember her with enormous respect and affection. I am frequently asked about her and how she is. I pass that on in public. She was held in very high regard. Hers was a difficult act for me to follow in taking over at least some her responsibilities when I had the privilege of being appointed to my job.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that. I shall be grateful if he will convey to those people the affection in which I hold them and to wish them every success in this final manoeuvre.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I shall certainly make sure that that message is passed on to the many friends of
396
the noble Baroness in Northern Ireland. I very much agreed with her speech. She said that what we were doing was for those who want peace. She was quite right. The overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland want peace. They want it desperately because peace represents a proper way forward for them and their children. They have suffered too long. I share very much the sentiments that she put forward. I agree with her—I referred to it in my speech—that we had two weekends which could have been difficult because of the marches. People on both sides showed restraint and they are to be congratulated on that. It has made the way forward much easier than if there had been the tension that surrounded Drumcree and other places in previous years.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked about Articles 2 and 3, as did other noble Lords. The position is that the international agreement attached to the Good Friday agreement makes clear that those articles will be repealed when the agreement comes into force at the same time as the transfer of powers in Northern Ireland which, under the timetable referred to in the Prime Minister's statement, will be next Sunday. Our own constitutional changes in Sections 1 and 2 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 come into effect at the same time. There is no slippage on that.
I believe that I have dealt with the point made by my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees about the decommissioning commission. There is full information about that in the report that was published recently.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, said that the Sinn Fein/IRA agenda does not include decommissioning. As The Way Forward makes clear, all the parties have reaffirmed three principles, one of which was the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms by May 2000. If that document is put into effect, which this Bill is designed to support, we shall all know once and for all whether the IRA will decommission. We shall put it to the test. That is what many people want to see happen. It seems to me—and it commands pretty widespread support—that by putting the paramilitary organisations to the test we shall know very quickly whether or not they are prepared to decommission. That is the clearest way forward and that is why we are bringing forward this legislation. That is what the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to expect after all the waiting. They want to know whether or not the paramilitaries will decommission. If we can move to setting up an Executive we shall know very quickly afterwards, as I said a few moments ago, whether there will be decommissioning. I believe that there will be: but let us not take my belief. Let us put the organisations to the test as they have not been tested before. That is the basis for the Bill and why the Government want to move forward with it. That is why I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1999
7.10 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in short, approval of this order is required to enable direct rule in Northern Ireland to continue until the Assembly and Executive come fully into being. At the moment direct rule is due to end on 16th July, but the proposal put to the Northern Ireland parties by the British and Irish Governments on 2nd July set 18th July as the date for devolution. Therefore, if we did not approve this draft order there would be a hiatus in the governance of Northern Ireland, albeit for two days.
While we fully intend devolution to take place on 18th July, we believe it to be prudent to extend direct rule for a full year against the possibility—a small one, we hope—that devolution does not take place according to the time-scale proposed by the two Governments. Therefore, while approval of this order in theory results in direct rule being renewed for a whole year, in practice the Government hope and expect that it will be suspended by devolution on 18th July.
The people of Northern Ireland need and deserve political structures which are more accountable to them and more responsive to their needs. Against this background, we fervently hope and trust that this will be the last time that it is necessary for a government to come before your Lordships' House for approval of the statutory provisions that underpin direct rule. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, while supporting the Motion, we echo the words of the Minister. We on these Benches also hope that this is the last time that the order will come before the House.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the support. I say with a good deal of confidence that this will be the last time that I move approval of an order of this kind. I made such an optimistic comment a year ago. However, this time I have greater confidence in it. In view of the Bill to which we have just given a Second Reading and other developments, I believe that we are talking about a delay of only two days. However, we must ensure that direct rule continues in the interests of good and proper governance.
I do not believe that this is the occasion on which to go into the history of direct rule in great detail. I am not sure that I am fully qualified to do that. However, in the political life of Northern Ireland direct rule has given rise to criticism. The Order in Council procedure for legislation is not one that most people agree, happily, fully reflects the views of the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I am grateful for the support of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
The Bill was brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
7.3 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The page and line refer to Bill 67 as first printed for the Commons.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  1 Clause 1, leave out Clause 1.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. With the leave of your Lordships, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 6. Amendment No. 5 elaborates particular objectives within the overall purpose of the community legal service. Amendment No. 3 is a consequential change to the statement of purpose in Clause 5(1), and Amendment No. 6 is simply a drafting improvement.
  Amendment No. 1 removes the "principles" clause which your Lordships added to the Bill on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I approach the desirability of a "principles" clause on its merits. It may be desirable to define in statute the purpose and objectives of Part I of the Bill.
  My fundamental difficulty with the existing clause is one of structure. We have set out in this Bill to make a very clear distinction between the community legal service and the criminal defence service. This reflects the different policy objectives and imperatives behind the public funding of legal services in civil and criminal cases; the different mix of services required; and the very different factors that drive demand and cost. Clause 1 is at odds with this approach, because it seeks to cover two separate schemes with a single set of objectives.
  The Government's alternative approach is to include separate statements of the respective purposes of the community legal service and the criminal defence service. These are to be found in Clauses 5(1) and 13(1). They are no less effective for not appearing at the start of the Bill. The purpose of the criminal defence service is to provide advice, assistance and representation for people suspected of having committed criminal offences and for defendants in criminal proceedings. It is to provide that level of advice, assistance and representation required in the interests of justice. It is a service which must be provided to all who need it. That

  399
  is the position at present and will remain the position in the future. I do not see any need to expand or gloss the statement of purpose in Clause 13(1).
  The purpose of the community legal service is wholly different. It is to provide legal services that effectively meet the needs of people who have civil law problems, subject to the constraint that the available resources for the community legal service should be used in the most appropriate and justifiable manner.
  The important word "effectively" was added by Commons Amendment No. 2. The community legal service fund is designed to be a rational and transparent system, based on local assessments of need and a framework of priorities for allocating the finite resources available. This contrasts with the current legal aid scheme where the only effective way to limit spending is to reduce financial eligibility or increase contributions across the board—options which this Government, in contrast to the previous government, were not prepared to take.
  I said in our previous debates that I was sympathetic to much in the noble and learned Lord's "principles" clause. That sympathy is given effect by Commons Amendment No. 5, which adds specific objectives for the community legal service. The objectives are: to improve the range, quality and accessibility of services; to ensure that the services provided are proportionate to the matter in hand; and to promote the swift and fair resolution of disputes without excessive resort to the courts. The objectives about quality, access, speed and fairness all reflect concepts in the noble and learned Lord's. Clause 1.
  The exact formulation about access is, however, rather different. Clause 1 says that access should not be impaired by the place where services are sought. I regret that to the extent that this implies that people who live in rural areas can enjoy the same proximity to services as those in large towns, this is unrealistic. Further, the use of the word "place" restricts the concept of access to one of geography.
  Amendment No. 5, on the other hand, sets the objective of improving the accessibility of services. This shows our commitment to providing effective access through the community legal service, without tying the concept solely to the number and location of offices; in other words, it allows for new technology, outreach services, telephone advice lines and other non-traditional ways of delivering services. This Bill creates the community legal service, and we are asking it to perform in the most efficient and effective manner. I therefore submit that the hands of those delivering the services should not be tied to one model of delivery or one way of working.
  I now turn to those aspects of Clause 1 which are not reflected by Commons Amendment No. 5. Most importantly, there is no specific reference to discrimination against the disabled (as in subsection (2)(b) of Clause 1). I share entirely the objective of ensuring that access to legal services is not impaired by discrimination on the grounds of disability, or indeed of race or gender. We have considered very carefully whether the Bill should include an objective about avoiding undesirable forms of discrimination. On balance, the Government have concluded chat nothing can usefully be added to the existing law. The Legal Services
  400
  Commission and those it engages to provide services are already subject, as employers and service providers, to the provisions of the sex, race and disability discrimination Acts. As a public body, the commission will also be covered by the Human Rights Act which outlaws discrimination on a wide range of grounds in relation to people's access to their convention rights.
  Legislation about discrimination is complex because it necessarily includes very careful definitions. It must cover both direct and indirect sex discrimination and must define the way in which complaints about discrimination are to be considered by the courts and tribunals.
  An objective in the Bill about avoiding discrimination on the grounds of sex, race and disability would have to adopt the definitions of the existing legislation. Indeed, Clause 1 recognises this by referring to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. But this would, at best, add nothing to the existing law, and I fear that it could create some ambiguity. On the other hand, anything that extended the scope of existing discrimination law—as set out in detail in the individual statutes—would require wider and more detailed consideration than is possible in the context of this Bill; it would merit separate legislation in its own right.
  That said, I fully recognise the importance of providing a system that will deliver help to those who need it, irrespective of their race, sex or disability. That is why we need flexible machinery that can respond to the changing needs and priorities of the community.
  Under this Bill, for the first time in legal aid history, we shall be able to address the particular needs of any part of the community, whether it be the disabled or those from an ethnic minority background. Clause 7(5) refers to "areas or communities" specifically so that the commission may target non-geographical communities. The Legal Aid Board has already directed its regional legal services committees that their strategies for assessing the needs and priorities of their communities should include a section which discusses the needs of specific client groups (for example, ethnic minorities, disabled, elderly, carers, remote communities) and advises on how best to address those needs through contracts.
  The Legal Aid Board's legal aid franchise quality assurance standard also makes it mandatory that firms wishing to obtain a franchise have a written equal opportunities policy which is in effective operation. The policy must make it clear that the firm will not,
  "discriminate on grounds of race, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation in deciding whether to accept instructions from clients, instructing counsel and other experts, in the provision of services or in the selection, recruitment and treatment of staff".
  I recently instructed the board to report to me by September with proposals for monitoring the ethnic origin and gender of both the clients receiving services under its contracts and the providers supplying them. I also asked the board for a report on the options for monitoring access for the disabled.

  401
  Amendment No. 5 does not replicate subsection (2)(a) of Clause 1, which refers to services that people would,
  "be unable to obtain on account of their means".
  This formulation has been used to define legal aid since 1949 and is currently found in Section 1 of the Legal Aid Act 1988. We are reluctant to apply the terminology of legal aid to the new schemes, which are intended to mark a radical change. In particular, the reference to "means" tends to give the sense that legal services can only be funded from a person's existing resources or by the taxpayer. This does not chime with the measures in Part II intended to enhance conditional fees and promote other new ways of funding litigation. Furthermore, the words in question seem to me too general to add anything of substance when presented as a specific objective. I read them more as a description of legal aid, and as such I think that their sense is adequately covered by the purpose statements in Clauses 5 (1) and 13(1).
  The new paragraph (c) added by Amendment No. 5 draws on Clause 1 by referring to the swift and fair resolution of disputes; but it does not adopt the additional words,
  "with the parties placed on an equal footing".
  The difficulty I see with these words is that they could be taken to imply that the Legal Services Commission should match the spending of a wealthy private party, regardless of the importance or complexity of the case. That is simply unrealistic and would lead to the limited resources of the community legal service being exhausted on a relatively small number of cases. The community legal service will have a substantial budget and I wish to ensure that as many people as possible benefit from its services. An objective in this form could severely limit the number of people who could be assisted, which I am sure was not the intention of those who proposed it.
  On the basis of those explanations, I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Government have done all they can to reflect the spirit of Clause 1 in a way that is consistent with the new structures we are seeking to create in the Bill.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, first, I welcome the Government's acceptance that a purpose clause is desirable in connection with the community legal service. I also accept the argument of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that it should be a different purpose clause from that which applies to the criminal defence service.
  I understand from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that he regards this group of amendments as acceptable, even if not preferable to his own. There are certain respects in which I prefer the wording of the old Clause 1 to that of the new amendment, but I do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by my going through a legal analysis
  402
  of the two different purpose clauses. Therefore, I simply say that from these Benches we are content to accept this group of amendments.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I, too, wish to say that we agree with the judgment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the purpose clause should be divided into two: civil matters and criminal matters. I recognise that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has decided to accept the solution provided by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I have been greatly influenced by the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in that matter.
  The purpose clause in question, the clause which relates to civil matters, now has two weaknesses. First, it does not provide for equality of arms. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explained why that is so. Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, it seems to me that it will now not be possible to review judicially a situation in which, on the one hand, a litigant meriting legal aid has a good case but, on the other, cannot obtain a CFA at a reasonable cost. I suppose that was the fundamental reason why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, tabled the amendment in the first place. Nevertheless, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the situation is such that we have decided not to press the amendment.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, I had the advantage of reading a copy of a letter which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor wrote to my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd setting out in considerable detail his views, which he has fleshed out today. I found the letter adequately convincing and therefore I have no resistance to offer in relation to the proposals.
  Lord Hacking: My Lords, since we debated this matter in detail both in Committee and on Report, I am delighted to hear from a number of noble Lords that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, is happy with the proposals of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
  As has been recognised in our short discussion, the community legal service and the criminal defence service have different objectives and modus operandi and therefore it is fitting that different principles should guide their operations. I believe that the noble and learned Lord deals better in his amendments with geographical access to justice generally. I refer to Amendment No. 5 and to Clause 7(5).
  Finally, I want to raise a point which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on Report. The drafting of Clause 1 places a statutory duty in that,
  "Every person exercising functions … must act".
  When the purpose of the exercise was to establish principles, it was not a befitting way to place it under a form of statutory duty. Again, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has dealt with that in the amendments before us. For all those reasons, perhaps

  403
  I may say from the noble and learned Lord's Back Benches that the amendment has the support from this quarter of the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  2 Clause 4, page 3, line 11, leave out from ("grants") to end of line 12 and insert ("(with or without conditions),")
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. It is a minor drafting change. Clause 4(2) sets out specific powers of the legal services commission. It is in almost identical terms to Section 4(2) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 about the powers of the Legal Aid Board. Clause 4(2)(b) gives the commission the power to make conditional grants. The amendment removes some unnecessary words specifying conditions as to repayment. The clause as amended will continue to permit grants which have to be repaid in certain circumstances.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. —(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  3 Clause 5, page 3, line 41, leave out ("of a type and quality appropriate to") and insert ("that effectively")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, amendment agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  4 Clause 5, page 4, line 9, leave out ("can") and insert ("is required to")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 26.
  These amendments are intended to clarify which services will be funded under the new criminal defence service scheme, which will replace the existing criminal legal aid scheme.
  The new criminal defence service scheme will cover all the main services currently provided by criminal legal aid, including representation in court when this is in the interests of justice, and advice and assistance for suspects being questioned by the police and others involved in criminal investigations.
  These services are covered by Clauses 14 and 15, which define the services which the criminal defence service will be under a duty to fund and the ways in which it may fund them. Clause 13(4) looks forward to
  404
  Clauses 14 and 15 and describes them as specifying the services which the commission must fund. However, it would be possible to conclude from the drafting that a distinction could be drawn between services which must be funded under Clauses 14 and 15 and other criminal defence services which might be funded. This is not the Government's intention. Amendment No. 23 clarifies the position, recasting Clause 13(4) to provide that,
  "The Commission shall fund services as part of the Criminal Defence Service in accordance with sections 14 and 15".
  Amendment No. 4 is a consequential drafting change to the reference to the criminal defence service in Clause 5. Amendments Nos. 22 and 26 are drafting amendments relating to the definition of "criminal investigations".
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  5 Clause 5, page 4, line 10, at end insert—
  ("() Every person who exercises any function relating to the Community Legal Service shall have regard to the desirability of exercising it, so far as is reasonably practicable, so as to—

  (a) promote improvements in the range and quality of services provided as part of the Community Legal Service and in the ways in which they are made accessible to those who need them,

  (b) secure that the services provided in relation to any matter are appropriate having regard to its nature and importance, and

  (c) achieve the swift and fair resolution of disputes without unnecessary or unduly protracted proceedings in court.")

  6 Page 4, line 14, leave out from ("for") to ("quality") in line 16 and insert (", and the provision of, services of the descriptions specified in subsection (2) and about the")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I spoke to them with Amendment No. 1.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  [Motion No. 7A not moved.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  7 Clause 5, page 4, line 32, at end insert—
  ("(7A) The Commission may charge—

  (a) for accreditation,

  (b) for monitoring the services provided by accredited persons and bodies, and

  (c) for authorising accreditation by others;

  and persons or bodies authorised to accredit may charge for accreditation, and for such monitoring, in accordance with the terms of their authorisation.")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. I shall speak also to Amendments

  405
  Nos. 8, 24 and 25 and state the position I should have adopted had the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, moved his Amendment No. 7A.
  The purpose of Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 24 and 25 is to confer on the legal services commission a power to charge both for the accreditation and monitoring of providers of legal services and for the authorisation of others to accredit and monitor providers of legal services.
  The amendments will also allow others who are authorised to accredit and monitor providers of legal services to charge for accreditation and monitoring in accordance with terms set by the commission. They give the Lord Chancellor the power to require the commission to discharge its powers to charge for accreditation, monitoring and authorisation and to authorise others to charge in a prescribed manner.
  The government amendments are enabling provisions, which give the commission a power to charge for accreditation services. Accreditation lies at the heart of the Government's drive to create a network of quality assured suppliers of legal services. Accreditation will show to funders and clients that a particular body meets certain standards in its work. Not all will pay for accreditation.
  I come now to what I believe will be of most interest to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I deal first with services provided as part of the criminal defence service. These will be provided by solicitors' firms, typically under a contract, barristers and possibly by some not-for-profit law centres. All services provided as part of the criminal defence service will be funded by the commission and providers will not have to pay for accreditation.
  I turn separately to services funded by the commission as part of the community legal service. These services will be provided by solicitors and barristers who will be in business for profit and by not-for-profit agencies such as law centres and citizens advice bureaux, which will not. Suppliers of services funded by the commission as part of the community legal service will not have to pay for accreditation. Therefore, the high street solicitor, or indeed any solicitor, providing services as part of the criminal defence service or the community legal service which are funded by the legal services commission will not have to pay for accreditation. I believe that is what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, anticipated that he would hear from me.
  I turn to those who will provide the other help and advice not funded by the commission but which will be available through the wider community legal service. Many of these providers will be operating on a not-for-profit basis and they will not have to pay for accreditation. But there are many organisations that make a profit from the provision of legal services. These include firms of solicitors operating on a purely private basis in either civil or criminal matters. We hope that many of these firms will take part in their local community legal service networks as part of the referral network, even if they are not receiving funding under a
  406
  contract with the commission. Solicitors firms and others providing legal services for a profit may choose to take advantage of the opportunity to obtain accreditation to demonstrate the quality of the services that they provide and thereby attract more business; or they may be required by regulators or client groups to meet quality standards. That may be particularly appropriate in the field of immigration advice where there is concern about the quality of services provided.
  The commission will be well placed to accredit, or authorise others to accredit, profit-making providers of legal services—I repeat, which it does not fund—and to ensure that appropriate and consistent quality standards are applied across the field of legal services.
  We believe that it would be wrong to expect the taxpayer to meet the costs of accrediting and monitoring those individuals and bodies who seek accreditation as a means of increasing their profits arising out of non-publicly funded work.
  7.45 p.m.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor for giving way. He referred to cases which the legal services commission does not fund. There are, of course, two ways in which it can fund: either it funds the individual who then obtains legal aid services from a firm of solicitors or it can fund the firm direct. That is borne out in Clauses 14 and 15 of the Bill. I understand the noble and learned Lord to be saying—indeed, it would be logical—that whichever form of legal aid funding is obtained, whether to the individual or to the solicitors' firm which provides services to the client, either way there will not be a charge for accreditation and monitoring.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is certainly my understanding. The power for the commission to charge for accreditation services where the firm in question seeks accreditation for the purposes of promoting its business outside funded work is in a different category. But it is right to charge for such accreditation services and it will be for the public benefit because the consumer will have the advantage of an assurance of the quality of the service without the taxpayer having to foot the bill for accreditation.
  However, wherever the commission seeks to exercise this power within the limits that I have described, it will simply be seeking to recover its costs in providing the service and not to make a profit. I hope that that is a sufficient explanation of the Government's intentions from these provisions.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  8 Clause 5, page 4, line 34, leave out ("(7)") and insert("(7A)")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  9 Clause 6, page 5, line 3, at end insert—
  ("() The Lord Chancellor shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every determination under subsection (2)(a).")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. This amendment inserts a new subsection in Clause 6. Clause 6 deals with the community legal service fund that will replace civil legal aid. The new subsection places a duty on me to inform Parliament whenever I make a determination about the net budget for the community legal service fund.
  Clause 6(2)(a) requires me to pay to the legal services commission such sums for funding services as I determine are appropriate. In practice I will determine an annual net budget for the fund each financial year. This figure will be published as part of the Government's spending plans and in supply estimates, and laid before Parliament in that context.
  It would also apply should it ever be necessary for me to change my mind during the course of the financial year and make a fresh determination increasing or decreasing the budget. There has been a great deal of debate, both in and outside Parliament, about the danger that an unexpected overspend on the criminal defence service could eat into the community legal service budget.
  The Government have explained how, on the one hand, contracting will help achieve better value for the money spent on criminal defence services and make that spending more predictable, while on the other hand precluding large and sudden cuts in CLS spending. However, we have equally made clear that no responsible government could guarantee to ringfence a particular spending programme against any unforeseen contingency. In the interests of transparency, however, I undertook in this House to inform Parliament if I ever made a significant in-year change to the budget for the community legal service fund.
  Following a suggestion made by the National Consumer Council, Amendment No. 9 places this undertaking on a statutory footing. It is yet another example of this Government listening and responding to those who, while they are genuinely supportive, and generally supportive, of our reforms, have particular concerns and come forward with sensible suggestions to meet them which we feel able to accept.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor well knows, our great concern—probably our greatest concern in the whole of the Bill—was the fact that increases in the spending on the criminal defence service which are not cost-limited might eat severely into the budget for the community
  408
  legal service which is cost-limited, and the total budget from the Lord Chancellor's Department which is also cost-limited.
  That remains a severe worry and this amendment does not do anything of significance to prevent it from happening. Nevertheless, I accept that transparency is desirable in cases of this kind and I welcome the amendment so far as it goes. We are not in a position to press the matter further on the subject of our main worry.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  10 Clause 9, page 7, line 14, leave out ("requiring the furnishing of information or imposing other") and insert ("imposing")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment No. 10. This is a minor drafting amendment to Clause 9 which deals with the code for determining applications for funding from the community legal service fund.
  Clause 9(5)(b) currently states that the code may include provision requiring applicants for funding to furnish information or impose other conditions. The amendment changes the clause to refer simply to conditions without the specific reference to "information." It is, of course, still the intention that the code will include conditions about furnishing information. However, that is so clearly a requirement for any form of application that it goes without saying.
  The main reason for Amendment No. 10 is to remove some superfluous words. The change may also serve to avoid any implication that the clause permits only conditions of a similar nature to conditions about furnishing information—that is to say, conditions relating to the application process. However, the intention is that the code should be able to set prior conditions of a more substantive nature; for example, conditions requiring the applicant to take some other step to resolve his or her problem before seeking funding under the scheme.
  In particular, we intend to replicate in the code the requirement currently set out in Section 15(3F) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 to attend a meeting with a mediator before seeking legal representation in private law family proceedings. It may become appropriate in future to establish analogous conditions about other types of case or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.
  On the basis of that explanation, I commend Amendment No. 10 to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  11 Clause 11, page 8, line 37, leave out from ("both,") to end of line 38
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12.
  Amendment No. 11 makes a minor drafting change to shorten Clause 11. It removes some unnecessary words carried over from the Legal Aid Act 1988 about paying contributions from capital by instalments. The existing legal aid regulations about contributions do not make such provision. Under the amended Bill, it would still be possible to provide for instalments, relying on the words in Clause 11(3)(a) about "periodical payments" or "one or more capital sums."
  Amendment No. 12 makes another minor drafting change to Clause 11. It clarifies Clause 11(4)(b) which allows interest to be charged on contributions that fall due after the costs to which they relate are incurred. It is not intended that interest should run from the moment any costs are incurred—whether that means costs incurred by the service provider or costs incurred by the commission in making payments on account to the provider under a contract. This provision is intended to allow for the possibility of regulations postponing payment of a capital contribution until after the end of the case, or—although the Government have no plans to do this—requiring contributions from income to continue after the end of the case. The amendment makes this clearer. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  12 Clause 11, page 8, line 43, leave out from ("payment") to ("or") in line 45 and insert ("in respect of the cost of services required by the regulations to be made by him later than the time when the services are provided,")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  13 Clause 12, page 9, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 25 and insert ("Except in prescribed circumstances, costs ordered against an individual in relation to any proceedings or part of proceedings funded for him")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 to 21, 47 and 48.
  410
  This group of amendments concerns the protection that a person assisted by the community legal service is given from having to meet the costs of the other side should the action that he or she brings with the help of public funds be unsuccessful.
  Amendment No. 13 allows the general protection afforded by Clause 12(1) to be disapplied in prescribed circumstances. This power is necessary because, unlike the present legal aid scheme, the new commission will fund cases in a range of different ways. For example, Clause 7(3)(e) empowers the commission to provide help by making a grant or a loan to an individual to enable that person to purchase legal services for himself as a private litigant. Another option proposed by the Legal Aid Board in its draft funding code is to provide limited "litigation support" funding for a case that is principally funded privately—probably under a conditional fee agreement. We believe that it would be wrong if people helped in these ways were entitled to special protection from having to meet their opponents' costs.
  Amendment No. 47 makes any regulations disapplying the protection available under Clause 12(1) subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
  Amendments Nos. 13 to 16 also effect drafting changes to make clear that protection against costs applies only while the commission is funding a case. There are circumstances when support from the commission may not be provided until after litigation has commenced when, for example, a person's means change so that he or she becomes financially eligible for assistance. Similarly, support may be withdrawn because the individual is no longer eligible financially or the case no longer passes the requirements of the funding code but the assisted person proceeds with the case nevertheless through some other means of funding. The amendments make clear that costs protection is limited to that part of the proceedings when an individual was receiving help from the scheme.
  Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 rephrase and reposition Clause 12(3)(c) which deals with the payment of costs by the legal services commission to the opponent of an assisted person. At present, a court can order the Legal Aid Board to pay an opposing defendant's costs if he or she would otherwise suffer severe financial hardship. Regulations under this Bill will broadly replicate that position, although the Government hope to relax the test to plain financial hardship.
  It is necessary to rephrase the paragraph to refer to the "costs incurred" by the opponent rather than those "ordered against" the assisted person. Otherwise the costs that the commission could be ordered to pay would be limited by the protection enjoyed by the assisted person. That anomaly did not arise with the previous drafting of Clause 12(1).
  Amendments Nos. 21 and 48 are consequential on the repositioning of Clause 12(3)(c). The latter ensures that regulations under that paragraph remain subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 ensure the consistent use of tenses throughout the clause. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  14 Clause 12, page 9, line 28, at end insert ("to which the proceedings relate")
  15 Page 9, line 29, leave out from beginning to ("his") in line 30 and insert ("and for this purpose proceedings, or a part of proceedings, are funded for an individual if services relating to the proceedings or part are funded for him by the Commission as part of the Community Legal Service.
  (1A) In assessing for the purposes of subsection (1) the financial resources of an individual for whom services are funded by the Commission as part of the Community Legal Service,")
  16 Page 9, line 33, leave out ("that") and insert ("subsections (1) and (1A)")
  17 Page 9, line 33, leave out ("cases in which services have been") and insert ("relation to proceedings in which services are")
  18 Page 9, line 38, leave out ("the services were funded,") and insert ("services are funded by the Commission as part of the Community Legal Service,")
  19 Page 9, leave out lines 42 and 43
  20 Page 9, line 46, at end insert—
  ("(da) requiring the payment by the Commission of the whole or part of any costs incurred by a party for whom services are not funded by the Commission as part of the Community Legal Service,")
  21 Page 10, line 2, leave out ("such a party") and insert ("a party for whom services are so funded")
  22 Clause 13, page 10, line 15, leave out subsection (2)
  23 Page 10, line 36, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
  ("() The Commission shall fund services as part of the Criminal Defence Service in accordance with sections 14 and 15.")
  24 Page 10, line 44, at end insert—
  ("(5A) The Commission may charge—

  (a) for accreditation,

  (b) for monitoring the services provided by accredited persons and bodies, and

  (c) for authorising accreditation by others;

  and persons or bodies authorised to accredit may charge for accreditation, and for such monitoring, in accordance with the terms of their authorisation.")
  25 Page 10, line 46, leave out ("subsection (5)") and insert ("subsections (5) and (5A)")
  26 Clause 14, page 11, line 5, leave out ("in such other circumstances as the Lord Chancellor may prescribe") and insert ("involved in criminal investigations in such other circumstances as may be prescribed;
  and for this purpose "criminal investigations" means investigations relating to offences or to individuals convicted of an offence.")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 26, which have already been spoken to under Amendments Nos. 4, 7 and 13.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 26.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  27 Clause 14, page 11, line 18, after ("assistance,") insert—
  ("() itself providing advice or assistance,")

  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 27
  27A That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27. I shall speak also to Motions Nos. 28A and 30A.
  All of the arguments about the criminal defence service have been canvassed exhaustively. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not go over the territory explored so widely at Second Reading, Committee and Report stages. I shall summarise my argument.
  First, in an adversarial system, it is absolutely fundamental that a defendant should have full confidence that his legal representatives are genuinely independent. Secondly, in high-profile cases in particular the employed public defender lawyer may be unwilling to take a stand—as is frequently necessary—and criticise the Government, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and so on. It is essential to the administration of justice that there be fearless advocacy on the part of an accused person.
  Thirdly, if only limited resources are available to the public defender system, fewer and lower-paid lawyers will provide a poorer quality of service. The necessary work of tracing witnesses and instructing experts will not be carried out if budget limits are exceeded. By contrast, the resources of the prosecution in investigations through the police are unlimited in respect of individual cases. Consequently, the proposals will fundamentally shift the balance between the prosecution and the defence that exists under our system.
  I have no doubt that the word "indignation" is written in large letters on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's brief as he leaps to the defence of a class of persons—namely, public defenders—who have not yet been recruited. How dare I suggest that they will not employ professional standards and so on? But if the Government think that people employed for a fixed salary for fixed hours will put the same effort into a case that independent counsel and solicitors do at present, then they do not understand the realities of the criminal Bar.
  I shall give a small instance. Tomorrow I shall go to a remand centre. It will take me two hours to get there. When I arrive I will be searched, my shoes will be taken from me and my coat will be taken from me. They will be put through a machine and any papers I may have on me will be removed if they do not appertain to the case. Recently, for example, I had a bill from the House of Lords Refreshment Department confiscated in case it gave the inmates of the prison I was in some notion or inkling of the bill of fare in your Lordships.' House.

