Sitting of 21 July 1999

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

Adjournment (Summer)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Pope.]
9.33 am
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Before the House goes into recess, I think it important to raise matters relating to the welfare of my constituents; the conduct of business with integrity; and the way in which a major national utility conducts its affairs. I wish to bring this matter to the attention of the House, of the Government and of the regulator of the Office of Water Services. I shall discuss the circumstances surrounding a planning application to build a business park, which was made by the Arrowcroft Group, the property partner of North West Water. I should like to make it clear that what I say pertains in no way to the merits of the application, which will be considered by a public inquiry under a Government inspector later this year.
I shall talk about the conduct of people in Arrowcroft, in North West Water and in other firms. I am sorry to say that their conduct involves lies, concealment, deception, double dealing, proposed blackmail, proposed bribery and attempts to manipulate Members of Parliament. Certain documents that have come into my possession arouse great concern in me.
The Waterside park planning application was mooted some time ago following the failure of a similar application. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and I visited Mr. Ferguson, the chief executive of United Utilities, at the building where North West Water and Norweb—the north-west electricity supplier—are housed, in Warrington. My hon. Friend and I met Mr. Ferguson on 27 March 1998. He assured us that no decision had been taken on whether there would be a planning application. He told us that our views would be taken into account. Furthermore, he said that he would communicate with us when a decision had been made.
However, two weeks earlier, a Mr. Terence Holden of Arrowcroft, who has been in charge of the application, wrote to Mr. Ferguson, saying:
"Dorothy told me you would be seeing Bennett and Kaufman on Friday 27th March.
By that date I shall have a much clearer picture on the timing of the application and will keep you advised.
It is important that we do not let the politicians know why we have delayed making the application i.e. because of Highways issues and the state of negotiations with Denton. This would obviously give them an opportunity to apply pressure on both Denton"—
a golf club—
"and the Highways Agency."
1104
Mr. Ferguson told us that no decision had been made, but he had two weeks previously been involved in correspondence about making the application, and about the way in which my hon. Friend and I should be dealt with and the matters that were to be concealed from us. He lied to my hon. Friend and me by saying that the application had not been decided on and that we would be contacted when a decision was made.
It has also emerged from material that has come into my possession that certain matters have been deliberately concealed and distorted by those who are planning the application. For example, a letter addressed to the design team from Michael Aukett Architects, says:
"The planners agreed that a hotel need not be included in the application."
However, I possess material that says that there would be a hotel and that even contains estimates of the number of workers to be engaged on building it and on working in it.
In addition, North West Water and Arrowcroft claimed that they would provide ample public space to replace the open countryside that they intend to destroy. However, the note goes on to say:
"The planners thought that the density of houses … could be increased considerably. They do not like public spaces in the residential areas."
They told us that there would be a lot of public space, but planned to include none.
During that period, my hon. Friend and I tried to obtain information on the damage to the environment that would be inflicted if the planning application were to succeed. There were denials that such damage would occur. Indeed, the claim was that the environment would be enhanced. However, a document circulated within Arrowcroft and North West Water refers to an increase in noise levels for properties along Cornhill lane from 40 to about 65 decibels. Earth-moving noise levels of 55 to 60 decibels were anticipated at Debdale, based on the operation of three bulldozers. Noise levels of 65 decibels were expected at Debdale for a short period; the daytime ambient noise levels would increase from between 45 to 60 decibels to between 60 to 65 decibels. The document noted that
"towards the end of the development, construction activities are likely to be taking place close to the properties at Corn Hill Lane where noise levels may be greater than those witnessed in Debdale."
The document also refers to an anticipated increase in traffic:
"This may be regarded as a detrimental impact upon the residents there."
While claiming that the development would inflict no adverse environmental impact, documents were being circulated that admitted just such an impact.
One of the worst scandals in the whole affair is the attempt to blackmail residents of an area in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend. The residents were blackmailed with detrimental developments to their environment unless they caved in and abandoned their opposition to the planning application. Once again, we shall hear from Mr. Terry Holden—I regret that he appears regularly in the narrative. A good deal of my constituency abuts directly on that of my hon. Friend; in one area, two streets—Debdale lane in my constituency and Kings road in my hon. Friend's constituency—were suffering difficulties that North West Water could have solved.

1105
Mr. Pat McCloskey of United Utilities and North West Water had arranged meetings with my hon. Friend and me. I must point out that Mr. McCloskey is almost the only individual to emerge from the whole affair honourably and with credit, and as someone who wants to do the best for the area in which his company operates. I hope that I do not do him too much damage by saying that—bearing in mind the kind of people with whom he mingles in his work. On 16 January 1998, Mr. Holden wrote to Mr. McCloskey, stating:
"The end result is that I have reluctantly agreed to meet with the residents of Cornhill Lane to both inform them of the development plans and to make a first pass at gently trying to ascertain whether they would agree to surrender their rights over Kings Road, in due course, when the new road is built."
Denton golf club—about which I shall have more to say—wanted that road to be taken out of use as one of its conditions for agreeing, in any circumstances, to North West Water's planning proposal.
Mr. Holden continued:
"The poor condition of Kings Road would be a very valuable negotiating tool if we move such discussions forward. For that reason, I have told Paula on a number of occasions that we should preferably do no works, but if we are really up against it i.e. it gets dangerous, we should only do the bare minimum as a short term measure.
I have taken the view that it could cost the residents circa £8/10,000 each as a contribution to the maintenance costs and all the time that they are faced with this potential cost we would be in a strong negotiating position."
He was intending to intimidate and to blackmail those residents over their attitude to any planning application.
I fear that I shall again have cause to refer to Mr. Holden's views on my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish and myself. The letter went on:
"I saw Andrew Bennet again this week. He did not mention the road. He and Kauffman's opposition to the development is fanatical and they will certainly try and use the road situation to their advantage in some way or other."
What that man seemed to fail to understand—obviously, it is not part of his nature—is that people can act for altruistic reasons, in order to assist their constituents. Both my hon. Friend and I have large majorities; although we should like them to be larger, we do not have to go around cherry-picking for votes.
Mr. Holden then wrote to Mr. McCloskey, who had agreed to see my hon. Friend and me, expressing his concerns that Mr. McCloskey was assisting us and our constituents by meeting us. Mr. Holden wrote:
"Bearing in mind where we are at the moment North West Water will look foolish should you now talk to them about closure of the road.
I am far from happy about the way this has been handled."
He meant that he was far from happy that Mr. McCloskey was being open and honest, and was trying to assist our constituents.
There was further correspondence about Kings road in which Mr. Holden stated that Denton golf club would not
"under any circumstances agree any arrangement which does not include for the closure of Kings Road."
1106
He continued:
"I am concerned about the negotiations which will have to be concluded with the ten or so people having rights of way over Kings Road and do not want them to get the idea when the time comes to negotiate that the whole development is dependent on the success of those negotiations!
You will now begin to appreciate why I was so concerned to learn of the discussions with the residents via Kaufman and Bennett. Our best negotiating angle with these residents is to be able to say Kings Road is in poor condition. We could repair it, but you the residents are obliged legally to pay a proportion of the cost i.e. probably £10–15,000 each. If, however, you will agree to us having an option to vary your right of way in due course when the new road is built from Manchester Road to Cornhill Lane … we will carry out short term repairs to Kings Road to improve it for a year or two at our expense. We will also pay you (say £5/10,000 each) when the option is exercised."
In effect, Mr. Holden was saying, "You get in our way and you get nothing; you help us and we'll do a bit of work for you and, in addition, we shall pay you some money."
Mr. Holden wrote again to Mr. McCloskey on 3 February 1998. He said:
"Thank you for your letter of 28th January. I have gone to considerable lengths to try and explain to you the position over Kings Road. If we do what you propose"—
that is, helping the constituents of my hon. Friend and myself—
"it will remove our best negotiating position and have exactly the opposite effect to that which I hoped to achieve.
You have no liability to pay for the repair of this road and I simply cannot understand why you should offer to do so, particularly when it creates difficulties with regard to the development strategy.
As I view the situation we have played right into the hands of Mr Bennett and Mr Kaufman. Did you not consider it odd that two MPs were getting involved on behalf of 10 residents with regard to the repair of a private access road. Also, one of the residents on Debdale Farm is the leading light in the Action Against Kingswater Campaign."
He continued:
"I don't think you will gain any goodwill with these people"—
my hon. Friend and myself—
"either in relation to the development or from the corporate point of view and my instinct would be to do nothing to help their cause for the time being."
Mr. McCloskey was badly put out by that. He had cancelled a meeting with my hon. Friend and me for what I thought were reasons arising from his own schedule of engagements, but it now emerges that he had been forced by Mr. Holden to cancel the meeting. Finally, Mr. McCloskey wrote to Mr. Holden:
"When we last met, we agreed a two week delay in arranging my meeting with Gerald Kaufman in respect of Debdale Lane. As I have now had contact from the residents and, today, a letter from Gerald Kaufman, I cannot, in all honesty, delay this matter much more."
The words "in all honesty" used by Mr. McCloskey are singularly foreign to others involved in the affair.
Two golf clubs are situated on the land. North West Water and Arrowcroft had decided to destroy one golf club—Fairfield gold club. A letter from Mr. Holden says:
"the loss of Fairfield Golf Club is unfortunate."
On the other hand, they were seeking an agreement with the other golf club—Denton golf club—to minimise the opposition at any stage of the planning process or a public inquiry. Therefore, negotiations were taking place between Arrowcroft and Denton golf club. We have a

1107
letter from Mr. Holden to Mr. M. Aukett of Michael Aukett Architects about a meeting that Mr. Aukett was going to hold with the agent of Denton golf club. The letter states:
"I am rather concerned that you are meeting Alex Dawson"—
that is the agent—
"He will try and pump you for any information he can obtain which will help his negotiations with me.
I think you must express complete ignorance of everything. Otherwise one word could upset the very sensitive balance of my negotiations with them. For example, do not tell him anything about the United Utilities meeting later this month and in particular do not tell him that we are working to get an application submitted by the end of this year.
I have led him to believe we will only submit an application when we have secured a deal with them. They must not think they have us in a corner under time constraints. Their support to the planning application is all a part of the deal so you have to do nothing to enlist their support. Please do not show them any further plans or discuss anything to do with the UDP allocation and our discussions with Tameside."
Mr. Holden was seeking negotiations with Denton golf club in which the club would be brought on side for the project, but he was lying to Denton golf club and concealing information about the course and purpose of the negotiations.
Here is Mr. Holden—yet again—writing once more to Mr. Aukett:
"One small point that occurred to me. I think perhaps we should not show your golf course layout on the planning application. I think it would be better if we simply put a red line around the proposed new Denton area and say new 'Denton Golf Course area to be re-configured to their specification'.
If we leave the holes as shown it will provide a ground for objecting by Denton Golf Club and also for members of the public".
Those people are organising a planning application about which they have lied to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish and me, about which they have concealed vital information, and about which they are now behaving in a seriously underhand manner in respect of a crucial establishment, Denton golf club, in the area that they would ruin.
I have yet another letter from Mr. Holden, in which he states:
"One way to resolve all the land issues surrounding this site (Denton, Fairfield, Kings Road, rights of way, ownership of roads etc) would be to persuade the Local Authority to use their CPO powers in due course. This would be time consuming, expensive and should only be considered as a last resort."
While negotiating—apparently in good faith—with Denton golf club, Arrowcroft prepared for the possibility of a compulsory purchase order. That order has now been applied for, and it goes way beyond the area of the planning application. Arrowcroft is now seeking to destroy both golf clubs—Denton and Fairfield.
Throughout, my hon. Friend and I have been trying to obtain details of the costs of the development, which we and all our constituents as customers of North West Water would have to pay. Those costs have been withheld from us, and I can understand why, for, within weeks, two different costings were circulating within the organisation, one of £66 million and another of £104 million. There is no reason to believe that either of those costings is accurate.
1108
Mr. Holden's attitude toward my hon. Friend and me is fairly risible. My hon. Friend is regarded as the more reasonable of us two, as most people might expect. Mr. Holden says in a letter:
"Gerald Kaufman the MP for the adjacent constituency is the principal objector, but he has not seen our development proposals and we believe he is somewhat mis-guided in his actions."
He is not the first person to have said that, and I trust that he will not be the last. However, in another letter, Mr. Holden writes:
"I suggested to Bennett that he should consider supporting the proposal very carefully. I ventured the idea that he may gain more political 'kudos' by doing so rather than by blindly condemning it."
The letter continues:
"I reached a prior agreement with Bennett that neither he nor I would publicise our meetings or use anything discussed for political ends. He has honoured that agreement so far. I am, however, doubtful whether Kaufman would agree to such an arrangement. It is not for me to make such suggestions, but you might like to consider trying to get them to agree before your meeting that it is private and that any matters discussed will not be publicised or passed on to third parties."
With an acumen that ought to ensure his employment as a political commentator for one of our better newspapers, Mr. Holden says:
"Political intelligence tells us that Kaufman no longer carries much weight in his party, particularly with 'new labour'. Bennett however appears to have straddled the divide between 'old' and 'new' labour. He has, for example been given a job on an Environmental select committee."
My hon. Friend is no longer present, because he has gone off to his job on the Environment Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, of which he is Chairman. Mr. Holden sums up as follows:
"It is not clear why but a definite view has been expressed that Bennett can control Kaufman and it is the former that we should work hard on."
Those are the matters that I thought it appropriate to bring to the attention of the House, but I should like to add one more point. Arrowcroft is the property partner of United Utilities, an enormous organisation, which owns both North West Water and the North Western electricity board, Norweb. It is therefore curious that Arrowcroft is not a public company and that all its shares are held by very few people. A list of shareholders shows an Alan Jones and, a little further down, a Catherine Leslie Jones; they live together and have 35,000 shares between them. The list of shareholders also shows a Bankim Chand Gossai and, further down, an Umeshwatie Devi Gossai; they, too, share an address. Then, we have Barbara Priscilla Eppel, who owns 440,000 shares; Leonard Cedric Eppel, who is chairman of the company and owns 600,000 shares; and Stuart Neil Eppel, who owns 330,000 shares; other members of the Eppel family are also shareholders. Nicholas Paul Hai and Rochelle Eleanor Hai own more than 360,000 shares between them. One short list comprises the names of all the shareholders in the property company of one of the biggest companies in the country—it is a family company, and the relationship between the two companies is baffling, to say the least.
However, it is clear that they are not a very successful family. While the property company registered a profit of £501,472 in 1997, in 1998—these accounts were published last month—it made a loss of £192,531. On the other hand, the family certainly know how to look

1109
after themselves. In 1997, directors' emoluments were £487,204 and, in 1998, they increased to £605,939. The emoluments of the highest-paid director increased in one year from £119,679 to £194,353. The House may agree that certain fishy matters should be investigated.
First, in the light of the evidence that I have presented to the House today, I believe that it would be best for North West Water to withdraw the planning application instantly because it is a shoddy, seedy affair. Secondly, the company should dismiss Mr. Holden who is, at best, a fool and, at worst, a rogue. He does not do any credit to the company for which he works. Finally, I believe that the matter should be referred to Ofwat because a major water company is acting in property speculation in a most disreputable and deceitful way.
10.2 am
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I appreciate this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House a subject of overwhelming importance in my constituency. However, I assure hon. Members that I shall not speak for as long as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). When one has a safe seat, it is hardly fair to those hon. Members who represent less safe seats to speak for 30 minutes in this valuable debate.
Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have spoken in debates of this sort for more than 25 years on behalf of my constituents.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mrs. Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I respect him greatly but, in a debate such as this, it behoves us to be quite brief. I shall try to be that.
I wish to raise the matter of the future of the British Aerospace site at Dunsfold. In recent months, I have received many letters from the up to 1,000 employees on that site whose jobs are in jeopardy. I have also received many letters from members of the local community who value the contribution that the site, which dates back to 1941, makes to the local economy. Many other hon. Members who have Dunsfold workers living in their constituencies have also received letters, and the House will be aware that there is an early-day motion about this problem.
Dunsfold is the home of the Harrier. In the 1960s, this remarkable British aircraft was developed at Dunsfold and it has been manufactured and serviced there ever since. The Hawk aircraft was also developed at Dunsfold in the 1970s. It was manufactured at the site from 1974 until 1989, when production was moved to northern England. Both aircraft continue to provide employment for those at Dunsfold. The Harriers built at Dunsfold are in service to the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy, the United States Marine Corps and the Spanish, Indian, Italian and Thai navies. The Hawks are in service in the United Kingdom, Finland, Kenya, Indonesia, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, the United States, Oman, Malaysia and Australia. In other words, Dunsfold is an internationally known site that is important to other nations besides the United Kingdom.
1110
The Secretary of State for Defence and the House must consider whether the proposed closure jeopardises the long-term viability and integrity of the Harrier fleet. There are also wider questions concerning regional development. These are highly specialised jobs in a prosperous region of the country. With the development of the service industry, financial services and other related industries, specialised design and manufacturing engineering jobs are playing an enormously important role in the employment ecology of the south-east. We must ask how the regional development agencies, and therefore the Departments of Trade and Industry and of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, can play an effective role. Many of us are highly sceptical that regional development agencies are anything more than road blocks and paper pushers. The RDA has certainly been characteristically inert and inactive throughout this saga.
In recent months, I have been in regular contact not only with the management at Dunsfold but with the shop stewards, who have behaved in a tremendously constructive, enlightened and responsible manner. Alan Whyte, a supervisor, was recently quoted in the Financial Times as saying:
"I have been working here for 29 years and to come in this morning and hear that the job will come to an end over the next 18 months has come as a little bit of a shock."
All of us accept that we live in a world where employment insecurity is part of day-to-day life. However, there are particular questions surrounding these highly skilled and specialised professions, which have been honed over 30 years of work on the Hawk and the Harrier.
The Harrier is built differently from most modern aircraft in that it is essentially hand crafted. Many in the House have greater expertise in these matters than I, but all hon. Members will agree that the Harrier has systems and modifications that have never been used elsewhere. Those traditional aircraft skills, together with the unique Harrier experience, exist nowhere else.
Although British Aerospace has suggested that it will seek to redeploy the Dunsfold workers at other sites, that does not mean that all will be saved from unemployment. Some employees may be able to find alternative work in the area. However, we must not overlook the fact—I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to satisfy himself about this point—that this team has worked closely together for the past 10 years. A team has existed for 30 years, but this team has worked collaboratively for the past 10 years. Evidence suggests that only about 5 or 10 per cent. of the team would be prepared to relocate because their way of life and their families are established in the south-east. If those employees do not move to the north, it will raise serious questions about the viability of the Harrier programme.
A major new factor is the establishment of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence recently met members of the shop stewards committee to talk about unfair competition. Serious questions remain. I have had on-going correspondence with the Secretary of State for Defence on this subject. The fact is that the rates charged to the Ministry of Defence for return to work on Harriers are £30 an hour at DARA and £51 at Dunsfold. That is because DARA's cost structure is not the same. It operates on an RAF base where infrastructural costs, such as security, runway maintenance and some power charges, are covered by

1111
the MOD. DARA does not have to add in a headquarters charge, a write-off charge or a 10 per cent. profit margin. In other words, it is not a level playing field.
I ask the Secretary of State for Defence, through the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, whether he will establish a formal partnership between DARA and Dunsfold on the Harrier programme. In that way, this wonderful site, those skilled workers and the contribution that they make both to the defence force in Britain and to our exports could be maintained. This Thursday, hon. Members whose constituencies are affected by the announcement and I will meet John Weston, the chief executive of British Aerospace. Obviously, we shall want to ask him many questions about how, with that expert team under threat, he can be confident that he can continue to satisfy many of his major customers, including, for example, Boeing, to which he is committed to delivering one aircraft a month.
That is not a matter for the House. However, the House should be concerned about whether the Secretary of State will intervene to ensure that the Harrier programme will not be put in jeopardy and that the assumptions are not over-ambitious and unrealistic, and to say whether he will be prepared to set up a formal partnership with DARA, as outlined in the early-day motion. Furthermore, the DETR and the DTI should reconsider their role. If regional development agencies and Government offices simply produce rhetoric and, when difficult issues arise, get involved only in passing paper, disillusionment will grow. Those jobs make an enormously important contribution in the south-east.
Finally, I make a recommendation that I hope will not be necessary. The Government should adopt a responsible attitude to what might happen to the site in the long term if it is not possible—although I believe that it will be—to reconsider many of the underlying arguments. I commend the activities of Waverley borough council which, with the support of the county council and the Surrey training and enterprise council, under the auspices of the Surrey economic partnership, commissioned an impact study in the light of the announcement. I hope that, before my constituents go away for their summer break, they will, as a result of my having raised the issue in the House, be able to go with greater confidence, good cheer and optimism.
10.11 am
Mr. David Taylor: I want to draw to the attention of the Minister and the House the urgent need for more effective ways to control the major problem for those who live near airports and airfields—aircraft noise, particularly at night.
In my brief time in the House, there have been several debates about the need for action on behalf of those communities enduring chronic night noise from local airports. I want to make my own contribution and suggestions for a possible way ahead. Earlier this year, early-day motion 533, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), summarised the impact of aircraft noise on nearby communities. As it said, night noise has adverse social consequences and may have a damaging effect on the health of those who live close to airports.
Civil aviation is powering ahead, fired by open access policies. Published air traffic predictions show an annual growth trend of 6 per cent., which will double the number
1112
of flights every 12 years and could dramatically upset the delicate balance between economic expansion and environmental restraint.
Airlines and airports say that aircraft are becoming quieter, and indeed they are. The phasing out, under international agreements, of the noisier chapter 2 aircraft by 2002 is welcome, but it should be noted that, already, 80 per cent. or more of UK-registered large jets are of the more modern and theoretically quieter chapter 3 type. Despite the progressive introduction of those quieter engines, overall noise is escalating because of the greater number of larger aircraft involved, so Government intervention is absolutely necessary.
Last July, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions published a transport White Paper, which stated, among other things, that the Government would enact legislation to enable local authorities to enforce noise mitigation measures for airfields and airports. That legislation and those enforcement powers cannot come soon enough. Noise is a very important issue for those whose homes are near airports or under flight paths.
My particular interest in this matter arises from the presence of East Midlands airport in my constituency. The airport's origins were very much rooted in the local authority consortium that developed it, managed its operations and liaised effectively with nearby residents if problems arose. Since its sale to the private sector some years ago, the airport's fortunes have taken off rapidly.
The airport is now a major employer for our area: 5,000 jobs are located in and around the airport. It is a major regional asset in the provision of scheduled and charter passenger flights. It is a major player in the air freight market. It is the latter point that can produce problems for those living near the airport.
The airport is surrounded by many villages in Leicestershire's border region with Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and I recently attended a meeting of the parish councils from those villages, who have formed an umbrella group called the Association of Airport Related Parish Councils, or AARPC. Each parish council itemised to us a litany of concerns about the airport, but in every case the core worry was that of night noise, either from over-flying or ground running.
AARPC is urging the local planning authority to protect the well-being of communities near the airport by imposing appropriate restrictions on airport operations. What it is seeking appears to me to be a good template for the extra environmental powers that central Government should consider giving to local government. I shall give two brief examples.
First, AARPC says, flight paths should be agreed so as to minimise the over-flying of residential areas, particularly at night. Secondly, the group is pressing for a regulatory framework that can ensure that ground running and the older chapter 2 or comparable freight aircraft are not a feature of night operations.
It is not only local parish councils that protest long and loud to me. I have a sizeable postbag of complaints from individuals, particularly from the large village of Kegworth. I see a continual stream of constituents at my advice sessions. I have spoken at public meetings called to discuss airport noise. At least three independent community groups are lobbying hard for environmental

1113
improvements to the airport. They are Save Aston Village Environment, or SAVE, People Against Intrusive Noise, or PAIN, and Wings.
Two criticisms frequently surface in my discussions with residents and protest groups. The first is their belief that airport authorities are not policing the flight paths of user aircraft as closely as they might, especially at night. Secondly, residents and protest groups believe that local authorities should monitor aircraft noise at a range of locations in the affected communities. The data from that comprehensive array of survey points would firmly establish the shape and size of the noise contours within the overall noise footprint. The results of the survey should be subject to systematic audit by an independent body before being brought into the public domain and being fed into the planning process when further development is being sought by airport operators, or for enforcement action if appropriate or necessary.
To be fair to East Midlands airport, I must point out that its development policy recognises that it has a duty to minimise and manage the impact of its business on the environment and local villages. Indeed, the first key issue spelt out by its development policy document is tackling the noise associated with planned increases in air traffic movements, which will be linked to two projected extensions to the runway.
Within the obvious and paramount requirements of airport and aircraft safety, the airport has a duty to minimise the noise generated by its operations, but more has to be done if local communities are to be satisfied and noise levels are to be acceptable.
I shall now move briefly from the particular difficulties of our regional airport to the general lessons that can be learned from our experience and applied to the national scene. There is an increasing demand in a fast-moving world for rapid distribution of goods. That in itself puts enormous pressures on air freight services, which can translate into a serious environmental impact on airport communities, binding their quality of life tightly to the operational characteristics of their commercial neighbour. Airport communities badly need a control framework that resident and environmental organisations agree is so lacking at present.
Environmental limits must be set for existing and new or extended airports. Those limits would be permanent criteria that would have to be observed at all times. Their range and type would of course vary to reflect local geography and circumstances, but a number of core limits would apply to all airports. Those would include a cap on the number of air traffic movements, a restriction on types of aircraft to be operated, approved tracks for aircraft related to runway configuration and controlled times of operation. The limits would also specify noise contours to be observed. They would control overnight running of engines or ground power units, the location of public safety zones and a good deal more. The overall aim is to fix limits on air traffic and noise levels permitted at an airport and to define a physical area beyond which further development will not be sanctioned.
An unquestioning attitude to demand-led projections for airport growth is entirely inconsistent with any concept of sustainable development with which I am familiar. In an ideal world, there will be no need for
1114
national noise legislation. Indeed, the White Paper specifically encourages airports to enter into voluntary noise mitigation agreements with their local authorities, and planning policy guidance 24 spells out how planning authorities can best use powers to minimise noise impact by specifying conditions and criteria for permitting noise-sensitive and noise-generating developments.
However, the Government will need to legislate to give new powers to airports and local authorities—to airports so that they can take action against, for instance, non-compliant airlines, and to local authorities so that they can enforce noise mitigation agreements.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House are well aware of the major economic benefits associated with the United Kingdom's network of airports. That commercial success need not be, indeed will not be, jeopardised by a better regulatory framework for noise control. Our Government must not turn a deaf ear to the clamour of concern expressed by airport communities about the night noise that they must endure. It is imperative that there is early legislation to allow both airport shareholders and airport neighbours to get a good night's sleep.
10.22 am
Mr. Anthony Steen: I am worried about three issues, with which I hope the Minister will deal in his winding-up speech so that I may go into the recess much more happily. First, I am worried about bed-blocking in my constituency. It is totally alien to the concept of the national health service and to the Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Act 1992. Secondly, I am concerned about the installation and location of mobile telecommunications masts and their effect on health. Thirdly, I am troubled about the main corridor of public transport between the west country and London: the former Great Western Railway, which is now run by FirstGroup.
Mr. Martin Salter: Hear, hear.
Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman has not used the service to the west country, has he?
Bed-blocking is a scurrilous practice that comes about because of bickering between the health authority and local authority social services departments—regardless of what is best for the patient. Some elderly people in South Hams and Torbay are occupying beds in hospitals which they should not be occupying. Often, they are well enough to be moved and should be in residential and nursing homes, which are not full. The phenomenon known as bed-blocking is an absolute disgrace. It uses scarce NHS resources and causes stress to patients and a deterioration in their health following treatment.
So long as the local authority keeps an elderly person in hospital, it does not have to pay for the care. The moment that the patient is discharged from hospital, the responsibility for and cost of care shifts to the local authority social services department budget. The Government pay so long as an elderly person is in hospital, but social services must pick up the tab—paid for from the council tax—as soon as the person is moved into the community.
It costs about £500 to £1,000 a week to provide a bed in a cottage hospital, and between £1,500 and £2,000 a week to keep an elderly person in a district or general

1115
hospital. It does not take much intelligence to work out that given that social services are prepared to pay just in excess of £200 a week for care in a residential home and just over £300 a week for care in a nursing home—non-economic derisory sums that will no doubt be subject to future debates—the local authority is placing an enormous and avoidable burden on the taxpayer by keeping an elderly person in hospital. Refusal to place patients in private residential homes at the appropriate time increases the cost of care almost fourfold.
That is one of the worst examples of financial mismanagement and complete disregard for the welfare of the individual that I have come across. Just by chance, the two local authorities in my constituency—Devon county council and Torbay unitary authority—are Liberal Democrat-controlled. I therefore have the misfortune of having two Liberal Democrat social services departments, which are manipulating the elderly in order to save on council tax.
If social services continue such a practice, I imagine that it will be entirely appropriate for the health authority to contract services directly with the private sector in order to keep costs down. I cannot understand why the local cottage hospital cannot enter into private contracts with local residential and nursing homes and thereby bypass social services departments completely.
Mobile telephone towers impinge on our health. We all complain about these dreadful people—I know that there are none in this place—who walk around with mobile phones, bleepers and various other things. We now see them all over the place. Such people are always waiting for a phone call from someone terribly important—a world leader if one is a politician, or a billionaire for a major contract if one is in industry. They have become as obnoxious as smokers in restaurants. They are on trains and aeroplanes; walking around with such phones has become a disease. People need never be alone so long as they have their mobile phone. How many people do we see sitting alone in cafes and restaurants but talking to somebody on the phone because that makes them feel comfortable?
Given that such phones clearly have a function, it is not surprising that mobile phone towers and base stations are needed to enable people to conduct their conversations. Such towers and masts are growing faster than leylandii, and are now being erected close to many private houses. One recent application in South Hams was for a tower about 100 yd from a large village settlement just outside Totnes.
We are discovering that mobile phones can stew our brains. I hope that hon. Members—at least my hon. Friends—move the phone from one ear to the other so that they stew both sides of their brains. There is no doubt that mobile phones generate much heat. The implication is that masts might also generate heat and, being so close to people's homes, affect the bodies of those who live near them. We now know that heat from the sun is carcinogenic, that smoking gives off heat and causes cancer and that there is a risk that mobile phones cause cancers and growths. There must be a risk that mobile phone towers give off rays that affect our health.
In view of that, will the Government confirm that an environmental impact assessment should be made of every application to erect such towers and that it should include a health risk assessment? As I was one of the first
1116
Members of Parliaments to raise the risk of genetically modified crops in the House about a year and a half ago, it is fitting that I should also raise the health risk from mobile phone towers and base stations.
My third point concerns First Great Western Trains. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that Labour Members are present to support me. It is very good that they are, and perhaps they will remain. To get down to Devon and Cornwall one may drive, but the Deputy Prime Minister does not like us doing so, although it is far cheaper and often as quick as going by train. I pay tribute to FirstGroup, which, since it took over Great Western, has wrestled with intractable problems—old rolling stock, worn engines, bumpy track and a work force who seem to have lost much of their morale.
The trains have hardly ever run on time since FirstGroup took over. I am always interested in the reasons for the delay. There are cows on the line near Westbury. I do not know why cows like the line around Westbury, but they are always out on the track. There are sheep at Castle Cary. There are sometimes leaves in tunnels, but I do not know how they get there. Bridges are always being struck by lorries, which delays trains by anything up to an hour, and signal boxes are being knocked out by lightning.
Further delays are caused by passenger incidents. Miraculously, people seemed to fall ill as soon as the train gets to a station, and the train has to stay in the station until the ambulance arrives. Why the patient cannot be left with the station master or one of the station staff while the train carries on, I shall never know.
As hon. Members know, two years ago the service was deplorable and one was lucky to get to the other end without some catastrophe taking place. It has improved; I pay tribute to FirstGroup for that improvement. In the past few months, trains have been arriving more or less on time. However, there is a new timetable. In the summer timetable, journey times have been extended so that what used to be the fast train to Exeter, which took two hours, now takes two hours and 15 minutes. Trains are running to time, but the timetable has been extended.
There is provision in the railway franchises for compensation to be paid when trains arrive more than an hour late. Why should it be necessary to write to FirstGroup for compensation? Why cannot the station master at the station at which one arrives appear, carrying a big bag, and hand money out to the passengers when they get off the train and present their ticket? That would compensate them to some extent for being stuck on the train for the extra hour.
It is a long journey to Devon or the west country, and catering facilities have taken a nose-dive recently. I cannot understand why the items in the catering car cannot be British. These are British trains; why do we always have to have French water? There are about 55 springs in this country. Can you imagine a French train sporting English wine, Mr. Deputy Speaker? You could never expect to see that.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I hope not.
Mr. Steen: There is nothing wrong with English wine. There are about 450 commercial English vineyards, and I know that Madam Speaker enjoys a glass of English wine, as I do.

1117
However, the quality of the products stocked in the catering car has gone downhill. Worse, many of the restaurant cars and the various foods that should be available on the train are not there and the facilities are not provided. Many people rely on the restaurant car when travelling to Cornwall, and it is a great disappointment and a cause of considerable friction when the advertised facilities are not provided.
Finally, the smoking saga on Great Western deserves a mention. If one happens to be a first-class passenger at the weekend, one cannot avoid sitting in a smoking coach. People pour in from every part of the train to smoke in the first-class coach, and a first-class traveller at the weekend needs a gas mask to avoid those smokers who tend to come from the weekend first section. Labour Members probably do not have such problems because they all travel second class—I wonder whether they do—but if one is paying the full price, one wants to be able to travel in a non-smoking coach at the weekend. My advice to first-class weekend travellers is not to pay the first-class price; they should just pay for a second-class ticket and upgrade because they will be smoked out anyway.
I shall not be happy unless those three issues—bed-blocking, mobile phone towers and Great Western—are addressed before we rise next week.
10.34 am
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I want to address the House on some of the benefits that have come to my constituency from the Government and then to consider one or two points arising in Ireland.
Before I start talking about the good news for Hull, I should say that we have had one or two disappointments. We did not get our single regeneration budget money this year, for the first time ever, and we did not get our medical school, yet again. However, my constituency has had considerable help from the Government. We have an education action zone, which is changing the attitude of parents, students and teachers and is well supported by local industry. The local newspaper, the Hull Daily Mail, has led a vigorous campaign on raising standards, which is badly needed in the city of Hull, and especially in my constituency.
We have a sure start scheme, which will be of tremendous importance in parts of my constituency where we have a great many teenage pregnancies and single young unmarried mothers. That will do important work in Orchard Park ward and University ward. We shall also be a pilot area for the new deal for the over-50s.
Part of the problem is that the present Government tend to do good by stealth and do not always get their message across about what is happening in individual constituencies, which is of great importance. Help for education in Hull has been of particular strength, giving purpose and ambition, for the first time, to many young people in an area where there is a lack of skilled employment and a great need for important investment to improve citizens' skills.
Although we have been given enormous help for education, we have suffered considerably in relation to access funds, the announcement of which was delayed this year. Two sixth-form colleges in the city and a
1118
general college—Hull college, Wilberforce college and Wyke college—have all had to write to Professor Melville, chairman of the Further Education Funding Council, drawing attention to what has happened.
It might be easier for the House if, instead of making all the points at length, I read out one of the letters that has been sent to Professor Melville. It says:
"Re: Student Support/Access Funds.
This college has now received its Access Fund allocation after considerable delay and well after the date when we expected the information. It is now clear, after discussions with Kingston upon Hull Local Authority representatives, that the amount made available to students in financial need in this area will be considerably reduced.
As you are no doubt aware, participation in post-16 education in Hull is very low in comparison to the national average. There are a number of factors which influence the staying-on rate but the fact that the Government has introduced EMAs in pilot areas in order to increase the post-16 participation level would seem to imply an acceptance that an appropriate level of financial support is of great importance.
Against this background the College Corporation has a great deal of anxiety that students in this area will be less likely to participate in post-16 education as the level of support available to them is drastically reduced. We have calculated that a student who would previously have received £750 will now only receive between £350 and £400, and we believe this is likely to have an impact, not only on recruitment but also on retention, in this college where a large percentage of our students formerly received"
grants. It continues:
"The principle of equality of student support nationally is one which we may all feel able to support, but the reality is that students in Hull will lose out in order to benefit students in more affluent areas where the staying-on rate is already higher."
Enormous investment is being made in the education action zone in an attempt to raise pupils' aspirations, but when pupils reach the age of 16 and transfer to other institutes of further education their grant will be considerably reduced, so the carrot part of encouraging them to stay on in further education will be considerably reduced. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and his colleagues should discuss seriously with Professor Melville of the Further Education Funding Council the effects of such schemes in cities like Hull. It cannot be the Government's intention—indeed, it is not—that the introduction of such schemes should act as a deterrent to students staying on in education, particularly when there is such a great need to encourage pupils to take up their places.
I now turn to some matters that concern Ireland, which to a degree have been overlooked because of the attention that we have been paying to the peace process over the past few weeks. To some extent, that has hidden other things. I shall make three points.
First, I condemn the scurrilous campaign that has been waged against the Bloody Sunday inquiry, including its purpose and its origins. The campaign has involved the witnesses, the judges and the manner in which the inquiry is being conducted. If there were a campaign to undermine the integrity of an inquiry taking place in a court of law, there would be grounds for the Attorney-General to take action for contempt of court. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will consider the campaign against the inquiry and against the integrity of those who are taking part in it, which could affect the attitudes of witnesses. Perhaps he will consider whether the newspapers involved in the campaign are committing a contempt.

1119
Secondly, I draw attention to two newspaper articles that appeared on 27 June about a Mr. Stobie. One was written by Ed Maloney in The Sunday Tribune and the other by Chris Ryder in the Irish edition of The Sunday Times. Mr. Stobie was on trial nine years ago for possession of weapons, which he alleged had been placed in his property by the police. It is a strange case. When it came to trial, Mr. Stobie claimed that he had been an agent of the security forces and that unless something was done he would reveal all that he knew. A full account of these matters can be found in the newspaper articles to which I have referred.
The important thing about the case of Mr. Stobie is that when possession of arms is alleged in Northern Ireland the onus is on the accused to prove that he had the weapons legitimately. The strange feature is that the police withdrew the case against Mr. Stobie nine years ago after he had made his strange outburst in court. Not only did they do that but they had entered a verdict of not guilty of the offence alleged. It is difficult to see how that can be when the onus on the defence has been changed and a statement has been made setting out the various allegations. The case is then suddenly dropped like a hot potato by the police. Bearing in mind what is coming up under Chris Patten in his report on the RUC, the connections between prosecutions, police informers and its role in myriad cases should be considered extremely carefully.
Thirdly, an inquiry is being conducted in response to the complaints made by the late Mrs. Rosemary Nelson. A leaked document was printed in the newspapers from the chairman of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland. He had produced a commentary on the RUC investigation. It is quite a damning document about the police attitude in the Nelson case. I shall read out the introduction to the commentary to enable the House to get the flavour of it. I shall not take too long because I do not want to waste the time of the House. The introduction reads:
"In June 1998 the Chairman of the ICPC, through the medium of an 'in confidence' letter, brought to the attention of the Chief Constable the supervising member's concerns"—
that is Geralyn McNally—
"about the RUC's conduct of investigations in the Nelson complaints case. This letter stated the concerns in broad terms and provided some illustrative examples. In the ensuing discussions between the Member, the Chief Constable and the Chairman … the supervising Member rejected any suggestion that her concerns should be expressed in terms of a formal complaint."
That suggestion was made to her by the Chief Constable. The document continues:
"This was because her association with the investigation was on the basis of her public appointment under statute."
She was not involved, therefore, as a private citizen. The document then states:
"To position herself as a citizen with a grievance, as opposed to an official office holder drawing attention to serious concerns, would have been wholly inappropriate and essentially undermining of her statutory role. The Chief Constable was not of a mind to exercise his discretion to have the matter formally investigated under Article 8 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. He did, however, decide to request Commander Mulvihill of the Metropolitan Police, who had been brought in to take over the substantive complaints inquiry, to review also the original RUC investigation."
That is the background to the case.
1120
The conclusions reached by the chairman of the ICPC read:
"The report that has been produced could be criticised on a number of levels, not least of them being that it lacks balance."
That is the Mulvihill report. The conclusion continues:
"I have worked with Ms McNally for two years now and I am unaware of any defects of intellect"—
she is the supervising officer—
"vision, hearing, memory or personal integrity on her part. The outcome of her supervision of this case was not 'the subjective view of one individual' but rather a systematic evaluation of the facts in the matter as they were presented to her. Although the report liberally strays into uninvited comment on the part played by the Commission in this investigation, Mr. Mulvihill offers no personal evaluation of Ms McNally, unlike the Chief Inspector whom, as has already been noted, he considers to be a principled man imbued with a strong sense of duty."
It is interesting that when this matter came to be considered again there was no official examination of the supervising officer, Ms McNally. That is a deficiency and it applies also to the Mulvihill report. The conclusion continues:
"Throughout the review, the Commander is frequently faced with either accepting Ms McNally's account of events or that of the Chief Inspector. He consistently opts for the version offered by the Chief Inspector. As was stated at the beginning of this paper, Commander Mulvihill's review lacked the standing of a fully-fledged inquiry and this is reflected in its process, analysis and outcomes. This is in no way a personal criticism of him. He undertook a very difficult assignment with honesty and integrity, but the parameters which were set for the task inevitably meant that many of the opinions which were expressed by him have no more standing than that: they are opinions."
The analysis states that there were several matters of the utmost importance. The first was that the RUC initially refused to investigate the allegations that officers made death threats against Mrs. Nelson and agreed to do so only under pressure from the ICPC. When it did so, it treated the matter as a question of incivility. I accept that a death threat to a solicitor is incivility but others might suggest that it is something stronger than that, something more serious and something that should have been examined with a greater sense of urgency than was shown in this instance. Mr. Donnelly, the chairman of the ICPC, takes the view that treating the matter as one of incivility could be regarded as
"resistance to and trivialisation of a serious matter."
Mr. Donnelly said that
"a senior RUC officer probing the death threat claims told at least one officer tinder investigation to prepare a statement in advance of interview."
That is contrary to all practice on this island. Later, Mr. Donnelly states that the officers involved were given witness statements of what was being said about them. Again, that is unusual in such an inquiry. The RUC accepted that it was unusual, and it is hoped that it will not happen again.
Mr. Donnelly cites evidence of RUC officers being interviewed on serious charges and asks whether their attitudes are tolerated by the organisation. In some cases, answers to questions were no more than four lines. In many cases there were no substantive answers to questions, only "No comment" or "See my statement." That is regarded by the inquiring officer as being a rigorous inquiry.

1121
Mr. Donnelly notes that, as I pointed out, Sir Ronnie
"was not of a mind to exercise his discretion to have the matter formally investigated"—
a matter in which a solicitor claims death threats from RUC officers. So the matter goes on. I shall not weary the House with further details of the complaints.
While we have been discussing the extremely important matter of devolution in Northern Ireland, which we hope will be achieved later this year, matters are still bubbling on in Northern Ireland, sometimes below the surface and sometimes above it. It is sometimes difficult to sustain the belief that the RUC is treating some serious matters with the proper respect and consideration that they deserve. That is shown in the Nelson inquiry and Mr. Donnelly's report, which reveal collusion between the police when threatened by further evidence given by people who have been involved on the murkier side of the security services. Collusion has also been shown in the Stobie matter.
Moreover, there has been a deliberate and virulent campaign by serious newspapers to undermine the integrity of the Bloody Sunday inquiry, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General should consider whether that constitutes a contempt of court.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I say to the House that a large number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye and, unless contributions are considerably shorter, many of them will be disappointed?
10.50 am
Mr. Richard Livsey: Mindful of what you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try to be brief.
I wish to raise an urgent matter—the state of the United Kingdom sheep industry. Unless immediate action is taken, there will be an exodus from many of the upland areas of Britain. Despite the welcome news last week of the lifting of the beef ban, in practical terms that was largely a psychological lift—not much beef is likely to be exported in the near future as we have lost an entire market.
The Competition Commission report on the dairy sector has not brought joy. That was covered in a debate last week and was sufficient to make the president of the National Farmers Union in Wales announce that he was quitting dairy farming because he could not see any future in it.
I shall try to straddle not the divide between new Labour and old Labour, which was mentioned earlier, but the divide that still exists between the countryside and urban Britain. The vast majority of people in the UK are entirely ignorant of the crisis in the sheep industry. The situation is so serious that in earlier times it would have warranted a royal commission to investigate it and make recommendations.
The sheep industry is suffering as much as other sectors but receives scant publicity. It is the dominant industry in most of Wales, Scotland, Cumbria, north Yorkshire, the Peak district and much of south-west England. It also has
1122
an important role in Northern Ireland. A contraction of the industry would cause much of rural Britain to be further depopulated, and the knock-on economic damage would be equally devastating. The impact on family farms would be enormous.
In my constituency this week, the Royal Welsh Agricultural Society is holding its great show—the largest in the UK in terms of the numbers of visitors. Forty breeds of sheep will be on show, more than at any other show in Britain. It is my duty to speak up not only for my constituents but for all sheep farmers in the United Kingdom. The past three years have been the worst for sheep farming that I can recall in a life that has been spent working in or very close to the livestock industry. Except during the times that I have been blessed to serve in the House, I have been much involved in farming matters.
In my constituency there are far more sheep than human beings—no fewer than 16 sheep to every person. I started my working life at the age of eight, droving sheep from the mart to the railway station and was paid small sums for doing so. Never have I been so worried about the future of the area that I represent and the upland areas of Britain. The root of that worry is the crisis in the sheep industry. I no longer have a pecuniary interest in the industry, but many people whom I know have.
Many hon. Members serve constituencies in which sheep farming plays an important role, and I am sure that they will understand my concern. It is no exaggeration to say that the future of areas such as rural Wales depends primarily on the recovery of the sheep industry. I have no doubt that the same is true in Scotland and vast tracts of rural England. It is not a matter for flippancy; nor is it a storm in a teacup. In debating sheep, we are discussing the future of hundreds of thousands of people and millions of hectares of the United Kingdom.
The average price of finished lambs at the farm gate has fallen by 40 per cent. over the past three years, and 30 per cent. over that in the past month. That has produced a similar decrease in the prices achieved by farmers for store lambs sold off the hills for further finishing on lowland farms, and also for breeding ewes. At the same time, the increase in the value of sterling has driven down the value of European Union subsidies received by sheep farmers, and returns for lambs as well. The sheep industry has suffered a multi-whammy, as there has also been a disastrous 40 per cent. drop in the value of wool on world markets.
The Government's figures show that average farm incomes in the hills have dropped by more than 40 per cent. in each of the past two years. With an average hill farm income in Wales standing at £5,000 per year last year, it is certain that many of those farms are operating at a substantial loss this year. They are also subject to a hill livestock compensatory allowance review, which will have a major impact on the industry.
It is clear that there is no return on the capital invested in the average sheep farm, when drawings are allowed for. I defy anyone to raise a family and live properly on such an income, let alone reinvest in a business. Unless the situation is turned around, there will be no investment in hill farming. To turn it around, the fortunes of the sheep industry will have to improve dramatically.
The tragedy is that the EU is short of sheepmeat. There is no overproduction of sheepmeat in Europe, but we cannot get enough of our sheepmeat onto the European

1123
market to satisfy the demand that undoubtedly exists. It is intensely frustrating that our neighbours in France, for example, are getting prices for Iamb that are 50 per cent, higher than those in Britain. Clearly, we have a marketing problem, not overproduction.
With too much sheepmeat left on the domestic market because it cannot be exported successfully, the big supermarket buyers hold the whip hand. They can force prices down through pressure on the meat processors. One has only to visit a livestock market to see the mobile phones, about which we have just heard, being used by buyers at the other end of the line to tell people in the ring how much they can bid. It smacks somewhat of a cartel.
A further problem is that there are too many old ewes producing hard-to-market small lambs. Last autumn they were practically valueless and have been kept on into the current season. We have many problems, but in the past fortnight we in Wales have started to construct a new all-Wales livestock marketing co-operative to try to tackle some of them. Salvation will come through co-operation—particularly in England now that the regional development agencies, which may be able to help, have been set up—and the big dealers and the big supermarket buyers could be bargained with on a more level playing field.
There is a crisis in respect of cull ewes in the United Kingdom. We need to reduce their number considerably. A cull needs to be carried out, and I hope that the Minister will relay that to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Sadly, the ewes that were not culled last autumn are now the equivalent of skeletons because they have been kept for a year too long. They are valueless and, sadly, but for the sake of animal welfare they ought to be sent to an incinerator. That would be the kindest thing to do. This year's cull ewes, which are coming down the line, will be culled, particularly from the hills, as a matter of the stratification of the sheep industry.
Hon. Members will know that last year the Irish introduced a scheme under which farmers were paid £15 a cull ewe to take them off the market. I believe that such a scheme would be of great value in the United Kingdom, but action needs to be taken now; by October, it will be too late because those ewes will be flooding onto the market. The French require whole carcases—not split carcases which were and still are the order of the day. They can deal with them, and there is a good case for reviewing the matter now that the position in respect of beef has slackened. Disposing of those cull ewes now would mean that there would be fewer lambs next season and stronger demand for next season's lamb crop, which would improve farm incomes and put some much-needed cash into farmers' pockets.
The wool industry is in crisis and the cost of shearing sheep is greater than the value of the wool. Only yesterday I was told of an upland farm on which it cost £1,200 to shear the sheep, but the value of the wool was £800, which is an astonishing situation. This season's lamb prices are down by £9 a head, gross margins will be down by 30 per cent., and I calculate that last year's average income on upland sheep farms was the equivalent of £2.70 an hour for a 39-hour week. Hon. Members should compare that with the £3.60 an hour paid as the national minimum wage.
The sheep industry has sustained severe losses over the past two years and it cannot sustain any more. I am afraid that the exodus from the countryside is about to start in a
1124
big way. I have talked to young people in my area and I believe that they will leave the land in substantial numbers. I am sure that that is not what the House wants, but I believe that it will happen unless a great deal of emergency action is taken. Problems with the euro and with exchange rates have not helped, but I believe that we should join the euro as soon as it is practicable to do so. I call on the House to take action now and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will ensure that a cull ewe disposal scheme is introduced to bring at least some relief to that hard-pressed sector of the sheep industry.
11.4 am
Mr. Bill Etherington: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words about the chronic shortage of general practitioners in my constituency, which is causing great concern. I raised the matter about 18 months ago in a Wednesday morning debate, when my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was a Health Minister.
I shall not bore the House by going through a rigmarole on statistics. Suffice it to say that the Sunderland health authority area is estimated to be short of 30 GPs, which puts us above the national average for patients per GP: there are about 2,250 patients per GP in Sunderland against the national average of about 1,900. That local problem stands out because, paradoxically, it exists in a region that enjoys a ratio of GPs to patients that is higher than the United Kingdom average.
I have to give full credit where it is due: my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, and his predecessor, who have been sincere and sympathetic, have attempted to introduce initiatives to ease the problem. I also give credit to Sunderland health authority, which is in the somewhat invidious position of trying to improve a situation over which it has little statutory control.
The nub of the matter lies within GP practices. I have spent many hours discussing this issue with various colleagues and I should place on record the fact that my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) have also been closely involved. They have done what they can and, although they may not use my words and expressions, they generally agree with the thrust of my remarks.
When I looked into this problem, I found that it has been long standing and that it should have been foreseen. In many ways, it is a demographic problem because my area has more than its fair share of GPs aged over 50. I am grateful to the Northern and Yorkshire regional office of the national health service executive for providing me with statistics showing that of all the health authorities in the region, only Sunderland has a preponderance of doctors over that age. Although the majority of doctors in every other health authority are under 40, two thirds of general practitioners in Sunderland are over 50. That situation has probably come about because of a historical accident, but the problem needs to be tackled and no matter what is done at present that will still be the position.
I am putting down a marker because I do not want someone to say in 20 years that no one noticed these problems. They are with us now and unless they are dealt with vigorously, they will return with a vengeance,

1125
whatever we do to provide short-term alleviation. No matter how much good will is shown by the Department of Health, the Sunderland health authority and the regional health authorities, they are dealing with a flawed situation and that flaw lies within the present system of GP practices.
For example, a practice of three GPs might look after 6,000 people, which is extremely reasonable considering that one GP in my area looks after 4,000 people. If one GP retired and was not immediately replaced, even though efforts were made to replace him, two GPs would be left to look after those 6,000 people.
One of the problems is that the system of payment in GP practices is little better than that for piecework: the more patients a doctor has, the more he is remunerated. Once GPs have become used to a much higher rate of remuneration, they have a disincentive to recruit partners. The system is fundamentally flawed and has been since the NHS was founded. Moreover, it is having a deleterious effect in Sunderland. Although my area is 30 GPs short, only four practices have placed advertisements to try to find partners. One would assume that if practices are not placing advertisements, they are not trying to improve the situation.
The answer to the problem is salaried status for GPs. I know that the British Medical Association is not in favour of that and has fought against it since the inception of the NHS, but recent research shows that 93 per cent, of young GPs would prefer to be salaried workers rather than small business men running their own practice or partners in a practice. We are also considering the possibility of expanding the local university's medical service so that while young GPs are being trained within the university they can give some of their time to assist GPs in the area.
Unless the primary care sector is thriving and vigorous, the excellent initiatives that the Government are carrying out, such as health action zones, are bound to be blighted and may fail. As recently as last week, I met my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and I know that he is doing all that he can. However, we now face almost three months in which Parliament will not sit and I dread to think what the position may be when we return because, despite all the efforts, the problem is getting worse.
This is a matter not merely for the Government, but for all hon. Members. Are we satisfied that the current system of GP practices is working? I am not and I wish to lay down that marker. I urge the Government to put much more emphasis on trying to change the system so that, eventually, all GPs are salaried. It may be argued that that will cost more, but so be it. The current system is unsatisfactory. It cannot be only my constituency that has a shortage of GPs. The problem is inherent.
I give full credit to the Government, who are trying to alleviate the problem by getting more GPs on to the books, but ultimately, we must have a system in which, if there is a shortage in an area, both the health authority and the Department of Health can put it right. That does not seem to be the case. We are floundering around trying to see what can be done to alleviate the problem, instead of considering a solution which, in the long term, would prevent such a problem from arising.
1126
I have spent just about long enough saying what I have to say. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to raise this matter because it is causing a lot of concern in my constituency. Next Thursday, I have been asked to address Age Concern specifically on this matter and I am not particularly looking forward to it. I therefore ask the Minister and all hon. Members present to consider this matter. The system has been in place for 50 years and it is not working to the satisfaction of all those who want to benefit from the service, particularly in my constituency.
Despite what the BMA may think—no doubt I shall be public enemy number one, given what I have to say—the majority of young doctors do not want to be entrepreneurs and business men; they want to carry on their profession as salaried workers and let the Government deal with the administration and the executive functions.
11.14 am
Mr. David Atkinson: It is absolutely imperative that the House does not rise before debating fully the threat posed to public services, the private sector and people's normal daily lives by what is misleadingly called the "millennium bug"—the time bomb that is ticking away and which will affect the performance of the date-related computer systems on which we all rely. No one can guarantee that that threat will be avoided and yet, despite what the Government may claim, most people totally underestimate or under-realise it. As a result, they will not be prepared.
Last month, the Government distributed a booklet entitled "Facts not Fiction" in the national Sunday press. I regret to say, however, that it was a missed opportunity adequately to warn and inform people. The Government have also introduced quarterly reports to Parliament, which are now to become monthly reports as the deadline draws near. I pay tribute to the Leader of the House for the formidable role that she has played as the principal Minister responsible. I hope that she will be allowed to continue in that role for the rest of the year, because she is aware of the seriousness of the problem and no one new to the job would have the time to get to grips with it or have a greater influence on it.
Many experts now say that it is already too late to do much more than what has already been done to respond to the problem. Reports that are now appearing make it clear that there will be problems. Although they will be much worse elsewhere in the world—this country is better prepared than most—as we cannot isolate ourselves from them, we will import other countries' problems as well.
The House has never had a full-scale debate on this issue. Apart from Government statements, Hansard shows that the Government have responded only to personal initiatives or Back-Bench Members of Parliament. Those include my original question to the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), in 1995 on the issue; my Adjournment debate the following year; another Adjournment debate on the consequences for defence earlier this year; my proposed amendments to the Data Protection Act 1998; my three private Member's Bills on the issue; the Adjournment debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) earlier this year; and replies to questions by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Why has there been no general debate on the threat? Why has there been no debate on the Science and Technology Committee's report entitled "The Year 2000:

1127
Computer Compliance", which it published in April last year? What have the Government got to hide? Is it because they lost six crucial months when they came into office in May 1997, during which they shelved—or effectively sacked—the awareness campaign of the previous Government, TaskForce 2000, before eventually replacing it with Action 2000, which became fully operational only last year? I fear that, with hindsight, those six lost months will mean that this country is no longer the best prepared for avoiding problems.
That also explains the recent Cap Gemini report that Britain has slipped from second to eighth place in the millennium readiness stakes, as other European countries accelerate their efforts. I am already convinced that the failure of both the previous Government and the present one to support my three Bills on this unique issue will be exposed as missed opportunities, which, in hindsight, they were badly advised to ignore.
Nowhere is that demonstrated better than in last weekend's report about the eight companies that the Financial Services Authority refuses to name, despite the demands of Action 2000, in which investors' money is at risk because the companies are rated as "red" in the latest report by the National Infrastructure Forum. That information will get out sooner or later—almost certainly sooner, because of inevitable leaks in response to increasing rumour and speculation about who they are. There is a clear duty of immediate exposure so that appropriate action can be taken, not least by those whose investments may be at risk. I hope that the Minister will agree that it is immoral and dishonest to deny disclosure now. I look forward to his response.
All that and so much more could have been avoided if my first private Member's Bill, the Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance) Bill, had been allowed to complete its stages in the run-up to the last general election. The Bill would have required company directors to disclose the millennium compliance of their computer systems in their annual reports to shareholders. We would, by now, have had two years of annual reports providing for total transparency in law of every company's millennium readiness. If action was not being taken, shareholders would have wanted to know why and would have demanded that something be done. It was a simple solution to a unique situation and it would have been effective in safeguarding this country's private business sector.
The present Government cannot blame the previous Government for a lack of foresight in not perceiving the opportunity of my Bill, because they also refused to support it when I brought it back in its amended form after the last general election.
There is no reference to that risk to shareholders in the Government's booklet "Facts not Fiction". Under the section headed "Personal Finance", we are told that
"your money is as safe as it has always been".
It contains no cautionary warnings to reflect other recent reports.
In February last year, I warned the Prime Minister at Question Time about the high risk of undertaking the two biggest ever information technology projects—millennium compliance and euro conversion—at the same time. Last Sunday's The Mail on Sunday warned that European banks and financial institutions will not be
1128
millennium compliant in time, which will affect the euro. Interest rates will rise. That and other consequences will have an impact on this country.
The Government could have delayed proceeding with other IT projects so as to give priority to the overwhelming and essential need to be millennium compliant. The Passport Agency struggled to issue thousands of passports because of its inability to cope with the millennium bug and the new requirement for children to carry their own passports.
In May, The Sunday Telegraph warned that some of Europe's busiest airports and air traffic control centres have fallen seriously behind in their plans to deal with the millennium bug. They include Paris, Rome, Madrid and Luton. The major power failures at Heathrow at the start of this May's bank holiday weekend showed that people's plans can be disrupted no matter who they are. Even Posh and Becks had to abandon plans to fly to Nice. That experience will be nothing compared with the consequences of computer failure. How many people are aware that the channel tunnel will be closed to the public at the millennium to prevent a potential disaster caused by the Y2K bug?
On 1 June, the Daily Mail reported that the Home Office had issued leaflets to every local authority "predicting Millennium night chaos" and warning of
"medical, public order and criminal disasters on a grand scale."
My local authority of Bournemouth, which is one of our major tourist resorts and had hoped to organise millennium night events, has no insurance cover for public liability and is still waiting to hear from the Treasury whether the Bellwin scheme for emergency financial assistance to local authorities would apply. How many other local authorities and voluntary organisations are abandoning their millennium plans because of the threat of the millennium bug?
Are the Government confident that all their millennium plans are adequately covered for public liability? That may explain the report on Operation Surety in The Sunday Times last weekend. The Special Air Services and other special services are shortly to be deployed to protect key government sites and civilian installations, such as banks, airports and power stations, and to support emergency services. Will the Minister confirm the existence of Operation Surety?
Those threats and risks, as well as many more, would have been dramatically reduced if the Government had had the good sense to support my two other private Member's Bills on this issue. The Millennium Conformity Bill, which I introduced last year, would have required all computer systems and the services they provide to recognise 2000 as defined by the British Standards Institution's code of millennium conformity. I shall again move the Second Reading of my Computer Millennium Non-Compliance (Contingency Plans) Bill this Friday.
Unfortunately, the Government have shown that they do not fully appreciate either the problem or the threat, and continue to rely on voluntary persuasion of the need to take the necessary action. They have not grasped the fact that, no matter how well any organisation is prepared, it can take just one glitch, one overlooked, non-compliant date in any of its own programmes or those in the chain with which it is linked for all of them to be affected. It is all or nothing. It is impossible to conclude that there will

1129
not be problems. That warning is blatantly missing in the Government's booklet to inform the public, entitled "Facts not Fiction".
At the very least, the commendably realistic warning of the Leader of the House that there are no guarantees that material disruption of public services will be avoided should have been quoted in the booklet. There is no guarantee that electric lights will come on, domestic gas will flow, water taps will run, telephones will operate and food, petrol and cash will not run out.
If the House is not fully to debate this problem, will the Minister tell us how he intends to report the new monthly reports to the House during the summer recess? Should those reports disclose that targets will be missed, and given that slippage has been a common feature of past reports, will the recess be suspended so that a proper statement can be debated? When the House returns in late October, there will be insufficient time to take meaningful action—fewer than 50 working days. Will the Government issue further warnings to the public that they should be prepared for problems, and guidelines on what sensible precautions to take? The Government have not done enough to prepare this country for what could happen early next year. They have just 165 days left in which to do so.
11.26 am
Mr. John Grogan: Soon after the House goes into recess, the world will celebrate Yorkshire day on 1 August. Perhaps Yorkshire day has not yet reached the scale of Burns night or American independence day, or even the celebrations to mark the Queen's birthday. Nevertheless, we shall be doing our best in Yorkshire. This year, it will have a particular resonance because on 1 August, Yorkshire will be playing in its first one-day cricket final at Lords for more than 12 years.
Yorkshire people are known the world over for their generosity, outward-going nature and sheer joie de vivre. A campaign was started this year for a Yorkshire parliament. It rightly drew attention to the strong Yorkshire identity, but it was probably wrong to illustrate that identity by reference to the trio of Freddie Trueman, Geoff Boycott and Michael Parkinson. A more modern trio would have been Darren Gough, Mel B from the Spice Girls and Sean Bean, the actor from South Yorkshire. However, in the absence of a Yorkshire regional assembly or parliament, I shall touch on three areas of particular concern to the Yorkshire economy.
The Yorkshire economy is generally booming at the moment. Unemployment is low—it is falling in my constituency—and interest rates are low, but there are particular concerns in individual sectors. Many people in Yorkshire will start Yorkshire day, which falls on a Sunday this year, by having their only cooked breakfast of the week. They will have time to do that, and will no doubt have bacon and eggs or a bacon sandwich. I hope that, as they do so, they will reflect on the dire plight of many pig farmers. We heard about sheep farmers earlier, but many pig farmers in Yorkshire and elsewhere are in difficulty.
The latest statistics from Eurostat show a dramatic fall in production in the pig sector, which will get worse over the summer. In the third quarter of the year,
1130
pig production is predicted to fall by 13.7 per cent., and gross indigenous pig production will fall in the fourth quarter by as much as 20 per cent. Those figures are truly alarming.
Part of the explanation for that fall is the drop in pig demand throughout the European Union. As has often been said in the House, British pig producers labour under an unfair competitive disadvantage, because of the welfare measures that they have properly put in place under pressure from retailers, the Government and consumers. Tethers, sow stalls and, most importantly, bonemeal have been banned. Those measures are not in place in all European Union countries, although some of them will be by 2004. Horror stories are emerging from some of our European Union competitors. Even Euro-enthusiasts such as I have a good degree of Euro-scepticism about the conditions that pertain in some of our competitor countries.
According to Reuters, a French Government inquiry, which produced a report, found factory waste in animal feed. Reuters said:
"Residue from toilets, septic tanks and sludge from waste treatment factories are routinely used in the making of European animal feed … Initial findings show that certain types of meal destined to feed pigs, poultry and fish, have not been properly treated in the view of this analysis … In one case, matter ending up as feed ingredients for pigs and poultry included untreated byproducts from the production of gelatine from pig and cow skins".
I urge Ministers, over the summer, to redouble their efforts in the European Union. I urge them to insist that such practices end, to insist that animal welfare standards are brought up to scratch in our competitor countries sooner than 2004, and to do everything possible to encourage supermarkets and local authorities robustly to buy pigmeat safely. Currently, that will mean buying British in most instances.
Another industry that has long been associated with Yorkshire—and, over the last couple of decades, with my constituency in particular—is the coal industry. There is now some recognition in the Yorkshire coalfields that the Government have done a good job in righting wrongs that have existed in the past, particularly in giving justice to miners suffering from industrial diseases by ensuring that they receive proper compensation. They have also created a window in the energy market in order to provide a more diverse energy supply. Coal now has a chance: there is a more level playing field.
I hope that, over the summer, Ministers will consider an Environment Agency report on the control of pollution from existing oil and coal-fired power stations. Our international obligations demand that we cut 1980 levels of sulphur dioxide emissions by 80 per cent, by 2010. The Environment Agency suggests that we go further, and cut them by 87 per cent, by 2005. There is some disquiet in the Yorkshire coalfields about the idea of our proceeding faster than our international obligations demand. It is also felt that the report should be closely associated with the Government's energy review, and their review of the electricity pool. "Joined-up government" is, of course, a cliche, but it really applies in this context.
Following the Government's energy review, the Drax power station in my constituency—the biggest coal-fired power station in Europe—is to be disposed of by National Power. When that happens, National Power, which is still a dominant force in the industry, will no longer have a flue gas desulphurisation plant as part of its portfolio. It strikes

1131
me as sensible for Eggborough, National Power's biggest power station, to be fitted with such a plant, and I urge the Environment Agency and the Government to encourage such a development. If all three major power stations in the Aire valley, Drax, Ferrybridge—which is being disposed of by PowerGen, and will have a flue gas desulphurisation plant—and Eggborough are so equipped, for the first time, it will do wonders for the local environment.
Ultimately, however, flue gas desulphurisation plants give the coalfields only a medium-term future. If we are serious about giving them a longer-term future, we must encourage clean-coal technology, in which this country leads the world, in the same way as we encourage the renewable sector. The coal industry is expanding internationally, especially in China, and we have a tremendous export market. The Government have said that they will not decide whether we should have a demonstration clean-coal plant for three years; I think that that is too long for us to wait.
I am aware of the constraints of time. Perhaps Front-Bench Members would consider imposing a 10-minute limit on Back Benchers' speeches in future debates. I am a minute or two short of 10 minutes.
Finally, let me say something about Yorkshire's burgeoning restaurant sector. Yorkshire is now one of the gastronomic capitals of Britain: for example, Hazelwood Castle in my constituency is a superb restaurant. Perhaps the Government will consider introducing a small measure early in the new Session. I believe that they are already committed to a reform of the licensing laws following the work of the better regulation task force. Currently, if restaurants in Leeds, Sheffield, York and Selby want to stay open after midnight, they must provide live music and entertainment: they must make more noise in order to stay open. That is nonsense. I hope that, by Yorkshire day next year, people will be able to enjoy a meal in a restaurant late at night without being subjected to incessant noise.
11.35 am
Mr. Roger Gale: I want to raise an issue that goes to the heart of our parliamentary democracy: the confidentiality of the constituency case work of Members of Parliament.
I believe that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who were once a Back Bencher, and all of us regard our constituency case work as sacrosanct. It is as confidential, as privileged and as closely guarded as the confessional, as correspondence with lawyers and as matters relating to doctors. We have always regarded it as such, and I was astonished to discover the other day that, in fact, Parliament affords no protection whatever to it.
In late May, a representative of Messrs Baker Tilly, a trustee in bankruptcy, called at the offices of Mr. Jonathan Aitken and removed nine boxes of private papers. Those private papers included correspondence with constituents and with ministerial and Government colleagues, correspondence with religious and spiritual leaders, and correspondence with current and former heads of state. Baker Tilly's representative gave Mr. Aitken an undertaking that
"precautions would be taken to protect the confidentiality"
of the papers, and that the files
"would be kept in a locked cupboard at Baker Tilly."
1132
Mr. Aitken was also assured that they would be taken only for inspection, and that, once they had been examined and checked for financial details, they would be returned. On that basis, Mr. Aitken not only agreed for the files to be taken, but helped to load them into Baker Tilly's van.
Mr. Aitken was horrified to discover that, within days, the trustee in bankruptcy had sought the opinion of valuers, Messrs Gorringes, on the value of the papers at sale. The valuers suggested that they could be sold for a considerable sum. The trustee stated:
"This sum will be realised should I be able to sell the correspondence without any restriction to the ultimate purchaser".
Gorringes's head of valuation, Mr. Gilham, said on 14 June:
"We believe however that these sensitive files are of value and that the market lies in the publishing arena. On the basis of the limited research we have been able to undertake we have reason to believe that if the nine boxes"—
all nine boxes—
"were to be offered to newspapers and publishers a six figure sum would be easily attainable".
Last weekend, The Sunday Times carried an article about the matter. As a result, Mr. Aitken's former constituents in South Thanet have been caused considerable distress. The papers contain material of a highly sensitive and highly personal nature. Moreover, when I met Mr. Aitken at his request to discuss the matter, and agreed to raise it in the House, he informed me that, in another incarnation as a sidesman at St. Margaret's church, Westminster—which is effectively the chapel of the House of Commons—he had written on numerous occasions to Canon Donald Gray, the former Speaker's Chaplain, and had issued special requests on behalf of colleagues on both sides of the House who were in distress, and were suffering marital difficulties. There were requests such as, "So-and-so's son is a drug addict: please can we remember him in our prayers?". Those, too, were matters of a highly sensitive, highly personal nature, which were never supposed to be disclosed in any public way, and should not have been so disclosed.
Some of these matters are before the court, and I do not wish to intrude on the privilege of the courts to determine matters that are properly in their domain. However, at 8.30 this morning, I met the trustee in bankruptcy in the House, and I am pleased to be able to reassure hon. Members that I have now received an agreement in writing. It states:
"None of Mr. Aitken's correspondence with constituents has been or will be copied and nor will it be offered for sale. These papers will be returned to Mr. Aitken's solicitors forthwith.
No correspondence between Mr. Aitken and parliamentary colleagues has been or will be copied, nor at any time offered for sale unless the court so orders.
No correspondence between Mr. Aitken and the Speakers Chaplain, Canon Donald Gray have been or will be copied or at any time offered for sale. These papers will be returned, also, to Mr. Aitken's solicitors forthwith except those papers which relate to Mr. Aitken's financial affairs.
Papers that may be regarded as Government Papers covered under the 'Thirty Year Rule' have not been and will not be copied or offered for sale. They will be held subject to the undertaking already given to the Treasury Solicitor."
The remaining papers—the remaining matters—will be dealt with in court. It would be improper of me to seek to deal with them.

1133
My point in raising the matter and in placing it on the record is that, happily, as a result of considerable pressure being brought to bear, not least by the thought that the matter would be raised in the House this morning, the issue has, so far as the constituents of South Thanet are concerned, been put to bed. I accept entirely the undertaking that the trustee in bankruptcy, Mr. Colin Haig, gave me this morning. It is in writing. I have no reason to question his word, but there is a principle that must be considered during the recess so that some progress can be made in Parliament in the autumn. I firmly believe that, in the light of those events, which I do not believe many Members began to understand were possible, the two Front-Bench teams, the Cabinet Office and, dare I say it, the Speaker's Clerks and Office need to review the position.
It is an appalling situation. I should make the following point: those who know the man will understand why he is so concerned. Jonathan Aitken's first concern was for his former South Thanet constituents. He was desperately disturbed to learn that there was a possibility of their private correspondence being made public. He was equally concerned at the thought that colleagues' private matters that had been discussed with the Speaker's Chaplain could have been made public.
It is essential that we look again at the whole system of parliamentary privilege to ensure that, at no time—hon. Members on either side of the House might find themselves facing bankruptcy—shall any colleagues' private constituency papers be seized by a trustee in bankruptcy, or offered for sale.
11.41 am
Mr. Peter Bradley: I should like to raise some important issues before the summer recess—issues that some Conservative Members may not wish to hear, but that need to be raised none the less.
In recent weeks, there has been much interest in and speculation about Mr. Michael Ashcroft. Many allegations have been made. Many revelations have appeared in the daily papers about his status as a foreign funder of the Conservative party, about his business dealings and about his relationship with the previous Government. Throughout it all, the Leader of the Opposition has stood by Mr. Ashcroft and said that he has no case to answer. Mr. Ashcroft has conceded that his connections with the Conservative party are causing it damage, but he still resolutely refuses to go.
May I remind the House who Michael Ashcroft is? He is a United Kingdom tax exile. His principal residence is in the United States of America. His principal business interests lie in Belize. He funds the Government party there—the People's United party, which I understand has recently sought advice on joining the Socialist International. He is Belize's ambassador to the United Nations. He is a citizen of Belize; he is also a citizen of the Turks and Caicos Islands. As far as I know, he is a citizen of other places, too. All those credentials are considered by the Leader of the Opposition to qualify him for his other job: treasurer of the United Kingdom's Conservative party.
1134
Mr. Ashcrof is a man about whom our man in Belize warned the Foreign Office: there was, he said, a
"shadow over his reputation that ought not to be ignored"—
of course, that shadow has been ignored by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Ashcroft is a man whose business interests, according to a report by Rodney Gallagher, which was sponsored by the Foreign Office as part of its aid to Belize, were creating
"a growing sense of disquiet"
in Belize—a sense of disquiet clearly not shared by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Ashcroft is a man whom our former high commissioner in Belize, Mr. David Mackilligin, described last week as
"an object of suspicion to governments in the area, especially the Americans who have to cope with constant war against drug-runners and money-launderers".
He went on to write, in a letter which appeared in The Times:
"he cannot escape responsibility for establishing a system that makes Belize a much more tempting target for drug-runners than it would be and for resisting efforts to regulate it properly in order presumably to maximise his company's profit."
That is, apparently, what motivates Mr. Michael Ashcroft—the bottom line. It is not political conviction; I have mentioned that he funds not only the Conservative party but the People's United party in Belize. It is not personal loyalty. It is not public interest, but the ruthless pursuit of the bottom line. He has made money out of flags of convenience in Belize, which is known to have one of the worst safety records in the world. According to The Independent this morning, he has sold passports for profit. According to our Foreign Office diplomats, he is prepared to "stir up trouble" for Britain in the Turks and Caicos Islands if he does not get his way.
In no fewer than 10 of the 40-odd votes in the United Nations since he has been Belize's ambassador there, Mr. Ashcroft has voted against the United Kingdom. As I have said, he has opened the door in Belize to money laundering and drug trafficking through his interference in the regulation of its financial sector. The linking of Michael Ashcroft to the drugs trade is the most alarming aspect.
On Sunday, Mr. Ashcroft told the BBC that, although he was aware of one investigation undertaken by the Drug Enforcement Administration in the United States, he believed that it had concluded in 1992 and that its principal interest was Belize, not him. To be caught up in one drugs investigation may be just bad luck—a big man in a small place at the wrong time—but there is more.
I have seen documents, which have also been seen by The Times— files of the DEA, the FBI and the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. All refer to Michael Ashcroft and to his business interests. I have no reason to believe that they are forgeries. They are taken from the files of United States investigation, intelligence and enforcement agencies. They make disturbing reading.
In 1989, Mr. Ashcroft's name was linked to a DEA drug-trafficking inquiry that stretched across Europe, the United States and Canada, and involved the son of Jean Baptiste Andreani, who was immortalised, if that is the right word, in "The French Connection." In 1992, a Thomas Ricke was arrested and jailed for laundering

1135
money, gained from organised crime, through Michael Ashcroft's Belize bank. In 1993, the DEA conducted an investigation of Belize-linked businesses, half of which were connected to Michael Ashcroft—12 of the 25-odd that it investigated had links with Michael Ashcroft.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bradley: No. Time is pressing. Other hon. Members want to speak.
In 1994, a DEA file reported observing Michael Ashcroft taking a flight from the United States to the Caribbean. It referred to
"possible air smuggling/money laundering activities under way by Michael Ashcroft".
It also reported that the plane was owned and piloted by two suspected drug traffickers.
In 1996, Mr. Ashcroft was the subject of another investigation. In 1997, a man arrested in Holland on suspicion of drugs offences gave as his address the same address in Belize as Mr. Ashcroft's principal company, Belize Holdings. Those are serious matters.
I do not claim that Michael Ashcroft is guilty of any offence. I simply do not know, but nor does the Leader of the Opposition. However, he above all should be concerned about these allegations. The drip, drip, drip of disclosures is becoming a torrent that threatens to engulf the Conservative party. It is extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition has taken no action about it. After all, it was he who said just last year:
"We are not going to have in the future any of the kind of controversies that have dogged us in the past over funding".
He said it, but did he believe it and did he mean it?
If Michael Ashcroft were just another business man, we would take little interest in him, but he wants to play a role in British public life, and that gives us a legitimate interest in his affairs. That is why the Leader of the Opposition must refer him to the ethics and integrity committee that he established recently. That is why he should relieve him of his post as treasurer of the Conservative party, and why he should consider returning to him the donations that he has made in recent years.
Michael Ashcroft says that he will not go. Only one man can decide his fate—the man who says that he runs the Conservative party—but does he dare? Does he have the courage or even the authority to sack him, and can he afford to, given that Michael Ashcroft is the man who owns the Conservative party?
The Conservative party says that sleaze is a thing of the past, but it is running its campaign in Eddisbury on money from Belize, and tomorrow it will ask the people in that constituency for their trust. Does the Leader of the Opposition want it said that Michael Ashcroft is the man who defines the Conservative party? This is a real test of his qualities of leadership. He has a big decision to make.
11.51 am
Mr. Christopher Gill: I shall preface my remarks by congratulating those hon. Members who have taken the opportunity of this Adjournment debate to highlight the problems of the sheep and pig industries. Before I move on to my own theme, however, I wish to
1136
state how much I deplore the comments of my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley).
The House will understand that what the hon. Gentleman said was covered by parliamentary privilege, but I did not hear him cite any specific charges that had been brought against Mr. Ashcroft. I remind the House of the very important principle and tenet in British law that a man is innocent until proved otherwise. The hon. Gentleman questioned the motives and motivation of Mr. Ashcroft, but I hope that I shall not be out of order in questioning the hon. Gentleman's motives. He spent 10 minutes giving us a lot of innuendo but, as far as I know, he was unable to substantiate that with any facts.
On a more pleasant note, I wish to say that, in my opinion, the British countryside looks more beautiful than it has ever done at this time of year, probably due to the wet spring that we had. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have an interest in trees, and you will appreciate that the beauty of the British countryside is largely due to the tree cover that it enjoys. I want to speak specifically about commercial forestry.
Last year, the Government issued their forestry strategy for England, which was largely aspirational and entirely platitudinous. As far as commercial forestry was concerned, it was eminently worthy but, in practical terms, worthless. England, together with Ulster and Eire, is bottom of the European league for tree coverage. In England, 8 per cent, of the land mass is covered in trees. In Eire the figure is 7 per cent., and in Ulster 6 per cent. In contrast, the overall figure for European Union land mass coverage is 36 per cent. Taking the United Kingdom as a whole, the comparable figure is 10 per cent., but that includes large areas of scrub oak, the third most common species after spruce and pine.
I have some questions for the Government. Are they satisfied with the present situation and the current downward trend in new planting? What, if anything, are they prepared to do about the matter, and how will they go about it? At present, the forestry industry is experiencing unprecedented difficulties. First, it suffers from red tape, particularly that associated with felling controls. Secondly, it suffers from cheap imports—I remind the House that labour costs in Latvia, for example, are a quarter of those in the United Kingdom. Moreover, road fuel prices in Latvia are only a third of those in this country. Thirdly, crippling vehicle excise and road fuel duties have a much more significant effect on forestry than on industries whose loads are less bulky and often much more valuable.
Haulage accounts for at least 25 per cent, of the delivered value of British-grown round timber. For obvious reasons, the scope for transferring the loads to the railways is limited. A lot of our forestry land is well removed from the rail-heads, and in any case loads have to be hauled by road to reach them.
A fourth problem facing the industry is the lack of any coherent long-term Government strategy sufficient to give the private sector long-term confidence. Forestry is, after all, a very long-term business. People who plant trees often do not live to see them come to maturity. Planting, therefore, is done with the long term in view.
Fifthly, the Forestry Commission is a rogue elephant when it comes to commercial decisions, and does not always operate under the same constraints as the

1137
private sector. Many other difficulties face the industry, not least an ill-informed public who do not accept that trees are grown as a commercial crop and that trees, like humans, have a finite life.
A prosperous commercial forestry industry brings many economic benefits. First, there is an obvious benefit in the employment that it creates. The forestry industry is a major employer in rural areas. It is estimated that it employs 35,000 people in the United Kingdom, and that employment is permanent and year-round. That contrasts with the agriculture industry, where more of the labour tends to be under contract and on a seasonal basis. Moreover, the forestry industry is often situated in remote areas where there is no alternative employment.
In the past decade, the industry has invested no less than £1.8 billion in new saw milling and wood processing facilities, which now produce timber and wood products derived from British forests that are worth £2 billion per annum. That is a valuable contribution to our balance of payments. Our forests represent a store of value and are a very important strategic reserve.
The third benefit to be derived from a healthy forestry industry is to the environment. I have already mentioned how trees benefit the landscape, and most hon. Members will be aware of the beneficial effect that trees have on our atmosphere by absorbing surplus nitrogen and other impurities. Forestry is a sustainable and infinitely renewable source of raw material and fuel. Given that so many people are worried about the environment, a thriving forestry industry will ensure that there is life and work in our countryside, and will prevent its reduction into a decaying park.
I have several questions that the Government must answer. Do they acknowledge the economic, environmental and employment benefits of a thriving forestry industry? Do they accept that the portents for the future are alarming? The area approved for felling increased from 12,000 hectares in 1989 to 19,000 hectares in 1998, but the area planted in the same period fell from 37,000 hectares to 17,000 hectares. What action will the Government take to deal with the problems that I have described? They could remove at a stroke the burden of regulation and the punitive effect of the exorbitant 11.6 per cent, increase in road fuel duties.
Will the Government look again at the efficacy of their grant schemes in encouraging a vibrant forestry industry, and will they consider reintroducing tax reliefs such as existed before 1988? Now that the "polluter pays" principle is so well established, there is a strong case for giving relief to those who, far from polluting the atmosphere, do so much to clean it up. Or will the Government do nothing? Will they take the short-term view that foresters are an insignificant minority; that 35,000 jobs are neither here nor there; that our timber can all be sourced from abroad; that a living vibrant countryside is the rhetoric, not the reality, of Labour in office?
I move that the House does not adjourn until a Minister has come to the Dispatch Box to state unequivocally that wood is good, and what the Government will do positively to encourage this generation to plant trees for the benefit and enjoyment of generations yet unborn.
12 noon
Ms Jenny Jones: In January this year, a constituent of mine, while travelling home to Wolverhampton via Birmingham international airport, was detained by French immigration officials at Charles de Gaulle airport. They apparently did not like the look of his passport and thought that it may have been forged. That turned out not to be true. My constituent is a British citizen and his passport was okay, but it took the best part of 36 hours to convince the French officials and, during that time, my constituent underwent what can only be described as an extremely unpleasant experience.
I have made a formal complaint to the French ambassador here in London and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the way in which my constituent was treated. To give the French ambassador his due, he has taken my complaint seriously, and several months ago he asked for an investigation to be carried out by French immigration officials. I am awaiting the outcome of that report and I do not want to pre-empt it, so I shall not go into great detail about what happened to my constituent, but, because of his experience I wish to bring several points to the attention of the House and the Minister so that he can pass them on to the FCO and the Home Office.
First, despite repeated requests, my constituent was denied access to the British embassy in Paris. When I took that up with the Foreign Office I was told that, within the EU, and presumably any other country, immigration officials exercise their own discretion as to how they carry out their job. But it is a serious matter that a British citizen should be denied access to his own embassy. In this case, there was a practical reason for contacting the British embassy. Had it been involved earlier, the mistake could have been cleared up in a couple of hours, rather than the 36 that it took.
Secondly, France and Britain are meant to be partners within the EU. Intelligence and common sense should have reigned on this occasion and the French immigration officials should have contacted British immigration. Not only would the entire mess have been cleared up, but if my constituent had not been who he said he was and had been trying to enter the United Kingdom illegally, British immigration officials would have liked to have known about it. They would have liked the opportunity to interview him to discover how he got hold of his passport and how he was attempting to gain entrance to the United Kingdom.
Those of us who represent multicultural constituencies in Britain and deal with many immigration matters know that most illegal immigration into Britain is a result of organised international crime. Large amounts of money are exchanged. The only way to fight such international crime is by having cross-border co-operation. I am concerned that in this case that simply did not happen. I do not know how many other times such a situation has occurred, but that important message should go back to the FCO and the Home Office.
At the moment, Home Office Ministers are engaged in discussions at the Council of Ministers about improving cross-border co-operation between immigration authorities to deal with illegal immigration. Whatever they manage to agree on, it is crucial that immigration officers are allowed to talk to each other, first to try to combat illegal immigration, but also to try to prevent the extremely

1139
unpleasant experience that my constituent underwent. Even if we are partners in the EU, a British citizen should not be put through what my constituent was put through.
I respectfully ask the Minister to convey my points to the FCO and the Home Office. Whatever the outcome of my complaint about the way in which my constituent was treated, real issues arise here with regard to a British citizen being denied access to his or her embassy when in trouble and needing help. In this case, when the British embassy did intervene, the matter was cleared up. If we are to have co-operation between immigration officers across the EU—I strongly recommend that; it is needed—it should be at a level where it is workable and practical, so that we can get to grips with internationally organised illegal immigration.
12.5 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) has demonstrated that it is possible to raise an important case concisely and coherently. I am grateful to her for sitting down when she did, and I am sure that all hon. Members are grateful to her for the example that she has set. Would that others might follow it more often.
One of the sad things about today's debate—I have said in the past that this is a useful exercise and I have replied to these debates for the past two years or more—is that so many hon. Members have not been able to take part, a number of whom have sat throughout the debate. I feel especially deprived that I have not heard my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I was desperate to know the latest position of the Palace theatre, and to hear the many other things with which he would doubtless have entertained us. The hon. Lady's case had echoes of one that he raised during the Whitsun Adjournment debate.
I ask the Minister and the Government business managers to consider the matter carefully. Either we should go on until 2 o'clock, as I have commended to the House before, or Madam Speaker should be asked if she would be kind enough to impose a 10-minute limit on all speeches.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is not in his place, and that is rather unfortunate for such a senior hon. Member. He took half an hour of our time—slightly more—to outline an important case. No one could for a moment dispute the importance of what he spoke of, and he used parliamentary privilege entirely properly to raise those points. It is a pity that he is not here to listen to my response. I hope that he will be here in time to hear the Minister's response. He raised issues of alleged corruption in strong language, taking a great deal of time to do so, thus preventing a number of other hon. Members from raising their constituency cases.
This has been a serious debate. Privilege has been used on one or two occasions. It was used entirely properly by the right hon. Member for Gorton, but it was not used as properly by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley). As my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said, the time-honoured principle of English law is that a man or woman is innocent until proved guilty. We had not a single shred of evidence from the hon. Gentleman. Newspaper reports were quoted and we had innuendo aplenty, but there was no substance in the allegations.
1140
I know my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition well enough to know that any allegation of real substance would be taken most seriously by him, but we have not had that. It is a pity that the privilege of the House should be used to smear—that is what was done this morning—not to bring out facts, as the right hon. Member for Gorton sought to do. He quoted chapter and verse when he did so. I am delighted to see that the right hon. Gentleman is now in his place.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) discussed the closure of Dunsfold and its effects on two exceptionally important aircraft and the skills and viability of a whole community. I hope that Mr. John Weston will listen carefully to her.
The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) was right to talk about aircraft noise. We then heard my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) discuss bed-blocking, mobile telephone masts and the Great Western Railway. I offer my hon. Friend advance congratulations on his birthday tomorrow; perhaps it entitled him to make an omnibus speech. National health resources can be put at risk by bed-blocking, and Ministers should take careful account of what my hon. Friend said. I was horrified—we all were—by his graphic account of stewed brains. Those who use mobile phones regularly should perhaps take a break during the recess. I entirely favour the serving of English wine on English trains—some of it is splendid—but I expect French wine on a French train.
The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) talked of Northern Ireland, raising two disturbing cases—Stobie and Nelson. Everything he said emphasised the reasons for concern throughout the country at the possible breach of the anonymity rule in the Bloody Sunday inquiry. Those who fear that certain people may be identified do not pour scorn on the inquiry, but merely underline the principle, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, that a man is innocent until proven guilty.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) spoke eloquently of the sheep industry, of which he has deep personal knowledge. Anyone who represents a rural constituency will know that he did not exaggerate. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should heed most carefully what the hon. Gentleman said, and should also heed all that was said about the pig industry by the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan). Those vital sectors of our agriculture are in dire straits. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Yorkshire day and restaurants, and he may wish to know of a wonderful competition held in the restaurants of the House last week to demonstrate the versatility of pork. If such a competition were spread a little further abroad, we might have a more viable pig industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) spoke with force and passion, as he often has, about the millennium bug. The country is in his debt for the action that has been taken. Would that there had been more. The risks to which he referred are disturbing, and it is a pity that neither the previous Government nor the present have enacted his Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) discussed a matter of great importance to all Members of Parliament—the Aitken papers. We are in his debt for the assurances that he has gained from the trustee

1141
in bankruptcy. He was right to draw our attention to a threat that may face us all. Papers possessed by Members of Parliament that contain confidential information about our constituents and others must never be able to be seized and sold. My hon. Friend appears to have averted a catastrophe in the case of the Aitken papers—Jonathan Aitken, incidentally, was a most diligent constituency Member, and his papers are voluminous—but my hon. Friend's success does not remove the general threat, and we should return to this matter in the autumn.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow has great knowledge of and love for the countryside. He discussed the forestry industry—vital, even if it employs relatively few people—with knowledge and real feeling. The green and pleasant land about which my hon. Friend waxed so eloquent looks delightful and beautiful at present, but it depends on a properly managed forestry industry, and no Government should ever forget it.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) spoke interestingly about general practitioners. There are too few in his constituency, and too many of them are over 50. No doubt Ministers will address both issues in due course.
As the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire has returned to the Chamber, I should tell him that we all welcomed his discussion of aircraft noise, which blights many communities, particularly in rural areas. It is not only big airfields that cause the problem.
As always, the debate has been wide ranging. As the right hon. Member for Gorton is now in his place, I shall repeat that he began with a speech which, although too long, was important. The exceptionally important matters that he raised need to be addressed. We have travelled from the deeply serious to the mildly frivolous. We are all reasonably exhausted and ready for a break that ought to include a holiday. I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and every other hon. Member a productive and enjoyable recess filled with plenty of constituency work but also a real family break.
12.17 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I should reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) about the large number of Members who have not been able to speak today. By the time of next year's debate, we will have been able to experiment with means to allow hon. Members a greater chance to raise constituency issues, perhaps in Westminster Hall. Our task is to ensure that constituency issues are raised and pursued while the primacy of the Chamber is maintained. That would be a major step forward.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I should have liked to hear more from the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) about the Palace theatre. I could give chapter and verse on what has happened before, and I do not doubt that we shall hear of it again.
Mr. Paul Tyler: An unusual number of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have been squeezed out of today's debate. Will the Minister convey
1142
to his right hon. and hon. Friends constituency concerns and other matters brought to the House by those who were unable to speak?
Mr. Tipping: I shall explore the possibilities. Any hon. Member who feels seriously aggrieved can write to me, and I shall ensure that the correspondence goes to the right place.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) got us off to a good start this morning. We need to look into the relationship between the Arrowcroft Group and United Utilities. It seems clear that Arrowcroft has been ignorant and arrogant, acting out of pride and prejudice but without sense and sensibility. The matter is before a public inquiry, and it would be unwise of me to comment further. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) will continue to pursue the matter rigorously, whether they are new or old Labour.
The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) spoke movingly about the problems at Dunsfold, which affect both her constituents and the Harrier programme. I shall draw her comments to the attention of relevant Ministers. She is right to say that regional development agencies are on trial, and that Dunsfold provides an opportunity to demonstrate what can be done. We want action as well as talk. I reassure her that there will be discussions between British Aerospace and DARA on the way forward. However, Dunsfold is primarily a matter for British Aerospace. I wish the right hon. Lady well in her discussions with the company.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) spoke of East Midlands airport, which I know well. I must confess that, many years ago, I was a leading light in the privatisation of the airport; I am pleased about that, because privatisation has brought new investment and new jobs to the area. The key issue at the airport is for the company to talk closely with local people. It should try to trade off investment against the obvious environmental concerns that have been expressed in the area. My hon. Friend made a good point about local decision-making in respect of planning, but noted that, in effect, these were regional and national matters. There is a case for considering a regional and national framework in respect of matters that affect airports such as the East Midlands airport.
The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) raised several issues. I shall not pursue all of them. He is right to highlight the fact that a Berlin wall sometimes still exists between health authorities and local authority social services departments. That is a real problem; we need to do better. Measures are in train to try to break down that wall. Patients should be the central concern; people should not be passed around like parcels. Money saving should not be the motivating force.
I understand all too well the hon. Gentleman's comments on mobile phones. Research is being carried out into their effect on people's health, but, looking around the Palace of Westminster, I fear that the research will be too late for some of our colleagues, whose brains are already hardened.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) spoke movingly and strongly of the problems of the sheep industry. In another context,

1143
my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) also referred to farming. It is clear that the agriculture sector faces problems at present—prospects are difficult. However, there are matters that we can pursue. First, we should examine the role of supermarkets. Secondly, we must ensure that farmers work co-operatively, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire suggested—for example, through farmers' markets. It is important to promote British meat—British lamb and British beef—as having better quality; we have higher welfare standards. That will take us a long way forward.
I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the remarks of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire on the cull ewe disposal scheme. A wider issue for debate is the role of the rural economy; we need to make it clear that agriculture is not necessarily the essential ingredient for bringing new investment, new jobs and a new future to rural areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) raised the problem of lack of GPs in Sunderland. The health authority is beginning to address that problem, and will shortly hold a meeting with 16 practices in order to try to develop and improve services. The number of GPs now in training, and who will go into the NHS, has increased during the past two years. My hon. Friend referred to salaried doctors; that reminded me of the formation of the NHS—the voice of Nye Bevan. I know that my hon. Friend is a strong follower of that tradition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Selby spoke strongly and knowledgeably of the coal industry. Environmental constraints are a major threat to that industry. It is important that our energy policy is balanced and that we reduce emissions, but we must acknowledge that the gains made thus far were made on the back of the coal industry and of coal-field communities. Much more needs to be done to ensure that the cleaner plants, such as Drax and Ratcliffe on Soar, have an opportunity to compete—that is one of the matters that will be dealt with by the pool review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) raised a constituency matter that merits wider consideration. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Foreign Office, Baroness Symons, is looking into the matter; I already have an undertaking that the wider issues raised by my hon. Friend will be included in that consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) spoke about education in his constituency. He pointed out that there were improvements, but that there is a need to add value for post-16 school leavers and adult learners. That is a central thrust of Government policy. I am disappointed to learn of the difficulties in Hull. We are committed to do more; we are committed to lifelong learning. I am sure that my hon. Friend's comments will be drawn to the attention of Ministers and to the Further Education Funding Council.
My hon. Friend was the first of this morning's speakers to refer to wider issues. The Patten review of the RUC is an important milestone for Northern Ireland. I shall draw
1144
to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland my hon. Friend's other comments on Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) is to be congratulated on raising an issue that he has pursued vigorously for many years. I have no doubt that there will be problems when the millennium comes. There will be glitches and we should not run away from the problems; we must engage with them because time is running short. Although 80 per cent. of Government systems are all right now, there remains much to do. There is still slippage. However, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is cracking the whip hard. I believe that there will be no serious and severe disruption in the United Kingdom of the kind predicted by the pessimists.
As time passes, we shall need to consider the matter closely and give reassurances. We shall need to highlight the international situation. Work is already under way at the Foreign Office. I anticipate that, in early autumn, the Foreign Office and several other Governments will draw attention to countries about which there is concern. In October, I anticipate that guidance will be given by airlines as to airline and airport safety. Yes, there will be international problems, but it is important that there is no knock-on effect for the UK. I am not advocating an "I'm all right Jack" approach, but we are well placed vis-a-vis other countries.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Financial Services Agency and the eight rogue firms. At some point, a naming exercise will have to occur. At present, it would be wrong to do that. However, I expect that progress will be made, but, if that is not the case, disclosure will have to take place for the sake of the consumer.
The House owes a debt to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) for what he did today. I undertake to look into the wider issues in respect of constituency correspondence.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) raised the Michael Ashcroft saga. It seems that damning allegations are being made. I cannot understand why the ethics and integrity committee of the Tory party have not investigated the matter.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) told me that wood was good. I agree with him. I shall walk in the woodland during the summer; woodland can lift the environment and lift the landscape. I look forward to being in Yorkshire on 1 August—enjoying the landscape, the woodland and the great gastronomic delights of north Yorkshire.
With that, I wish all hon. Members a good recess, a chance for refreshment with their families as well as a chance to pursue constituency work—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The Minister's comments were splendid, but he was not absolutely exact in his timing. I am sure that his remarks were appreciated.
We now move on to the debate on publicly funded legal services and legal aid in Reading, East.

Legal Services (Reading, East)
12.30 pm
Jane Griffiths: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the important subject of publicly funded legal services in Reading. The title of the debate might give the impression that a parochial matter is being aired in the House today, but that is not so. I shall raise several important issues relating to the legal aid service in Reading that reflect a worrying national picture.
Parliament is considering a number of Government Bills relating to access to justice that will make important changes to the justice system. Consultations have been taking place and the public and interested bodies have been expressing their views. Therefore, it is all the more essential that existing bodies which provide access to legal services for those who need them, but who do not have the means to fund legal representation from their own income, operate in a manner that disburses public funds correctly, and that those bodies monitor rigorously the disbursement of those funds so that public money is not squandered, either on hopeless cases or on cases in which the full evidence is not in the possession of either of the parties concerned or their legal representatives.
I was pleased to learn from the Reading legal aid office that the targets for speedy processing of claims for legal aid assistance, which are set nationally, are being either met or exceeded by that office. Some months ago, I tabled parliamentary questions in an effort to establish where the Reading legal aid office fits into the national picture in terms of meeting those targets and processing my constituents' claims for legal aid assistance. From the answers provided by Ministers, it is clear that the Reading legal aid office is almost entirely typical of the country as a whole.
The figures show that Reading legal aid office had an average level of debt write-off of £637 in 1997–98, which is the last year for which figures are available. That is slightly less than the national average of £700 in 1997–98. The figures for the same year also show that, at £1.5 million per permanent employee, the cost of the legal aid service in Reading is less than the national average cost per permanent employee of £1.7 million. To attach a health warning to the latter figures, I should point out that the national figures include central support staff, whereas Reading's figures do not.
I am delighted that Reading's legal aid service appears to be performing well, but a darker picture has emerged after a meeting that I had with staff from that office. It is apparent that the need to meet or exceed national targets is putting pressure on staff at local legal aid offices to process claims without necessarily having the opportunity to put due checks and balances in place. The staff have targets for the number of claims that they have to process every day. They are checked constantly, and falling behind in achieving the targets results in a visit from a supervisor and possible disciplinary action.
I have no problem with the existence of targets to measure efficiency of processing—in fact, I believe that it is important to have targets to ensure that work is being carried out as efficiently as possible. However, that efficiency, those targets and the management systems must not apply solely to processing of claims, but should apply also to the accuracy of the claims that are entered.
1146
To illustrate my argument, I shall refer to a constituent, whom I shall call Mr. B. He is in the unusual, but by no means unique, position of being in the throes of a marriage break-up, but still living in the same house as his spouse. Representations have been made seeking legal aid for his spouse, to the effect that she is responsible for various financial outgoings of the household. Because of their joint occupation of the household, Mr. B is in a position to have seen the claim that his spouse has submitted and learn that she has claimed for household expenditure that he actually pays. He can demonstrate that her financial situation is not as it has been represented.
That evidence is not being properly considered by the Reading legal aid office, despite the fact that its authenticity is at least worthy of respect. That is apparently because, were it to be considered, the excellent record of the Reading legal aid office in meeting its targets might be compromised. Mr. B, whose income would not in any circumstances entitle him to legal aid assistance, is left in the unfortunate position of knowing that public funds are being issued to a person who is not entitled to benefit from them, and that he could lose his home as a result.
Another constituent, Mr. L, has been in dispute for 10 years or more with his neighbour over a piece of land adjoining both their properties. Despite the fact that Mr. L's case and others like it are unlikely to achieve a satisfactory settlement through the courts, public funds have been disbursed over the years to the extent that the piece of land in dispute could have been purchased at the market value, donated to my constituent and an equivalent sum paid in compensation to his neighbour with the legal aid funds that have already been disbursed—but, of course, those funds have gone into the pockets of solicitors. As it is, the action continues, with no hope of success and with distress and worry caused to my constituent, whose legal representatives have been happy to receive legal aid certificates for a hopeless case. The legal aid service's remit allows it to refuse assistance for such cases, but in Mr. L's and other cases it has not done so.
Those examples, which are replicated in other cases that constituents have brought to my attention, demonstrate that there is some substance to the concerns of the staff at the Reading legal aid office. I am worried to learn that the Reading office is now taking on work from Manchester, Brighton and elsewhere. I understand that legal aid offices do that, if they have spare capacity. I hope that the systems for dealing with that work will ensure that there is proper scrutiny of the claims. The staff at the office have further concerns: paperwork is thrown away, so there is no record of the development of a case and no paper record should there have to be court action for recovery, making that recovery much harder; and auditing of claims by solicitors firms for legal aid under the delegated scheme again fails to provide proper scrutiny, as a result of the same pressures to pass claims.
Mr. Martin Salter: My hon. Friend is making a good argument and the people of Reading will be grateful to her. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, does she agree that there is an urgent need for that Committee to examine the roots of the suspicion

1147
that the legal aid budget is being milked by unscrupulous solicitors, and that no proper checks or balances are in place?
Jane Griffiths: I agree that there is cause for concern about the activities of unscrupulous solicitors in several areas. I hope that the sort of rigorous scrutiny that I shall recommend will be carried out.
I do not ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor' s Department, to comment upon individual cases, as that would not be appropriate. However, I do ask him to reflect upon the fact that the Reading legal aid office is under such pressure to meet its targets for speedy processing of claims that claims are being routinely approved, without sufficient checking or scrutiny. Under the current system, it is easier to approve all claims that pass across an officer's desk than to check the reasonableness of the claims.
The professional staff at the Reading legal aid office would like to check all the claims that pass before them, but they are not given the opportunity to exercise their professionalism. Thus, year after year, huge sums of public money are disbursed—sums that almost match the budget of Reading council for the provision of all services to the people of Reading. Targets are met, but my constituents in Reading, East have less-than-adequate access to justice and solicitors get fat on the proceeds.
Money is walking out of the door of the Reading legal aid office, because management systems are set up to issue money as efficiently as possible and equal attention is not given to ensuring that the money is effectively spent. Solicitors in Reading, East are well aware that legal aid claims are not rigorously monitored. Who can blame them for claiming what they can, or for encouraging their clients to pursue cases that are either hopeless or misrepresented?
Access to justice is a basic human right. I hope that the Minister will take into account the fact that, whatever the situation in the Reading legal aid office may be, according to the Government's figures, it is not untypical of the national picture. Therefore, it may be true that, all over the country, the speedy processing of legal aid claims is taking precedence over good monitoring and scrutiny. I hope that that is not the case.
I should like to take advantage of the privilege that I have been granted in raising this important subject in the House today by asking the Minister whether he will ensure that the legal aid service in Reading, and others elsewhere in the country, will be obliged in future to undertake strict monitoring of financial disbursement and rigorous scrutiny of the evidence presented when legal aid is sought. My constituent Mr. B should be permitted to present evidence that may affect his adversary's entitlement to legal aid under our current system.
I know that our legal aid system will change in the future. I seek an assurance from the Minister that serious and rigorous scrutiny will be put in place so that those who seek help from publicly funded legal services and those who may have adversaries who do so can be confident that all possible evidence is taken into account and that public funds will be used to provide access to justice for those who need it.
12.41 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) on her good fortune in securing a debate on this very important subject which, aside from the legislative proceedings, has not been debated in the House since the introduction of the Access to Justice Bill in the other place in December last year.
My hon. Friend has, typically, put her case articulately, cogently and effectively on behalf of her constituents. She is a first-class constituency member. I am also delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) in the Chamber. I believe that my hon. Friends are the best parliamentary team from Reading in more than a generation. Before I deal with the points that my hon. Friend has made, I shall describe briefly the work that the Government are taking forward to improve publicly funded legal services in England and Wales.
The Government's proposals to reform the legal aid scheme and improve the justice system were set out in the White Paper "Modernising Justice" and in the Access to Justice Bill, which will come before the House this afternoon. Our intention is to help ordinary people use the justice system to enforce their rights and solve their problems and to create a system that offers people the best-quality services at a price that the taxpayer can afford.
Our new community legal service, which will be established under the Access to Justice Bill, will approach problems in a radical new way. It will provide access to information, assistance and advice. It will aim to ensure that a range of legal services is available when and where people need it, and that those services meet the actual needs of people. It will work in partnership with other funders and providers of legal services and use local expertise so that we can build up a pattern of legal services that meets local need. It will create opportunities for innovative legal services delivered in new ways and taking advantage of new technology. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has said, it is the cornerstone of our legal services strategy.
The greater use of conditional fees to fund litigation will open up the courts to those who cannot afford to litigate. However, some individuals will still need public support to pursue a case. The community legal service will encompass what is currently civil and family legal aid. It will ensure that the right priorities are set for the use of the funds that are available, and that those who provide services provide good quality at a good price. The use of contracts with suppliers will introduce competition to the market and ensure that quality services are provided at a value-for-money price. Contracting will improve our control over the amount of public funds spent on legal services. Funds will be targeted at priority cases, and cases will not go to court if the problem can be resolved in some other way.
A great deal of work is already being done to prepare for the community legal service. Pioneer community legal service partnerships with local authorities have been set up in a number of areas to identify and test best practice in co-ordinating local funding and planning to match the delivery of services with local needs and to build local referral networks.