  413
  These are the indignities that independent counsel are prepared to go through, and to spend the time. I should add that, under the graduated scheme, I will not be paid for a whole day's work, because it will take me two hours to get home. For that reason, I do not see that this level of service will ever be provided by a salaried defender service such as is proposed.
  I do not believe either that the proposal will achieve the purposes for which it has been put forward; namely, the saving of money. I do not believe it has ever been pretended that it will improve the quality of justice to have a public defender system. Increases in the costs of defending criminal cases are, at least by implication, frequently put down to the activities of greedy lawyers trying to up their fees. What is never put into the reckoning is the cost of the measures which have been developed to improve the speeding-up of justice, a very necessary aim. In the old days of the assizes one walked into court and one did the case. Today we have systems of primary discovery, defence statements, secondary discovery, plea and directions hearings, public interest immunity applications, preliminary hearings on points of law, and frequently consultation with the client at various stages is essential. That is all commendable, but it is not quick and it certainly is not cheap. It costs time and money.
  A further fundamental objection to the criminal defence service, to which I have referred on previous occasions, is the concept that a nationwide service will be set up with offices all over the country and that a defendant will have the right to choose whether he accepts the state service or whether he goes on legal aid to an independent legal representative. The idea that the choice will be made in favour of the state defence service is in my view ludicrous, and I do not see such a choice remaining very long for a defendant. We will be in a kind of "signs of the Zodiac" situation described by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, at Second Reading.
  We would have no objection if there were parts of the country where there were no independent solicitors. I know of none, but if that should be so, let there be a public office, but only in that very limited kind of circumstance. I do not believe that a public defender system can ever match the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the competitive, independent Bar where ability and hard work are the ultimate criteria.
  No nationalised industry has ever proved itself as efficient as the private sector. Hence, in all fields other than this one, New Labour has accepted and acquiesced in privatisations carried out by the previous government. Indeed, even in the Bill the purpose of having contracts is to increase competitive tendering between solicitors. But here, a state nationalised service of defending is being set up. I do not believe that that is right in principle. I do not believe that it is practical, and I believe that it will fail. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27.—(Lord Thomas of Gresford.)
  Lord Borrie: My Lords, I did not intervene on this part of the Bill during its earlier stages in this House. However, I listened to many speeches, including at least two excellent speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.
  A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, attacked the provision which would enable lawyers employed by the criminal defence service to provide not only representation but advice or assistance of any kind in the criminal courts. They attacked the provision—it has emerged once more in the speech we have just heard from the noble Lord—on the basis that the proposal might lead to the extreme of removing the choice of an accused person to have a private practitioner as his lawyer and advocate, if that is what he wants. It is thought, and it was repeated by the noble Lord, that the proposal might lead to the extreme of a comprehensive public defender system. The noble Lord used the word "nationalisation", no doubt because it has an emotive effect. There is the suggestion that it would replace the independent Bar, as it exists not just as we know it in London, but in Manchester, Birmingham and Newcastle.
  During the course of previous debates, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor denied any such extreme intention. There is no basis or evidence for the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that the extremes he envisages are likely to come about. Furthermore, there is no evidence, certainly in this country, of any lack of dedication or lack of fearlessness—qualities which the noble Lord of course regards very highly—on the part of an employed lawyer of a criminal defence service because we do not have one. However, this links up with debates we have had as regards civil courts, to which we may well return tonight.
  There is a kind of distrust on the part of eminent practitioners like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that the employed lawyer, the in-house lawyer, is incapable of giving independent advice and independent representation and is incapable of being fearless because he is scared of losing his job or his present post. We shall come to that in due course. However, it seems to me—and of course the proposals are of a modest nature—that there is no basis for saying that an employed lawyer would not be capable of doing the very best he could for the accused person.
  Let us not forget the importance of Clause 15. Rather rashly perhaps, I draw in aid my recollection that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was very keen that employed lawyers should be subjected to a code—a code now set out in the Bill—which would involve consultation with the Law Society, the Bar and so forth, ensuring dedication, fearlessness, and above all duty to the court, which are so important, whether he or she is independent or an employed lawyer.
  In conclusion, it is not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who is being extremist in the proposal that he is bringing forward. I am afraid it is the majority

  415
  of this House who were extremist when they tried, by the successful anti-Government amendment, to make it completely impossible for the courts to allow any lawyer employed by the criminal defence service to act in any way, by advice or assistance or representation, in any court. That seems to be extreme, and there is no warrant for it.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Borrie, as I think I did—my memory does not go hack that far—in previous debates. If I merely made the speech to my wife, I apologise.
  This is an extreme amendment, in that it casts doubt upon the ability of lawyers who operate in any salaried service, because the same criteria would apply, and that is wholly unjustified. Why should we have a Crown Prosecution Service? There is a very strong case for it. Anyway, it is establishing itself over the years. It has had difficulties, as one recognises, but they do not constitute a reason for saying that the Crown Prosecution Service has failed and should be abolished, or anything of that kind.
  Therefore, I do not think that this form of extreme amendment puts the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in a good light. It is somewhat protectionist. In fact, if lawyers were to adopt that attitude they would be seen as being protectionist, and that is unhelpful. The job of a defending lawyer is to do his or her work to the best of his or her ability. In the United States it is seen as a valuable way of gaining useful experience, and subsequently many people in that position go on to offer their professional abilities to the private sector. I see nothing wrong with that. Therefore, the noble Lord should reflect further on an amendment which I think is wholly without cause.
  Lord Hacking: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is clearly a great, persuasive advocate, because he has persuaded my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis to describe his amendment as extreme. In fact, it is not at all extreme, because all that he seeks to do is to remove Commons Amendment No. 27, which adds another sub-paragraph to Clause 14(2). The subsection, with the Commons amendment, would read:
  "The Commission may comply with the duty imposed by subsection (1) by … itself providing advice or assistance".
  The reason that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is being so persuasive is that he is not addressing at all the individual amendments that he is seeking to have removed. His speech did not address them either. It was directed towards the principle of the criminal defence service. As he argued strongly in Committee and on Report—and he may well have done so again on Third Reading—he has very strong views on the subject: he is opposed to it. But that is not the Commons amendment with which we are dealing. The principle of setting up the criminal defence service is in Clause 13(1). That is not what we are debating now.
  Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, the amendment raises a profoundly important debate. The fact that it arises now, at this late hour, much to the Government's convenience, does not make it any less
  416
  profoundly important. Of course, we all now have to tear up the speeches that we would have made if the matter had come on at the proper time; we all have to curtail our arguments.
  The case against the amendment can be put very shortly. No doubt I shall be accused yet again of smugness, of superiority, of special pleading and, as we have just heard yet again, of protectionism. The case can be put very simply. Let me spell it out.
  Our democracy and our fundamental freedoms depend on the rule of law. The law is upheld first by an independent and uncorrupt judiciary. Secondly, it is upheld by the advocates—barristers and solicitors—without whom the judges could not operate and from among whom the judges are drawn. The essential characteristics of the judge are those which are instilled into him and observed by him as an advocate: above all, independence and integrity. Thirdly, when the chips are down and the citizen is in danger of losing his liberty, his livelihood or his reputation, he can appeal to a jury of 12 ordinary people like himself, unbiased and, once again, independent—independent in each case of government, of police, of all the agents of power and privilege which bind together the structure of the whole criminal process, fought for over the years and correctly described as the bulwark of our liberties. That is the structure, and attacks on the structure are fierce and continuing.
  Lord Hacking: My Lords, on a point of order. We should be addressing Commons Amendment No. 27. We should not be addressing Clause 13(1).
  8.15 p.m.
  Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I am at the moment addressing the submission that this House should not agree with this Commons amendment. The amendment has been introduced by my noble friend Lord Thomas, and I think everybody agrees that what we are discussing now, with all the other amendments that go with it, is the question of the public defender. It is to the question of the public defender that I am addressing myself. If I am out of order, no doubt someone will tell me, and I will sit down; otherwise, I intend to continue as I have begun.
  The attacks on the structure that I have set out come mainly from politicians. The judges are criticised for being too powerful and too political. The right to jury trial, I understand, is now to be cut down. Attacks on the advocates have been sustained throughout the passage of the Bill in almost a violent form. But it must be blindingly obvious that to introduce under this clause a salaried defender, a staff lawyer from the bureaucracy of the criminal defence service, working in the office under the control of the legal services commission, watched over by the legal services consultation panel, in touch with his colleagues in the CPS, is to undermine the whole structure which I have described. This ominous figure is there to assess, we are told, value for money, not because he is more honest, more assiduous, more learned or more cheap. He is apparently to report back to his employer on the extent to which his colleagues in court are wasting public money—a kind

  417
  of Treasury spy. His name perfectly describes his bureaucratic origins: "A quality assured public supplier of legal services", what we happen to call at the moment "counsel".
  No codes, no guidelines telling such persons that they must behave as though they were independent, will clear the mischief. Once the public defender is introduced to complement the public prosecutor, the stage is set for a nationalised legal criminal service—the CPS against the CDS.
  Although the Bill has some radical provisions, I suggest that this clause is an aberration, if not an abomination. It is difficult to see why the Lord Chancellor persists in a course which is so widely condemned. He deserves praise for introducing the Human Rights Bill, for which he will be remembered. But I ask him to listen to those who have fought the human rights battle for years where it really mattered to the citizen; that is, in the magistrates' and Crown Courts of this country. It may be more prestigious and remunerative to argue abstruse legal points at Strasbourg or in the Judicial Committee of this House, but I suggest that there is more to be learnt about human rights in the cells of the Old Bailey or in the squalor of Wormwood Scrubs. I sincerely hope that this House will not agree to the amendment.
  Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I agree with my noble friends Lord Borne and Lord Clinton-Davis. I would not dream of calling the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, any name at all. However, I disagree with him and feel that he has a rather romantic view of the standing in which the legal profession is held in this country today.
  We have had considerable discussions about the issues surrounding salaried defenders and the role that they might play in the new legal scheme being proposed. An ordinary person requiring legal services needs, most of all, a guaranteed standard—I am sure we all agree on that. Secondly, they need some choice. I believe that this proposal to establish salaried defenders gives them that choice.
  People do not understand why members of the legal profession feel the need so fiercely to protect their interests and guarantee their incomes. It does not happen elsewhere; why should it happen to them? I also do not understand why noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches feel the need so fiercely to defend those interests.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that we are not here to defend the legal profession? We are here because we know something about it. We know something about criminal procedures and the way in which the criminal system works in this country. We are concerned about the quality of justice if the standard of advocacy in defence criminal work is reduced.
  Baroness Thornton: My Lords, we are all concerned about the quality of justice, and the voice of the consumer who receives that quality of justice is
  418
  extremely important. The consumers in this country have long felt that the legal profession needed reform, and have said so loudly on many occasions. That is what these proposals seek to do.
  I urge the Liberal Democrat Benches to think carefully about the path they follow throughout this legislation. It is not in keeping with other things they do and policies that they pursue.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we on these Benches support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for four reasons. First, we see no evidence for the need for this. Secondly, we do not understand how injecting a degree of nationalisation into criminal defence can enhance competition. Thirdly, we do not understand how the quality of criminal defence in this country will be improved by a system of state defenders. Fourthly, we fear that the introduction of state defenders will certainly undermine the perception, and also perhaps the reality, of criminal justice. That is particularly true when we consider that in future we are likely to be faced in many trials with not only the prosecution being represented by government officials in the form of the Crown Prosecution Service but also the defence being represented by a government official.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in contributing to this debate I speak also, with your Lordships' leave, to Amendments Nos. 28 to 30 and 34 to 36. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, observed, this is a course we have been round before.
  I did not find as the noble Lord's most persuasive argument that it is only sturdy members of the Bar such as himself who are capable of enduring the indignities of the forfeiture of their restaurant bills as a condition of admission to prison, which he would have us accept would be completely beyond the resoluteness or sense of economy of salaried lawyers. I remind him that many salaried solicitors are employees with rights of audience who act for defendants in criminal cases and do so to a high standard.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, complained about our addressing this subject at around eight in the evening. But when the noble Lord was the industrious and much admired leading defence counsel that I recall, 10 minutes after eight would not have been regarded as late by him. He would probably just be getting round to considering his brief for the next day. If I may say so, he was in vintage form a few minutes ago and in fine voice.
  Amendments Nos. 27 to 30 reintroduce powers for the Legal Services Commission to employ staff directly to provide some criminal defence services. Salaried defenders will give the public a wider choice of representative. They will provide the Legal Services Commission with the means to assess value for money provided by criminal defence services generally. They will increase the commission's flexibility in the provision of criminal defence services and they will provide a competitive stimulus to lawyers in private practice.

  419
  The state is under no obligation to guarantee to the legal profession that it and it alone may provide publicly-funded legal defence services. And provided high standards are maintained, the public could gain from the introduction of salaried defenders as part of a mixed system of provision of legal services. I tend to wonder—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will forgive me for wondering—whether he is one of the last of the timorous souls who believe that the Bar cannot survive on its own merits but needs to be cocooned with restrictive practices and guarantees of state provided work.
  As I said in Committee, I stress that it is not our intention that salaried defenders should supplant the independent Bar, or indeed the solicitors' profession. That will never happen. We see value in the commission having power to introduce into the system a salaried element, subject to appropriate ethical safeguards, but it will always be a mixed system. We are not—repeat "not"—establishing a comprehensive public defender system of the type found in many parts of the United States of America. Further, there will be consultation with the professions and others about the detailed arrangements for the introduction of salaried defenders. Following that consultation, the Legal Services Commission will establish pilot projects to test and evaluate different models for providing services through salaried defenders. We would start with small pilots and monitor them to see how effective the arrangements were. The pilot projects would be extended across the country only after we had experience of salaried defenders in practice. We will learn from the example of successful overseas schemes and the current pilot in Scotland to meet the particular needs of England and Wales. Only against that background would decisions be taken, based on evidence.
  It is clear from international research that mixed systems with salaried service defenders operating alongside private lawyers can be the most effective way of providing criminal defence services. That is the view of Bar associations, including those in Canada and America. It is advocated by official bodies such as the Legal Services Corporation and the National Legal Aid Advisory Committee in Australia.
  There are many methods of providing mixed systems, with some particularly good examples in Canada, which has more than 20 years' experience of mixed systems. In Scotland, a Public Defence Solicitors Office was established as a pilot project from 1st October last year. It is based at a single office in Edinburgh and employs a maximum of six solicitors. Initial reports about the Scottish pilot have been favourable. It allocates defendants to the PDSO, but a significant proportion—22 per cent—of clients already use it by choice. We shall take account of the results of the Scottish pilot evaluation when developing pilot arrangements under the Bill.
  There are some very good public defender schemes abroad, but I acknowledge that others are less satisfactory. Adequate funding is the key to success. However, that is also true of schemes that purchase services from the private sector. Most of the schemes that have been criticised are not underpinned by a
  420
  statutory framework such as that proposed in the Bill. That underpinning, which includes an obligation on me to fund the criminal defence service in its private and directly employed elements, will ensure the quality of services that suspects and defendants require.
  However, unlike the Scottish pilot, which was based on assigning clients to the PDSO, Clause 15 builds choice into the system from the outset. Regulations cannot be used to require a person to use a salaried defender. We are confident that salaried defenders will develop to play a valuable role in the criminal defence service without compulsion. I challenge the private profession to demonstrate the same confidence in the service that it provides. I have that confidence and believe that the private professions have nothing to fear from competing alongside salaried defenders in a system based on an informed choice of representation.
  Those who disagree with the amendment put forward in another place are effectively seeking to protect the vested interests of an established legal profession and to prevent the public from having the choice. I am surprised and disappointed by the Liberal Democrats' position. They are not prepared to accept that there might be lessons that we can learn from other countries and that there may be a case for considering arranging our legal services differently. I regret that restricted vision that is not prepared to accept that there can be merit in change and diversity.
  Subject to the safeguards set out in the Bill, there is great merit in allowing criminal defence services to be provided by private practitioners—whether in independent practice or employed by law firms—and those employed by the criminal defence service. For those reasons, I commend Commons Amendments Nos. 27 to 30 to the House and invite the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to withdraw his Motions to reject them.
  Commons Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 relate to Clause 16, which provides for a code of conduct for salaried defenders employed by the Legal Services Commission. However, it is likely that we shall wish to pilot the provision of salaried services, not only by lawyers employed directly by the commission but by those employed by separate not-for-profit bodies established and maintained specifically for that purpose. As originally drafted, the clause would not apply to salaried defenders in the latter situation. Amendment No. 34 ensures that the code of conduct will apply in both situations.
  Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 reflect suggestions made by the now shadow Attorney-General, who led for the Opposition on the Bill in another place. Amendment No. 35 requires the code to include duties on employees providing criminal defence services who are members of a professional body—be they barristers, solicitors or legal executives—to comply with the rules of that body. Amendment No. 36 requires the commission to consult the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar

  421
  before preparing or revising the code. In due course I shall commend Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 to the House.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I have been described as a romantic yet timorous extremist. I think that that is rather good and I shall have to tell my wife about it.
  I have no fear that the independent Bar would beat any public defender service if the accused person was given any choice. I have never been afraid of competition and neither has the Bar. It is one of the most competitive professions in the country. This is not the dangerous step; it is when that choice is removed, as inexorably it will be. I cannot imagine any government sustaining on public funds two separate and competing services, as the Bill proposes.
  I shall not weary your Lordships further. I seek the agreement of the House to the Motion.
  8.37 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 141; Not-Contents, 85.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Ackner, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Addison, V.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Anelay of St. Johns, B.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Elton, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Gage, V.

  Belstead, L.

  Gainford, L.

  Berners, B.

  Gisborough, L.

  Biddulph, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Birdwood, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Blackwell, L.

  Gray, L.

  Blaker, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Blatch, B.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Harmsworth, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Hanowby, E.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Burnham, L.

  Henley, L. [Teller.]

  Byford, B.

  Higgins, L.

  Cadman, L.

  Hogg, B.

  Carlisle, E.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Camegy of Lour, B.

  Hooper, B.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Howe, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Coleraine, L.

  Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Courtown, E.

  Kingsland, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Cross, V.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

  Downshire, M.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Dundee, E.

  Lucas, L.

  Eccles, V.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  422

  Luke, L.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

  Romney, E.

  McNair, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  McNally, L.

  Rowallan, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Russell, E.

  Marlesford, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Seccombe, B.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Selkirk of Douglas, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Miller of Chilthome Domer, B.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Steel of Aikwood, L.

  Munster, E.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Murton of Lindisfame, L.

  Tebbit, L.

  Naseby, L.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Newby L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Northbrook L.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Thurso, V.

  Tope, L.

  Norton, L.

  Trefgame, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Onslow, E.

  Vivian, L.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Waddington, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Parkinson, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  Pender, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Peny of Southwark, B.

  Wise, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Amos, B.

  Hanworth, V.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Bach, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Berkeley, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Blackstone, B.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Borrie, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller.]

  Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

  Castle of Blackburn, B.

  Chandos, V.

  Islwyn, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Crawley, B.

  [Teller.]

  David, B.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

  Monkswell, L.

  Desai, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Rea, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Shepherd, L.

  Gould of Pottemewton, B.

  Simon, V.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Grantchester, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  423

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Thomton, B.

  Warner, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  28 Clause 14, page 11 line 20, leave out (", except itself providing advice or assistance")

  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 28
  28A That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28.
  8.45 p.m.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28.
  Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28.—(Lord Thomas of Gresford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  29 Clause 15, page 11, line 40, at end insert—
  ("() itself providing representation,")

  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 29
  29A That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29.
  Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29.—(Lord Thomas of Gresford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  30 Clause 15, page 11, line 43, leave out (", except itself providing representation")

  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 30
  30A That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30.
  Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30.—(Lord Thomas of Gresford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  31 Clause 15, page 12, line 25, at end insert—
  ("() an individual who has been provided with advice or assistance funded by the Commission under section 14 is to be taken to have selected as his representative pursuant to that right the person who provided the advice or assistance,")

  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 31
  31A That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31.
  Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31.—(Lord Thomas of Gresford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 31B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 31, not moved.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  32 Clause 15, page 12, line 35, at end insert—
  ("(10) Regulations may provide that in prescribed circumstances the Commission is not required to fund, or to continue to fund, representation for an individual by a particular representative (but such provision shall not prejudice any right of the individal to select another representative).
  (11) The circumstances which may he prescribed by regulations under subsection (8) or (10) include that a determination has been made by a prescribed body or person.")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 to 36 and 49. This group of amendments amends Clause 15 which establishes the duty of the commission to fund representation, sets out the means by which it may do so and provides powers to limit the extent to which the defendant may choose his or her representative. Amendment No. 33 splits this now lengthy clause in two: the first clause to deal with the provision of representation, the second choice of representative. The other amendments all concern choice.
  It is desirable that defendants should be able to choose their representative, not least to promote their confidence in the criminal justice system. Clause 15(7) enshrines this principle. However, a completely unrestricted choice would undermine our ability to achieve value for money. Therefore subsection (8) contains powers to limit that choice.
  Clause 15(8)(c) is the key provision. It will allow the defendant's choice to be limited to any lawyer with a current contract with the Legal Services Commission (or, had that provision prevailed, a salaried defender). Our intention is to ensure that suspects and defendants generally have a choice between several contracted firms and, were salaried defenders to be permitted, with them too.

  425
  One of the major weaknesses of the system of legal aid in its present form is its fragmentation. This can lead to help being given under several different parts of the scheme in a single case: for green form advice, advice and assistance at the police station, assistance from the duty solicitor at the magistrates' court, and a full legal aid order. We would have been concerned to ensure the elimination of duplication, delay and unnecessary cost. We would have been concerned to ensure that individuals would stay with the same lawyer throughout the case unless there was good reason to change.
  I shall explain how we envisage the system working in practice. A person being questioned by the police will be able to select his or her adviser from any firm holding a contract with the Legal Services Commission. Suspects would be shown a list of all firms based in the area and be informed of the implication of their choice. If the chosen adviser were not available, the individual would use the duty solicitor for the time being. But the duty solicitor would not be considered to have been selected, as a preference had been expressed for someone else.
  In dealing with the element of the client's choice we intend to create a criminal legal service which would avoid imbalance. We have already argued that the purpose of the provision which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was concerned to maintain was to eliminate choice. However as regards Amendment No. 32 there are some categories of very complex case, for example fraud trials, where specialist panels of lawyers may be set up to promote value for money. Regulations under Clause 15(8)(c) will limit choice in these cases to firms on the panel; that is, firms which had demonstrated both the necessary competence and administrative systems to deal with these specialised and weighty cases. However, it may not be self-evident from the outset that a particular case was of such complexity that it required the services of a panel member. Amendment No. 32 deals with this situation by providing in effect for the individual to choose again from among those lawyers competent to handle a case of this complexity. Amendment No. 49 makes regulations under this subsection subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  33 Clause 15, divide Clause 15 into two clauses, the first (Representation) consisting of subsections (1) to (6) and the second (Selection of representative etc.) of subsections (7) to (11)
  34 Clause 16, page 12, line 37, after ("Commission") insert (", and employees of any body established and maintained by the Commission,")
  35 Page 13, line 1, at end insert—
  ("and duties on employees who are members of a professional body to comply with the rules of the body.")
  36 Page 13, line 4, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 5 and insert ("consult the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar and such other bodies or persons as it considers appropriate")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33 to 36.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33 to 36.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  37 Clause 17, page 13, line 19, leave out ("the Crown Court") and insert ("any court other than a magistrates' court")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 38 to 41.
  Amendments Nos. 37 to 39 make technical changes to Clause 17 to ensure that it delivers the Government's intended policy. Clause 17 provides that a judge may order a defendant to pay some or all of the cost of any representation funded for him as part of the criminal defence service. This will replace the existing complex and wasteful system of means testing every applicant for criminal legal aid at the start of a case. The new system will eliminate the delay caused by means testing and target wealthy criminals more effectively.
  Orders under Clause 17 will be made where the cost of the representation to be recovered is high enough to justify the cost of the scrutiny of a defendant's assets by a special investigation unit; that is why these orders are not available for cases which do not proceed beyond the magistrates' courts.
  This Government's intention is that in all courts other than the magistrates' court, the court at the end of a case will have a duty to consider whether a defendant should pay for his defence costs. It may be apparent to the judge that the defendant has substantial assets as a result of the nature of the evidence given during the trial. In these circumstances, after hearing representations from the defence, the court could make an order. In other cases it may be appropriate for an investigation to be conducted into a defendant's means by a special investigation unit.
  As drafted, the power to make a recovery of defence costs order is restricted to the Crown Court, and the scope of an order to representation in the Crown Court. Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 ensure that the Court of Appeal can also make orders under Clause 17. Amendment No. 39 allows the order to cover the cost of all representation, including representation in the magistrates' court. Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 concern the information necessary to allow the court to make a recovery of defence costs order.
  As I have said, in some cases it will be appropriate for an investigation to be conducted into a defendant's means by a special investigation unit. During this investigation it might, in exceptional circumstances, be appropriate to prevent the defendant from disposing of

  427
  substantial assets, perhaps with a view to him avoiding an order. Amendment No. 41 would give this power. I commend these amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  38 Clause 17, page 13, line 20, leave out ("trial judge") and insert ("court")
  39 Page 13, leave out line 22 and insert ("any representation so funded for him (in proceedings in that or any other court).")
  40 Page 13, line 31, leave out from ("furnishing") to second ("to") in line 32 and insert ("of information and evidence to the court or the Commission for the purpose of enabling the court")
  41 Page 13, line 34, at end insert?—
  ("() prohibiting individuals who are required to furnish information or evidence from dealing with property until they have furnished the information or evidence or until a decision whether to make an order, or the amount to be paid, has been made,")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 38 to 41.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 38 to 41.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  9 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  42 Clause 22, page 16, line 6, at end insert ("and any authorised by the Commission to be taken.").
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42. I shall also speak to Commons Amendment No. 44.
  Amendment No. 42 corrects an omission in the Bill as drafted. Clause 22(2) provides that people providing services funded by the commission cannot take any payment other than that made by the commission. This carries over from Section 31(3) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 the prohibition on "topping-up"; that is, seeking to supplement legal aid rates by charging the client an additional sum. The Legal Aid Act allows exceptions to be made by regulations. Amendment No. 42 will enable the Commission to authorise exceptions to the general prohibition. It would do this as a term in any relevant contract.
  Commons Amendment No. 44 is a drafting amendment intended simply to shorten the Bill by some eight lines. Clause 22(5) mirrors Section 31(2) of the Legal Aid Act 1988. Section 31(2) puts beyond doubt that a successful legally-aided litigant can recover his or her costs from the opposing party. This is to prevent any argument that the assisted person is not entitled to costs under the indemnity principle.
  428
  A provision along these lines has been part of the legal aid legislation since 1949. Since then, legal aid has become a firmly established part of the legal system, and several other forms of funding which override the strict indemnity principle have developed. Commons Amendment No. 69, which we will discuss later, is a general provision to allow rules of court to override the indemnity principle. So it is now inconceivable that any court would seriously entertain the argument that a legally-assisted litigant was not entitled to costs.
  But even if that were in doubt, Clause 22(5) is unnecessary. Clause 12 contains a broad power to make regulations about costs in cases involving people funded by the Community Legal Service, and subsection (3)(e) specifies that these may include regulations about the principles for determining the amount to be awarded to such a person. As for criminal cases, Clause 22(5) does not apply in any event. Costs in these cases are governed by the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. I commend the amendment to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  43 Clause 22, page 16, line 7, leave out second ("of") and insert ("to")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43. With the leave of the House I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 45, 46, 50, 143 to 158 inclusive and 199.
  This group of amendments clarifies the powers to prescribe the procedures for courts carrying out functions under Part I of the Bill, particularly in relation to granting rights to representation in criminal cases. It also includes a number of minor drafting amendments.
  Amendment No. 45 provides a general power to prescribe in regulations what member or officer of a court is able to exercise the functions of any court or tribunal under this part. This would, in particular, enable regulations to prescribe the procedure for consideration of an application for a right to representation. In addition, for the magistrates' courts, Amendment No. 151 gives power to prescribe in rules when a justices' clerk can make decisions about the right to representation.
  Amendment No. 46 provides the flexibility to prescribe different provisions for different areas to accommodate, for example, pilot arrangements.
  A right to representation includes a right to advice and assistance as to an appeal. As presently drafted, this is an open-ended entitlement. Amendment No. 50 would allow regulations to prescribe time limits for the provision of advice on appeal, after which the right would lapse. Regulations on the scope of advice and assistance could be made under Clause 14 to allow for cases where advice was needed at a later date.
  Amendment No. 150 places the court under a duty to consider withdrawing a right to representation in prescribed circumstances. The Bill as presently drafted gives the court a general power to withdraw a right to representation. Regulations will require the court to

  429
  consider withdrawing a right to representation in certain circumstances. For example, it is intended to place the court under a duty to review the need to continue representation where a reduction in the charge means that representation is no longer necessary in the interests of justice.
  It is also intended to prescribe circumstances where the individual fails to co-operate with a means enquiry under Clause 17. Where there is reason to believe that an individual could afford to pay for his own defence, it may be appropriate to conduct a means enquiry during the case so that the judge could consider making a recovery of defence costs order immediately after the trial. If the individual fails to co-operate with a request to provide financial details, the court would have to consider withdrawing the right to representation.
  Amendment No. 199 adds two new sub-paragraphs to paragraph 9 of Schedule 11, which contains transitional provisions about the funding of representation in criminal cases. At present, criminal cases in the Crown Court and appeal courts are funded directly by the Lord Chancellor. In future most, if not all, criminal representation will be provided under a contract with the Legal Services Commission or by salaried defenders. But initially, before contracting is fully developed, it will be simpler to retain the current administrative arrangements by which the higher courts assess and pay remuneration on a case-by-case basis, and the Lord Chancellor funds it directly. The existing paragraph 9 of Schedule 11 provides the power to achieve this. The first new sub-paragraph added by Amendment No. 199 provides a link with the power to make case-by-case payments in Clause 15 and deals with the consequential implications for other Acts. The second new sub-paragraph provides for the provisions in Clause 25 about remuneration orders to apply when the Lord Chancellor is funding representation as well as when the Commission is.
  Finally, Amendments Nos. 43, 143, 144, 146, 148, 149 and 152 to 158 inclusive achieve drafting consistency by referring to the right as a "right to representation". I commend the amendments to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  44 Clause 22, page 16, line 18, leave out subsection (5)
  45 Page 16, line 28, at end insert—
  ("(7) Regulations made under subsection (6) may in particular authorise the exercise of the functions of any court or tribunal by any member or officer of that or any other court or tribunal.")
  46 Clause 25, page 17, line 24, at end insert ("(including different areas)")
  47 Page 17, line 26, leave out (" I2(3)(b)") and insert (" 12(1) or (3)(b)")
  48 Page 17, line 27, leave out ("(c)") and insert ("(da)")
  49 Page 17, line 27, after (" 15(8)(a)") insert ("or (10)")
  50 Clause 26, page 17, line 44, after first ("and") insert (", subject to any time limits which may be prescribed,")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 to 50 en bloc.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 to 50.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  51 Clause 28, page 18, line 16, leave out ('"'disability working allowance"") and insert (""disabled person's tax credit"")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 51. With your Lordships' leave I will speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 52, 129, 132 and 200.
  Amendments Nos. 51 and 200 are technical amendments arising from the inter-relationship between this Bill and the Tax Credits Bill. As currently drafted, Clause 28 of this Bill amends the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 to allow advice and assistance to be provided without a means test or contributions to recipients of disability working allowance. That is already the case for recipients of family credit. It is also already the case for recipients of both benefits in England and Wales. The Tax Credits Bill provides for the replacement of family credit and disability working allowance by, respectively, working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit. That Bill also makes consequential amendments, including to the 1986 Act, in relation to family credit.
  Amendment No. 51 replaces the term "disability working allowance" with disabled person's tax credit in Clause 28. Amendment No. 200 is a transitional provision to allow for the possibility that this Bill comes into force before the Tax Credits Bill.
  Amendment No. 52 corrects an oversight regarding the availability of legal aid for references from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to the High Court in Scotland.
  Amendments Nos. 129 and 132 are consequential on this new clause. I commend the amendments to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  52 After Clause 28, insert the following new clause—

  REFERENCES BY SCOTTISH CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION
  (". In section 25(7) of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 (legal aid in appeals), for "Secretary of State under section 124" substitute "Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission under section 194B".").
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52. I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 51.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  9.15 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  53 Clause 29, page 18, line 25, after ("but") insert ("(subject to subsection (5))")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 53. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 54 to 63 and 66.
  This is a large group of amendments that seek to change Clause 29 of the Bill, which amends the existing provisions of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 relating to conditional fees.
  Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 57, 61 and 63 are simple drafting amendments to replace the expression "enhanced fees" with the more familiar term "success fee".
  Amendment No. 58 seeks to ensure that the decision in the case of Bevan Ashford v. Yeandle is accurately brought into statute. That held that where a person uses an alternative dispute resolution forum in a type of proceedings in which conditional fees are lawful, and provided the form and content of the agreement between the lawyer and the client follow the prescribed requirements for cases brought in the courts, that agreement is lawful notwithstanding that it is not technically a conditional fee agreement. The Bill seeks to reflect that within the new statutory scheme for conditional fees.
  Amendment No. 58 responds to concerns raised by the Bar Council and the Law Society. They have pointed out that, as presently drafted, the new Section 58A(4) of the Courts and Legal Services Act, inserted by Clause 29, does not accurately and fully bring the Bevan Ashford decision into statute law. The problem arises from the complex structure of Section 58 and Section 58A of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 as introduced by Clause 29 of the Bill.
  Section 58(1) to (3) applies to conditional fee agreements whether of the Thai Trading type without an uplift, or with an uplift—that is, a success fee.
  Section 58(4) applies only to agreements with a success fee and permits those to be regulated by the Lord Chancellor. The problem with Section 58A(4) as it stands is that it refers only to Section 58(4) and therefore only to agreements providing for a success fee. It does not, therefore, permit Thai Trading type agreements to apply in "any sort of proceedings for resolving disputes" other than court proceedings. If that extension away from court proceedings to any sort of proceedings for resolving disputes is right for no win no fee cases with an uplift, it should obviously also apply to cases where an uplift is not agreed; that is to say, a Thai Trading type agreement. Amendment No. 58 remedies that and brings Thai Trading agreements within the benefit of Section 58A(4).
  432
  Amendment No. 59 responds to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, who sought to ensure that a client could not raise a question of whether an agreement was lawful if proceedings had not commenced. The amendment puts beyond doubt that the agreement is lawful and enforceable whether proceedings have commenced or are only contemplated.
  Amendments Nos. 60 and 66 make clear that success fees and insurance premiums are recoverable where the forum in which the dispute is resolved is not subject to rules of court: for example, arbitrations under the Arbitration Act.
  Amendments Nos. 53 and 56 concern non-contentious business agreements sanctioned under the Solicitors Act 1974. As drafted, Clause 29 might have the unintended effect of making these agreements unlawful. I know that some of your Lordships have expressed an interest in this area. My primary purpose, in amending the Bill to protect the position of solicitors working under a non-contentious business agreement, was not to maintain the situation where solicitors offer their services in employment tribunals on a contingency basis, but to protect areas of genuine non-contentious business where they work under such an agreement. I am thinking in particular of property sales and business acquisitions where working on a contingency basis can provide a satisfactory basis for remuneration agreements between two informed parties.
  I accept, of course, that one effect will be to appear to give continuing legitimacy to these agreements in the employment tribunals. In seeking your agreement to these amendments, I recognise that there is great disquiet that non-contentious business agreements may be used to allow solicitors to offer to undertake cases before the employment tribunals on the basis of a contingency fee. I suspect that this is the concern that underlies the amendment standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
  Contingency fees are payable only if the client is successful and are calculated solely by reference to the amount of the award made by the tribunal. They allow the lawyer to share in the proceeds of the action. That kind of fee would be unlawful and unenforceable if it were used to fund a case before the courts. I regard it as a quirk of the law that the work of these tribunals falls within the definition of non-contentious business. I believe that we must all be at one on that. The business of employment tribunals is plainly contentious. The Government will be considering further whether such fees should be lawful in the employment tribunal, as part of our review of the practices, rules and procedures of all tribunals to ensure that they meet the requirements of EU law and comply with the European Convention.
  The problem, however, is deeper than that. I acknowledge that it would be possible for me to use a non-contentious business order as a route to preventing the use of these agreements in the employment tribunals. I want to explain to your Lordships why I am unwilling to go down that route until I have better information about the effect of outlawing these agreements in those tribunals. The fact that costs do not generally follow the

  433
  event in employment tribunal proceedings may make conditional fee agreements relatively unattractive to the litigant.
  I confess that my own instinct is that conditional fee agreements will typically be less costly for applicants than contingency fee agreements, because the diminution in compensation to pay for basic fees and uplifts where claims succeed will be less, I would have thought, than the percentage of compensation claimants would lose under contingency fee agreements. However, the Law Society, whose views on this I have sought after your Lordships last discussed this issue, disagrees. It tells me that in employment tribunal cases it is possible to calculate the likely award more accurately than in other areas of work. That makes it easier for the client to calculate the likely cost of the contingency fee arrangements and to compare it with information about the cost if charged on a time basis. The Law Society believes, in its present state of information, that in cases of low to medium value a contingency fee may be cheaper than a conditional fees agreement.
  With that state of information, my priority must be to ensure that those who are taking cases to employment tribunals do not suffer a reduction in the help available to them. I am willing to look carefully at the system of remuneration in employment tribunals, certainly with a view to banning the use of contingency fees, if I am satisfied that conditional fees or other remuneration methods can provide a suitable alternative. But a major problem, as I have said, is that costs do not follow the event in employment tribunals. The argument for maintaining this position which was supported in our previous discussions by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, and which presently prevails in Government too, is that applicants would be deterred from bringing claims if they were liable for the employers' costs if they lost.
  Conditional fee agreements in employment tribunals could not be facilitated, as elsewhere, by an entitlement to recover the success fee and insurance premium from the loser. Therefore, before outlawing contingency fees in employment tribunals I need in prudence to satisfy myself whether conditional fee agreements could work effectively in the "costs lie where they fall" regime of employment tribunals, and to gain information (which I do not have) about how contingency fee agreements actually work in these tribunals. I must satisfy myself that any change that I would be minded to make on principled grounds does not have the effect in practice of reducing access to justice. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships understand why I have decided that it would be premature to move on this subject.
  Amendment No. 60 is simply a drafting amendment. Amendment No. 62 is a technical amendment to bring the language of these two clauses into line with the changes in terminology brought about by the introduction of the Civil Procedural Rules on 26th April 1999.
  I hope the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, agrees that it is convenient if I state the position that I am minded to adopt in relation to Amendment No. 56B. This is a matter which is not free of complexity. The noble Lord's
  434
  amendment would broaden the effect of Amendment No. 56 so that it would exclude from the scope of this legislation not only non-contentious business agreements but any form of fee agreement enforceable at common law; that is to say, so as to put their legal enforceability beyond question.
  I know that the noble Lord has in mind no win, no fee agreements without an uplift; that is to say, Thai Trading agreements (after the name of the relevant case). In particular, I suspect that he has in his sights Thai Trading agreements in cases brought under Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act. Perhaps I may explain to the noble Lord why I cannot accept his amendment as it stands and the course that I suggest should be followed. It is the specific intention of Clause 29 to bring Thai Trading agreements into the scope of the conditional fee legislation both to secure the greater certainty that statute law provides and so that they can be properly regulated, for example by requiring solicitors to give relevant information to potential clients. It is obviously right that consumers who enter Thai Trading agreements should have the protection that the Lord Chancellor may confer for uplift cases under Section 58(3) of the 1990 Act. If by contrast non-contentious business agreements are excluded by Amendment No. 56, they can be regulated instead under the Solicitors Act 1974.
  The problem with Amendment No. 56A is that it would have the effect that the regulatory controls provided by Section 58(3) of the 1990 Act could not apply to Thai Trading agreements but only to agreements with uplifts. That is undesirable, and I have no doubt that that is not something which the noble Lord seeks to achieve.
  I believe—I see that the noble Lord indicates his confirmation—that his specific concern is with Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act. Here, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I think that he has a very good point. Section 82 allows people aggrieved by a statutory nuisance, for example inadequate housing, to seek an order for that nuisance to be put right. These cases are heard in a magistrates' court and are technically criminal cases. Conditional fee agreements are not permitted in criminal cases under the existing legislation, and that position is maintained by the Bill. But as a result, the effect of bringing Thai Trading agreements into the scope of the legislation so as to be able to regulate them in the consumer interest is to outlaw them in these Section 82 proceedings which, I think the noble Lord would say, although in point of form these are criminal proceedings, can or should in substance be regarded as civil since they are the means of enforcing a civil law right.
  The Government have considered the options for resolving this problem with great care. In particular, we have been reluctant to make an isolated exception to the principle that conditional fees are inappropriate in criminal cases. However, on balance, I can tell the noble Lord that I am now persuaded that no win, no fee agreements, where there is no uplift—that is, Thai Trading type cases—should remain available to individuals seeking to enforce their rights in this type of case.