1149
Not every local authority could become a pioneer partner, and Reading was not among those chosen. The nearest partnership area to Reading is Slough, but Reading will be able to benefit from the work that is being done to develop a blueprint for local authorities to follow when establishing their own community legal service frameworks.
Reading falls within the area of the Legal Aid Board's southern legal services committee, which covers Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, Dorset and the Isle of Wight—an area with a total population in excess of 4.25 million. In April 1999, the committee published its assessment of the need for legal services and its strategic plan for letting contracts for publicly funded legal services from next year.
The assessment of need was consulted on widely through a series of county-based conferences. As a result of representations made at those conferences, a "Greater Reading" contract zone was created to incorporate residential areas in particular parts of neighbouring authorities since it was felt that those residents would be most likely to seek legal services within Reading.
Greater Reading has been assessed as having a high priority of need for legal services in the matrimonial and family, debt, housing, welfare benefits, employment, consumer, general contract and immigration areas of law. Contracts for the provision of publicly funded legal services in those high-priority areas will be issued to those providers who bid for contracts, provided they meet the board's franchise quality standard.
I understand that the southern legal services committee has put the establishment of the community legal service in Reading high on its agenda and is building on its relationship with local government to prepare to participate in the development of the community legal service. Meetings with the advice sector and other providers in Reading are planned to take place in September to take this work forward.
The new community legal service, together with the criminal defence service which will replace criminal legal aid, will be set up and administered by a new non-departmental public body, the Legal Services Commission. The commission will replace the Legal Aid Board, to which Parliament delegated the day-to-day administration of the legal aid scheme. This delegation is essential to ensure that decisions on the granting of legal aid in individual cases can be seen to be free from political and governmental influence.
My hon. Friend referred to several cases upon which she said, correctly, that I was unable to comment. That is the philosophy behind establishing a body that is separate from Government. However, I know that the area manager of the Reading legal aid area office will be pleased to meet my hon. Friend to discuss any particular concerns that she may have. However, as I am sure that my hon. Friend understands, the Legal Aid Board may not disclose specific information about a legally aided person or his or her opponent without that person's consent.
Mr. Salter: At the risk of embarrassing my hon. Friend, may I ask whether he is aware that the manager of the Reading legal aid service is not well known for responding to correspondence from Members of Parliament?
Mr. Vaz: I am sure that my hon. Friend would never want to embarrass me in any way. If the manager of the local area office is not well known, I will ensure that my hon. Friends receive a letter from him on their desks in the House of Commons tomorrow morning—although I do not know whether I can ask him to include a colour photograph.
Disclosure is prevented by section 38 of the Legal Aid Act 1988, which is designed to preserve confidentiality and ensure that information is not disclosed if it might prejudice legal proceedings. That provision often prevents the board from disclosing the factual basis for its decisions in individual cases, and that is quite right.
My hon. Friend may wish to advise any constituent who has a complaint about the way in which the Reading legal aid area office has handled a particular case that all the board's area offices have a customer services manager who is responsible for the management of the complaints process. A customer services team in the board's head office is responsible for providing an independent review of any complaints already handled by an area office.
All representations and complaints received by the board are investigated fully in accordance with central guidance. However, it should be remembered that the confidentiality provision may mean that the board is unable to explain the reasons for its decision in a particular case. This is particularly relevant when a person has made representations to the board that an opponent's legal aid certificate should be withdrawn or revoked.
In such cases, feelings can run high and it is often difficult for the person making the representations to accept the board's decision without being provided with the reasons for it. However, it should be remembered that, in many cases, the board will have access to further, confidential information, which has a bearing on its decision. For example, the board may have information about a legally aided person's financial circumstances, his or her solicitor's opinion on the strength of the case, evidence and pleadings and, sometimes, counsel's opinion. As I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, the disclosure of such information to a third party could unfairly affect the way in which the case progresses.
In April 1997, the board established a special investigations unit to address identified deficiencies in the assessment of the means of legal aid applicants with complex financial affairs. In 82 per cent. of the investigations carried out in 1998–99, applicants were found to be financially ineligible for legal aid, or they did not co-operate with the board in the assessment of their means, leading to the failure of their application or the discharge or revocation of their legal aid certificate. My hon. Friend asked for an assurance, and I can assure her that those matters are taken very seriously, and there is the most rigorous scrutiny of those cases.

1151
Later this year, the Legal Aid Board will begin a pilot scheme to obtain independent opinions on the merits of cases funded through legal aid. Cases that appear to be weaker than was originally stated will be referred to a member of a specialist panel of barristers. The board may refer cases not only on its own initiative, but after representations made by assisted persons' opponents and by the courts. The independent specialist will act in an inquisitorial role, and will not only reassess the merits on the basis of the case put forward by the legally aided person, but reconsider the merits as a whole.
The new funding code, which will replace the civil legal aid merits test under the reformed scheme, will ensure that public money is targeted on the highest priority and most deserving cases by requiring a set of rigorous criteria to be taken into account in the assessment of applications for funding. That code will be flexible, in that different criteria may be applied to different types of case, according to priorities and the availability of resources. High priorities will include social welfare cases, those involving the interests of children and those with a wider public interest.
Subject to those priorities, there will be an assumption that public funding will be available only if a prudent individual, who could afford to do so, would be prepared to risk his or her own money in litigation. Underpinning that approach will be the application of stringent cost-benefit ratios that reflect the prospects of a successful outcome. Cases that are judged to have a 60 to 80 per cent. chance of success would generally have to secure damages of at least three times the likely costs. Cases with a less than even chance of success would be very unlikely to receive funding, unless they were of the highest priority.
Decisions on funding will also take into account the availability of alternative sources of funding, including conditional fee agreements, and alternative means of resolving the dispute.
The Reading legal aid area office, like all the board's area offices, operates under the Legal Aid Act 1988 and the regulations made under it. The board is taking forward a programme of improvements to the guidance that it issues to caseworkers to promote justifiable and, where cases are similar, consistent decision making. For example, in 1998–99 the board introduced further guidance on when and how to investigate representations against the grant or continuation of legal aid and introduced better controls to ensure the management of the process.
1152
A computerised system has been introduced for monitoring progress and analysing the outcomes of representations received, and a new leaflet explaining to the public how representations are dealt with has been produced.
A quality index is being developed as a way of measuring the quality of operational performance at local and national level to give a balanced measure of performance in terms of efficiency, speed and the quality of service that the board provides.
The Reading office exceeds the board's operational performance targets in all areas except speed of replying to general correspondence, where performance, at 95 per cent., is slightly below the target of dealing with all correspondence within 20 working days of receipt in 100 per cent. of cases. A number of the board's area offices are currently performing slightly below target in that area. The board is concentrating on improving its performance in its handling of correspondence. Furthermore, the board has set new, more challenging targets in many areas of its work for 1999–2000.
Having heard from my hon. Friend, I have decided to visit the Reading legal aid area office during the summer recess to meet the staff and see the work that they are doing. That visit is in addition to ensuring that letters are sent by the legal aid manager, with or without his or her photograph. I should like to extend an invitation to my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, East and for Reading, West and other hon. Members whose constituencies fall within the Reading legal aid area to join me on that visit.
The Legal Aid Board is committed progressively to improving the quality and efficiency of its services and to ensuring that its decisions and actions are justifiable to all those affected by them. The board is playing a major role in implementing the Government's reforms to publicly funded legal services and managing its transition to the legal services commission.
The pace of change that the board's staff are facing is, as my hon. Friend has said, challenging, and I am grateful to them for the commitment that they continue to demonstrate to maintaining performance standards and implementing the changes. I have every confidence that the board will continue to work hard to make the reforms a success. I look forward to seeing my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, East and for Reading, West when I visit Reading to meet the staff at the area office.

Post Office Counters Ltd.
12.56 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I am grateful for this opportunity to initiate an Adjournment debate. The debate's grand title on the Order Paper, "Competition policy and Post Office Counters", stems from one case, but it is a case that has stirred up a great deal of emotion in my constituency. Approximately 4,000 people signed a petition in a very short time, and many local businesses were outraged by the behaviour of Post Office Counters Ltd.
The case raises wider issues of policy, which I want to put to the Minister. In particular, it arouses concern among many of the 17,000 or so postmasters and postmistresses who run the small businesses that operate the Post Office network. In most cases, their relationship with the network is perfectly good and, with enlightened management, the Post Office network can be very creative. However, in many cases, of which my constituency case is one, the postmaster or postmistress is in a commercially vulnerable position, and is wholly dependent on the monopoly operation of Post Office Counters Ltd. In this case, Post Office Counters Ltd. has been highly authoritarian and there have been unacceptable forms of management. I want to focus on that relationship and make some suggestions.
I shall make three proposals before I turn to Dr. Oraki's case, which highlights the issues. The first relates to the nature of dismissals. Post Office Counters Ltd. can dismiss those who have a contractual relationship with it. That may happen for a variety of reasons, including impropriety or the failure to maintain proper standards of service.
What is strange is that those who have a contractual relationship with the Post Office—the sub-postmasters and postmistresses—do not have a right of appeal in the normal sense. Many of them have tried, as my constituent has, to go through an appeal process using an industrial tribunal, but that has not been accepted as valid in law. There is no proper appeal system in cases where management exercise their powers capriciously and improperly. My recommendation, to which I shall return later in my remarks, is that the Minister should approach Post Office Counters Ltd. to set up a more equitable and balanced relationship.
My second proposal relates to the security of investments of this large number of small business people. Many of them are going into business for the first time and all their life savings are put at risk. Those savings can effectively be cancelled out at the stroke of a pen as the result of a decision by a Post Office network manager to relocate a post office. That is not normal commercial risk; it is highly unacceptable and it is subject to the abuses that any monopoly situation will create. Will the Minister investigate how he can steer Post Office Counters Ltd. into fairer relationships?
The third point relates to the consumer watchdog, the Post Office Users National Council. In this regard, I sought for the first time as a Member of Parliament to make use of that organisation's services. To put it brutally, I found it completely and utterly useless, totally unresponsive to consumer feeling in my area and, as far as I could see, largely a mouthpiece for the Post Office management. That is a very unsatisfactory relationship for
1154
an organisation that is publicly funded, and it should be questioned. I should like the Minister to consider policy in those three basic areas. I shall briefly go over the case that brought all that to light and led me to the conclusions that I have pursued.
Like many people, Dr. Oraki wanted to enter business through owning a post office. Five years ago, she bought a post office in Whitton in my constituency, for which she paid roughly £100,000 plus a franchise fee to the Post Office. Since then, she has run a fairly successful commercial operation. She had some teething difficulties in the first year and there were a few complaints, but as far as I can establish, there were only roughly 15 complaints over the entire period. Since the Post Office does not publish complaints by individual post office, it is difficult to judge the seriousness of that number of complaints, but, as far as I can gather, it is extremely low among post offices of comparable size.
Last year, however, one incident produced a major crisis in the otherwise relatively uncontroversial local post office. A customer entered the post office and asked to send a parcel to Chile. Dr. Oraki's employee at the counter did not know where Chile was. The customer was outraged and wrote a very strong letter of complaint to Post Office Counters Ltd. Acting on that complaint, the Post Office management descended on the local post office, which led to a set of circumstances in which the contract was terminated and Dr. Oraki lost her post office.
Dr. Oraki believed that the circumstances of the termination were bizarre and totally unreasonable, and contested her dismissal at an industrial tribunal. Because she was doing so, she did not take advantage of the Post Office's suggestion that she put the post office on the market. In time, the industrial tribunal reached a negative result, but in a very bizarre twist, which caused me and many others to question what was going on in the Post Office, she was offered a job with more responsibility in a bigger post office. That raised great doubts about why on earth her contract had been terminated in the first place.
In addition, the Post Office proceeded to issue a contract to another post office further down the road. That was the point at which I and others members of the community became aware of it, because under the statutory public consultation process, we were duly notified. I was told without any explanation of the context that a new, bigger, better-equipped office was due to open in the area. That turned out to be largely a fabrication, but was none the less the context in which I was first drawn into the case.
I will not bore the Minister with any more details because he clearly cannot intervene directly—the law is clear. Post Office Counters Ltd. has commercial independence in this respect and it would be improper to push the Minister directly to interfere beyond where his powers lie. I shall, however, summarise the case.
A small entrepreneur invested her life savings in a post office, which at the latest estimate is worth £150,000, and subsequently lost almost all of it because the building had very little resale value without the post office in it. She lost a major investment as a result of what appears to be a capricious decision by Post Office Counters management. The Post Office gained another post office down the road, another franchise fee and the opportunity to deal with another employee under a more favourable

1155
contract. Frankly, if that happened in business, we would call it sharp practice. As it concerns a public utility, it raises questions about public policy. I shall proceed from the personal case to describe the public policy issues stemming from it, which I ask the Minister to consider in detail.
The first such issue relates to the circumstances in which a sub-postmistress or sub-postmaster can be dismissed or have their office terminated. The background is a unique, complex and difficult legal structure. The 17,000 or 18,000 people who work as sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses provide employment for services; they are officeholders with emoluments. They fall into a distinct semi-employment, semi-contractual legal category—a hybrid.
When such a hybrid relationship works well, it apparently works very well. The federation that represents postmasters and postmistresses is not suggesting for a moment that the fundamental basis for the relationship should change. When it works well, it gives sub-postmasters commercial freedom and some of the elements of employment, but when it works badly, with unenlightened or authoritarian management, it works extremely badly. A postmaster can be pitched out of his post office with no legal protection and no independent source of appeal.
I ask the Minister to approach Post Office Counters Ltd. in order to require it to introduce a genuinely balanced relationship with its sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, establishing for them a quasi-judicial appeal process of the kind that they would enjoy if they were employees. That would rectify the many cases of often severe injustice.
The second matter—it is related—on which I ask the Minister to intervene is the question of loss of investment. As has happened in this case, a small business person may put her life savings at risk and lose it all. Even if there had been no controversy and Dr. Oraki had simply decided to retire and the Post Office had decided to move the service up the road, she would have lost all her investment. It is wrong that a monopoly—the Post Office network is of course one such monopoly—should have the power to negate an entrepreneur's investment. That is even more pertinent given that anybody who wishes to acquire a post office must pay the Post Office a substantial franchise fee. Will the Minister intervene in order that a system in which some security of tenure is provided, so that small businesses are not put at such risk, which is not normal commercial risk but depends on the good practice of a monopoly utility?
The third policy point relates to the functioning of post office consumer groups, which are statutorily provided. I approached the POUNC to help to support this case. It was certainly very courteous and approachable, but it became very clear that it was acting on advice from management. It appeared unable to respond to local feeling—it seemed to regard the very large petition as wholly irrelevant—and simply responded to me by quoting back information from the Post Office that was simply wrong.
I am afraid that that episode led me to lose confidence completely in the impartiality of the supposed consumer watchdog. I hope that, in the Minister's negotiations and discussions with the Post Office, which are of course taking place in a wider context, such deficiencies will be understood.
1156
I fully support the principle that the Government have sought to develop. I am entirely with the Minister on the broader policy of the Post Office having greater commercial freedom. But, if it is given such freedom, the monopoly that it enjoys through its network must not be deployed to the disadvantage of the very many small businesses that make up that network. I also believe—as the Government obviously do—in the importance of maintaining, for social as well as economic reasons, the Post Office Counters network system. It is a very valuable institution. However, in the final analysis it is a people business, and the people are the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. They must be employed on a fair and equitable basis; otherwise, that business loses much of its value to the community.
In that spirit, I ask the Minister to probe the matter further. I realise that there are limits to his statutory powers of intervention in a specific case, but I ask him to pursue the matter as far as possible, to rectify both a particular injustice and some fundamental systemic weakness in the way that the Post Office network system is managed.
1.10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the opportunity to debate a range of issues relating to post offices and to the Post Office Counters business of the Post Office today. The points that he raised largely arise from the circumstances of a constituent, who formerly operated a sub-post office. The hon. Gentleman eloquently described the dilemma in which that person found herself. As he knows, many hon. Members have experienced similar problems with post offices in their constituency, so I am glad that the matter has been raised.
The hon. Gentleman knows that I am unable to discuss the specifics of the case. It centres in part on a particular set of circumstances in respect of which legal action is still in prospect. In wider terms, however, the issues that he has raised relate to aspects of the contractual terms and arrangements that apply between Post Office Counters Ltd. and about 18,000 individual sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses throughout the country. Indeed, I understand that the Post Office is the biggest single retail chain that exists anywhere: it is an enormously important retail chain, and matters affecting it deserve our concern.
In responding to the range of issues and arguments that have been raised today about those terms and arrangements, it is important to understand the broader context in which they are set.
Since the Post Office was established as a public corporation in 1969, it has been the policy of successive Governments that decisions relating to the day-to-day running of the postal businesses, such as the contractual terms and the arrangements between sub-postmasters and Post Office Counters Ltd., are the operational responsibility of the Post Office Board and management. The Government's role in Post Office matters is confined to broad issues of general policy and to overall financial control. With a network of some 18,000 sub-post offices, it would be inappropriate and impractical for Government or Ministers to become involved in decisions or disputes relating to individual offices.

1157
However, I have noted the concerns of the hon. Member for Twickenham about the consultation procedures that operate in respect of proposed closure or relocation of individual post offices. A great many of us in this place have experience of such closure or relocation, as the Crown post offices were closed over a period and new offices were opened. The current arrangements operate in accordance with a code of practice that is agreed between Post Office Counters Ltd. and the Post Office Users National Council, the statutory body representing consumers' interests in postal services. I noted what the hon. Gentleman said about the POUNC. He will be pleased to hear—I say this in guarded terms at the moment—that I am carefully considering the effectiveness, strengths and weaknesses of the POUNC. The matter needs to be looked at—and, believe me, it is being looked at.
The consultation process is designed to inform—and to seek comments from—local residents and users of a proposed change in the status or location of a particular post office. During a one-month consultation period, views and comments are sought from the local Member of Parliament, the local authority, the local post office advisory committee and customers. In general, the consultation process works pretty well, though I am aware that the hon. Member for Twickenham feels that, in the case that is of concern to him, the consultation process should have specified the reason for the proposed relocation. As a Minister who is very much in favour of transparency, I believe that that issue should be very carefully examined.
It is fair to say, however, that in many cases there are sensitivities about the reason for the decision, and a delicate judgment may need to be made about disclosure and its potential impact on the reputation or standing of an outgoing sub-postmaster. Therefore—understandably—Post Office Counters Ltd. tends to err on the side of caution in such matters.
All sub-postmasters and franchisees are appointed under contract for the provision of services as agents. They are not employees of the Post Office or of Post Office Counters Ltd. and, as agents, their contractual terms and conditions differ significantly from those of an employee.
A sub-postmaster's contract is a commercial arrangement between the individual sub-postmaster and Post Office Counters Ltd. As a standard condition of the contract, both parties can give three months' notice of termination and neither party is required to give reasons for doing so. Similarly, there is no right of appeal on either side against a three-month notice to terminate the contract. I know that the absence of appeal processes in such circumstances is a matter of concern to the hon. Member for Twickenham and other hon. Members. Although I appreciate the background to that concern, such a right of appeal would tend to distort the commercial even-handedness of the contract unless sub-postmasters were also to be subject to appeals against their decision to resign. Contracts are terminated far more frequently by sub-postmasters than they are by Post Office Counters Ltd. Against that background, I understand that the National Federation of Sub-postmasters fully supports the principle underpinning the
1158
present arrangements under which Post Office Counters Ltd. does, in appropriate circumstances, offer an interview with regional managers at the most senior levels.
On occasions, there will be disputes about the background to, and the circumstances of, a decision by Post Office Counters Ltd. to terminate a contract. That is probably inevitable, given the size of the network of sub-post offices and the number of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. For the most part, however, the present arrangements appear to operate satisfactorily from the perspective of sub-postmasters and Post Office Counters Ltd.
What is indisputable is that the nationwide network of post offices which these arrangements underpin has served the United Kingdom well over the years. The post offices have enabled the Post Office to maintain the most extensive retail network in Europe. The Government fully recognise the importance of the post office network and both we and Post Office Counters Ltd. are committed to the maintenance of a nationwide network of post offices. We are also fully aware of the importance of post offices to their local communities, particularly, but not exclusively, in rural areas. More than 98 per cent. of the network, including all sub-post offices, is privately owned and operated, representing a valuable partnership between the public and private sectors.
It is obviously important that the contractual arrangements that govern the partnerships between Post Office Counters Ltd. and individual sub-postmasters are commercially and administratively viable. If they are not, the network will not survive. Although the network has been slowly shrinking for many years, the recent post office closures reflect the difficulties in finding suitable applicants to take on offices which, even in conjunction with an associated retail business, are not judged to be commercially viable by prospective purchasers. As far as either the Government or Post Office Counters Ltd. are aware, it is wider socio-economic and demographic factors, rather than the contractual arrangements at present applicable to sub-postmasters, that have largely been responsible for this trend.
Decisions relating to the operational arrangements for the postal business, including the contractual terms and arrangements relating to sub-postmasters, are and must remain the responsibility of the Post Office board and management. I am sure—I hope very much that this will be the position—that the chairman and chief executive will take note and reflect on the issues and concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised so eloquently.
We have a little time to explore some of the specific issues to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention. As I said earlier, I am particularly concerned about the effectiveness of the Post Office Users National Council. The hon. Gentleman has done us all a valuable service by giving us a detailed account of the reaction that he had from the POUNC. The present Government, the previous Government and earlier Governments have put considerable sums into the POUNC. One wonders what benchmarks were used to test whether the funding was being used effectively. It is very much up to government now to understand whether precious taxpayers' money is being used properly. Against the background of the hon. Gentleman's experience, he identified some clear limits to what the POUNC is capable of doing.

1159
I give him an undertaking that we shall carefully examine the POUNC, including its structure and the way in which it works. We shall examine whether it is open enough in its relationship with the public and whether it reacts quickly enough and with any degree of effectiveness to the problems that are brought before it.
The hon. Gentleman talked about whether the POUNC is too close to Post Office management. That is an important issue. The POUNC must be seen to be the consumers' champion.
The hon. Gentleman talked about Post Office Counters Ltd. being able to guarantee some job or contractual security to franchisees, to sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. I tried to indicate when I responded to the hon. Gentleman earlier that security is something that must be thrashed out between the various representative organisations and the Post Office itself. We are about to witness a sea change in the way in which the management of the Post Office works and the way in which it operates in a new commercial context. It is a good time to re-examine these issues and it is important that the Post Office does so.
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any guarantee about security of tenure. There are few commercial organisations, and certainly retail outlets, that can offer such security, no matter which sector they are operating in. It is a difficult area. The hon. Gentleman told the House that currently there is not an appeal system. I feel that that is something that must be negotiated between the franchisees and the Post Office, and Post Office Counters Ltd. itself. It is to be hoped that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses will be employed, as the hon. Gentleman said, on an equitable basis. There is every reason why they should be. They are a valuable asset to any community of which they are part.
I hope very much that management will listen to the hon. Gentleman and that we shall see some results as a consequence of this short debate.

Kashmir
1.25 pm
Lorna Fitzsimons: It is a great honour to initiate this Adjournment debate. I understand that this is the first time that the House has discussed Kashmir since 1996. Given recent events in Kargil, it is important that British Members of Parliament have a chance to put on record our opinions and views and the work that we and the Government have been doing in relation to Kashmir and the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
I shall set out the movement that I am asking for from the Government in using the direct representation that Ministers have in their power and garnering support from the rest of the international community on several issues relating to human rights, democracy and demilitarisation in Jammu and Kashmir.
Many people will have views about my motivations as the hon. Member for Rochdale. Is the purpose of the debate pure electoral expediency because there is a large Kashmiri community within my constituency? Am I too pro-Pakistani? Might I be nice to the Indian Government? The House has to thank two people for my taking up the cause of the Kashmiri people. These are real, ordinary people in my constituency, who are British citizens. They do not represent an organisation. Their stories motivated me to take up the issue. I refer to Haji Ahmed and Amna Meir. They are two of my dearest friends.
Haji is the closest that I have ever come to someone who is genuinely a pacifist. He was imprisoned in India-controlled Kashmir for three years. He is with us now through the interventions of Neil Kinnock and Cyril Smith. To my knowledge, Haji has never done anything, not even swatting a fly, that could ever be construed as violence. The way that he stoically but passionately carries the belief still that the Kashmiris are the wronged people in everything that has happened throughout history in the territory led me to initiate the debate.
It is an historical truism that the Kashmiris are the wronged people. It was not their fault that 50 years ago their maharajah decided that, because of incursions from one side of the territory and because the state of Pakistan wanted to hurry him up in making a decision because he was doing a lot of fence-sitting, he would sign an accession agreement with India without consulting the people. The subsequent United Nations resolution recognised that and demanded that there should be a plebiscite to put the question to the people of Jammu and Kashmir and the princely state.
I have always been told by those much more eminent than me that we do not know where we are going in future if we do not know our history. In the research that I undertook in preparing for the debate I had quite a big history lesson. I want to say thank you to many people because I have actively tried to be even-handed and I have been briefed by the Indian high commissioner, the Pakistani high commissioner, representatives in the United Kingdom of Sultan Mahmud Chaudhary and many of my constituents. I have genuinely sought to be balanced.
I was surprised, when talking to the Indian high commissioner, about India's non-acceptance of the 1949 UN resolution. Basically, the high commissioner said that India played the politics of the day wrong. It did

1161
not realise that, because Pakistan was starting to be pro-western, the cookie could crumble on its side. India thinks that the agreement that it signed with Pakistan in 1972 negates any responsibility in terms of the original UN resolution. It says that despite all the problems in all the other ex-princely states that now make up India, no plebiscite or vote was offered to them. The decision was made by the maharajah of the time. India says that it could not retrospectively, no matter what the UN resolution stated, refer the question to the people of Jammu and Kashmir now.
I pay tribute to one of our international guests who, I am pleased to say, is watching the debate—the former chief justice of Azad Kashmir, Majid Malik, whose wisdom and even-handed approach to history and whose advice to me I have found extremely beneficial.
Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Lorna Fitzsimons: No. I shall make a little progress before giving way.
I am led to believe that there are two historical anomalies in the current Indian position. The first relates to Juna Garh. I hope that the House will forgive my pronunciation—I am a northern lass. Juna Garh was a princely state whose ruler was a Muslim, although the majority of the population was non-Muslim. India opposed the decision that was made and Pakistan brought the matter to the attention of the United Nations Security Council. A plebiscite was held and the decision went with the will of the people, rather than the will of the maharajah.
A second example is Hyderabad, a large state in the middle of India. The ruler decided to declare independence rather than accede to India or Pakistan. According to some commentators, India forcibly occupied the state. A plebiscite was held and the will of the people, who were predominantly non-Muslim, favoured accession to India.
In those two examples, because of the discrepancy between the will of the maharajah and the democratic will of the majority of the people, a plebiscite was held. That flies in the face of what Indian representatives would have us believe about the problems of implementing the UN resolution.
I emphasise that I want to be seen to be even-handed, but deeds speak loudest about what is happening in India. I do not like to be told that my job is to represent my people in Rochdale, not to poke my nose into international issues. I have been requested to speak out by Haji and Amna. Their families still live in Azad Kashmir, and I represent people who still have families in Indian-controlled Kashmir. If the families of British citizens are affected by what is happening 50 years on, I have a responsibility as an elected representative in the United Kingdom Parliament to draw attention to the matter.
One of the things that brings us together, and brought the world together in the second world war, is that when human rights are denied in some part of the world, we as civilised western society have the responsibility to do
1162
everything in our power to bring about a cessation of violence, demilitarisation and the restoration of human rights.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene in this important debate. Does she agree that the line of control must be respected if there is ever to be peace between India and Pakistan, and that India has shown remarkable and commendable restraint in its response to the incursion by Pakistani armed forces across the line of control in their attempt to undermine India's territorial sovereignty?
Lorna Fitzsimons: I understand my hon. Friend's position, but I do not agree with him. Aircraft were used, not in time of war. I do not call that restraint. The presence of a military person to every six civilians is not what I call even-handed.
That does not mean that I do not have views about terror organisations that do not have at heart the interests of Kashmiri people. I abhor their perpetration of acts of terror, supposedly in the name of self-determination, as I abhor violence on the part of any country or military organisation. If we criticise terror organisations, as India and Amnesty International would have us do, we should also scrutinise India's human rights record. I watch with interest.
Mr. Khabra: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Lorna Fitzsimons: No.
We must ask those on the Front Bench to scrutinise the new state human rights commission established by India in 1997. When I met the Indian high commissioner, it was acknowledged that, because India had such a strong and independent judicial system, it was thought that that would deal with any human rights petitions, disappearances and so on. Primarily because of lobbying by the Kashmiri population throughout the world, and the pressures brought to bear by the British Government and others and by Amnesty International, the human rights commission was set up.
At first the commission was not trusted, and there was no flood of people coming forward with cases to be investigated. Now the head of the commission reports that it cannot cope with the number of cases of people reported missing, in enforced detention and so on.
Ms Margaret Moran: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree that it would enhance the confidence of the Kashmiri people in the organisations available to redress human rights injustices if the Indian Government would also recognise that scrutiny from independent human rights organisations would be helpful in matters of greatest dispute? As in my hon. Friend's constituency, people in my constituency have families who are directly affected. They can tell me of human rights violations that go on daily. Their confidence in the existing human rights organisations established by the Indian Government will not be enhanced without independent scrutiny.
Lorna Fitzsimons: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. If it is true, as the Indian Government tell us, that the majority of human rights abuses are perpetrated by

1163
terror organisations, why do they not allow independent scrutineers? We welcome the fact that recently they have allowed the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and Save the Children some access, and one or two journalists have been allowed in. However, truly independent scrutiny would, for example, allow a delegation of interested UK Members of Parliament to obtain visas to visit the disputed areas to see the situation for themselves, and would grant Amnesty International access.
Mr. Khabra: Will my hon. Friend give way, please?
Lorna Fitzsimons: No. I want to make progress.
I understand the Indian Government's concerns about Amnesty International, which previously commented only on state-sponsored abuses of human rights. Now, as can be seen from Amnesty's latest report that was made available on the internet in February, it also comments—and investigates as far as it can without being allowed access—on abuses of human rights by terror organisations, the occurrence of which we must all acknowledge.
The Kashmiri people whom I represent hate the cause of Kashmiri liberation being hijacked by other organisations. Taking up the gun and using the bullet does no one any favours. The Kashmiri people have no chance of democratic choice and self-determination unless they have human rights.
I am not speaking of access to health care and education. Forget that. I am speaking about the fact that women and children are paying the price. People mysteriously disappear or are held in detention. There is ample evidence from Amnesty and the Indian Government in reports to Congress by successive Ministers that people are detained under defunct anti-terrorism legislation. All over the world, the people who pay the price are the most vulnerable in society. If the main breadwinner disappears, who will support the women and children, if there is no active welfare state?
As people who believe in human rights and as internationalists, we have to join together to say that India should allow the international community into Indian-controlled Jammu and Kashmir if it believes that people are being made destitute because of the actions of terror organisations. Independent evidence could therefore be gathered and people could make a judgment. When Back Benchers or delegations meet the Indian Government, they make the point that Pakistan is involved in funding and promoting terror incursions across the border. There is clearly enough room for believing that the Government of Pakistan are in some way involved in those incursions; indeed, it would be very difficult to say that they are not involved. However, proof is required. India uses the alleged incursions and the funding or promotion of such activities by freelance terror organisations—
Mr. Stephen Pound rose—
Mr. Tony Baldry rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Interventions from the Opposition Front Bench are not allowed in Adjournment debates.
Lorna Fitzsimons: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound).
Mr. Pound: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Like every Member of the House, I respect her reputation for representing the best interests of her constituents and the even-handed way in which she has approached this matter, but she used the expression "alleged incursions". Does she not agree that there was a military incursion? Will she condemn it, regardless of who financed or initiated it?
Lorna Fitzsimons: I condemn any overt military activity taken against a peace-loving people, wherever it comes from. That goes for India's overt military action and the unwelcome terror activities undertaken by some of the organisations that allegedly support the Kashmiri cause. I represent wholly non-violent people who want to use the ballot box to achieve self-determination.
Mr. Khabra: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Lorna Fitzsimons: No.
People should be allowed to achieve self-determination through the ballot box and that can be achieved only when their human rights are established. For example, the United Nations does not want free and fair elections to be held in East Timor until stability has been achieved and until it has been proven that there will be no intimidation from any force. The same must happen in Kashmir. We cannot expect people to participate in a democracy when they are being subjected to bullying, which is the weakest phrase that I can use, or to terrorism, which is the stronger expression used in the Amnesty International report, in order to deny them their free will. Such action must be condemned, wherever it comes from.
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree that, to end the tensions between India and Pakistan and to bring peace and stability to the region, it is absolutely essential that the dispute over Kashmir is resolved according to the UN resolution and the wishes of the Kashmiri people? Does she further agree that the representatives of the Kashmiri people should be involved in any future talks or negotiations?
Lorna Fitzsimons: Yes. The bottom line is that the Kashmiri people have been wronged. It cannot be argued that other princely states did not play a role in deciding their own destinies when disputes arose and, as was recognised as far back as 1949, the people of Jammu and Kashmir must be allowed to play such a role.
We must recognise that some of our compatriots, who want an independent state to be established, think that the UN resolution has shortcomings. It is not up to me to determine whether independence or accession to India or to Pakistan is the issue, but we have to be honest with the Kashmiri people we represent and say to them that that is not part of the UN resolution. I believe, however, that any vote that allowed the Kashmiri people to express a view, whether on accession to India or on accession to Pakistan, would be a step forward. Hon. Members will be able to understand these concerns, especially as there have been several rounds of bilateral talks between India and Pakistan over 50 years. The Kashmiri people themselves are at the bottom of the list, however, and the dispute is treated as territorial rather than as something that affects real people.

1165
We must acknowledge in the debate that real people are paying the price for the dispute and scaling down the military presence must be the priority. If Pakistan is perpetrating or encouraging incursions and acts of terror as has been alleged, it must desist because the Indian Government are using those incursions as a fig leaf. By the same token, the Indian Government have to accept that having such an overt military presence has not worked; they have not calmed or charmed the Kashmiri people and implementation of the UN resolution is the only measure that would allow the Kashmiri people some peace of mind.
There has been a breakdown in trust because of the recent Kargil incidents, so we have to welcome the moves made by Nawaz Sharif, who visited the United States to hold talks with Bill Clinton, to try to calm the situation. We have to ask India to say that it is in nobody's interest to continue the stand-off: it has reclaimed Kargil and Nawaz Sharif has used his power and influence to make sure that the forces in Kargil retreated. We must ensure that the Lahore agreement, and every agreement that has been made since the original UN resolution was passed, is implemented.
It is right to pay tribute to the late Derek Fatchett and I welcome his successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), to the debate. I know that, like Derek, he will take a lot of interest in Kashmir. We talked to Derek about the possibility of confidence-building measures being introduced to increase trust and deal with issues that affect the Administrations in both parts of the former princely state, which is split down the middle. We should try to achieve some movement—for example, dialogue between the representative groups in both parts of Kashmir. Nothing in the UN resolution or the 1972 accord says that the people could not and should not be allowed to cross the line freely.
Mr. Hilary Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she accept that this country's experience in Northern Ireland has taught us that recognition by sovereign states that such a problem is not merely a little local difficulty in part of their own country, but a bigger question, is one of the great steps that must be taken to achieve progress? When countries can accept that, the dialogue that needs to take place between two sovereign states in order to resolve a conflict is that much more likely to happen.
Lorna Fitzsimons: Absolutely. We could push for dialogue between the representative groups, including people who have been elected, so that they could discuss whether a joint agreement could be reached between them all. The Hurriat conference is an example of that. Lord Avebury has tried to organise conferences to facilitate some dialogue between the different representative Kashmiri organisations, and Derek Fatchett made similar efforts. We must keep trying even though we have not been successful so far—primarily because a lot of leaders in Indian-controlled Kashmir were not allowed visas to travel to the conference venues. We have to allow that dialogue to happen and we have to ask for the recommendations made by Amnesty International in its most recent report to be taken up.
1166
We also must acknowledge our duty to ensure that we engage in continual dialogue with the Government of Azad Kashmir and the Jammu and Kashmir Administration of Farooq Abdullah. We must ensure that they provide people with feedback on any bilateral discussions that take place at the top table, or on any talks about getting other countries to take forward the cause of Kashmir, so that they feel that they are part of the process. If India is not going to accept a mediator, we must ensure that we use all the channels available so that the Kashmiris feel that they are represented. That is the key to the problem.
Mr. Khabra: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Lorna Fitzsimons: No, I shall not. I must leave enough time for the Minister to reply, and I have already run over time.
I am proud of my Back-Bench colleagues who join me in the Chamber today. Many of them have campaigned for far longer than I have been involved in the Kashmiri issue to ensure that it is on the agenda. It is at the behest of us all, however, not to use the Kashmiri cause as a political football. I lament the fact that, both in my constituency and nationally, certain parties are using it in that way. No Liberal Democrat has ever attended an all-party Kashmir group since I have been elected, nor ever been to an all-party ministerial meeting. A promised early-day motion, which was discussed in Rochdale council chamber, about recognition of nationality in the forthcoming census has not been produced. All the activity that has taken place to keep the flag flying for the Kashmiri people and to ensure that they feel that we are representing them has been, and will continue to be, initiated by Labour Members. I am proud to say that we shall keep the flag flying for people such as my constituents, Haji and Amna.
I hope that every office will be used, as it has in the past, by the Foreign Secretary and the appropriate Ministers to ensure that we make progress on this issue. We must not just use our diplomatic channels with India and Pakistan, but must harness the power of the United States and other nation states. Just because no oil is involved, we must not fail to recognise that an injustice has been done. The people who have had the injustice done to them are those who are most vulnerable: the women and children of Kashmir.
1.52 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) for making Kashmir the subject of this debate.
This is a timely opportunity to debate the question, and its place in our wider relations with India and Pakistan. Kashmir is an issue of great importance to all in Britain who count themselves as friends of India and Pakistan.
The recent fighting in Kashmir underlines the risks inherent in this continuing dispute—risks that have taken on a disturbing dimension given last year's nuclear tests. It is widely accepted that Kashmir is one of the most pressing regional security problems. I assure the House that the Government fully share those concerns and are actively encouraging India and Pakistan to resolve the underlying issues.

1167
Our relations with both India and Pakistan are deep, multi-faceted and long-standing. Well over a million British people have their roots in the sub-continent. Our shared history with those countries has developed into links of enormous variety and dynamism. Consolidating and developing our relations with both countries is a priority for the Government.
India is already a major player on the world stage, and its importance is set to increase over the next few years. We want a modern, close and forward-looking partnership. We have many shared interests and we could, and should, be working more closely together in areas of mutual concern. Environmental protection is a prime example of a global issue in which India and the United Kingdom have leading roles, and where we seek better co-operation with India.
Our relations with Pakistan have long been marked by their warmth. We continue to build on our relationship to work with the Government of Pakistan on a wide range of issues. We want Pakistan to realise its great economic and human potential, and to continue to develop as a democratic partner in the Islamic world.
Mr. Gardiner: Is the Minister concerned that, while Pakistan's army chief, General Parvez Musharaf, admitted on 16 July that Pakistan forces aggressively crossed the line of control, the Pakistani Government were claiming that they were not responsible for the incursions? Does he agree that that raises worrying questions about who is really running the country? Given what he has already said about nuclear proliferation in the region, is he concerned about whether the civilian Government or the military is in control?
Mr. Hoon: I shall deal in due course with the resolution of the recent events in Kargil. In specific response to my hon. Friend, it may not be entirely helpful at this stage to dwell on what might have happened in the past. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale said, what is important is to say how we shall take these issues forward, which is what I shall seek to do.
I have spent some time describing our wider relations with India and Pakistan. Our policy towards Kashmir is bound to our ties with those two countries. We can, and do, promote the search for a solution to this long-running issue through our contacts with both countries. Our efforts are all the more effective for being conducted quietly and within the context of established political relations based on mutual trust.
I shall not repeat the history of the Kashmir dispute, which is well known to Members of this House. Three wars and countless skirmishes have been fought over Kashmir. It has the dubious distinction of containing the world's highest battleground, the Siachen glacier, where Indian and Pakistani soldiers face each other, at dreadful cost, in financial and human terms, at heights of over 20,000 ft. Kashmir has been one of the reasons that India and Pakistan have been unable firmly to establish good relations and to realise their true economic potential.
We were, therefore, particularly concerned by events in Kargil over the past few weeks. The fighting could easily have escalated. That it did not is a tribute to the Indian Government, who restricted their response to the incursion; and to the Pakistani Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, who used his influence to ensure that those combatants who had crossed the line of control withdrew from those positions.
1168
The UK was active behind the scenes. We were in close and constant contact with both Governments. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke at an early stage to his Indian and Pakistani colleagues to urge restraint and despatched a special envoy to Islamabad to reiterate those points. I spoke to the Indian and Pakistani high commissioners to reinforce that. Our high commissions in New Delhi and Islamabad stayed in close touch with their host Governments. We co-ordinated closely with our international partners, especially the United States. The UK was instrumental in ensuring that the European Union and the G8 made strong statements on the fighting.
We welcome the joint statement by President Clinton and Prime Minister Sharif of 4 July as a positive step. The Prime Minister met Prime Minister Sharif on 6 July to urge him to take the steps described in the statement. The Prime Minister wrote soon afterwards to the Indian Prime Minister to encourage him to maintain India's policy of restraint and respond positively to any moves by Pakistan. The Prime Minister has welcomed the end to the fighting around Kargil. Relieved as we are by the end of the immediate conflict, we are concerned that the suffering of ordinary people in Kashmir continues. There have been four massacres in recent weeks, and militants continue to attack the Indian security forces.
Throughout the crisis in Kargil, we have made it clear to both India and Pakistan that we consider that the route to a long-term solution lies in dialogue.
Mr. Khabra: Is the Minister aware that terrorists have brutally murdered Kashmiris, both Muslims and Hindus, including Europeans, and that that is one of the biggest problems? Does he agree that every Member of this House must recognise that the Government are committed to the fight against terrorism?
Mr. Hoon: I accept my hon. Friend's point. I shall turn to that matter in a moment.
When Prime Minister Vajpayee memorably travelled to Lahore this February, there was good reason to believe that both countries were ready to address the issues between them in a new and constructive spirit. From popular reaction in India and Pakistan, it seemed clear that this new spirit matched the hopes of the peoples of both countries. It is a matter of great regret that, only a few months after both Prime Ministers undertook to intensify their efforts to resolve all bilateral issues, including Kashmir, the events in Kargil have rendered that process more difficult.
It is important to recognise that the incursion, and the continuing violence of the militants in Jammu and Kashmir, have done nothing, and can do nothing, to promote a durable solution in Kashmir. The evidence suggests that the militants have little in common with the ordinary people of Kashmir, and do not represent them. As Amnesty International pointed out in a recent report, the militants are guilty of severe human rights abuses. An end to the support that the militants receive from outside Kashmir would greatly assist the search for a solution to the problem.
The search for a solution would also be assisted by early steps to improve the human rights performance of the Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir. Amnesty International has documented continuing reports of disappearances. We have welcomed the action already

1169
taken by the Indian authorities to address human rights concerns. The national human rights commission is regarded as an effective custodian and promoter of human rights in India. It is to be hoped that the state human rights commission in Jammu and Kashmir develops in the same vein. We shall continue to press the Indian authorities to bring wrong-doers to justice, and to allow international organisations access to Jammu and Kashmir. My predecessor, Derek Fatchett, raised this issue with the Indian Home Minister last November, and I shall ensure that it continues to be a part of our dialogue with India.
Militancy, and human rights problems, will not be resolved overnight. In the meantime, we urge the Governments of India and Pakistan to resume their dialogue on all outstanding issues, including Kashmir. The long-term interests of both countries lie in a mutually acceptable solution.
1170
The role of the people living in Kashmir is, rightly, another source of concern. No single group or institution can accurately claim to represent the views of all those who live in the territory of the former princely state. The interests of the Muslims of the Valley, the Buddhists of Ladakh and the displaced Hindu population are not uniform; nor have India and Pakistan agreed on the issue of Kashmiri participation. We firmly believe, however, that any solution, if it is to carry with it the people living in Kashmir, must take account of their views. Only then will it be accepted as just, and have a chance of lasting.
The Kashmir issue has been with us for more than 50 painful years. I agree with my hon. Friend—
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.

Oral Answers to Question
  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Civil Service (Ethnic Minorities)
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What his plans are for encouraging the recruitment of ethnic minorities to the civil service. [90870]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The "Modernising Government" White Paper set out the Government's commitment to increasing ethnic minority representation in the civil service, particularly at senior levels. The Government have set a target to double the number of senior civil servants from ethnic minority backgrounds to 3.2 per cent. by 2005.
    Mr. Chapman: I am grateful for that response and I congratulate the Government on their announcements. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just in the higher civil service that there is a problem and that we need fair representation of ethnic minorities at all levels in the civil service? This issue should be tackled now, not just by the target year. We must take a systemic, root-and-branch approach to get people from ethnic minorities into the civil service and to change the climate so as to attract them. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what is being done now by way of secondment, recruitment policy and attachment from industry to change the climate in the public services to attract more people from ethnic minorities into their orbit?
    Dr. Cunningham: I agree with everything my hon. Friend said. In truth, the performance of the civil service on the recruitment and promotion of people from ethnic communities has been poor, and the situation is unsatisfactory. That is why we have set that target but, as my hon. Friend will know, we are not simply setting a target and doing nothing else. We have announced a number of interim measures, and we shall announce further measures in the autumn. In the meantime, I shall appoint a senior ethnic minority adviser and an outreach worker to help to increase recruitment and secondment. We shall provide new opportunities for work experience for ethnic minority school children and students. We shall hold open days and careers fairs for ethnic minority undergraduates and young people. We are producing a video of ethnic minority role models already in the civil service. We are taking all those measures to attract more able young people from ethnic minority communities into the public service.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: As I am sure that the Government want to set an example in this area, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many special advisers to Ministers are drawn from ethnic minorities?
    Dr. Cunningham: I cannot give an accurate answer to that question off the top of my head. I suspect that there may be none, but I am not altogether sure so I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know.
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some employees are still not
    1172
    prepared to accept the new policy? If they continue the practice of discrimination, what steps does he propose to take against them?
    Dr. Cunningham: I hope that there are no individuals in the civil service who do not subscribe to the Government's clear policy objectives in these matters. However, the Schneider Ross report, which I published a couple of weeks ago, emphasised the need for a culture change in the senior management of the civil service, and we are taking action with the help and strong personal commitment of the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, to make the necessary changes in the civil service at all levels.

    Genetically Modified Foods
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What endorsement the Government have sought from the National Consumer Council with regard to its policy on genetically modified foods. [90871]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): Ministers discuss the development of Government policies with a large number of groups that have an interest in genetically modified foods, including the National Consumer Council.
    Mr. Swayne: I suspected that the Minister would not go further than that. Does he agree that the leaked minute of the biotechnology presentation group on 10 May has been of great interest to a number of parties? It has funded an enormous number of questions, not least to the right hon. Gentleman. In the interests of open government, modernisation and the new politics, will he undertake to publish the minutes of that group to ensure that we continue to enjoy them in this way? Have independent spokesmen been placed on the "Today" programme, as the minute suggested?
    Dr. Cunningham: I always welcome contributions to debates on this and other subjects from independently minded people on any programme, let alone "Today".
    The hon. Gentleman said that the leaking of the minute had generated a great deal of interest. It certainly seems to have motivated him as we had exactly the same exchange of views in the Chamber a month ago and the answer was exactly the same: no.
    Mr. Nigel Beard: What steps are being taken to protect field trials of genetically modified crops from vandalism? If such trials do not take place, there will be no basis for judgment of the environmental impact of GM crops, and a major biotechnological opportunity for Britain may be lost.
    Dr. Cunningham: This is a serious and difficult situation. It is deplorable that, while some environmental groups are calling for trials precisely so that we can gauge and examine the potential impact of genetically modified crops on biodiversity, other groups are trashing the experiments, wrecking the crops and preventing us securing the very evidence that we need in order to make an assessment and to make properly informed decisions. Disorder and criminal damage to property are, of course,

    1173
    matters for the police rather than for Ministers, but the police have a very difficult job trying to safeguard the trials.
    Mr. Norman Baker: Can the Government explain why they are allowing animal feed with genetically modified ingredients to be sold unlabelled, with no indication to farmers and consumers that such ingredients are present? Do not farmers and consumers have a right to know what they are buying?
    Dr. Cunningham: The explanation is that we inherited that situation. We decided to appoint an advisory committee on animal feedstuffs, which is being set up now. The previous Government received a recommendation suggesting that they should set up a committee but did not act on it. We are also considering the labelling issue.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: What point has the discussion on genetically modified food reached in the European Union? I am thinking especially of the changes that are due for agriculture beyond 2000. Is that discussion on the G8 agenda?
    Dr. Cunningham: Given the current state of affairs, few agendas do not include an item referring to biosciences or to genetically modified food or crops. I assure my hon. Friend that there are continuing discussions in the European Union on labelling and other matters such as the implications for biodiversity. As he will recall, the Cologne summit decided to ask the scientific committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to examine all these issues on an international basis, and we shall make a positive contribution to that examination.
    Mr. David Curry: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise just how limp his reply was on the subject of vandalism against genetically modified crops? Does he realise that that vandalism is being committed against field trials? We will shortly be moving to whole-farm trials. How does he imagine that they will be protected from vandalism? Do the Government propose simply to stand by and wring their hands, or do they think that they must do something to protect the information that comes from the growing of genetically modified crops?
    Dr. Cunningham: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not hear me properly. I said that such actions were deplorable, and I emphasise that yet again.
    The right hon. Gentleman asks what we are going to do. The present policy position is that the grid references of all the trial sites are in the public domain. It is therefore very easy for those who want to engage in activities that the right hon. Gentleman rightly describes as unlawful to identify the locations and to destroy the crops. We are considering all the issues very carefully but, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, this too is a situation that we inherited from the previous Administration. We never anticipated that people who purport to act in the interests of the environment would wilfully wreck experiments that are intended to help us to a better understanding of the environmental issues involved.
    Dr. George Turner: Further to the exchanges that have just taken place, does my right
    1174
    hon. Friend recognise that some of the acts of vandalism, which are completely deplorable, are being carried out in the name of national and otherwise reputable organisations such as Greenpeace? They purport to be advancing arguments that are based on rational and scientific debate, but if, in their name, people are destroying the evidence on which that debate is to take place, perhaps Ministers need to talk to those organisations to ensure that their supporters are discouraged from undertaking such vandalism.
    Dr. Cunningham: I am not sure that it is accurate to ascribe those activities to Greenpeace. Nevertheless, my hope is—I express it again today—that all organisations and groups that are interested in the health and well-being of people and the environment would want to participate in an open, well-informed, scientifically accurate debate about the issues, rather than seek to involve themselves in destroying the very evidence that will help us to take the policies forward.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: What targets his Office has set Government departments regarding ministerial replies to correspondence received from hon. Members. [90872]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): Each Department sets its own target for replying to correspondence from hon. Members. Over the next three years, all Ministers will work towards ensuring that at least 90 per cent. of all correspondence received from hon. Members is replied to within those targets.
    Mr. Fabricant: That is a hopelessly irresponsible reply. The Minister does not set the targets or even say what the individual Department's target should be—he says only that the work should be completed within three years.
    In January, I wrote to the Department of Health about a problem. It was admitted that there was a problem. Eventually, at the end of June, I received a reply saying that it could do nothing about that problem. Does the Minister agree that the targets should include not only the speed of the reply but its quality? Are not the Government singularly failing to deliver replies promptly, and developing a grand canyon between promises made and performance delivered?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman should keep his hair on. He should not get excited by such things. As he well knows, each Department is responsible for the targets that it sets. The Cabinet Office has set its own targets. It has achieved a 96 per cent. success rate on those. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has written to individual Departments exhorting them to ensure that they fulfil the requirement that, within the next three years, they meet 90 per cent. of their targets.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: I commend the Minister's assiduousness in trying to get Departments to live up to the targets that they set. Without wanting to be the school snitch, may I tell him that, in acknowledging a letter, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was brazen enough to say that its target was to

    1175
    reply within 15 working days but that, owing to the volume of correspondence, it could not meet that and the target was now 20 working days? In fact, the reply that I received on the back of that took 40 working days. May I urge the Minister again to place some penalties on those Departments that fail to get anywhere near the target that they themselves have set?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: There is some merit in the argument that there has been an increase in correspondence, which went up by 5 per cent., but I make it clear on behalf of the Government as a whole that we hold no brief for any Department that fails to meet within the required period the targets that have been set. It is in the interests of hon. Members on both sides of the House to ensure that there are speedy responses to legitimate correspondence on matters of interest to them and their constituents.

    Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What recent discussions he has had with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) concerning new policy areas suitable for discussion in the Cabinet joint consultative committee. [90873]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The review of the work of the Cabinet joint consultative committee, which I am undertaking with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), includes consideration of new policy areas for discussion.
    Mr. Prentice: I do not know what to think about that answer. I expected rather more. It was announced with a fanfare last November that the remit of the new Cabinet joint consultative committee, on which our Liberal Democrat comrades also sit, would be extended. I am left wondering whether the committee is hugely significant, or whether it is not worth the candle.
    Dr. Cunningham: The aims of our co-operation with our Liberal Democrat colleagues are clear and simple. The Liberal Democrats have helped us to hold a more constructive and rational debate about a very important constitutional reform programme, but just at the moment their minds appear to be on other matters.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: Perhaps we might get specific about the discussions that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Does he recall that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) takes the view that one of the constitutional issues to be discussed in the Cabinet joint consultative committee should be the campaign for British entry into economic and monetary union? Does the right hon. Gentleman share the opinion that that is a constitutional issue and that it should be discussed in the committee?
    Dr. Cunningham: Fortunately, although I have many responsibilities, responsibility for the statements of the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) does not feature among them.
    Mr. Lansley: If the right hon. Gentleman will not help me on new policies, perhaps he will help me on
    1176
    proportional representation which clearly is a matter for discussion in the joint consultative committee. In discussions with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), has the committee offered the Liberal Democrats any assurance about the timing of a referendum on proportional representation at Westminster?
    Dr. Cunningham: Our discussions with the Liberal Democrats are confidential, but I hope that we may be able to help the hon. Gentleman a little more when consideration of the report is concluded.

    Public Appointments
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent representations he has received on the criteria for public appointments. [90874]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): I receive occasional representations from hon. Members about public appointments issues.
    Mr. Amess: Is the Minister aware that the fourth report from the Commissioner for Public Appointments states that an increasing number of health authority appointments are of Labour supporters? What is the Minister's view of the report's remarks about the possibility of political bias in appointments by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly? Why are so many Labour party supporters or financial backers recipients of public appointments?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I am sure that the Scots and the Welsh can speak for themselves, but the Commissioner for Public Appointments in fact lauded the progress that the Government have made. She has responded to complaints about certain national health service appointments by setting up a small scrutiny group, which she announced to the Neill committee on 15 July. The Government's policy is one of appointment on merit. The previous Government did not always adopt that approach.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: Does my hon. Friend share my pleasure at the Government's successful attempts to increase the number of disabled people, women and people from ethnic minorities given public appointments? Does he also share my satisfaction at the decrease in the number of business people given such appointments who have no connections with the areas that they purport to represent?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I think that the commissioner would agree that the Government have increased the number of women, disabled people and people from ethnic minorities who serve on public bodies. It is certainly true that, rather than bringing people in from outside an area for political reasons, we have implemented the principle of proportionality in those appointments to ensure that they are far more representative of the population in a given area.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Would Ministers be prepared to contemplate taking appointments, such as health service appointments, out of the hands of Ministers and passing

    1177
    them not to the Cabinet joint consultative committee but to an all-party forum—for example, the relevant Select Committee—where they could be scrutinised and approved in public and independently?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The arguments for appointments coming before Select Committees, analogous to the experience in America, have been well rehearsed, but there are sound reasons for not doing that. The hon. Gentleman must remember that all appointments are subject to the usual scrutiny by the Neill committee. The report of the Commissioner for Public Appointments gives due credit to the Government for the way in which they apply the Nolan principles to those appointments.

    Government Modernisation
    Ms Sally Keeble: If he will make a statement on progress on modernising Government. [90876]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The "Modernising Government" White Paper is the basis of our change programme to reform and modernise public services. We have already made substantial progress, and I shall shortly be publishing a document with an action plan towards meeting the commitments in the White Paper.
    Ms Keeble: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, but does he agree that an important part of modernising Government is updating employment practices and making them family friendly? What progress is being made in that regard in Government Departments and, in particular, what steps are being taken to ensure that all Departments reach the standards of the best in terms of flexible working, job sharing and all the other practices considered usual in a modern workplace?
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I do agree, and we are developing a programme of more family-friendly employment policies in the civil service. It is our objective to promote best practice in all departments in the civil service and in Government agencies, and we shall continue to do so.
    Mr. David Prior: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Prime Minister that people working in the public service are a major barrier to change?
    Dr. Cunningham: I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that. He was referring to the culture and some of the management systems in our public services which are obstacles to change. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that we have now made it clear to the civil service unions, whose leaders I met earlier this week, that we will open negotiations with them on a formal partnership agreement, and I applaud those unions for their considerable commitment to the "Modernising Government" agenda.

    European Legislation
    Mrs. Diana Organ: What steps he has recently taken to improve the ways in which the United Kingdom negotiates, implements and publicises European legislation. [90877]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): We have today published "The Guide to Better European Regulation". It is the result of wide consultation within both the UK and the European Union. This will ensure that Ministers and officials adhere to the principles of good regulation when developing European legislation.
    Mrs. Organ: I thank my right hon. Friend for the announcement of that publication today. Does he agree that that clearly demonstrates how the Government are working positively with our partners to negotiate such good deals for farmers, businesses and consumers in Britain, and that we wish to regulate through the European Union and tell the British people how we are doing it, with openness and transparency?
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes, and in stark contrast to the Conservative Opposition we are determined to play a leading part at the heart of developments in Europe and not lead Britain into the isolation that the previous Administration did.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the right hon. Gentleman share my view that the United Kingdom should subscribe to the theory that the Commission should do less but do what it does better? Does he also agree that Neil Kinnock, albeit a charming man, is not the right candidate to reform the EU given that he could not even reform the state aid regime for airlines throughout the EU as Transport Commissioner?
    Dr. Cunningham: I certainly agree with the first part of the hon. Lady's question, but I profoundly disagree with the second part. Whatever the reasons for the failure to reform the regime to which she refers, they cannot be laid at the door of Neil Kinnock.

    Illegal Drugs
    Mr. David Lock: What progress his Department is making on tackling the use of illegal drugs by young people in Great Britain. [90878]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The UK anti-drugs co-ordinator's national plan set targets to reduce the proportion of young people using heroin and cocaine by 50 per cent. by 2008 and by 25 per cent. by 2005.
    Mr. Lock: "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain" identifies growing evidence that treatment works but that its supply fails in some places to meet demand. Does my hon. Friend agree with that conclusion, and what steps will the Government take over the next two years to develop effective treatment so that a person does not have to go to prison as a drug addict in order to receive it?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: My hon. Friend will appreciate that our first priority was to develop a strategy with an emphasis

    1179
    different to that of previous policies. The strategy focuses on the interests of young people and communities, stressing treatment and rehabilitation without forgetting that we have to choke off supply. The national plan tries to cater to individual needs in different areas through the local drug action teams. That will be an extremely effective way forward.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Following the recent drugs debate, the Minister for the Cabinet Office will be aware of concerns on both sides of the House that treatment for drug abusers can take up to 12 weeks, during which time they can become completely demotivated. Has the Minister taken any recent steps in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Health to set targets to reduce waiting times for detoxification and to ensure that there is a seamless service that is followed by rehabilitation services?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Lady will appreciate that one of the problems in her cri de coeur for a seamless service is that there are many different forms of treatment. We want to ensure consistency in our overall objectives, and we and the Department of Health keep these matters under constant review.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that when millions of parents and others in Britain are wrestling with the problems of drug abuse among young people, and when the Government are trying to do their level best to tackle those problems, it is a sad state of affairs that the Tory Opposition receive £1 million a year from one of the biggest drug runners in the west? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is it not high time that the Leader of the Opposition had the guts to get rid of him?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I obviously hear what my hon. Friend says, but he will not expect me to comment on the specifics of allegations that have appeared in newspapers and elsewhere. I share—I hope that we all do—his empathy with the many parents worried about the plague of drugs that affects their children and about its effect on wider communities. He will appreciate the efforts of the enforcement agencies which are pledged to try to stem the flow of drugs into the country.

    Civil Servants (Work Experience)
    Fiona Mactaggart: What progress he has made in developing opportunities for civil servants to gain relevant work experience in private companies and public institutions outside the civil service. [90880]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The White Paper "Modernising Government" showed how we are promoting the exchange of people and good practice between the civil service and other organisations through the interchange initiative. Departments and agencies are on course to meet the current target of 50 per cent. of the senior civil service having experience outside Whitehall by 2005.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I am glad to hear that we are on course towards that target. Will the Minister consider giving us a report on which Departments are taking initiatives, and what those initiatives are? That would
    1180
    allow us to encourage more short-term movements between public and private institutions and the civil service.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The initiative will certainly galvanise attitudes in the civil service and in outside organisations that benefit from civil service expertise. It will help towards the culture change that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has identified as the sine qua non for success in delivering modernised government. A full report will be produced on how well the interchange programme progresses Department by Department.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the only relevant experience that the Labour Government seem to value is work experience with the Labour party? How else does he explain the appointment of Ian Hepplewhite as the head press officer at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—a man who was widely reported in the press as being an aide to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and celebrating at the victory party? Mr. Hepplewhite was condemned by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) as one of the 24 Labour party insiders who went to a lobbyist; he has now been appointed as a head press officer, having been a Labour party press officer for many years. He was appointed without a press notice or any other public information. Is that what the Government call valuing "impartiality, objectivity and integrity"?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: There was a very loud reception for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) when he mentioned an individual. I think it is extremely sad that the right hon. Lady has named an individual on the basis—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady knows full well the terms and conditions for appointments to such posts. The byword has always been appointment on merit. People are entitled to put themselves forward for any jobs, whether as press officer, information officer or anything else. They get the position only on merit. I deplore the fact that the individual named should be maligned in the House.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Eric Forth: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I met the Israeli Prime Minister and later visited Winsford in the Eddisbury constituency. Later today, in addition to my duties in the House, I shall be meeting ministerial colleagues and others.
    Mr. Forth: With which of the views expressed on the future of the European Union by the Prime Minister's friend and protegé, Mr. Prodi, does the right hon. Gentleman disagree?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to say that Mr. Prodi made a speech today with which I agree

    1181
    wholeheartedly—it was a speech about the reform of the European Commission and how to make Europe more accountable. If it were not for the total anti-European obsession of the Conservative party, the Opposition might at long last find something to applaud in what he said.
    Mr. Patrick Hall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a top priority for the proposed Strategic Rail Authority is to encourage the transfer of traffic from road to rail? Does he also agree that the east-west rail project that is intended to link towns and cities throughout the east and centre of England—including Bedford and Kempston—is precisely the type of imaginative scheme that the SRA ought to push forward to boost local and regional economies, and to raise the quality of life for all of us?
    The Prime Minister: On the east-west rail link, I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London has been considering the proposals that have been made. She suggests looking at a phased approach that would allow sections of the proposed link to be updated and improved—delivering immediate benefits. More than that, the Strategic Rail Authority can restore order to the chaos of privatisation; in particular, it can ensure that public money is well spent after the scandal of the sale of our rail industry, at a loss of more than £5 billion—for which we have still not received an apology from the previous Conservative Government.
    Mr. William Hague: The Prime Minister must know as well as anyone that the Army is now severely overstretched: 89 per cent. of its forces are committed in some way. Given the extent of those commitments and the need to back up the Regular Army, would it not now be wise to reconsider the huge reductions in the Territorial Army? The Prime Minister can ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who has just entered the Chamber.
    The Prime Minister: The changes that have been made in the Territorial Army—[Interruption.] Let me remind Opposition Members that a Conservative Government cut defence spending by almost 30 per cent. and they cut the Territorial Army as well. The changes are to the benefit of the Territorial Army, which will be better used in the future. As a result of the strategic defence review that the Labour Government have undertaken, we shall have defence forces who are far better able to carry out the capabilities that we want.
    Mr. Hague: The changes are obviously not to the benefit of the Territorial Army. As for lecturing us about the past, the Conservatives were maintaining the defences of this country when the right hon. Gentleman was waving a CND placard. We are talking about what is happening now. Are not the facts clear? The Army is 6,000 below strength, with more people leaving than joining and, at the same time, the Government are cutting the Territorial Army by 18,000, with the result that TA engineering battalions are being disbanded when we need more engineers. If we are not to undermine the future effectiveness of the Army, should not the Prime Minister at least postpone those decisions?
    The Prime Minister: No, because the decisions were taken as a result of the strategic defence review that was
    1182
    conducted with the full support of our armed forces and has been widely admired right around the world. It is as a result of what we are doing that we are able to meet the capabilities that we have set out—and will in future have better capability, especially in areas such as strategic lift—whereas the previous Conservative Government actually left us unable to carry out the capabilities we inherited.
    Mr. Hague: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should listen to the Select Committee on Defence, which has a Labour majority and which said in its report:
    "The cuts in the TA infantry"—
    and—
    "engineers … are shortsighted. The TA are … a valuable resource of long term insurance against the unexpected … We urge the MoD to reconsider the cuts."
    That was even before this year's events in Kosovo, since when the TA infantry battalions have been cut by more than half. Would it not be in the long-term interests of this country to reconsider or postpone those huge reductions?
    The Prime Minister: No, for the reason that I gave. The changes that have been made will result in our armed forces being in a better position to carry out the capabilities that we have set for them. That is not only my view, but that of the Chief of the Defence Staff. The review has been conducted with immense care. It was the first time that any Government had come in and looked at what our capabilities would be. As I said, the result of that review has not only been widely admired but is expected to be imitated around the rest of the world.
    As for the performance of British troops and the Territorials in particular, I pay tribute to the way in which our armed forces have worked, especially in Kosovo, and I pay tribute to the Territorial Army. However, just as changes were made when the Conservatives were in government, it is important that we make changes. The difference is that we are making them with the full agreement of the armed forces.
    Ms Dari Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating a group of women from my constituency who are driving a truck full of aid to Kosovo? Will he reassure the House that the Government are responding to the support aid agencies that are helping refugees, who often have only the clothes in which they stand?
    The Prime Minister: I thank all elements of the voluntary sector. People in my hon. Friend's constituency and throughout the country, in community groups, church groups and the voluntary sector, have raised an immense amount of money for Kosovo and have sent out a lot of aid and help to the people there. Britain can be immensely proud, not only of our armed forces, but of the contribution that the people of this country have made to the people of Kosovo.
    Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Ashdown. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Yes, yes, I shall miss you all too.
    I am reluctant at this late stage to try the patience of the House by returning to an issue that I have raised several times. However, having returned this morning

    1183
    from Pristina, I ask the Prime Minister to recognise that, although we won the war at no inconsiderable cost, it is important that we do not lose the peace. There is a race on in Kosovo between order and disorder, and disorder has made a flying start. In that context, I remind the Prime Minister of the international promise to have 3,000 police officers in Kosovo—there are only 70 there now. Into that vacuum, criminality and political intimidation are moving fast. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that no stone will be left unturned in the effort to move the British contingent out there fast and that he will urge his alliance partners to do the same?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly will give that assurance. We have been urging many of our partners to recognise—particularly in relation to troop movements—the importance of getting our forces to Kosovo as quickly as possible. I believe that the conference that will be held on 30 July in Sarajevo will provide an opportunity to make good the promises that we made during the Kosovo conflict. We made those promises not merely to the people of Kosovo, but to the surrounding front-line states and the Balkans region. I intend to make good the promises that this Government and this country made.
    Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful for that assurance. However, this is a practical matter. Those policemen are needed on the streets of Kosovo today and there has already been a delay. I ask the Prime Minister to solve this puzzle. He will undoubtedly agree that the professionalism of the average British police officer would be of considerable advantage in Kosovo, where our police officers could make a considerable contribution. Why, therefore, has the Home Office decided that, because the Kosovo police will be armed, British police can perform only purely administrative duties? If British policemen can be armed in special circumstances in Manchester, why can they not be armed in Kosovo?
    The Prime Minister: The decision on exactly how the British police forces will be used will be taken on the ground. That is a matter best left to the people on the ground to decide, rather than trying to decide it here. British police officers are ready to go to Kosovo and we are trying to clear obstacles there rather than here to facilitate their relocation. As for troops, we have troops stationed in Kosovo and we want to ensure that other countries make a contribution as well.
    As this is the right hon. Gentleman's last Question Time, I pay tribute to the tremendous contribution that he has made to British politics in the past few years, not least on Kosovo and Bosnia, where he was well ahead of the rest of us and right long before the rest of us.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Prime Minister believe that those patients who suffer from multiple sclerosis, the side-effects of chemotherapy or other chronic pain should be prosecuted and jailed for using medicinal cannabis?
    The Prime Minister: The same regime applies to those people as to any others. Penalties are a matter for the courts, which will take account of all circumstances. I really cannot comment further except to say that I do not believe that it would be right to change the law in relation to cannabis.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: The retirement of a leader brings many changes—
    1184
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Too late."] Je ne regrette rien. The retirement of a leader brings many changes, not least for the retiring leader. In light of the Sutherland report about the provision of care for the elderly, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and others will be able to enjoy the benefits of long-term residential care—when the time comes—without having to sell their houses to pay for it?
    The Prime Minister: I suspect that it is just as well for the hon. Gentleman's future in this place that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is retiring.
    As to the Sutherland report, we have already acted on some of the royal commission's recommendations. For example, we have improved services for carers by allocating £140 million over three years to help fund more respite care. We are extending direct payments for people aged 65 and over and we have announced our intention to establish a proper commission for care standards, as soon as parliamentary time allows, so that residential and nursing homes can be regulated and inspected by an independent agency.
    As for the funding of long-term care, we are considering both majority and minority report recommendations. We want to put an end, so far as is humanly possible, to the situation where people face either poverty in old age or selling their homes to pay nursing care costs. We must do that in a financially responsible way and we will make our position clear in due course.
    Mr. David Taylor: Will the Prime Minister's holiday reading include the 1999 United Nations human development report, which recently noted that income inequality in the mid-1990s in the United Kingdom was greater than in any other developed country? Does he share my concern about that leaden, not golden, Tory legacy? Will he encourage our Government to bridge the chasm that exists between the rich and the poor in our land as rapidly as possible?
    The Prime Minister: Our desire to do that is our reason for introducing the new deal, which is the largest ever programme for the long-term unemployed, which is opposed by the Conservatives. It is the reason for the working families tax credit, which gives help to 1.5 million low-income families and which would be scrapped by the Conservatives. It is the reason for the minimum wage, which would also be scrapped by the Conservatives, and for the £100 bonus for pensioners, which is opposed by the Conservatives. Those are all policies that will help to reduce inequalities in this country, and that is a good and right new Labour message.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: The operational assumptions that underlay the strategic defence review were wholly exaggerated, as demonstrated following the deployment to Kosovo. The strategic defence review cut £500 million from the defence budget. How can the Prime Minister reconcile that cut to the budget with the overstretch that our armed forces are now facing?
    The Prime Minister: First, we have, through the strategic defence review, enhanced our main capabilities, which is important. Secondly, as I said earlier, the review

    1185
    was carried forward with the consent and support of people in the defence and armed forces because they recognised that the services had to modernise. That stands in sharp contrast to the previous Conservative Government, who conducted no proper review and who cut spending, as I said, by over 30 per cent.
    Mrs. Sylvia Heal: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when he will introduce the promised legislation on the funding of political parties? Will he ensure that those proposals include safeguards to address the understandable public concern about the funding of a major political party by a UN ambassador to a foreign country?
    The Prime Minister: I am pleased to say that a draft Bill will be presented to the House next week. As part of our commitment, we shall ban foreign donations and ensure that donations over £5,000 are disclosed. We should not forget that the legislation has been brought about by the recommendations of the Neill committee, and that the Conservative party, when in government, consistently blocked any independent inquiry into public financing.
    Mr. William Hague: After the events surrounding formula one and fox hunting, we can see that in only one party is a large donation followed by a change in policy, and that is in the Labour party.
    Figures released by the House of Commons Library today reveal that average class sizes throughout the country have risen in the past two years. Will the Prime Minister now admit that when he said at Question Time last week, "class sizes are falling", a true statement would have been, "class sizes have risen"?
    The Prime Minister: That is wrong. Class sizes have fallen. For the first time in 10 years, we are seeing falls in primary school class sizes. When the right hon. Gentleman quoted primary school figures to me last week, he took the figure for one key stage and omitted all the rest. If one takes all the figures together, one sees that primary school class sizes are falling, and so are class sizes overall.
    Mr. Hague: I asked the Library to take together figures for all primary schools, nursery schools and secondary schools, and the answer is that average class sizes have risen in the past two years. That is here in black and white, and the right hon. Gentleman can have the figures. Why does he not read out the Government's own figures for average class sizes, not only for five to seven-year-olds, but for nursery, junior and secondary school classes? Class sizes have stayed the same for five to seven-year-olds and they have risen for every other age group. Why does the Prime Minister not read out the figures?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong; I shall give him the figures. For the first time in 10 years, class sizes in primary schools are falling. For the first time in five years, overall average class sizes in all maintained primary and secondary schools in England fell between January 1998 and January 1999—since the general election. More than that, as a result of our phasing out of the assisted places scheme, there will be an extra
    1186
    160,000 five, six and seven-year-olds in classes of fewer than 30. The right hon. Gentleman's party is committed to reintroducing the assisted places scheme and getting rid of the money for the reduction in class sizes. If that is not so, let him come to the Dispatch Box and say so now.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister does not want to read out the figures because they show that class sizes have risen. He promised smaller class sizes in all classes to the whole country. It is even written on one of his famous mugs. I will show him one; it says: "Smaller Class Sizes". It does not say that for five, six and seven-year-olds. [Interruption.] I know that he wants to see the back of his mugs, but he will have to wait for the reshuffle—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I want to see the mug and hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.
    Mr. Hague: All that the mug says on the bottom is:
    "This product needs warm, soapy water".
    When the Prime Minister publishes the Government's annual report next week, will he skip the warm, soapy water and explain to people that on this, as on so many other things, he has broken his election promise?
    The Prime Minister: There is only one mug in this place. We know the difference between the two parties. The right hon. Gentleman prefers the assisted places scheme to reducing class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. When the annual report is published next week, it will show the fact that, for the first time in years, class sizes are falling; that hospital waiting lists are down; that unemployment is down; that we have the lowest interest rates for more than 30 years; that crime is down.
    What the report will not show, but what I shall tell the House now, is the difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party. We are introducing, through the largest ever investment in schools, better schools for all our children. The Tory party opposes that extra investment and opposes the money for smaller class sizes, and that is because it is happy to stand for fox hunting and hereditary peers. When it comes to the minimum wage and class sizes, we need a Labour Government.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any consideration of the problems of public transport should start from recognition of the Conservatives' 18 years of underinvestment and neglect? Does he agree that, although the additional £517 million announced last week for the London underground is very welcome, the Government must do far more to put right the legacy? Will he assure the House that they will take all necessary steps to increase investment and modernise in order to make the public transport system something of which we can truly be proud?
    The Prime Minister: Again, there is an important difference between Labour and the previous Conservative Government. Our proposals for London underground mean an extra £500 million funding for it. We propose to increase by 30 per cent. funding for the railway system. On roads maintenance, we are due to spend an extra

    1187
    £900 million. The truth is that we inherited a chaotic, underfunded system from the Conservative Government, but under this Government, it will, step by step, get better.
    Mr. Tom Brake: The Prime Minister will soon be setting off on a well-deserved holiday. As he sits in the VIP lounge at Heathrow or Gatwick airport, would he care to read the report "The Future of National Air Traffic Services"? It says that the Government should
    "re-evaluate its proposals for Public Private Partnership"
    for National Air Traffic Services
    "to ensure that they are entirely compatible with the safe and expeditious movement of air traffic",
    and that
    "any decision to opt for a Public Private Partnership"
    for NATS
    "should be deferred until the Swanwick Centre is opened."
    Does the Prime Minister agree with me, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, an ex-Transport Minister in his Government and many Labour Back Benchers that he should deal with safety first, and get the Swanwick centre up and running before breaking his pre-election promise on NATS in the pursuit of profit and privatisation?
    The Prime Minister: A public-private partnership is precisely what we did promise, and of course we shall look very carefully at what the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and other Committees say about this. However, we must get not just the best value for money—safety obviously does come first—but the best system for the future. I do not think that involving private sector management in these situations is necessarily wrong, but we shall, of course, evaluate the matter and do the best thing.
    Ms Linda Perham: May I welcome the meeting that my right hon. Friend had this morning with the Prime Minister of Israel? Can he comment on those discussions and say how the Government can assist Israel and its neighbours in securing a peace of the brave?
    The Prime Minister: I was very impressed by the degree to which the new Prime Minister of Israel was determined to take forward not just the Palestinian track, but the Syrian track, and to try to get a lasting settlement in the middle east. For our part, we have said that we shall give Israel every support that we can in achieving a proper and just settlement, which recognises the need for justice and the security needs. I was pleased that the new Prime Minister of Israel felt that Britain and, indeed, the European Union could play a part in trying to bring about peace in the middle east, and we shall certainly be happy to do so.
    Mr. Tim Loughton: Is the Prime Minister at all concerned that one of his Back Benchers, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley), is prepared to abuse parliamentary privilege to smear a man who cannot answer back?
    1188
    Does he now acknowledge that the United States State Department has stated that it has never raised any concerns about the conduct of Michael Ashcroft with either Belize or British Ministers? Will he not instead condemn his hon. Friend for abusing his position when he was a member of Westminster city council planning department, when he voted against a planning application by Waitrose in preference to one by Safeway, which just happened to be one of his clients?
    The Prime Minister: There is a very simple response to the hon. Gentleman. The Conservative party can refer this entire case to the Neill committee. So why does it not do so? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the House that serious charges against another hon. Member must be made by tabling a motion on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Martin Salter: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister genuinely believe that the bipartisan approach to the Northern Ireland peace process is still alive, or does he share the view of some Labour Members that there are elements within the British Conservative party that have done all that they can to undermine the progress that we have made during the past 18 months?
    The Prime Minister: I would simply say that I hope very much that the bipartisan approach is maintained, because Northern Ireland should not be an issue of party politics. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It was not when we were in opposition. I hope very much that bipartisanship is maintained, because it is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland that it should be.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Prime Minister recall saying, on "Question Time" on 8 July,
    "The point I am making is we've still got far too many people waiting to see a consultant and on the waiting list"?
    He went on to promise significant improvement by the time of the next election. Given that the number of people waiting who have been referred by a general practitioner to a consultant has doubled in the two years since the Prime Minister was elected, will he now undertake to publish monthly figures not only for waiting lists, but for those waiting for the waiting lists, so that the British people can see what is happening?
    The Prime Minister: Again the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. Waiting lists have come down under the present Government. Waiting times have also come down. In relation to out-patient lists, this year, we have treated 200,000 more people than last year—far more than the previous Conservative Government did. And yes, it will take time, but we have introduced NHS Direct. An investment of £21 billion is being made in the health service, opposed by the Conservative party. We are renovating every accident and emergency department in

    1189
    the country. We are introducing new cancer services. We have 7,000 more doctors and 15,000 more nurses coming in. Yes, it will take time, but the health service will get better under the present Government, not least because we, unlike the Conservative party, believe in it.
    Mr. David Lock: As the minds of hon. Members turn towards their holidays, does my right hon. Friend agree that they will be joined this year by an extra 2.5 million people, who are getting paid holidays for the first time? Does he recall that Conservative Members, when in government, decided to oppose in the courts British people having paid holidays, rather than letting them go on those holidays? Does he
    1190
    agree that one effect of that opposition is that the British public will give Conservative Members a long time on holiday and out of government?
    The Prime Minister: That is what they deserve. The Conservative party is opposed to the proposals for holiday leave. It is opposed to the minimum wage. It is opposed to any basic standards in the workplace. It is opposed to the working families tax credit—that boost to 1.5 million low-income families. It is opposed to it because the true one nation party of British politics today is on the Government side of the House of Commons. The Conservative party, as is obvious, is increasingly extreme, divided and out of touch.

Librarian (Retirement)
3.31 pm
Madam Speaker: I have some information to give the House. I have received a letter from the Librarian indicating her wish to retire at the end of the year. I will arrange for the text of the letter to be printed in the Official Report.
Miss Jennifer Tanfield has worked in the Library for 36 years, the last six as our Librarian. During that time, of course, the Library has greatly expanded its services to meet the requirements of Members, and has been through a period of great technological change and development, as I am sure all of us know and appreciate. I know that Members of all parties will join me in thanking Miss Tanfield for her long and devoted service to the House. We wish her a long and happy retirement. I take this opportunity also of expressing our appreciation of the assistance provided to us by the Library as a whole.
Miss Tanfield will retire on 31 December, and I would like to announce to the House today that I have appointed Miss Priscilla Baines, currently the Library's Director of Human Resources and Deputy Librarian, to succeed her.
Following is the Librarian's letter:
Dear Madam Speaker
I am writing to confirm my decision to retire on 31 December 1999. I joined the Library in September 1963, so by December I will have served the House for more than 36 years, the last six of them as Librarian.
It is difficult on this occasion not to refer to all the changes that have taken place since I arrived, just after the Library's first photocopying machine. Today's electronic scanners and the computers on all our desks underline how much both technology and the methods of delivering information to users have developed. But I would also like to mention the things that have not changed. Working in the service of the House has been a great privilege. always interesting, always challenging—perhaps the only moments of boredom were when required to study the guide to National Accounts Statistics as a new Library Clerk. It has been a pleasure to work with so many Members of Parliament and I am grateful for their support of the Library and kindness to me personally. One of the continuing delights has been the calibre of my colleagues, in the Library, in other departments of the Commons and in the Lords and also those providing information services in parliaments throughout the world. And I still get a thrill every time I walk through the lovely Members' Library.
When you appointed me as Librarian I took over responsibility for a department whose services were highly valued by Members and other users. The challenge was to maintain the quality of the service without putting undue demands on the resources of the House. There is evidence that, thanks to the hard work and dedication of the Library staff, the challenge has been met and the service continues to be greatly appreciated.
Yours sincerely
Jennifer Tanfield
Librarian
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I know, Madam Speaker, that the whole House will want to join in the tribute that you have paid to Miss Tanfield, who has given the House such long and devoted service. Indeed, it is my understanding that there are only about eight Members who were Members before she arrived here. She has also seen 17 Leaders of the House come and go, and I am delighted to be the one who is able to pay tribute to her on her own departure.
1192
I know that we are all grateful for the professionalism of the Librarian and of all her colleagues, particularly given the large influx of new Members of all parties in May 1997. That is something which deserves a specific mention. We are all grateful, too, for the research papers that the Library produces, on which so many Members rely in providing an effective service.
There have been enormous changes during Miss Tanfield's tenure of office, with which she and her staff have coped admirably. I am sure that the entire House wishes her a very long and happy retirement.
Sir George Young: On behalf of the Opposition, I associate myself, Madam Speaker, with your remarks and those of the Leader of the House. Opposition parties have particular reason to be grateful for the services provided by the Library. Indeed, they were used only a few moments ago.
The development of the standard notes, putting more information on the intranet, and training Members to use Library services more efficiently have all been welcome initiatives introduced under the leadership of Miss Tanfield. The Library has coped with a dramatic explosion in demands on its services. It receives about 60,000 inquiries a year. We pay tribute to the work of Miss Tanfield and of the Library and we wish her a long and happy retirement.
Mr. Richard Allan: As Chair of the Select Committee on Information, I should like to express the Committee's sincere thanks and appreciation to Jennifer Tanfield for her work for the Committee and the House since 1993. She has successfully overseen a time of great change in the Library and placed it firmly at the forefront of developing new technology for the House and the wider public. The Library has done a great deal to provide information to the citizens of the country.
As well as being a repository of books and papers, the Library is a major research organisation and provider of information on the intranet. That is all done in a helpful and friendly way, so that those who still have panic attacks at the thought of programming videos can nevertheless receive an efficient, effective and helpful service from our Library staff. As a measure of the success of Miss Tanfield's stewardship, in a recent survey hon. Members gave the Library 8.9 out of 10 as a rating of their satisfaction with the Library services.
Jenny Tanfield leaves the Library in excellent shape, and we on the Information Committee look forward to working with her successor, Priscilla Baines.
I make these comments also on behalf of my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Mr. Tony Benn: May I briefly add my appreciation of the work of Jennifer Tanfield, on behalf of all the Members who have used the Library over many, many years? She has been an outstanding Librarian and custodian of the collective experience of the human race.
Libraries represent the one natural resource that is expanding all the time. Oil and coal decline, but knowledge expands. Visiting the Victoria tower, as I have done, and seeing the scrolls written on parchment with quill pens, which are part of the history of Parliament, we are reminded that if we do not know our history, we do not know where we came from or where we are going.

1193
Anyone who has been up the Victoria tower will appreciate that so much has changed, but so little has changed, too.
I look forward to the Freedom of Information Act, as I am one of the Members who do not see why I should have to wait 30 years to discover what is going on. If the Freedom of Information Act were introduced, the Library would have access to more recent information.
May I express my deep appreciation to Jennifer Tanfield who, not only in the Library, but as chair of the librarians of the Parliaments of the world, has made such an outstanding contribution to the work of the House?
Mr. Barry Sheerman: It would be remiss of the House not to express our appreciation of Jennifer Tanfield's work. I know of her work both in the House and outside. As a fellow graduate of the London School of Economics, I know that she has been active in a different cause.
Jennifer Tanfield has turned our Library into the leading-edge library of all European Parliaments through the way in which it has progressed the use of information technology for Members and many others, including scholars.
You, Madam Speaker, as I hope the House remembers, were our first woman Speaker. Jennifer Tanfield was our first woman Librarian.
Madam Speaker: I appointed her.
Mr. Sheerman: Indeed. I am delighted that Miss Tanfield's successor will be a good woman, too.

Points of Order
3.38 pm
Madam Speaker: Before I deal with today's points of order, I shall deal with one other matter. I need to respond to points of order made to me yesterday.
I regret that there appears to be continuing confusion in the minds of some hon. Members about the effect of the motion relating to the Railways Bill that was passed on Monday night by the House.
The motion before us that night was debated and agreed to, and the Bill was referred to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. It is now for that Committee, which I understand met this morning, to consider the provisions of the Bill. The Committee may make recommendations about the content of the Bill. It does not, however, have the power to make amendments to the Bill.
What may or may not become of the Bill after the Committee completes its work is certainly not a matter for me. That is a matter for the Government. Hon. Members who wish to pursue the further handling of the Bill should do so through the usual channels or through business questions.
Now that I have clarified the situation once more—not for the first time, but once more—I hope that hon. Members will not seek to draw the Chair into what is essentially a political dispute about the handling of legislation. May I say to those hon. Members who may remain dissatisfied with the procedures of the House that they are at liberty to make representations to the Select Committee on Procedure or to the Select Committee on Modernisation?
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to your ruling on that matter, Madam Speaker, which I did not know you were going to make—
Madam Speaker: I was asked to make a ruling.
Mr. Howarth: I did not realise that you would make a ruling today, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I always do things very speedily.
Mr. Howarth: Indeed, Madam Speaker. You always satisfy the requirements of the House.
As the Member responsible for ensuring that the motion was debated in the House on Monday—I objected to it last week—may I ask you for some clarification? Given that you have said that the Committee cannot amend the Bill, although it may comment on it, will there be another debate on Second Reading when the Bill comes back to the House, and will it go on Report; or is that in the hands of the House itself?
Madam Speaker: That is what I have just said. What may or may not become of the Bill after the Committee completes its work is certainly not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Government.
Mr. Howarth: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. Last month, I raised the matter of the soldiers whose names were revealed by the Saville inquiry into

1195
the events in Londonderry in January 1972. I said on the Floor of the House that their statements, which were given in confidence in 1972, had been released to the lawyers representing the families of those who were killed in Londonderry. The inquiry put out a statement that day, in effect rebutting what I said, but also saying that it was looking into the matter.
Today, the inquiry has issued a press release confirming that it has released the names of those soldiers—who served our country and put their lives at risk—for the first time since 1972, putting them into the public domain.
I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker. The inquiry is incompetent, but given that the Prime Minister has told me in a letter that the matter is nothing to do with him, even though he set up the inquiry, how on earth am I able to challenge that incompetence? Former members of the Parachute Regiment around the country and my constituents who are former members of the Parachute Regiment have absolutely no confidence whatever in the inquiry, but if I cannot tackle its incompetence through ministerial offices, how am I to deal with this matter, which is causing great expense to the public and seriously undermining confidence in the inquiry's fairness?
Madam Speaker: I want to be as helpful as I can to the hon. Gentleman. May I consider what he has said and look at the report and the press release, which I have not seen and to which he refers me? May I take the opportunity of writing fully to him after I have considered all those aspects?
Mr. Howarth: I am most grateful.
Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Convention and statute law give the House a number of privileges. I know that you, and almost all Members of the House, feel strongly that it is important for the dignity and effectiveness of Parliament that those privileges should not be abused. One of those privileges is immunity from suits of libel or slander relating to what is said in the House. I am afraid that the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) a few moments ago, in which he accused a private citizen of being a drug runner without adducing any evidence whatever, were indeed an abuse of that kind.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have been in the Chair since 2.30. I have heard exchanges across the Floor of the
1196
House involving Members of both sides of the House which I strongly deprecate. We should remember the wise words of Erskine May:
"Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language."
We should not be abusive, as we have been today. I deprecate very strongly the accusations that have been made from all parts of the House.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will know that I was one of a number of Members who inquired about the procedure for the handling of the Railways Bill. I, among others, am very grateful for the guidance that you have given, and I understand that it is for the Government to decide on the future handling of Bills, but is it anticipated that there will be published or stated criteria according to which there will be either one or more than one debate on the Second Reading of a Bill? If Members do not know in advance whether there will be one or two debates on Second Reading, it will be very difficult for them to make any sort of judgment about the opportunities that they will have to contribute.
Madam Speaker: As I thought I had explained in my very long answer to points of order, those are questions that could be put to the Leader of the House at business questions, or through the usual channels across the Floor of the House.

Points of Order

  BILL PRESENTED
  EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS (INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS)
  Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Mr. Harold Best, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Llew Smith, Audrey Wise, Mr. Mike Wood, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Bill Etherington and Mrs. Maria Fyfe, presented a Bill to make provision for the implementation in the laws of the United Kingdom of the rights in employment which are established by certain international instruments ratified by the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 146].

Work With Asbestos
3.45 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create new offences relating to negligent or malicious practice involving work with asbestos; to increase the penalties available to the courts for existing offences; to confer new powers on the Health and Safety Executive; to amend the law with regard to the employment rights of health and safety representatives; and for connected purposes.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who is a sponsor of this Bill, for providing me with details of the film "DOA"—Dead on Arrival. In the opening scene, a man enters a police station and says, "I have come to report a murder." When asked who has been murdered, he replies, "I have."
Tens of thousands of men in Britain and across Europe could do the same, because they have been exposed to asbestos dust, often through the negligence and malpractice of their employers and contractors. In this country, there are an estimated 3,000 asbestos-related deaths a year: from asbestosis, asbestos-related lung cancer and mesothelioma, a particularly nasty and painful form of cancer, for which prognosis for any form of recovery is very poor.
At a conference on asbestos-related diseases in 1997, Dr. John Moore-Gillon said:
"People with mesothelioma all die, usually after a few months of increasing pain and breathlessness. There can be no condition which is more distressing for the patient, relatives and to the completely powerless doctor, as those individuals plough inexorably downhill."
Current projects based on a paper in The Lancet entitled "The continuing increase in mesothelioma mortality in Britain" suggest that, in 10 years' time, such deaths among men could range from 1,000 to 2,100; in 20 years' time, from 1,300 to 3,000; and in 30 years' time, from 1,000 to 3,200. The ratio of other asbestos-related deaths to mesothelioma is currently 2:1. On just a 1:1 ratio, Professor Julian Peto has estimated that, in the next 35 years, asbestos-related cancer will kill 500,000 men in western Europe.
Asbestos-related deaths have a long latency period—anything from 15 to 60 years from exposure to the deadly dust—so many of the murders of those who are still alive cannot be stopped. However, we can act now for the future. Many trade unions and health and public safety campaigners have long pressed for the law to be strengthened. To their credit, the Government have done that in a number of respects: they have introduced tighter regulations on asbestos licensing and exposure at work; and they have been negotiating hard for a Europe-wide ban on white chrysotile asbestos. Safer substitutes have now been scientifically established, so I hope that there will not be much more of a delay before white asbestos is banned in Britain and throughout the EU. If the date set for a total EU ban is some years ahead, I hope that that will not stop the Government announcing an immediate ban in this country.
Campaigners have also rightly pointed to the inadequacy of sentences delivered by the courts in cases involving negligent or malicious work with asbestos which places the lives and health of workers or innocent members of the public at risk. In a parliamentary answer
1198
to me in April, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), said:
"I am concerned that the general level of penalties imposed by the Courts for Health and Safety offences, including those related to asbestos, do not match their seriousness, especially given that lives are being put at risk."—[Official Report, 27 April 1999; Vol. 330, c.91.]
The Minister was being too polite. Many of the sentences have been derisory, and despite the fact that some bigger fines have been imposed, judges still seem out of touch. They fail to see the gravity of the offence and continue to assess life far too cheaply. They have also been reluctant to imprison asbestos cowboys, even where the crime has been blatant.
The first ever custodial sentence—three months—on a cowboy contractor for serious breaches of asbestos regulations was passed on Roy Hill by Bristol Crown court in January 1996. The second one, and the longest to date—nine months—was handed down to Paul Anthony Evans by Birmingham Crown court in September 1998. Despite not having a licence, Evans subcontracted the stripping of a factory roof of asbestos and its disposal. He hired a van and dumped 300 sacks of asbestos around the city. The court was told that some of the bags had been left open and others had burst on inspection, releasing the asbestos fibres into the air. Children were found playing with the asbestos, some of which had been dumped on a school playground and some near a supermarket. I do not think—nor, I suspect, do most members of the public, especially people in Birmingham—that nine months' imprisonment was a sufficient sentence.
Mr. Justice Scott Baker, in an important Court of Appeal judgment last November, set out for the first time a range of factors for determining penalties. However, as in earlier judgments, he still managed to reduce the penalty imposed on the guilty party. It is hard to believe, but those were advances.
Earlier this year, there was a significant setback in the shape of the judgment in the case of the Medley brothers—Neil Peter Medley and Andrew Craig Medley. Their company, Medleys Limited, employed schoolboys to remove asbestos tiles from the ceiling of AE Turbines of Yeadon, Leeds. They employed two 15-year-olds and a 14-year-old for that work, and they also pleaded guilty to undertaking asbestos work in an old boiler house without a licence, failing to leave the premises in a clean state to prevent the spread of the asbestos, and placing employees at risk during work at a school by not properly maintaining records or medical surveillance. About 60 other charges were ordered to lie on the file. Neil Medley was ordered to do 240 hours of community service and pay £4,000 costs, and his brother was given half that penalty.
That was a grossly inadequate sentence. The judge, John Cockcroft, said that he could not send them to prison as, he claimed, the maximum punishment allowed by health and safety laws was an unlimited fine. He said:
"Only time will tell in relation to cases of this sort whether disease caused by exposure to asbestos will cause Parliament to look again at the maximum sentences for these offences."
The Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians expressed its horror at the leniency of the sentence. George Brumwell, its general secretary, said:
"We believe the sentence is an insult to the thousands of asbestos victims and their families. This case illustrates that the law must be toughened up so that punishments received for health and safety crimes match the nature of the crime. Asbestos kills people."

1199
UCATT drew attention to the Turin court decision three years ago when nine owner-managers of the Societa Italiana Amianto asbestos factory were jailed for terms of between seven months and eight years, and ordered to pay personal compensation totalling £6 million. They were found guilty of murdering 32 workers and causing the occupational diseases of the 11 still alive. Mr. Brumwell said:
"This level of punishment would make a real difference in attitudes of employers in this country."
My Bill would increase the range of penalties, including imprisonment, for those organising work with asbestos who place another person's health or life at risk by undertaking negligent or malicious practices in the performance of that work. It would strengthen the powers of the Health and Safety Executive in the investigation of suspected breaches of asbestos law and regulations. Any obstruction of the HSE's investigations would be a crime with stiff penalties in its own right. It would introduce offences of corporate neglect and corporate malevolent practice whereby the directors of a company organising work with asbestos, which places another person's life or health at risk by negligence or malicious practice, would also be subject to penalties, including possible imprisonment.
I favour the enactment of the Law Commission's 1994 proposed reform of manslaughter law. It proposed three new offences—reckless killing, killing by gross carelessness and corporate killing. My Bill nods in that direction for asbestos offences.
My Bill would also increase penalties for offences under the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920. The maximum penalty of a fine not exceeding £1,000 for employing a child in an industrial undertaking is far too low. It should be an imprisonable offence to employ any child on work with asbestos.
1200
The Attorney-General has the right to appeal what he considers too lenient sentences. However, according to the Lord Chancellor, that does not apply to health and safety asbestos cases. My Bill would extend that right of appeal. It would also require the Lord Chancellor to arrange specific training courses for all judges who are likely to deal with asbestos cases, explaining the sentences available to them.
I know that Ministers were deeply disappointed by the Medley judgment, and are still actively considering how to respond. My Bill comes at the end of this parliamentary Session, so it will not make progress on this occasion. However, it points the way, and I hope that more realistic sentences that reflect the deadly seriousness of asbestos abuse will be enacted in the not too distant future.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have been indicating the digital clock for some time.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Helen Jackson, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. John Smith, Dr. Howard Stoate and Mr. Tony Worthington.
WORK WITH ASBESTOS
Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to create new offences relating to negligent or malicious practice involving work with asbestos; to increase the penalties available to the courts for existing offences; to confer new powers on the Health and Safety Executive; to amend the law with regard to the employment rights of health and safety representatives; and for connected 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 147].

Orders of the Day

  Access to Justice Bill [Lords]
  Lords Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Commons amendments considered.
  3.56 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): I beg to move, That this House does not insist on Commons amendments Nos. 27 to 30, to which the Lords have disagreed.
  Lords Reason:
  Because it is not appropriate for the Legal Services Commission itself to provide advice, assistance or representation to individuals involved in criminal investigations or criminal proceedings.
  Madam Speaker: With this we shall take Government amendments (a) to (e) in lieu thereof.
  Mr. Vaz: The amendments would reinstate powers for employees of the Legal Services Commission to provide advice, assistance and representation as part of the Criminal Defence Service. They would enable the commission to develop a mixed system for the provision of the full range of criminal defence services, through both salaried defenders and contracts with lawyers in private practice.
  When the Bill first came before the House, it had been denuded of the power to provide services in this way as a result of action taken in another place in support of—it has to be said—blatant vested interests. The House wisely reinstated provisions that would give the commission the greatest flexibility to provide cost-effective services, and to provide a wider choice for the public.
  As the House will know, a public defence solicitors' office has been operating in Scotland on a pilot basis since October last year. That office is already finding that 22 per cent. of its clients are choosing its services in preference to those of people in private practice. The remainder of its clients are allocated randomly between the private and the employed sector.
  What the Bill proposes does not involve allocation; it is based on freedom of choice. It seems, however, that some in the private sector fear the competition that freedom of choice will introduce. It is surprising, to say the least, to find the principal opponents of choice in the other place on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The other place has now rejected these proposals twice. On the second occasion, it did so when it enjoyed the explicit backing of this House, which is directly responsible to the electorate who might wish to take advantage of the services involved. That cannot be the role envisaged for a revising Chamber.
  I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) is present. I am sure that he will advance the arguments of his party, and will explain why its members voted as they did in the other place.
  The issue of salaried defenders has been the subject of widespread debate in both this House and another place, and also outside Parliament. I was very pleased to see early-day motion 840 on today's Order Paper. The motion, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for
  1202
  Hendon (Mr. Dismore), has already been signed by 59 hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell).
  When listening to debates such as this, I have had occasion to wonder whether the opponents of the provisions really understand what they are opposing.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: No doubt as a result of some oversight, the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who initiated that early-day motion, does not appear to be here to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary. For the benefit of the many Members who are listening to him, would he be good enough to recite the terms of the early-day motion, so that we could come to grips with it and see precisely what he supports and what the hon. Member for Hendon is so keen on?
  Mr. Vaz: I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has a special relationship with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon. I will leave that to one side. He has a pair of legs. I am sure that he can trot off to the Vote Office, get a copy of the Vote—which we are all entitled to do—and read it for himself.
  There are those who seem to think that the criminal defence service is synonymous with a United States-style public defender office. In fact, it refers to the flexible system that will replace criminal legal aid, which will provide criminal defence services through a mix of salaried defenders and lawyers in private practice.
  It is emphatically not the Government's intention to introduce a comprehensive public defender system. We have made that clear on a number of occasions, yet unfavourable comparisons are drawn with public defender systems in other countries, rather than with mixed systems such as those in Canada.
  There has been debate about the independence and ethical standards of salaried defenders, but little acknowledgement of clause 37, which places the overriding ethical duties of all advocates and litigators on a statutory footing; or of clause 16, which provides for a code of conduct specifically for salaried defenders.
  Furthermore, the Legal Services Commission will be an independent non-departmental body. There is simply no danger of collusion between its employees and the prosecution, and perhaps less risk of an appearance, or perception, of collusion than where two barristers from the same chambers appear on opposite sides.
  Lawyers in Britain are rightly proud of their integrity and independence, but that independence flows from their membership of a profession and their obedience to the ethical rules that their profession enforces, not from the way in which they are paid. It is fallacious and an insult to thousands of employed lawyers to seek to equate "independent practice" with the independence needed to advise and to act for a client.
  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 provide a competitive stimulus to lawyers in private practice.
  The state is under no obligation to guarantee to the private profession that it, and it alone, may provide publicly funded legal defence services. Given that high

  1203
  standards will be maintained, the public will gain from the introduction of salaried defenders as part of a mixed system of legal service provision.
  International research shows that mixed systems, with salaried defenders operating alongside private lawyers, can be the most successful way in which to provide criminal defence services. That is the view of Bar associations, including the Canadian Bar Association and the American Bar Association. It is advocated by official bodies such as the Legal Services Corporation in America and the National Legal Aid Advisory Committee in Australia.
  We will learn from the overseas and Scottish experience as we introduce salaried defenders in England and Wales. We also intend to consult widely before taking any steps. After that, the Legal Services Commission will establish pilot projects to test and to evaluate different models for providing services through salaried defenders. We would start with small pilots and monitor them precisely to see how effective the arrangements were. The pilot projects would be extended throughout the country only after we had had experience of salaried defenders in practice. Decisions will therefore be taken on the basis of evidence, not prejudice and assumption.
  Alternative amendment (e) broadens the scope of clause 15(9), which currently provides that regulations may not require someone to select an employee of the commission as his or her representative. If amended as I propose, the subsection would also catch employees of separate bodies established and maintained by the commission to provide salaried criminal defence services. We intend to test both models—direct employment and separately maintained bodies akin to law centres—in the pilots.
  I should also make it clear that, within the commission, salaried defenders will work within a separate organisational unit or units, reporting to a senior lawyer responsible for managing them in a way that respects and protects their professional integrity. They will not have additional responsibilities for any other of the commission's functions. They will be employed as criminal defenders, and I have no doubt at all that, as such, they will dedicate themselves to defending their clients with the same professional skill, judgment, and fearless independence and integrity as would any lawyer in the private sector.
  Alternative amendments (a) and (c) are intended to give a better flavour of that. Rather than saying that the commission may itself provide advice, assistance and representation, the amended Bill will say that the commission may employ persons to provide those services. We have not proposed a similar change to the language of clause 7 on the community legal service, because there is not the same imperative to ensure that salaried providers of civil services are managed, and are seen to be managed, separately from other staff; and because the commission may provide services other than by employing people—for example, by making information available in electronic form on the internet.
  The Government are confident that salaried defenders will develop to play a valuable role in the criminal defence service without any element of compulsion. I challenge the private profession to demonstrate the same confidence in the service that they provide. I, for one, have that confidence, and submit that the private
  1204
  professions have nothing to fear from competing alongside salaried defenders in a system based on an informed choice of representative.
  Those in another place who have removed similar provisions are effectively seeking to protect the vested interests of the established profession by preventing that choice from being made. 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 looking at arranging our legal services in a different way. It is, I regret, a blurred vision, which is not prepared to accept that there can be merit in change and diversity.
  I hope that hon. Members will see that, subject to the safeguards set out in this Bill, there is great merit in allowing criminal defence services to be provided both by private practitioners—whether in independent practice or employed by law firms—and by those employed by the state. The Bar and the solicitors profession can survive on their merits. They do not need to be cocooned with restrictive practices and guarantees of state work.
  Mr. Garnier: I am most grateful to be called to contribute to this important debate. We are at the point of collision in our deliberations, but that is not unusual when a matter is of concern to those who think about it.
  The collision is between the arguments advanced in another place and the Minister's arguments, if I can use that word in connection with what he has said. The Minister had to resort to abuse. He said that lawyers were demanding that their vested interests should be protected against the freedom that he claims will be provided by the amendments that he has tabled. He also said that the amendments would allow the wider public greater access to a full range of lawyers, including both salaried state defenders and those in private practice.
  I have never believed that argument by abuse is a substitute for the proper evidential and intellectual analysis of a proposal.
  I bow to no man in my admiration of the Parliamentary Secretary's ability to read out unthinkingly the civil service brief with which he has been provided by the Lord Chancellor. There is no doubt that he knows how to read. However, this is not a trivial matter, despite the low attendance in the Chamber this afternoon. No matter how emollient or smooth the Minister's tone, and no matter how he puts forward the words that he read out a moment ago, not much of value or worth underlies them.
  I begin by reminding the House what clauses 13 and those immediately following, headed "The Criminal Defence Service", are all about. The Legal Services Commission replaces the Legal Aid Board to run legal aid, for criminal cases via a criminal defence service, and for family/civil cases through a community legal service fund. Lawyers and other providers need a contract from the Legal Services Commission to offer services under the fund, and the Legal Services Commission has the power to make any type of contract.
  In relation to criminal cases, most criminal defence service services will be provided under contract, usually at a fixed price. I fully accept the point made by the Minister, the Lord Chancellor and other loyal members of the Government and their supporters, that we are looking at a mixed system. There will not be a wholly state defender system. Some criminal defendants will enjoy the services of private practitioners, but other defendants—

  1205
  this will be the subject of a debate later this afternoon—will not, and they will be required to make use of the services of employed salaried state defenders.
  Those contracts, to which I have referred, will cover everything from police station advice to Crown court representation. As I understand it, the Government intend that high-cost criminal defence service cases will be subject to individual contracts. The possible introduction of United States-style public defenders employed by the criminal defence service with a favoured long-term plan of mixing private and staff lawyers is envisaged, as I implied a moment ago. The courts are to decide if it is in the interests of justice to grant representation under the scheme. The powers previously enjoyed by others will now be transferred to the criminal defence service.
  Eventually, legally aided defendants will be able to choose only lawyers with a contract. In high-cost cases, the choice will be limited to lawyers on a specialist panel and, in certain circumstances, defendants are to be assigned to a lawyer. Means testing will be abolished and the court will be able to make convicted defendants repay some or all of their defence costs.
  As with so much of the Bill, the aspects that we are now discussing are very much a curate's egg—good in parts but, unfortunately, also bad in parts. No matter how much the Minister and his master seek to persuade the wider public that what they are doing is all good, I regret to say that a proper analysis of what they seek to do does not allow that case to succeed.
  For the Opposition's part—I believe that we have the support of the Liberal Democrats—we see no evidence of the need for a criminal defence service. Nor do we 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 Britain will be improved by a system of state defenders. Fourthly, we fear that the introduction of state defenders will undermine the perception and 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 the defence being represented by a Government official.
  4.15 pm
  You may feel, Madam Speaker, that this is a deeply interesting esoteric discussion to listen to on a Wednesday afternoon. After all the excitement of Prime Minister's Question Time, it must be hideous to have to chair a discussion about arguments over one sort of lawyer or another. [Interruption.] Fortunately, I am deaf in my left ear—like the Labour Government—and I did not hear what the Minister said. It is unlikely to matter; I heard his speech, and I do not imagine that we have much to learn from him.
  On 5 July, our revered, noble and learned Lord Chancellor went to Edinburgh, the capital of his home country, to address the Common Law Judiciary Association. He made it clear—and I agree with him—that the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitution. He went on to say—and I again agree—that one guarantee of the independence of the judiciary,
  1206
  and one reason why members of the public and Members of Parliament can have confidence in it, is that the profession of advocacy, whether among solicitors or barristers, is also independent.
  Advocates are able—from my own experience, I believe that it is their second nature—to appear before courts and judges against public authorities, Government Departments and police forces, and fearlessly to represent their clients' interests, whether or not the clients are popular or appealing to the press, the judiciary or the jury. If I have not made my interest clear already, may I declare that I am a practising member of the Bar. It is our firm duty to represent our clients irrespective of our prospects of promotion or career or remuneration. [Interruption.]
  It is permissible for Ministers to snigger when members of the Bar or solicitors make that point, and it has happened many times. They say how old-fashioned we are and how sad it is that Opposition Members should seek to protect the vested interests of the privately financed Bar. I beg to differ with that view. It is of huge constitutional importance that the independent Bar and the independent solicitors' profession on which the independent judiciary is founded and nourished should be able to appear in the courts without having to worry about whether what they do is favourable or appealing to the state.
  The state already prosecutes through the Crown Prosecution Service, which, after 10 years, is beginning to find its feet. We have not yet had the happy experience of a criminal defence service. One need only look across the Atlantic to see what has occurred in the United States. Indeed, we need look only along the corridor to the other place. We can read the record of debates about the Bill conducted by Labour peers who have considerable experience of the law, and who, with all due respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, have greater experience than his.
  Let me refer the House to an intervention made by Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws. As far as I recall, she is not a card-carrying member of the Conservative party; indeed, from time to time—certainly during the deliberations in which she took part in the other place—she may have doubted whether she should be a card-carrying member of the Labour party.
  The noble Lady made several trenchant points, although they may not yet have sunk in for Members on the Treasury Bench, but my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and I will draw them to the attention of the House—or at least to the attention of those Members who are unfortunate enough to be in the Chamber this afternoon listening to my speech. I shall paraphrase the noble Lady's remarks because I do not have her words in front of me. From her experience of talking to lawyers in the United States, she found that those who were the least experienced and the most susceptible to pressure found it necessary to join the state defender service. As a consequence, deals were done; pressures were exerted on those lawyers to deliver the list and ensure that the throughput of cases was achieved to the satisfaction of the prosecutors and the courts, and, no doubt, to the career satisfaction of the state defender—but not necessarily to the advantage of the defendant whom they were supposed to represent.
  I know that the Minister is a man of immense calm and not likely to lose his temper at any stage—that would be wholly outside his character—but before he gets an ulcer,

  1207
  I advise him that I am as well aware as he is of clauses 16 and 37. They set out the statutory code of conduct and the overriding duties that members of the state defence service will be required to observe. However, it is one thing to write provisions in a Bill and quite another to ensure that those codes and duties are observed in the rush and heat of battle as one leads up to a case in the magistrates court or the Crown court. I fully accept that the words of the code of conduct and of clause 37, which deals with overriding duties, will be considered; no doubt, they will be stuck up in the robing rooms of every state defender office in the country. However, in due course when the Bill becomes law—sadly, in respect of this aspect of it—I shall be interested to see whether those words will be honoured more in the breach than the observance.
  Of course, there will be no evidence of that. Which criminal state defender would put his hand on his heart and run round to The Sun, the Daily Mail, The Times or the Law Society Gazette to say "Oops", because he had settled the case or persuaded the client to plead guilty in order to appease the ire of the prosecutor, who had four cases in a different court and needed to get on, or to assuage the anxiety of a magistrate or a Crown court judge who needed his list to be completed?
  Mr. John Burnett: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there could be great proximity between prosecutor and defender? They might even share the same office.
  Mr. Garnier: We do not know. I share the suspicions of the hon. Gentleman; we discussed them in Standing Committee and it is right that they should be raised again today. The prosecutor and the defender may well share an office; they may share an employment stream. If people do well and deliver for the state as a defender, they may be promoted across to the prosecution service as a district or regional prosecutor.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain the difference between the Liberal party hypothesis that a prosecutor and a defender may share the same office and the current practice in which people acting for both sides of a case often share the same chambers or even the same room? Indeed, people's progress up the prosecution ladder very much depends on whether they find favour with the CPS in defence work.
  Mr. Garnier: Let me assist the hon. Gentleman, who claims to be a highly experienced solicitor—as I am sure he is. He may well have instructed barristers from the same chambers in different cases—for example, on one occasion acting for a plaintiff and on another acting for a defendant in a personal injury matter. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's experience is of criminal cases, but I offer him an example from my own practice.
  I am a defamation practitioner. There are not a huge number of defamation practitioners at the Bar of England and Wales—so, inevitably, there are cases in which barristers from my set of chambers act for both sides. However, the great distinction between members of my chambers and members of the criminal defence service and the criminal prosecution service is that my friends in chambers and I are self-employed: we are independent
  1208
  economic and intellectual units. I do not owe anything other than a duty of courtesy and the normal professional duties to the court to a colleague in chambers when I am against him in a contested matter.
  I do not know whether the hon. Member for Hendon has had the opportunity to act in a libel case, but let me tell him that often the hardest-fought fights between barristers take place between opponents who happen to be in the same set of chambers. A barrister survives and gets his next brief by virtue of his reputation as an independent and fearless advocate on behalf of his client. He does not recover fees or get another brief because he has greased up to some paymaster, or because he has managed to ingratiate himself with some state provider of funds. [Interruption.]
  It is easy to snigger. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), for whom I have the highest admiration, has learned a lot over the past year, since becoming a Whip and joining the legal services team. However, as I look across the Chamber at the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who is an experienced advocate, I have a suspicion that he and I, despite our party political differences, and other members of the Bar and members of the solicitors profession—perhaps with the exception of the hon. Member for Hendon—share a certain understanding of the way in which the independent advocate exercises his duties and carries out his work. My fear is that, if the Government have their way, the way in which the right hon. Gentleman and I have carried out our job in respect of both criminal and civil defendants will be made far more difficult.
  There is no evidence of the need for a criminal defence service. It might be said that the Chancellor needs to save money, or at least not to increase expenditure—all Governments need to keep control of expenditure. However, there is no empirical evidence that I have seen, or that the Government have been able to demonstrate to the House or any other interested body, that there is a need for a criminal defence service. There are plenty of private professional advocates who are willing and available to act for defendants in criminal matters.
  The Parliamentary Secretary says that it is not the duty of the state to guarantee work for private lawyers. Of course it is not, and no one has ever suggested that it is. The best will do well and the worst will not. There is no requirement in the private professions for the state to hand out free money—a free ride—to either solicitor advocates or banister advocates who act for defendants. It is a simple canard for the Government to suggest that there is an overwhelming need—or any need—for the establishment of a criminal defence service.
  The Labour Government have wholeheartedly embraced the Conservative ethos of privatisation. They call it different names, such as private-public partnerships, and they use the language of "Alice in Wonderland" and George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-four" to confuse the public and to hide their true intentions, but there is no question but that they are a pale-pink Conservative Government—not a good pale-pink Conservative Government, if I, a pale-pink Conservative, can say that—who are doing their best to understand the language of conservatism without knowing what it is all about. The Government have been found out in relation to clause 13, and the other place, in its refusal to accept this amendment, has found them out as well.

  1209
  4.30 pm
  By resisting the Lords' refusal to accept this House's amendment to this clause, the Government are injecting a degree of nationalisation into the criminal defence system. The Government talk privatisation, the free market and competition. However, because they do not understand what they are doing, they have fallen into the trap of nationalising part of the legal system. They say that they are making the change because it is right and it is what is required. Would that the Government knew what they were doing. If they looked at what is happening both here and in other countries and if they compared like with like, they would understand that they have fallen into a trap of their own making. There is no need for a nationalised criminal defence service.
  The Government claim that the quality of criminal defence in this country will be improved by a system of state defenders. They think that asserting it proves the case, but there is no evidence to back up the assertion. I listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary—I always listen carefully to him and I read his articles in the Leicester Mercury every week. However, nothing that he has said, written or caused to be published—if I may resort to the language of a pompous barrister, which is what I am—
  Mr. Vaz: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Garnier: I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary was listening to that part of my remarks at least.
  None of the Minister's utterances has persuaded me that the quality of the criminal defence system in this country will be improved by a system of state defenders. I suggest that the service will deteriorate and diminish.
  I accepted at the outset that the Government envisage a mixed system comprising salaried defenders and contracts for private practitioners. The Minister cited the example of the Scottish experience. I always shudder when Ministers—particularly Ministers from the Lord Chancellor's Department—use the expression "the Scottish experience". It takes me back to a 1996 speech made by the Lord Chancellor, then shadow Lord Chancellor, about the Scottish experiment with conditional fee arrangements, which he deprecated. Amazingly, by May 1997, he had done a complete volte face and thought that anything emerging from Scotland was wonderful.
  The Minister said that 22 per cent. of defence clients choose the equivalent of the criminal defence service in Scotland. So what? I am not sure that that tells us anything other than that 22 per cent. of clients choose the criminal defence service. The Minister did not tell us why they choose the service, where those clients come from or whether other choices were available to them. Is it the case that in the centres of Glasgow and Edinburgh there is a choice between private practitioners and state defenders, but, because of the excellence of the criminal defence service, 22 per cent. of clients choose the CDS or its equivalent in Scotland?
  Do clients choose that service because—as we suspect will happen in this country—they must retain the lawyer with whom they were presented or whom they were required to choose when they were beaten up or drunk and were brought to the police station at 2 am? We do not know. It was a totally useless piece of information
  1210
  that no doubt satisfied the Minister. Ministers like statistics, and civil servants like writing numbers into Ministers' speeches. We need to understand what is behind the statistics, and the House does not have any inkling of whether the Minister understands what that 22 per cent. from the Scottish example means.
  The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that the policy is based on freedom of choice, and, in doing, so he demonstrated a point that I made not so long ago, which is that there is a total inability to understand what lies behind the Government's jargon. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is a great speaker. I have heard him speak on a number of occasions. I prefer it when he says nothing, but none the less, when he speaks, absolutely no one in the whole county of Leicestershire can do anything but admire what he has to say and the way in which he says it. However, to say that the Government's policy is based on arguments related to freedom of choice is absurd, if not obscene.
  "Words mean what I say they mean." Do you remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, your schoolboy days when you read "Alice in Wonderland", or your teenage days when you read George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-four"? It is absurd, obscene and ridiculous for the Government to use the arguments that they have used to seek to defend their resistance to the refusal of the other place to swallow the amendment proposed by this House.
  The Minister went on to say that those who think as I do were insulting the thousands of employed lawyers and traducing their qualities and professional standards. There are, as yet, no employees of the criminal defence service, and our only experiences of a criminal defence service are those in Scotland, the United States and Canada, none of which is wholly similar. There may well be other jurisdictions where there are state defender services. I think of the former Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, which are not examples that I imagine the Minister will rush to embrace to support the arguments that he has limply put forward.
  I would have greater confidence in what the Minister has said if he could tell us how many employees the criminal defence service will have and how much money his Department or the Treasury will give the service. I want to know, and the public have a right to know, what the Government are proposing. I have listened to many of the debates in the other place and to all the debates in Committee and on the Floor of this House, and I suspect that the short answer is that the Government simply do not have a clue. They are pushing up a balloon and hoping that it will float gently into the sky and that everyone will marvel at the tightness of this great rubber sphere.
  Mr. Vaz: We do not want to hear about the hon. and learned Gentleman's private life.
  Mr. Garnier: We shall turn to the Minister's private life in a moment, because that has some bearing on what we may yet discuss. What is inside the balloon is no more than Government hot air.
  As a fourth argument against this aspect of the Bill, my noble and learned Friend Lord Kingsland suggested in the other place that
  "the introduction of state defenders will certainly undermine the perception, and also perhaps the reality, of criminal justice."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 1999; Vol. 604, c. 418.]

  1211
  Cogent speeches were made by Lord Kingsland and Lord Thomas of Gresford, to whom, no doubt, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) will refer if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They put forward arguments that wholly undermined what I am gracious enough to call the Government's arguments for the criminal defence service and in support of their resistance to the Lords proposal. Apart from being, to say the very least, tiresome, the Government's arguments in favour of resisting the Lords proposal are ill-considered.
  One need only read the arguments not only of my noble Friend Lord Kingsland and Lord Thomas of Gresford, but of Lord Hutchinson, who said:
  "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 advocates—barristers and solicitors—without whom the judges could not operate and from among whom the judges are drawn."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 1999; Vol. 604, c. 416.]
  That draws me back to a very good point made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) in earlier debates that without an independent advocacy profession there can be no independent minds from which to draw an independent judiciary.
  I read with great care the Lord Chancellor's speech in Edinburgh on 5 July. I agree with pretty well everything he said in it. My only concern is that he has not learned the lessons that he is teaching us all and which he sets out in that speech, much of which followed the remark of the right hon. Member for Llanelli in the House some weeks ago, to which I referred. The establishment, even in part, as the Government propose, of a criminal defence service will lead to the damaging of the independent advocate and therefore to the damaging of the independent judiciary—two concepts which I and my party particularly revere.
  It is perfectly possible for the Government to sneer. They frequently do; they do not have to listen to arguments because they have a huge majority. It is perfectly possible for them to pooh-pooh all that Opposition Members say and to try to persuade both the public and supporters in this House that all this is from a tired, middle-aged, white, middle-class barrister who is working out his frustrations at the Government for having been elected in May 1997. I am perfectly prepared to salute the Government's huge majority. What I deprecate is the way in which they use it like a scatter-gun to damage our constitution and our legal processes.
  I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to agree with my noble Friend Lord Kingsland, Lord Thomas of Gresford and all the majority in the other House who, having thought about the matter and having listened to the issues and the way in which they were debated on 14 July, would assist me in resisting the Government's decision to strike down the House of Lords proposals.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: I rise to speak briefly in support of the Lords proposal that the Parliamentary Secretary is seeking to oppose. As I understand it, it would remove from the Bill the provision that would enable this or any future Government to set up a criminal defence service.
  I practise occasionally in the criminal courts, and declare an interest as an advocate. I am not asking for a ruling from the Chair, but I am not sure why I need to
  1212
  declare an interest. I speak as a Member of Parliament with some expertise in legal matters, but as one who is concerned about the rule of law and this country's criminal justice system.
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned those in the other House with a blatant vested interest. I do not know to whom he was referring. I hope that he was not referring to Baroness Kennedy, for instance, who has been mentioned. I hope that he was not referring to Lord Hutchinson, who, as Jeremy Hutchinson, was an extremely distinguished defence advocate in cases involving the state and always conducted himself with great artistry and sophistication—qualities which he displayed in the speeches in the other place, which are well worth reading. I hope that my hon. Friend was not referring to those people. I hope that he is not thinking that I represent a blatant vested interest as I make my few brief remarks.
  4.45 pm
  I spoke on Second Reading and I shall not repeat myself. My arguments have been made in the other place, and they have been made in this place by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).
  Perhaps I am an old romantic, and perhaps I am old-fashioned, but I believe that the defence of those accused of crimes by the state should not be in the hands of employees of the state. I understand that there will be a pilot scheme and that a mixed system will then be set up, but I believe that—Governments being Governments and bureaucracies being bureaucracies—the movement that is under way will continue until, eventually, the defence system is almost wholly state run.
  Essentially, the criminal justice system is already dominated by the state. In effect, all crimes are crimes against the state. The prosecutor is the state and, with the development of the Crown Prosecution Service—to which I do not object, and which appears to be putting its house in order—prosecution advocates will increasingly be employees of the state. Judges, who are the salt of the earth, are, ultimately, employees of the state.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Under the separation of powers doctrine, the role of the judiciary is entirely separate from that of the state. However, the difficulty that we perceive, which was mentioned by many hon. Members and by some Government supporters in the other place—including Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said—is that salaried state employees in a nationalised criminal defence service may be put under pressure to fit in with the system. Is not that a cause for concern? Is not the danger of such pressure wholly different from the separation of the role of the judiciary?
  Mr. Davies: Well, perhaps. There was a lot in that short intervention. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will develop and pursue it.
  I shall be more factual, perhaps, and simply say that judges are employed by the state. Recorders—I believe that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough is now a recorder or assistant recorder—are employed by

  1213
  the state. Stipendiary magistrates are employed by the state. We still have juries, which are not employed by the state, but for how long? Who knows?
  Mr. Garnier: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I have obviously upset the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Garnier: The right hon. Gentleman has certainly not upset me. He is right—I am an assistant recorder, and I pay tribute to the good sense of the present Lord Chancellor in appointing me one. However, the distinction that one must draw between judges and other employees is that although assistant recorders, recorders and full-time judges are paid by the state, they are not, in the strict sense, employed by the state and they do not owe their first allegiance to the state. They owe their allegiance to the oath of office that they take.
  Mr. Davies: That may be so, but, ultimately, they are the creatures of the state in the criminal justice system; they have to be.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: A person brought before a Crown court inevitably perceives the judiciary as an arm and extension of the state.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman puts it very well. Juries, not being "employed", are independent of the state. Who knows how long we shall have juries? The Government are working at it—they are trying to reduce the function of juries. Justices of the peace and lay magistrates are still independent of the state. I do not know whether they will gradually be replaced, if the state can afford it, by stipendiaries. It is easier to have stipendiaries around than lay magistrates. However, they are certainly more expensive.
  So, inevitably, we shall have a criminal justice system with a state dominance. The proposition now is that the defence of the accused as well is to be in the hands of the state. The defence advocate is to be a state employee. As I have said, I am old-fashioned and perhaps romantic, but I am not a blatant vested interest. Perhaps I am old-fashioned to believe that what I have described is not desirable. However, as I understand it, that is what my hon. Friend the Minister is proposing.
  If we go down the road of state dominance, there will be repercussions and not only for the accused, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said. In future, an advocate could spend the whole of his or her professional life working for the state, for the state prosecution service for a time and then for the state defence service. Twenty or 30 years of that person's professional life would be spent working as an advocate in the criminal justice system for the state.
  In the main, judges in the Crown courts, the criminal courts, are inevitably and rightly chosen from advocates who have experience of criminal cases.
  Mr. Hawkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I will in a moment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's next intervention will not be as deep and heavy as his last one.
  1214
  Judges will be chosen from practitioners with experience of criminal cases, who will have spent all their professional life working for the state prosecution and defence services. That is unhealthy.
  Mr. Hawkins: As the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, I very much agree with the argument that he is developing. Would he accept that it might be even more dangerous if advocates spent not half of their career, as he suggests, in the nationalised criminal defence service and the other half in the Crown Prosecution Service, but spent their entire career working for just one of those services? Someone may spend his entire career in a nationalised criminal defence service, becoming entirely hidebound by the pressures that that state employment may bring.
  Mr. Davies: That is a danger as well. The point is well made.
  I move on to evidence and procedure. Perhaps more so in criminal matters than anywhere else, the rules of evidence, especially, and those of procedure are extremely important. Those rules grow out of cases, situations and lawyers' perceptions. There is a danger if all the lawyers involved are working for the state and if all their experience is in a state service. At the end of the day, the state is the prosecutor. The rules of evidence, the rules of procedure and all the books that are written about evidence and procedure will be dominated by advocates who have worked for the state in the criminal justice system.
  I shall digress before I resume my place. Years ago, I was rummaging in the Library when I came across a book with an extraordinary title. I still cannot believe it. I still think that perhaps I dreamt it or I was half asleep. Believe it or not, the book was called "Vishinski on Evidence". We are living in a period where history has come to an end. For those of the present period, I shall explain that Vishinski was Stalin's chief prosecutor during the 1930s show trials. I think that he ended up for a short time as the Soviet Foreign Minister, either before or after Molotov. I have not been able to find the book since. Perhaps it has been removed.
  I thought, "What did Vishinski know about evidence?" I then thought, "Vishinski knew everything about evidence" because he was the evidence. He made the evidence. He prosecuted and probably there was no defence service. Well, perhaps there was some sort of Stalinist defence service.
  We must be careful. I do not like the word "nationalising". I think that that is the sort of word that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough would use. Did he talk about pale pink? Once we make the entire criminal justice system become dominated by the state, we could have the difficulties and problems that I have described.
  I was going to say that I hope my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will think again, but we are not on Report. I am sure that his instructions from the Lord Chancellor contain in large capital letters the words, "Resist. Resist. Resist." I shall not ask him to think again—perhaps he knows, anyway. I say to him in all honesty and good faith, not as a blatant vested interest, that it saddens me that my party and my right hon. and

  1215
  hon. Friends are going down this road and enabling the state system to dominate completely the defence of criminals and the rule of law.
  Mr. Burnett: I am particularly delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who made a marvellous speech. I should declare an interest: I am a solicitor, but not a practising one.
  The grouped amendments deal with the Government's intention to set up through the Bill a state defender system. It has been opposed by me and my party in this House and in the other place. The Government claim that defendants will always have a choice between an independent lawyer and a lawyer employed by the criminal defence service.
  I wait to hear from the Minister what notice defendants will be given of that option. What will they be told? When will they be told? By whom will they be told of that choice? Will there be a statutory duty on any individual to give proper and complete notice of the choice? We are dealing with the rights of people accused of crimes—people who will have the vast apparatus and resources of the state arraigned against them.
  I pay tribute to my noble Friends Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Hutchinson of Lullington who, as the right hon. Member for Llanelli and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) both acknowledged, made excellent contributions in the debate in the other place. I thank both for their generosity.
  My two noble Friends made cogent and effective speeches reported in columns 412 and 416 of Hansard dated 14 July 1999. I also commend to the House the speech of Lord Kingsland, reported at column 418. His speech was clear, concise and compelling. To my mind he made four bulls-eye points, which I shall summarise.
  First, Lord Kingsland argued, there is no evidence of a need for a state salaried defender system. Secondly, he asked how the introduction of a partially nationalised system would enhance competition. Thirdly, he asked what evidence there was that its introduction would improve the quality of criminal justice. Finally, Lord Kingsland rightly asserted that the introduction of state defenders would undermine the perception and perhaps the reality of criminal justice.
  We shall have the state on both sides of a case—the prosecution, rightly, represented by the Crown Prosecution Service, and the defendant represented by a state defendant. To most of us in the House, that is a glaring conflict of interest.
  We have debated these matters long and hard at many stages in the House, and they have been debated at length in the other place. This is not a plea for the retention of restrictive practices. Independent lawyers compete fiercely and keenly with one another. This is a plea for justice, and the Government would be wise to heed it.
  5 pm
  Mr. Dismore: I ought to declare an interest: I am a solicitor, although I have not undertaken a great deal of criminal practice recently. However, I have practised in the criminal courts.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for referring to my early-day motion supporting what the Government are trying to achieve, which has been signed
  1216
  by 58 parliamentary colleagues from both sides of the House. I am afraid that I was not in the Chamber when he mentioned it, but I am grateful for his recognition of the strength of feeling in the House that it reflects. Indeed, he had completed his remarks when I entered the Chamber and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was reaching his peroration. My initial reaction was to ask, "Where's the beef in that argument?" I have listened to many hours of debate on this issue in Committee and in the Chamber and, so far, I have not detected any meat in it, except for the beef made on behalf of the barristers and Queen's counsel protection club, which the hon. and learned Member represents.
  I regret that I have always found the barrister profession to be very conservative and it inevitably rejects the arguments when any sensible reform of the legal system—such as the extension of conditional fees under the Bill or rights of audience for employed advocates—is put forward. Every single attempt to open up the profession is resisted by the Bar, and it is crying wolf yet again.
  Mr. Garnier: I shall not take the bait in respect of members of the barrister profession, because I do not think that I need to bother with that. Would the hon. Gentleman care to look at the Division list of 14 July, when this matter was debated in the other place? Can he tell me the percentage of barristers who voted for the amendment tabled by Lord Thomas? I think that he will find that it is a tiny percentage of the overall majority. His argument is not improved by his abusiveness, and he ought to try to concentrate on the underlying arguments. I do not know whether that idea appeals to him.
  Mr. Dismore: The hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention does not take the matter a great deal further. I simply said that whenever a law reform comes before the House the barrister profession seems to be agin it. I was about to address an argument relating to clauses 37 and 16 that he touched on briefly, but did not develop.
  A duty of impartiality and independence is imposed on advocates for the first time by clause 37. That may have been a professional requirement, but it will become a statutory duty as well. The Bill goes beyond that, because clause 16 provides additional protection through the code of conduct, which will be subject to approval by the House. It will put in place
  "duties to protect the interests of the individuals for whom services are provided …
  duties to avoid conflicts of interest …
  duties of confidentiality".
  The duty to the court is set out in clause 37, and all those matters will be dealt with by the code of conduct. The Bill provides much stronger protection for advocates, whether they be employed or not employed, against improper resistance from whatever quarter.
  Mr. Grieve: Returning to the theme of "Vishinski on Evidence", the hon. Gentleman will agree that the constitution of the legal profession in the Soviet Union always provided protections on paper, including that of the role of lawyers in defending individuals, but they were of absolutely no importance because no such ethos existed.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because I studied the Chinese legal

  1217
  system when I was an undergraduate. My recollection is that it is based on very different premises from those on which our own common law system is based. As he says, the statutory rights of independence such as we have here are not incorporated in it. Indeed, it presumes guilt, and people have to argue that they do not deserve such severe punishment. He has not done much for his argument by referring to those totalitarian regimes. Their systems do not compare to the system that exists in this country, which will continue to exist after the Government amendments are agreed to and the Bill becomes law.
  Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point—probably deliberately and consciously—made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). The point is that, however much things are put in a code, as the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said earlier, one cannot alter the ethos of a profession. If the hon. Gentleman could have looked behind him and seen how strongly the right hon. Member for Llanelli was disagreeing with the aspersions that he was casting on the traditions and reforms that the independent Bar has introduced, he would have realised that his case is not supported, even by those on his own Benches.
  Mr. Dismore: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. If the House divides later, we shall see where the support lies. Although, in the past, we have had professional requirements, clause 37 now introduces statutory requirements, which go as far as, if not further than, existing professional requirements.
  We have heard a lot of humbug about the position of salaried state employees. The so-called "independent" Bar gets practically all of its not inconsiderable income from state funds, whether from the Crown Prosecution Service or from legal aid for defence work. In practice, it makes little difference whether the money comes from that direction or as a salary. It is a false distinction to draw.
  Moreover, a salaried employee is in a stronger position of independence than somebody in private practice, who is subject to pressures to earn a living that do not exist for somebody on a salary. It is extremely important that we consider those distinctions. For example, somebody in private practice must always look to see where his next case will come from. If anything, he is more likely to want to suck up to those providing the work than somebody who is given the work as part of his job.
  One important factor is the job security that a salaried employee has through existing employment protection rights, which will be strengthened by the Government if the Employment Relations Bill, which is to be considered after this debate, is enacted. One of my constituents is a CPS employee, and she has felt it appropriate to bring a case before an employment tribunal against the CPS to enforce her employment rights, without fear or favour in doing so. That right would not be available to an independent barrister, who may, for some reason, find himself struck off the CPS list simply because the CPS has decided that it no longer likes his work. Therefore, independent contractors have rather less protection against the pressures about which we have heard a great deal from the Opposition than employed advocates.
  Mr. Grieve: Does not the hon. Gentleman make a compelling point against his own case? If an independent
  1218
  barrister working for the CPS loses his CPS work, he can always return to the rest of his practice. A criticism that has often been made of, for instance, Old Bailey practitioners, who do only prosecution work, is that they are too hand-in-glove with their paymasters. Is not that precisely what will happen, but even worse, in relation to a criminal defence service? The hon. Gentleman's comments destroy his own case.
  Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman makes my case for me. If we have in independent private practice people who depend on that sort of work, without the current employment protection laws they will inevitably do the sucking up to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We are strengthening our employment laws, and we have the necessary duties in clause 37 and a code of practice in clause 16. If an employed barrister were, for some reason, subject to disciplinary action for defending an individual too fearlessly, he would be extremely likely to rely, either through the judicial review proceedings, on his overriding duties under clause 37, or on the code of practice in clause 16, or would have an absolute defence in any disciplinary proceedings before an employment tribunal.
  We have heard a lot of humbug from Conservative Members. All that is proposed for the criminal defence service is a pilot scheme. I think that it will be an interesting development in our legal system. It will potentially lead to a mixed economy and valid competition to the private Bar, which has had its way for far too long. I welcome the Government's proposals.
  Mr. Grieve: As I have done on several occasions in debates on this legislation, I must first declare an interest as a practising member of the Bar. I apologise for not hearing the beginning of the Minister's speech as I was delayed, although familiarity with his arguments will have come from the many hours that were spent listening to his predecessor in Committee. I recollect that the Minister was also present for much of the time.
  The issue was put succinctly by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). People who are caught up in the criminal justice system are gradually being ground up, perhaps justifiably, by a Moloch descending upon them with the ultimate intention of punishing them for misdeeds of which they are accused. As the right hon. Gentleman correctly said, within the bounds of what is humanly feasible, we have in this country, by dint partly of accident and partly of tradition, tried to erect a system of justice that is fair and impartial, especially in respect of the judiciary.
  Nevertheless, it remains the case that for those on the receiving end, the whole system—including the prosecutor and the judge—is an arm of the state. In reality, that is so. That arm of the state may be designed or intended only to punish them for their wrongdoings if they are guilty, but it is the system into which they have been dragged. In those circumstances, whether paid for by the accused or through the legal aid system, the only person who will stand up for them and be their champion is their representative, be he the solicitor whom they have instructed or, if the matter is in the Crown court, their advocate—the barrister. If, in the future, it is their solicitor advocate, so be it. The independent advocate will represent their interests.
  Those who practise in the criminal courts know that, in the vast majority of cases, the people who are accused of murder and grave offences, such as robbery and other

  1219
  headline offences, are poor, inadequate, inarticulate, eccentric, or mildly or severely deranged and have no one else to represent their interests apart from those who, through the legal aid system, have been appointed to act for them.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most powerful points that Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws made when she attacked the Government's proposals was to ask who, under the new system, would represent clients who allege serious miscarriages of justice, and how could advocates represent defendants if a specific and specialised knowledge of, for example, mental health law was required? Will people with those specific difficulties be unable to be represented properly because there will not be sufficient expertise in the new nationalised criminal defence service?
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Grieve: I agree with hon. Friend. I concede the point that some of the details of this proposal may enable the problems that undoubtedly exist to be bypassed. However, I stick to the general point that concerns me even more, which is about the ethics behind the system that it is suggested should now be established. I do not accept that a public defender system can adequately and properly meet the needs of the accused person, so as to reassure him and me—leaving aside my role as a barrister, but acting as a legislator, a Member of the House and a member of the public—that the role is being adequately discharged by those who have been appointed to do the job.
  I come back to what I said to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) about the prosecution system. I do not seek to draw a direct comparison between the two, but it is instructive that there are pointers to the dangers of the public defender system in the public prosecutor system, albeit that the two are different. It is well known in my profession that excessive identification with an individual barrister who has been retained to do only prosecuting rather than defending work always causes concern among his fellow professionals. This is an historical matter that goes back long before the CPS.
  One of the great strengths of our system of advocacy and justice, which is much commented on by foreigners who come here to observe it, is the interchangeability of advocacy between those who prosecute and those who defend. When that interchangeability diminishes, especially at an advocacy level—as it has done over the years for those who are retained almost non-stop to prosecute—anxieties creep in about impartiality. That concerns the prosecutor's role, but it is an interesting example to look at when one considers the whole issue of the proposed public defender service. What are the criteria by which the success of the public defender will be judged? Will it be his fearless championing of the individual whom he is representing, or will it be his ability to dispose of business quickly through the courts, thereby leading to a lessening of costs, which underpins much of what the Bill is all about? I think that the pressures will be for the latter.
  To what extent will the public defender have freedom of action, notwithstanding the grandiloquent words that may be in the Bill or in the rules that will be placed before the House for its approval? There will be continuous
  1220
  pressures on the public defender of a completely different order from those on independent persons who are appointed to represent an accused and are being paid under the legal aid system.
  I do not accept that there are any benefits to be derived from the public defender system. Indeed, I do not understand what the benefits are, or even from what point they are envisaged to start. We shall address some of these matters in the next debate, which, in some ways, concerns me even more and points to the iniquities of the proposed system.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue arises of the parallel to which the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) adverted? The irony is that the Minister is constrained by the same concerns that we are all expressing about the criminal defence service. As the right hon. Gentleman said, someone who speaks on behalf of the state is constrained because he is unable to depart from his brief. He is instructed to resist, and not to take account of the arguments that the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend are making.
  Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. Having recently been appointed to the Front Bench of my party on a matter unrelated to this one, on which I continue to speech as a Back Bencher, I am fully aware as a parliamentarian of how one's independence of judgment is inevitably fettered, and perhaps properly so, by the calls of loyalty and discipline in the party structure. I am sure that the Minister suffers that fate every day of the week. That is precisely the point. That may be appropriate in this forum, but the person who is appointed to represent an accused person who is being dragged through the criminal justice system should not be placed under such constraints. I do not see how he can escape being under such constraints if there is a public defender system, as is envisaged.
  The Minister says that other countries have adopted such systems, and that the world has not come to an end. Indeed, it has been suggested in the other place that they work quite well. As a lawyer practising in this country, but with plenty of international contacts—especially on the continent of Europe—I can only say that I have not heard it suggested that the independence of our defence system is something about which we ought to be concerned. Indeed, it is repeatedly held up as a model of its kind.
  We have debated this matter at great length, and I do not wish to take up too much of the House's time. We have debated it on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. Perhaps the Minister should note this, however. A number of amendments that the Government did not like were tabled in the other place when the Bill began its progress. Independent-minded Members of the other place, while accepting a good many Government amendments, concentrated their fire on certain key issues. The Government would do well to consider those issues carefully, because they go to the heart of the independence of the criminal justice system—and, indeed, the assurance that must be given to those accused of crimes that they will be treated fairly.

  1221
  This measure smacks of unfairness. As such, it is a retrograde step, and I do not understand the justification for it. I wish that the Minister would think again.
  Mr. Hawkins rose—
  Mr. Vaz rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am happy to call the Minister, if he is winding up the debate, but I think that the Opposition spokesman wants to speak first.
  Mr. Hawkins: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I think—especially as the Minister invited me to expand on some of the concerns that were being expressed—that I should return to some of what was said about this part of the Bill on Second Reading. At that time, I expressed such concerns from the Back Benches, but it should be remembered that they were expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, as they have been again today.
  The Government suggest that the Bill will improve access to justice, but Members on both sides of both Houses have voiced the fear that it will achieve the precise opposite. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was right to quote the character in "Alice" who said, "A word means what I want it to mean", and to say that the Bill uses the language of George Orwell—newspeak. As in so many other areas of their policy, the Government believe that it is enough to cause a title to be chosen for a Bill that sounds wonderful—that sounds as if the Bill is helping people. That reminds me of an exchange between Sir Humphrey and the Minister in "Yes Minister". Sir Humphrey says, "Always deal with the most difficult bit in the title, Minister." That is clearly the lesson that the Lord Chancellor wished to convey in his choice of title for this Bill.
  As has been pointed out yet again today by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), the Bill will result in a denial of access to justice. Neither my right hon. and hon. Friends nor I accept that the Bill will enable a criminal defence service properly to represent defendants involved in particularly difficult cases—cases involving allegations of miscarriages of justice or malpractice on the part of police officers, or involving specialised questions concerning mental health law.
  It would not be enough for Opposition Members in the House of Commons, whether Liberal Democrats or Conservatives, to express such concerns. The Minister and the Lord Chancellor must take account of the fact that far more distinguished lawyers than us on the Government Benches in another place—distinguished barristers such as Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws—have expressed precisely the same concerns, in extremely strong terms. Let me again quote what Lady Kennedy said in the first debate in another place. I quoted it when I spoke from the Back Benches on the Bill. She said:
  "I know that our Lord Chancellor is committed to human rights … But might he also be creating another legacy—the introduction of a system which can only disadvantage the many, particularly the poor?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 1998; Vol. 595, c. 1158.]
  1222
  I urge the Minister and his right hon. and noble Friend to think again. Surely, when as distinguished a human rights lawyer as Lady Kennedy, with an impeccable pedigree in the field, says that the system can only disadvantage the many, particularly the poor, that is the worst criticism that anyone could make of a Government whom the Prime Minister claims—so often that it has almost become a cliché—to be a Government of the many, not the few. Lady Kennedy has said that the Bill will disadvantage the many, particularly the poor, and I feel that no stronger condemnation could be expressed.
  As was said by Lord Thomas of Gresford in the most recent debate in another place, speaking for the Liberal Democrats, it is essential to recognise the dangers in what the Government propose, notwithstanding the canards of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) about protectionism on the part of the Bar. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough pointed out, those who consult the voting list will see that, when these proposals were defeated in another place by a large majority—no less than 141 to 85—most of those who voted were life peers and non-lawyers.
  The present Government are committed to the politics of envy, and to the abolition of the voting rights of hereditary peers; but they still want a Chamber containing life peers. The Minister said earlier, "We believe in a revising Chamber", but he does not want that really. We are back to "Alice": the Government want a revising Chamber only when it does not seek to revise. What they really want is a poodle—or perhaps, in this instance, Derry's dachshund. What they really want is a revising Chamber that never defeats the Government: a Chamber that says, "We may have concerns, but we will let this go through on the nod. We have faith."
  It is clear that the other place as currently constituted is wiser than that. It wishes to behave as a real revising Chamber. When it sees the Government introducing legislation that will clearly not be advantageous to the public, it wishes to say so. Members on both sides of both Houses are determined to demonstrate to the Government that this is an unhelpful and damaging proposal.
  If the Government, the Lord Chancellor and the Minister really know in their heart of hearts that the Bill will not increase access to justice, and that it is damaging, what is it really all about? The hon. Member for Hendon asked, "Where is the beef?" The beef is here: we know that the Lord Chancellor is presenting proposals in government that he specifically criticised in opposition. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the Lord Chancellor—then shadow Lord Chancellor—made a speech criticising proposals of this kind. He has gone back on that now, because he is constrained by Her Majesty's Treasury. He believes that this is a cost-saving measure. I believe that, in practice, the criminal defence service will not achieve even that, and I share all the concerns that have been expressed. The right hon. Member for Llanelli nods.
  On Second Reading, I suggested that the Government were in danger of creating the same problems that we experienced with the Child Support Agency. Since I made that speech, the Government have said that they will improve the CSA. The Act that established it was introduced with all-party support and with the best of intentions, but we know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Government claim to be keen to deal with the waste caused by bureaucracy; yet a Government

  1223
  who, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough pointed out, have claimed to be convinced of the merits of privatisation and the involvement of the private sector now say that the legal profession is different, and that part of it must be nationalised. They say that they want to go in the opposite direction to all their other policies. It would have been far more consistent if the Government had stuck to the Lord Chancellor's line when he was shadow Lord Chancellor, and not introduced such damaging proposals.
  Our case has been made for us not only by Opposition Members, but by the right hon. Member for Llanelli and Labour peers in another place. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government may have second thoughts and decide not to proceed with the proposals. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House who feel strongly about the matter to support what their lordships have done in another place and to reject the Government's proposals.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Vaz: This has been an interesting debate, not least because of the fact that there is a bit of confusion as to who is the spokesperson for the Opposition. It seems that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has been shoved aside and we have the return of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who was very keen to criticise and to pepper his arguments with personal abuse.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to me reading out the civil service brief. Some people will never in their careers have the opportunity to be able to do that. They will spend their lives wandering around Market Harborough bitterly, trying to be recognised by their constituents. The hon. and learned Gentleman described himself as a pompous barrister. The cheers from Labour Members and, indeed, some Opposition Members demonstrate the fact that most people would agree with that description. I say nothing more about it.
  In Edinburgh, the Lord Chancellor made an excellent speech, which the hon. and learned Member for Harborough has endorsed. The point that the Lord Chancellor made, although it was lost on the hon. and learned Gentleman, was that judges receive their salary from the state, as will those in the salaried criminal defence service. There is no question of judges' independence or integrity being compromised in their work, a point that was correctly raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who stated that state-funded services had a fundamental role in our the legal system. We cannot have those services without state funding. They exist and are there to be used.
  Mr. Burnett: I hope that the Minister will deal with the argument that was advanced by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) about the huge panoply of the state apparatus: it consists of not only the judiciary and prosecution, but now the defence. Will he deal with that argument?
  Mr. Vaz: I hope that I will deal with it briefly, but, as the hon. Gentleman has said, we have discussed the matter on several occasions on Second Reading, in Committee, in the other place and again today. The position has not changed. The state is involved in the provision of legal services. The hon. Gentleman made a very half-hearted
  1224
  defence of the case that was made in the other place. Perhaps he does not particularly believe in the case that he put forward today, but was going through the motions because he had been entrapped into doing so by his Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place.
  There is no question that the independence of the prosecutor and those who conduct the defence will be compromised. The view that they will both sit in the same room and collude with each other about the outcome of cases is absolute nonsense. For a start, they are responsible to different Departments of State; the Legal Services Commission is indirectly responsible to the Department because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is an independent body—it is independent of the Lord Chancellor's Department. The Attorney-General is accountable in Parliament for what the Crown Prosecution Service does.
  There is no question of collusion. We would like salaried defenders to be in exactly the same position as prosecutors—the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) described them as fearless champions ensuring that prosecutions are conducted appropriately. That is exactly what we want in relation to salaried defenders.
  The hon. and learned Member for Harborough mentioned international research. Was he listening to my speech? Are we taking part in the same debate? Does he understand what we are saying? International research shows that mixed systems can be the best and most cost-effective way in which to provide criminal defence services. I listed in my speech the various research studies in America and Australia, and pointed out that the way forward was to look at a mixed system, which will provide not only better value for money, but better legal services.
  As I have said, we intend to consult widely on our proposals, and we intend to have a pilot scheme. I raised the example of what is happening in Scotland. That shows that people wish to use the system that is being developed there, but it is right and proper that we should have a system that best meets the needs of this country's legal system. That is why the pilots are being initiated.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli has nothing to fear from the proposals because, as he said, the state pays for defence work at the moment. It pays private sector lawyers for each case in which they act. In future, most defence work will be provided by private sector lawyers who are paid under contract. Therefore, there is no question of the system changing fundamentally. We hope to provide choice for people, enabling them to get the best possible advice, assistance and representation that they can. That is all that the system aims to do.
  The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) asked several questions about timing, information and the like. As I and the Lord Chancellor have said, regulations will cover exactly those points. Before we have those regulations, we will consult and ensure that the system actually works. Services that need to be provided will be provided. Of course, it depends on when the person enters the system. When that person enters the system, he or she will be provided with the full list of firms and any salaried defenders who may be available to do the work.
  As the House knows, I worked in a law centre. People came there to ask for assistance on such work—state-funded work—because they had confidence in the

  1225
  lawyers who were doing the work. The lawyers who will work in the criminal defence service will be of the highest quality. They will be specialists.
  The hon. and learned Member for Harborough has, in a veiled way, advertised his work as a libel barrister—I know whom to go to if I am ever defamed: it will not be to him. Of course we want the best possible advocates; that is what we want for the system. It is not true that, because it is a state-funded system with salaried defenders, defenders will be of an inferior class or type. We want the best, in the same way as the Director of Public Prosecutions in the Crown Prosecution Service chooses the best possible people to prosecute.
  Those are the arguments; those are the facts. They have not changed since the previous time we discussed the matter in the House. It is clear that the House has expressed its view, and that the other place has made its decisions on the basis of the vested interests involved. Opposition Members should not try to cover up who was behind the moves in the other place. It was a blatant case of those with vested interests attempting to overturn the views of the House. We will not permit that.
  I know that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield is the son of a recorder and practising barrister, but he wanders in in the middle of the debate and starts to intervene—[Interruption.] Yes, he did. These are serious issues. He should have been here at the start of the debate if he felt so strongly about them.
  What we propose is the best system. It is a good system and it will work.
  Question put, That this House does not insist on Commons amendments Nos. 27 to 30:—
  The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 166.