  435
  However. I cannot agree to achieve this in the manner proposed by the noble Lord in Amendment No. 56B. But, as we lawyers sometimes say, I am now driven to propose a most unusual course. The only way now open to the Government to achieve the result they are now persuaded is the right result, is to allow Amendment No. 568 to pass tonight with all its imperfections, and then to seek to perfect it in the Commons. Let me explain that. The view of parliamentary counsel is that this issue can be effectively dealt with only by amendment to Section 58A(1)(a). That provision was not amended in the Commons and therefore there is no relevant Commons amendment for your Lordships to seek to amend tonight. If, however, your Lordships pass Amendment No. 56B tonight, with all the government health warnings that I have issued, the matter can be corrected in the Commons by amendment when the Bill returns there. That is the end of a rather long story. That is what I propose to do.
  When the Commons come to consider this amendment the Government will propose an alternative which deals squarely with the problem that the noble Lord has identified: that is, the position in Environmental Protection Act cases. That amendment will itself have to be considered by your Lordships upon the return of the Bill to this House, and I trust that it will meet with your Lordships' speedy approval. On that basis. I am prepared to accept Amendment No. 56B for the time being.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 53.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Baroness Goudie: My Lords, I welcome the Government's agreement to protect those tenants who would like to be able to take legal action under that section of the Act.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, has the noble and learned Lord set a precedent in this House so far as he knows for recommending the acceptance of an amendment which in fact he does not accept?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I rather think that it is a record, yes.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, reference has been made to Amendment No. 56. I think that it is al: that stage that I come in with Amendment No. 56A. I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the careful and detailed way in which he dealt with the problem he has identified; namely, that employment tribunal litigation is clearly non-contentious business in the ordinary, everyday sense of the word, and for it to he treated otherwise is clearly absurd.
  I raised my amendment in order to discover why it was necessary to include subsection (5) while one thought about the problem. Why not leave it out and get on with analysing and identifying that which should be dealt with? Surely the matter is made worse by including something which the noble and learned Lord does not accept is appropriate while he looks at the wider field. For that reason I have raised my amendment.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as regards my Amendment No. 56B, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for accepting the idea behind it; that is, the problem created by Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act. Secondly, I thank him for the ingenious way in which he proposes to deal with it. I am almost entirely happy with that. I say "almost" because I should have preferred to deal with the problem by the method proposed in my Amendment No. 142C; that legal aid should be available. However, it would be churlish to press the point and I shall not move Amendment No. 142C. I shall accept the proposal of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and support the amendment when it is brought back in a new and perfected form.
  As regards the problem presented by Amendment No. 56, it is, as the noble and learned Lord. Lord Ackner, pointed out, very odd that appearances in the employment tribunal are treated as being non-contentious litigation on the part of solicitors. I have two strong objections to the situation winch w ill exist when Amendment No. 56B is accepted. One might be regarded as a trade union point, but it is none the worse for that. It is that there will not then be a level playing field between the Bar and the solicitors. Solicitors will be entitled to charge contingent or conditional fees for work in employment tribunals, whereas members of the Bar will be permitted to charge only conditional fees. If it turns out that contingent fees are more popular than conditional fees, that might put the Bar at a serious disadvantage. This is a matter of considerable importance owing to the substantially increased jurisdiction of the employment tribunals to award compensation. It is far greater than it was a year ago.
  The second point is that we strongly object to the principle of contingent fees. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will find it appropriate to prohibit solicitors from using contingent fees, as opposed to conditional fees, in employment tribunal cases. Having said that, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, presented Motion No. 56A in a way which indicated that he was not seriously intending to press it to a Division. If he did so, we would he unable to support it because I believe that it throws the baby out with the bath water.
  When it comes to non-contentious fees, such as fees for advising during the course of a take-over bid, I certainly would see no objection to contingent fees being charged. They are charged by merchant banks, for example, in that sort of situation. It does not seem to add any serious problem if solicitors are entitled to do the same. It does not present anything like the conflicts of interest that are presented if contingent fees are allowed in contentious business. Therefore, I would be unable to support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, even though I agree with the spirit behind it.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we support both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We are therefore extremely

  437
  grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the sympathetic way in which he has reacted to both. I would only add that when the noble and learned Lord has completed his analysis of the relative merits of contingency fees and conditional fees in the context of employment tribunals, I hope that whatever solution he decides upon will have consequential effects for fairness of competition between the two professions.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  54 Clause 29, page 18, line 33, leave out ("enhanced fees") and insert ("a success fee")
  55 Page 19, line 4, leave out ("enhanced fees") and insert ("a success fee")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 54 and 55. They have been spoken to with Amendment No. 53.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 54 and 55.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  56 Clause 29, Page 19, line 14, at end insert—
  ("(5) If a conditional fee agreement is an agreement to which section 57 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (non-contentious business agreements between solicitor and client) applies, subsection (1) shall not make it unenforceable.")
  [Motion No. 56A not moved.]

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 56
  56B Line 4, after ("applies") insert ("or is an agreement which is enforceable at common law").
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 56B as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 56. This has been spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Chancellor.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 56B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 56, be agreed to.—(Lord Goodhart.)
  On Question, Amendment No. 56B agreed to.
  Commons Amendment No. 56, as amended, agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  57 Clause 29, page 19, line 39, leave out ("enhanced fees') and insert ("a success fee")
  58 Page 19, line 41, leave out ("58(4)") and insert ("58 and this section (and in the definitions of "advocacy services" and "litigation services" as they apply for their purposes)")
  59 Page 19, line 43, at end insert (", whether commenced or contemplated.")
  60 Page 20, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("any") in line 7 and insert ("A costs order made in any proceedings may, subject in the case of court proceedings to rules of court, include provision requiring the payment of")
  61 Page 20, line 8, leave out ("the payment of enhanced fees") and insert ("a success fee")
  62 Page 20, line 11, leave out ("taxing") and insert ("assessment")
  63 Page 20, line 13, leave out ("the payment of enhanced fees") and insert ("a success fee")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 57 to 63.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 57 to 63.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  65 After Clause 29, insert the following new clause—

  LITIGATION FUNDING AGREEMENTS
  (". In the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, after section 58A (inserted by section 29 above) insert—
  "Litigation funding agreements.
  58B.—(1) A litigation funding agreement which satisfies all of the conditions applicable to it by virtue of this section shall not be unenforceable by reason only of its being a litigation funding agreement.
  (2) For the purposes of this section a litigation funding agreement is an agreement under which—

  (a) a person ("the funder") agrees to fund (in whole or in part) the provision of advocacy or litigation services (by someone other than the funder) to another person ("the litigant"); and

  (b) the litigant agrees to pay a sum to the funder in specified circumstances.

  (3) The following conditions are applicable to a litigation funding agreement—

  (a) the funder must be a person, or person of a description. prescribed by the Lord Chancellor;

  (b) the agreement must he in writing;

  (c) the agreement must not relate to proceedings which by virtue of section 58A(1) and (2) cannot be the subject of an enforceable conditional fee agreement or to proceedings of any such description as may be prescribed by the Lord Chancellor;

  (d) the agreement must comply with such requirements (if any) as may be so prescribed;

  (e) the sum to be paid by the litigant must consist of any costs payable to him in respect of the proceedings to which the agreement relates together with an amount calculated by reference to the funder's anticipated expenditure in funding the provision of the services; and

  (f) that amount must not exceed such percentage of that anticipated expenditure as may be prescribed by the Lord Chancellor in relation to proceedings of the description to which the agreement relates.

  (4) Regulations under subsection (3)(a) may require a person to be approved by the Lord Chancellor or by a prescribed person.
  (5) The requirements which the Lord Chancellor may prescribe under subsection (3)(d)—

  (a) include requirements for the funder to have provided prescribed information to the litigant before the agreement is made; and

  (b) may be different for different descriptions of litigation funding agreements.

  (6) In this section (and in the definitions of "advocacy services" and "litigation services" as they apply for its purposes) "proceedings" includes any sort of proceedings for resolving disputes (and not just proceedings in a court), whether commenced or contemplated.
  (7) Before making regulations under this section, the Lord Chancellor shall consult—

  (a) the designated judges;

  (b) the General Council of the Bar;

  (c) the Law Society; and

  (d) such other bodies as he considers appropriate.

  (8) A costs order made in any proceedings may, subject in the case of court proceedings to rules of court, include provision requiring the payment of any amount payable under a litigation funding agreement.
  (9) Rules of court may make provision with respect to the assessment of any costs which include fees payable under a litigation funding agreement."").
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 65. With the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 68 to 69A. These amendments seek to facilitate different ways of funding legal services. Amendment No. 65 gives effect to an undertaking given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, during the passage of the Bill through this House to provide a statutory basis for a third person to fund litigation from a fund financed by additional fees payable in successful cases supported by the fund. The new clause is needed to ensure that such arrangements are properly regulated and that they do not fall foul of the common law doctrine of champerty, which was intended to prevent third parties encouraging legal actions for a share of the proceeds.
  Amendment No. 68 seeks to allow organisations that provide legal services to their members to recover what is effectively a self-insurance premium. There are many membership organisations, trade unions and motoring organisations, for example, which provide legal services to their members as a benefit of membership. Members who have a sufficiently strong case may use lawyers retained by the membership organisation at no cost. The organisation also undertakes to indemnify the member against any liability they may incur to meet his or her opponents' costs should the claim be unsuccessful. Membership organisations are nearly always sufficiently large that rather than incurring the cost of commercial insurance premiums (which includes the administrative costs of the insurer and an element of profit) they meet the costs directly in the cases that their members lose. While a membership organisation could take advantage
  440
  of Clause 29 by taking out an insurance policy for each member assisted—and, if successful, recover the premium in costs from the other side—in practice, this is not a sensible arrangement. As I have already said, most membership organisations can meet the liabilities from their own funds without incurring additional unnecessary costs securing commercial insurance.
  Therefore, the new clause inserted by Amendment No. 68 puts in place a scheme by which prescribed bodies who meet prescribed requirements can recover, as part of the costs awarded to a member with a successful case, a sum towards the provision made to protect members against the risk of having to meet opponents' costs. The clause also allows for regulations prescribing the maximum amount that cart be recovered in this way. We intend not to put membership organisations in a preferential position but to allow them to continue to offer their services as effectively as possible. Amendment No. 69 inserts a new clause to allow rules of court regulating costs between the parties to limit the operation of the indemnity principle.
  The new clause reflects proposals made by the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Phillips of Sudbury. In response, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that the indemnity was so central to the existing system of costs that detailed consideration would be necessary. He undertook to carry out a consultation exercise before deciding whether rules of court would be required to retain the beneficial aspects of the indemnity principle.
  My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor published a consultation paper on this subject in May. It proposes that successful litigants should be able to recover from their opponents all costs actually and reasonably incurred, without imposing the further test of whether they would be legally liable to their lawyers for those costs if they were not recovered from the other side.
  Finally, Amendment No. 69A provides a better structure for the Bill. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 65.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Government for having fulfilled their undertaking to produce a paving amendment for a conditional legal aid fund in the event that it proves practicable to establish one. That issue was discussed fully during earlier consideration of the Bill and I need say no more about it. I am happy to accept the other amendments in the group as they now stand.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  66 Clause 30, page 20, line 19, after ("subject") insert ("in the case of court proceedings")
  68 After Clause 30, insert the following new clause—

  RECOVERY WHERE BODY UNDERTAKES TO MEET COSTS LIABILITIES
  (".—(1) This section applies where a body of a prescribed description undertakes to meet (in accordance with arrangements satisfying prescribed conditions) liabilities which members of the body or other persons who are parties to proceedings may incur to pay the costs of other parties to the proceedings.
  (2) If in any of the proceedings a costs order is made in favour of any of the members or other persons, the costs payable to him may, subject to subsection (3) and (in the case of court proceedings) to rules of court, include an additional amount in respect of any provision made by or on behalf of the body in connection with the proceedings against the risk of having to meet such liabilities.
  (3) But the additional amount shall not exceed a sum determined in a prescribed manner; and there may, in particular, be prescribed as a manner of determination one which takes into account the likely cost to the member or other person of the premium of an insurance policy against the risk of incurring a liability to pay the costs of other parties to the proceedings.
  (4) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor by statutory instrument; and a statutory instrument containing such regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (5) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, prescribe as a description of body one which is for the time being approved by the Lord Chancellor or by a prescribed person.")
  69 After Clause 30, insert the following new clause—

  RULES AS TO COSTS
  (". In section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (costs), in subsection (2) (rules regulating matters relating to costs), insert at the end "or for securing that the amount awarded to a party in respect of the costs to be paid by him to such representatives is not limited to what would have been payable by him to them if he had not been awarded costs."")
  69A Transpose Clauses 29 to Clause (Rules as to costs) to after Clause 26
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 66, 68, 69 and 69A.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 66, 68, 69 and 69A.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  70 After Clause 32, insert the following new clause—

  RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE: EMPLOYED ADVOCATES
  (". In the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, after section 31 (as substituted by section 32 above) insert—
  "Employed advocates.
  31A.—(1) Where a person who has a right of audience granted by an authorised body is employed as a Crown Prosecutor or in any other description of employment, any qualification regulations or rules of conduct of the body relating to that right which fall within subsection (2) shall not have effect in relation to him.
  (2) Qualification regulations or rules of conduct relating to a right granted by a body fall within this subsection if—

  (a) they limit the courts before which, or proceedings in which, that right may be exercised by members of the body who are employed or limit the circumstances in which that right may be exercised by them by requiring them to be accompanied by some other person when exercising it; and

  (b) they do not impose the same limitation on members of the body who have the right but are not employed.").

  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 70
  70A That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 70.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 70.
  So much in life is conditioned by sheer chance. At tea time on 28th January, I had the good fortune to move the Motion that Clause 31 should not stand part of the Bill. The earlier amendments, which were somewhat similar, had come on shortly before midnight and enthusiasm to take any definite step was clearly not in evidence.
  Clause 31, which I successfully moved should not stand part of the Bill, has been reinstated by an amendment in the Commons. Therefore, I am seeking to repeat the success that I achieved in this regard on 28th January.
  I was going to suggest that it is right that the Commons be asked to think again. But that is not an accurate way to put it. I really want the Commons to think for the first time because they have not been given the material upon which to exercise their judgment.
  The first matter to consider in respect of the rights of employed advocates is what the present position would be if my original amendment had stood. What is the status quo? One would have thought that that was something that the Government might have pointed out in the process of attacking the amendment, which was successful on 28th January. I shall start by doing that now.
  We all know that the solicitor in private practice has managed to achieve unfettered rights of audience provided that he passes the necessary requirements laid down by the Law Society and which have been approved. What has caused considerable concern is the position of the employed solicitor. That was dealt with in February 1997. The position is not that the employed solicitor has no rights of audience. He has different rights of audience from his colleague in private practice.
  I refer to a letter which the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, wrote to my noble and learned friend Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, who was then the chairman of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct. The material parts read as follows:
  "The designated judges and I have now reached our decision on the remaining part of the Law Society's application for rights of audience for solicitors, that is that part which relates to employed solicitors".
  He went on to say that,
  "we have decided to approve the application as amended, subject to further restrictions and a proviso. As you know, the Law Society submitted a supplementary application in July 1995 which limited the cases in which employed solicitors could appear in the higher courts as the sole or senior advocate. We have concluded that it would be right to extend those categories. The effect of our decision will be that an employed solicitor appearing as an advocate with a leader will be able to appear in all cases in which a solicitor advocate can now appear. However, an employed solicitor may not appear as the sole or senior advocate in the following proceedings: criminal

  443
  proceedings which have been committed for trial to the Crown Court. or any subsequent appeal. (Plea and Directions Hearings and other preliminary proceedings are not included in this restriction)".
  And in regard to the civil situation:
  "in the higher courts in any hearing which is intended to dispose in whole or in part of the merits of the case, and on behalf of a local authority in a hearing of an application in care proceedings, or any subsequent appeal".
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, concluded with the comment:
  "We consider that our decision will further the statutory objective of widening the choice of persons providing legal services while maintaining the proper and efficient administration of justice".
  When the press notice was issued on 26th February this was to be found:
  "The Lord Chancellor commented: 'I am very pleased with this decision, which marks a further widening of legal representatives who can appear before the courts. The senior judges and I are satisfied that employed solicitors have in place sufficient qualification and training regulations, and codes of conduct, to ensure that the proper and efficient administration of justice will be maintained. While the decision will take time to make an impact, it marks a continuation of the sensible policies of reform which were initiated in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990'".
  So it looks on the face of it as if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was content with the compromise that had been reached, in which in substance the employed solicitor in the type of case to which I have drawn attention had to have a leader; he could not do it on his own. It was no doubt contemplated that in due course, with sufficient experience of being led, he would, like any other junior, develop into a leader himself.
  That is to be compared with the observation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, some years later, on 26th January 1999, when, referring to the restrictions, he said:
  "Those restrictions on employed banisters and solicitors are unjustified. They are the worst kind of restrictive practice—designed simply to protect the work and incomes of privately practising barristers, with no shred of benefit to the public".—[Official Report, 26/1/99; col. 997.]
  I hate criticising any colleague who is not present in the House, but the noble and learned Lord has sought to go, when I assumed that he would be present. No doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can seek to justify what was, in my respectful submission, a quite monstrous attack on the profession, a profession which has not sought to support what I am putting forward, which kept right out of the arena on this subject, because it knew from past experience that the matter would be treated as a trade union dispute between the two branches of the profession, which it is not. I say it is not, based upon the following further observations.
  My noble and learned friend Lord Steyn, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, wrote an article based on the 1998 Kalisher memorial lecture, delivered on 13th October 1998. It was published on 8th July 1999. The material parts read as follows:
  "But in my view the proposed granting of full rights of audience to lawyers working for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would be a mistake. I make no criticism of the CPS or of the dedicated lawyers who work for the CPS. The point is an institutional one. On grounds of constitutionalism it would he a mistake to grant such rights to State employees; prosecution in the Crown Court by members of an independent bar places a brake on the executive. It
  444
  is no answer to say that CPS lawyers already prosecute in the magistrates courts. The important cases where tensions between the liberty of the citizen and the interest of the executive arise are heard in the Crown Court. It is an illusion to believe that CPS lawyers work in the same culture of independence as banisters in private practice. Inevitably, CPS lawyers have to display a loyalty to the organisation which employs them and that imposes direct and indirect pressures on them. Failure to fit into the corporate culture of the CPS may result in dismissal or denial of promotion. That is one of the reasons why after careful investigation ACLEC [the advisory committee] by a majority advised against the conferment of full rights of audience on lawyers working for the state.
  The advice given by ACLEC in June 1995 was not based on protecting any interests of the Bar. The majority was, amongst other things, concerned about 'the reality of the likely pressures on CPS employers' and about 'the extent to which, without the requirement of an independent advocate, those pressures might make it more difficult for the individual advocate to adopt a position contrary to the possible wishes and assumptions of the CPS as his or her employer'. While there has been much criticism in the press directed at the advice of ACLEC, not a single journalist has ever even in passing reported the true ground of our advice. On constitutional grounds I regard it as undesirable for State employees to he given rights of audience in the higher courts".
  By contrast, I refer to a part of a letter written by Professor Zander to The Times on 18th December last year. He wrote:
  "In the Crown Court study I conducted for the Runcirnan Royal Commission on Criminal Justice during 1993, we asked respondents to bring to the attention of the Commission any matter of concern. The main general concern identified by prosecuting banisters was disagreements and undue pressure from the CPS on individual cases. At present, such disagreements and pressure are deals with by discussion between the banister and the CPS representative. If the CPS has and exercises full rights of audience, that created tension between differing views would be lost. The decision as to how to handle the case, whether to accept a plea in itself on what charges, etc. would be handled by the CPS alone. In my view that will result in a regrettable deterioration of decision making in serious criminal cases. The loss will be in the quality of that elusive concept, justice".
  Professor Zander is not known for his support to the Bar nor for any affection for the status quo.
  There have been many supporting views of that approach. I shall not take up the time of the House in referring to more than one; that by Lord Benson in his commission's report at paragraph 18.43 to 18.45. It says:
  "In one significant aspect the arrangements serve what many of us regard as an important public purpose by ensuring that in the Crown Court the case for the prosecution is put by an advocate who is independent both of the police and the prosecuting authority … we think that the effect of the present arrangements on prosecuting work should not be disturbed. It provides in every case an advocate from the available range of private practising banisters who is seen by the court, the accused and the public at large, to be independent of the police and the prosecuting authorities; one who, by the nature of his training and daily practice, is more likely to be able to bring the essential quality of detachment and balance to bear on the problem in the individual case. These are considerations that we regard as crucial, not only to the actual conduct of a jury trial, but also the proper administration of justice in general, including the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings, the acceptance of proposed pleas of guilty and the proper handling of evidential problems".
  Is that an example of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who has again left the Chamber, meant by the worst kind of restrictive practice? Is it a restrictive practice designed simply to protect the work and income of private practitioners? Can it be said that that practice contains no sired of benefit to the public? Of course it cannot.

  445
  What I have brought before the House has been suppressed by the Government in this Chamber and in the Commons. That is why I have respectfully submitted that the other place be asked to think—and think for the first time.
  Moved, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 70—(Lord Ackner.)
  10 p.m.
  Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I hope that the House agrees with the Commons in their Amendment No. 70. I reiterate the conviction that I expressed back in the long dark nights of January when we last rehearsed the arguments on what was then Clause 31, that employed lawyers should not be stopped because of their employed status from exercising their rights of audience. The obstacles restricting the rights of employed lawyers represent an injustice that cannot be allowed to continue in a modern, reformed legal service. Despite what we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, those obstacles also represent more than a hint of protectionism.
  It is always instructive to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, but he treads a somewhat lonely path in his continued insistence that any extension of employees' rights of audience should be opposed, particularly in the light of the fact that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has insisted on many occasions that the highest standards of qualification and training will prevail under the reforms.
  Earlier this evening the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was insistent in his view that the legal profession is very competitive. If that is so and if the proper standards are put in place and safeguarded, there is nothing of substance to fear from the amendment. I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, not to pursue his objection.
  Lord Borrie: My Lords, in the early part of his speech the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to the 1997 extension of the rights of employed lawyers to appear in certain cases in certain circumstances. Of course, everything that the noble and learned Lord said was accurate, as one might expect. He did not say, although one might infer it because he referred to the legislation from which this emanated as being that of 1990, that there had been many years in between in which there had been a to-ing and fro-ing between the different organisations involved—the Law Society and ACLEC and so on. It took all those years to get what the noble and learned Lord seemed to think was a "fair compromise". I should perhaps describe it somewhat differently as a fudge. It reduced the real possibilities of choice of the litigant with which we ought to be concerned.
  The litigants in the cases of which I am thinking in civil matters are companies, firms which may have lawyers in their employ in their legal department. Under the 1997 dispensation—the situation was even worse before that—irrespective of his wishes, the employer could not use one of his employed lawyers to represent
  446
  the company in court. I sought to put forward my view at the earlier stages of the Bill. To my mind, companies which employ lawyers should have a complete choice. They should determine, on the best advice available, whether to use an independent barrister, or, let us say, an independent QC to lead one of his own in-house lawyers as a junior; whether to use employed staff to appear only in interlocutory proceedings and perhaps use an independent practitioner at trial proceedings, and so on.
  I keep emphasising the word "choice". The noble and learned Lord was keen to have a code—a list of insistent provisions that all employed lawyers appearing in court must, above all, be concerned with their duty to the court. I have worked with employed lawyers in both the public and private sectors. I took the view that to assert without evidence that an employed lawyer was incapable of giving independent advice or of representing his client with all due integrity to the court, and of giving advice that his employer may not wish to hear, was nonsensical. An employed lawyer knows, as does his employer, that he is being paid to give of his best. That includes giving advice that the employer may not particularly wish to hear.
  I must not speak for too long but I should like to comment in relation to the Crown Prosecution Service. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, dealt with that in the latter part of his speech. I find it difficult to draw a complete dividing line between those trials—and for good or ill, there may be more in future than in the past—which are settled and determined in the magistrates' court and those which are settled in the Crown Court. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, seemed to imply that there is some rigid division whereby Crown Prosecution Service employees are assumed to be perfectly ethical and to have complete integrity and all the rest of it to ensure a proper trial in those courts. But should the trial happen to be in the Crown Court, those selfsame employees are "incapable" of having the integrity and the ethical standards that we all want to see.
  It seems to me again that it should be a matter of choice. In this case, the Crown Prosecution Service is surely sufficiently well managed to know when it wishes to engage its own lawyers and to give them experience in the different kinds of courts, whereas at the moment it can never give them experience in the Crown Court. In other cases it may decide that it needs someone from the independent Bar, either as a leader, or perhaps as the sole prosecutor. Let us have a little more choice and let employed lawyers give of their full quality and qualifications—assuming, of course, they do have the correct qualifications; without them they could not appear—and let us accept the Commons view on this matter.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we are unable to agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. In saying that, I have to say that some of my noble friends strongly agree with him. Indeed one of them is sitting immediately behind me and I think that your Lordships will shortly have the benefit of his views. All of my

  447
  noble friends who agree with the noble and learned Lord are lawyers with long experience of criminal cases whose views must be listened to with great respect.
  But the view of my party, as was made clear in the other place, and indeed my own view, is that the Crown Prosecution Service—it is the Crown Prosecution Service that this amendment is really about—should have rights of audience. We have to remember the background to the CPS. It was introduced because the old police solicitor was seen—and I think rightly seen—as too closely connected with the investigation of crime. The CPS was introduced to be a body independent of the police and the investigation process. That is what it should be and what I believe it is.
  We all know that the CPS has been through difficult times, but I do not believe that the standards of integrity of employees of the CPS are less high than those of lawyers in independent practice. Of course there are pressures on members of the CPS, but equally there are pressures on barristers in private practice who are instructed by the CPS. Those pressures may in some ways be even greater. If an independent barrister does not do what the CPS wants, he can be cut off by the CPS without any remedy—that can be extremely damaging to his practice—whereas a CPS employee has full rights under the employment legislation to protect his position. Therefore I do not think that it is right to talk of pressures being on one side only.
  I believe that the right to appear as an advocate in the Crown Court will attract more candidates of high quality to the CPS, particularly from those who are already advocates in independent practice. They will simply not transfer to the CPS if they are to be condemned to silence in the Crown Court. I believe that interchange between the CPS and the independent profession is particularly valuable. But it will not happen if those in independent practice lose their rights of audience when they join the CPS and those in the CPS have no experience of advocacy in the Crown Court.
  The arguments in favour of allowing the CPS to have rights of audience are, I believe, quite different from the arguments that we on these Benches raised earlier against the setting up of a public defender system with rights of audience. Indeed, giving the CPS greater rights of audience I believe strengthens the view that defence should remain independent of the state. We do not think that adverse consequences will follow from giving the CPS rights of audience. That must, of course, be phased in over time. It is not appropriate that the present CPS staff with limited experience of advocacy in the Crown Court should immediately take over the prosecution of difficult cases. I certainly hope that there will always be a role for independent prosecutors in cases brought by the CPS. But that, I believe, is something that should be left to the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  Lord Hacking: My Lords, your Lordships have heard quite a lot of argument relating to employed lawyers with the CPS and I certainly do not intend to repeat that here. I regret, when the noble and learned Lord moved his Amendment No. 70A, that he made no
  448
  reference to Clause 37 of the Bill which sets out a clear duty on all advocates providing advocacy services. Clause 37 states that they have,
  "a duty to the court to act with independence in the interests of justice".
  I had subsequent correspondence with the noble and learned Lord after some amendments that I moved which were designed to give comfort to those who might be concerned about employed lawyers appearing in court. My noble and learned friend, in my view quite rightly, said it was unnecessary to use the protective mechanisms that I was proposing because the duty was so clearly set out as a statutory duty in Clause 37.
  I listened with great care to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. He made some omissions—not only the omissions pointed out by my noble friend Lord Borrie but also he did not refer to the position of employed barristers. There was some compromise after the Courts and Legal Services Act reached the statute book concerning my side of the profession but the position of employed barristers—and there are many who are employed as barristers and not as solicitors—was not addressed at all. It has not been addressed; it is only now being addressed in the Bill.
  After your Lordships had passed the Bill and sent it to another place, I had the opportunity of talking to an employed barrister. He gave an account of how he had been in private practice in chambers in Manchester for 10 years or more. He subsequently accepted an in-house legal position with a publishing company. As with all publishing companies, emergencies arise—injunctive relief and so forth is needed—and he had to go very quickly to an open court in the High Court in order to represent his client. Although the employed barrister had been dealing with the problem for only a few hours in his office, he pointed out the sheer inefficiency of the necessity to brief an outside barrister to appear in the High Court. Instructions had to be given orally, first of all over the telephone and then as he and the barrister walked to court together. In those circumstances, there was no way in which the barrister could be properly briefed to appear efficiently and well for the client.
  That is an example of how we should be looking at the problem. We should be looking at the interests of justice and at the interests of the efficient conduct of justice. In the circumstances I have outlined to you, a barrister with 10 years' experience in the High Court and with a detailed knowledge of the particular case was, under the present rules, prevented from presenting his client's case to the judge. I dare say that the judge would have much preferred to have had someone with a knowledge of the case in front of him, rather than the badly-briefed barrister. The barrister did not have the knowledge because there was no time for it to be imparted to him.
  This is a very important amendment—it is certainly considered important outside the House—because it affects all employed lawyers, whether they be solicitors or barristers. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not press his Motion.
  Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate. I have been persuaded to do so

  449
  by an observation of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. If I may paraphrase his remarks, he said that there was no reason why a prosecuting lawyer who was employed by the CPS would not exercise precisely the same high standards as a prosecutor who was member of the independent Bar. I entirely agree with what he said.
  My problem is that there may occasionally be those who fall short of those high standards, whether they be members of the independent legal profession or those employed by the CPS. If they are members of the Bar, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will know the many informal pieces of machinery that exist by which those standards can be enforced. His colleagues at the independent Bar will recognise what has happened. The matter will inevitably come to the head of his Chambers. If it goes any further, it will come to the leader of his circuit. If it goes further than that, it may well come to the presiding judge, to his Inn, or to the Bar Council. There are innumerable informal ways in which it can be made clear that an independent barrister who falls short of the proper standards is dealt with speedily and efficiently.
  I should very much welcome some indication from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that, where similar behaviour takes place—as it is bound to do occasionally—on the part of someone who is an employed barrister, there will be adequate machinery to ensure that it is recognised and is dealt with the same efficiency.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, so far as concerns the Crown Prosecution Service, I wholly endorse everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has said about the appropriateness of its employees taking cases in the Crown Court.
  However, I recognise that at this stage of the passage of the Bill through Parliament I am faced with a situation where the Liberal Front Bench is opposed to the Motion. I have to confess that some members of the Opposition are also opposed to it. I refer, for example, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, who is a supporter of the Government's line on the Crown Prosecution Service. Although I hope that I do not do him any injustice, I think that would also be true, were he present, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. In those circumstances, it is therefore the Opposition's position that they will not support this Motion if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, presses it to a vote.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 70 to 78 at the same time as responding to the noble and learned Lord's Motion numbered 70A.
  Clause 32 of the Bill will leave intact the principle that lawyers' rights of audience are governed by the rules and regulations imposed by the authorised bodies which grant those rights. But there are some rules and regulations which simply have to be recognised for what they are—restrictive practices, such as those which
  450
  prevent employed barristers and solicitors from appearing in the higher courts simply because of their status as employees.
  Amendment No. 70 reinstates the principle enshrined in what was originally introduced as Clause 31 of the Bill. I am disappointed to say that that clause was rejected by those who clearly believe that discrimination against employed lawyers can be justified.
  This is an increasingly anachronistic and isolated attitude. In the other place, the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the honourable Member for Surrey Heath, welcomed the long-awaited removal of the bar on employed lawyers appearing in court on behalf of their employers. So, in the light of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I must congratulate him on a consistency of approach in this House.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, just to make it absolutely clear to the noble and learned Lord, my remarks referred solely to the Crown Prosecution Service. So far as other employed lawyers are concerned, the Opposition accepts the Government's position.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Law Society actively supports Amendment No. 70 and, significantly, the Bar Council does not oppose it. The Bar Council's view is that any extension of employees' rights of audience should be in the context of a competitive market in advocacy services, subject to safeguards in the public interest.
  That raises an important point. It is in the public interest to have a competitive market for advocacy services only if we are able to maintain standards. I have no desire to see badly trained or incompetent advocates let loose in the higher courts, and I will work with professional bodies to ensure that that does not happen. Any changes in the qualification requirements will be subject to my approval. I will not tolerate anything that jeopardises the current high standards of advocacy.
  Concerns have been expressed about the Law Society's new higher court qualifications. The relevant rules of the Law Society were amended in November last year with the unanimous approval of the designated judges and myself acting on the advice of ACLEC and the Director-General of Fair Trading. The amended rules, which came into effect in April this year, are simpler and establish a new route to qualification, but they are no less exacting.
  If an employed lawyer, whether barrister or solicitor, has met the high qualification standards required by his professional body, then I do not see how it can be regarded as against the public interest for him to be able to exercise full rights of audience. At present we have the absurd position where an employed barrister, however senior, can exercise absolutely no rights of audience whatever in the higher courts. Even the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr David Calvert-Smith QC, a barrister of 30 years standing, lost his rights of audience on the day he was appointed as the Director of Public Prosecutions, as did his predecessor, Dame Barbara Mills.