  Division No. 266]

  [5.40 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ainger, Nick

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Alexander, Douglas

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cann, Jamie

  Barron, Kevin

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bayley, Hugh

  Casale, Roger

  Beard, Nigel

  Caton, Martin

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Chaytor, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Church, Ms Judith

  Benton, Joe

  Clapham, Michael

  Berry, Roger

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Best, Harold

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Betts, Clive

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Clelland, David

  Borrow, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cohen, Harry

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Colman, Tony

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Connarty, Michael

  Browne, Desmond

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Corbett, Robin

  Burden, Richard

  Cousins, Jim

  Burgon, Colin

  Cox, Tom

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Cranston, Ross

  1226

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Darvill, Keith

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  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

  Denham, John

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kemp, Fraser

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Doran, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Drew, David

  Kidney, David

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Laxton, Bob

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lepper, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Leslie, Christopher

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Levitt, Tom

  Fisher, Mark

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Linton, Martin

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Lock, David

  Flint, Caroline

  McAllion, John

  Flynn, Paul

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Follett, Barbara

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fyfe, Maria

  McDonnell, John

  Galloway, George

  McFall, John

  Gapes, Mike

  McGrady, Eddie

  Gardiner, Barry

  McIsaac, Shona

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gerrard, Neil

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McNulty, Tony

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  MacShane, Denis

  Godsiff, Roger

  McWalter, Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McWilliam, John

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Grogan, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Gunnell, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hain, Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Merron, Gillian

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Healey, John

  Mitchell, Austin

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Heppell, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hill, Keith

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Morley, Elliot

  Hoey, Kate

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mudie, George

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mullin, Chris

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hurst, Alan

  Olner, Bill

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pearson, Ian

  1227

  Pendry, Tom

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stevenson, George

  Pike, Peter L

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Plaskitt, James

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pope, Greg

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pound, Stephen

  Stott, Roger

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stringer, Graham

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rammell, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Rapson, Syd

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Timms, Stephen

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Touhig, Don

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Trickett, Jon

  Rooker Jeff

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rooney, Terry

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Roy Frank

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Ruane, Chris

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Vaz, Keith

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Salter, Martin

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sawford, Phil

  Watts, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  White, Brian

  Sheerman, Barry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Singh, Marsha

  Wills, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wray, James

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Snape, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spellar, John

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mr. Jim Dowd

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Chidgey, David

  Allan, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Amess, David

  Clappison, James

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Baker, Norman

  Collins, Tim

  Beggs, Roy

  Colvin, Michael

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Cotter, Brian

  Bercow, John

  Cran, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Brake, Tom

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Duncan, Alan

  Brazier, Julian

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evans, Nigel

  Burnett, John

  Faber, David

  Burns, Simon

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burstow, Paul

  Fallon, Michael

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Cash, William

  Flight, Howard

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  1228

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Fox, Dr Liam

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fraser, Christopher

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Gale, Roger

  Moore, Michael

  Garnier, Edward

  Moss, Malcolm

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gibb, Nick

  Norman, Archie

  Gill, Christopher

  Oaten, Mark

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Page, Richard

  Gorrie, Donald

  Paice, James

  Gray, James

  Prior, David

  Green, Damian

  Randall, John

  Greenway, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Rendel, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hammond, Philip

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

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

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Spring, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Streeter, Gary

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Swayne, Desmond

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Syms, Robert

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Keetch Paul

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Key, Robert

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Townend, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tyler, Paul

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Viggers, Peter

  Lansley, Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Leigh, Edward

  Wardle, Charles

  Letwin, Oliver

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Webb, Steve

  Lidington, David

  Wells, Bowen

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Livsey, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Wilkinson, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Willetts, David

  Luff, Peter

  Willis, Phil

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Maples, John

  Mr. Keith Simpson and

  Mates, Michael

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Government amendments (a) to (e) agreed to.
  Mr. Vaz: I beg to move, That this House does not insist on Commons amendment No. 31, to which the Lords have disagreed.
  Lords Reason:
  Because an individual who has been provided with advice or assistance funded by the Commission under section 14 should not be taken to have selected as his representative pursuant to that right the person who provided the advice or assistance.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof.
  Mr. Vaz: The amendments relate to clause 15, which establishes the duty of the commission to fund

  1229
  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.
  It is highly 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 that principle. However, a completely unrestricted choice would undermine the commission's ability to achieve value for money, so subsection (8) contains powers to limit that right of choice by regulations.
  One of the fundamental weaknesses of the present criminal legal aid system is its fragmentation. That can lead to help being given under several different parts of the scheme in a single case—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 for representation in court. That produces duplication, delay and unnecessary cost.
  Amendment No. 31, now further clarified by the amendments proposed today, is central to our plans to eliminate these deficiencies in future by ensuring, wherever possible, continuity of representation throughout the case. It is a power to make regulations prescribing circumstances in which individuals who receive advice and assistance are deemed to have selected their adviser to represent them in the subsequent proceedings.
  Once an individual has chosen an adviser, typically when being questioned by the police, the taxpayer should only have to pay for another lawyer to take over the case, necessarily repeating some work that has already been done, if there is a good reason for a change. An example would be a conflict of interest between clients.
  Let me 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, or he or she might select a salaried defender. Suspects would be shown a list of all firms based in the area, and 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 will not be considered to have been selected, as a preference had been expressed for someone else. If an individual declines to express a preference, he or she will be advised by the duty solicitor and deemed to have selected the duty solicitor as their representative.
  The power provided by amendment No. 31 applied to any provider of advice and assistance; it did not distinguish between those who had been chosen by the suspect and those providing advice only because the chosen adviser was not available. The intention was for the regulations to make it clear that a person advised by the duty solicitor would not be deemed to have chosen the duty solicitor as a representative if a different choice had been expressed.
  Alternative amendment (a) in my name is a more limited power which applies to only chosen advisers. Amendment (b) provides power to define what constitutes a choice. That is necessary to deal with the situation of an individual who declines to express any preference. The regulations would provide that someone who remained silent, having been informed of their right to make a choice and the implications of not doing so, would be
  1230
  deemed to have chosen the duty solicitor who actually advised them. That is necessary to prevent people from playing the system by refusing to express a preference, accepting the advice of the duty solicitor, and then seeking to exercise their right to choose a different representative when the case reached court, probably causing the case to be adjourned.
  We intend to consult on the details of all the regulations under clause 15, including regulations about continuity between advice and representation under these amendments, and regulations under clause 15(8)(e) about the circumstances when it is justified to change the originally chosen representative.
  The Government have explained repeatedly during the Bill's passage that it will provide powers to ensure that the public receive quality-assured services. People requiring criminal defence services will benefit from the performance standards that will be incorporated in all contracts, and applied to salaried defenders. Those will include targets for the proportion of requests to attend at a police station, once a suspect has made a choice, which are met by the solicitors' firm or salaried defenders' office. All firms with criminal defence service contracts, and any salaried defenders, will take part in the duty solicitor rota. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that advice and assistance from the duty solicitor in any sense constitutes a second-class service.
  The noble Lord Thomas of Gresford tabled the motion in another place to disagree with Commons amendment No. 31. That followed immediately on his successful motions about salaried defenders. No doubt inadvertently. he also moved this motion, although he had not spoken to it, and it was erroneously allowed to pass before my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor could speak in favour of amendment No. 31. I do not know whether Lord Thomas would have been content with the Lord Chancellor's explanation, because he did not have an opportunity to give it, but he is probably as surprised as anyone that the issue remains to be settled.
  6 pm
  Mr. Garnier: My brevity should not be taken to reflect our opposition to the way in which the Government intend to amend the Bill. I have listened with care to the Minister. What he said broadly reflects what the Lord Chancellor said about Lord Gresford's amendment on 14 July:
  "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."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 1999; Vol. 604, c. 424.]
  I am reminded of Mr. Henry Ford, the car manufacturer, who said that people might have any colour, so long as it was black. In Committee, on 4 May, I described the Minister's predecessor's arguments in favour of the Government's proposal as follows:
  "When I say that you have a choice, you have the choice that I decree you should have. It's not a free choice between any number of options—it's take it or leave it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 4 May 1999; c. 227.]
  The Government have been responsible for a huge number of remarkable utterances.
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: Will my hon. and learned Friend accept from someone who has practised

  1231
  criminal law for many years that countless practitioners up and down the country fear that we are seeing a complete reduction in choice for the accused person? That person simply will not have the freedom that he or she has always had to choose a lawyer. Because of financial constraints, choice will be severely limited. Does that not go against the interests of defendants and the criminal justice system?
  Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend speaks a truth evident to all—except the Government—who are prepared to apply their minds to it. I regret that a Government containing distinguished lawyers including the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton and even the Minister, who is muttering across the Table, should be so befuddled by their own arguments, but parliamentary arithmetic means that my argument may win the day and lose the vote. That is life in the House these days.
  I wish to draw to the House's attention the gross unfairness and lack of justice of the Government's proposals. They will leave an absence of choice for the defendant. Imagine a defendant who enters a police station at 2 am, perhaps after being beaten up, perhaps drunk. That man will be required to submit himself to the choice provided by the Lord Chancellor, and to no other choice. The Government's proposal is appalling, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to throw it out.
  Mr. Burnett: For the record, in spite of the Minister's comments during the previous debate, my opposition to the state or salaried defender system is genuine. For the reasons I have often given, it is also absolute.
  Why should an individual's choice be irrevocable? The Minister has made much of choice. Let me take him to a metaphorical police cell in a large city or a rural town. It is 3 am. An arrested person is brought into the station. His or her rights and options are read out. The defendant may be intoxicated—drunk, as they say, or high on drugs. How can he or she make a choice, let alone an irrevocable one? The defendant may find his or her lawyer's conduct unsatisfactory, or there may be a personality conflict. The defendant may wish to make a change, and should have an opportunity to make a reasonable choice. For that reason, I believe that the Bill should remain as the Lords left it.
  Mr. Grieve: Nothing makes me more anxious about the matters dealt with by the previous amendments than the fact that, having established the principle of a criminal defence service, the Government have placed this proposal before us. As the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) said, people brought into a police station should be provided with rapid advice on their rights in respect of police questioning. That is what the duty solicitor scheme was all about, but it will be distorted if irrevocable choices must be made so that people are prevented from going to the legal representative of their choice if they are later charged. The two areas are quite distinct, and the blurring is unnecessary.
  The proposal seems to be driven by a desire to save quite a small amount of money. It offends every tenet of civil rights and civil liberties. It is incomprehensible, and I hope that the Government will think again. Those who
  1232
  pressed this matter to the vote in the other place knew exactly what they were doing. It is one of the most pernicious and noxious parts of the Bill.
  Mr. Vaz: The arguments advanced are not new. We have heard them before, including the usual quotation of Henry Ford from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), which is a strange one from a man who drives a Range Rover.
  I am sorry that I cannot provide an assurance about drunks on the face of the Bill, but I can assure the House that no one will have to make a choice when he or she is drunk. The choice will be made when people are fit to be questioned. They will choose from a list of franchised and contracted firms. They will choose on the basis of the excellent duty solicitor scheme.
  I was surprised by what was said by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett)—a distinguished stipendiary magistrate. He knows that the duty solicitor scheme works and that those who serve on it are people of quality. There is no question of people failing to receive legal advice and assistance of good quality.
  Question put, That this House does not insist on Commons amendment No. 31:—
  The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 173.

  Division No. 267]

  [6.9 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ainger, Nick

  Casale, Roger

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Caton, Martin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Allen, Graham

  Chaytor, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Church, Ms Judith

  Ashton, Joe

  Clapham, Michael

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Banks, Tony

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Barron, Kevin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clwyd, Ann

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cohen, Harry

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Colman, Tony

  Benton, Joe

  Connarty, Michael

  Berry, Roger

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Best, Harold

  Corbett, Robin

  Betts, Clive

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blackman, Liz

  Cousins, Jim

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cox, Tom

  Borrow, David

  Cranston, Ross

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cummings, John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Browne, Desmond

  Dalyell, Tam

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Darvill, Keith

  Burgon, Colin

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Denham, John

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Cann, Jamie

  Dismore, Andrew

  1233

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Doran, Frank

  Laxton, Bob

  Dowd, Jim

  Lepper, David

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Levitt, Tom

  Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Edwards, Huw

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Linton, Martin

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lock, David

  Etherington, Bill

  McAllion, John

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fisher, Mark

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  McDonnell, John

  Flynn, Paul

  McFall, John

  Follett, Barbara

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McIsaac, Shona

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fyfe, Maria

  McNulty, Tony

  Galloway, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Gapes, Mike

  McWalter, Tony

  Gardiner, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mallaber, Judy

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meale, Alan

  Grogan, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Gunnell, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hain, Peter

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Healey, John

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Heppell, John

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Mudie, George

  Hill, Keith

  Mullin, Chris

  Hinchliffe, David

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hoey, Kate

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Olner, Bill

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Pearson, Ian

  Hurst, Alan

  Pendry, Tom

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pope, Greg

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pound, Stephen

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Rammell, Bill

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rapson, Syd

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Raynsford, Nick

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rooney, Terry

  Khabra, Piara S

  Roy, Frank

  Kidney, David

  Ruane, Chris

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ruddock, Joan

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Salter, Martin

  1234

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Timms, Stephen

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sawford, Phil

  Touhig, Don

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Trickett, Jon

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Singh, Marsha

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Snape, Peter

  Watts, David

  Soley, Clive

  White, Brian

  Spellar, John

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stevenson, George

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wills, Michael

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wilson, Brian

  Stott, Roger

  Winnick, David

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wise, Audrey

  Stringer, Graham

  Worthington, Tony

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wray, James

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mr. Kevin Hughes.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Cran, James

  Allan, Richard

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Amess, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Day, Stephen

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Baker, Norman

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan, Alan

  Beggs, Roy

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Evans, Nigel

  Bercow, John

  Faber, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fabricant, Michael

  Blunt, Crispin

  Fallon, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Boswell, Tim

  Flight, Howard

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Brake, Tom

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Brazier, Julian

  Fraser, Christopher

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Garnier, Edward

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Burnett, John

  Gibb, Nick

  Burns, Simon

  Gill, Christopher

  Burstow, Paul

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Cash, William

  Gorrie, Donald

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Gray, James

  Green, Damian

  Chidgey, David

  Greenway, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Grieve, Dominic

  Clappison, James

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hammond, Philip

  Collins, Tim

  Hancock, Mike

  Colvin, Michael

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Harvey, Nick

  Cotter, Brian

  Hawkins, Nick

  1235

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Randall, John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Rendel, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Shepherd, Richard

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

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

  Keetch, Paul

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Spring, Richard

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Steen, Anthony

  Lansley, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Leigh, Edward

  Swayne, Desmond

  Letwin, Oliver

  Syms, Robert

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Livsey, Richard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Luff, Peter

  Townend, John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Tredinnick, David

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Tyler, Paul

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tyrie, Andrew

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Walter, Robert

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wardle, Charles

  Malins, Humfrey

  Waterson, Nigel

  Maples, John

  Webb, Steve

  Mates, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Whittingdale, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Moore, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Willetts, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Willis, Phil

  Norman, Archie

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Oaten, Mark

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Yeo, Tim

  Ottaway, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Page, Richard

  Paice, James

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pickles, Eric

  Mrs. Jacqui Lait and

  Prior, David

  Mr. Keith Simpson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Government amendments (a) and (b) agreed to.
  Lords amendment to Commons amendment No. 56 considered.
  Mr. Vaz: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof.
  Mr. Vaz: The House will remember the speeches of the hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) during the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. The House heard how important bodies including the Law Society and Shelter considered the continuing availability of no win, no fee agreements to be in cases brought under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
  I said at the time that I was sympathetic to the arguments, but needed to consider the fine balance between the deserving cases that had been outlined and
  1236
  the importance of keeping conditional fee agreements out of criminal cases. Since the Report stage, the Government have been considering further the arguments put to us by the House, in another place and by various campaigning organisations. As the House knows, ours is a listening Government. We have concluded that it is right that no win, no fee agreements should remain available, and that is why we have now tabled the amendment.
  The Lords amendment, which was moved by Lord Goodhart, would broaden the effect of amendment No. 56 so that it excluded from the scope of the Bill not only non-contentious business agreements, but any form of fee agreement enforceable at common law, typically conditional fee agreements with no uplift, which are often known as Thai Trading agreements. However, 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 to ensure 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 same protection as uplift cases that may be conferred by regulations under new section 58(3)(c) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which clause 29 would insert. By contrast, non-contentious business agreements, if they are excluded by amendment No. 56, can be regulated instead under the Solicitors Act 1974.
  However, Lord Goodhart made it clear that all he was really trying to do was preserve the position of solicitors entering into Thai Trading agreements in respect of proceedings under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act. Section 82 allows people aggrieved by a statutory nuisance—for example, inadequate housing—to seek an order for that nuisance to be put right. Those cases are heard in a magistrates court and are technically criminal cases, although they are in reality brought to enforce a civil right.
  Conditional fees are not permitted in criminal cases under the existing legislation, and that position is maintained by the Bill. However, 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 those section 82 proceedings.
  The Government have considered with great care the options for resolving the problem. 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, the Government are now persuaded that no win, no fee agreements where there is no uplift—for example, Thai Trading-type agreements—should remain available to individuals seeking to enforce their rights in that type of case. Housing disrepair is one of the Government's stated priority areas for the community legal service and we accept that it would be perverse to remove an effective route for gaining access to justice in that area.
  As I have explained, the solution proposed by Lord Goodhart went too far. However, the only way open to the Government to achieve the desired result was to allow his amendment to pass last week and then to try to perfect it in this House. The issue is best dealt with by amendment to new section 58A(1)(a) of the Courts and

  1237
  Legal Services Act. That provision was not amended in the Commons and so could not be amended last week in the other place.
  The Lord Chancellor accepted Lord Goodhart's amendment for the time being, on the basis that we would table an amendment here to deal squarely with the position in Environmental Protection Act cases. That is what Government amendment (a) would do, and I am sure that it will meet with the agreement of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Hawkins: The Minister is absolutely right to say that we welcome the Government's belated acceptance that the Opposition were right all along to table in Committee and on Report amendments that were almost identical to the amendment that Government now propose.
  I am delighted to welcome the Government's change of mind. In the debate on Report, the Minister said that, at that stage,
  "The Government do not believe that such a careful consideration of the issues is possible in the time that the Bill will be considered by the House."
  He went further, stating his belief that
  "it would be most inappropriate, and possibly unjust, to make a single exception"
  of the type that we were then proposing. He said that there was "nothing unique" about the provisions of section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and that he was concerned that
  "There well may be provisions elsewhere in the criminal law with similar effect so that conditional fees might be a possibility."
  According to him, the Government's then position was that
  "If we are to consider breaching the general principle, it is important that that is undertaken on a logical basis and is not piecemeal."
  He added that "such a breach", as he called it,
  "can be undertaken only after very careful thought about the impact of conditional fees—regardless of whether enhanced fees are being sought"—
  in other words, Thai Trading-type uplift cases—
  "in the criminal justice process."—[Official Report, 22 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 1050.]
  However, wiser counsels have clearly prevailed in the succeeding weeks.
  The debate in another place was somewhat contorted. After the Lord Chancellor had spoken, Lord Mishcon asked:
  "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?"
  To which the Lord Chancellor replied:
  "My Lords, I rather think that it is a record, yes."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 1999; Vol. 604, c. 435.]
  It was indeed an extraordinary position. Nevertheless, I am delighted that the Government have finally reached this conclusion. The Lord Chancellor said that the position is not free from complexity. The Government's contortions before they finally accepted that the Opposition were right all along—right in Committee and
  1238
  right on Report—have not been free from complexity either, as the debate in another place on 14 July made clear.
  6.30 pm
  I shall briefly set out the reasons why the Opposition and charitable organisations such as Shelter were so concerned about this matter. Now that we have finally persuaded the Government to accept our arguments, it is important to set out precisely what they are. Our arguments were also made by the Law Society and Shelter.
  Mr. Vaz: It is uncharacteristic of the hon. Gentleman to be so grudging. The Lord Chancellor set out clearly his reasons for accepting the amendment and the Government have listened to the arguments that he and others have advanced. Why can the hon. Gentleman not just say thank you?
  Mr. Hawkins: Perhaps the Minister misunderstands me. I do not wish to be grudging and I have said already that we are pleased that the Government have accepted our arguments. However, it is important to set out the strength of the case so that those who examine our proceedings may understand it clearly.
  Shelter and the Law Society pointed out that the decision of the Court of Appeal in Thai Trading Co v. Taylor, which was reported in The Times of 6 March 1998, is now incorporated in full. The Court of Appeal's decision in that case overruled a previous decision of the divisional court in the case of British Waterways Board v. Norman, permitting legal representatives to act in housing disrepair cases in magistrates courts on behalf of tenants of low means.
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have dealt with such cases in their legal practices and I am sure that almost all hon. Members have been approached at their surgeries or by letter about cases involving tenants of modest means. Legal aid has never been available to such tenants because proceedings under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are technically criminal proceedings. Therefore, those tenants have relied on lawyers who were prepared to act on their behalf on a purely speculative basis. The exclusion of all criminal proceedings from Thai Trading-type conditional fees thus bars any such speculative arrangements.
  The Government's amendment will remedy the situation. The Government have incorporated the European convention on human rights into British law and they must certify that every Act of Parliament will comply with it. In approaching hon. Members who were interested in the Bill in Committee, Shelter pointed out that, unless the amendment was made, the certification that the Bill complied with the European convention on human rights could not properly be given. An amendment advancing that case was moved initially by Lord Goodhart in another place, and it was withdrawn only after the Government said that they would consider the issue further and, if it was thought appropriate at some later stage, might table their own amendment. The Government have finally done so at this very late stage.
  In Standing Committee, the Minister's predecessor, the present Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), said that

  1239
  he could not accept an amendment that would make taxpayers' money available for representation for summary complaints that are technically criminal proceedings because they require a complaint to a magistrates court to be issued. He went on to say:
  "I believe that other methods of funding such as no-win, no-fee agreements of the type that we constantly discuss can be used and the non-availability of legal aid does not prevent a complainant from taking a reasonable case to court."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 4 May 1999; c. 160.]
  Shelter was concerned that Parliament should give people the right to take action in respect of housing disrepair and certain other nuisances.
  Sadly, in many towns and even some villages in this country there are tenants of houses in disrepair who have limited means. They have no opportunity to fund from their own resources the cost of taking enforcement action. Therefore, the proceedings taken under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are the only effective means of securing a remedy for such tenants. The Law Society pointed out that, as part of their pro bono work, many solicitors take on those cases on a speculative basis. The Minister mentioned earlier that he used to work in a law centre and that those centres frequently take up such cases. There is a concern that people may be entitled to free legal advice in law centres under the green form scheme, but may not necessarily be able to take the proceedings any further.
  By accepting the amendment at this late stage, the Government will give statutory force to the full effect of the Court of Appeal's decision in respect of Thai Trading. The Court of Appeal overruled the decision of the divisional court in the earlier case of British Waterways Board v. Norman—which was a housing disrepair case—which held that solicitors could not recover costs in successful cases when they had acted speculatively.
  When Shelter briefed all Committee members, it pointed out that a range of legal services for people with housing problems was provided through its nationwide network of housing aid centres by a legal team with a wealth of experience in taking housing cases such as this through the legal system. Shelter is concerned to protect disadvantaged citizens who are in urgent housing need. It pointed out correctly that the section 82 prosecutions under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provide a vital remedy for many of Shelter's clients who otherwise have no effective means of combating conditions that may jeopardise their health and that of their families.
  Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend mentioned solicitors doing pro bono work. For many years, practitioners in criminal law found themselves in a difficult position. When clients presented with difficulties relating to the Environmental Protection Act, solicitors were not sure how far beyond the green form they could go and often had to act pro bono in order to assist their clients.
  Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend has the benefit of extensive knowledge and practice in this area. He is right to draw attention to the social service provided by solicitors who took up such cases on a pro bono basis.
  When Shelter originally made representations to Committee members about the Bill, it pointed out that, if the Government did not accept the amendment and neither made legal aid available nor allowed conditional fees to
  1240
  fund the cases, many of the clients whom Shelter was established to represent would be denied access to justice—which is the very title of the Bill—and therefore essential work to improve their living conditions would not be carried out. We welcome the fact that, at this late stage, the Government have accepted the force of our arguments both in Committee and on Report. I hope that many tenants of limited means will receive protection in future under the 1990 Act as a result of the Government's wise decision.
  Mr. Burnett: I shall not detain the House for long. I welcome the Minister's speech and I welcome wholeheartedly this concession. I pay tribute to my noble and learned Friend Lord Goodhart, who has done so much work on this Bill—particularly this aspect of it. We are grateful to the Government and are entirely happy to support the amendment.
  Mr. Malins: I declare an interest as a solicitor who has practised in the criminal field over many years. I qualified in 1971, just after a housing boom, and I spent many years helping people with difficult housing cases. I shall turn to that matter in a moment. I declare an interest also as a recorder of the Crown court and an acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate, in which capacity I try matters judicially. That is relevant because the debate relates to the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and summonses thereunder, and, for many years, I have viewed the problem from both ends, as a practitioner and a sitting member of the judiciary.
  With that background, I can say that most of us who practised criminal law—I mostly did so outside London—found conditional fee arrangements wholly irrelevant to our way of life as criminal practitioners. We practised under a legal aid system or a private system. Under the latter, we could charge a fair rate for the job, but if the client was entitled to legal aid, we applied for that aid and got it. Conditional fee arrangements were nothing to do with us. Whenever it is said, as it has been said by the Government, that conditional fee arrangements are not appropriate in criminal proceedings, that strikes a chord with me.
  I was, however, struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said a few moments ago about Shelter and its support for the proposal to allow proceedings under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act to be funded by conditional fee agreements. Why was I struck by that? During my days in practice, when clients came to see me about an issue relating to their housing, it was difficult for me to know what to do.
  As my hon. Friend, who practised the law for many years, would agree, a solicitor could help someone to a limited extent only on what was called the green form system, but, as far as I recall—I will be corrected if I am wrong—no legal aid was available to take a landlord to court under the Environmental Protection Act. That was regarded as a great gap in the system. What happened? Many of us decided to act on a pro bono basis, in the days when that was common practice—more of that in a moment.
  Let me now refer to Shelter. When I was considering what I had to contribute to the debate, I was struck by the good work done by the Minister for London and

  1241
  Construction over many years before he came into the House. As I recall, in his former capacity, the hon. Gentleman was heavily involved in Shelter. I believe that it was there that I first met him because he had a deep interest, as I did, in remedies for tenants in very poor housing.
  The first seat that I fought was Liverpool, Toxteth, in both general elections in 1974. I subsequently fought the Lewisham, East seat in 1979 and then Croydon, North-West, which I was privileged to represent for many years. One of the common features of those constituencies was that they had poor housing and tenants who suffered as a result. They would often come to see me about housing at my surgeries—an experience that I am sure is shared by many hon. Members. My constituents came to me, described the problems of condensation or unsafe electricity in their home and invited me to come and see their home.
  Many hon. Members will have been to such rented flats or houses in their constituency to find out what is going on. We find ourselves saying to tenants, "You must act. We shall do what we can as Members of Parliament, but you have to follow proceedings under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act."
  6.45 pm
  When I first met the Minister for London and Construction, as he now is, he was heavily involved in Shelter, and I return to Shelter for my next few comments because it has been hugely influential in housing and has constantly offered its support for the proposition that proceedings under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act should be funded by conditional fee agreements. Pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, who sits on the Front Bench, and a satisfactory approach by the Government have enabled us to reach a happy conclusion.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's concession demonstrates, among other things, the value of Shelter's work with hon. Members on both sides of the House? My hon. Friend may be slightly shocked to hear that, on a previous occasion, the Minister expressed surprise that any Conservative Member should quote Shelter in support of his or her arguments. However, one of Shelter's big advantages, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, is that it has always been prepared to work with all parties in making its case. In its current campaign, which involves football, it is working with the all-party House of Commons football team.
  Mr. Malins: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out what is self-evident: Shelter is, and has been for many years, interested in housing problems and, in my experience, it is without political affiliations. Hon. Members on both sides of the House support—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the amendment before us. He should address his remarks to the amendment.
  Mr. Malins: I am most grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was tempted by my hon. Friend.
  1242
  It is most unlike me to stray from the subject of the amendment. We are discussing the narrower issue of conditional fee agreements in so far as they relate to proceedings under the Environmental Protection Act. I should have gone no further than saying that Shelter supports the proposition, and I propose to go no further now.
  The concept of the tenant being unable to receive legal help with complaints against a bad landlord is one with which no Member of the House should be happy. The ability for us to say that conditional fee agreements should apply to proceedings under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act is a major step forward. It is more significant than many hon. Members appreciate, because it takes a huge step towards enabling tenants to obtain justice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath said, Shelter has supported that proposition throughout.
  Mr. Tim Collins: My hon. Friend is developing a powerful rationale for welcoming the Minister's concession on this point, but does he believe that the concession would have been necessary if the Government had, at an earlier stage, listened to Shelter's powerful advocacy? Does not the fact that the concession was made at such a late stage cause concern about the extent to which the Government listen to Shelter on matters across the board?
  Mr. Malins: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. There seems now to be consensus on this matter. I have attended many debates in this House in which I have witnessed sharp disagreements between Front-Bench Members, but I have been pleasantly surprised this afternoon to see this measure of agreement and the welcome that we are offering the Government on this point. My hon. Friend may well be right. It has taken concerted pressure not only from my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath and other colleagues but from Shelter and other organisations to persuade the Government to permit the use of conditional fee agreements.
  What will be the benefits of that proposal for tenants? First, let us consider its effect on the legal profession. It will make life much easier for the legal profession. Hitherto, lawyers could give very little help to a person who had a complaint against a landlord; now the position is different. Hitherto, they had to act pro bono or simply turn the person away and send them off to the citizens advice bureau.
  How else will tenants in such a position benefit as a result of what we are deciding? Shelter will be able to become much more involved. It is not generally known that Shelter greatly helps many people who have housing problems. It has clients who have urgent needs, and it rightly says that such people should have access to justice and that their cases should be dealt with speedily and efficiently by the courts. It is terribly important that such tenants get justice.
  Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is talking about benefit to the profession and citizens, but the concession can be of no benefit to anyone unless it is promulgated. As he says, for a very long time, those concerned by such landlord-tenant matters have not had access to legal aid and have not therefore tended to go to solicitors.

  1243
  They have tended to have recourse to citizens advice bureaux or similar legal rights centres. Does my hon. Friend agree that if this and other reforms are to work, it is vital that the Government properly publicly promulgate them in a widespread publicity campaign?
  Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The problem with our debates is that so many people outside the House do not hear the results of them. Following his suggestion, I strongly urge the Government to adopt the very sensible policy of ensuring that a summary of this debate, the point that has emerged from it and the decisions that we have reached is circulated to all bodies that need to know. That includes the Law Society, the Bar, firms of solicitors and every housing body that has anything to do with helping tenants.
  Many of us in the House have regretted over many years the fact that tenants have been disadvantaged under the Environmental Protection Act through not being able to receive legal aid. It is all very well to get an hour's legal advice under the green form, but the ability to go to court to enforce one's remedy, often against a landlord who is a nasty piece of work, is very important. I therefore join those who have welcomed the progress.
  Labour Members will say that I have spoken for too long, and they may be right. However, I must conclude with the observation that, as a practising solicitor, I found it very sad that so many people with a remedy could not have it enforced. Following the pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath and Shelter, the Government have reached a view on the Lords amendment that is in accordance with very good sense. I very much hope that they will lose no opportunity in ensuring that news of what we have all decided is spread widely throughout the legal world and the world of practitioners.
  Lords amendment to Commons amendment No. 56 disagreed to.
  Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof agreed to.

Employment Relations Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2 to 6, 7, 21, 23, 28 to 31, 319 and 330 agreed to.

Employment Relations Bill

  Clause 10
  RIGHT TO BE ACCOMPANIED
  Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 5, line 5, leave out ("the worker")
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Battle.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 14.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I rise to probe the Government. The Bill, as amended in another place, clearly defines that the person who will accompany a worker when he or she is in dispute and invited to attend a disciplinary or grievance hearing must be an official of a trade union whom the union has reasonably certified in writing to have experience of, or received training in, acting as a worker's companion in such hearings.
  The fact that someone has a right to be accompanied and may wish to be so accompanied is not in dispute. However, it would be helpful to know exactly what the Government mean by "reasonably certified". Who will be the arbiter of that certification or the qualification of the person accompanying the worker as having received training?
  As the Minister will know, concern has been expressed in both this House and another place specifically on the right of a worker to choose. Will the Minister clarify whether the trade union official will be from the worker's trade union or from a trade union from the worker's workplace or company? It is important that the worker should have confidence in the official who accompanies him or her, not only because the official may give technical or even legal advice, but because the official must be in a position to give the worker the moral support that is clearly desired. The worker must therefore have confidence in the relationship.
  Mr. Tim Collins: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if the Minister clarified in what, if any, circumstances the provision of a certificate from a trade union stating that an official had met the required standards could be withdrawn? It would be very damaging if, having once been certified, someone was decertified for such purposes because the trade union felt that that person was not the right official to represent someone. As she rightly says, the individual should have as wide a choice of officials as possible. We need to know whether a certificate may be withdrawn. Preferably, that should not be possible.
  Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point.
  I have a further question to ask of the Minister. Let us put ourselves in the position of an employer of a trade union official who is certified to carry out this work, and is called upon several times to accompany workers

  1245
  to disciplinary or grievance hearings. What sort of arrangement will there be if that individual is required to travel to companies and locations well away from their workplace? What requirement, if any, might an employer reasonably make of that individual if they become a specialist and intend to fulfil that role, perhaps outside their workplace? It would help if the Minister would clarify some of the matters on which we have asked questions tonight.
  7 pm
  Mr. Collins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking many of the questions that I would otherwise have asked the Minister. I have one more question to ask in addition to that which I posed in my earlier intervention.
  If the amendment is accepted and if the Bill is enacted, how will a trade union be defined? Hon. Members will be aware—and you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker—of the circumstances in which unions can, from time to time, fragment. We remember the Union of Democratic Mineworkers coming out of the National Union of Mineworkers 10 or 15 years ago. How is a union to be defined for these purposes? Who are the officials defined to be acting on behalf of that union? How is the process of change, as one union merges into another or splits away from a union, to be managed for the purposes of ensuring that courts can easily interpret this legislation, should it reach the statute book? I should be grateful if the Minister would address those points in his reply.
  The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I understand that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) intends to probe, not resist, the amendments that the Government have made. That is welcome.
  Amendment No. 8 is a straightforward grammatical amendment, avoiding unnecessary repetition. Similarly, amendments Nos. 12 and 13 correct a minor inconsistency.
  The substance of amendments Nos. 9 and 10, to which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton addresses herself, concerns the list of persons who may be an accompanying person. Hon. Members will be aware that the subject was much discussed in the House and in the other place, and I think that it is fair to say, and widely known, that the Government resisted attempts to minimise the scope for people who are not fellow workers to act as that accompanying person. As the hon. Lady says, it is important that the individual has confidence in the person who stands with them, as it were. The Government resisted attempts to minimise the scope for two reasons. First, if we had not done so, the right would have been cast too narrowly and, secondly, it might well have excluded some of the most appropriate and effective individuals—experienced trade unionists who are highly qualified, skilled and trained—from performing a standard function of a trade union. I am grateful for the support given to the Government in the other place on this point during consideration of this part of the right.
  I know that that consensus was evolving around our position and I pay tribute to the supportive remarks that were made in the other place about the wealth of expertise and experience that full-time and lay officials of trade unions can bring to bear during disciplinary and grievance proceedings. I believe that there is a good degree of consensus of support for that expertise.
  1246
  However, we noted the concerns of those who believe that it might prove unhelpful or disruptive to allow inexperienced outsiders to participate in internal procedures. As a result, we redrew the list of people who may act as an accompanying person, with a view to ensuring that only those who are suitably qualified for the task will be entitled to act as the accompanying person. I should point out that the right for a fellow worker to act as a companion remains as it is. Indeed, in many cases, the fellow worker will also be the local union representative, so the changes really relate to the outsiders who can attend the hearing.
  Mr. David Chidgey: I wish to clarify a point. The answer may be in another part of the Bill, which I have missed. Amendment No. 9 specifically says that the official is "employed" by a trade union. A few moments ago, the Minister said that the official could be employed part-time or full-time. But is there meant to be, or is there, a distinction between an official who is a paid employee and an official who is merely appointed as a representative?
  Mr. Battle: The traditional definition of the difference between a lay representative and a trade union official is written into trade union law. The condition is that lay officials must be reasonably certified, in writing, by their union as having had experience of acting as an accompanying person or as having received training in performing that role.
  The amendment does allow for certification to be withdrawn. Just as certification must be given in the first instance, to ensure that we get the right person into position and that people may have confidence—as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said—in that person, similarly, if it were proved that the person was ineffective, that could be raised with the tribunal by the person who objected to that representative, and they could ask for that certification to be withdrawn at the appropriate time.
  I therefore hope that the amendments will give benefits to all parties to grievance and disciplinary hearings, because workers and employers need to be reassured and to rest easy that the accompanying person is an appropriate and competent person to do the job.
  Mr. Collins: The Minister said that it was important that the accompanying person should be effective in the representations that they make on behalf of others, and he spoke about the possibility of withdrawing certification if someone proved to be ineffective. The words of amendment No. 10 simply talk about certification as
  "having experience of, or … having received training".
  If one has experience or has received training, those things do not disappear with the passage of time. Might the Minister be saying that the courts, in interpreting the legislation, should have regard to something that is not in the terms of the amendment—effectiveness?
  Mr. Battle: Let us test how the provision would work. I believe that it is up to trade unions to decide how they operate the accreditation process. By that I mean that they have a strong interest in ensuring that they field suitable lay representatives. Otherwise, full-time officials might have to be called in to sort out a problem caused by an

  1247
  inappropriate person who had been sent in. I am tempted to add that, if that happened, a trade union's reputation might be damaged. It might lose the confidence not only of employers but of its members, because its service to its members would be seen to be second rate. Therefore, it is in unions' interests to get the process right.
  As I believe that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) acknowledges, most trade unions already provide training for their lay representatives, often via courses, educational services and the Trades Union Congress. It is in a trade union's interests to satisfy itself that officials who can perform such work are competent to do it. Probably, unions will not consider issuing a certificate to new lay officials until they have completed a basic shop steward's course, for example, or have been in post for a certain length of time. I believe that that is appropriate because the condition is that lay officials must be "reasonably certified"—in writing, as I emphasised—by their union
  "as having experience of … acting as"
  an accompanying person or
  "as having received training in"
  performing that role.
  I was asked how a union was to be defined. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale mentioned it, I remind him that the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 provides a clear definition of a union. An organisation would have to meet that definition in order for its officials to qualify as an accompanying person. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton that the purpose and intent of the amendments are to sharpen up the clause and give people rights to which they are entitled.
  Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the Minister. Before he concludes, will he address the point about the employers of people who act as the accompanying official to people appearing before tribunals? As I outlined, an employee might find that, as a consequence of being certified, he or she was spending such a lot of time on this specialised work that it was having an impact on the employment that he or she was expected to carry out. Will the Minister say a few words about how he envisages that situation?
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Lady makes a fair point, but the whole purpose and tenor of the Bill is to develop a partnership at work. This is an absolute backstop case. The aim is not to be in a situation where an accompanying person is needed. Such a situation implies a failure by employers in the first instance to deal with grievances or disciplinary issues in an appropriate procedural manner. Tribunal proceedings detract from the focus of the employer and employee getting together and getting on with the job in a positive spirit. I accept the hon. Lady's point, but the purpose is to enable employees to have rights at work and to have people appropriately certified to stand by them if absolutely necessary and needed. Our intention is to reduce the number of occasions on which we need to be driven into those circumstances.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 14 agreed to.

  New clause
  Lords amendment: No. 15, after clause 13, to insert the following new clause—National security employees—
  ". Sections 10 to 13 of this Act shall not apply in relation to a person employed for the purposes of—

  (a) the Security Service,

  (b) the Secret Intelligence Service, or

  (c) the Government Communications Headquarters."

  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 27, 297, 305 and 323, Lords amendment No. 323, amendments (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) thereto and Lords amendment No. 331.
  Mr. Byers: I shall deal briefly with the amendment and then spend slightly longer on the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and his colleagues on the Intelligence and Security Committee, which raise some important points of principle. It is only right that the House should have the opportunity of discussing the way in which we want to treat these sensitive issues.
  The amendments that were agreed to in the other place reflect a correct understanding in addressing the sensitive issue of national security. As drafted, clause 13(1) applies the right to be accompanied in grievance and disciplinary hearings to persons in Crown employment. It therefore applies to employment within the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government communications headquarters.
  I am sure that the House will agree that the staff of the security and intelligence agencies rightly have a unique status. The sensitive nature of their employment sets them apart from other workers. We have therefore given further consideration to how their inclusion in this part of the Bill can reflect that particular position. We believe that there are amendments before the House that do precisely that. I hope that when Members have considered the amendments that were agreed in another place, they will agree with that approach.
  This evening, the House will want to concentrate on amendments Nos. 323(a), (b), (d) and (e) in the name of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater. I hope that Government amendment No. 323(c) will go some way towards resolving the difficulties that can be identified in the right hon. Gentleman's amendments.
  First, I shall address amendments Nos. 323(a) and (b). I shall then outline why we feel that amendment No. 323(c) is the appropriate way forward in dealing with these matters.
  The Bill provides that a Minister may direct that an applicant and his representative be excluded from all or part of proceedings where the interests of national security require it. We anticipate that the power to exclude from all future proceedings will be used extremely rarely and only in the most extreme circumstances where national security interests could not be adequately protected otherwise.
  When the applicant or his representative is excluded the Attorney-General or, in Scotland, the Advocate-General, may appoint someone to represent the applicant's

  1249
  interests. However, we believe that the applicant, or his or her representative on their behalf, should always be entitled to make a statement of his or her case. We undertook in the House of Lords to ensure that this right could be provided. If right hon. and hon. Members address the detail in amendment No. 323(c), they will understand that we have tried to discharge the commitment that we gave in the House of Lords in the way that amendment No. 323 outlines.
  7.15 pm
  Amendment No. 323(c) ensures that the tribunal regulations that will be made with regard to proceedings involving national security matters will be able to provide the right to make a statement in accordance with our policy. Lest there be any doubt, the Government undertake that the regulations will provide that an applicant or his representative will always be able to make such a statement.
  I hope that the amendment will be recognised as one that discharges the obligation and the commitment that we recognised and gave in the House of Lords. It will be underpinned by the regulations that, we shall wish to introduce. I give a commitment that, in drawing up those regulations, we shall need to consult members of the Intelligence and Security Committee of which the right hon. Member for Bridgwater is the Chairman. That is wholly appropriate because they have drawn a particular issue to our attention. I believe that we shall benefit from the advice that we might receive from the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee. I would certainly wish to do that.
  Amendments Nos. 323(d) and (e) would enable the commissioners to review the exercise of a Minister's power of direction. I have considered the matter carefully and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater for the opportunity of discussing the matter with him yesterday and having time to reflect and to discuss with officials whether we could agree to the proposal. I shall be asking the House to resist the amendments, which contain technical flaws. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will consider that to be the last resort of a Minister who is struggling. I found myself in his position when in opposition.
  There are three particular issues. First, the amendments would go beyond the agencies about which the right hon. Gentleman is concerned and extend the provision to all other Crown employees. That would go far wider than the group that we wish to address.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The Secretary of State must recognise that the circumstances would arise only in the case of a Crown employee whose ability to attend a tribunal or to be represented at it was removed because the Minister judged that it was a matter of national security. That would normally be only an employee of one of the agencies, or perhaps someone working in the Cabinet Office, for example, who had a similar national security involvement. It is because the Government have drafted this section of the Bill in terms of Crown servants rather than of agencies that it has such a wide theoretical application, but, in practice, a narrow one.
  Mr. Byers: I understand that argument entirely. However, as I have said, the amendments would go
  1250
  beyond the agencies with which the right hon. Gentleman is concerned. It may be that civil servants working in particularly sensitive areas would be affected. I accept that. However, I am not sure that they should be regarded in exactly the same way as the particular groups that I think the right hon. Member for Bridgwater and his colleagues are concerned about.
  There is a safeguard. If the individual feels that he has been treated in an inappropriate way, he will be able to seek judicial review at the time that the direction is made. The direction will be made publicly and the individual will know that that is the case. On the other hand, the commissioners must apply the principles of judicial review retrospectively. Parliament has decided that that is appropriate where the act under review was carried out secretly for obvious reasons. That is not so in the case of a power of direction. For those reasons, amendments Nos. 323(d) and (e) do not achieve the objective of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater and his colleagues. It goes beyond that and changes fundamentally the powers that commissioners would have to review the exercise of the power of direction being operated by a Minister. Therefore we feel that it is an inappropriate step to take, and I shall be asking the House to resist it.
  I believe that the opportunity of seeking a judicial review is the appropriate way forward. Legal aid is available in particular circumstances for judicial review. People who felt that they had been adversely treated as a result of a power of direction being exercised by the Minister would have recourse to that course of action. I believe that to be appropriate. There would be great difficulties if we accepted these two amendments.
  To conclude, I hope that the House will agree with the amendments starting with amendment No. 50. In relation to amendments (a) and (b), I give the House an assurance that, in drawing up the regulations, we would want to consult the Intelligence and Security Committee about the detail of the regulations. I hope that in supporting amendment (c), the House will recognise that we are putting in place a mechanism which we hope will overcome some of the reservations.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Would it not be far better to have tabled amendments that would resolve all the issues now, rather than saying that the Government will do that in the future, through regulations and by other means? It would have been easy enough, if the Government had followed the recommendations made by the Intelligence and Security Committee in our annual report.
  Mr. Byers: I hope that, by drawing up the regulations in consultation with members of the Committee, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) serves, we will be able to accommodate the concerns that have been expressed, which I accept. Let the House be clear about that.
  An important point has been raised in amendments (a) and (b). Since the conversation that I had with the right hon. Member for Bridgwater yesterday, I have been looking for a way of facilitating matters. I believe that, by giving the assurance about how we will draw up the regulations, we might be able to meet the honestly expressed concerns of the Committee.

  1251
  I must ask the House to resist amendments (d) and (e). They would go beyond the powers that we give to commissioners at present. There is the opportunity for the individual to seek judicial review. In the circumstances, that is the appropriate course of action to take.
  Mr. Tom King: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his initial response to the amendments. I am pleased that he has done us the courtesy of coming and responding to them himself. I am encouraged by that. I would otherwise be enormously disappointed by the response that we have so far received from the Government. I am encouraged because I believe that the Secretary of State is capable of listening to an argument and that if, on reflection, he considers it valid, he has the standing and the independence to accept the amendments. I proceed on that optimistic basis.
  The Secretary of State will allow me, I hope, to point out that this is a remarkable occasion. We are not a Select Committee, although I understand why he slipped into that terminology. That is a tendentious area into which I shall not venture on this occasion. The composition of our Committee is remarkable. We are all parliamentarians. We probably have a majority in the Chamber at present—I warn the Secretary of State of the situation that he faces. He will note that we have considered the issues at great length and on an all-party basis.
  I apologise to the Secretary of State for the fact that originally there was no concept of including such a provision in his Bill. He is being asked to include a recommendation that we made to the Prime Minister in our last annual report. After some impatience that a recommendation accepted by the Prime Minister had failed to make further progress, it was included as an amendment to the Bill at a very late stage in the Lords.
  It is unfortunate for the Secretary of State that not only are we all parliamentarians with the capacity to move amendments to his Bill and his Lords amendments, but we then report the outcome—his response—to the Prime Minister. We are anxious to preserve his prospects and to comment favourably in our report, which we are currently drafting.
  The House has never debated these issues. It has never heard anything about these matters. They were never part of the Bill. The Government have responded to calls for a necessary and sensible improvement to the law. I make no secret of the fact that that arises out of one particular case of a gentleman who has since taken his grievance beyond any reasonable length, to the extent of betraying a considerable number of people who worked in the intelligence services. His claims are full of errors because it is some time since he was in the Secret Intelligence Service.
  However, the fact remains that that gentleman had a grievance. As a Committee, we sought to address what we considered a genuine grievance. He was denied what he thought were legitimate rights that would imply to other people other forms of employment.
  1252
  I shall quote the paragraph that is the fons et origo of the proposal. It states:
  "The Committee also believes that everything possible should be done to ensure that employees of the Agencies have the same rights as employees elsewhere. One of these is access to industrial tribunals. Under current procedures, industrial tribunals may hear cases involving national security, in camera and possibly with the Tribunal President sitting alone. However, if this is deemed not to be sufficient protection where vital national security matters may be involved, the Secretary of State can issue a certificate preventing an individual from having access to a tribunal."
  That is what happened in that particular case. The Committee report continued:
  "The Tribunals established under the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994 were not set up to handle complaints involving staff of the Agencies, and have made clear their view that they are not adequately equipped to do so."
  Our recommendation was this:
  "We believe that it ought to be possible to constitute a tribunal of members and staff qualified to serve a normal industrial tribunal, but of the necessary integrity and security clearance to handle such potentially sensitive material, and we so recommend."
  The Prime Minister accepted that recommendation and eventually, after much discussion, the Employment Relations Bill was identified as the vehicle to which the amendment should be attached. Last week, rather late in the day, without the Committee having been consulted about the final form, which might have avoided some of the problems facing us, the amendments were tabled in the House of Lords.
  That was done in some rush. Lords amendment No. 323 provides that section 4(7) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 shall cease to have effect. I hesitate to point out to the Secretary of State that, as far as I can see, it should cease to have effect, because the Act does not exist. The reference could be to the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996, but I have not been able to identify the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 which the amendment claims will cease to have effect. The Vote Office searched high and low for such an Act, but the reference throughout the clauses seems to be to a non-existent Act.
  I do not know what mechanism exists within the procedures of the House to deal with that. This is the last stage of the Bill, which now goes for Royal Assent, subject to any amendments that may go back to another place if the Lords amendments are disagreed to. We want amendments to be made.
  7.30 pm
  The purpose of our exercise was to ensure that the rights enjoyed by a person in such a situation were as near to being equivalent to those enjoyed by any other employee involved in any other activity as was reasonably possible, having paid due regard to national security. After the amendments on which we were not consulted had been made, we were extremely concerned to find that a provision had been included that enabled a Minister of the Crown to make a regulation to direct a tribunal to exclude an applicant from all or part of his own employment tribunal proceedings. I doubt whether anything could more obviously negate the purpose of making the improvement that we have suggested and which we thought the Government had accepted. That is why we have tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 323, which applies to the applicant, and amendment (b), which applies to his representative.