  451
  Employed solicitors are scarcely in a better position. An employed solicitor advocate can only appear in substantive proceedings in the higher courts led by a barrister or, theoretically, by a solicitor-advocate, in private practice.
  The Government simply do not believe that the professional bodies should be free to apply discriminatory rules of this kind, and reinserting this clause will prevent them from doing so. It provides that rules which limit the rights of audience of employed advocates are not binding on them if they do not also apply to their colleagues in private practice.
  The clause will enable Crown prosecutors to prosecute in the Crown Court, and all other employed lawyers to appear as advocates in the higher courts provided that they have met the qualification criteria which apply to them.
  Once qualified, employed lawyers will, of course, continue to be regulated by their professional bodies. But we need to ensure that this regulation is in the public interest. It should not be designed to promote the interests of the lawyers in private practice over those of all other lawyers.
  The Government do not intend that the professional bodies should have to apply the same regulations in every respect to employed advocates as those which they apply to advocates in private practice. Clearly, they should be allowed to provide for the differences between them. It would not be appropriate, for example, for employed barristers to have to work from Chambers, as barristers in private practice have to do. But employed advocates should not be prevented by their employed status from exercising their rights of audience. Amendment No. 70 is designed to stop this abuse.
  I appreciate that some noble Lords are concerned that the independence of employed lawyers cannot be guaranteed. But, like all other advocates, they will be subject to the duties in Clause 37 of this Bill, which are put on a statutory basis for the first time. These are the duty to the court to act with independence in the interests of justice and the duty to obey rules of conduct. These duties override any other obligations that the employed lawyer may have, including those to his employer.
  I do not accept that an experienced advocate loses his independence of mind just because he receives a salary rather than a brief fee any more, I might add, than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, lost his independence of mind—we see that he has not—on relinquishing, I am sure, abundant brief fees for a judicial salary.
  As your Lordships will have noticed, there are some drafting differences between Amendment No. 70 and the original Clause 31. They are designed to clarify the clause in two ways: first, to make clear that Amendment No. 70 applies to all employed lawyers and not solely to those employed principally as advocates; and, secondly, to ensure that the clause is not interpreted as enabling an employed advocate to offer his or her services direct to the public or to clients of his or her employers, as distinct from the employers themselves. It is not my intention to authorise that development by means of Amendment No. 70.
  452
  Failure to re-insert this clause in the Bill would strike at the heart of the Government's proposals on rights of audience. It would leave in place the restrictions which have been put, quite unjustifiably, on employed lawyers. The time for restrictive practices of this kind has long gone. Amendments Nos. 71, 72, 76 and 77 are consequential upon the insertion of this new clause.
  I turn to Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 which concern employees of the Legal Services Commission. Clause 33 invalidates any rule of conduct that would prevent advocates or litigators employed by the commission from providing their services to members of the public purely on account of their employed status. Amendment No. 73 extends Clause 33 to cover, in addition to employees of the commission, employees of,
  "any body established and maintained by the Legal Services Commission"
  under its powers in Clauses 7(3)(d), 14(20) and 15(3)(d). Amendment No. 75 enables barristers employed by the commission, or bodies established and maintained by it, to provide services directly to the public without the need to receive instructions through a solicitor. Amendment No. 74 is a minor drafting change to clarify the clause.
  The purpose of the final amendment in this group, Amendment No. 78, is to enable a barrister employed in a solicitor's firm to provide legal services, including advocacy, direct to his or her employer's clients in the same way as an employed solicitor may. I said at Committee stage in this House that the Government would table an amendment to this effect. At present, barristers employed by firms of solicitors are deemed to be "non-practising". This means that they may offer limited legal services to members of the public but they have no rights of audience in any court under the Bar's rules, no matter how well qualified they are or how many years they may have spent previously as barristers in private practice.
  The Government regard that as a restriction that cannot be tolerated. A barrister who would have full rights of audience if he were in private practice should have full rights of audience if he works for a solicitor. He should be able to offer his services as an advocate in the same way as a solicitor advocate employed in the same firm. Barristers employed by solicitors will continue to be regulated by the Bar Council. It will be the responsibility of the Bar Council and the Law Society to ensure that the rules concerning these barristers, such as the disciplinary jurisdiction, do not conflict. I do not believe that this will cause any difficulties in practice.
  This is an important group of amendments which is at the very core of the Government's policy on rights of audience. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, who has not gained support for his Amendment No. 70A around the Chamber, will agree to withdraw it.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, it is no surprise to me that the Bar and Bar Council have not supported the amendment. To have done so would have given

  453
  immediate hostage to fortune, because it would have been said, as did the noble and learned Lord, that these restrictions
  "are the worst kind of restrictive practice—designed simply to protect the work and incomes of privately practising barristers, with no shred of benefit to the public".— [Official Report, 26/1/99; col. 997.]
  For that reason, I drew the attention of the House to the views of the noble and learned Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Lord Steyn. I drew the House's attention to the view of Professor Zander and the views of the Benson Commission. None of those fall within the trade union attack and accordingly show the independent source of the report.
  I do not propose to take up more time of the House. I am grateful for having been listened to with such tolerance. But I submit that the strength of the views I have quoted fully justify the amendment I have proposed, although taking a realistic view I see no purpose in moving the amendment to a Division of the House. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  70 After Clause 32, insert the following new clause—

  RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE: EMPLOYED ADVOCATES
  (". In the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, after section 31 (as substituted by section 32 above) insert—
  "Employed advocates.
  31 A.—(1) Where a person who has a right of audience granted by an authorised body is employed as a Crown Prosecutor or in any other description of employment, any qualification regulations or rules of conduct of the body relating to that right which fall within subsection (2) shall not have effect in relation to him.
  (2) Qualification regulations or rules of conduct relating to a right granted by a body fall within this subsection if—

  (a) they limit the courts before which, or proceedings in which, that right may be exercised by members of the body who are employed or limit the circumstances in which that right may be exercised by them by requiring them to be accompanied by some other person when exercising it; and

  (b) they do not impose the same limitation on members of the body who have the right but are not employed.").

  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 70.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 70.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  71 Clause 33, page 22, line 36, leave out ("31 (as substituted by section 32") and insert ("31A (inserted by section (Rights of audience: employed advocates)").
  72 Page 22, line 38, leave out ("31 A") and insert ("31B").
  73 Page 22, line 40, after ("Commission,") insert ("or by any body established and maintained by the Legal Services Commission,'").
  74 Page 22, line 41, after ("the") insert ("authorised").
  75 Page 23, line 4, leave out ("they") and insert ("either of the conditions specified in subsection (3) is satisfied.
  (3) Those conditions are—

  (a) that the prohibition or limitation is on the exercise of the right, or the provision of the services, otherwise than on the instructions of solicitors (or other persons acting for the members of the public), and

  (b) that the rules").

  76 Clause 34, page 23, line 7, leave out ("31 A") and insert ("31B").
  77 Page 23, line 9, leave out ("31B") and insert ("31C").
  78 After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

  BARRISTERS EMPLOYED BY SOLICITORS ETC
  (".—(1) Where a barrister is employed by—

  (a) a solicitor or other authorised litigator (within the meaning of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990), or

  (b) a body recognised under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (incorporated solicitors' practices),

  any rules of the General Council of the Bar which impose a prohibition or limitation on the provision of legal services shall not operate to prevent him from providing legal services to clients of his employer if either of the conditions specified in subsection (2) is satisfied.
  (2) Those conditions are—

  (a) that the prohibition or limitation is on the provision of the services otherwise than on the instructions of a solicitor (or other person acting for the client), and

  (b) that the prohibition or limitation does not apply to barristers who provide legal services but are not employees.").

  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 71 to 78.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 71 to 78.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  79 After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

  FEES ON APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT AS QUEEN'S COUNSEL
  (".—(1) A person who applies to the Lord Chancellor to be recommended for appointment as Queen's Counsel in England and Wales shall pay a fee to the Lord Chancellor.
  (2) The amount of the fee shall be specified by order made by the Lord Chancellor; and in determining that amount the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the expenses incurred by him in considering such applications.
  (3) An order under subsection (2) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (4) This section does not affect section 9 of the Great Seal (Offices) Act 1874 (under which fees are charged in respect of the grant of Letters Patent under the Great Seal for appointment as Queen's Counsel).").
  The Lord Chancellor; My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 79. With your Lordships' leave I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 126 and 128.

  455
  These amendments will enable me to charge fees to recoup the cost of administering the annual competition for the rank of Queen's Counsel. Currently the only power to charge a fee in relation to Queen's Counsel relates to the Crown Office and its costs. These costs, which in 1999 were about £10,000 are limited to the actual grant of Letters Patent to successful applicants.
  However, the majority of the work and costs of this competition relates to the processing of applications prior to the grant of the rank of Queen's Counsel to successful candidates. Most of those applications are unsuccessful. During the competition for 1998–99 out of 553 applications only 69 were successful.
  The majority of the work and costs of this competition relate to the work involved in considering applications in advance of the award of practising Queen's Counsel to successful candidates and of subsequently providing feedback to those unsuccessful candidates who request it. Indeed, most of these applications are unsuccessful.
  Handling all these applications, many of which are from applicants who have applied on previous occasions, and will apply again, perhaps successfully, perhaps not, and giving feedback to those unsuccessful applicants who ask for feedback is a time consuming and costly process. The cost to my department last year was around £185,000.
  This constitutes a public subsidy for a system of promotion in a profession which perhaps is not distinguished for its need for subsidy from the public purse. We therefore consider the introduction of an application fee for the rank of Queen's Counsel highly desirable.
  Amendments Nos. 126 and 128 amend Clause 86 of the Bill to allow the new clause to take effect on Royal Assent. The annual competition for Queen's Counsel starts in September. We are now in July and the new clause could not apply to this year's competition unless it comes into effect immediately.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 79.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I speak entirely for myself and in no way for my party. I have long taken the view that the whole process of appointment of Queen's Counsel should be abandoned. But that is not what we are discussing. So long as the process exists it seems to me entirely reasonable that those who apply should be made to pay the costs of application. After all, those who apply may not all be fat cats but at least they are likely to be pretty plump kittens. It seems to me, therefore, entirely justifiable to ask them to pay.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, speaking entirely for myself, I do not consider that the procedure should be abandoned, but I believe that it needs to be reformed. However, I have no objection to charges being made, but I hope that we get good value for money.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  80 After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

  BAR PRACTISING CERTIFICATES
  (".—(1) If the General Council of the Bar makes rules prohibiting barristers from practising as specified in the rules unless authorised by a certificate issued by the Council (a "practising certificate"), the rules may include provision requiring the payment of fees to the Council by applicants for practising certificates.
  (2) Rules made by virtue of subsection (1)—

  (a) may provide for the payment of different fees by different descriptions of applicants, but

  (b) may not set fees with a view to raising a total amount in excess of that applied by the Council for the purposes of the regulation, education and training of banisters and those wishing to become barristers.

  (3) The Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument—

  (a) amend subsection (2)(b) by adding to the purposes referred to in it such other purposes as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate, or

  (b) vary or revoke an order under paragraph (a).

  (4) No order shall be made under subsection (3) unless—

  (a) the Lord Chancellor has consulted the Council, and

  (b) a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

  (5) No provision included in rules by virtue of subsection (1), and no other provision of rules made by the Council about practicing certificates, shall have effect unless approved by the Lord Chancellor.
  (6) The Council shall provide the Lord Chancellor with such information as he may reasonably require for deciding whether to approve any provision of rules made by the Council about practising certificates.")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 80. With your Lordships' leave, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 81.
  These amendments relate to practising certificates for barristers and solicitors. Solicitors are already required to hold practising certificates under the Solicitors Act 1974. The certificates, which are renewed annually, show that the solicitor is properly qualified, has abided by the various requirements imposed on solicitors—such as having satisfactory insurance arrangements—and has paid his or her dues to the Law Society.
  Amendment No. 80 enables the General Council of the Bar, for the first time ever, to require banisters to hold and pay for practising certificates on a similar basis. It also defines the purposes for which the Bar Council may apply the income that it receives from practising certificates, income from what will effectively be compulsory subscriptions. The Law Society already has a statutory power under the Solicitors Act 1974 to levy fees for practising certificates, but there is currently no statutory restriction on the society's use of its compulsory fee income. Amendment No. 81 enables me to limit the purposes for which the Law Society may apply fee income from practising certificates.
  The Government believe that it is right for a regulatory body to be able to charge compulsory fees to those it regulates. The Bar Council carries out a regulatory function in relation to barristers which is comparable to that exercised by the Law Society in

  457
  relation to solicitors. The Government believe that it is unfair that some barristers should not contribute to the costs of the regulation from which all barristers benefit.
  Amendment No. 80 will also enable the Bar Council to require barristers to pay what amounts to a training levy to support pupil barristers or to provide other training. At present, many new barristers, after attending the Bar vocational course and being called to the Bar, find that they are unable to obtain pupillages and their careers therefore fall at the first fence.
  The Government hope that the Bar Council will choose to exercise its new power. It should be a potent means of ensuring more meritocratic entry to the Bar, which is rightly perceived as a profession dominated by the middle class. This clause should help to ensure for the future that more people not from privileged backgrounds are able to rise to success at the Bar.
  Amendment No. 80 provides that the total amount of money generated from the payment of these fees should not exceed the Bar Council's total expenditure on the regulation, education and training of barristers and would-be barristers. The Government's firm view is that this compulsory fee income should not be available for what might be described as the Bar Council's trade union activities. The Government have no intention of creating a "closed shop", requiring individual barristers to fund activities which they may not support and may in fact be contrary to their interests. Of course, it will be open to the Bar Council to raise money from barristers on a voluntary basis for these purposes. But the days of pre-entry closed shops are ended for trade unions and should not apply to other bodies either.
  Still, the Government accept that there may be other purposes for which it would be appropriate for the Bar Council to use money generated from subscriptions. The clause therefore contains a power to enable me to add to the purposes of regulation, training and education. The order would be subject to prior consultation with the council and to affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament. In considering the possibility of using this power, the Government would be guided in particular by the wider public interest.
  The Chairman of the Bar Council, Mr Dan Brennan, QC, has welcomed the proposed introduction of Amendment No. 80. I should like to place on record the thanks of the Government to Mr Brennan and the Bar Council for all the work they have done to facilitate the formulation of this change. With your Lordships' leave, I shall deal with Amendment No. 80A in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in a few moments. It raises issues similar to Amendment No. 81A tabled by my noble friend Lord Mishcon and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
  I turn to Amendment No. 81. At present, under Section 11(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974, practising certificate fee income may be applied in any manner the Law Society may think fit. At Committee stage in the other place, an amendment was laid which sought to apply the same restrictions to the Law Society as the Government intend to apply to the Bar. This would have had the effect that practising certificate fees could be used only for the regulation, education and training of solicitors.
  458
  The Government's initial view, which they conveyed to the Law Society, was that the same restrictions should be imposed as for the Bar Council. As I have explained, our belief is that it is right in principle that a professional body should be able to spend money generated from compulsory subscriptions only on certain activities. I am aware that many solicitors welcome this proposal and feel that it would help to ensure that the society remained answerable to the profession.
  Also, there is a strong argument that the Law Society should be placed on an equal basis to the Bar Council. I subsequently met the President of the Law Society, Mr Michael Mathews, to discuss the Government's position. I should like to place on record my appreciation for Mr Mathews' service as President of the Law Society on what I believe to be this, his last full day in office.
  The Government have not always seen eye to eye with the Law Society over the past year, especially on aspects of this Bill. That is completely unsurprising. However, throughout his term of office Mr Mathews has served the solicitors' profession with courtesy, energy and great integrity. At our meeting he made some extremely important and useful points. I listened to the points and they have been reflected in Amendment No. 81. The Government have accepted that immediate change could be disruptive for the established procedures and structures within the Law Society which have existed for a long time in reliance on its right to exact compulsory fees being unrestricted in the sense of its being free to expend the income from the fees exacted in this way as it chooses.
  This amendment, therefore, makes no immediate change to the position of the Law Society but enables Parliament to decide what restriction might be appropriate when the Government and the Law Society have had time to consider the issues fully. The Law Society will also no doubt want to consult its members. We have asked the Law Society to set out, within 18 months of Royal Assent, any further activities that in its view should be financed by compulsory fee income and which of its activities should be funded only on a voluntary basis.
  Subject to the qualifications I make, I intend to resist Amendment No. 81 tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Mishcon and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. However, perhaps I may say that I am grateful to them for tabling it. It helps me to illustrate the types of activities which the Law Society and the Bar might properly fund from compulsory fees. I make it clear to the House that "practice support" or practice management and the,
  "raising and maintenance of standards"
  will be covered by compulsory fees for both the Bar and the Law Society. These activities are entirely compatible with the role of a regulatory body and should be included in any order made under any of these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will therefore appreciate that I accept and support much of the thinking behind his helpful amendment.
  However, my concern lies with the words
  "work in the public interest".

  459
  The same expression is used in Amendment No. 80A tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in relation to Bar practising certificates. I do not think that it is satisfactory to include those words on the face of the Bill. They are not readily justiciable, although they will be capable of giving rise to litigation. I prefer certainty, and I do not think that we should have any difficulty agreeing with the Law Society in the course of 18 months a list of specific activities that are in the wider public interest. I much prefer agreeing activities that justify compulsory fees on a case-by-case basis to creating a rather vague and problematic category. However, I assure both the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord that those functions of the Law Society and the Bar Council that we can agree are in the public interest will qualify for funding from compulsory subscriptions. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord to withdraw their Amendments Nos. 81A and 80A.
  The Government cannot support a state of affairs where solicitors and barristers are compelled to join a closed shop in order to practise. However, at the same time, we have no wish whatsoever to stifle the many useful functions in the public interest that both bodies currently perform and from which both the public and the Government benefit. I commend the new clauses as successfully balancing these concerns.
  The Bill in its present form empowers the Lord Chancellor to limit the purposes for which the Law Society may accept compulsory fees for regulation, education and training and other appropriate purposes in the public interest about which I have given details in response to the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Hunt. The Lord Chancellor is to consult the Master of the Rolls and the Law Society before exercising these powers, and I intend to do so very thoroughly indeed. Thereafter Parliament will decide by affirmative resolution.
  The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, would give the Master of the Rolls the power of veto so that no change could be put to Parliament without his concurrence. I do not think that that is acceptable: it is ultimately and properly for Parliament to determine these matters. The Master of the Rolls has never sought a power of veto and, when informed that there would be a statutory duty to consult him, he expressed his support for that provision. I have, of course, informed the Master of the Rolls of the Government's intentions and I will have full regard to any advice that he provides to me on practising certificates. He will also be able, should he wish, to make this advice public. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, to withdraw his amendment. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 80.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 80
  80A Line 13, at the end of subsection (2), insert ("and work in the public interest").
  Lord Ackner Lord Ackner had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 80, Amendment No. 80A.
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, may I begin by saying how delighted I am at the new powers that the Lord Chancellor has provided for the Bar Council with regard to making fees compulsory? That is something that I fought for, but failed to achieve, many years ago when I was Chairman of the Bar Council.
  In view of the courteous way in which the Lord Chancellor has agreed to consider the width and breadth of the phrase "public interest" and how that matter can best be dealt with, I am happy to give up the amendment I had suggested and rely upon the Lord Chancellor to carry out the research that he has indicated and to await the results, which I am sure will be satisfactory.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, after I had put down my Amendment No. 81 A, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with his usual courtesy, wrote to me with the assurances which, again with his usual courtesy, he has repeated this evening. The Law Society is most grateful to him for his attitude in this matter and for those assurances; and, if I may say so, so humbly am I. In those circumstances, I shall not move Amendment No. 81 A.
  Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I welcome very much indeed the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Perhaps I may also add that all members of the Law Society will very much appreciate his words about Michael Mathews which will find a supportive echo right across the profession and across the country. I greatly applaud the way in which the noble and learned Lord has approached the whole issue. I hope that it will be possible to find a list of those activities which are clearly in the public interest. That was the purpose of the amendment. The resolve of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to do just that is very comforting indeed.
  Lord Hacking: My Lords, I was consulted both by the Law Society and the Bar Council on this issue. I know that my friends in the Law Society, including the president, are very pleased with the final result of these discussions. As a former member of the Bar who always paid his dues and as a present solicitor of the High Court who continues to pay his dues to his society, I know that both sides of the profession are most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for these measures.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am sorry if I am going to be the fly in the ointment on this; group of amendments. I have only today had the assurance of the Law Society that it supports the amendment in my name. The first point one must recollect is that one is not proceeding here from a fresh sheet, so to speak, as one is with the Bar, where these powers are new; one is proceeding from the position where for a long time the Law Society has had the power and right to charge practising certificate fees. That is to be found in Section 11 of the Solicitors Act 1974. The provisions of Section 11 are very different from those contained in Amendment No. 81 because they give the Lord

  461
  Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice a joint voice in setting practising fees. All three must agree or there is no agreement at all.
  Furthermore, Section 11 as it stands gives the Master of the Rolls, as judicial overseer of the solicitors' branch of my profession, the initiative in setting fees which he can exercise only with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. That, I believe, is a better balance than the one now proposed in Amendment No. 81, which not only gives the Lord Chancellor the initiative but reduces the role of the Master of the Rolls to that of a mere consultee, along with that of the Law Society.
  My amendment would, too modestly some may think, leave the initiative with the Lord Chancellor, but would require him to obtain the agreement of the Master of the Rolls to any proposals he may make under the new clause by way of restricting the right and power of the Law Society as to how it expends practising certificate fees. I believe that this is a particularly desirable change to make to the clause as contained in Commons Amendment No. 81, because in this case the power to be given to the Lord Chancellor is a very political one, allowing him to control the Law Society in the expenditure of practising fees, so as to be confined to regulation, education and training of solicitors—highly uncontentious—and
  "such other purposes as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate".
  As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made clear in his letter of 2nd July to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, one objective of this change is to prevent the Law Society using practising fees for what he called in the letter "trade union activities". Yet, as he acknowledged by accepting that there will now be an 18-month negotiation period with the Law Society, which will seek to provide a definition of just what that means, "trade union activities" is a wonderfully vague and unclear phrase.
  Furthermore, the noble and learned Lord insists on negotiating during this period, having secured the power, under Commons Amendment No. 81, to enforce his will if negotiations break down or reach no happy conclusion. It is precisely because a political Lord Chancellor will be tempted at moments of controversial activity by the Law Society, such as there has been in the Law Society's recent advertising campaign to oppose certain aspects of the Bill, that I believe the exercise of his initiative under the subsection needs my amendment. For the very threat of the exercise of the power given exclusively to the Lord Chancellor under Commons Amendment No. 81 will have its effect. Further, it could—maybe in certain cases it is bound to—give rise to litigation. Matters of legal aid, legal procedure, legal fees and court organisation could all be described as trade union activities; they are all certainly matters which give rise to conflict of interest on the part of solicitors, because there is absolutely no doubt that any of those subjects, and many more, including many subjects of law reform generally, will involve solicitors in their own capacity as solicitors, just as much—in some cases, much less, however—as they will involve the interests of their clients and justice generally.
  462
  One has only to consider the debate tonight, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made soft but clear charges of trade unionism against some of those who spoke in favour of the public defender system, to realise that to try to define just what is and is not permissible under this new aegis is impossible. That is why I propose the amendment. It will be too easy for a Lord Chancellor stung by a campaign against his government's policy to ignore his own conflicted position, because of course he is both senior judge and Cabinet Minister, and seek to stifle that opposition by exercise of the powers given in Commons Amendment No. 81.
  I hasten to say that nothing I have said is in any way directed at the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself, but in cases such as this one must look to the principles and the possibilities. It would be imprudent in the extreme to allow the amendment to proceed, when the present arrangements, vesting initiative and most influence in the Master of the Rolls, would seem to me to be much more appropriate and better for all concerned.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he indicate to the House whether he is speaking for himself or whether the views he expresses are those of his party, as he is sitting on the Front Bench?
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I hope I can safely say that I am speaking for my party as well as myself.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise briefly to deal with Amendment No. 80.1 speak as the only barrister in current practice who has spoken in this brief debate. This is something which deals with a long-standing grievance of the Bar Council which has had to face the free rider problem of those who receive the benefits provided by the Bar Council without having to pay anything towards them.
  I hope that the Lord Chancellor, in considering what further costs might be allowed to be paid out of the Bar's practising certificate fees, will give consideration to the administration of the free representation unit and also the administration of the undertakings that have been given by a considerable number of members of the Bar of all levels of seniority who volunteered to work pro bono.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I rise to endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and also to support the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about Mr. Brennan QC.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  81 After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

  FEES FOR SOLICITORS' PRACTISING CERTIFICATES
  (".—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument amend section 11(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (power of Law Society to apply fees payable on issue of practising certificates for any of its purposes) by substituting for the purposes referred to in it (at any time)—

  463

  (a) the purposes of the regulation, education and training of solicitors and those wishing to become solicitors, or

  (b) both those purposes and such other purposes as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate.

  (2) No order shall be made under this section unless—

  (a) the Lord Chancellor has consulted the, Master of the Rolls and the Law Society, and

  (b) a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.")

  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 81. I have already spoken to this amendment. I commend it to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 81.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  [Amendments Nos. 81A and 81B, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 81, not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  82 After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

  LAW SOCIETY'S POWERS IN RELATION TO CONDUCT OF SOLICITORS ETC
  (". Schedule (Powers of Law Society) which extends the powers of the Law Society in relation to the conduct of solicitors and their employees and consultants) has effect.")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 82. With the leave of the House, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 180, 215, 216 and 217.
  These amendments represent a package of changes which the Law Society sought from the Government and which the Government were happy to promote. Their aim is to strengthen the Law Society's powers to investigate and deal with misconduct and to deal with solicitors who consistently give poor service.
  Amendment No. 82 and Amendment No. 180 insert a new Schedule 7 extending the powers of the Law Society in relation to the practice, conduct and discipline of solicitors and their employees. Paragraph 1 of the schedule will give the society the power to monitor compliance by solicitors with the rules made under Section 31 of the Solicitors Act, whether or not there has been a complaint about a particular case. Paragraph 3 inserts a new Section 33A into the Solicitors Act which will allow the Law Society to make rules, with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls, requiring solicitors to provide details of bank accounts operated in connection with their practice or any trust of which they are or were a trustee.
  Paragraph 6 will allow the Law Society to close down a solicitors' firm that has been the subject of frequent and serious complaints about inadequate professional service. Paragraph 7 concerns non-qualified employees of solicitors firms found guilty of dishonesty. It will allow the Law Society and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to order that such a person may not be employed by any solicitors' firm. At present, the society can only require access to a solicitor's papers where a complaint about a particular case has been received.
  464
  Paragraph 11 will allow the society to require solicitors to produce documents and files when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that there has been professional misconduct by a solicitor or a breach of the society's rules, or the professional services provided by a solicitor are not of an adequate quality.
  Paragraph 13 gives the Law Society a new power to direct solicitors to pay any costs incurred during the course of an investigation of professional misconduct or failure to comply with the rules. The other provisions of the new schedule make equivalent amendments to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (which deals with incorporated solicitors' practices), and other minor, technical amendments to the 1974 and 1985 Acts. Amendments Nos. 215–217 make consequential repeals. These powers will remove a number of unnecessary restrictions on disciplinary activity by the Law Society. I commend them to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 82.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I support the Government in the series of amendments, which will prove extremely helpful in the better regulation of the profession.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  83 After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

  POWERS OF OMBUDSMAN
  (".—(1) Section 23 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (recommendations of the Legal Services Ombudsman) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1)(c) (written report of investigation to be sent to person with respect to whom recommendation is made), after "subsection (2)" insert "or an order under subsection (2A)".
  (3) In paragraph (e) of subsection (2) (recommendation that costs be paid by person or body to which recommendation under paragraph (c) or (d) applies), for "which a recommendation under paragraph (c) or (d) applies" substitute "pay compensation under paragraph (c) or (d)".
  (4) After that subsection insert—
  "(2A) If after completing any investigation under this Act the Ombudsman considers that, rather than recommending the taking of any action by any person or professional body under paragraph (c), (d) or (e) of subsection (2), he should make an order requiring the taking of that action by the person or body—

  (a) he shall afford the person or body, and the person who made the allegation, a reasonable opportunity of appearing before him to make representations; and

  (b) having considered any representations from them, he may, in reporting his conclusions, make the order."

  (5) In subsections (3) and (4) (reports), after "recommendation" (in each place) insert "or order".
  (6) In subsection (6) (duty to have regard to Ombudsman's report), for "subsection (1)(b) or (c)" substitute "subsection (1)(b), (c) or (d)".
  (7) For the sidenote substitute "Recommendations and orders."")
  The Lord Chancellor: I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in Amendment No. 83. With your Lordships' leave I shall speak also to amendments Nos. 84, 85, 86, 181 and 218.

  465
  The amendments amend the powers of the legal services ombudsman and cater for the establishment of a new post of legal services complaints commissioner. The new clause added by Amendment No. 83 will allow the ombudsman to make a binding order rather than a recommendation in respect of a complaint if he thinks that it is more appropriate. Before making a binding determination, the person or professional body concerned would be entitled to appear before the ombudsman to make representations about the order proposed.
  That extension of powers will be a welcome addition to the ombudsman's armoury for dealing with those who are not providing an adequate service to their clients. It should assist clients to recover compensation that they would not otherwise receive. The ombudsman will not be obliged to use that power, but it will be available and will be of value in some cases.
  Amendment No. 85 inserts a new clause giving the Lord Chancellor the power to appoint a legal services complaints commissioner if that proves to be necessary. The commissioner will have powers to intervene to improve the standard of complaints handling by the legal professional bodies where it proves inadequate.
  The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 86 and the schedule inserted by Amendment No. 181 set out in detail the functions and powers of the commissioner, who will have the power to set targets and require a professional body to produce a plan setting out how it intends to improve its complaints handling performance to meet the targets. If a professional body fails to submit an adequate plan or to follow its plan, the commissioner will have power to fine it. The new post will be financed by a levy on those authorised bodies that it is appointed to oversee. It is only right that if the commissioner is appointed, the professional body that is failing should be required to cover the costs of the commissioner overseeing its complaints handling, not least because his appointment will have arisen out of the inadequacies of the profession's self-regulation.
  The principal reason for the provisions is the poor and deteriorating performance on complaints against solicitors at the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. The backlog of cases at the OSS is large and growing. The time taken to deal with complaints is unacceptable. The confidence of the public in our legal system depends in part on there being effective redress. The Government could not have stood idly by watching matters deteriorating when we had a legislative opportunity in the Bill to address the issue.
  The provisions on the legal services complaints commissioner will be brought into force only if it appears that complaints about members of any professional body are not being handled effectively and efficiently. I would use the powers only after much thought and with a great deal of reluctance. In any event, I shall not use them within 18 months of Royal Assent. They are reserve powers and we wish to give the OSS in particular the opportunity to put its house in order.
  466
  The Law Society recently published and adopted a report by Ernst and Young mat set out a blueprint for a more efficient system for dealing with complaints against solicitors. I acknowledge that more resources have been allocated to complaints handling. Those are steps in the right direction. But much remains to be done. We shall watch developments carefully and indicate to the Law Society in particular what performance is necessary to be achieved if the commissioner is not to be introduced.
  Amendment No. 84 gives me power to require any professional body to make payments to the legal services ombudsman in respect of some or all of the expenses of the ombudsman. I do not intend to use that power unless I appoint the legal services complaints commissioner, who will be financed by the failing professional bodies he is appointed to oversee.
  The practice elsewhere is for ombudsman schemes to be financed directly by the professions concerned. Any payments required from a professional body will be proportionate to the size of the body and the number and nature of complaints generated. Those new powers will help to achieve better performance in the handling of complaints which I know is the aim of the Law Society and the other professional bodies. I believe that they are proportionate; they are certainly timely; and I have no doubt that they will be welcome to the public.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 83.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  84 After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

  FUNDING OF OMBUDSMAN BY PROFESSIONAL BODIES
  (". In paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (financial provisions relating to Legal Services Ombudsman), for sub-paragraph (1) (Ombudsman's expenses to be defrayed by Lord Chancellor) substitute—
  "(1) The Lord Chancellor may require any professional body (within the meaning of section 22 of this Act) to make payments of such amount as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate to the Ombudsman towards meeting the expenditure incurred (or to be incurred) by him in the discharge of his functions.
  (1A) To the extent that that expenditure is not met by payments under sub-paragraph (1). it shall be met by the Lord Chancellor out of money provided by Parliament."").
  85 Insert the following new clause—

  THE COMMISSIONER
  (".—(1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint a person as Legal Services Complaints Commissioner.
  (2) Any appointment of a person as Commissioner shall be for a period of not more than three years; and a person appointed as Commissioner shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
  (3) At the end of his term of appointment the Commissioner shall be eligible for re-appointment.
  (4) The Commissioner shall not be an authorised advocate, authorised litigator, licensed conveyancer or authorised practitioner (within the meaning of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990) or a notary.
  (5) Schedule (Legal Services Complaints Commissioner) (which makes further provision about the Commissioner) has effect")
  86 Insert the following new clause—

  COMMISSIONER'S FUNCTIONS
  (".—(1) If it appears to the Lord Chancellor that complaints about members of any professional body are not being handled effectively and efficiently, he may by direction require the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner to consider exercising in relation to the body such of the powers in subsection (2) as are specified in the direction.
  (2) Those powers are—

  (a) to require a professional body to provide information, or make reports, to the Commissioner about the handling of complaints about its members,

  (b) to investigate the handling of complaints about the members of a professional body,

  (c) to make recommendations in relation to the handling of complaints about the members of a professional body,

  (d) to set targets in relation to the handling of complaints about the members of a professional body, and

  (e) to require a professional body to submit to the Commissioner a plan for the handling of complaints about its members.

  (3) Where the Commissioner requires a professional body to submit to him a plan for the handling of complaints about its members but the body—

  (a) fails to submit to him a plan which he considers adequate for securing that such complaints are handled effectively and efficiently, or

  (b) submits to him such a plan but fails to handle complaints in accordance with it,

  he may require the body to pay a penalty.
  (4) Before requiring a professional body to pay a penalty under subsection (3) the Commissioner shall afford it a reasonable opportunity of appearing before him to make representations.
  (5) The Lord Chancellor shall by order made by statutory instrument specify the maximum amount of any penalty under subsection (3).
  (6) In determining the amount of any penalty which a professional body is to be required to pay under subsection (3) the Commissioner shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including in particular—

  (a) the total number of complaints about members of the body and, where the penalty is imposed in respect of a failure to handle complaints in accordance with a plan, the number of complaints not so handled, and

  (b) the assets of the body and the number of its members.