  1253
  The Secretary of State rightly said that it was immediately acknowledged in the other place that that provision was unacceptable. Although I accept that Government amendment (c), which has been tabled today, fulfils the undertaking that was given in the other place, we believe that it does not entirely meet our concerns. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) may have something to add on that point.
  Mr. Rogers: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that the provision was obviously included by mistake. The Government, Labour Members and the party which I represent are all in favour of trade union rights, and the very idea of preventing a person and his representative from putting his case in front of a tribunal would be complete anathema to every Labour Member. A drafting mistake has obviously been made.
  Mr. King: That is what we believe. Our inquiries suggest that the provision has been lifted straight from immigration tribunals legislation and transferred across, in toto and perhaps at some speed, to the Bill. I am grateful that, as soon as the matter was raised, it was recognised that that position could not be sustained, that a drafting error had been made and that further consideration was required. I hope that we can take the Government a step further so that they recognise that they should go all the way and accept our amendment.
  In view of the Government's public statements and what I believe to be their genuine philosophy in respect of this matter, I should be amazed if they resisted our amendments. They deal with circumstances in which a Minister decides on national security grounds that he has to take quite exceptional steps that would normally be quite unacceptable, such as excluding somebody from part of his own industrial tribunal hearing without any review being undertaken by anybody thereafter.
  The Secretary of State has said that such a person could have a judicial review—at his own expense, I imagine—but a chap who has lost his job and is complaining about unfair dismissal would find that he has been excluded from his own hearing or a major part of it. He would not hear any of the evidence against him and he would be able to challenge what he considers to be an unreasonable act only at his own expense. For those reasons, I said at the beginning of my remarks that I hope and believe that the right hon. Gentleman is the sort of Minister who will listen to arguments. I appreciate that this issue has been bounced on him and that it is not germane to the main purposes of the Bill, but he has to take responsibility for it.
  The other problem—for which I do not apologise, because we did not create it—is that it is so late in the day that this is the last chance that anyone has to put things right. The Secretary of State may feel that he could be exposed to criticism, and the first person who might criticise him may be the Security Service Commissioner, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith. I am not sure whether it has been drawn to his attention that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's most recent report said that something should be done about this matter. On the tribunal, he said:
  "In my earlier reports I drew attention to the unsatisfactory position regarding the Tribunal and their statutory position in relation to complaints from employees of the agencies who seek
  1254
  redress in relation to those matters which, but for security considerations, might have been dealt with by an Industrial Tribunal. I am disappointed that it has taken so long to find an effective remedy to this important problem but I am advised that the DTI, having consulted Ministers, are now working on a detailed proposal."
  That was said by the very commissioner to whom we are seeking to entrust responsibility for review.
  We consulted Lord Justice Stuart-Smith yesterday about the amendment that we have suggested. He has responded and I have been authorised by him to say that, if the amendment is acceptable to Parliament, he is content to undertake the proposed review in addition to his existing duties under the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994. He makes a further point, which was also made by the Secretary of State. He understands that the proposed amendment relates to all Crown servants. If so that is so, he would feel unable to express any view on whether he would be able to deal with the volume of work or whether he would be qualified to do so.
  The point about Crown servants has already been well made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed in an intervention. As currently drafted, the proposals on the tribunal apply to the Secret Intelligence Service, the Security Service and Government communications headquarters, Cheltenham, but this problem could arise in respect of someone who was sacked from a position of Crown employment. People who work for the joint intelligence staff, on the assessment side and in the Cabinet Office dealing with national security matters are affected by national security considerations. This is the only opportunity that we have to help them and the Bill is the only relevant legislation before the House.
  If such people feel that they have been unfairly sacked—the Secretary of State would be the first to defend them in such a situation—they are entitled to their rights and they are entitled to go to a tribunal. If they find that they are excluded from their own hearing on grounds of national security, is not it right that there should be some review of the Minister's authority? That is all we are asking. I shall answer Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's question: we know of only one such case. Does the Secretary of State know of any more?
  The case of which I am aware has provided the substance for the amendment that we have tabled. I do not know of any others. If a huge number of people are being excluded from their normal rights on grounds of national security, a commissioner had better look at this issue and we need a full and proper safeguard. The Committee certainly wants the procedure regulations, to which the Secretary of State referred, to cover such eventualities and the way in which such matters should be handled. As a free man, if I may use that expression, the Secretary of State would be the first to fight for that and the first to say that Parliament should put such safeguards in place. That is what Parliament should be doing. It should be protecting the rights of people in such situations.
  It would be wrong to leave this significant power with no question of being reviewed. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith asks whether our proposal is meant to be some sort of remedy. We have not taken it that far, but have said that one should at least provide the protection that exists: the commissioners are charged with reviewing how Ministers—the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary,

  1255
  in the main—use the exceptional powers that override the normal law, which they are entitled to use to protect the national security. That protection is independent and distinguished. The commissioners review the exercise periodically and report to the Prime Minister on how those exceptional powers have been used.
  Is not this proposal just such an exceptional power? If the amendments are rejected, the Secretary of State will leave Ministers with an exceptional power that will be subject to no review, except at the expense of the applicant by judicial review. In spelling that out, I do not seek to make a party political point. In a sense, I am embarrassed because I appreciate that this matter has been wished on the Minister—he did not ask to deal with it. However, the Intelligence and Security Committee debated it at considerable length and concluded that the objective was right and proper. We originally identified it some three years ago.
  What we are debating tonight, late in this Session, and for the first time on the Floor of the House, are the arrangements to put a proper protection in place. I understand that it is a particularly difficult and awkward challenge for the Secretary of State, but I believe that he will able to rise to it and say that, in the current circumstances, he will not leave the matter unsettled and that the Government are prepared to put in place the necessary protections. The arguments that I have sought to make, and which other hon. Members may seek to make, are acceptable not just to me but to every member of my committee of all parties—senior Members of each party were represented on it—and to Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, so I fail to see why they should not be acceptable to the Secretary of State. The Committee would appreciate it if he could accept our proposals.
  Mr. Chidgey: In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State said that he intended to consult on the amendments. Having heard the speech by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who made an eloquent and powerful case for the amendments, the Secretary of State has an opportunity to consult and reflect on the foot, so to speak.
  May I ask the Secretary of State to reflect on one further point? Not long ago, before the last general election, there was a cri de coeur from the Labour party that those employed at GCHQ would have the right to rejoin a trade union. There is not a great deal of difference between denying the right to free association and denying the right to free representation in a criminal sense. It does not sit well for the Government, who rightly made such a campaign out of the right to free association in a security setting at GCHQ, not to recognise the rights of those individuals now to have free representation and presence at their own examination.
  I hope that the Secretary of State can see the synergy between those two points of principle, and the way in which the Government will be regarded if they do not see that those points are compatible.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Beith: The Committee chairman described extremely comprehensively why we tabled the amendments. If there are deficiencies in the drafting of amendments (a), (b), (d) and (e), they are entirely my fault because I was given the job of drafting them. However,
  1256
  they are better drafted than the clause to which they were attached, which produced an unimaginable situation in which the object of this entire exercise—an employee of one of the agencies who has hitherto been denied an industrial tribunal when dismissed—would be refused admission to that very tribunal when it is granted.
  The Committee, which has a fair amount of experience of security and intelligence matters, could not envisage circumstances in which it would be appropriate or necessary to exclude the applicant from every part of the proceedings. We scratched our heads, but could not think of any. We asked the agencies, and they could think of no circumstances either. Such a provision has not even been sought by the agencies in question; it was simply bad drafting in the first place.
  The Minister has responded to that. When my noble Friend Lord Razzall moved an amendment in the other place, the Minister gave the undertaking that he is fulfilling in his amendment (c). Although that amendment is welcome because it goes 50 or 60 per cent. of the way towards what we want, much remains to be done. All that that amendment guarantees is that the applicant will be able to state his case before being thrown out. He will not be able to hear or challenge any of the evidence on which his dismissal is based, or even to know what that evidence is.
  I can envisage circumstances in which it will be necessary for the applicant and his representative to be excluded from part of the proceedings. I am sure that other Committee members can envisage them, too. For example, an applicant might then gain access to further information, which he might subsequently misuse as a result of his grievance against the agency. A case might require the presentation of some evidence of that kind. However, excluding an applicant simply from making his case is such a restriction on his rights that there should be a very high threshold to be crossed before that power can be used. A strong protection should be built in, as well as a review of how the power has been used.
  We tabled our original amendment because regulations could not have provided those protections so long as the statute made it clear that the Secretary of State was entitled to exclude the person from the entire proceedings. It was necessary to change the basic clause for the regulations to be manageable at all.
  I think that we can make some progress on this point tonight. The regulations could build in thresholds and protections. I thank the Minister for his assurance that the Committee will be consulted on the detail of the regulations. The remainder of our argument—some 40 per cent.—could be met now if the regulations set a high threshold, which would have to be met before the power could be invoked. We all remain concerned, however, that the power is not capable of satisfactory review, other than by taking a case to court on judicial review at the applicant's expense. That is why we tabled the other two amendments.
  The arguments that the Minister has made simply hold no water. He did not invent them—they have been provided for him. There is no flood of cases; there have hardly been any cases of this kind—none whatever in the category that he thinks represents an inconvenient addition to the total, which is people not in the agencies but in respect of whom a similar power might be used in the future. A commissioner review is appropriate because

  1257
  the applicant cannot know why the power has been used. The Minister rested his case on the argument that the commissioners review matters that are otherwise secret. The reasons for using the power are secret. The applicant cannot know the nature of the evidence that requires him to be thrown out of the tribunal.
  Somebody else must look at the matter. It is not sufficient to leave it to the tribunal, which does not have the power to bring the applicant back in—that is in the hands of the Minister. Somebody must have the power to report to the public that the power is being abused, and the commissioner is ideal for that purpose. That discipline would largely ensure that the power was not abused. I therefore strongly support what the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said and ask the Minister to think again, even at this late stage.
  At the beginning of the Bill, there is a certificate of compliance with the European convention on human rights. After this clause was drafted and introduced in the other place, was it checked to establish whether the Bill still complies with the convention, given the restriction on the rights of the applicant that will result unless we carry some of the amendments?
  Yvette Cooper: I shall be brief, as I had not intended to speak. I want to respond to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's objections to the amendments tabled on behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee. He argues that there should be access to judicial review rather than to the commissioner, and that amendments (d) and (e) would significantly extend the powers of the commissioner.
  Judicial review is not sufficient in the absence of the commissioner. Our argument is that all these cases should be reviewed by the commissioner, not only those in which the applicant has the confidence or the resources to take the case to judicial review. Given that the applicant will be excluded from the proceedings, he will be in a difficult position to know whether he has a case to take to judicial review, whereas the commissioner could examine all these matters without putting the applicant's resources at stake.
  The second objection is that the amendments would significantly extend the powers of the commissioner. I do not see that as a problem. The only way in which they would extend the commissioner's powers would be in parallel with the extension of the Minister's powers under the Lords amendment, which gives the Minister the power to make a decision to exclude someone from the industrial tribunal in the first place. Under our amendments, the commissioner would be used in parallel with the additional powers given to the Minister on grounds of national security.
  Mr. Byers: I am pleased that our approach on amendments (a) and (b) and our amendment (c) go 60 per cent. of the way towards meeting the concerns expressed by members of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I hope that, when we consult on the details of the regulation, we can get 100 per cent. satisfaction. That is almost impossible to achieve, but we shall try. We all want to achieve the principle that was articulated so well by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).
  1258
  Even though we are dealing with unique circumstances, the individuals involved should, whenever possible, have the protection of the usual procedures that we give to other citizens, and we should try to secure that.
  However, a balance needs to be struck between the rights of the individual and the need to protect national security. We are clawing our way through consideration of how to achieve that balance. As I have discovered in the past 24 hours, these are complex areas, and we should take a careful approach.
  I should like to discuss the regulations with members of the Committee, and I hope that that will go some way towards satisfying their concerns in amendments (a) and (b). The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) had difficulty finding the relevant Act in relation to the amendments that have been tabled. The Industrial Tribunals Act 1996 had its name changed by the Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998. I am sure that he was fully aware of that, and of course I knew that all the time. I do not know why these difficulties are put in our way, but parliamentary counsel enjoy the little tricks that they play on us from time to time.
  As to amendments (d) and (e), the key point is that I have not been able to meet the concerns expressed by members of the committee on both sides of the House. In the end, it will be a matter of judgment. My view is that we have a well-established procedure by way of judicial review to challenge a decision taken by a Minister of the Crown. It is now a fairly common occurrence to have a judicial review of decisions taken by Secretaries of State and by Ministers.
  Legal aid is available for judicial review. I checked on that point yesterday, because I had a conversation with the right hon. Member for Bridgwater, and I was sympathetic to the point that if no finance is available, it will act as a deterrent to someone challenging a decision. Because of their unique nature, these may be exactly the circumstances in which the Legal Aid Board will look at a case sympathetically, so there may be some financial support.
  The balancing judgment to make is between the remedies available by way of judicial review, and the remedies and powers that the commissioner will have. One of the weaknesses of amendments (d) and (e) is that, by relying on the commissioner, they do not give him the power to act effectively in these matters. The commissioner does not have a remedy at his disposal. He has no power to overrule the direction that may be given by the Secretary of State or another Minister. He cannot intervene or overturn the decision that is ultimately taken by the employment tribunal. It is a fiction of a solution to the problem. I believe that the real remedy is the judicial review. The individual who has a complaint and is concerned about the direction being used will be able to seek a judicial review, which is a well-established procedure.
  Mr. Tom King: The Secretary of State bravely makes his case, but he should reflect on what he has just said, because it is an extraordinary argument. It is an argument against having commissioners in all these areas. The Intelligence Services Act 1994 states:
  "The Commissioner shall make an annual report on the discharge of his functions to the Prime Minister and may at any time report to him on any matter relating to his discharge of those functions."

  1259
  The Secretary of State has said that no remedy is available to the commissioner. We have argued that the Bill will leave the plaintiff with no remedy, except to go on his own to the courts. If he is reasonably well paid—as he may well be—and has a little capital, he will not get legal aid.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman puts me at a disadvantage. I know that these are important matters, but he is making an intervention. It would help me if he would wind up.
  Mr. King: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this is an exceptional situation. The Committee set up by the Prime Minister to advise on these matters is having to deal with an issue that has been incorporated in an inappropriate Bill on which we were not consulted. This measure has been introduced at the last minute. It was brought up in the other place, and this is the first time that it has been discussed in this House. I crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I think that the Secretary of State would accept from me that his argument will not wash. He is not prepared, in this legislation, to give people in the position that we have discussed a remedy. Our amendment would provide the most limited protection, but it would mean that, if he became Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary, before his officials put a proposal to him that someone should not be allowed to attend part of his own industrial tribunal hearing, they would know that his decision would be reviewed. They could not plead national security and total secrecy so that the matter could not be sustained.
  If the Secretary of State were on the Opposition Benches, he would make a much better argument than I have, and he would murder the idea that the commissioner has no remedy. I beg him to reconsider, even at this late hour—that was not of our making. This is the last hour, because this legislation will soon become an Act. At the last gasp, the legislation will lack this vital ingredient. Our proposal would do the Government great credit.
  8 pm
  Mr. Byers: I understand the power of the arguments that are being put. In the end, the House will have to make a judgment. I believe that the procedure that is available to challenge a direction by judicial review is the appropriate remedy in the circumstances.
  I know that members of the Committee would like the commissioner to have the power to intervene directly, but I feel that they should reflect on the role that the commissioner will play. That role will not involve the reviewing of individual cases; the commissioner will not operate in the way in which employment tribunals operate. It will involve the reviewing, in a more strategic way, of the workings of specific sectors. That is the right role for the commissioner, and that is why the House has not given the commissioner the power to intervene directly.
  This was never seen as being the appropriate role for a commissioner. The commissioner has a distinct role: he is to report to and, no doubt, to put pressure on Parliament by means of the avenues open to him. I believe that that role, and the commissioner's responsibilities, will be subject to confusion if he is told that he should be involved in individual cases that are before an employment tribunal.
  Mr. Beith: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman's Department does not normally deal with these matters,
  1260
  but he must recognise that the commissioner's remit is to examine the way in which powers have been exercised in individual cases, and thereby to judge whether those powers have been abused. That relates directly to what the Committee seeks. It wants the commissioner to examine the way in which the Minister is using his power—not the substance of the issue before the tribunal—given that he possesses information that no one else has. That is what gives the function its value.
  Mr. Byers: I think that I understand the position. The commissioner has not the power to intervene in relation to an individual's case, and he has no such power in relation to an employment tribunal. That is precisely the issue that is addressed in the amendment. The commissioner has the power to challenge decisions made by Ministers, and to review those decisions, but he has no such powers in relation to individuals before employment tribunals.
  Opposition Members may disagree, but I believe that we have provided a suitable method for decisions to be made by Ministers of the Crown, by way of judicial review. It is well established, and I consider it wholly appropriate. I do not think that amendments (d) and (e), which would extend the commissioner's responsibility, will provide an effective remedy for the individual. I hear what the right hon. Member for Bridgwater says, but, in the circumstances that we are discussing, the individual will clearly want a way of remedying what he or she sees as a wrong.
  Yvette Cooper: Amendments (d) and (e) would not prevent an individual from using the judicial review system as a remedy. Moreover, the proposed extension of the commissioner's powers would allow for an additional review of the Minister's decisions. That could take place in exactly the same way as the commissioner's review of other ministerial decisions on grounds of national security that infringe individual rights.
  Mr. Byers: A range of opportunities can be provided, if that is what the House wants. My point is that a remedy is clearly available to an individual who feels aggrieved, in the form of a judicial review. I consider that to be an appropriate remedy, in that it provides the opportunities that the individual may seek. I feel that the opportunities offered by recourse to a commissioner are rather fictional in terms of the support that they can give the individual.
  Mr. Tom King: I much appreciate the Secretary of State's courtesy in giving way again.
  I fear that we are getting into a bit of a muddle. The right hon. Gentleman's concept of the commissioner's role does not conform to the way in which he will work: it is not a question of a chap having a right to go to the commissioner, as was suggested.
  If the Committee that is appointed by the Prime Minister to report to him and advise him makes such recommendations, if the commissioner agrees that action is needed and is content to go along with it and if, as we understand to be the case, the agencies have no objection to the programme, why are the Government not willing to accept the amendments?
  Mr. Byers: For the simple reason that we believe that the individual already has recourse to an appropriate

  1261
  remedy. I know that the Committee feels strongly, has made representations and has reported to the Prime Minister; no doubt it will continue to do so, under procedures established by the House. However, I consider the existing procedures to be appropriate, and I do not think that they need to be added to it in the way suggested by amendments (d) and (e). I ask the House to resist the amendments if they are put to a vote.
  I hope that I have been able to reassure the House in relation to Lords amendment No. 323, and amendments (a) and (b). I ask the House to support amendment (c), which discharges the undertakings that we gave in the House of Lords. I am sorry that I cannot accommodate members of the Intelligence and Security Committee in regard to amendments (d) and (e), but I believe that existing procedures in relation to judicial review are appropriate, and I do not think that the individual would be helped by the additional powers that those amendments appear to confer. For those reasons, if they are put to a vote, I shall invite the House to oppose amendments (d) and (e).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I put the Question, let me remind the House that amendments to Lords amendment No. 323 must be dealt with later. What we are now considering is Lords amendment No. 15.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

  Clause 15
  COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS: DETRIMENT AND DISMISSAL
  Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 8, line 8, leave out ("subject") and insert ("subjected")
  Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 17 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19, 26, 327 and 328.
  Mr. Byers: I intend to concentrate on Lords amendment No. 17, which I shall ask the House to resist.
  Lords amendment No. 16 is a relatively minor technical amendment. It proposes that the word "subject" should be changed to "subjected", simply to ensure consistency with wording elsewhere in the legislation. I hope that it will not detain the House for too long.
  As I have said, I shall ask the House to disagree with Lords amendment No. 17. We believe that employers and employees should continue to have the opportunity that they have now to conclude individual contracts which differ from collective agreements that would otherwise apply to individual employees. Nothing in the Bill will affect that. However, we also believe that individuals in the workplace who refuse such contracts and choose to remain covered by collective agreements should be protected against being subjected to dismissal or detriment as a result of the refusal. There should be no obligation, and there should be no incentive, for individuals to break out of collective agreements. We do not think that someone who wishes to remain within a collective agreement should suffer detriment as a result.
  1262
  We therefore propose to draft regulations to achieve that policy objective. We will, of course, consult on the regulations in draft before presenting them to the House for approval under the affirmative procedure.
  We cannot accept the amendments tabled by the Opposition in the House of Lords. We have two main problems with Lords amendment No. 17. First, it contains a fundamental weakness, in that it confuses two separate issues: the bargaining arrangements, and action to prevent or deter trade union membership. Those are clearly two distinct issues.
  The amendment seeks to require section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992—the section that guarantees the right to join or not to join a trade union, and to take part in trade union activities—to be interpreted in accordance with the amendment, which has nothing to do with such matters. That is the confusion at the heart of amendment No. 17. It is concerned only with individual contracts and collective agreements. Therefore, that attempt to affect section 146 is dangerously imprecise and illogical.
  Although we may understand the basic thrust of the amendment, it is unhelpful in that it is extremely detailed and restrictive, and will create difficulties when we introduce our regulations. For our regulations to be effective, they need to be drawn up in a way that is not constrained by the provisions that would be introduced as a result of amendment No. 17.
  Therefore, I invite the House to disagree with amendment No. 17. We will introduce our own regulations. The House will have an opportunity to debate and to vote on them after we introduce them. We believe that that is an appropriate way in which to deal with the matter.
  We feel that amendment No. 17 creates difficulties. It does not allow the individual to have freedom. The danger is that individuals will feel, effectively, that there is a deterrent to remaining within a collective agreement. We feel that there should be freedom to make a decision, not a method by which an individual may be punished.
  That will be the principle of the regulations that we intend to introduce. For these to be effective, we will need the House to disagree with amendment No. 17, which was carried in the House of Lords.
  Mrs. Browning: I will be happy to allow speedy progress on some amendments, but not amendment No. 17. What has happened as a result of the amendment bears full examination.
  As the Secretary of State said, the amendment was introduced in Committee in another place by the Opposition. I go back to the beginning. Amendment No. 17 concerned continuation of the right of employees voluntarily to agree with their employer contracts that differ from those of a collective agreement that applies to them, as long as the different terms were agreed through a revised contract of employment, the employee had voluntarily accepted the new terms, and the employer's purpose in offering such terms was to further a change in his relationship with all, or any class of, his employees, as set out in section 148(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
  It was thought in another place that the Government supported the amendment in principle. Indeed, we were led to believe that it was Government policy, not least

  1263
  because we had looked carefully at the Government's White Paper "Fairness at Work", particularly paragraph 4.20, which is reinforced by annexe 1, paragraph 8. I am sure that it is engraved on the Secretary of State's heart, but let me remind him of what annexe 1 says:
  "The terms of agreements resulting from collective bargaining are normally incorporated into individual employees' contracts either explicitly or by custom and practice and thus set the minimum terms and conditions for all employees in the bargaining unit".
  The annexe goes on:
  "Under the existing law an employee and an employer can agree different terms if they wish. Since the current law works well, the Government sees no reason to change it".
  When the amendment was introduced in another place by my hon. Friend Baroness Miller of Hendon, there was quite a lot of discussion. It was Conservative peers who, in the absence of a Government amendment, sought to honour what they thought was a Government pledge—not least because of what is contained in the White Paper, and an indication in Committee from the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry that the Government would look at the matter. Therefore, there was an expectation that, before the Bill had proceeded too far through another place, the Government would table something similar to the amendment that is now part of the Bill.
  8.15 pm
  It is interesting to note what the Minister, as quoted in the Lords, said in respect of an employee who had refused to sign a personal contract:
  "The employee may … think that it is unreasonable of the employer to … give the employee a pay rise, but that is the employer's right".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 356.]
  We think that an employer and employee should always be free to make their own bargain, notwithstanding union recognition in the workplace. There is a need for flexibility in respect of an employer rewarding people in the workplace, based on agreements—even individual agreements—with the work force. That was what we believed the Government felt was the state of play as well, but it was not the Government who introduced the amendment; it was Baroness Miller of Hendon.
  After Baroness Miller of Hendon moved the amendment successfully in the Lords, a debate took place with Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He stated:
  "I sincerely congratulate the noble Baroness both on the care which she has clearly taken in drafting the amendment and on the evident passion with which she has moved it."
  That seems to contradict the Secretary of State's words a moment ago, when he identified what he regarded as flaws in the drafting of the amendment. I should like him to comment specifically on why a Minister in another place congratulated Baroness Miller on the drafting of the amendment, but only a little while later, in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State said that he believed it to be flawed.
  I continue with the words of the Lord McIntosh:
  "I think that I can assure her"—
  Baroness Miller—
  "that we can achieve substantially the objectives which she wishes to achieve. As my noble friend Lord Simon explained in his letter of 10th May, in response to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, the Government hoped to replace the power in Clause 15 with a substantive provision and we hoped to bring forward an amendment in Committee."
  1264
  It is thus clearly on the record that the Government, as we had anticipated, hoped to introduce such a measure, but we have received no explanation of why it was left to the Opposition—in the absence of that measure—to table successfully the amendment that we are discussing.
  Lord McIntosh went on:
  "I am sorry that we have not been able to do so. but I am confident that we shall be able to produce an amendment on Report which will, in a sense, go further than that of the noble Baroness because, instead of adding to the regulatory power, which is what her amendment does, it will produce a substantive content in clause 15 instead of a purely regulatory power."
  So clearly, at the close of the Committee stage, although the Government had been expected to table an amendment themselves in Committee, there was a firm commitment by the Minister to bring back a substantive amendment on Report as the Bill proceeded through another place.
  Later, Lord McIntosh continued:
  "I repeat our apologies that we have not been able to produce the substantive amendment which we wished to introduce in Committee."
  He concluded:
  "I hope that with the assurances and details I have given about the substantive amendment which we propose to introduce on Report, the noble Baroness will realise that we intend to introduce something which is along the lines of what the noble Baroness wants".
  In other words, a firm ministerial commitment was given at the end of the deliberations in another place to bring the matter back on Report. Ministers acknowledged that the content of the amendment that we are discussing was not, apart from a few details, a matter of dispute. However, the Secretary of State seems now to have changed to his mind about that.
  It was on the basis that there was little dispute about the amendment that my noble Friend Baroness Miller was asked to withdraw the amendment. Wisely, she did not do so, but put it to a vote instead. In the same debate, Lord McCarthy, in response to what Lord McIntosh said in support of the Opposition amendment, said:
  "Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he realises how much he is worrying some of us?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 359–62.]
  That was the first indication that not all Labour peers were happy with the Government's line. Perhaps the Secretary of State's neglect of the amendment tonight shows that the Government are responding to the concerns that have been expressed. If not, his approach is a mystery, given previous ministerial commitments about the amendment in another place. Perhaps that is why the Secretary of State has not tabled a substantive amendment for debate tonight.
  I believe that the Secretary of State has abused his position—and the ministerial commitments that are on record. Instead of allowing a proper and full debate this evening, he has promised that the matter will be subject to regulation at a later date. That has become a hallmark of the Government's approach.
  In another existence just over a year ago, I was a member of the Committee considering the School Standards and Framework Bill. The Secretary of State was then Minister of State with responsibility for school standards. It was typical of his approach then that he did not want matters to be debated in detail and pressed for a vote. He preferred to push them into the long grass, in the hope that regulation,

  1265
  when it was introduced, would not be given the necessary scrutiny. This important amendment certainly warrants detailed scrutiny and debate.
  Will the Secretary of State explain why the word of Ministers in another place can no longer be taken as a matter of honour? It is an insult to both Houses that commitments made on the record are not honoured.
  There is considerable interest in the matter outside the House. Business has questions to which answers must be given in this debate. For example, what is meant by the phrase "detriment by his employer"? I should be grateful if the Minister would give the House a definition. What are the Government seeking to achieve with the power that the clause gives the Secretary of State? Will the Secretary of State make a clear and unambiguous statement about the right of employees voluntarily to agree with employers contracts that differ from those under the collective agreement that applies to them?
  The White Paper and the Government's words both here and in another place appear to indicate that their policy was that employees had that right, but now they have performed a complete U-turn. As was said in connection with the previous group of amendments, this is the House's last chance to discuss these important matters in detail.
  If the comments of Lord McCarthy in another place were indicative of concern among the Labour ranks, I hope that the Secretary of State is not involved in a cynical exploitation of the democratic process. With the trade union and party conference season just a few weeks away, is the Minister hoping to avoid putting in the Bill something that the unions will not like? Employees and employers want clarification of a matter that the Minister appears to want to kick into the long grass by saying that it will be dealt with in regulation rather than in the Bill.
  The Secretary of State risks incurring contempt for the ministerial statements that have been made on the matter, and he will put in jeopardy the process by which hon. Members can debate amendments tabled in another place. I hope that he will explain why he has not tabled a substantive amendment to tidy up what he might perceive as flaws in the original wording. Amendment No. 17 states only that
  "this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment."
  That is a contempt of the democratic process.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: In general, the Bill has not received much publicity, but this group of amendments—entitled "Detriment and dismissal; discrimination against part-time workers"—may soon attract a lot. The amendments go to the heart of the relationship between employers and employees.
  The White Paper is very clear. It states:
  "As under existing law, individual employees will continue to have the right, should they wish, to agree terms with their employer."
  The Bill contains only a limited definition of small firms, as we shall discuss later, but many people will continue to negotiate their own contract terms. The White Paper also states:
  "Under the existing law an employee and an employer can agree different terms if they wish. Since the current law works well, the Government see no need to change it."
  1266
  The Secretary of State should explain what the Government are trying to achieve with these amendments, which contradict the White Paper.
  I could understand the Government's approach if they considered that the amendments tabled in another place would enable employers to include discriminatory provisions in contracts to discourage trade union membership. I could understand it if the Government's aim was to ensure that people should not be pressurised not to join a union. However, why should not people be allowed to enter into contracts that they consider to be better than what they could negotiate by means of a collective agreement through a trade union?
  Many companies and businesses in this country offer such good terms of employment that trade union representation has never been necessary. I am fortunate in having a Quaker mother and a Quaker background. Many companies of Quaker origin, such as Cadbury, have offered such good terms that their employees have not felt it necessary to seek trade union recognition, but have made other arrangements for representation. Do the amendments mean that such arrangements will now be otiose? The amendments seem to suggest that, where there is a work force of more than 21 people, some form of collective agreement will be necessary. If so, that will lead to considerable confusion.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, what has been said in the other place and here will confuse many about the Government's policy objective. If the Government are simply trying to ensure that people should not be discriminated against because they want to be members of a trade union, that is fine. We would all understand that. But we do not understand the concept that individuals should not be free to negotiate better terms with their employer if they think that that is achievable. That seems to be a fundamental breach of an individual's opportunity freely to contract with his employer, and it is fundamentally against what the Government seem to have set out in their White Paper.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Collins: Conservative Members have already established that the amendments are a classic example of a typical new Labour fiasco. Initially, the Government said one thing in one place and another thing in another. They usually ensure that the places concerned are a couple of hundred miles apart. They will say one thing in a constituency by-election and an entirely different thing in London. In this instance, however, the Government have managed to say one thing at the other end of the Corridor and something entirely different at this end. Even for this Government, it is stretching the credulity of their audience a little to believe that what is said in the other place might not be compared in Hansard with what is said in this place.
  The Government have been caught out in a technique which I suspect they imported from their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, of saying different things to different audiences, but I am afraid that, in this instance, they have been caught out, and we look for a little more consistency from them.
  Another thing that I fear is becoming all too typical of the Government is that they find themselves in a drafting shambles, advancing arguments that clearly do not stand

  1267
  up. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) pointed out that the Secretary of State's argument that the amendments are somehow defective simply does not stand up. That is not consistent with what the noble Lord McIntosh said in the other place, and it is not consistent with any straightforward reading of the amendments.
  Once again, as we saw when we debated the previous group of amendments, I fear that the Government find themselves unable to accept perfectly valid and clear amendments because they seem to be determined to plough ahead regardless, no matter what the quality or source of the arguments put to them. That, again, we must regret.
  Then we come to what is perhaps the Government's greatest characteristic, and that is that they break their pledges. It is not simply that there has been confusion and inconsistency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, what amounted to a pledge was given by a Minister in the other place—not a pledge given, in that famous phrase of a few years ago, on a wet weekend in Dudley, but a pledge given by a Minister of the Crown to one of the Chambers of this Parliament that certain amendments would be brought forward. That has not occurred. I regard that as very serious, albeit that it has become part of a characteristic pattern of this Administration.
  Finally we come to a modus operandi employed by the Government which I suspect they will come to regret—kicking something into the long grass in the hope that it will never come rolling out again. The Government say that all will be dealt with in regulations, that there is nothing to worry about and that employer organisations, trade unions and so on can be entirely content that all circles will be squared, that everyone will be bought off and that everyone will be happy in the end. There is the belief that if one keeps postponing the provision of detail for a sufficient number of months, no problem will ultimately arise.
  This is the point at which the whistle has been blown. The package has been passed around for a little while and the ticking time bomb is about to go off. The Minister has clearly not succeeded in kicking it into the long grass. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton has rightly performed her duty in holding the Minister to account for the pledges made by his junior ministerial team.
  There may be a subtext to all this. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton touched on one possible subtext, which relates to the buying off of trade union friends, and that is a point to which I may return later. But there may be another subtext, and that is that the Secretary of State may not much mind what his juniors say in another place because he knows that either they or he will move next week. In either event, he may not care too much about ministerial consistency because the present happy band of brothers and sisters at the Department of Trade and Industry may be about to be broken up and dispersed. The Government Whip on the Front Bench, who is a most distinguished and admirable member of that team, and—I hope that I do not damage his prospects—someone who thoroughly deserves promotion, may also find himself part of a different ministerial team. That may be why the Minister does not care whether he is being consistent or not.
  1268
  I hope that such a short-term view has not entered the Secretary of State's calculations, but one must bear in mind that this particular piece of unhappy legislation has already borne the fingerprints of no fewer than three Secretaries of State in its transition from the initial White Paper, through the wonderful spinning regime of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who tried to pretend that it was something entirely different from what it was, to the present chair of decisions at the Department of Trade and Industry, who has found it in his in-tray and fiddled around with it.
  We do know one thing from the press reports relating to the Government reshuffle, which may explain the Secretary of State's reaction. Whatever the fate of his junior Ministers in the other place, and whatever the fate of his Whip, it is widely expected that his junior Minister of State is likely to become the equivalent of party chairman. The party chairman must ensure that all the members of the Labour party, including the trade union funding partners, are happy. That is why the Government are resisting the amendment. I can see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are following closely the way in which I am referring closely to the Government's resistance to the amendment.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton rightly pointed out, the amendment provoked unhappiness in the other place, not from any old member of the Labour Benches, but from a senior person with connections to the trade union movement. It is distinctly possible that any chairman-elect of the Labour party—as we may refer to the Minister of State—would be concerned if the trade union movement, which is instrumental in keeping the Labour party going, funding it and providing key workers in key seats, was in any way displeased.
  As we turn to the detail of the amendments, we should bear in mind the fact that the Secretary of State has a range of reasons, not all of them entirely above board or noble, for resisting the text before us. That text is clear. The Secretary of State claimed earlier that it was an attempt to spatchcock two different concepts together and that the Bill was the wrong place for it. In fact, it defines, at least in part, the "detriment" identified in clause 15(1). It is an important clarificatory measure. We must be clear what is and is not "detriment".
  I hear a nasty echo of some famous—indeed notorious—remarks made a few years ago by Roy Hattersley, then the Labour party's deputy leader. In The Guardian, he wrote that the Labour Party was not the party of equality of opportunity. That, he wrote, was the Tory party, while the Labour party was the party of equality of outcome. If that is the attitude of the Labour party, and one must assume that a former deputy leader knows something about his party's instincts, one can see why Labour Members do not like the amendment. It would permit someone who was not a member of a trade union to earn more than someone who was.
  Labour wants a wonderful world—wonderful in Labour's terms, though not in anyone else's—in which everyone who works for a specific employer is paid exactly the same. No matter how hard they work, how successful they are, how many bonuses they earn or how much they contribute to the company, they will receive no more money. That chimes with the Secretary of State's recent attack on so-called fat cats, another indication of the Government's egalitarian instincts. They are opposed

  1269
  to the idea of having different pay for different skills, aptitude or effort. Serious concern exists that they are seeking to impose a model on our industrial relations that clearly would not work.
  Socialism in all its forms has failed, particularly the state socialism of eastern Europe. The incentive principle, which lies at the heart of the amendment, is the reason why socialism will never work. Socialism prescribes equality, even where it does not exist. We stand for equality of opportunity—the then Mr. Hattersley was entirely right about that. Sadly, Labour stands for equality of outcome, and that is a very different proposition.
  The powerful case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton has not been properly addressed by the Government. We want to know their answers to her points. In particular, why does the Secretary of State say something different in the House of Commons from what another Minister said in the House of Lords barely five weeks ago? I wait with bated breath for his reply.
  Mr. Syms: I support what the noble Lords have done. Baroness Miller's remarks concluded:
  "By compelling an employee to accept a collective bargain against his will and in that way increase the power of the union over him, the Government are attempting to reintroduce the closed shop by the back door. I repeat that this would reintroduce the closed shop by the back door. That is something which the Labour Party promised it would not do. This amendment simply ensures that workers enjoy one of the most fundamental of employment rights; namely, to negotiate their own individual pay if they can strike a better bargain with their employer, possibly by being more flexible than an entrenched egalitarian position of a trade union."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 357.]
  The key point is the meaning of "detriment". The Lords amendment broadens the definition, allowing people a much clearer idea of whether it means "difference". Workers have to be flexible today, and although the amendment does not undermine anyone's right to be a member of a trade union and accept the benefits that flow from membership, some workers, perhaps because of the hours they work or the skills they have, are in a good position to negotiate their own terms and conditions.
  The amendment allows our economy to be flexible, and allows individual workers with particular skills to take the best advantage of that. My concern is with the meaning of "detriment", and whether it means difference or allows trade unions to level down rather than up. Will individuals with particular skills be able to bargain through the market to achieve the maximum benefits?
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Byers: This has been an interesting debate; I shall try to reply to the points made by Opposition Members. For the benefit of the House, I point out that the Government voted against amendment No. 17 in the House of Lords—a good demonstration that we did not accept its content. That is why we opposed it, and gave the clearest possible expression of our reservations about it.
  However, the reason for the views expressed by my noble Friends lies in the principle that we all share; it underpins the comments made by Baroness Miller and I restated it at the beginning of the debate. The principle is
  1270
  simply that employers should remain free to offer more pay or to improve benefits to individual employees; even though there may be a collective agreement, employers will have that freedom. That is what I believe in, and it will be ensured by the regulations that we shall introduce in the House—which can be debated and voted on.
  There is no disagreement about the principle that underpins our consideration of these matters. However, we do not accept the previous Conservative Government's view that individuals should be penalised because they choose to belong to a trade union, and to be part of a collective agreement. The previous Government endorsed and supported that view; the regulations that we shall introduce will allow individuals freedom of contract, but will ensure that people will not be penalised or suffer detriment because they belong to a trade union.
  Mrs. Browning: If those were Secretary of State's concerns, why was the amendment not brought back to this place in a modified form on Report? Later, on Third Reading, the Government made a slight alteration on the grounds that the amendment needed a grammatical change. Why was it not substantively changed—as was promised by Lord McIntosh? We share the Secretary of State's concern about the rights of trade union members, but there was nothing to stop him from tabling on Report the substantive amendment that was promised in another place.
  Mr. Byers: We are talking to interested parties about the detail of the regulations. I would rather do that in order to get the regulations right. Those regulations will be supported by business. People will realise that they carry the debate forward appropriately. I realise that Opposition Members find that hard to understand; they do not understand the concept of consultation—of discussing with business what might be suitable or appropriate. We believe in consultation and that, as a result of it, the regulations that we shall introduce will be all the better. [Interruption.] I know that it is difficult for Opposition Members to understand that, but that is what will happen.
  We heard a great deal about what is meant by detriment. I knew it was a mistake to use the same approach as that adopted by the previous Government in their Employment Rights Act 1996. Detriment was referred to, but no precise definition was given. We have adopted exactly the same approach.
  We are talking about introducing regulations that will do away with one of the great injustices promoted by the previous Government: that because people chose to belong to a trade union, their employer should be able to discriminate against them. We do not accept that approach. We believe that amendment No. 17, supported by the Conservatives in the House of Lords, will make it difficult to ensure that we can remove that discrimination. We believe that individuals should have the freedom to be paid more by their employer if the employer agrees, but that should not be based on penalising trade union members. We know that that is the Opposition's motive because, during their years in government, they did nothing to change matters; they did nothing to oppose discrimination against trade union members.
  I invite the House to disagree with amendment No. 17 carried in the House of Lords. We believe in fairness, not favours; we believe that the Government are for all the

  1271
  people, not just for a few. That is why we shall resist the amendment. We shall ensure that there will not be discrimination against trade union members.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I remind the House that we are dealing first with Lords amendment No. 16.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 8, line 20, at end insert—
  ("(4) The payment of higher wages or higher rates of pay or overtime or the payment of any signing on or other bonuses or the provision of other benefits having a monetary value to other workers employed by the same employer shall not constitute a detriment to any worker not receiving the same or similar payments or benefits within the meaning of subsection (l)(a) of this section so long as—

  (a) there is no inhibition in the contract of employment of the worker receiving the same from being the member of any trade union, and

  (b) the said payments of higher wages or rates of pay or overtime or bonuses or the provision of other benefits are in accordance with the terms of a contract of employment and reasonably relate to services provided by the worker under that contract,

  and paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to this Act and sections 146 and 148(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 shall be construed accordingly.")
  Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Byers.]
  The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 109.

  Division No. 268]

  [8.49 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ainger, Nick

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Alexander, Douglas

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Allan, Richard

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Ashton, Joe

  Cann, Jamie

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caplin, Ivor

  Banks, Tony

  Casale, Roger

  Barron, Kevin

  Caton, Martin

  Battle, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Chaytor, David

  Beard, Nigel

  Chidgey, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clapham, Michael

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Berry, Roger

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Best, Harold

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clelland, David

  Borrow, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cohen, Harry

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Colman, Tony

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Connarty, Michael

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Browne, Desmond

  Cousins, Jim

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cox, Tom

  Burden, Richard

  Cranston, Ross

  Burgon, Colin

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Burnett, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Burstow, Paul

  Cummings, John

  1272

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wdverh'ton SW)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Doran, Frank

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Dowd, Jim

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Drew, David

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Keetch, Paul

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Edwards, Huw

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Etherington, Bill

  Khabra, Piara S

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fisher, Mark

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Laxton, Bob

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Lepper, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flynn, Paul

  Levitt, Tom

  Follett, Barbara

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Linton, Martin

  Foulkes, George

  Lock, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Love, Andrew

  Galloway, George

  McAllion, John

  Gapes, Mike

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gardiner, Barry

  McCabe, Steve

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gerrard, Neil

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McDonnell, John

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McIsaac, Shona

  Godsiff, Roger

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McNulty, Tony

  Gorrie, Donald

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McWilliam, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Grogan, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Gunnell, John

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hain, Peter

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hancock, Mike

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Meale, Alan

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Merron, Gillian

  Healey, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Heppell, John

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hoey, Kate

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Morley, Elliot

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mudie, George

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hurst, Alan

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hutton, John

  Olner, Bill

  1273

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Spellar, John

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pearson, Ian

  Stevenson, George

  Pendry, Tom

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pike, Peter L

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Plaskitt, James

  Stott Roger

  Pope, Greg

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pound, Stephen

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Stringer, Graham

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Rammell, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rapson, Syd

  Timms, Stephen

  Raynsford, Nick

  Tipping, Paddy

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Touhig, Don

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Trickett, Jon

  Rooker, Jeff

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Rooney, Terry

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Roy, Frank

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Salter, Martin

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sanders, Adrian

  Watts, David

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  White, Brian

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sawford, Phil

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Willis, Phil

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Winnick, David

  Singh, Marsha

  Wise, Audrey

  Skinner, Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wray, James

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

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

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Snape, Peter

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. Keith Hill.

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Day, Stephen

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Duncan, Alan

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bercow, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Faber, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Fabricant, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Brazier, Julian

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fraser, Christopher

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gale, Roger

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gibb, Nick

  Burns, Simon

  Gill, Christopher

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Chope, Christopher

  Gray, James

  Clappison, James

  Green, Damian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Greenway, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Collins, Tim

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Cran, James

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  1274

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Horam, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hunter, Andrew

  Shepherd, Richard

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Spring, Richard

  Key, Robert

  Swayne, Desmond

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Syms, Robert

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Leigh, Edward

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Letwin, Oliver

  Townend, John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tredinnick, David

  Lidington, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Viggers, Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Walter, Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Wardle, Charles

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Wells, Bowen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Whittingdale, John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wilkinson, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Willetts, David

  Norman, Archie

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Page, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Paice, James

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Pickles, Eric

  Prior, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Randall, John

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  and

  Robathan, Andrew

  Mr. Keith Simpson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment disagreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19 agreed to.

  New Clause
  Lords amendment: No. 20, after clause 19, to insert the following new clause—National minimum wage: communities—
  ". The following shall be inserted after section 44 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (exclusions: voluntary workers)—
  "Religious and other communities: resident workers.
  44A.—(1) A residential member of a community to which this section applies does not qualify for the national minimum wage in respect of employment by the community.
  (2) Subject to subsection (3), this section applies to a community if—

  (a) it is a charity or is established by a charity,

  (b) a purpose of the community is to practise or advance a belief of a religious or similar nature, and

  (c) all or some of its members live together for that purpose.

  (3) This section does not apply to a community which—

  (a) is an independent school, or

  (b) provides a course of further or higher education.

  (4) The residential members of a community are those who live together as mentioned in subsection (2)(c).

  1275
  (5) In this section—

  (a) "charity" has the same meaning as in section 44, and

  (b) "independent school" has the same meaning as in section 463 of the Education Act 1996 (in England and Wales), section 135 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (in Scotland) and Article 2 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (in Northern Ireland).

  (6) In this section "course of further or higher education" means—

  (a) in England and Wales, a course of a description referred to in Schedule 6 to the Education Reform Act 1988 or Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;

  (b) in Scotland, a course or programme of a description mentioned in or falling within section 6(1) or 38 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992;

  (c) in Northern Ireland, a course of a description referred to in Schedule 1 to the Further Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 or a course providing further education within the meaning of Article 3 of that Order." "

  Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 25.
  Mr. Byers: I hope that the House will support the amendments, which reflect marked common sense on the part of the Government in dealing with these important matters. Amendment No. 20 deals with what are known as intentional communities, which are communities in which people effectively volunteer. They are often religious-based and have shared living accommodation. The people concerned have a common religious or spiritual aim. They are in a unique position.
  We received a number of representations from such groups when they saw the details of our provisions in relation to the national minimum wage. We have used the opportunity to consider those representations, and as a result have come to the conclusion, with which I hope this House will agree, that we should exclude intentional communities from the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.
  The communities, religious orders and individuals concerned have welcomed the measure. They recognise that the commitment and devotion that goes with such a life style was not intended to be affected by the National Minimum Wage Act. Only about 1,000 people are affected and, in the circumstances, we think that the provision is wholly appropriate.
  Lords amendment No. 25 would allow information to be given to Inland Revenue enforcement officers to ensure effective enforcement of the National Minimum Wage Act, but in a way that does not create an undue burden on business. I hope that that will commend it to Opposition Members.
  Mr. John Healey: My right hon. Friend will be aware that one of the successful aspects of the implementation of the minimum wage is the use of the hotline by employers to report other employers who may be paying below the minimum wage. Understandably, and rightly, they are keen not to be undercut by cowboys who
  1276
  misuse the law. Will he confirm whether the new clause that Lords amendment No. 25 would introduce would allow Inland Revenue officers who are alerted to such malpractice by an employer to pass on that information to enforcement officers, reinforcing the application and implementation of the minimum wage?
  Mr. Byers: The areas covered by Lords amendment No. 25 would allow the Inland Revenue to pass to enforcement officers information that it received during the course of discharging its responsibilities. So, provided that they were the circumstances in which the information was received, it would be passed on. I should explain the practicalities of the operation of the present system. We would expect that the sort of information that we are receiving from employers through the hotline would go to the dedicated enforcement team and not to the normal Inland Revenue personnel. Therefore, the situation that my hon. Friend described is unlikely to arise.
  It is worth noting that there have been something like 1,900 references to the telephone hotline because of people who, allegedly, were not paying the national minimum wage, and we have been able to deal with many of them. The number of employers who have been ringing up to inform the enforcement authorities about other employers who are not paying the national minimum wage has surprised many of us. As we said when we took the Bill through the House, there is much resentment among employers who are paying a reasonable wage when they know that they are being undercut by the actions of other employers.
  Lords amendment No. 25 is sensible, it would cut bureaucracy for business and would be provide a very effective way of enforcing the national minimum wage legislation. I hope that it will commend itself to the House.
  Mrs. Browning: I do not oppose Lords amendment No. 20 in principle. However, I have recognised an anomaly in its wording, which could lead to the proposed clause affecting a group of people which the Secretary of State had not intended to affect. I shall talk him through such a situation in order to gain his reassurance that such an organisational group of people should not, for reasons that I shall explain, come within the scope of the clause.
  Paragraph 2(b) of Lords amendment No. 20 says:
  "a purpose of the community is to practise or advance a belief of a religious or similar nature".
  It is the words "similar nature" that worry me. The community is either of a religious background or it is not. If it is not, but the wording "similar nature" is to apply in law—bearing in mind the fact that the other condition in the subsection requires the organisation to be an established charity or established by a charity—there is a group of people who might meet the definition in the clause who would give me cause for concern.
  Some environmental charities fund groups of people, sometimes over quite a sustained period, so that the group may become a formalised protest group in a specific location. A group of road protesters might be funded by a charitable organisation, so they would meet the definition in paragraph 2(a) of the new clause, and might be regarded as being of a "religious or similar nature" under paragraph 2(b). They would not necessarily be drawing benefits, but their day-to-day living expenses would be funded by the charity.

  1277
  I can think of a situation that occurred in my constituency, where such a group of people—
  Mr. Battle: Swampy.
  Mrs. Browning: I did indeed have the great pleasure of Swampy on my roof when some people set up their community—or a group of a "similar nature"—near my home some years ago.
  The general public often think—sometimes rightly—that such groupings of people are simply drawing benefit. That is not always the case. Some do, but not all. Those who do not sustain their day-to-day living expenses by benefit are obviously being funded, sometimes by bona fide charity moneys that reach them. None the less they would, in effect, be being paid for their living expenses, and could well be below the minimum wage.
  I do not want to give the Secretary of State false hope tonight because I do not want him to think that I am making a case for the minimum wage. I am not. I am simply suggesting to him a scenario in which a group of people might well come within the terms of the new clause simply because of the way that it is worded. The charitable condition would be met, and who is to distinguish between different groups of people who opt to live together in a community? If the full stop is not to be placed after the words
  "practise or advance a belief of a religious nature",
  the words "similar nature" could be interpreted as applying to people who share a common belief, regardless of whether that is of a religious nature.
  I am trying to help the Secretary of State here. I caution him to look very carefully at how the wording of paragraph (2)(b) might be interpreted in law, and might give sustenance to a group of people of whom he may or may not approve—I do not know—who could pray in aid this part of his legislation to use it for a purpose other than that for which it was intended. I should have thought that clarification of "or similar nature" and the difference between a belief of a religious nature and a belief of a similar nature turns on the head of a pin, but I should be very interested to know how the Secretary of State and his officials interpret those words.
  Mr. Peter Luff: I am genuinely intrigued to know the reasons that have driven the Government to allow this exemption from what is, for them, a very important piece of legislation. The Secretary of State said that only about 1,000 people would be affected by the provision; it would very much help the House to know exactly what type of people they are. I have suggested to the Government several times that other exemptions should be made from the national minimum wage legislation. It would be intriguing to know—and it is very important that the House should know before it passes this exemption—what has driven the Secretary of State to accept the logic for this group.
  In the past, I have advanced a proposition entirely commensurate with the spirit that underlies what I think is a commendable amendment. It is that quasi volunteers who involve themselves in pre-school playgroups think that they should be exempted from minimum wage legislation. These are people who share a common belief
  1278
  about the value of education. They do not live together but they are often people who do not want the money that comes from their work. They have the reward of enjoying the fulfilment that comes from helping young people to develop their skills. Yet the Government have robustly rejected the view that these quasi volunteers should be excluded from the minimum wage legislation.
  9.15 pm
  I have a high regard for religious communities. In the past, I have been on retreat on many occasions to religious communities, mainly in France. I do not recall having done so in this country. That being so, I do not want to undermine the importance of the exemption. I want to know why the Government have been moved to accept the amendment, which excludes religious communities from minimum wage legislation when there are so many other groups that could argue with equal legitimacy that the cause they espouse and the views and beliefs that they hold about the value of education—for example, pre-school playgroups—are as valid as the religious beliefs held by communities.
  The first question that the Secretary of State must answer is why a particular group has been singled out for what seems to be a reasonable exclusion. I would like to know also from the Secretary of State exactly what type of person is affected. He talked of about 1,000 people. These are presumably not the nuns and monks of religious communities and their opposite numbers. They are the—[Interruption.] The Minister said something from a sedentary position and I could not hear what he said. If he genuinely wants to intervene, I shall find it helpful to have clarification.
  I am wondering about gardeners, cooks and groundsmen at communities, for example. If they are included, that is fine. Who is the employee? I do not know how the law operates in this respect. We are not dealing with limited liability companies, particularly when talking about religious communities. Apparently, communities will have to have charitable status. Employment by the community is clearly important.
  I would be interested to know whether the Secretary of State has received any representations from communities that think that they should be caught by the exemption but that do not qualify for charitable status.
  I am particularly worried about clause 2(b), which states:
  "a purpose of the community is to practise or advance a belief of a religious or similar nature".
  I take up what my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said from the Opposition Front Bench about environmental groups. If the amendment were genuinely providing an exemption for religious communities, "the principal purpose" and not "a purpose" should be in the Bill. I share all the reservations that have already been expressed about "or similar nature", which flows after religious beliefs. This opens a Pandora's box for not only legitimate religious groups from the Roman Catholic and the Anglican monastic traditions, which I assume will be the principal beneficiaries of the exemption, but for all sorts of dubious religious cults, whose practices I do not think we would want to condone. Often such cults have a community for the practising or the advancing of
  "a belief of a religious or similar nature".