  (7) A penalty under subsection (3) shall be paid to the Commissioner who shall pay it to the Lord Chancellor.
  (8) Where a direction under subsection (1) in relation to a professional body has been given (and not revoked), section 24(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (power of Legal Services Ombudsman to make recommendations about arrangements for investigation of complaints) shall not have effect in relation to the body.
  (9) No order shall be made under subsection (5) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
  (10) In this section "professional body" has the same meaning as in section 22 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 84 to 86.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 84 to 86.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  87 Clause 44, page 26, line 26, at end insert—
  ("(1A) In section 8(1B)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (power of Court to direct entry of judgment and verdict of acquittal on applications relating to order for retrial), after "to" insert "set aside the order for retrial and".
  (1B) In section 9(2) of that Act (right of appeal against sentence for summary offence), insert at the end "or sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph.".")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 87. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 88 to 90 inclusive. They amend the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. These are technical and I hope uncontroversial amendments which correct drafting defects. They are necessary to facilitate a consolidation Bill in a future Session of Parliament.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 87.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  88 Clause 88, page 26, line 27, leave out ("the Criminal Appeal Act 1968") and insert ("that Act")
  89 Page 26, leave out line 30 and insert ("to (5).")
  90 Page 26, line 38, at end insert—
  ("(5) In subsection (4) (calculation of length of term of imprisonment), after "imprisonment" insert "or detention".")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 88 to 90.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 88 to 90.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  91 Clause 47, transpose Clause 47 to after Clause 52
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 91. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 95, 133 and 236.
  Amendment No. 95 inserts a new clause to correct an unfortunate anomaly in the law relating to the holding of judicial office. It will allow serving UK judges to be seconded to international and European courts.
  At the moment, if a serving judge wishes to take up a temporary appointment on an international or European court, he has to resign from the Bench. That is obviously unsatisfactory. The judge must give up office with no promise of later appointment and this country might lose the opportunity of demonstrating commitment to the international court by being represented on it by a senior serving judge of high quality. That is in marked contrast to arrangements in other countries which use, frequently represented abroad by some of their most distinguished judges.

  469
  Parliament took the opportunity in the Human Rights Act 1998 to rectify that anomaly for appointments to the European Court of Human Rights. The United Kingdom is now represented on that court by a High Court judge. This new clause makes more general provision than was possible within the scope of that Act.
  The clause applies to the courts of the European Community and allows the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Scotland to designate other international courts to which judges can be seconded. While a judge is seconded, he or she will retain their UK office without having to perform any of the duties of that office. On the other hand, they will have no right to receive their United Kingdom salary and they will not accrue any additional benefits from their judicial pension scheme.
  Provision is also made to ensure that the United Kingdom courts do not suffer through the absence of one of their judges by providing that a seconded judge does not count against the maximum number of judges permitted by law. Because the end of a secondment may not coincide with the retirement or promotion of a judge whom the returning judge could replace, power is taken to make transitional provisions when an appointment to an international court ends.
  Amendment No. 133 provides for new Clause 68 to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, and Amendment No. 236 extends the Long Title of the Bill. The Motion standing in my name to move Clause 47 will bring together the various clauses about judicial posts.
  This simple measure will allow the United Kingdom to demonstrate its commitment to the courts of the European Communities and of the wider international community and ensure that those courts benefit from the best judges this country has to offer.
  As I said, the new clause is modelled on the provision already included in the Human Rights Act. However, the new clause differs from the version in the Human Rights Act in one particular respect which concerns judicial pensions. The amendments put down by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, seek to change the new clause so that it replicates exactly what was in the Human Rights Act in respect of judicial pensions. I should like again to acknowledge the role played by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in securing the earlier provision during the passage of the Human Rights Act. But I hope to explain why I believe that in this case his amendments are not appropriate.
  In the case of the Human Rights Act, the relevant section provides that, subject to the making of an appropriate order, a judge seconded to the European Court of Human Rights can continue to accrue rights in his UK judicial pension scheme for the period of his service abroad. It was appropriate to make this provision because the Council of Europe does not itself provide pensions for judges of the European Court of Human Rights. The new clause does not replicate this facility for a judge seconded to other international courts for the reason, quite simply, that this new clause is designed to apply to international courts which do provide pensions
  470
  or equivalent benefits to their judges. My understanding is that all of the various courts in relation to which we can envisage this provision applying either do, or are likely to, provide pension benefits. The European Court of Human Rights was therefore an unusual exception in this regard.
  Clearly, if an international court already provides pension benefits, there is no need also to provide benefits under the UK judicial pension scheme. I am sure that no one would accept that a judge should receive pension benefits twice over in respect of the same period of service on top of a generous and tax free European salary.
  It is possible, of course, that a new international court or tribunal could be created at some time in the future which does not provide pension benefits to its judges. In that event we could consider whether it was appropriate to make a further legislative provision regarding judicial pensions which would—like that contained in the Human Rights Act—be specific to the particular court. However, as I said, we are not presently aware of any instances where this is likely to be necessary.
  In view of that, it would be risky to create in this new clause—as the noble and learned Lord's amendments would do—a provision which could have the effect of obliging us to provide benefits under the UK judicial pension scheme even where a judge was also receiving pension benefits from an international court at the same time. As this new clause can potentially apply in relation to any and all international courts, I submit that it would not be sensible to make such an open-ended commitment.
  I hope therefore that the noble and learned Lord will be reassured that the reason for the difference on which he has focused attention is not to deprive judges of pensions to which they would properly be entitled; rather, it is that there is simply no need, in relation to courts other than the European Court of Human Rights, for the particular provision on judicial pensions which he seeks. If an example arises in future where the need does arise, we can consider it at that time. I accordingly invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendments. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 91.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for setting out the reason why the generosity which so affected me and my recollection could not be repeated. Perhaps he can tell me this: do the other courts that all have pension facilities have facilities of the same value as are achieved in this country? If they are not of the same value and are less, or significantly less, they may as a result of this clause put off the judge most appropriate to be seconded because of the effect on his pension. Can my noble and learned friend help me in that regard? I would have thought it surprising if these international courts all had pension facilities which would equal or surpass that which is available in this country. I say that without prejudice to my view that the pension provisions

  471
  in this country are grossly inadequate compared to what is payable in Australia, in Canada, in New Zealand and obviously in America.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thought at first that the noble and learned Lord was comparing British judicial pensions favourably with those on the continent of Europe when he was fearing the possibility that pensions there might be less. But he quickly corrected himself and said that all of this was without prejudice to his general position that judicial pensions are inadequate in this country—although basically they provide that after 20 years service the judge will retire on half pension, index linked and with a fairly massive tax-free capital sum as well.
  Of course I cannot tell the noble and learned Lord that I know the detail of every possible pension scheme that may arise in these international European courts in the future. But the remuneration packages are very generous and I would be surprised if the pension benefits were not equally generous. But if any problem of this kind arises in the future, we will address it in the circumstances of the time.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  92 After Clause 47, insert the following new clause—

  POWER OF HIGH COURT TO VARY COMMITTAL IN DEFAULT
  (". In the Supreme Court Act 1981, after section 43 insert—
  "Power of High Court to vary committal in default.
  43ZA.—(1) Where the High Court quashes the committal of a person to prison or detention by a magistrates' court or the Crown Court for—

  (a) a default in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction; or

  (b) want of sufficient distress to satisfy such a sum,

  the High Court may deal with the person for the default or want of sufficient distress in any way in which the magistrates' court or Crown Court would have power to deal with him if it were dealing with him at the time when the committal is quashed.
  (2) If the High Court commits him to prison or detention, the period of imprisonment or detention shall, unless the High Court otherwise directs, be treated as having begun when the person was committed by the magistrates' court or the Crown Court (except that any time during which he was released on bail shall not be counted as part of the period)."").
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 92. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 93.
  Amendment No. 92 adds a new clause to amend the Supreme Court Act 1981 to enable the High Court to set an appropriate penalty where a magistrates' court or the Crown Court has unlawfully passed a sentence of imprisonment or detention on a fine defaulter. The amendment is required because of a loophole in Section 43 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, which came to light in a recent judgment by Lord Justice Brooke and Mr Justice Sedley in the case of Regina v St Helen's
  472
  Justices ex parte Marlene Ann Jones and others. The effect of the amendment is that the High Court could quash an incorrect committal and reconsider the case in the light of the present circumstances of the wrongfully committed offender.
  Amendment No. 93 moves Clause 51 in order to group together clauses related to the High Court in a more logical structure. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 92.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  93 Clause 51, transpose Clause 51 to after Clause 47
  11.30 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 93. I have just spoken to this amendment. I commend it to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 93.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  94 After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—

  TIME LIMITS WHERE ACCUSED SENT FOR TRIAL
  (".—(1) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (regulations about service of evidence where a person is sent without committal proceedings to Crown Court)—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (1) (regulations to provide that evidence be served on or before the relevant dale) omit the words "on or before the relevant date" and after paragraph (b) insert "before the expiry of the period prescribed by the regulations; but the judge may at his discretion extend or further extend that period.", and

  (b) for sub-paragraph (2) substitute—

  "(2) The regulations may make provision as to the procedure to be followed on an application for the extension or further extension of a period under sub-paragraph (1) above."
  (2) In section 13(1) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (transitional time limits relating to service of unused material), after paragraph (c) insert—
  "(ca) copies of the documents containing the evidence on which the charge or charges are based are served on the accused (where this Part applies by virtue of section I(2)(cc)),".
  (3) In section 22 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (time limits in preliminary stages of criminal proceedings), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "appropriate court" in subsection (1.1) (which has effect so as to allow the Crown Court to extend time limits where the accused is committed for trial or indicted), after "trial" insert ", sent for trial under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998".")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, ] beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 94. With the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 127, 130, 219 and 220.

  473
  Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides for regulations about the service of evidence where a person is sent without committal proceedings to the Crown Court under Section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The intention is to set a fixed timetable for the service of the evidence so as to speed up the progress of these cases.
  The existing formulation has led to difficulties since the regulations can only set a single period within which, in all cases, the evidence must be served. But plainly some cases are more complex than others and require more preparation time. The result has been that the regulations made for the current pilots have prescribed a date one year after the case is sent to the Crown Court, in order to ensure that the requirement can be satisfied even in the more complex cases. That length of time is not necessary in the vast majority of cases. The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 94 therefore amends Schedule 3 by allowing the judge to have discretion.
  Amendments Nos. 219 and 220 make related repeals, and Amendments Nos. 127 and 130 provide for the commencement of this and other provisions. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 94.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  95 After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—

  JUDGES HOLDING OFFICE IN EUROPEAN OR INTERNATIONAL COURTS
  (".—(1) A holder of a United Kingdom judicial office may hold office in a relevant international court without being required to relinquish the United Kingdom judicial office.
  (2) In this section—
  "United Kingdom judicial office" means the office of—

  (a) Lord Justice of Appeal, Justice of the High Court or Circuit judge, in England and Wales,

  (b) judge of the Court of Session or sheriff, in Scotland, or

  (c) Lord Justice of Appeal, judge of the High Court or county court judge, in Northern Ireland, and

  "relevant international court" means—

  (a) any court established for any purposes of the European Communities, or

  (b) any international court (apart from the European Court of Human Rights) which is designated for the purposes of this section by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State.

  (3) A holder of a United Kingdom judicial office who also holds office in a relevant international court is not required to perform any duties as the holder of the United Kingdom judicial office but does not count as holding the United Kingdom judicial office—

  (a) for the purposes of section 12(1) to (6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, section 9(1)(c) or (d) of the Administration of Justice Act 1973, section 18 of the Courts Act 1971, section 14 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907 or section 106 of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (judicial salaries),

  474

  (b) for the purposes of, or of any scheme established by and in accordance with, the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993, the Judicial Pensions Act 1981, the Sheriffs' Pensions (Scotland) Act 1961 or the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (judicial pensions), or

  (c) for the purposes of section 2(1) or 4(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, section 1(1) of the Court of Session Act 1988 or section 2(1) or 3(1) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (judicial numbers).

  (4) If the sheriff principal of any sheriffdom also holds office in a relevant international court, section 11(1) of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 (temporary appointment of sheriff principal) applies as if the office of sheriff principal of that sheriffdom were vacant.
  (5) The appropriate Minister may by order made by statutory instrument make in relation to a holder of a United Kingdom judicial office who has ceased to hold office in a relevant international court such transitional provision (including, in particular, provision for a temporary increase in the maximum number of judges) as he considers appropriate.
  (6) In subsection (5) "appropriate Minister" means—

  (a) in relation to any United Kingdom judicial office specified in paragraph (a) or (c) of the definition in subsection (2), the Lord Chancellor, and

  (b) in relation to any United Kingdom judicial office specified in paragraph (b) of that definition, the Secretary of State.

  (7) A statutory instrument containing an order made under subsection (5) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 95.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 95.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton,)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 95A and 95B, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 95, not moved.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  96 After Clause 52, insert the following new clause—

  ADJOURNMENT OF INQUEST IN EVENT OF JUDICIAL INQUIRY
  (".—(1) In the Coroners Act 1988, after section 17 insert—
  "Adjournment of inquest in event of judicial inquiry.
  17A.—(1) If on an inquest into a death the coroner is informed by the Lord Chancellor before the conclusion of the inquest that—

  (a) a public inquiry conducted or chaired by a judge is being, or is to be, held into the events surrounding the death; and

  (b) the Lord Chancellor considers that the cause of death is likely to be adequately investigated by the inquiry,

  the coroner shall, in the absence of any exceptional reason to the contrary, adjourn the inquest and, if a jury has been summoned, may, if he thinks fit, discharge them.
  (2) Where a coroner adjourns an inquest in compliance with subsection (1) above, he shall send to the registrar of deaths a certificate under his hand stating, so far as they have been ascertained at the date of the certificate, the particulars which under the 1953 Act are required to be registered concerning the death.
  (3) Where a coroner has adjourned an inquest in compliance with subsection (1) above, the Lord Chancellor shall send him the findings of the public inquiry as soon as reasonably practicable after their publication.
  (4) A coroner may only resume an inquest which has been adjourned in compliance with subsection (1) above if in his opinion there is exceptional reason for doing so; and he shall not do so—

  (a) before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the findings of the public inquiry are published; or

  (b) if the Lord Chancellor notifies the coroner that this paragraph applies, before the end of the period of 28 clays beginning with the day on which the public inquiry is concluded.

  (5) Where a coroner resumes an inquest which has been adjourned in compliance with subsection (1) above—

  (a) the provisions of section 8(3) above shall not apply in relation to that inquest; and

  (b) if he summons a jury (but not where he resumes without a jury, or with the same jury as before the adjournment), he shall proceed in all respects as if the inquest had not previously begun and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly as if the resumed inquest were a fresh inquest.

  (6) Where a coroner does not resume an inquest which he has adjourned in compliance with subsection (1) above, he shall (without prejudice to subsection (2) above) send to the registrar of deaths a certificate under his hand stating any Findings of the public inquiry in relation to the death."
  (2) In section 8(4) of that Act (power to summon jury), for "either before he proceeds to hold an inquest" substitute "before he proceeds to hold an inquest, on resuming an inquest begun with a jury after the inquest has been adjourned and the jury discharged".
  (3) In the sidenote to section 16 of that Act (adjournment of inquest in certain cases), for "certain cases" substitute "event of criminal proceedings".")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 96.
  The amendment inserts a new clause which amends the Coroners Act 1988 to make provision for coroners' inquests to be adjourned where the death in question is likely to be investigated adequately by a judicial inquiry set up to inquire into the wider events in which the death occurred. The inquest would be resumed only in exceptional circumstances.
  The new clause reflects the recommendations of the report of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Disasters and Inquests, which was published in 1997, and which concluded that there was some overlap between coroners' inquests and public inquiries. It concluded that there was not normally a need to hold a public judicial inquiry and a full inquest. The duplication prolonged the investigation unnecessarily and could cause additional distress to the relatives of the deceased.
  This is a small but very useful reform which I commend to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 96.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  97 Clause 55, page 29, line 41, at end insert ("; but a commission area may not consist of an area partly within and partly outside Greater London.")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 97. With the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 101 to 113 inclusive, 183 to 193 inclusive, 197, 203, 204, 207, 221, 222, 224 to 227 inclusive, and 231.
  These government amendments all provide: for the establishment of the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority, replacing the existing 22 magistrates' courts committees as the magistrates' courts committee for Greater London.
  The provisions for the new authority broadly mirror those in place for all other magistrates' courts committees in England and Wales. Some of the amendments provide for arrangements that differ from the existing national framework in order to accommodate the particular circumstances in London. The more significant of these are: Amendment No. 108, which requires the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority, rather than the local authorities, to provide accommodation, goods and services; and Amendment No. 207, which provides for the transfer of property from the local authorities to the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority. The remainder of these amendments cover the detail of the functional, financial and transitional arrangements necessary for establishing the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority and make consequential changes to other Acts. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 97.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  98 After Clause 57, insert the following new clause—

  YOUTH COURTS
  (".—(1) Part I of the Second Schedule to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (constitution of youth courts outside the metropolitan area) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).
  (2) Omit the headings "Outside Metropolitan Area" and "Youth court panels".
  (3) Omit paragraph 1 (exclusion of inner London and the City of London from the scope of Part I).
  (4) In paragraph 8 (as amended by Schedule 7) (prohibition on forming combined youth court panel unless the area consists of single commission area), at the end insert ", or includes the City of London".
  (5) For paragraph 9 substitute—
  "9. No order under this Schedule shall provide for the formation of a combined youth panel for an area unless the area consists of, or is wholly included in, the area of a single magistrates' courts committee."
  (6) Omit Part II of that Schedule (particular provision for inner London and the City).")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in

  477
  their Amendment No. 98. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 182, 194, 201, 223 and 228 to 230 inclusive.
  This group of amendments provides for the operation of the youth courts in the light of other changes made in this Bill. Schedule 11 to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 contains provisions relating to the constitution of the youth courts. These are different for the Metropolitan area, that is Inner London and the City, and the rest of the country, including the rest of Greater London. Outside the Metropolitan area much of the detail is set out in rules. However, in the Metropolitan area the relevant provisions are set out in primary legislation.
  Amendment No. 98 creates a common legislative framework for youth courts throughout the country. Amendment No. 194 deals with the position of District Judges (magistrates' courts). Amendment No. 201 makes transitional provisions and Amendments Nos. 223 and 228 to 230 inclusive restructure the schedule of repeals to take account of Amendment No. 98. Amendment No. 182 is simply a drafting improvement. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 98.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  99 Clause 60, page 34, line 23, leave out from ("(which") to ("has") in line 25 and insert ("makes provision about the enforcement of community orders by the Crown Court)")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 99. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 100, 195, 196 and 235. These are minor amendments relating to Clause 60 and Schedule 9, which deal with community orders made by the Crown Court.
  Amendment No. 195 removes an unnecessary provision in paragraph 9 of Schedule 9. Paragraph 9(2) inserts references in paragraph 8(1)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 into three other statutes. Paragraph 8(1)(a) deals with applications to the Crown Court to revoke community orders which the Crown Court itself has made. The insertions are unnecessary because the three other statutes in question provide only for magistrates' courts to make community orders, not the Crown Court.
  Amendments Nos. 100, 196 and 235 move Clause 60, Schedule 9 and the related repeals to different points in the Bill to give it a better overall structure. Amendment No. 99 is a drafting amendment consequential to this. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 99.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  100 Clause 60, transpose Clause 60 to after Clause 51
  101 Clause 62, page 35, line 27, after ("shall") insert—

  ("(a) consist of the whole of one or more commission areas or be included wholly within a single commission area, and

  (b)")

  102 Clause 63, page 38, leave out lines 19 to
  103 Clause 64, page 38, line 44, after ("body") insert ("corporate")
  104 Page 38, line 46, leave out ("Greater London Magistrates' Courts")
  105 page 39, leave out lines 1 and 2
  106 page 39, leave out lines 10 to 19 and insert ("and
  (b) provision about the Authority's constitution and procedure (including quorum and meetings).")
  107 page 39, line 23, at end insert—
  ("Procedure of Authority.
  30C.—(1) The Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority may, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, act through committees appointed by the Authority which, if they include at least one member of the Authority, may also include persons who are not members.
  (2) The Authority may also arrange for the discharge of any of their functions—

  (a) by the chairman of the Authority; or

  (b) by the justices' chief executive.

  (3) Subject to regulations made under this Act, the Authority shall have power to regulate their own procedure, including quorum.").
  108 page 39, ]eave out lines 25 to 28 and insert—
  ("(2) After section 59 of that Act insert—
  "The Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority Functions.
  59A.—(1) The Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority shall provide such petty sessional court-houses and other accommodation, and such goods and services, as they may determine proper for the performance of the Authority's functions and those of—

  (a) the magistrates for Greater London;

  (b) any committee of the magistrates for Greater London; and

  (c) the justices' clerks for any part of Greater London.

  (2) The Authority may do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the exercise of the function in subsection (1) above; but the Authority may not borrow money except insofar as authorised by any other enactment to do so.
  Funding.
  59B.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may pay grants to the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority in respect of the Authority's expenditure.
  (2) Grants under this section shall be paid at such times, in such manner and subject to such conditions as the Lord Chancellor may with the concurrence of the Treasury determine.
  (3) Each London local authority shall pay to the Authority such amount in respect of—

  (a) any kind of the Authority's expenditure in any year; or

  (b) if less, such amount as may, in relation to that kind of expenditure and that year, be for the time being determined by the Lord Chancellor,

  as may be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Lord Chancellor by statutory instrument.
  (4) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision as to the making of payments under subsection (3) above, including provision—

  (a) as to whether payments are to be made by instalments or otherwise;

  (b) as to the time when payments are to be made;

  (c) conferring a right to interest on anything unpaid; and

  (d) permitting a London local authority to anticipate a payment under this section when making calculations in accordance with section 32 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (originally or by way of substitute).

  (5) The Lord Chancellor may with the consent of the Treasury make provision by regulations made by statutory instrument as to how any kind of the Authority's expenditure is to be determined.
  (6) Subject to any such regulations, the Lord Chancellor may direct that in determining any kind of the Authority's expenditure there shall be taken into account or disregarded, to such extent as may be specified in the direction, such items as nay be so specified.
  (7) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by virtue of this, section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (8) In this section "London local authority" means the council of any London borough or the Common Council of the City of London.
  Consultation.
  59C.—(1) The Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority shall consult each London local authority before making any determination under section 59A(1) above or any determination as to—

  (a) the salary to be paid to a justices' clerk or justices' chief executive and to staff of the Authority; or

  (b) the nature and amount of the expenses which the Authority may incur in the discharge of their functions or may authorise to be incurred.

  (2) Any London local authority which is aggrieved by such a determination may, within one month from the receipt by the London local authority of written notice of the determination, appeal to the Lord Chancellor, whose decision shall be binding upon the Authority and the London local authority concerned.
  (3) In this section, "London local authority" has the same meaning as in section 59B above.
  Accounting.
  59D.—(1) The Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority shall keep a fund to be known as the GLMCA fund.
  (2) All the Authority's receipts shall be paid into the GLMCA fund and all the Authority's expenditure shall be paid out of it.
  (3) The Authority shall—

  (a) keep accounts of payments made into or out of the GLMCA fund; and

  (b) make arrangements for the proper administration of their financial affairs.

  (4) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision applying—

  (a) Part VIII of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (financial administration); and

  (b) Part II of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (accounts and audit of public bodies),

  to the Authority, with or without modifications and exceptions.
  (5) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by virtue of this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  Provisions applying to all magistrates' courts committees'"..
  (3) Schedule (The Greater London Magistrates Courts' Authority) (which makes provision supplemental^ to this section) shall have effect.")
  109 Clause 65, page 39, line 31, leave out ("56") and insert ("59D and the heading after that section (inserted by section 64 above)")
  110 Page 39, line 32, leave out ("56A") and insert ("59E")
  111 Page 39, line 36, after ("55(1)") insert ("or 59A(1)")
  112 Page 40, line 11, leave out ("56A(2)") and insert ("59E(2)")
  113 Page 40, line 19, leave out ("56A") and insert ("59E")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 100 to 113. I have already spoken to them.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos.100 to 113.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  114 After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—

  POWER TO DIRECT IMPLEMENTATION OF INSPECTORS' RECOMMENDATIONS
  (". In section 62 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (inspectors of the magistrates' courts service), after subsection (4) insert—
  "(4A) If pursuant to this section a recommendation is made for the taking of any action by a magistrates' courts committee, the Lord Chancellor may give a direction requiring the committee to take the recommended action within a period specified in the direction."").
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 114. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 115, 131, 202, 205 and 206. Amendment No. 114 adds a new clause to the Bill which gives the Lord Chancellor the power to direct a magistrates' courts committee to implement a recommendation made by Her Majesty's Magistrates Courts Inspectorate.
  Magistrates courts committees are responsible under statute for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates' courts for their areas. MCCs are made up almost entirely of lay magistrates and, supported by the justices' chief executive, provide local management of the magistrates' courts. The Government value and intend to preserve that.

  481
  Under the 1997 Act the Lord Chancellor currently has powers to require MCCs to act in accordance with directions. He can set performance standards and make regulations requiring committees to produce reports and plans and also make regulations requiring them to keep prescribed accounts. If an MCC fails to discharge a statutory duty the Lord Chancellor has the default power to remove one or more members of the committee and if the failure continues, to remove the whole committee.
  MCCs are subject to inspection by the Magistrates' Courts Services Inspectorate. If an MCC is failing the inspectorate will invariably be asked to make a special report. All reports include recommendations for improvement. In most cases MCCs take steps to improve. However, there have been cases in which action has been inadequate. The new power will give the Lord Chancellor a means of dealing with cases of this sort by directing that that the recommendation be complied with. The default power to remove members of the committee will be available if the Lord Chancellor's direction is not complied with. This fits into a graduated response to an MCCs failure. The Lord Chancellor does not intend to use it as a matter of routine but only when, for example, he considers that an MCC has had the opportunity to take action but has failed to do so. The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 115 complements the power to require magistrates' courts committees to administer magistrates' courts in an efficient and effective manner. It enables the Lord Chancellor to introduce a code of conduct to be followed by members of magistrates' courts committees and the panels that select them.
  Amendment No. 115 provides the Lord Chancellor with the power to introduce a code of conduct and, should it ever become necessary, remove individual members of courts' committees or selection panels who fail to comply with the code. It is only right that individuals, as well as the whole body, should be accountable for their actions.
  Amendment No. 131 ensures that the new clause will come into force two months after Royal Assent. Amendments Nos. 202, 205 and 206 make consequential changes.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 114.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  115 After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—

  CODE OF CONDUCT
  (". In the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, after section 39 insert—
  "Code of conduct for members etc.
  39A.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may prepare a code of conduct to be observed by—

  (a) members of magistrates' courts committees; and

  (b) members of selection panels for choosing members of such committees.

  (2) The Lord Chancellor may from time to time prepare a revised version of the code.
  (3) Before preparing the code or a revised version of the code the Lord Chancellor shall undertake such consultation as appears to him to be appropriate.
  (4) The code, and any revised version of the code, shall come into force as provided by an order made by the Lord Chancellor by statutory instrument; and an order providing for the coming into force of the code or a revised version shall set out the code or revised version.
  (5) A statutory instrument containing an order made by virtue of subsection (4) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  Non-compliance with code.
  39B.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may make an order under subsection (2) below if he is of the opinion that—

  (a) a member of a magistrates' courts committee; or

  (b) a member of a selection panel for choosing members of such a committee,

  has, without reasonable excuse, failed to observe the code.
  (2) An order under this subsection shall state that the Lord Chancellor is of the opinion mentioned in subsection (1) above and may provide either or both of the following—

  (a) that, on the making of the order, the person is to cease to be a member of the committee or selection panel concerned or to cease to be such a member for a specified period; or

  (b) that, for a specified period, the person may not be appointed (or co-opted) as a member of any magistrates' courts committee or any selection panel for choosing members of such a committee.

  (3) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for the purpose of establishing whether persons have failed to observe the code.
  (4) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by virtue of subsection (3) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."").
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 115.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 115.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  116 Clause 67, page 40, line 28, leave out ("in relation to") and insert ("appointed by")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 116. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 117 to 122, 198, 202, 208, 232, 233 and 234. Amendments Nos. 116 to 121 inclusive introduce some drafting improvements to the existing Clause 67. Clause 67 describes the role of justices' chief executives, their responsibility for making arrangements for the efficient and effective administration of magistrates' courts and their powers to delegate duties to the staff. Amendment No. 122 provides definitions to facilitate the construction of the amendments made by Schedule 10. Amendment No. 198 introduces a

  483
  replacement Schedule 10. It lists the many provisions that require amendment in order to transfer responsibility for administrative functions from justices' clerks to justices' chief executives. Amendment No. 208 makes a consequential change to Schedule 11. Amendments Nos. 232 to 234 are related repeals.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 116.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, Amendment No. 198 which inserts the new Schedule 10 is 31 pages long. It appears to have been necessary because the parliamentary draftsman discovered no less than 36 new Acts since the Bill was last before your Lordships' House containing references to justices' clerks which needed to be changed to justices' chief executives. Since this is simply a change in the name of the holder of the office, is it not possible to have a single amendment that provides that all references to justices' clerks should be treated as references to justices' chief executives? That may be sloppy drafting. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would be violently opposed to it. However, I wonder whether it would save a good deal of paper.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I wonder whether it would do so. I do not know. However, we are where we are and it is 10 to 12 at night. I believe that we should proceed as it is.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  117 Clause 67, page 40, line 37, after ("of) insert ("all of)
  118 Page 40, line 43, leave out ("administrative responsibilities") and insert ("responsibility")
  119 Page 41, line 5, leave out ("in relation to") and insert ("appointed by")
  120 Page 41, line 11, leave out ("in relation to") and insert ("appointed by")
  121 Page 41, line 19, leave out ("in relation to") and insert ("appointed by")
  122 Page 41, line 27, at end insert—
  ("() In section 40 of that Act (appointment of justices' chief executive), after subsection (1) insert—
  "(1A) The justices' chief executive appointed by a magistrates' courts committee is—

  (a) the justices' chief executive for every magistrates' court for the committee's area,

  (b) the justices' chief executive for every petty sessions area for which they are the committee, and

  (c) the chief executive to the justices acting for every such petty sessions area."").

  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 117 to 122.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 117 to 122.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  123 After Clause 72, insert the following new clause—

  DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION FOR ENFORCING WARRANTS
  (". In the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, alter section 125B (inserted by section 72(2) above) insert—
  "Disclosure of information for enforcing warrants.
  125C.—(1) Basic personal information held by a relevant public authority may, on the application of a justices' chief executive, be supplied by the authority to him (or to a justices' clerk appointed by, or member of the staff of, his magistrates' courts committee who is specified in the application) for the purpose of facilitating the enforcement of a section 125A(1) warrant which is so specified.
  (2) In this section—
  "basic personal information" means a person's name, date of birth or national insurance number or the address (or any of the addresses) of a person;
  "relevant public authority" means a Minister of the Crown, government department, local authority or chief officer of police specified in an order made by the Lord Chancellor; and
  "a section 125A(1) warrant" means a warrant to which section 125A(1) above applies and which has been issued by a justice of the peace to whom the justices' chief executive making the application is chief executive.
  (3) Information supplied to any person under subsection (1) above, or this subsection, for the purpose of facilitating the enforcement of a section 125 A(1) warrant may be supplied by him for that purpose to—

  (a) any person entitled to execute the warrant;

  (b) any employee of a body or person who, for the purposes of section 125B above, is an approved enforcement agency in relation to the warrant; or

  (c) any person who is the justices' chief executive, a justices' clerk or a member of the staff of the magistrates' courts committee whose justices' chief executive made the application for the information.

  (4) A person who intentionally or recklessly—

  (a) discloses information supplied to him under this section otherwise than as permitted by subsection (3) above; or

  (b) uses information so supplied otherwise than for the purpose of facilitating the enforcement of tine section 125 A(1) warrant concerned,

  commits an offence.
  (5) But it is not an offence under subsection (4) above—

  (a) to disclose any information in accordance with any enactment or order of a court or for the purposes of an y proceedings before a court; or

  (b) to disclose any information which has previously been lawfully disclosed to the public.

  (6) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4) above is liable—

  (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or

  (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

  (7) The power to make orders conferred by subsection (2) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".").
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 123. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 124 and 125. These amendments are designed to help track down a missing fine defaulter or community service dodger by enabling the courts to check whether other government agencies hold a more recent address for the offender in their records. Barriers to information sharing are among the biggest obstacles to effective enforcement. Over £50 million in fines was written off in 1997–98 alone, and it has been estimated that inability to trace the offender could account for as much as 30 per cent of the total. The Government believe it is quite unacceptable that offenders should be able to get away with their crimes while the taxpayer has to foot the bill.
  Amendment No. 123 will therefore enable the courts to obtain basic information about offenders from relevant public authorities for the purpose of warrant execution. Amendments Nos. 124 and 125 are consequential. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 123.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  11.45 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  124 Clause 74, page 46, line 10, leave out ("125B (inserted by section 72(2)") and insert ("125C (inserted by section (Disclosure of information for enforcing warrants)").
  125 Page 46, line 12, leave out ("125C") and insert ("125D").
  126 Clause 86, page 53, line 2, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections (1A) and").
  127 Page 53, line 5, at end insert ("and, in the case of section (Time limits where accused sent to Crown Court for trial)(2), for different areas.").
  128 Page 53, line 5, at end insert—
  ("(1A) Section (Fees on application for appointment as QC) shall come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.").
  129 Page 53, line 8, leave out ("Part II") and insert ("in Part II, sections 27 to (References by Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission)").
  130 Page 53, line 9, at end insert ("apart from section (Time limits where accused sent to Crown Court for trial)(2), section 60 and Schedule 9 and section (Adjournment of inquest in event of judicial inquiry),").
  131 Page 53, line 10, after (" 65") insert (", (Code of conduct)").
  132 Clause 87, page 53, line 19, leave out ("Part II and section") and insert ("Sections 27 to (References by Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) and").
  133 Page 53, line 21, after ("Sections") insert ("(Judges holding office in European or international courts),").
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 124 to 133.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 124 to 133.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  134 Clause 88, page 53, line 35, leave out subsection (2).
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this is a privilege amendment. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 134.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 134.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  135 Schedule 1, page 55, line 28, leave out ("with the approval of the Treasury,").
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 135. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 136 to 141.
  The purpose of these seven amendments is to remove the requirement for Treasury consent or approval to arrangements for the pay, pensions and compensation of members and staff of the legal services commission.
  These amendments reflect the fact that it is no longer the practice for new legislation to make pay and pensions provisions for non-departmental public bodies subject to Treasury consent. The commission's pay and pensions arrangements will continue to be subject to the Lord Chancellor's approval, and the Lord Chancellor will consult the Treasury as appropriate on issues affecting spending and general policy on public pay, pensions and compensation terms.
  These are technical amendments designed to bring the relevant provisions in line with current Treasury policy. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 135.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  136 Schedule 1, page 55, line 32, leave out (", with the consent of the Treasury,")
  137 Page 55, line 33, leave out (", with the consent of the Treasury,")
  138 Page 55, line 46, leave out ("and consent of the Treasury")
  139 Page 55, line 49, leave out ("and the consent of the Treasury")
  140 Page 56, line 16, leave out ("and consent of the Treasury")
  141 Page 56, line 41, leave out (", with the consent of the Treasury,")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 136 to 141.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 136 to 141.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  142 Schedule 2, page 58, line 28, leave out from ("help") to end of line 5 on page 60 and insert ("(beyond the provision of general information about the law and the legal system and the availability of legal services) in relation to—

  (a) allegations of negligently caused injury, death or damage to property, apart from allegations relating to clinical negligence,

  (b) conveyancing,

  (c) boundary disputes,

  (d) the making of wills,

  (e) matters of trust law,

  (f) defamation or malicious falsehood,

  (g) matters of company or partnership law, or

  (h) other matters arising out of the carrying on of a business.

  2. Advocacy in any proceedings except—

  (1) proceedings in—

  (a) the House of Lords in its judicial capacity,

  (b) the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the exercise of its jurisdiction under the Government of Wales Act 1998. the Scotland Act 1998 or the Northern Ireland Act 1998,

  (c) the Court of Appeal,

  (d) the High Court,

  (e) any county court,

  (f) the Employment Appeal Tribunal, or

  (g) any Mental Health Review Tribunal,

  (2) proceedings in the Crown Court—

  (a) for the variation or discharge of an order under section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997,

  (b) which relate to an order under section 4 or 10 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, or

  (c) under section 8 of that Act where the order is made by virtue of subsection (1)(c) of that section,

  (3) proceedings in a magistrates' court—

  (a) under section 43 or 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948, section 22 of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950, section 4 of the Maintenance Orders Act 1958 or section 106 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992,

  (b) under Part I of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 relating to a maintenance order made by a court of a country outside the United Kingdom,

  (c) in relation to an application for leave of the court to remove a child from a person's custody under section 27 or 28 of the Adoption Act 1976 or in which the
  488
  making of an order under Part II or section 29 or 55 of that Act is opposed by any party to the proceedings,

  (d) for or in relation to an order under Part I of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978,

  (e) under the Children Act 1989,

  (f) under section 30 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990,

  (g) under section 20 or 27 of the Child Support Act 1991,

  (h) under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996,

  (i) for the variation or discharge of an order under section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997,

  (j) under section I. 2, 8 or 11 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and

  (4) proceedings before any person to whom a case is referred (in whole or in part) in any proceedings within paragraphs (1) to (3).").

  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 142, which substitutes a new version of Schedule 2. Clause 5 of the Bill defines, in very broad terms, the services which the commission may provide as part of the community legal service. Schedule 2 lists categories of service and proceedings which proceedings are not, for the time being, eligible for funding under the community legal service.
  Amendment No. 142 simplifies and clarifies the drafting of Schedule 2. Although it is a lengthy amendment, it does not represent a change of policy. The redrafted schedule more accurately and clearly gives effect to the Government's intentions, as set out in the White Paper, and explained by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor during our debates on this topic. The original Schedule 2 was closely based on the provisions of the current Legal Aid Act. The revised schedule better reflects the new and very different structure of the community legal service. The original also contained some obsolete or unnecessary provisions. It lacked precision and clarity. This amendment revises. Schedule 2 to make it both more precise and concise.
  I shall first explain what the revised schedule provides, before I explain the changes that have been made to the original version.
  The revised schedule has two paragraphs. The first lists the areas of law for which the legal services commission may not fund any help except general information about the law, the legal system and the availability of legal services. In other words, in these categories specific advice about a case and more substantial services may not be funded by the legal services commission as part of the community legal service.
  The second paragraph lists the courts and proceedings for which the legal services commission may fund advocacy. This ranges from any proceedings in the county courts, for example, to specific proceedings in the magistrates' courts. Any other categories of case—that is, those not covered by paragraphs 1 or 2—will be eligible for all services except advocacy.

  489
  What are the reasons for the differences between the old and new versions. First, paragraphs 1 to 3 of the original schedule have been combined into one paragraph. Although the intended scope of each paragraph was the same, the wording was different because of the word "proceedings" in paragraphs 2 and 3. By avoiding that word, it has been possible to combine these paragraphs into one.
  The revised paragraph adopts the words of Clause 5(2)(a). It remains the Government's intention that the very basic services described in Clause 5(2)(a) should be available for all types of problem or case. Sub-paragraph (a) deals with the removal from scope of most personal injury cases. This is limited to injury allegedly caused by negligence and, as such, the exclusion would not apply, for example, to allegations of abuse or assault. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has repeatedly stated, some cases of negligently caused damage will remain eligible for public funding because they are not well-suited to conditional fees. For that reason, he intends to direct that cases with high overall or initial investigative costs, and cases of wider public interest shall remain eligible for consideration for funding.
  Sub-paragraphs 1(b) to (h) repeat the other exclusions previously set down in paragraphs 1 to 3 of Schedule 2. These are conveyancing, boundary disputes, the making of wills, matters of trust law, defamation or malicious falsehood, matters of company or partnership law and other matters arising out of the carrying on of a business. Within these broad exclusions, there are a number of specific matters which should continue to be eligible for funding; and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor intends to use his power to direct to provide for these also.
  First, he intends to provide for advice and assistance about wills and conveyancing in those circumstances where it is currently available under the Green Form scheme; for example, advice about wills for the disabled and the over-70s.
  The existing paragraph 3(d) allows funding for proceedings relating to a trust;
  "arising from the joint ownership or occupation of domestic property".
  The way in which the new paragraph 1 is drafted makes it unnecessary to refer specifically to this. The schedule does not exclude funding where an issue about a trust, or for that matter a company or partnership, arises in what is essentially an ancillary relief case.
  The exclusion in sub-paragraph (h) for matters arising out of the carrying on of a business is still intended to apply to businessmen bringing and defending cases, not to consumers bringing cases against businesses.
  Paragraph 4 of the original schedule has been removed, as it is unnecessary. It was drafted so as to mirror the provisions of the current Legal Aid Act.
  Paragraph 5 of the existing schedule deals with those proceedings for which the commission may fund representation. This is too broad a term, and has been changed to "advocacy" to reflect more accurately the scope of the existing scheme.
  490
  There are some other minor changes in paragraph 2. Amendment No. 142 makes the Bill clearer, simpler and shorter. I commend it to the House.
  Amendment No. 142A, moved by and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would remove personal injury from the list of excluded categories in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said repeatedly in previous debates in this House that he is satisfied that the vast majority of personal injury work can be funded satisfactorily under conditional fee agreements. We do not consider it appropriate to use taxpayers' money to support litigation where a good alternative exists. Your Lordships know that the Government intend to increase access to justice. That means ensuring that the money available is spent to achieve the greatest effect.
  I have already said that for cases which cannot be wholly supported by a conditional fee, additional help will be available from the community legal service fund. This will mean that cases which have exceptionally high investigative or overall costs will still be eligible for help. And because public interest will also be a criterion in funding decisions, some cases which would not currently be given legal aid may qualify under the new scheme. For these reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment No. 142A.
  Amendment No. 142B also seeks to amend the exclusion of personal injury. This amendment seeks to allow funding of a case where it was not reasonably practical for the case to be conducted on a conditional fee basis, and the case met the same criteria for funding as apply to a clinical negligence case.
  The first part of this amendment is, I submit, unnecessary because the exceptions we intend to make for high cost and public interest cases are specifically designed to catch that minority of personal injury cases that are not viable under a conditional fee agreement, but nevertheless merit funding. If, quite exceptionally, an individual case that demanded public funding fell into none of the three general exceptions, the legal services commission could seek the Lord Chancellor's authority to fund it under Clause 7(8)(b).
  As for the second part of Amendment No. 142B, I am puzzled why it is thought that the statute should require the same criteria for funding to apply to general personal injury cases and clinical negligence cases. Different types of case involve different issues. Each should be considered on its own merits, not against criteria designed for a another type of case. For these reasons, I also invite the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment No. 142B.
  Amendment No. 142C would extend legal aid for representation in hearings under Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already spoken about this subject in reply to Amendment No. 56A, and I shall not repeat him at this late hour. The Government will bring forward an alternative amendment in the Commons to ensure that conditional fees remain available in these cases. I therefore do not believe that this amendment is necessary and again invite the noble Lord to withdraw.
  Moved. That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 142.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 142
  142A Line 4, leave out paragraph (a).
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, it is most unfortunate that Amendments Nos. 142A and 142B, arguably the most important amendments in the whole of this debate, and certainly among the most important, have come up at a time of night which makes it absolutely impossible to debate them properly. I do not blame the Government specifically on this occasion. I recognise that inevitably the Northern Ireland Bill had to have priority and therefore consideration of the Commons Amendments to this Bill had to be put back until that had finished. Nevertheless, this is simply a particularly bad example of a problem which seems to be facing your Lordships' House more and more. It is a lottery, when we are considering important amendments, whether they will come on at a time of day which makes it possible to debate them properly and, if necessary, to divide.
  Needless to say, at this time of night, midnight—some five hours after we started this debate—I do not propose to move either amendment. Nevertheless this is the appropriate time to speak to them. I intend to do so as briefly as I can.
  These amendments raise the issue, much debated in your Lordships' House and the other place—
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord should move his Amendment No. 142A, which we have in front of us.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as I understood it, we were on Amendment No. 142, but in so far as it is necessary to move Amendment No. 142A, I shall do so for the record.
  I beg to move Amendment No. 142A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 142. These amendments raise the issue, much debated in your Lordships' House and the other place, of the exclusion of personal injury cases from legal aid except for cases of clinical negligence.
  The problem, I believe, is the immovable belief of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that conditional funding agreements are the answer to all difficulties. In his view they are the best thing since sliced bread, but like sliced bread, they are actually rather nasty.
  The noble and learned Lord says that legal aid is not necessary in personal injury cases because the CFAs, together with cost insurance, will be available in any case with a good chance of success. Even he admits that this is not so in clinical negligence cases. He says that if he is wrong on CFAs, he can always make an order altering the exclusions in Schedule 2. That may be so, but I believe that a lot of harm will be done on the way. We say that this is being done the wrong way round. So far, CFAs only have a substantial track record in road
  492
  accidents and industrial injury cases. They are unproven elsewhere and there is good reason to believe that they may not be effective.
  We should, therefore, retain the power to fund personal injury cases out of the community legal service until we are satisfied that CFAs do what the Lord Chancellor thinks they can do. Anything else creates a serious risk of injustice and it does so even though legal aid for personal injury cases does not save serious money.
  I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is fully aware of the figures: £502 million was recovered in damages in the year 1996–97. The legal aid accounts show a net cost to the Legal Aid Fund of £34 million. However, if we take into account the fact that nearly £33 million was recycled back to the Treasury as VAT on counsels' fees, the net loss to the Treasury on non-medical personal injury was under £1.5 million. That is peanuts compared with the net cost to the Legal Aid Fund of family litigation, which is by far the largest burden.
  This matter was raised in the House of Commons on Report when the House was divided by the honourable friend of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, Mr Robert Marshall-Andrews, QC—perhaps friend is a euphemism in that particular case. I believe that when he divided the House some 19 Labour Members supported the amendment. Of all the issues in the Bill, this is the one which has led to the widest concern among the non-legal public.
  I shall not go into the detail of how these amendments were intended to operate. They would simply have made it possible—particularly Amendment No. 1428, which is the one I preferred—to avoid what I believe will be a substantial injustice.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 142A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 142, be agreed to.—(Lord Goodhart.)
  Midnight
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I would prefer not to engage in a general debate about the advisability or otherwise of CFAs as we would simply revisit a matter that we have already discussed at considerable length—which would be especially redundant at this time of night.
  There is considerable merit in not adopting an overly heavy-handed and bureaucratic approach to cases where a person, for very good reasons—whatever they may be—is genuinely unable to procure a conditional fee agreement. I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel that it is appropriate to consider this matter rather differently than he did in his introduction.
  There are strong reasons to suppose that, in a minority of cases—and I think that it would be a minority; the Legal Services Commission should not face a heavy volume of applications when a conditional fee agreement is wholly appropriate and obtainable—solicitors could demonstrate that the cases were akin to clinical negligence cases. Those cases would be unusual

  493
  in nature and could be analysed swiftly as being appropriate for an approach of the kind envisaged in this amendment.
  I agree with the point made by the noble Lord that it is difficult to debate this matter properly at this stage in the proceedings. It is an important matter precisely because a minority of cases will be affected. I support the noble Lord in his amendment.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I rise to make two very short points. First, I support entirely what has already been said. Secondly, I put it to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that there is no need to introduce a black-and-white reform such as this. Given the statistics that are compelling in terms of the almost negligible cost to the Exchequer of the existing system, there does not seem to be any reason why we could not run legal aid and the conditional fee system side by side and see what happens. Equally, if we are to go the whole hog and maintain legal aid for personal injury cases, there is no reason why conditional fees should not be allowed for those who are not within the legal aid limits.
  Some of the most difficult claims and small claims of modest value—which are none the less enormously important to the litigants involved—are the sorts of cases that will get short shrift under the conditional fee system. Solicitors will be driven to have regard to their own self-interest and there will be cherrypicking and selection against the clients' interests. There are inherent conflicts and I cannot understand why the Government will not allow personal injury cases to remain within the ambit of legal aid.
  Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I had not planned to intervene, but I was interested in the remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer on this matter. I think I heard him say that the Government would bring forward an amendment to deal with one of the aspects of this matter but would be doing it when the Bill goes back to the other place. Can my noble and learned friend explain to the House why the Government are planning to do that rather than table the amendment in this House so that it would then be available for the Commons to consider with all the other business that has to go back there from this end?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that point was discussed earlier in the context of the Environmental Protection Act. We have agreed to an amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in relation to environmental protection with a view to amending this Bill when it goes back to the Commons. The end result will be that conditional fees will still be available in relation to the Environmental Protection Act. That covers both the procedural aspect and the substance of it.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 142A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 142, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 142B and 142C not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  143 Schedule 3, page 60, line 9, leave out first ("of') and insert ("to")
  144 Page 60, line 12, leave out first ("of") and insert ("to")
  145 Page 60, leave out lines 17 to 31
  146 Page 60, line 34, leave out first ("of') and insert ("to")
  147 Page 60, line 35, at end insert—
  ("() Where a right to representation is granted for the purposes of criminal proceedings it includes the right to representation for the purposes of any related bail proceedings and any preliminary or incidental proceedings; and regulations may make provision specifying whether any proceedings are or are not to be regarded as preliminary or incidental.")
  148 Page 60, line 36, leave out first ("of') and insert ("to")
  149 Page 60, line 39, leave out third ("of') and insert ("to")
  150 Page 60, line 42, leave out ("before a court may be withdrawn by the court") and insert ("may be withdrawn by any court before which the proceedings take place; and a court must consider whether to withdraw a right to representation in such circumstances as may be prescribed.")
  151 Page 60, line 43, at end insert—
  ("(6) The powers of a magistrates' court for any area under this paragraph may be exercised by a single justice of the peace for the area.
  (7) Any rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which provide for the functions of a single justice under sub-paragraph (6) to be exercised by a justices' clerk may make different provision for different areas.")
  152 Page 61, line 3, leave out first ("of') and insert ("to")
  153 Page 61, line 4, leave out ("of') and insert ("to")
  154 Page 61, line 6, leave out third ("of") and insert ("to")
  155 Page 61, line 13, leave out ("of') and insert ("to")
  156 Page 61, line 14, leave out ("of') and insert ("to")
  157 Page 61, line 16, leave out ("of') and insert ("to")
  158 Page 61, line 33, leave out ("of') and insert ("to")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 143 to 158. These amendments have already been spoken to.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 143 to 158.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  159 Schedule 4, page 61, line 46, at end insert—
  ("The Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c.19)
  In section 50 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (meaning of "sentence"), at the end insert—
  "(3) An order under section 17 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 is not a sentence for the purposes of this Act."").
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 159. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 160 to 179 inclusive and Amendments Nos. 209 to 214 inclusive.

  495
  This group makes amendments and repeals to other legislation consequential on the replacement of the existing legal aid scheme by the community legal service and criminal defence service. They supplement or correct the consequential amendments already set out in Schedule 4 to the Bill.
  Your Lordships will note in particular Amendments Nos. 162 and 173 which amend the Solicitors Act 1974 and the Administration of Justice Act 1985. These Acts provide for professional disciplinary tribunals to exclude solicitors and barristers from undertaking legal aid work. This sanction is predicated on the fact that, at present, all lawyers have a right to take legal aid cases and submit their bill to the Legal Aid Board for payment. In future, however, it will generally be for the legal services commission to decide with whom it will contract or otherwise engage to provide services. I commend these amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 159.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  160 Schedule 4, page 62, leave out lines 2 to 9 and insert—
  (". The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  . In section 12AA(9) (restrictions on power to require young offender who is not legally represented to live in local authority accommodation)—

  (a) for paragraph (a) substitute—

  "(a) he was granted a right to representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service for the purposes of those proceedings but the right was withdrawn because of his conduct; or", and.

  (b) in paragraph (b), for "legal aid" substitute "such representation".

  . In section 23 (remands and committals to local authority accommodation), in subsection (5A) (restrictions on imposing a security requirement on person who is not legally represented)—

  (a) for paragraph (a) substitute

  "(a) he was granted a right to representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service but the right was withdrawn because of his conduct; or", and.

  (b) in paragraph (b), for "legal aid" substitute "such representation".

  . In that section as it has effect pursuant to section 98 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (alternative provision for 15 and 16 year old boys), in subsection (4A) (restrictions on remand of boy who is not legally represented)—

  (a) for paragraph (a) substitute

  "(a) he was granted a right to representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service but the right was withdrawn because of his conduct; or", and.

  (b) in paragraph (b), for "legal aid" substitute "such representation".")

  161 Page 62, leave out lines 16 to 28 and insert—
  ("5. In section 21(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (restrictions on imposing sentence on person who is not legally represented)—

  (a) for paragraph (a) substitute—

  "(a) he was granted a right to representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service but the right was withdrawn because of his conduct; or", and.

  (b) in paragraph (b), for "legal aid" substitute "such representation".")

  162 Page 62, leave out lines 32 to 38 and insert—
  ("(2) In subsection (2)(d) (exclusion of solicitor from legal aid work), for "legal aid work" substitute "providing representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service".
  (3) In subsection (2A) (exclusion of solicitor from providing legal aid work because of conduct in connection with services under the Legal Aid Act 1988)—

  (a) for "legal aid work" substitute "providing representation", and

  (b) in paragraph (a), for "tinder the Legal Aid Act 1988" substitute "funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Community Legal Service or Criminal Defence Service".

  (4) In subsection (2B) (exclusion of member of solicitor's firm from legal aid work), for "legal aid work" substitute "providing representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service".
  (5) In subsection (2D) (person excluded from legal aid work may apply for termination of exclusion), for "legal aid work" substitute "providing representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service".")
  163 Page 63, leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert ("the words from "section 23" to "to" substitute "section 17(2) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (payment by individual in respect of".")
  164 Page 63, line 41, leave out ("(a) of the Note") and insert ("1(a) of the Note at the end")
  165 Page 63, line 44, leave out ("or Criminal Defence Service")
  166 Page 64, line 1, at end insert—
  (". The Supreme Court Act 1981 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  . In section 28 (appeal by way of case stated from decisions of Crown Court, other than those relating to trial on indictment), at the end insert—
  "(4) In subsection (2)(a) the reference to a decision of the Crown Court relating to trial on indictment does not include a decision relating to an order under section 17 of the Access to Justice Act 1999."
  . In section 29 (judicial review of decisions of Crown Court, other than matters relating to trial on indictment), at the end insert—
  "(6) In subsection (3) the reference to the Crown Court's jurisdiction in matters relating to trial on indictment does not include its jurisdiction relating to orders under section 17 of the Access to Justice Act 1999."").
  167 Page 64, line 2, leave out ("of the Supreme Court Act 1981")
  168 Page 64, line 5, leave out ("requiring the payment of a contribution")
  169 Page 64, leave out lines 7 to 19 and insert—
  ("18. In section 3(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (restriction on imposing sentence on person under 21 who is not legally represented)—

  (a) for paragraph (i) substitute

  "(i) he was granted a right to representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service but the right was withdrawn because of his conduct; or", and.

  (b) in paragraph (ii), for "legal aid" substitute "such representation".")

  170 Page 64, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 65 and insert—

  ("(a) in paragraph (a), for the words from "include" to "of contribution;" substitute "the cost of representation funded for him by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service;", and

  (b) in paragraph (b), for the words from "and 19" to the end substitute ", 19 and 19A of this Act, his costs shall be taken to include the cost of representation funded for him by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service;".")

  171 Page 65, line 11, leave out ("or Criminal Defence Service")
  172 Page 65, line 21, leave out ("in connection with services provided by him by the Legal Services Commission") and insert ("by the Legal Services Commission in connection with services provided by him")
  173 Page 65, leave out lines 24 to 27 and insert—
  ("28.—(1) In section 42 (exclusion of barristers from legal aid work), in subsections (1) and (3), for "legal aid work" substitute "providing representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service".")
  174 Page 65, line 30, leave out ("in connection with services provided by the solicitor by the Legal Services Commission") and insert ("by the Legal Services Commission in connection with services provided by the solicitor")
  175 Page 66, line 26, at end insert ("or Criminal Defence Service")
  176 Page 66, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("(functions") in line 36 and insert ("In section 53(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991")
  177 Page 66, leave out lines 40 to 45
  178 Page 67, line 41, after ("of") insert (", in the second place,")
  179 Page 67, line 41, at end insert—
  ("The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37)
  . The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  . In section 50(2) (procedure at early administrative hearing), for paragraphs (a) to (c) substitute "the accused shall be asked whether he wishes to be granted a right to representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service and, if he does, the justice shall decide whether or not to grant him such a right."
  . In paragraph 3(8) of Schedule 3 (matters which may be contained in a report of an application for dismissal of charges), for paragraph (g) substitute—

  "(g) whether a right to representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service was granted to the accused or any of the accused."

  The Disability Rights Commission Act 1999
  . In section 8(4)(a) of the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999 (charges to recover costs of assistance in legal proceedings subject to any charge for benefit of Legal Aid Board), for the words from "under" to "Board" substitute "imposed by section 11(7) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and any provision in, or made under, Part I of that Act for the payment of any sum to the Legal Services Commission".")
  180 After Schedule 6, insert the following new schedule—

  SCHEDULE POWERS OF LAW SOCIETY
  Monitoring of compliance with rules
  1. In section 31(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (power of Council of the Law Society to make rules about professional practice, conduct and discipline), insert at the end "and for empowering the Society to take such action as may be appropriate to enable the Society to ascertain whether or not the provisions of rules made, or of any code or guidance issued, by the Council are being complied with."
  Bank and building society accounts
  2. In—

  (a) section 32(4) of that Act (power of Council of the Law Society to disclose report or information about solicitor's accounts to Director of Public Prosecutions for investigation and prosecution of offences), and

  (b) paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (corresponding provision in relation to accounts of incorporated practices),

  omit "to the Director of Public Prosecutions" and ", if the Director thinks fit,")
  3. In the Solicitors Act 1974, after section 33 insert—
  "Inspection of practice bank accounts etc.
  33A.—(1) The Council may make rules, with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls, empowering the Council to require a solicitor to produce documents relating to any account kept by him at a bank or with a building society—

  (a) in connection with his practice; or

  (b) in connection with any trust of which he is or formerly was a trustee,

  for inspection by a person appointed by the Council pursuant to the rules.
  (2) The Council shall be at liberty to disclose information obtained in exercise of the powers conferred by rules made under subsection (1) above for use in investigating the possible commission of an offence by the solicitor and for use in connection with any prosecution of the solicitor consequent on the investigation."
  4. In section 87(1) of that Act (interpretation), in the definition of "building society", omit "; and a reference to an account with a building society is a reference to a deposit account".
  5. In Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985, after paragraph 4 insert
  "Inspection of bank accounts
  4A. Where rules made under section 33A(1) of the 1974 Act are applied to recognised bodies in accordance with section 9(2)(f) of this Act, the Council shall be at liberty to disclose information about a recognised body's accounts obtained in pursuance of the rules for use in investigating the possible commission of an offence by that body and for use in connection with any prosecution of that body consequent on the investigation."
  Intervention for breach of rules on practice, conduct and discipline
  6. In Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (intervention in solicitor's practice), in paragraph 1(1) (circumstances in which Law Society may intervene), in paragraph (c) (failure to comply with rules made by virtue of section 32 or 37(2)(c)), after "section" insert "31,".
  Solicitors' employees and consultants
  7.—(1) Section 43 of that Act (control of employment of clerks) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (power of Law Society to apply to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for order in the case of clerk guilty of an offence of dishonesty or other act which makes it undesirable for him to be employed by solicitor)—

  (a) for "a clerk to a solicitor" substitute "employed or remunerated by a solicitor in connection with his practice",

  (b) after "employed" (in both places) insert "or remunerated",

  (c) for "to whom he is or was clerk" substitute "by whom he is or was employed or remunerated", and

  (d) for the words from "an application" to the end substitute "the Society may either make, or make an application to the Tribunal for it to make, an order under subsection (2) with respect to him."

  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(1A) Where the Society investigates whether there are grounds for making, or making an application to the Tribunal for it to make, an order under subsection (2) with respect to a person, the Council may direct him to pay to the Council an amount which—

  (a) is calculated by the Council as the cost to the Society of investigating the matter; or

  (b) in the opinion of the Council represents a reasonable contribution towards that cost."

  (4) In subsection (2) (order of Tribunal barring solicitor from employing the clerk)—

  (a) for the words from the beginning to "an order" substitute "An order under this subsection made by the Society or the Tribunal shall state", and

  (b) for "application is" substitute "order is".

  (5) For subsection (3) (revocation by Tribunal) substitute
  "(3) Where an order has been made under subsection (2) with respect to a person by the Society or the Tribunal,

  (a) that person or the Society may make an application to the Tribunal for it to be reviewed, and

  (b) whichever of the Society and the Tribunal made it may at any time revoke it.

  (3A) On the review of an order under subsection (3) the Tribunal may order—

  (a) the quashing of the order;

  (b) the variation of the order; or

  (c) the confirmation of the order;

  and where in the opinion of the Tribunal no prima facie case for quashing or varying the order is shown, the Tribunal may order its confirmation without hearing the applicant."
  (6) In subsection (5) (inspection of orders), for 'this section and filed with the Society" substitute "subsection (2) by the Society, or made, varied or confirmed under this section by the Tribunal and filed with the Society,".
  (7) In the sidenote, for "employment of certain clerks" substitute "solicitors' employees and consultants".
  8. In section 44(2) of that Act (breach of order by solicitor), for the words from "an order" to the end of paragraph (b) substitute "an order under section 43(2) is in force in respect of a person".
  9.—(1) Section 49 of that Act (appeals from Tribunal) is amended as follows.
  (2) in subsection (3) (who can appeal)—

  (a) for "43(2)" substitute "43(3A)", and

  (b) for "application" substitute "order".

  (3) In subsection (6) (finality of appeal), for "43(2)" substitute "43(3A)".
  10. In paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (control of employment of employees of recognised bodies)—

  (a) after "employed" (in each place) insert "or remunerated", and

  (b) for the words from "an application" to the end substitute "the Society may either make, or make an application to the Tribunal for it to make, an order under subsection (2) of section 43 of the 1974 Act with respect to him."

  Power to examine files
  11.—(1) Section 44B of the Solicitors Act 1974 (power of Law Society to examine files of solicitor or his firm in connection with complaints) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1), for the words from "investigating" to the end of paragraph (h) substitute "investigating—

  (a) whether there has been professional misconduct by a solicitor;

  (b) whether a solicitor has failed to comply with any requirement imposed by or by virtue of this Act or any rules made by the Council;

  (c) whether any professional services provided by a solicitor were not of the quality which it is reasonable to expect of him as a solicitor; or

  (d) whether there are grounds for making, or making an application to the Tribunal for it to make, an order under section 43(2) with respect to a person who is or was employed or remunerated by a solicitor in connection with his practice,";

  and for the words from "all documents" to the end substitute "all relevant documents in the possession of the solicitor or his firm."
  (3) For the sidenote substitute "Examination of files."
  12. In paragraph 14(1) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (power of Law Society to examine files of recognised body in connection with complaints), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—

  "(a) whether a recognised body has failed to comply with any requirement imposed by or by virtue of this Act or any rules made by the Council and applicable to it by virtue of section 9 of this Act;

  (b) whether any professional services provided by a recognised body were not of the quality which it is reasonable to expect of it as a recognised body; or

  (c) whether there are grounds for making, or making an application to the Tribunal for it to make, an order under section 43(2) with respect to a person who is or was employed or remunerated by a recognised body in connection with its business,";

  and for the words from "all documents" to the end substitute "all relevant documents in the body's possession."
  Payment of costs by solicitor under investigation
  13. In the Solicitors Act 1974, after section 448 insert—
  "Costs of investigations
  Payment of costs of investigations.
  44C. Where the Society investigates possible professional misconduct by a solicitor, or a failure or apprehended failure by a solicitor to comply with any requirement imposed by or by virtue

  501
  of this Act or any rules made by the Council, the Council may direct him to pay to the Council an amount which—

  (a) is calculated by the Council as the cost to the Society of investigating and dealing with the matter; or

  (b) in the opinion of the Council represents a reasonable contribution towards that cost."

  14. In Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985, after paragraph 14 insert—
  "Payment of costs of investigations
  14A. Where the Society investigates a failure or apprehended failure by a recognised body to comply with any requirement imposed by or by virtue of this Act or any rules applicable to it by virtue of section 9 of this Act, the Council may direct the body to pay to the Council an amount which—

  (a) is calculated by the Council as the cost to the Society of the investigation; or

  (b) in the opinion of the Council represents a reasonable contribution towards that cost."

  Registered foreign lawyers
  15. Subsections (5) to (7) of section 89 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (power to apply existing provisions to registered foreign lawyers with or without modifications and power to modify existing provisions in their application to recognised bodies whose officers include registered foreign lawyers) apply in relation to the provisions contained in this Schedule as if they were contained in an Act passed before the commencement of that section.")
  181 Insert the following new schedule—

  SCHEDULE LEGAL SERVICES COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER
  Provision for discharge of functions
  1.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may give general directions concerning the discharge of the functions of the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner.
  (2) Any such directions shall be published by the Lord Chancellor in such manner as appears to him to be appropriate.
  (3) Subject to any such direction and to the provisions of this Act, the Commissioner may make such provision as he considers appropriate for the discharge of his functions.
  Delegation of functions
  2.—(1) The Commissioner may delegate any of his functions to such members of his staff as he thinks fit.
  (2) All reports prepared by or on behalf of the Commissioner must be signed by him.
  Remuneration
  3.—(1) The Lord Chancellor shall pay to, or in respect of, the Commissioner such amounts—

  (a) by way of remuneration, pensions, allowances or gratuities, or

  (b) by way of provision for any such benefits, as he may determine.

  (2) If—

  (a) the Commissioner ceases to hold office, and

  (b) it appears to the Lord Chancellor that there are special circumstances which make it right that he should receive compensation,

  the Lord Chancellor may pay to him such sum as the Lord Chancellor may determine.
  Staff
  4.—(1) The Commissioner may appoint such staff as he thinks necessary for the discharge of his functions.
  (2) Appointments shall be made by the Commissioner on such terms and conditions (including terms as to pensions, allowances and gratuities) as he may, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, determine.
  (3) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) to pensions, allowances or gratuities includes a reference to pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation to or in respect of any of the Commissioner's staff who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments.
  Annual and other reports
  5.—(1) The Commissioner shall make an annual report to the Lord Chancellor on the discharge of his functions during the year to which the report relates.
  (2) The Commissioner may, in addition, report to the Lord Chancellor at any time on any matter relating to the discharge of the Commissioner's functions.
  (3) The Commissioner shall provide the Lord Chancellor with such information relating to the discharge of his functions as the Lord Chancellor may see fit to require.
  (4) The Lord Chancellor shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of any annual report made to him under sub-paragraph (1).
  Accounts and audit
  6.—(1) The Commissioner shall keep accounts with respect to his receipts and expenditure and shall prepare a statement of accounts with respect to each financial year.
  (2) The accounts shall be kept, and the statement of accounts prepared, in such form as the Lord Chancellor may, with the approval of the Treasury, direct.
  (3) The accounts shall be audited by persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor in respect of each financial year.
  (4) The auditors shall send to the Lord Chancellor a copy of the statement of accounts and of their report.
  (5) The Lord Chancellor shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every statement of accounts and auditors' report sent to him under this paragraph.
  Financial provisions
  7.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may require any professional body in relation to which a direction under section (Commissioner's functions) of this Act has been given (and not revoked) to make payments of such amounts as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate to the Commissioner towards meeting the expenditure incurred (or to be incurred) by him in the discharge of his functions.
  (2) To the extent that that expenditure is not met by payments under sub-paragraph (1), it shall be met by the Lord Chancellor out of money provided by Parliament.
  (3) The Commissioner may, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, pay fees or allowances to any person who, in the Commissioner's opinion, is qualified to assist him in the discharge of his functions and who so assists him.
  Parliamentary disqualification
  8. In Part III of Schedule 1 to—

  (a) the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, and

  (b) the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975,

  (disqualifying offices), insert (at the appropriate place in alphabetical order)—
  "The Legal Services Complaints Commissioner."
  Parliamentary Commissioner
  9. In Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (which lists the bodies subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner), insert (at the appropriate place in alphabetical order)—
  "The Legal Services Complaints Commissioner."
  Acting Commissioner
  10. —(1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint a person to exercise the functions of the Commissioner where—

  (a) the Commissioner's office becomes vacant, or

  (b) the Commissioner is incapable of exercising his functions or considers that it would be inappropriate for him to exercise any of his functions in connection with a particular matter (because of a possible conflict of interests or for any other reason).

  (2) A person so appointed shall have the powers of the Commissioner but shall act only in accordance with the terms on which he is appointed.
  (3) The Lord Chancellor may pay to any person so appointed such remuneration as he may determine.")
  182 Schedule 7, page 80, line 32, leave out ("the area or)
  183 Page 82, line 30, at end insert—
  ("The Sunday Theatre Act 1972 (c.26)
  . In section 2(2) of the Sunday Theatre Act 1972 (definition of "inner London area"), for the words from "which" to the end substitute "consisting of the inner London boroughs".")
  184 Page 82, line 43, at end insert—
  ("33A. In section 146(5) (rules relating to youth courts), for "inner London area" substitute "area consisting of the inner London boroughs".")
  185 Page 83, line 8, at end insert—
  ("The Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c.53)
  36A. In section 76 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (provision of court security officers), in subsection (5) (requirement of confirmation of Secretary of State), for "consists of or forms part of" substitute "falls wholly or partly within".")
  186 Page 83, line 12, leave out from ("subsection") to end of line 14 and insert ("(2)(d) (expenses of the Receiver relating to magistrates' courts in the inner London area)—

  (a) after "courts" insert "acting for petty sessions areas falling wholly or partly", and

  (b) for "that area" substitute "the inner London area".")

  187 Page 83, line 17, leave out ("and the City of London")
  188 Page 83, line 29, at end insert—
  ("39A. In section 18(2) (expenditure of inner London probation committee)—

  (a) for "If" substitute "Unless", and

  (b) for "does not include any petty sessions area outside" substitute "includes any petty sessions area not falling wholly or partly within".

  39B. In section 29(1)(a) (definition of "responsible authority for inner London probation area), for the words from "is situated" to the end "a petty sessions area included in the inner London probation area by virtue of section 2(3)(b) above wholly or partly falls".")
  189 Page 83, line 32, leave out ("and the City of London")
  190 Page 85, line 3, after ("means") insert ("the area consisting or)
  191 Schedule 8, page 86, leave out lines 8 and 9
  192 Page 86, line 10, after ("4") insert ("of the Metropolitan Police Courts Act 1897")
  193 Page 86, leave out lines 14 to 17
  194 Page 86, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 87 and insert—
  ("(2) Before paragraph 2 insert—
  "Qualification to sit as member of youth court".
  (3) In paragraph 2 (justice not qualified to sit as member of youth court unless he is a member of a youth court panel), after "he is" insert—

  "(a) a District Judge (Magistrates' Courts), or (b)".

  (4) After that paragraph insert—
  "Constitution by single District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)
  2A. A youth court may consist of a District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) sitting alone.
  Youth court panels".").
  195 Schedule 9, page 93, leave out lines 44 to 46
  196 Transpose Schedule 9 to after Schedule 6
  197 After Schedule 9, insert the following new schedule—

  SCHEDULE GREATER LONDON MAGISTRATES' COURTS AUTHORITY
  The Public Works Loans Act 1965 (c.63)
  1. In section 2(1)(a) of the Public Works Loans Act 1965 (authorities to which Public Works Loans Commissioners may make unsecured loans), after sub-paragraph (iv) insert "and
  (v) the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority;".
  The National Loans Act 1968 (c.13)
  2. In paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 4 to the National Loans Act 1968 (authorities to which local loans may be made), after sub-paragraph (iv) insert "and
  (v) the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority,".
  The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c.53).
  3. In section 82(2A) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (definition of "paying authority" and "responsible authority"), at the end insert "; except that, in relation to the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority, the Authority is the paying authority and responsible authority."
  The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c.42)
  4. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  5. In section 39(1) (authorities to which provisions about revenue accounts and capital apply), after paragraph (e) insert—
  "(ea) the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority;".
  6. In section 67(3) (authorities to which provisions about interests in companies apply), after paragraph (g) insert—
  "(ga) the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority;".")
  The Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c.53).
  7.—(1) Section 76 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (as amended by Schedule 7 to this Act) (provision of court security officers) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (determination as to provision of officers), after "area" insert "outside Greater London".
  (3) After subsection (4) insert—
  "(4A) In relation to each petty sessions area within Greater London, the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority shall from time to time determine—

  (a) whether court security officers should be provided; and

  (b) if so, how many such officers should be provided.

  (4B) As soon as practicable after making a determination under subsection (4A)(b) above, the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority shall provide the required number of court security officers, on such terms and conditions as they may determine—

  (a) by employing persons to act as court security officers; or

  (b) by entering into a contract with another person for the employment by him of persons to act as such officers."

  The Local Government Finance Act 1992 (c. 14).
  8. In section 19(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (exclusion of Crown exemption in relation to certain authorities), after paragraph (e) insert—
  "(ea) the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority;".
  The Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (c.25)
  9. The Justices of the Peace Act 1997 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  10. In section 10(7) as amended by Schedule 7 to this Act (authority responsible for paying allowances to justices), after "justice" insert "for a commission area consisting wholly or partly of Greater London, the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority, and in relation to any other justice".
  11. In section 40(8) (regulations about appointment of justices' chief executive), after "by statutory instrument" insert "which may make different provision in relation to the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority and other magistrates' courts committees".
  12. In section 44 (terms of employment), after subsection (1) insert—
  "(1A) The approval of the Lord Chancellor shall be required for any determination by a magistrates' courts committee reducing the salary of a justices' clerk or justices' chief executive, unless the justices' clerk or justices' chief executive concerned consents to the reduction."
  13. For section 50 substitute—
  'Pensions of employees of GLMCA.
  50.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may, with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service, make provision by order made by statutory instrument for section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (pensions of civil servants etc) to apply to persons employed by the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority (and may make such provision by amendment of that Act)..
  (2) An order under subsection (1) above may provide for the Authority to pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as he may direct, such sums as he may determine in respect of the increase attributable to such provision in the sums payable under the Superannuation Act 1972 out of money provided by Parliament.
  (3) Where an order under subsection (1) above is made, the Minister for the Civil Service may, to such extent and subject to such conditions as he thinks fit—

  (a) delegate to any person the function of administering a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972, so far as relating to employees of the Authority; or

  (b) authorise the exercise of that function (so far as so relating) by, or by employees of, any person.

  (4) A person to whom the function of administering a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 is delegated under subsection (3)(a) above may, to such extent and subject to such conditions as he may determine, authorise the exercise of that function by, or by employees of, any person.
  (5) Where a person is authorised under subsection (3)(b) or (4) above to exercise the function of administering a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972, anything done or omitted to be done by or in relation to him (or an employee of his) in, or in connection with, the exercise or purported exercise of the function shall be treated for all purposes as done or omitted to be done by the person who authorised him.
  (6) Subsection (5) above does not apply for the purposes of—

  (a) any criminal proceedings against the authorised person (or any employee of his); or

  (b) any contract between him and the person who authorised him, so far as relating to the function.

  (7) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
  14.—(1) Section 54 (indemnification of justices' and their clerks) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2) (indemnification out of local funds), for "out of local funds" (in both places) substitute "by the appropriate authority".
  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(2A) In subsection (2) above the "appropriate authority" means—

  (a) the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority, where at the material time the justice or justices' clerk was acting for an area consisting of or falling within Greater London; or

  (b) the paying authority or authorities, where at the material time the justice or justices' clerk was acting for an area outside Greater London."

  (4) In subsection (7) (apportionment between paying authorities), for the words from "there are" to "clerk," substitute ", in relation to any justice or justices' clerk acting for an area outside Greater London, there are two or more paying authorities,".
  (5) In subsection (9) (interpretation), in the definition of "paying authority", for the words from ", in relation" to the end substitute—

  "(a) in relation to any justice or justices' clerk who at the material time acted for an area outside Greater London, means any authority which is a paying authority for the purposes of section 55 below in relation to the magistrates' courts committee for that area; and

  (b) in relation to a justice or justices' clerk who at the material time acted for an area consisting of or falling within Greater London, means the council of any London borough or the Common Council of the City of London."

  15. Before section 55 insert the heading—
  "Magistrates' courts committees outside Greater London".
  16.—(1) Section 55 (duties of local authorities) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (duties of local authorities), after "committee", in the first place, insert "for an area outside Greater London".
  (3) In subsections (4) and (5) (duty of paying authority or authorities to pay expenses of magistrates' courts committee), after "courts' committee" insert "for an area outside Greater London".
  (4) In subsection (10) (interpretation) after "courts' committee" insert "for an area outside Greater London".
  17. —(1) Section 56 (provision supplementary to section 55) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (determination by committee)—

  (a) in paragraph (b), after "committee" insert "for an area outside Greater London", and

  (c) in paragraph (c), after "which" insert "such".

  (3) In subsection (2) (apportionment), after "committee", in the first place, insert "for an area outside Greater London".
  18. In section 59(1) (regulations relating to accounts of magistrates' courts committees), after "magistrates' courts committees" insert "for areas outside Greater London".
  19. After section 68 insert—
  "Provision of accommodation for justices and staff
  68A. Any accommodation provided under any enactment for any justice, justices' clerk or justices' chief executive may be outside the area for which the justices act and, in the case of a petty sessional court-house, shall be treated as being in that area for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the justices when acting in the court-house."").
  198 Schedule 10, leave out Schedule 10, and insert the following new schedule—

  SECTION 69
  ("SCHEDULE 10 FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED TO JUSTICES' CHIEF EXECUTIVES
  The London Hackney Carriages Act 1843 (c.86)
  1. In section 24 of the London Hackney Carriages Act 1843 (application for summons), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Evidence Act 1851 (c.99)
  2. —Section 13 of the Evidence Act 1851 (proof of previous conviction by copy of record certified by clerk) is amended as follows.
  (2) Number the existing provision as subsection (1) and for the words from "under the hand" to "such clerk or other officer," substitute "by the proper officer of the court where such conviction or acquittal took place".
  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(2) In subsection (1) "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court or other officer having the custody of the records of the court, or the deputy of such clerk or other officer."

  The Criminal Procedure Act 1865 (c.18).
  3.—(1) Section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865 (proof of previous conviction of witness by certificate signed by clerk) is amended as follows.
  (2) Number the existing provision as subsection (1) and for the words from "the clerk" to "such clerk or officer," substitute "the proper officer of the court where the offender was convicted".
  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(2) In subsection (1) "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court or other officer having the custody of the records of the court, or the deputy of such clerk or other officer."

  The Prevention of Crimes Act 1871 (c.112).
  4.—(1) Section 18 of the Prevention of Crimes Act 1871 (evidence of previous conviction by record signed by clerk) is amended as follows.
  (2) For the words from "clerk of the court" to "such clerk or officer;" substitute "proper officer of the court by which such conviction was made;".
  (3) For "clerk or other officer" substitute "proper officer".
  (4) At the end of that section insert—
  "In this section "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court or other officer having the custody of the records of the court, or the deputy of such clerk or other officer".

  The Fairs Act 1873 (c.37)
  5. In section 6 of the Fairs Act 1873 (alteration of fair day on representation of justices), for "clerk to the justices acting in and for" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907 (c.53)
  6. In section 94(7) of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907 (licensing of pleasure boats), for "clerk" substitute "justices' chief executive for the court".
  The Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920 (c.33)
  7.—(1) Section 4 of the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920 (power of magistrates' courts to confirm maintenance orders made in certain Commonwealth countries) is amended as follows (but that section as modified in relation to Northern Ireland by section 11 of that Act is not so amended).
  (2) In subsection (5B) (powers of court), for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court,",

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (6A) (application of section 60 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980)—

  (a) in paragraph (b), in the paragraph to be regarded as substituted for subsection (4)(b) of that section, for "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court," substitute "a justices' chief executive", and

  (b) in paragraph (c) (words to be regarded as replaced in subsection (5) of that section), for "clerk"" substitute "justices' chief executive for the court"".

  The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c.12)
  8. The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  9. In section 42(2)(b) (transmission of deposition of child), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  10. In section 45 (constitution of youth courts), number the existing provision as subsection (1) and insert—
  "(2) The justices' chief executive appointed by a magistrates' courts committee is the justices' chief executive for every youth court for their area."
  11. In—

  (a) section 46(1A) (notification of guilty plea),

  (b) section 56(3) (remission of case to youth court), and

  (c) section 106(2) (certification of copy of order),

  for "clerk of" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Maintenance Orders Act 1950 (c.37)
  12. Part II of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950 (enforcement of certain maintenance orders made in another part of the United Kingdom) has effect subject to the following amendments.
  13.—(1) Section 18 (enforcement of registered orders) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2ZA) (application of section 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980), in the subsection to be regarded as substituted as subsection (5) of that section, for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court,",

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (2A) (requirement of person liable under order to notify change of address to clerk of the court), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (4) After that subsection insert—
  "(2B) In subsection (2A) of this section "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, the clerk of the court."

  14.—(1) Section 22 (discharge and variation of registered orders) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1B) (powers of court), for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court in England and Wales", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court in England and Wales,",

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (1E) (application of section 60 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980)—

  (a) in paragraph (a), in the paragraph to be regarded as substituted for subsection (4)(b) of that section, for "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court," substitute "a justices' chief executive", and

  (b) in paragraph (b) (words to be regarded as replaced in subsection (5) of that section), for "clerk"" substitute "justices' chief executive for the court"".

  15. In section 24(5A)(b) (order requiring payment to the clerk of a magistrates' court to cease to have effect on cancellation of registration of order), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court in England and Wales" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  The Army Act 1955 (c.18)
  16. The Army Act 1955 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  17.—(1) Section 189 (delivery into military custody of person dealt with by court of summary jurisdiction as illegally absent) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (fee payable to clerk of the court), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After subsection (3) insert—
  "(3A) In subsection (1) of this section "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction elsewhere, the clerk of the court."

  18.—(1) Section 199 (proof of outcome of civil trial) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsections (1), (2) and (3) (certificate signed by clerk is proof of outcome), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) For subsection (4) substitute—
  "(4) In this section "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court, his deputy or any other person having the custody of the records of the court."

  The Air Force Act 1955 (c.19)
  19. The Air Force Act 1955 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  20.—(1) Section 189 (delivery into air-force custody of person dealt with by court of summary jurisdiction as illegally absent) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (fee payable to clerk of the court), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After subsection (3) insert—
  "(3A) In subsection (1) of this section "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction elsewhere, the clerk of the court."

  21.—(1) Section 199 (proof of outcome of civil trial) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsections (1), (2) and (3) (certificate signed by clerk is proof of outcome), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) For subsection (4) substitute—
  "(4) In this section "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales. the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court, his deputy or any other person having the custody of the records of the court."

  The Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c.53)
  22. The Naval Discipline Act 1957 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  23.—(1) Section 110 (delivery into naval custody of person dealt with by court of summary jurisdiction as illegally absent) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2) (fee payable to clerk of the court), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After subsection (2) insert—
  "(2A) In subsection (2) of this section "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction elsewhere, the clerk of the court."

  24.—(1) Section 129B (proof of outcome of civil trial) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsections (1), (2) and (3) (certificate signed by clerk is proof of outcome), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) For subsection (4) substitute—
  "(4) In this section "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court, his deputy or any other person having the custody of the records of the court."

  The Maintenance Orders Act 1958 (c.39)
  25. The Maintenance Orders Act 1958 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  26.—(1) Section 2 (registration of orders) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2)(b) (procedure on application for registration of order), for "clerk of" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  (3) In subsection (5) (registration of orders), for "or clerk of" substitute "of, or justices' chief executive for,".
  (4) In subsection (6) (effect on magistrates' court order of registration in the High Court), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" (in both places) substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (5) In subsection (6ZA)(b) (effect on High Court order or county court order of registration in magistrates' court), for "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (6) In subsection (6ZC) (payments under order becoming or ceasing to be payable to clerk of a magistrates' court), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  27. In section 3(3A) (requirement of person liable under order to notify change of address to clerk of the court), for "clerk of" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  28.—(1) Section 4(5B) (application of section 60 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph (a), in the paragraph to be regarded as substituted for subsection (4)(b) of that section, for "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court," substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (3) In paragraph (b) (words to be regarded as replaced in subsection (5) of that section), for "clerk"" substitute "justices' chief executive for the court"".
  (4) In paragraph (e), in the subsection (9) to be regarded as substituted for subsections (9) and (10) of that section, for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of arty other magistrates' court", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court,",

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  29.—(1) Section 5 (cancellation of registration) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (5) (cancellation of registration of High Court or county court order), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" (in both places) substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (6)(b) (cancellation of registration of magistrates' court order), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  30. In section 18 (powers of magistrates to review committals), for "clerk of (in each place) substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  31. In section 20(1) (clerk of magistrates' court entitled to receive payments for transmission to another)—

  (a) for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive", and

  (b) for "the clerk is" substitute "a justices' chief executive is".

  The Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (c.2)
  32. The Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  33.—(1) Section 10A (cancellation of betting office licence) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (4) (notification of cancellation)—

  (a) for "clerk of" substitute "proper officer of", and

  (b) for "clerk to" (in both places) substitute "proper officer of".

  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(5) In subsection (4)—
  "the proper officer of the authority" has the same meaning as in Schedule 1; and
  "the proper officer of the court" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a court of summary, in Scotland, the clerk of the court."

  34.—(1) Section 11 (cancellation of and disqualification for bookmaker's permit or betting agency permit) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (5) (notification of cancellation)—

  (a) for "clerk of substitute "proper officer of", and

  (b) for "clerk to" (in both places) substitute "proper officer of".

  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(6) In subsection (5)—
  "the proper officer of the authority" has the same meaning as in Schedule 1; and
  "the proper officer of the court" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court."

  35.—(1) Schedule 1 (bookmaker's permits, betting agency permits and betting offices licences) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 2 (interpretation), for the definition of "clerk to the appropriate authority" substitute—
  "the proper officer of the appropriate authority" means—

  (a) in England, the chief executive to the justices comprising the committee referred to in paragraph 1 of this Schedule; and

  (b) in Scotland, the clerk to the licensing court;".

  (3) In paragraphs 5 and 6 (applications for grant of permit or licence), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (4) In paragraph 7 (notification of meeting to consider application)—

  (a) for "clerk to", in both places, substitute "proper officer of", and

  (b) for "clerk", in the remaining four places, substitute "proper officer".

  (5) In paragraph 8 (applications for renewal of permit or licence), for "clerk to" (in each place) substitute "proper officer of".
  (6) In paragraph 9 (person to whom application to be made)—

  (a) for "clerk to" (in both places) substitute "proper officer of", and

  (b) in paragraph (a), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".

  (7) In paragraph 11(b) (receipt of objections), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (8) In paragraph 12 (procedure where objection received), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (9) In paragraph 20 (grant or renewal of permit or licence)—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of", and

  (b) in sub-paragraph (2), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".

  (10) In paragraph 20A (clerk to act on unopposed applications for renewal)—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of and for "clerk may" substitute "clerk to the authority may", and

  (b) after sub-paragraph (4) insert—

  "(5) For the purposes of this paragraph, the clerk to the appropriate authority, where the authority is a committee of the justices acting for a petty sessions area, is the clerk to those justices or, if there are two or more clerks to those justices—

  (a) such one of those clerks as the magistrates' courts committee having power over the appointment of clerks to justices for that area may direct; or

  (b) in default of any such direction, any of those clerks."

  (11) In—

  (a) paragraph 21(1), (2) and (4)(b) (appeals),

  (b) paragraph 25 (notification of change in directors),

  (c) paragraphs 26 (in both places) and 27(1) (cancellation of bookmaker's permit),

  (d) paragraphs 28A(1)(a) and (2), 28B(2) and (3) and 28C(1) and (2) (cancellation of betting office licence),

  (e) paragraph 34 (registers), and

  (f) paragraphs 36 and 37(1) (provision of information), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".

  The Licensing Act 1964 (c.26)
  36. The Licensing Act 1964 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  37. In—

  (a) section 8A(2) (approval of prospective licensee),

  (b) section 9A(2) (grant of interim authority), and

  (c) section 19(1) and (2) (requirement for structural alterations),

  for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  38.—(1) Section 20 (consent for alteration of premises) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2) (plans to be deposited with clerk), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (4) (notice of order forfeiting licence or directing restoration of premises)—

  (a) for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for", and

  (b) for "clerk to" (in each place) substitute "chief executive to".

  39. In section 20A(3) (revocation of justices' licences), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  40.—(1) Section 22 (procedural provisions as to appeals) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsections (1) and (2) (notice to be given to clerk), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (4) (clerk to send notice of appeal to Crown Court) for "clerk to" substitute "chief executive to".
  (4) In subsection (5) (recording by clerk of persons opposing grant), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  41. In section 27(4)(c)(ii) (notice for renewal of licence given to clerk), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  42.—(1) Section 28 (clerk to licensing justices) is amended as follows.
  (2) In the heading and in the sidenote, after "clerk" insert "and chief executive".
  (3) After subsection (4) insert—
  "(5) The justices' chief executive for a petty sessions area shall be chief executive to the licensing justices for the licensing district consisting of that area."
  43. In section 30 (register of licences), in—

  (a) subsection (1) (clerk to keep register), and

  (b) subsection (4) (certification of entry by clerk),

  for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  44.—(1) Section 31 (matters to be entered in register) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (notice of conviction to be entered in register)—

  (a) for "clerk", in the first place, substitute "chief executive",

  (b) for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for",

  (c) for "clerk", in the third place, substitute "chief executive", and

  (d) for "that clerk" substitute "him".

  (3) In subsection (2), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  45. In section 32(1) and (2) (persons with interest in property to be registered), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  46. In section 33 (notice of conviction of licence holder to be served on registered owner), in—

  (a) subsection (1) (clerk to serve notice), and

  (b) subsection (2) (provisions about service) (in both places),

  for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  47. In section 34(3) (refusal of inspection of register), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  48. In section 46(2) (notice to fire authority of application for registration certificate), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  49.—(1) Section 51 (register of clubs) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (clerk to keep register), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (2) (particulars to be registered), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  (4) In subsection (4) (notice of change of particulars), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  50. In—

  (a) section 62(3) (permitted hours in clubs),

  (b) section 75(2) and (3) (application for exemption order) (in each place),

  (c) section 87A(5) (permitted hours in vineyard premises),

  (d) sections 133(1) and 142(1) (restoration of suspended licence),

  (e) sections 150(3) and (4)(a), 151(6), 153A(3) and 154(1)(b) (canteen licences),

  (f) section 180(3) and (4) (occasional licences) (in each place), and

  (g) section 199(c) (saving relating to theatres),

  for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  51. In Schedule 2 (applications for justices' licences), in—

  (a) paragraph 1(a) (notice to clerk),

  (b) paragraph 3 (deposition of plan), and

  (c) paragraph 6 (list of applicants),

  for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  52.—(1) Schedule 6 (applications and complaints relating to registration certificates) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraphs 1(1) and (3) and 2 (procedure on making of application), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  (3) In paragraph 4 (copies of application)—

  (a) for "clerk to" substitute "chief executive to",

  (b) for "clerk is" substitute "chief executive is", and

  (c) for "clerk needs" substitute "chief executive needs".

  (4) In paragraphs 6(1) and 7 (objections) for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  53. In Schedule 8A (procedure for making, varying or revoking restriction orders), in—

  (a) paragraph 1(1) (notice of application to licensing justices), and

  (b) paragraph 4(2) (notice of application to magistrates' court), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".

  54. In paragraph 7 of Schedule 11 (clerk to licensing planning committee)—

  (a) for "clerk", in the first place, substitute "chief executive", and

  (b) for "districts, the clerk to the licensing justices", substitute "districts for which there are different chief executives, the chief executive".

  55. In Schedule 12 (canteen licences), in paragraphs 1(1)(a) and 3, for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  56. In Schedule 12A (children's certificates), in—

  (a) paragraphs 1(1) and 2(1) (applications), and

  (b) paragraphs 7(3)(a) and 8(a) (duration),

  for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  The Gaming Act 1968 (c.65)
  57. The Gaming Act 1968 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  58.—(1) Schedule 2 (grant etc. of licences) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 1(1) (licensing authority), at the end insert "and references to the proper officer of a licensing authority shall be construed accordingly".
  (3) In paragraphs 5(2) and 6(2) (procedure for application), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (4) In paragraph 7 (public notice of application)—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of",

  (b) in sub-paragraph (2), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of" and for "if the clerk" substitute "if the proper officer", and

  (c) in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".

  (5) In paragraph 12(1) (making of application for renewal), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (6) In paragraph 13 (notification of application for renewal)—

  (a) in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of",

  (b) in sub-paragraph (4), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of and for "clerk", in the other two places, substitute "proper officer", and

  (c) in sub-paragraph (5), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".

  (7) In paragraph 14(2)(a) (proceedings on application for grant or renewal), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (8) In paragraph 15 (objections)—

  (a) for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of", and

  (b) in paragraph (b), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".

  (9) In—

  (a) paragraph 28 (notification of Board's advice),

  (b) paragraph 29(1) (in both places) and (2) (appeal by applicant),

  (c) paragraph 31(1) and (2) (appeal by Board),

  (d) paragraph 33(1) (appeal in Scotland),

  516

  (e) paragraph 35(5) (revocation of certificate of consent), and

  (e) paragraphs 36(1) and (3) and 37 (cancellation),

  for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (10) In paragraph 46(1) (notice of appeal), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (11) In paragraph 48 (cancellation of licence where holder convicted of offence)—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (4), for "clerk of" and for "clerk to" (in both places) substitute "proper officer of", and

  (b) after that sub-paragraph insert—

  "(5) In sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph, "the proper officer of the court" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court, the justices' chief executive for the court, and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court."

  (12) In paragraphs 57(4) and 58(1) (transfer of licence), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (13) In paragraph 63 (fees)—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of", and

  (b) in sub-paragraph (2), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".

  (14) In paragraphs 64(1) and 65(1) and (2) (notification of corporate changes), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  59.—(1) Schedule 3 (registration of members' clubs in England and Wales) is amended as follows.
  (2) In—

  (a) paragraph 12(1) (appeal by applicant),

  (b) paragraph 13(1) (appeal by Board), and

  (c) paragraphs 15(1) (in both places) and 16(1) (cancellation),

  for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  (3) In paragraph 17 (cancellation pursuant to conviction)—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (3), for "clerk of" substitute "proper officer of and for "clerk to" (in both places) substitute "chief executive to", and

  (b) after that sub-paragraph insert—

  "(4) In sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph the "proper officer of the court" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court, the justices' chief executive for the court, and

  (b) in relation to the Crown Court, the appropriate officer of the court."

  (4) In—

  (a) paragraph 23 (fees), and

  (b) paragraph 24(1) and (2) (relinquishment of registration),

  for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  60. In Schedule 7 (registration for gaming by means of machines), in—

  (a) paragraph 3(1) (application for registration),

  (b) paragraph 4(1) (application for renewal of registration),

  (c) paragraph 11(1) (in both places) and (2) (appeal),

  (d) paragraphs 13(1), 14 and 20(1) (cancellation of registration),

  (e) paragraph 24 (fees), and

  (f) paragraph 25(1) and (2) (relinquishment of registration),

  for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  61.—(1) Schedule 9 (permits under section 34) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 11(2) and (3) (appeals), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (3) In paragraph 21 (fees), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (4) After paragraph 23 insert—
  "24. For the purposes of this Schedule, the proper officer of an appropriate authority is—

  (a) where the appropriate authority is the licensing justices for a licensing district in England and Wales, the chief executive to the justices, and

  (b) in any other case, the clerk to the authority."

  The Late Night Refreshment Houses Act 1969 (c.53)
  62. In section 6(2) of the Late Night Refreshment Houses Act 1969 (licensing authority to give to clerk to justices a copy of register of late night refreshment houses in the area), for the words from "to the clerk" to the end substitute "a copy of or extract from the list or register to the justices' chief executive for any petty sessions area falling wholly or partly within their area."
  The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (c.54)
  63. In the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, in—

  (a) section 18(3) (copies of, or of variation or discharge of, supervision order) (in both places), and

  (b) section 19(5) and (10) (copies of supervision arrangements),

  for "clerk to the justices" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  The Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (c.32)
  64. The Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  65. In section 3(1)(c) (persons who may apply for an attachment of earnings order), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court, the clerk of that court" substitute "a justices' chief executive, that justices' chief executive".
  66. In section 6(7)(c) (clerk to be collecting officer in case of order made by a magistrates' court), for "clerk either of that court or of" substitute "justices' chief executive for that court or for".
  67. In section 17(3)(d) (power to require court officer to deal with payments under consolidated attachment order as directed by court or rules), for "clerk or registrar" substitute "officer".
  68.—(1) Section 18 (certain action not to be taken by collecting officer except on request) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (clerk of magistrates' court not to make certain applications unless requested by person entitled to receive payments), for "The clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "A justices' chief executive".
  (3) In subsections (2) and (3) (effect of request), for "the clerk" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  69. In section 21(2)(a)(ii) (costs due to clerk of magistrates' court), for "clerk of ' substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Immigration Act 1971 (c.77)
  70.—(1) Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (administrative provisions) is amended as follows.
  (2) In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 23, in paragraph (b) (particulars of recognizance to be given to clerk), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After that sub-paragraph insert—
  "(1A) In sub-paragraph (1) "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, the clerk of the court."

  (4) In sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 31 (particulars of forfeited recognizance to be given to clerk), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (5) After that sub-paragraph insert—
  "(3A) In sub-paragraph (3) "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, the clerk of the court."

  The Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 (c.18)
  71. The Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  72. In section 7(5B) (powers of magistrates' court on confirming provisional order made in reciprocating country), for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court in England and Wales", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court in England and Wales".

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  73.—(1) Section 8 (enforcement of maintenance order registered in United Kingdom court) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (3) (requirement of person liable under order to notify change of address to clerk of the court), for "clerk" substitute "appropriate officer".
  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(3A) In subsection (3) above "appropriate officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a court elsewhere, the clerk of the court."

  (4) In subsection (4A) (application of section 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980), in the subsection to be regarded as substituted as subsection (5) of that section, for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court,",

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  74.—(1) Section 9(1ZA) (application of section 60 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph (a), in the subsection (3A) to be regarded as inserted in that section, for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court,", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court,",

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (3) In paragraph (b), in the paragraph to be regarded as substituted for subsection (4)(b) of that section, for "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court," substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (4) In paragraph (c) (words to be regarded as replaced in subsection (5) of that section), for "clerk"" substitute "justices' chief executive for the court"".
  75.—(1) Section 23 (maintenance orders registered in High Court under Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsections (2), (3) and (4) (procedure), for "clerk" substitute "appropriate officer".
  (3) After subsection (5) insert—
  "(6) In this section "appropriate officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a magistrates' court in Northern Ireland, the clerk of the court."

  76. In section 26 (application for recovery of maintenance in convention country), for subsections (6) and (7) substitute—
  "(6) The appropriate officer for the purposes of this section is—

  (a) where the applicant is residing in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the petty sessions area;

  (b) where the applicant is residing in Northern Ireland, the clerk of the court for the petty sessions district; and

  (c) where the applicant is residing in Scotland, the sheriff clerk or sheriff clerk depute of the sheriff court within the jurisdiction of which the applicant is residing."

  77. In section 27B (sending application to the appropriate magistrates' court), for "clerk of (in each place) substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  78.—(1) Section 27C (application for recovery of maintenance in England and Wales) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (4) (powers of court), for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court in England and Wales,", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court in England and Wales,",

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (7) (registration of order), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  79.—(1) Section 32 (transfer of orders) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2) (transmission of copy of order)—

  (a) for "the clerk" (in both places) substitute "the appropriate officer", and

  (b) for "that clerk" substitute "the appropriate officer".

  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(2A) In subsection (2) above, the "appropriate officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a court in Northern Ireland, the clerk of the court."

  80. In section 34(3) (application from abroad to vary a registered order), for "the clerk of that court" substitute "—

  (a) the justices' chief executive for the court, if the court is in England and Wales; or

  (b) the clerk of the court, if the court is in Northern Ireland."

  81.—(1) Section 34A (variation of orders by magistrates' courts) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (3) (powers of magistrates' courts), for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court in England and Wales", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court in England and Wales,",

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (4)(b) (application for variation), for "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court in England and Wales," substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (c.18)
  82.—(1) Section 38 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (orders for repayment of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of marriage) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (6) (protection for clerk)—

  (a) for "The clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "A justices' chief executive", and

  (b) for "the clerk" substitute "the justices' chief executive".

  (3) In subsection (7) (definition of "collecting officer"), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  The Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (c.62)
  83. The Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  84. In section 1B(5)(b) (memorandum of conviction in magistrates' court), for "clerk of the court" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  85. In section 26(5) and (7) (suspended sentence supervision orders), for "clerk to the justices" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  The Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (c. 51)
  86.—(1) Schedule 4 to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (procedure relating to offences) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraphs 10 and 12 (delivery of licence and certificate of conviction), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After paragraph 13 insert—
  "14. In paragraphs 10 and 12 above, "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to the Crown Court, the appropriate officer."

  The Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 (c.32)
  87.—(1) Schedule 3 to the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 (permits for commercial provision of amusements with prizes) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 1(2) (interpretation), at the end insert "and
  "the proper officer of the appropriate authority" means—

  (a) where the appropriate authority is the licensing justices for a licensing district in England and Wales, the chief executive to the justices; and

  (b) in any other case, the clerk to the authority."

  (3) In paragraph 8(2) and (3) (appeals) for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (4) In paragraph 18 (fees), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer'.
  The Adoption Act 1976 (c.36)
  88. In section 58A(3) of the Adoption Act 1976 (duty of clerk of a magistrates' court to send to Secretary of State particulars about proceedings relating to children), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Bail Act 1976 (c.63)
  89. In section 6(9)(c)(i) of the Bail Act 1976 (certification of copy of court record by justices' clerk), for the words from "clerk" to the end substitute "chief executive".
  The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 (c.22)
  90. The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  91. In section 20ZA(3) (variation of orders for periodical payments to provide that payments shall be made to the court clerk), for "to the clerk" substitute "to the justices' chief executive for the court".
  92. In section 32(2) (enforcement of orders for payment of money), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  93.—(1) Section 35 (orders for repayment of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of marriage) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (7) (protection for clerk)—

  (a) for "The clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "A justices' chief executive", and

  (b) for "the clerk" substitute "the justices' chief executive".

  (3) In subsection (8) (definition of "collecting officer"), for "clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  The Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Act 1980 (c.32)
  94.—(1) Section 4 of the Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Act 1980 (supplemental) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (3) (copy of exclusion order to be sent to licensee of relevant premises), for the words from "clerk" to "may be," substitute "proper officer of the court".
  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above—

  (a) the proper officer of a magistrates' court in England and Wales is the justices' chief executive for the court;

  (b) the proper officer of the Crown Court is the appropriate officer; and

  (c) the proper officer of a court in Scotland is the clerk of the court."

  The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43)
  95. The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  96. In section 6(5) (clerk to display details of cases committed for trial), for "clerk of" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  97. In section 12 (non-appearance of accused: plea of guilty), in subsections (1)(b), (4) (in both places) and (6) (in both places), for "clerk of" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  98.—(1) Section 14 (avoidance of certain proceedings) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1)(b) (service of declaration), for "clerk to the justices" substitute "justices' chief executive for the court".
  (3) In subsection (2) (deemed service), for "clerk to the justices" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  99.—(1) Section 59 (orders for periodical payment: means of payment) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (3)(b) (power of the court to order payment to clerk), for "the clerk of the court or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (8) (power to specify method of payment to a clerk), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  100.—(1) Section 59A (orders for periodical payments: proceedings by clerk) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (proceedings by clerk where payment not made)—

  (a) for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive",

  (b) for "the clerk of the relevant court" substitute "the relevant justices' chief executive", and

  (c) for "to the clerk" substitute "to that justices' chief executive".

  (3) In subsection (2) (authority to clerk to act under subsection (3))—

  (a) for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive", and

  (b) for "the clerk of the relevant court for the clerk" substitute "the relevant justices' chief executive for him".

  (4) In subsection (3) (proceedings by cleric), for "the clerk of the relevant court, the clerk" substitute "the relevant justices' chief executive, he".
  (5) In subsection (4) (cessation of authority)—

  (a) for "the clerk of a relevant court" substitute "a justices' chief executive",

  (b) for "clerk cancelling" substitute "justices' chief executive cancelling", and

  (c) for "clerk shall" substitute justices' chief executive shall".

  (6) In subsection (7) (interpretation), for the definition of "the relevant court" substitute—
  "the relevant justices' chief executive", in relation to an order, means—

  (a) in a case where payments under the order are required to be made to or through a justices' chief executive, that justices' chief executive;

  (b) in a case where such payments are required to be made by any method of payment falling within section 59(6) above and the order was made by a magistrates' court, the justices' chief executive for that magistrates' court; and

  (c) in a case where such payments are required to be made by any method of payment falling within section 59(6) above and the order was not made by a magistrates' court, the justices' chief executive for the magistrates' court in which the order is registered;".

  (7) In the sidenote, for "clerk" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  101. In section 60(5) (variation of order to provide that payments be made to magistrates' clerk), for "to the clerk" substitute "to the justices' chief executive for the court".
  102. In section 61(1)(b) (rules about apportionment of sums paid to clerk between two or orders)—

  (a) for "clerk to a magistrates' court" substitute "justices' chief executive", and

  (b) for "that clerk" substitute "that justices' chief executive".

  103. In section 62(1)(ii) (proceedings by clerk for sums payable to child), for "clerk or substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  104. In section 82(5A) (clerk to serve notice of hearing to consider issue of warrant of commitment for default in paying fine), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  105.—(1) Section 87 (enforcement of payment of fines by High Court and county court) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (enforcement as if sum due to magistrates' clerk in pursuance of High Court or county court order), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  (3) In subsection (3) (clerk not to take proceedings unless authorised by court after inquiry), for "clerk of the magistrates' court" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  (4) In subsection (4) (expenses of clerk in recovering sum to be treated as expenses of magistrates' courts committee), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  106.—(1) Section 87A (fines imposed on companies) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (power of court to apply for administration order or winding up), for "clerk of" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  (3) In subsection (2) (expenses of clerk to be treated as expenses of magistrates' courts committee), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  107. In section 89(2) (transfer of fine order: functions of clerk exercisable by clerk of court specified in order), for "clerk of" (in both places) substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  108. In section 90(3) (functions of clerk in relation to payment of fine to cease to be exercisable on making of order for payment to be enforceable in Scotland or Northern Ireland), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  109. In section 91(1) (functions of clerk in relation to payment of fine imposed in Scotland or Northern Ireland on making of order for payment to be enforceable in England and Wales), for "clerk of" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  110. In section 95(3) (instalments: powers of the court in relation to non-English maintenance orders), for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court,",

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  111. In section 97A(9), (10) and (11) (summons or warrant as to committal proceedings), for "clerk of" substitute "chief executive to".
  112. In section 99 (proof of non-payment of sum adjudged)—

  (a) for "clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "justices' chief executive", and

  (b) for "the clerk" (in both places) substitute "the justices' chief executive".

  113. In section 114 (payment to clerk of fees and recognizances on case stated), for "him the fees payable for the case and for the recognizances" substitute "the fees payable for the case and for the recognizances to the justices' chief executive for the court".
  114. —(1) Section 137 (fees) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (fees chargeable by clerks limited by Part I of Schedule 6), for "clerks of magistrates' courts" substitute "justices' chief executives".
  (3) In subsection (2) (no fee chargeable by clerk in respect of matters specified in Part II of Schedule 6), for "clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  115. In section 139 (application by clerk of money received on account of sum adjudged to be paid by summary conviction), for "clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  116. In section 144(1) (rules about procedure and practice to be followed in magistrates' courts and by justices' clerks), insert at the end "and justices' chief executives."
  117. In Schedule 6 (fees), in the heading to Part I (fees to be taken by clerks), for "CLERKS TO JUSTICES" substitute "JUSTICES' CHIEF EXECUTIVES".
  The Highways Act 1980 (c.66)
  118. In section 47(6) of the Highways Act 1980 (notification by clerk as to decision of justices who view allegedly unnecessary highway), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  The Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 (c.63)
  119. The Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  120.—(1) Paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 (enforcement of betting duty) is amended as follows.
  (2) In sub-paragraph (4) (notification of forfeiture and cancellation of betting office licence)—

  (a) for "clerk of" substitute "proper officer of", and

  (b) for the words from "clerk to", in the first place, to "clerk to", in the second place, substitute "proper officer of the appropriate authority who last either, granted or renewed the licence, send a copy of the order to the proper officer of".

  (3) After that sub-paragraph insert—
  "(4A) In sub-paragraph (4) above—
  "proper officer of the court" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court, and

  "appropriate authority" and "proper officer of the appropriate authority" have the same meaning as. in Schedule 1 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963."
  121.—(1) Paragraph 15 of Schedule 4 (register of permits) is amended as follows.
  (2) In sub-paragraph (1) (registers of permits, etc), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (3) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—
  "(3) In sub-paragraph (1) above, "proper officer of the appropriate authority" means—

  (a) where the appropriate authority is a committee of the justices acting for a petty sessions area, the chief executive to the justices; and

  (b) in any other case, the clerk to the authority."

  The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (c.27)
  122. —(1) Section 5 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (recognition and enforcement of maintenance orders) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (5B) (application of section 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980), in the subsection to be regarded as substituted as subsection (5) of that section, for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court,", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court,",

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (7) (requirement of payer to notify change of address to clerk of the court), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (4) After that subsection insert—
  "(8) In subsection (7), "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a magistrates' court in Northern Ireland. the clerk of the court."

  The Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c.418)
  123. —(1) Section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (order discharging or varying an attendance centre order) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (8) (clerk to deliver copies of order), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (3) After subsection (9) insert—
  "(10) In subsection (8) above, "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to the Crown Court, the appropriate officer."

  The Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983 (c.24)
  124. In section 2(2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983 (applications for occasional permissions), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.60)
  125. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  126. In section 16(10) and (11) (warrants to be returned to and retained by clerk), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  127. In section 47(3A)(b) (date for appearance on granting of bail), for "clerk to the justices" substitute "justices' chief executive."
  128.—(1) Section 73 (proof of conviction) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2) (certificate of conviction to be signed by clerk), for "clerk" (in each place) substitute "proper officer".
  (3) For subsection (3) substitute—
  "(3) In subsection (2) above, "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court, his deputy or any other person having custody of the court record."

  The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c.23)
  129. The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  130. In section 7(4) (justices' clerk to send to Director of Public Prosecutions details of certain cases which do not proceed)—

  (a) for "justices' clerk" substitute "justices' chief executive", and

  (b) for "the magistrates' court to which he is clerk" substitute "a magistrates' court for which he is the justices' chief executive".

  131. In section 23(3), (7) and (8) (discontinuance of proceedings by Director of Public Prosecutions), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 (c.57)
  132. In section 4(6) of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 (power of justices' clerks to charge fees), for "clerks" substitute "chief executives".
  The Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45)
  133. In sections 9(1) and 124(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (applications for administration order and winding up), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  The Public Order Act 1986 (c.64)
  134. In section 34(1) and (2) of the Public Order Act 1986 (notification by clerk of making or termination of exclusion order), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Coroners Act 1988 (c.13)
  135. In sections 16(1)(a) and 17(1) of the Coroners Act 1988 (coroner to adjourn inquest on being notified by clerk of proceedings relating to the death in question), for "clerk of" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c.33)
  136. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  137. In section 41(10) and (11)(a) (clerk of magistrates' court to be notified about outcome of certain proceedings in Crown Court and Court of Appeal), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  138. In section 67(1) (clerk to be notified of fine imposed by coroner), for "clerk of" clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  139. In section 81(3) to (9) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (application of proceeds of realisation and other sums), for "justices' clerk" (in each place) substitute "justices' chief executive".
  The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c.53)
  140. The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  141.—(1) Section 7 (duty of accused to provide licence to clerk of court) is amended as follows.
  (2) Number the existing provision as subsection (1) and, in paragraph (a) of that provision, for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After that provision insert—
  "(2) In subsection (1) above "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court, and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court."

  142. In sections 8(a) and 25(2)(a) (notification to clerk of date of birth and sex), for "to the clerk of a court in pursuance of section 12(2)" substitute "to a justices' chief executive in pursuance of section 12(4)".
  143.—(1) Section 26 (interim disqualification) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (7), in paragraph (b) (licence of person subject to interim disqualification to be sent to clerk), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(2) In subsection (7) above, "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court, and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court."

  144.—(1) Section 27 (production of licence) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (4) (exceptions), for "clerk" (in both places) substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(5) In subsection (4) above, "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court, and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court."

  145.—(1) Section 34B (certificate of completion of course) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsections (1), (2) (in both places), (6) and (7), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) In subsection (9)—

  (a) for "clerk of a court" substitute "proper officer of a court", and

  (b) for "clerk or" substitute "officer or".

  146. In section 34C(2) (interpretation), after the definition of "petty sessions area" insert—
  ""proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court, and

  (b) in relation to a sheriff court in Scotland, the clerk of the court;".

  147. In section 52(3)(c) (fixed penalty notice to specify justices' clerk to whom payment to be made), for "justices' clerk" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  148.—(1) Section 69 (payment of fixed penalty) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (payment to be made to justices' clerk specified in notice), for "justices' clerk" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (4) (definition of "fixed penalty clerk"), after "references to the" insert "justices' chief executive or".
  149. In section 70(4)(a) (registration certificate to be sent to clerk to justices where offender resides), for "clerk to the justices" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  150.—(1) Section 71 (registration of sums payable in default) is amended as follows.
  (2) For subsections (1) and (2) substitute—
  "(1) Where, in England and Wales, a justices' chief executive receives a registration certificate issued under section 70 of this Act in respect of any sum payable in default—

  (a) if it appears to him that the defaulter resides in a petty sessions area for which he is the justices' chief executive, he must register that sum for enforcement as a fine in that area by entering it in the register of a magistrates' court acting for that area,

  (b) if it appears to him that the defaulter resides in any other petty sessions area in England and Wales, he must send the certificate to the justices' chief executive for that area, or

  (c) if it appears to him that the defaulter resides in Scotland, he must send the certificate to the clerk of the court of summary jurisdiction for the area in which the defaulter appears to him to reside.

  (2) Where, in Scotland, the clerk of a court receives a registration certificate issued under section 70 of this Act in respect of any sum payable in default—

  (a) if it appears to him that the defaulter resides in the area of the court, he must register that sum for enforcement as a fine by that court,

  (b) if it appears to him that the defaulter resides in the area of any other court of summary jurisdiction in Scotland, he must send the certificate to the clerk of that court, or

  (c) if it appears to him that the defaulter resides in England and Wales, he must send the certificate to the justices' chief executive for the petty sessions area in which the defaulter appears to him to reside.

  (2A) Subsections (1) and (2) apply to executives and clerks who receive certificates pursuant to the provision they contain as they apply to the original recipients."
  (3) In subsection (6) (notice to defaulter), for "clerk to the justices" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  151. In sections 72(1) and (6) and 73(1)(b) and (7) (invalidity of registration notice), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  152.—(1) Section 74 (supplementary) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (4) (service of statutory declaration), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) In subsection (5) (interpretation), for paragraph (b) substitute—
  "(b) references to the proper officer of the relevant court are—

  (i) in the case of a magistrates' court, references to the justices' chief executive for that court, and

  (ii) in the case of a court of summary jurisdiction in Scotland, references to the clerk of the court, and".

  153. In section 75(6) (definition of "fixed penalty clerk" for purposes of conditional offers)—

  (a) for "justices' clerk" substitute "justices' chief executive", and

  (b) for "that clerk" substitute "he".

  154. In section 82(2) (accounting where one clerk acts for another), for "justices' clerk" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  155. In section 83(1)(b) (powers where clerk of court deceived). after "Act the" insert "justices' chief executive or".
  156. In section 84(c) (power to make regulations prescribing duties of justices' clerks), for "justices' clerks" substitute "justices' chief executives".
  The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. (c.4)
  157.—(1) Schedule 4 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (forfeiture orders) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 1(5) (meaning of "proper officer"), for "clerk of'. in the first three places, substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  (3) In paragraph 9(4) (functions of clerk to be exercised by appropriate officer of High Court in case of order made elsewhere in British Islands), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  The Football Spectators Act 1989 (c.37)
  158. In sections 7(7)(b) and 18(1) of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (duties of clerk in relation to notices of conviction and restriction orders), for "clerk of" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Children Act 1989 (c.41)
  159. The Children Act 1989 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  160. In section 83(5) (clerk to provide particulars of proceedings), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  161. In paragraph 6A(3) of Schedule 1 (variation of order to provide that payments be made to clerk), for "to the clerk" substitute "to the justices' chief executive for the court".
  162. In paragraph 24(6) of Schedule 2 (signature of clerk as evidence of contribution order), for "clerk of ' substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead Act
  1991 (c.25)
  163.—(1) Schedule 2 to the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 (supervision and treatment orders) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 3(4) (clerk to receive copy of supervision and treatment order), for "clerk to the justices" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  (3) In paragraph 10(1) (clerk to send copy of revocation of supervision and treatment order to supervising officer), for "clerk to" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  (4) In paragraph 11 (amendment of orders), in sub-paragraph (1), for "clerk to the justices" (in both places) substitute "justices' chief executive" and after that sub-paragraph insert—
  "(1A) Where the justices' chief executive for the court making the order is also the justices' chief executive for the new petty sessions area—

  (a) sub-paragraph (1)(b) above does not apply; but

  (b) the justices' chief executive shall give copies of the amending order to the supervising officer."

  (5) In that paragraph, in sub-paragraph (2), after "(1)" insert "or (1A)".
  The Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c.53)
  164. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  165. In section 20A(2) (official request is one made by clerk), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  166.—(1) Schedule 2 (enforcement etc. of community orders) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 11, in sub-paragraph (1) (procedure on revocation of order), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of and after that sub-paragraph insert—
  "(1A) In sub-paragraph (1) above "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court, the justices' chief executive for the court, and

  (b) in relation to the Crown Court, the appropriate officer."

  (3) In paragraph 18, in sub-paragraph (1) (procedure on the making of an amending order)—

  (a) for "clerk to the court" substitute "justices' chief executive for the court", and

  (b) for "clerk to the justices" (in both places) substitute "chief executive to the justices".

  (4) In that paragraph, in sub-paragraph (1A) (procedure on making of order amending drug treatment and testing order), for "clerk to the court" substitute "justices' chief executive for the court".
  The Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c.5)
  167. The Social Security Administration Act 1992 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  168. In section 107(5) and (11) (recovery of expenditure on income support), for "to the clerk" substitute "to the justices' chief executive for the court".
  169. In section 121(1)(b) (receipt of statement by clerk), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 (c.9)
  170. In section 14(5)(b) of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 (Secretary of State to send supervised release order to clerk to the justices), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  The Pension Schemes Acts 1993 (c.48)
  171. In section 68(1)(b) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (receipt by clerk of statement of failure to pay premiums), for "clerk of ' substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (c.37)
  172. In section 30(4) to (8) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (application of proceeds of realisation and other sums), for "justices' clerk" (in each place) substitute "justices' chief executive".
  The Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 (c.13)
  173.—(1) Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 (duty to provide test certificate) is amended as follows.
  (2) In sub-paragraph (3), in paragraph (b) (certificate not previously supplied to clerk), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After that sub-paragraph insert—
  "(3A) In sub-paragraph (3) "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court, and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court."

  The Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (c.21)
  174.—(1) Section 68 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (power to summon witness) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (4) (particulars of fine to be given to clerk), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After that subsection insert—"
  (4A) In subsection (1) above "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court, and

  (b) in relation to a magistrates' court in Northern Ireland, the clerk of the court".

  The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.46).
  175. In section 234(9) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (copies of probation order relating to person resident in England and Wales to be sent to clerk of relevant area), for "clerk to the justices" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  The Reserve Forces Act 1996 (c.14)
  176. The Reserve Forces Act 1996 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  177.—(1) Paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 (delivery into military, air-force or naval custody of person dealt with by court of summary jurisdiction as illegally absent) is amended as follows.
  (2) In sub-paragraph (3) (fee payable to clerk of the court), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After that sub-paragraph insert—"
  (3A) In sub-paragraph (3) "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court."

  178.—(1) Paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 (proof of outcome of civil trial) is amended as follows.
  (2) In sub-paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) (certificate signed by clerk is proof of outcome), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) For sub-paragraph (4) substitute—
  "(4) In this paragraph "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court, his deputy or any other person having the custody of the records of the court."

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37)
  179.—(1) Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (procedure where no committal proceedings for indictable-only offence) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 4(9), (10) and (11) (power of justice to take depositions etc), for "clerk of substitute "chief executive to".
  (3) In paragraph 6(7) (Crown Court to inform clerk of magistrates' court of outcome of trial), for "clerk of" substitute "justices' chief executive for".")
  199 Schedule 11, page 107, line 43, at end insert—
  ("() To the extent that that duty has effect as a duty of the Lord Chancellor he shall comply with it by making payments to persons or bodies in respect of the provision of representation by them; and, accordingly, references in this Act and any other enactment to representation (or services) funded by the Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service include representation funded by the Lord Chancellor under this sub-paragraph.
  () The Lord Chancellor shall by order made by statutory instrument make provision about such payments (including provision for reviews of, or appeals against, determinations required for the purposes of the order); and subsections (2) and (3) of section 25 of this Act shall apply to it (as if it were a remuneration order as defined by subsection (4) of that section).")
  200 Page 108. line 11, at end insert—
  ("Legal aid in Scotland
  . If section 28 of this Act comes into force before section 1 of the Tax Credits Act 1999, the reference in section 28 to disabled person's tax credit shall, until section 1 of the Tax Credits Act 1999 comes into force. have effect as a reference to disability working allowance.")
  201 Page 110, line 40, at end insert—
  ("Youth courts
  26A.—(1) Subject to any order under paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (as amended by this Act), there shall from the coining into force of section (Constitution of youth courts) of this Act be a combined youth court panel for the area consisting of the inner London boroughs and the City of London (in spite of paragraph 3 of that Schedule).
  (2) If section (Constitution of youth courts) of this Act comes into force before section 64 of this Act, then until section 64 comes into force paragraph 9 of the Second Schedule to the Children and Young Persons Act (as amended by this Act) shall not prevent there being a combined youth panel for the City of London and any other area.")
  202 Page 111. line 3, leave out ("coming into force of section 64 of this Act,") and insert ("Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority becomes the magistrates' courts committee for Greater London.")
  203 Page 112, leave out line 5
  204 Page 112, line 6, after ("liabilities") insert ("and to exercise any function")
  205 Page 112, line 7, leave out ("begins to act as a magistrates' courts committee,") and insert ("becomes the magistrates' courts committee for Greater London,")
  206 Page 112, line 9, at end insert—
  ("(2) For the purposes of sections 39A and 39B of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (inserted by section (Code of conduct) of this Act the Authority shall be treated as a magistrates' courts committee until it actually becomes the magistrates' courts committee for Greater London.")
  207 Page 112, line 9, at end insert—
  ("Schemes for transfer of property to GLMCA
  30A.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may make one or more schemes for the transfer to the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority of such of the property, rights and liabilities of—

  (a) a magistrates' courts committee,

  (b) the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District,

  (c) the council of an outer London borough. Or

  (d) the Common Council of the City of London,

  as appear to him to be appropriate to be transferred for the performance of the Authority's functions.
  (2) In this paragraph references to the "transferor", in relation to a scheme, are to the person mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) from whom property is transferred under the scheme.
  (3) A scheme under this paragraph may—

  (a) provide for transfers under the scheme to be on such terms (including terms requiring payment to the transferor) as the Lord Chancellor thinks fit,

  (b) apportion or create rights and liabilities in relation to any property transferred, and

  (c) make any appropriate, consequential, incidental or supplementary provisions.

  (4) On the day appointed by a scheme, the property, rights and liabilities which are the subject of the scheme shall, by virtue of this sub-paragraph, and in spite of any provision (of whatever nature) which would otherwise prevent or restrict the transfer, be transferred in accordance with the scheme.
  (5) Anything done (or having effect as if done) by or in relation to the transferor before the time when a scheme comes into effect for the purposes of, or in connection with, anything transferred under the scheme shall, so far as is required for continuing its effect alter that time, have effect as if done by or in relation to the Authority.
  (6) Any reference to the transferor in any document, including any enactment, constituting or relating to anything transferred under a scheme shall, so far as is required for giving effect to the scheme, be construed as a reference to the Authority.
  (7) Where rights and liabilities under a contract of employment are transferred under a scheme under this paragraph

  (a) for the purposes of Part XI of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (redundancy payments etc.), the employee shall not be regarded as having been dismissed by virtue of the transfer, and

  (b) for the purposes of that Act, the employee's period of employment with the transferor shall count as a period of employment with the Authority, and the change of employment shall not break the continuity of the period of employment.

  Stamp duty on transfer schemes
  30B.—(1) Stamp duty shall not be chargeable—

  (a) on any scheme under paragraph 30A, or

  (b) on any instrument or agreement which is certified to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue by the Lord Chancellor as made in pursuance of such a scheme.

  (2) No such scheme, and no instrument or agreement which is certified as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b), shall be taken to be duly stamped unless—

  (a) it has, in accordance with section 12 of the Stamp Act 1891, been stamped with a particular stamp denoting that it is not chargeable with that duty or that it is duly stamped, or

  (b) it is stamped with the duty to which it would be liable, apart from this paragraph.

  (3) Section 12 of the Finance Act 1895 shall not operate to require—

  (a) the delivery to the Inland Revenue of a copy of this Act, or

  (b) the payment of stamp duty under that section on any copy of this Act,

  and shall not apply in relation to any instrument on which, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), stamp duty is not chargeable.
  Continuing provision of court-houses, accommodation etc
  30C.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations provide that any petty sessional court-house or other accommodation specified in the regulations which immediately before the time when paragraph 30A comes into force was provided by—

  (a) the council of an outer London borough, or

  (b) the Common Council of the City of London,

  pursuant to section 55 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (and is not transferred under a scheme under paragraph 30A) shall after that time be provided by that council to the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority for the performance of the functions referred to in section 59A(1) of that Act.
  (2) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) may—

  (a) prescribe terms and conditions, including conditions as to payment, on which any court-house or other accommodation is to be provided, and

  (b) prohibit a council providing a court-house or other accommodation under sub-paragraph (1) from altering or extending it without the consent of the Lord Chancellor.

  (3) Any duty imposed on a council by regulations under sub-paragraph (1) may at any time be—

  (a) varied or restricted by agreement between the council and the Lord Chancellor, or

  (b) terminated by the Lord Chancellor after consulting the council.

  (4) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  Pensions of inner London court staff
  30D.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument make provision about the provision of pensions for or in respect of persons who are or have been members of the inner London court staff.
  (2) An order under this paragraph may include provision for, or in connection with—

  (a) enabling persons to participate, or continue to participate, in any pension scheme and requiring their employers to make contributions under that scheme, and

  (b) the administration or management of pension schemes or pension funds.

  (3) Provision of the kind specified in sub-paragraph (2)(a) may—

  (a) with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service, include provision for section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (pensions of civil servants etc) to apply to persons who are or have been members of the inner London court staff, or

  (b) include provision for persons who have been members of the inner London court staff but who are employees of the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority by virtue of a scheme under paragraph 30A to be regarded as continuing to be members of the metropolitan civil staffs for the purposes of section 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 (pensions of metropolitan civil staffs).

  (4) An order under this paragraph containing provision of the kind specified in sub-paragraph (3)(a) may also contain provision for such body or person as may be specified in the order to pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as he may direct, such sums as he may determine in respect of the increase attributable to such provision (so far as referable to that body or person) in the sums payable under the Superannuation Act 1972 out of money provided by Parliament.
  (5) Where an order is made under this paragraph containing provision of the kind specified in sub-paragraph (3)(a), the Minister for the Civil Service may, to such extent and subject to such conditions as he thinks fit—

  (a) delegate to any person the function of administering a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972, so far as relating to persons who are or have been members of the inner London court staff, or

  (b) authorise the exercise of that function (so far as so relating) by, or by employees of, any person.

  (6) A person to whom the function of administering a scheme made under section I of the Superannuation Act 1972 is delegated under sub-paragraph (5)(a) may, to such extent and subject to such conditions as he may determine, authorise the exercise of that function by, or by employees of, any person.
  (7) Where a person is authorised under sub-paragraph (5)(b) or (6) to exercise the function of administering a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972, anything done or omitted to be done by or in relation to him (or an employee of his) in, or in connection with, the exercise or purported exercise of the function shall be treated for all purposes as done or omitted to be done by the person who authorised him.
  (8) Sub-paragraph (7) does not apply for the purposes of—

  (a) any criminal proceedings against the authorised person (or any employee of his), or

  (b) any contract between him and the person who authorised him, so far as relating to the function.

  (9) An order under this paragraph may provide that any enactment repealed by this Act shall continue to have effect for any purpose specified in the order with such modifications as may be so specified.
  (10) A statutory instrument containing an order under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (11) In this paragraph the "inner London court staff" means—

  (a) the justices' chief executive employed by the magistrates' courts committee for the area consisting of the inner London boroughs,

  (b) any justices' clerk for that area, and

  (c) staff of the magistrates' courts committee for that area.")

  208 Page 112, leave out lines 20 to 24
  209 Schedule 12, page 112, line 35, at end insert—

  ("1973 c. 62.

  The Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.

  In section 21(2), the words from ", and in subsection" to the end.

  1974 c. 47.

  The Solicitors Act 1974.

  In section 47, in subsection (2C), the words "excluding any person from legal aid work", in subsection (2D), the words "from such work" and subsection (6).")

  210 Page 112, line 45, at end insert—

  ("1982 c. 48.

  The Criminal Justice Act 1982.

  In section 3(2), the words from ", and in subsection" to the end.")

  211 Page 113, column 3, leave out line 3 and insert—

  ("In section 42, in subsection (3), the words "from such work" and subsection (4)(b) and the preceding "and".

  Section 43(4).

  Section 44(4).")

  212 Page 113, line 11, column 3, after ("18,") insert ("19(b) and the preceding "and",")
  213 Page 114, line 14, at end insert—

  ("1998 c. 37.

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

  Section 49(1)(j).

  Section 50(5).

  In Schedule 8, paragraph 67.")

  214 Page 114, line 14, at end insert—

  ("1999 c. 00.

  The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

  Section 39(2).")

  215 Page 114, line 21, at end insert—

  ("1974 c. 47.

  The Solicitors Act 1974.

  In section 32(4), the words "to the Director of Public

  Prosecutions" and the words ", if the Director thinks fit,".

  In section 87(1), in the definition of "building society", the words "; and a reference to an account with a building society is a reference to a deposit account".")

  216 Page 114, line 36, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 9(2)(g).")
  217 Page 114, line 36, column 3, at end insert—
  ("In Schedule 2, in paragraph 3, the words "to the Director of Public Prosecutions" and the words ", if the Director thinks fit," and, in paragraph 11(2), the words from the beginning to "those provisions,".")
  218 Page 115, line 21, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 3— in paragraph 3, in sub-paragraph (1) the words "with the approval of the Treasury" and, in sub-paragraph (2), the words ", with the consent of the Treasury,", in paragraph 4(2) the words "given with the consent of the Treasury", and in paragraph 9(3), the words "with the approval of the Treasury".")

  219 Page 116, line 12, at end insert—

  ("1996 c. 25.

  The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.

  Section 13(1)(cc).")

  220 Page 116, line 14, at end insert—

  ("1998 c. 37.

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

  In Schedule 3, in paragraph 1(1), the words "on or before the relevant date".

  In Schedule 8, paragraph 127(a).")

  221 Page 116, line 32, at end insert—

  ("60&61 Vict. c. 26.

  The Metropolitan Police Courts Act 1897.

  Section 7(1).")

  222 Page 116, line 38, at end insert—

  ("2 & 3 Geo.6 c. xcvii.

  The London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939.

  In section 151(1)(bb), the word "the" immediately preceding "magistrates' courts", the words from "in the inner" to "London)" and the words "in that area".")

  223 Page 117, column 3, line 13, at beginning insert ("In section 12(1), the words from the beginning to "reference to the inner London area.".")
  224 Page 118, line 22, at end insert—

  ("1994 c. 29.

  The Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994.

  In Schedule 8, paragraph 35.")

  225 Page 119, line 20, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 4, paragraph 6.")

  226 Page 119, line 22, column 3, leave out ("3, 5 to")
  227 Page 119, line 25, column 3, leave out ("34(3)") and insert ("34")
  228 Page 119, line 26, at end insert—

  ("(1A) CONSTITUTION OF YOUTH COURTS

  Chapter

  Short title

  Extent of repeal

  23 Geo.5 c. 12.

  The Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

  In the Second Schedule, in Part I, the headings "Outside Metropolitan Area" and "Youth court panels", paragraph 1 and, in paragraph 10(a), the words "(except where the committee's area is a borough)" and Part II.

  1964 c. 42.

  The Administration of Justice Act 1964.

  Section 12.

  1969 c. 54.

  The Children and Young Persons Act 1969.

  In section 70(1), the definition of "petty sessions area".

  1980 c. 54.

  The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

  In section 146, in subsection (4), the words from "with respect to the making" to the end and subsection (5).

  1985 c. 61.

  The Administration of Justice Act 1985.

  Section 61.

  1991 c. 53.

  The Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  In Schedule 11, paragraph 40(2)(f) and (p).

  1998 c. 37.

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

  Section 48.

  1999 c. 00.

  The Access to Justice Act 1999.

  In Schedule 7, paragraphs 16(2) and (4) and 33A.")

  229 Page 120, column 3, leave out line 9
  230 Page 121, leave out lines 2 and 3
  231 Page 122, line 14, at end insert—

  ("(5A) GREATER LONDON MAGISTRATES' COURTS AUTHORITY

  Chapter

  Short title

  Extent of repeal

  60 & 61 Vict. c. 26.

  The Metropolitan Police Courts Act 1897.

  Sections 3 and 4.

  2 & 3 Geo.6 c. xcvii.

  The London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939.

  In section 151(1)(bb), the words "magistrates' courts".

  1965 c. 63.

  The Public Works Loans Act 1965.

  In section 2(1)(a), the word "and" at the end of sub-paragraph (iii).

  1967 c. 28.

  The Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967.

  Section 15(1)(a)(ii) and (9).

  1968 c. 13.

  The National Loans Act 1968.

  In Schedule 4, in paragraph l(a), the word "and" at the end of sub-paragraph (iii).

  1971 c. 56.

  The Pensions (Increase) Act 1971.

  In Schedule 6, paragraph (d).

  1991 c. 53.

  The Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Section 76(5).

  1994 c. 29.

  The Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994.

  In Schedule 8, paragraphs 24, 25 and 33(5).

  1997 c. 25.

  The Justices of the Peace Act 1997.

  In section 10(8), the words "the City of London, a London borough," and the words from "and for" to the end.

  Section 56(4).

  In section 54(9), the definition of "local funds".

  In section 55, subsection (8) and, in subsection (10), in the definition of "responsible authority", paragraph (d) and the words from "or the" to the end.

  In section 72(1), the definition of "inner London area".

  Schedule 3.

  In Schedule 4, paragraphs 7, 8, 10 and 11.

  1999 c. 00.

  The Access to Justice Act 1999.

  In Schedule 7, paragraphs 36A, 37(2)(a), 46, 47(2) and 48.

  In Schedule 8, paragraph 11.

  In Schedule 11, paragraph 26A(2).")

  232 Page 122, line 29, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In section 21(1), the definition of "proper officer".

  1964 c. 26.

  The Licensing Act 1964.

  In section 22(4), the words from ""as in" to "magistrates' court".

  Section 30(2).

  1968 c. 65.

  The Gaming Act 1968.

  In Schedule 2, in paragraph 2(2), the definition of "the clerk to the licensing authority".")

  233 Page 122, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert—

  ("1986 c. 64.

  The Public Order Act 1986.

  Section 34(3).

  1988 c. 33.

  The Criminal Justice Act 1988.

  Section 41(13).

  Section 81(10).

  1988 c. 53.

  The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

  In section 34C(2), the words from "and any reference" to the end. Section 71(4) and (5).

  In section 89(1), the definition of "justices' clerk".

  1989 c. 4.

  The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

  In Schedule 4, in paragraph 1(5), the words from "and in this sub-paragraph" to the end.")

  234 Page 123, line 8, at end insert—

  ("1998 c. 37.

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

  In Schedule 3, paragraph 6(11).")

  235 Transpose Part IV(4) of Schedule 12 to the end of line 14 on page 116
  236 In the Title, line 4, leave out from ("appeals") to ("court") in line 7 and insert (", courts, judges and")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 160 to 236. These amendments have already been spoken to.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 160 to 236.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at eight minutes past midnight.

  Law Lords: Facilities and Resources
  Law Lords: Facilities and Resources
  Sevso Case: Decision not to Prosecute
  Sevso Case: Decision not to Prosecute
  Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill: Human Rights Act
  Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill: Human Rights Act
  Press Complaints Commission: Meetings with Home Office
  Press Complaints Commission: Meetings with Home Office
  Magistrates' and Crown Courts: Number of Defendants Prosecuted
  Magistrates' and Crown Courts: Number of Defendants Prosecuted
  Identity Cards
  Identity Cards
  Race Relations Act
  Race Relations Act
  Prisons/Probation Panel
  Prisons/Probation Panel
  Metropolitan Police Committee
  Metropolitan Police Committee
  Harlan UK Ltd.
  Harlan UK Ltd.
  Anti-discrimination Legislation Review
  Anti-discrimination Legislation Review
  Kosovo: MoD Expenditure
  Kosovo: MoD Expenditure
  KFOR
  KFOR
  Armed Forces: Catering for Vegetarians
  Armed Forces: Catering for Vegetarians
  Armed Forces: Membership of Organisations of a Secretive Nature
  Armed Forces: Membership of Organisations of a Secretive Nature
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  London Underground: Penalty Fares
  London Underground: Penalty Fares
  Railway Land
  Railway Land
  M.4 Bus Lane
  M.4 Bus Lane
  Public Bills: Rules of Relevance and Scope
  Public Bills: Rules of Relevance and Scope
  Summer Recess
  Summer Recess