  1279
  The phrase "or similar nature" takes a particular salience because the rather dubious religious cults, on which I am sure the Government have a wary eye, as did the previous Conservative Government, often have much more money than the Anglican and Roman Catholic communities and other religious communities that are entirely properly being exempted under the Bill.
  It would seem that cults may be capable of abusing the spirit of the national minimum wage legislation. They have much more resources at their disposal than the Anglican and Roman Catholic communities and many more employees. I am concerned that the amendment may be opening the door not to 1,000 exemptions but many more from the national minimum wage legislation.
  Mr. Collins: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying about the potential danger of including cults. Is not that danger reinforced by the fact that many cults try to tell those who fall within their embrace that they are entering a completely different world from the outside world and that they must cut off all contact with it? Exemption from important statutory provisions will only reinforce that sense of being apart from the rest of the world.
  Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I appreciate that, by definition, volunteers cannot be caught by national minimum wage legislation—at least, I hope they cannot—but those who are at the penumbra of such cults, who are employed in some sense by that bigger community, may indeed fall victim to the situation that my hon. Friend describes.
  We need to know much more from the Secretary of State about those 1,000 people who he says will be exempted by the measure, welcome though it is in principle.
  Subsection (2)(c) states that
  "all or some of its members live together for that purpose."
  That is exceptionally loose drafting. What, in law, does "some" constitute? Is it a half, a quarter, a third, a fifth, two or three? How many does "some" constitute for this purpose? There is huge scope for creative abuse of the exemption.
  I say again that I am not a huge fan of the national minimum wage legislation. Good employers should pay a decent wage, and I condemn those who do not. The Government have no business meddling. I oppose such legislation, and I resent being told when I oppose it that I am not part of the new one-nation strain of new Labourism. However, if we are to have legislation, it must be good legislation. It must not be open to abuse.
  There is nothing hypocritical in the Opposition saying that we oppose legislation, but, if it is to be introduced, it must work. I worry that the loose definitions that feature in amendment No. 20 could open the Government's legislation to considerable abuse.
  I imagine that the exemption in subsection (3)(a)—
  "This section does not apply to a community which—
  (a) is an independent school"—
  is intended to exempt communities such as Ampleforth. Clearly, where there is large-scale employment of teachers, it is reasonable for the Government to make such an exemption, but I would welcome clarification of that.
  I go back to my opening remarks. If we are exempting independent schools, I want to know why we are not exempting other categories, particularly the pre-school
  1280
  play groups, which have a common belief and value education. The people who work for them do so not primarily for the money, but for the joy of bringing up children. If the Government are prepared to make an exemption for religious communities—which may be right, subject to the caveats that I have entered—why are they not prepared to consider exemptions for other communities which may not be residential, but have a shared belief and are essentially voluntary in nature?
  Mr. Chidgey: I return to the Secretary of State's opening remarks, which seem to have been made quite a long while ago. He mentioned that he had listened carefully to the arguments advanced by a number of groups. He is right. In Committee, there was a great deal of discussion and debate about the exemptions for particular groups which, because of their religious principles, could not continue to organise themselves and the way in which they worked if the law was passed and affected them.
  Much of that discussion took place during the debate on employment relations and trade union recognition. Can the Minister tell me—I may have missed it in my reading of the Lords amendments—what has happened to the plea from those groups that they should be exempted from trade union recognition? As I recall, that was one of their principal problems. With their fundamental belief in the Old Testament, which they quoted to many of us, they could not operate their workshops if they had to allow trade union recognition ballots to take place. They could not do that and hold true to their beliefs.
  If I recall correctly, the Minister of State said at the time that there would be further discussion and clarification, and that regulations would be produced in due course to address the issue.
  I am a little surprised to see a Lords amendment dealing with the national minimum wage, but no mention of the problem of trade union recognition. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State could advise me of the progress that has been made in the negotiations and when we can expect regulations or legislation to satisfy the genuine concerns of those groups.
  Mr. Robert Syms: I shall echo a few of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who made a persuasive case. Conservative Members do not support the minimum wage, but we support good employment practices and, because other groups are not being exempted, we believe that exempting particular groups in such a way is fiddling. I believe that most of us have concerns about that matter. In the summer, I visited a pre-school playgroup in Newtown in my constituency that had made two helpers redundant. The employers felt very sad about doing that because, although those helpers were not paid a great deal, they did not qualify for the minimum wage. Why should people who work in pre-school playgroups be considered to be less worthy than members of some of those other groups? I am not sure.
  The Secretary of State said that the amendment will affect 1,000 people, but I think that we need to hear a little more about how the Government arrived at that figure and who those people are. The drafting is a little wide and proposed subsection (2)(a) refers to a community that
  "is a charity or is established by a charity".

  1281
  I am not worried about the charity aspect, because the Charity Commissioners apply pretty stringent standards, but the term "established by a charity" is rather unclear and I have concerns about it. Proposed subsection (2)(b) states:
  "a purpose of the community is to practise or advance a belief of a religious or similar nature".
  There is a problem with the term "a purpose". If the term "the purpose" had been used, the drafting would have been better and the provision would have been rather more specific. I am also concerned about the term "similar nature", which is ill defined. Religion covers a pretty broad area, but most of us would agree about what is and is not a religion. The term "similar nature" is rather more nebulous, however, and I am not sure that we would all agree about what it means.
  We in Poole have had experience of cults. Some of them profess to be religions and to have particular spiritual values, but I am not sure that most of my constituents would want them to be treated in the same way as reputable religious orders, particularly because some cults have bad reputations in communities such as Poole. Proposed subsection (2)(c) refers to
  "all or some of its members"
  living "together for that purpose." Again, the drafting has been widely drawn and the measure should be rather more specific. Does that term mean a household or a very small proportion of the membership of a particular organisation? We need a little more specific information from those on the Treasury Bench about whom the measure will help.
  We are discussing religious communities and we know that people have deeply held beliefs. One would welcome the measure in principle, but it has been widely drafted and one is concerned that, although its objective is worthy, organisations that are not worthy of that objective will make use of it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire said, why should some groups be able to use the "similar aspects" provision in order to be considered more worthy than pre-school playgroups or other bodies that contribute to communities in my constituency and in many others? Those bodies do a very good job, but, although they do a great deal for young children, they are not exempt from the legislation. They will suffer under it and I want clarification from Ministers.
  Mr. Robert Key: I have been wondering whether I should declare any interests before contributing to the debate and I think that I should declare two, neither of which is pecuniary: the first is that I am the Member of Parliament for Stonehenge; the second is that I am an adviser to the Almshouse Association.
  Thousands of people in this country live in almshouses of ancient foundations. Many of those foundations are religious—notably Christian—and such people live in communities to which a number of special exemptions apply—in respect of television licences for particular categories of people, for example. That is a bona fide reason why the association should benefit from certain legislative proposals that come before the House from time to time.
  Nevertheless, I have great trouble when discussing things "of a … similar nature" to almshouses. It is astonishing that the House should be asked even to
  1282
  consider that wording without a proper explanation of what is meant. I am seriously wondering whether to support the amendment.
  9.30 pm
  The Almshouse Association represents more than 1,000 almshouses, which have been established down the years. It cares for thousands of people, thus saving the taxpayer and the state enormous cost. We should be grateful for that. In recent years, there have been a number of cases in which the almshouses have not been sure whether they should be regarded as religious or non-religious, communities or not communities. This wording would allow another confusion to creep in. The almshouses employ carers, cleaners and cooks. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is particularly knowledgeable about this subject and would have wished to take part in this debate if only I had managed to contact him in time. Were he here, he would agree with every word that I have said.
  When it comes to these exemptions, the question whether a community advances
  "a belief of a religious or similar nature"
  is extremely important. Therefore, the Almshouse Association has a legitimate interest in knowing exactly what is meant by that wording. I doubt whether it could tell from the provision before us.
  Mrs. Browning: Is not this problem caused by the fact that a flaw in the drafting of the Government's minimum wage legislation calls into question a range of payments that we would normally have regarded as honorariums? People for whom some reward is given, but for whom no exceptional circumstances are provided, suddenly fall foul of the legislation.
  Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right, and countless examples could back up her case. That is just part of my concern about the amendment.
  I shall now deal with Stonehenge. Some may feel that this is not a serious issue; I assure them, that for my constituents, it is extremely serious. We have seen what happened there recently. A large number of people, who regard themselves as a community and who practise a belief of a religious nature, were denied access to the summer solstice at the stones by others who thought that they had what might be called "a similar nature" approach to the problem. There was a battle in which, unfortunately, the police had to hold both groups apart and maintain public order in the process.
  Although we may not think that the druids have a serious religion, they think so, and we live in a tolerant society that should acknowledge that they have the right to that belief. Only yesterday, I was with the arch druid of Stonehenge, with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the chairman of English Heritage, discussing the future of Stonehenge and the appropriateness of the Stonehenge landscape for events to celebrate the millennium.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Gentleman care to address his remarks to the national minimum wage?
  Mr. Key: The national minimum wage is of fundamental importance to the issue because, at the height

  1283
  of the troubles at Stonehenge 15 years ago, there was a great deal of employment, which was based on the occupation of land owned by the National Trust or managed by English Heritage on behalf of the Government and the nation. There is concern that, at the millennium solstice, as you will see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, next time you push the right buttons on your personal computer, the biggest rave ever is to take place at Stonehenge. Tens of thousands of people across the country may want to come to Stonehenge. The last time that happened, hundreds of people were involved in trading at Stonehenge, in association with a number of cults that thought they were religions. They were concerned that there should be a proper market price for their products. I saw what was on sale. The hell's angels were in control of the sale of alcohol.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having great difficulty understanding how the hon. Member's remarks relate to the amendment. He should make his remarks specifically about the amendment.
  Mr. Key: I shall do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  In those days, there was no national minimum wage, but now there is. Will the people gathering at Stonehenge for the millennium or on the ninth day of the ninth month of the 99th year, for the winter solstice or the spring equinox, let alone for next year's summer solstice, be subject to the minimum wage when they trade in alcohol or food on the site at Stonehenge? This is of great importance.
  The amendment is unclear. What does it mean by
  "of a religious or similar nature"?
  Not only do the druids think that they are a religion, but so do other people who regularly descend on my constituents, such as the hell's angels, Swampy and friends or whoever. If they are law-abiding members of the community, that is fine by us. However, we have enough trouble with the Wiltshire constabulary having to enforce the laws on public order. What is the chief constable of Wiltshire to do when it comes to enforcing the national minimum wage at the stones?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is not able to address the amendment more directly, he should consider drawing his remarks to a close.
  Mr. Key: I should be delighted to draw my remarks to a close, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I question the purpose of the amendment. I ask Ministers seriously to address this issue. My predecessor, Sir Michael Hamilton, regularly stood up in the House and was gently chided, perhaps mocked, for drawing attention to the problems each year at Stonehenge, which always made the national headlines during the summer solstice. Eventually, someone saw what was going on down there—people were being killed and murdered—and the House came to its senses and passed the required legislation.
  I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your forbearance in hearing me out. The amendment will do no good for real people in real communities. We may think that we are legislating for completely rational, legally minded people, but lawyers and courts will have to interpret the legislation, and the police will have to
  1284
  decide how to enforce it on the ground in the height of summer, among serried ranks of people with conflicting religious beliefs. That is not fair. We must get answers to the questions that I have raised.
  Mr. Collins: I shall be brief, but I should like to make some important points. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) in welcoming the fact that the Government have introduced the proposals for exemptions. However, it is not that long since the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 was passed. At the time of its passage, Conservative Members warned the then Secretary of State that the Government would need a general power to exempt some categories of persons and activities from the national minimum wage. That idea was pooh-poohed by Labour Members. This is the second time in barely a year that the Government have had the chance to introduce special legislation to exempt categories of people from the national minimum wage. First it was au pairs, and now it is workers in residence in religious communities.
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) asked about religious communities, and the position of those who have sought exemption from the requirement for trade union recognition. The hon. Gentleman and I served on the Standing Committee that considered the relevant parts of the Bill, which related in particular to those who describe themselves as members of the Plymouth Brethren. I suspect that the Secretary of State will say that they would not fall into the categories specified by the amendment, because most of those who work for the Plymouth Brethren are not residential members of the community. Nevertheless, I feel that the hon. Member for Eastleigh has identified an important issue of principle.
  Mr. Chidgey: The amendment says that "some" can be residents. Does that not cover such people?
  Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I really want to deal with what I consider to be the heart of the point that he was making. We are dealing with an issue of principle. In Committee, the Minister of State was quite generous, expressing a strong commitment to people's right to follow their religious beliefs. However, he said that it was wrong for those religious beliefs to remove the rights of employees. It was on that basis that the Government rejected the amendments relating to the Plymouth Brethren, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson).
  If that principle applies across the board—not least in other parts of the Bill—surely it ought to apply in this case. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the Government recognise that there are religious grounds on which exemptions should be made—and I welcome any such recognition—why, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh has said, should that not apply to trade union recognition? If the Government now believe that religious considerations provide legitimate grounds for the changing of employment rights, why does that not apply throughout the Bill?
  The Government may say that the issue involves not just religious issues, but the residential members of the community who are mentioned in new section 44A(1). The residential principle is at heart here. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire said

  1285
  about certain groups—including, perhaps, the Pre-School Learning Alliance—but I think particularly of people in my constituency. I think of the secretary of the national training centre of the YMCA at Lakeside in my constituency, on the shores of Lake Windermere, who wants residential training courses there to be exempted from the national minimum wage provisions. I also think of Mr. Michael Berry, proprietor and managing director of the excellent English Lakes hotel chain in my constituency, who says that the provisions do not take enough account of the fact that most employees in the tourist industry are provided with residential accommodation. That ought to be considered in the assessment of their eligibility for the national minimum wage, and the amount that they receive.
  I want the Secretary of State to explain the principles that apply. If there are to be religious exemptions, why do they not apply elsewhere? If there are to be residential exemptions, why do they not apply elsewhere? If the Government are simply acting in response to popular pressure, will the Secretary of State please listen to some of the points made by the Pre-School Learning Alliance, and by others who feel that the Government's actions, although doubtless embarked on with the best of motives, will have damaging consequences?
  Mr. Byers: Although a number of the points that have been made touched on the amendment, a much larger number did not. I shall confine my remarks to those that are relevant to it.
  I know that the question of the Plymouth Brethren concerns hon. Members. We have engaged in continuing discussions with the Brethren about their circumstances. My noble Friend Lord Simon met members of the organisation last week, and they are now writing to him about their concerns. We will continue that dialogue, but it will not dilute the general principle that we have pursued. We believe that individuals should have a right to trade union membership if they feel that it is appropriate, and that there should be a right to trade union recognition and representation when that is appropriate. Nevertheless, there may be opportunities for us to meet the legitimate concerns of the Brethren, and we are discussing with them how that might be achieved.
  9.45 pm
  For the benefit of hon. Members, I make the position clear. The minimum wage does not apply to volunteers, to nuns or to monks; they are exempt from the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. When the issue was debated in both Houses in the context of the national minimum wage, most people felt that intentional communities would not be considered as workers within the definition of the Act. What people were unaware of at the time was that individuals in intentional communities are often given employment contracts as best practice. Although, in the classic definition, they are not employees, they are given contracts of employment because that is regarded as best practice, so they fall within the definition of the Act.
  Lords amendment No. 20 focuses particularly on those with a religious ethos who are resident. To qualify for exemption, the community must be a charity, or founded by a charity and—as hon. Members have said—all or some of the members must reside together for the purpose
  1286
  of practising or advancing a belief of "a religious or similar nature". I will talk about "religious or similar nature" because it has been dwelt on by several Members.
  Examples of the type of communities that will be covered by amendment No. 20 are the Iona Community, the Society of Mary and Martha, the Community for Reconciliation and the Quiet Waters Christian retreat house. The amendment has been drawn up in consultation with those bodies. There is, effectively, a network of intentional communities in the United Kingdom. We were conscious that it was an identifiable group. We took the view that it could be exempt from the National Minimum Wage Act.
  I reassure hon. Members: the protesters whom we have heard about would not come within the definition. The reason is that, when a court considers the interpretation of "religious or similar nature", it will apply a rule of statutory interpretation which is known as the ejusdem generis rule, which means that the general comment about "similar" will be restricted to the specific, which is religious. I am sure that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) was aware of that rule of statutory interpretation. Therefore, the reference to "similar nature" will be constrained by the use of the word "religious". In the context of those assurances, I hope that we can make progress.
  A number of issues have been raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) had concerns about the wording:
  "all or some of its members live together".
  In that context, "some" means more than one. Although we talk about all living together, there will be circumstances in which 50 people may be engaged, but only 35 are living together, so that definition of "some" has been used. In that context, those 35 will be the ones who come within the provisions of the exemption to which I have referred and which is being dealt with by amendment No. 20.
  I enjoyed what the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said. I have visited many of the places that he mentioned on many weekends. I thought of the shores of Lake Windermere with great affection. It is a wonderful place to go on holiday. I commend it to many Members; it is something that I am sure we could all enjoy.
  Mr. Battle: We could form an intentional community.
  Mr. Byers: I am not sure that we would be able to form an intentional community within the context of the amendment, but the opportunity and the chance of doing so may be interesting.
  The specific point raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was in relation to living-in costs. They often arise in the hospitality and hotel industry, where people work as chamber maids or porters, but have their accommodation provided. The National Minimum Wage Act considered that aspect and agreed an effective disregard; I think that it was for living-in costs of £19.50. However, it is capped at that level. Concerns have been expressed that that is artificially low for people in the hotel and catering industry, and for people in London, where £19.50 is considered to be a relatively small amount.

  1287
  One of the reasons for the Government's retention of the Low Pay Commission was so that it could examine the detail of issues such as that. As part of its on-going work, the commission is looking at the costs of living-in accommodation, to see whether the amount is pitched at the correct level.
  The commission intends to report to me just before December on a range of matters, and I am sure that the question of living-in accommodation will be one of the issues to which it will return. Indeed, it has already made it clear that it is taking evidence on the matter. A number of groups have made strong representations about the matter, and I am sure that it will feature in the Low Pay Commission's report.
  I said that a number of groups, such as volunteers, nuns and monks, are exempt. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) was worried about protesters benefiting from the provision. I hope that I have been able to explain that they would not be covered by the details of the amendment. All that would happen is that they would not receive the benefits of the national minimum wage. I am not sure that Swampy could have been regarded as an employee when he was on the hon. Lady's roof. I doubt that he would have qualified for the national minimum wage, and I do not think that the hon. Lady was keen for him to be entitled to it.
  Mrs. Browning: Certainly not.
  Mr. Byers: I followed with interest the hon. Lady's argument, but I could not identify the problem that she was trying to tackle in her example. I do not believe that protesters are covered by the provisions of the amendment. If they were, however, the amendment would mean simply that Swampy and his friends would not be entitled to the national minimum wage.
  Mrs. Browning: My concern was that not all protesters who are unemployed claim benefit, but instead receive some remuneration, sometimes from charitable donations. Under the amendment, they could be regarded as a community with a common cause and, because the amendment is so loosely worded, such a community need not be religious.
  Mr. Byers: I understand that concern, but I do not think that it need trouble the hon. Lady. The important thing to remember is that such people have to be residents of intentional communities, sharing living accommodation and tasks with the purpose of advancing a common religious or spiritual aim.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: The Secretary of State is talking about us.
  Mr. Byers: I am very tempted to go down that road, but I shall resist doing so, because the hon. Gentleman was referring to a very selective sect.
  The basic requirement for classification as an intentional community is that the community provides meals and accommodation. Residential members of such communities often also receive small sums. Some communities treat their residential members as workers, issuing them with contracts of employment.
  1288
  That is the key difference from the example given by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton. As part of best practice, intentional communities consider it appropriate to issue members with contracts of employment, even though there is no legal obligation to do so.
  The hon. Member for Salisbury spoke about Stonehenge so eloquently that I am sure that many hon. Members will want to visit. I was trying to recall whether the monument could be regarded as residential accommodation.
  Mr. Key indicated assent.
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman clearly knows the area far better than I do.
  Mr. Peter Brooke: In the light of the Secretary of State's residential observation, is he aware of the Frank Muir spoof, which one used to be able to listen to on British Airways flights to the United States? Frank Muir was conducting an interview between the editor of The Architectural Review and a cave man about the architectural development of the henge, in which the cave man said that he did not think that henges would catch on because they were much too draughty.
  Mr. Byers: That may explain a lot about our history. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was about to give an example from "The Goon Show"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Secretary of State could return to the amendment.
  Mr. Byers: I was thinking of the episode involving the Spitfire test pilot where there was banging on the cockpit. I had better not go any further.
  I wanted to address the serious points about Stonehenge and residential accommodation, and I know that the House is waiting for my response on behalf of the Government on the important point concerning the druids. Before I come to that, I note that the hon. Member for Salisbury asked about almshouses and their staff. Staff, such as cooks and cleaners, who work in almshouses are working for the Almshouse Association and, as such, are not required to share a common religious belief or to live together in shared accommodation. Therefore, they would not be covered by amendment No. 20 which has been agreed by the other place, so they would not be exempt from the National Minimum Wage Act.
  Druids, as I understand it, are not a registered charity. Therefore, for the reasons that have been referred to, they do not come within the definition to which amendment No. 20 relates. If they did become a charity and moved into shared accommodation for the purpose of advancing the druid movement, they might be exempt from the national minimum wage, but—this is the important point—anyone who worked for them would be entitled to receive the national minimum wage and would not be covered by amendment No. 20.
  Both amendments are significant. We have discussed amendment No. 20 at some length and I hope that I have answered the concerns of all hon. Members. Amendment No. 25 is particularly important because it is an effective way of enforcing the national minimum wage legislation. For those reasons, I invite the House to agree to amendment No. 20.
  Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 0.

  Division No. 269]

  [9.58 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cox, Tom

  Ainger, Nick

  Cranston, Ross

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Allan, Richard

  Cummings, John

  Allen, Graham

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Ashton, Joe

  Dalyell, Tam

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Darvill, Keith

  Banks, Tony

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Barron, Kevin

  Davidson, Ian

  Battle, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Beard, Nigel

  Dawson, Hilton

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Denham, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Doran, Frank

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Dowd, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Drew, David

  Berry, Roger

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Best, Harold

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blackman, Liz

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Borrow, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Etherington, Bill

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Flint, Caroline

  Burden, Richard

  Flynn, Paul

  Burgon, Colin

  Follett, Barbara

  Burnett, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Burstow, Paul

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Foulkes, George

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Cann, Jamie

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gerrard, Neil

  Casale, Roger

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Chaytor, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Chidgey, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clapham, Michael

  Gorrie, Donald

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Gunnell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hain, Peter

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hancock, Mike

  Colman, Tony

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Connarty, Michael

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Healey, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Heppell, John

  1290

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hoey, Kate

  Morley, Elliot

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mudie, George

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mullin, Chris

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hurst, Alan

  Olner, Bill

  Hutton, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pearson, Ian

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pendry, Tom

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Pound, Stephen

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Purchase, Ken

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Rapson, Syd

  Keetch, Paul

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kidney, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rooney, Terry

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Roy, Frank

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Ruddock, Joan

  Laxton, Bob

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Lepper, David

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Leslie, Christopher

  Salter, Martin

  Levitt, Tom

  Sanders, Adrian

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Linton, Martin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lock, David

  Sawford, Phil

  Love, Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAllion, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCabe, Steve

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Singh, Marsha

  Macdonald, Calum

  Skinner, Dennis

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

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

  McWalter, Tony

  Snape, Peter

  McWilliam, John

  Soley, Clive

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Spellar, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stevenson, George

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Merron, Gillian

  Stott Roger

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stringer, Graham

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  1291

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Watts, David

  White, Brian

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Timms, Stephen

  Willis, Phil

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wilson, Brian

  Touhig, Don

  Winnick, David

  Trickett, Jon

  Wise, Audrey

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wray, James

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Tyler, Paul

  Wyatt, Derek

  Vaz, Keith

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Mr. Keith Hill.

  NOES

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. Bill Rammell and

  Mr. Martin Caton.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

Business of the House
10.10 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): In view of the lack of progress on business this week, the business for tomorrow will now be: consideration of an allocation of time motion on the Employment Relations Bill and on the Food Standards Bill—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The House must listen to the Leader of the House.
Mrs. Beckett: That will be followed by conclusion of the remaining stages of the Food Standards Bill. I shall announce in my business statement tomorrow the arrangements for the completion of Lords amendments to the Employment Relations Bill.
Sir George Young: That is an extraordinary over-reaction to what has been happening this evening. In the debate that has just concluded, the Secretary of State spoke for longer than any of my hon. Friends: he spoke for 15 minutes and included references to "The Goon Show" and to Spitfire pilots. If anybody has been wasting time, it has been the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. As for the Employment Relations Bill, nearly all the remaining amendments are Government amendments and there are only two brief issues which my hon. Friends want to debate, so there is no reason at all to conclude the discussion on that Bill. Finally, what has happened between last Thursday's business statement and tonight's to justify guillotining the Food Standards Bill?
Mrs. Beckett: What has happened between last week's business statement and tonight's is clear to most hon. Members. We have had a substantial amount of time wasted—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"]—yes, wasted, although I accept not necessarily by the official Opposition as such. Time has been taken up in the House. The Opposition—[Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members asking questions if they do not want to listen to the answer. The Opposition have every right to use time in the House—that is their legitimate right and duty. It is also the right and duty of the Government to protect their business and to protect private Members' time.
The course of events over this week led the Government to have some anxiety about the progress of the Food Standards Bill. The official Opposition were offered a programme motion on the Bill, which is an uncontentious Bill that has had pre-legislative scrutiny. That offer was rejected. The Government are anxious to make sure that private Members' time on Friday is not jeopardised by individual Members dealing with the business tomorrow. That is what has happened between last week's business statement and tonight's.
Mr. Paul Tyler: This is surely an extraordinary situation. One of my colleagues has just said to me, "Try to rearrange these words: piss-up, brewery, organise". [Interruption.] This is an extraordinary and

1293
unnecessary announcement made at very short notice. Without any warning or consultation, the Government have suddenly changed their whole programme of business.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I do not think that that kind of language does the House any credit or helps the situation.
Mr. Tyler: Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the House is treated in the way it has been treated by the Government in the past few minutes, you can understand why there are angry people in the Chamber tonight. There has been no consultation and no opportunity for the opposition parties to put their points of view. I believe that the handling of the Food Standards Bill, in particular, is a disgrace. There is no evidence whatsoever that the House would not treat with great care the proposals that were to be put before it tomorrow. Yet the Government have announced a guillotine motion.
We on these Benches have always been prepared to discuss programme motions, but we have not had an opportunity to have those discussions about this Bill or the Food Standards Bill. We find it quite extraordinary that the Leader of the House should come to the House at short notice—as though the business could not be handled on several days next week.
We are prepared to be flexible. I hope that the Leader of the House will reconsider her attitude, particularly regarding tomorrow's business, and will be prepared to speak to the Opposition parties through the usual channels to see whether we can reach agreement. That is surely the best way for the House to consider the business of the House and to afford proper scrutiny to this important legislation.
Mrs. Beckett: In one sense, the hon. Gentleman made a perfectly sensible and legitimate point at the end of his remarks. He said that it ought to be possible to reach agreement about tomorrow's business, which is uncontentious and has pre-legislative scrutiny.
Mr. Alan Duncan: You did not even try.
Mrs. Beckett: That is rubbish. If such an agreement were possible, the Government would give it favourable consideration. However, because it has not been possible to reach such an agreement and because the Government are not prepared to risk either the Food Standards Bill tomorrow or the private Members' business that follows it, we have made this proposal.
If, in the aftermath of this statement, cast-iron assurances can be given and delivered, the Government will consider the matter properly. However, the hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for some time and he was here all this week and last week. What confidence does he have that those assurances will be delivered?
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader of the House explain to the House of Commons and to the country why she wishes to curtail discussion and debate on this legislation and the Food Standards Bill when we are about to enter one of the longest parliamentary recesses that this
1294
country has ever seen? Surely we can cut down the time of the recess and enlarge the opportunities for hon. Members to discuss important legislation.
Mrs. Beckett: That is a brilliant example of exactly what I am talking about. I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman thought for a second about checking his facts. If he had, he would know that there were far longer parliamentary recesses under the Government that he supported. Indeed, the recess that we have proposed is only slightly longer than the recess during the same stage in the previous Parliament. So that is absolute rubbish.
As for the hon. Gentleman's point about curtailing discussion, the Government do not intend to curtail discussion either on this legislation or on the Food Standards Bill. We intend to have that discussion in proper time and to come to a proper conclusion. That is what people such as the hon. Gentleman do not like.
Mr. James Paice: Although the principle of the Food Standards Bill may not be contentious, a number of items within it are, and that is the reason for several of the amendments that have been tabled by Conservative and other Members who want a serious debate. The right hon. Lady said that the Bill had had pre-legislative scrutiny, but the relevant Committee did not go through the Bill line by line in the way a Bill should be examined in Standing Committee and on Report.
On one occasion, the Government rejected the views of the right hon. Lady's own Labour-dominated Committee which conducted the pre-legislative scrutiny. The House has every reason to question the Government again and to challenge them to say why they rejected the views of the Labour-dominated Committee that considered the Bill.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has, no doubt mistakenly, made the case for the proposal that I have just made, as he appears to be saying—he may not mean it—that he will demand not proper debate, which the Government have no intention of denying, but the kind of line-by-line scrutiny and detailed debate for which there has been no call at any business statement when I have announced the timetable for the consideration of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has not even attended any business questions in recent weeks. There has been a repeated pattern of Conservative Members not even showing up when we announce the business of the House, and they have not raised the issue of there not being enough time. Now they turn up at the last minute and say, "We need another five days." I say: no.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Lady will know that I am of a very passive disposition. We share membership of the Modernisation Committee, and at many of its meetings she has said that she looks to avoid using timetable motions. She will be aware that, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I am also concerned, as I am sure she is, that the House should have procedures whereby legislation that the Government bring before the House for the benefit of the nation is adequately scrutinised.

1295
Will the right hon. Lady read her Government's White Paper, "Our Healthier Nation", which gives 10 tips for better health? Tip No. 4 states:
"Manage stress by, for example, talking things through and making time to relax."
I wish the right hon. Lady a happy recess, but will she please assure me that she will allow the House to do as the White Paper advises?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure that the House would recognise "passive" as an accurate description of the hon. Gentleman. As a matter of fact, he is one of the more active Members of the House. He is absolutely right to say that in the Modernisation Committee and elsewhere, the Government have made it plain, as I have done as Leader of the House, that we seek to avoid the use of guillotines if possible, and seek programme motions instead. He will recall that I mentioned earlier that we sought a programme motion on the Food Standards Bill, which the House will debate tomorrow.
I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view that there must be proper, adequate scrutiny. I know that he has experience of programme motions facilitating such scrutiny. There is common ground between most hon. Members in that we want sensible timetabling of business, and proper, adequate debate and scrutiny. Most of us do not want to waste time.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Will the Leader of the House accept that, having come downstairs from a Select Committee, I have sat in the Chamber for almost all the time since then in a way that has not been matched by the majority of the hon. Members behind her who are shouting? Will she further accept that in the debate on amendment No. 15, which was in my view one of the most serious debates that has ever taken place in the House during my time here, the Secretary of State, quite properly, spoke for almost as long as all the Opposition Members who contributed? If such debates are to be curtailed in this way, that will be to the Government's discredit.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point and, of course, I respect his experience in this matter, but I am sure that he will have noticed that I was careful to say that it was the progress and the general climate of the handling of business over the week as a whole that led to the Government's concern. There is nothing that the Government would have liked better than measured progress on tonight's business and the assurance that progress on tomorrow's business will also be measured and sensible and that it will reach the conclusion that we all want by the House's coming to a decision. Anxieties were raised not only that tonight's business might to some degree be in jeopardy but that tomorrow's business and private Members' time might be in jeopardy. The Government did not feel that we ought to run that risk.
Mr. Peter Luff: I agree with the Leader of the House when she says that the conduct of this week's business has prompted this decision, because the Government wasted a whole day of the House's time on Monday with the Second Reading of a Bill which will have to be reintroduced in the next Session. Does she understand that the unfortunate victim of the
1296
Government's mishandling of their own business, which was designed simply to save the Deputy Prime Minister's face, is the Food Standards Bill, which the Government have scandalously mishandled? Pre-legislative scrutiny was unacceptably rushed, as I pointed out to her in detail when the Bill was referred to the Special Select Committee. It has been rushed through Standing Committee, and now we are told, extraordinarily, that it is to be programmed, yet we have no hint of how the House will deal with it.
The Food Standards Bill is important, and if the Government took it seriously, as I am sure they do—I know that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food certainly does—they would have provided Monday or a day next week to debate it. Such a programme motion as is proposed is completely unacceptable. I urge the Leader of the House in all sincerity to reconsider her statement.
Mrs. Beckett: As I hope that I have already made plain, it is the Government's intention that the Food Standards Bill will be properly scrutinised tomorrow and that proceedings can be brought to a proper conclusion. I know that the hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends have sympathy with and support for some of the issues behind the Bill; we share their concern in that respect. It is because we are determined not to jeopardise that that we have chosen to take precautionary steps.
As for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Monday's business, I simply draw to his attention the fact that, to my recollection, a minimum of two hours was taken up outside the discussion of business. Indeed, that would have gone on much longer had not the Deputy Speaker allowed a closure motion to be moved. It is the Government's lack of certainty about proper progress of business—not just as a result of the official Opposition, although I remind the hon. Gentleman that they did not agree to a programme motion on the Bill—that has led us reluctantly to take this step.
Mr. Douglas Hogg rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Lady speaks of a lack of certainty, but I suggest that she consult the Board, because she will find that during the previous debate the Government Front Bencher spoke for 69 minutes and the Opposition Front Bencher for 26 minutes. On that basis, may I ask what possible reason there is for calling an end to tonight's debate and imposing a guillotine?
Mrs. Beckett: You will have observed, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have observed it if he had been listening—that I have been referring not solely to the progress of tonight's business but to the cumulative effect of this week. If we are talking about taking up time frivolously, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has an honourable place in the canons of this House.
Mr. Peter Snape: Are you aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that what we are listening to is the usual public school end-of-term froth from the Conservative party? Some of the more stupid

1297
Conservative Members have been behaving in this infantile way all week. As for the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who has just asked a question, what does he know about the conduct of tonight's business? He has, after all, been sitting at a table in the restaurant next to me.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the right hon. Lady explain why the programme over the last week or so has gone to hell in a handbag in such a fashion that the Government have had to come to the House at short notice to make this statement at 10 o'clock tonight, when, according to my count, there are 298 Government amendments to be considered and only two Opposition amendments to be considered on the business for tonight? Also, given the references that have been made to time that has been taken in the debate, and especially as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry plainly had no answer to the cogent case that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) were making for the amendments that they had tabled—he was unable to adduce a sensible reason not to accept them—is not the whole conduct of this business and this late statement tonight a disgrace and an arrogant treatment of Members of the House?
Mrs. Beckett: Usual complaint—as usual, unfounded.
Mr. John Greenway: The right hon. Lady has been extremely frank with the House. She has said that she wishes to timetable the Food Standards Bill to protect Friday's business. Am I not right in thinking that Friday's business in the other place is also to consider the Food Standards Bill? However, be that as it may, although she may be right in concluding that a timetable guillotine motion is appropriate for the Employment Relations Bill, which the House has been considering tonight, many people in rural communities the length and breadth of this country who are gravely concerned about the measures in the Food Standards Bill will regard the guillotine motion as another slap in the face from the Government for people who live in rural areas.
Mrs. Beckett: I am not quite sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. He will appreciate that I have said that I shall address the timetable for the Employment Relations Bill in tomorrow's business statement. I have made it plain that the Government do intend to provide proper time tomorrow for debate of the Food Standards Bill. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he would have required more time than business would have allowed tomorrow for the Food Standards Bill—[Interruption.] I see the hon. Gentleman nodding. He is actually making the Government's case. If there are Members in the House who believe, whether as representatives of the official Opposition or as Back Benchers, that inadequate time was allowed for the Food Standards Bill, it was their job as Members of the House to raise the matter at business questions. It was also their job to raise the matter with their Front-Bench team if they thought that inadequate time had been allowed. We have had repeated examples of Members who could not be bothered to raise such issues in advance and who then come along at the last
1298
minute and say, "We need another day", or "We need another half a day. The hon. Gentleman is making the case for the guillotine.
Mr. Ian Bruce: The House will know that the Department of Trade and Industry has been trying to bring forward Second Reading of the electronic communications Bill, and it has been trying to blame the Conservative party for not allowing it to do so. It seems extraordinarily strange that the right hon. Lady is telling us that she was worried about getting the three Bills through this evening—[HON. MEMBERS: "Four."] I have four—any advance on five? She was telling us that and complaining that there was not enough time. She wanted to get a completely new Bill into the House before the end of the Session. Surely it is the mismanagement of the right hon. Lady, who should think about her own position before the Prime Minister sacks her, that has got the House into the position in which it finds itself tonight.
Mrs. Beckett: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has reminded me of a further and important point, which is that when the Government scheduled the business for today's debates, including the three Bills, no Opposition Member said that there would be inadequate time to consider them. Now, at 10.35 pm, we are told that the time was never adequate: too late.
Sir Robert Smith: I want to clarify one of the right hon. Lady's answers, when she said that tomorrow's debate on the Food Standards Bill will be the same length as that announced in the business statement last week. Does that mean that any time taken up by the programme motion will not eat into time that would have been available to the Food Standards Bill?
Mrs. Beckett: No. I said that there would be adequate time for the debate. The issue was the length of time, which is something that we shall announce tomorrow.

Business of the House

  CONTRACTS (RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered tomorrow.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  CINEMAS AND FILMS
  That the draft Films (Modification of the Definition of 'British Film') Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 36.

  Division No. 270]

  [10.36 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Ainger, Nick

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Alexander, Douglas

  Ashton, Joe

  Allan, Richard

  Atkins, Charlotte

  1299

  Banks, Tony

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Barron, Kevin

  Denham, John

  Battle, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bayley, Hugh

  Doran, Frank

  Beard, Nigel

  Dowd, Jim

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Drew, David

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Edwards, Huw

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Ennis, Jeff

  Berry, Roger

  Etherington, Bill

  Best, Harold

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Betts, Clive

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Blackman, Liz

  Fisher, Mark

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Borrow, David

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Boswell, Tim

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Follett, Barbara

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Browne, Desmond

  Gapes, Mike

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burden, Richard

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Burgon, Colin

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burnett, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burstow, Paul

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cann, Jamie

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Grocott, Bruce

  Casale, Roger

  Grogan, John

  Caton, Martin

  Gunnell, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hain, Peter

  Chaytor, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hancock, Mike

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hill, Keith

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cohen, Harry

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Collins, Tim

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Colman, Tony

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cotter, Brian

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cousins, Jim

  Hurst, Alan

  Cox, Tom

  Hutton, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cummings, John

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  1300

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Purchase, Ken

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Rammell, Bill

  Keetch, Paul

  Rapson, Syd

  Kemp, Fraser

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Kidney, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rooker, Jeff

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rooney, Terry

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Roy, Frank

  Laxton, Bob

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lepper, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Levitt, Tom

  Salter, Martin

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Sanders, Adrian

  Linton, Martin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lock, David

  Sawford, Phil

  Love, Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAllion, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCabe, Steve

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Singh, Marsha

  Macdonald, Calum

  Skinner, Dennis

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

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

  McWalter, Tony

  Snape, Peter

  McWilliam, John

  Soley, Clive

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Spellar, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stevenson, George

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Merron, Gillian

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stott, Roger

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stringer, Graham

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Moore, Michael

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Morley, Elliot

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mudie, George

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Timms, Stephen

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Touhig, Don

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Trickett, Jon

  Olner, Bill

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Tyler, Paul

  Pearson, Ian

  Vaz, Keith

  Pendry, Tom

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wallace, James

  Pike, Peter L

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Plaskitt, James

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pope, Greg

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pound, Stephen

  Watts, David

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  White, Brian

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Willis, Phil

  1301

  Wilson, Brian

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Winnick, David

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wise, Audrey

  Worthington, Tony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wray, James

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Mr. Graham Allen.

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  Leigh, Edward

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Loughton, Tim

  Boswell, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Randall, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Townend, John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Collins, Tim

  Wardle, Charles

  Colvin, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Fallon, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Gill, Christopher

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Mr. Douglas Hogg and

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Mrs. Teresa Gorman.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Thames Gateway
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
10.50 pm
Mr. Nigel Beard: The Thames riverside to the east of London, beyond docklands, includes parts of Barking, Dagenham, Havering and Thurrock on the north bank, and Greenwich, Bexley and Dartford on the south bank. That is the London Thames gateway.
The area provides one third of all London's jobs—some 900,000—and includes the largest concentration of manufacturing firms in London. A high proportion of local residents—about 60 per cent.—work locally. Major areas of land, amounting to 2,000 hectares, are available for industrial, commercial and residential development. Potentially, it is the greatest area of opportunity within Greater London today.
At each end of the area, major investments are being made in projects of regional and national significance. To the west is the London docklands, including the millennium exhibition site, the dome, which will be served by the Jubilee line extension and an extended docklands light railway. To the east, the first phase of the channel tunnel rail link will end at Ebbsfleet, linking the area quickly and easily with the continent. In addition, two major retail centres have opened—at Lakeside on the north bank and at Bluewater on the south bank—which serve both London and the south-east region generally.
When I look at the potential opportunity, I have a sense of having been here before. In the 1970s, I was privileged to be the first head of the London Docklands development corporation, and was responsible for establishing the organisation, for drawing up the development strategy and for initiating some of the earlier infrastructure. It was the largest area of urban development in the world at that time.
Today, I have the great privilege to represent in Parliament a constituency that is central to a similar major opportunity of national significance in the Thames gateway. The comparison between the London docklands development and the potential of London's Thames gateway is both exhilarating and sobering. It is sobering because many of the obstacles that stand in the way of realising the potential of the Thames gateway are the same as have bedevilled progress in docklands. The political climate of the 1970s made progress in development dependent on huge public sector investments. The economic austerity of the time prevented the Government from making those necessary investments to any great extent, and private investors were then reluctant to make parallel commitments.
The political climate then swung to the other extreme with the change of Government, so that the development was seen as being promoted almost entirely by market forces. However, the transport infrastructure of the area was totally inadequate. An early extension of the Jubilee line through the area was regarded as a prerequisite of private investment throughout the area. The Jubilee line, however, could not be financed through private investment.
The result was that private investors cherry-picked the areas around Wapping and the Surrey docks, while the potential of huge areas downstream was not realised.

1303
Canary Wharf progressed only when the Government became committed to putting in the docklands light railway, and now the Jubilee line. The Greenwich peninsula remained derelict until the millennium dome came along, and the Jubilee line will arrive, there 20 years late, to accompany it.
The point of that analysis is not recrimination. It is to learn lessons, so that we do not repeat earlier mistakes downstream. A major lesson to be learned is that progress does not have to depend on comprehensive public investment in the style of the new towns. Equally, market forces alone will not progress development. There genuinely is a third way, which depends on a firm commitment to public funding to improve transport infrastructure, accessibility and the environment. That will, in turn, provide a favourable basis for essential private investment.
That strategy depends utterly on a firm commitment to spending on infrastructure, either through direct investment, PFI schemes or guarantees to limit the risk of the private investor. A fragmented, haphazard approach to public investment dependent on the state of finance in individual local authorities or public bodies will not generate confidence.
The problems of transport, accessibility and the environment for the Thames gateway area of London are similar to those in the docklands. The river and the relative absence of river crossings in that area, as compared with the equivalent area upstream of Tower bridge, are a major inhibition to the economic development of the area. A recent study by the Government office for London stressed that point, as has every study over the past 20 years, going back to the docklands strategy in the 1970s.
The effect of the river barrier has been to limit the scope of companies to recruit over a wide area, or to move their goods and services to other parts of London. Residents of the riverside wards in Greenwich and Bexley cannot travel easily to job opportunities elsewhere in London, so unemployment there is well above the London average: it is 10.5 per cent, compared with 6.3 per cent.
Environmental objections must not become a veto on enhanced river crossing capacity, or these problems will deepen as the environmental benefit for some blights the economic welfare of many others. A balance between environmental and economic interests must be achieved.
On the south bank of the river in Greenwich and Bexley, the scope for moving goods westward towards the Blackwall tunnel or eastwards towards the M25 and Dover is limited by constrictions and consequential congestion on the road network. Likewise, the limitations of east-west public transport add to road congestion, as employees coming into the area or travelling to jobs elsewhere in the Thames gateway have no alternative but to use their cars.
The recently published study of new crossings sponsored by the Government office for London has made proposals to tackle the deficiency of river crossing capacity in east London. The solution, for which the economic benefit is assessed as double the cost, is to provide a third crossing at the Blackwall tunnel, a bridge over the Thames at Galleons reach for local traffic and a busway, and a rail tunnel at Woolwich capable of taking six trains an hour in each direction between Ebbsfleet, the channel tunnel rail link phase one terminus, and
1304
Stratford on the north bank of the river, passing through Bexley and Greenwich and called the Thames gateway metro.
This transport concept also involves introducing and harmonising toll charges between the Blackwall tunnel, the new Thames bridge and the Dartford river crossing. Taken together, this package of three measures could contribute to the regeneration of Greenwich-Bexley Thameside, and deflect passengers to public transport instead of their travelling by car.
Any two elements of the package could be privately financed without public sector support. The third element, which is vital to realising the full impact, would require public funding of about £25 million. That package would not only alleviate the present lack of river crossings, but provide east-west public transport through Greenwich and Bexley by way of the Thames gateway metro between Ebbsfleet and Stratford north of the river, and by way of the bus link over the Thames bridge and along the south Thames development route.
The south Thames development route consists of a combination of the roads A206 and A2016, which are dual carriageway most of the way between Woolwich and the M25, and then goes on to Gillingham. According to the answer to a recent parliamentary question, the Government have invested some £40 million in the route between Woolwich and the M25 in the last 10 years. That reflects the importance of the route for commercial transport into and out of the industrial areas on the south bank of the Thames.
There is just one snag in this grand design—the 1.7 km of the south Thames development route that passes through Crayford, in my constituency. It is still single carriageway, and a major source of congestion. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) and I are regularly lobbied by employers and residents about the slow-moving queues that are adding to their costs. A local conference produced many stories from industrial development agents who had abandoned the idea of locating in the area for that reason alone. I have a list of 50 major employers who have said that they are adversely affected by congestion on this stretch of road.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), then Minister of Transport, presented his road review to the House in July last year, he agreed that high priority should go to schemes under which an unimproved stretch of road prevents full realisation of the true value of earlier road investment. I doubt whether the Minister could find a better exemplification of that principle than Thames road, Crayford, the 1.7 km stretch of the south Thames development route to which I have referred.
Although the London borough of Bexley put the project at the top of its priority list, the present understanding is that it may be seven to 10 years before the problem is resolved. What is the point of so much earlier investment, if the true benefit is to be delayed for such a protracted period?
I am grateful to the Minister for letting me know of the river crossing proposals to which I have referred. I welcome the intention to safeguard a third Blackwall crossing, and to provide an alignment of the Thames gateway bridge with the Woolwich rail tunnel; but I am

1305
dismayed by indications that the Government will now delay progress until the mayor of London and the Greater London Authority are in place.
In a letter written last July, the Minister said that she firmly believed that the whole issue should be left until the Greater London Authority could form a view on it, but there is always some such reason why the time is not ripe. No doubt the Greater London Authority will demand a year or two, or more, to settle in, which probably puts a decision three or more years away.
Timing is important in matters such as this. It is bad government that causes people to await the convenience of the governors. All public and private-sector partners in both the Thames gateway London partnership and the Bexley Thameside partnership have written to the Minister to confirm their need for work on the proposals now.
There have been two undesirable features of this country's planning and urban development arrangements. The first is a mañana mentality, leading to institutionalised procrastination. The second—despite the good intentions of planners—is a piecemeal approach to opportunities when success demands concurrent action on several fronts.
The Thames gateway in London offers an opportunity for urban regeneration, which depends on public action on transport, public services and the environment, and on commercial action to provide jobs, housing and many other features of life in the 21st century. At present, general good intentions are expressed by public authorities and there are outline plans for a river crossing and east-west public transport. We have no idea when any of that will come about. All the signs are that the Blackwall tunnel's third crossing, the rail tunnel at Woolwich, the metro line, the bridge at Galleons reach and work on Thames road, Crayford will be handled by different public authorities, piecemeal and without any concerted timetable.
It may be that, for financial reasons, the timetable for infrastructure projects will be longer than many people would like, but any timetable that expressed a commitment that investors could believe in would be better than a "this year, next year, some time, never" approach. I ask the Minister to recognise that a piecemeal, project-by-project approach to regenerate the Thames gateway in London, with no commitment to a target date for completion, will fail. It will not give private investors sufficient confidence in the future of the area for them to make commitments.
Conversely, my appeal is for a concerted programme of infrastructure projects such as I have outlined to be drawn up with firm commitments to finance and timing. Work on the programme could be started now and presented to the mayor and Greater London Authority for ratification, or amendment on completion. There is no reason why the mayor and the authority should be an excuse for delay. Nor are the amounts of public money that are needed large.
Above all, let those projects be looked at as a package contributing to the economic regeneration of the area. Let them not be seen narrowly as isolated road, rail or tunnelling schemes. Success in realising the true potential of the Thames gateway in London depends on joined-up government delivering joined-up action on time.
11.7 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) on obtaining the Adjournment debate and on affording the House the opportunity to consider the issue. The House has been particularly fortunate because he has such direct experience of both the area and the issues inherent within Thames gateway.
As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the Government actively support Thames gateway as a priority regeneration corridor. The sub-region's potential for growth and investment is widely recognised.
Thames gateway can boast a number of particularly important development schemes, where much needed investment on brown-field sites is delivering key London facilities and much needed new resources. At the royal docks, a new exhibition and conference centre is under construction. A new university campus is to open in September.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, Greenwich peninsula is the home not only of the dome, but of the millennium village. It is the site of a major public transport interchange, including North Greenwich station, which is part of the Jubilee line extension, and a major bus interchange. The pier at the dome will enable river buses to serve what was formerly the site of a gas works.
Greenwich peninsula is now a site of national importance, representing significant Government commitment to the sub-region. As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the Jubilee line extension is already serving the peninsula.
There are many other examples of real activity in Thames gateway. Together, they are creating momentum to bring about lasting change, but we acknowledge that more is yet to be done. Barriers to development still exist. Contamination on sites, weak infrastructure and excluded communities remain. However, the Government are committed to ensuring continued change, both in physical and social terms, for the benefit of London, local communities and the wider sub-region.
On 15 July, there were two important announcements for Thames gateway. The single regeneration budget, SRB5, has brought significant new funding to the region. At least £33 million has been allocated for SRB5 projects within the primary Thames gateway regeneration areas—a real injection of funding to ensure that the benefits of new investment are realised in both the short and long terms.
The proposed assisted area map provided further good news, retaining Thames gateway wards within the eligible areas to apply for regional selective assistance. That will create and safeguard jobs, attract inward investment and contribute to regional competitiveness.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, transport improvements play a key role in the regeneration of Thames gateway. An extensive programme of improvements is under way to enable strategic accessibility to the area and to sites of potential major development. That will make Thames gateway a source of employment and a more effective competitor for business.
Phase 1 of the channel tunnel rail link is now under way. I am sure that hon. Members will recall that the positive regeneration impact of the link was a fundamental consideration in securing the project. It will

1307
consolidate the area's role as the gateway to Europe for London and the United Kingdom, and it will provide a new economic role for the area on which to build future development growth.
The first phase of the Jubilee line extension is already open, as I have said. Phases 2 and 3 will follow in the summer and in the autumn. The new docklands light railway extension to Lewisham is due to be in service shortly, and planned further extensions to the DLR will include access to City airport. An extensive bus network, providing high-quality public transport north and south of the river, is being explored by London Transport, in conjunction with local boroughs. As I have said, under this Government the River Thames is being brought into play as part of the capital's transport network.
The new stretch of the A13 has been opened, linking Dagenham to the M25. Also, the go-ahead has been given to the design, build, finance and operate plans for the A13, as part of the trunk roads programme. Collectively, these projects represent a major investment by the Government in providing Thames gateway with the integrated transport system that it requires to achieve its economic and regeneration goals.
Mr. Bob Russell: When does the Minister expect that the Stratford interchange of the channel tunnel rail link will be ready? The link will benefit not only the Thames gateway, but the whole of Essex and East Anglia.
Ms Glenda Jackson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the first phase of the channel tunnel rail link is on time and on budget. The requirement is that for the whole line to be built, so I cannot give a specific date for the completion of the Stratford interchange. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no doubt that it will be completed.
The Government have also taken the lead in exploring the scope for developing additional crossings across the River Thames, east of the Blackwall tunnel, to assist still further with the regeneration objective. We are aware of the strong interest among local communities in securing additional crossings, and of the importance of accessibility in opening up new business, employment and leisure markets in the area. That is why we made reference to the potential value of an integrated package of new crossings in our integrated transport White Paper, published last year.
A package of crossings has been developed, based on the appraisal of a number of different options against a specially commissioned appraisal framework. The Government have decided that the responsibility for determining the form of a crossings package should lie with the new mayor of London.
The mayor has regeneration, transport and planning responsibilities for London and will be in the ideal position to assess the most suitable integrated outcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford stressed the importance of adopting a
1308
comprehensive approach to the programme and of avoiding a fragmented approach, with different crossings subject to separate and piecemeal proposals. It was precisely to facilitate an integrated approach, both to the planning and funding of the final strategy, that the decision was taken.
To enable the mayor to reach a decision on the future of the crossings as quickly as possible, further development work is being co-ordinated. The Government have safeguarded the most promising alignment for each crossing. London First is exploring, with private sector partners, the scope for its participation in the programme. London Transport, together with docklands light railway and Railtrack, is examining the feasibility of a DLR-based crossing to Woolwich. English Partnerships has undertaken a study of the regeneration implications and benefits of the crossings package. It is now considering the appointment of a project manager to orchestrate the work appropriate to this interim period.
I trust that it is clear, therefore, that the project continues to be taken forward in a sensible and practical way, which matches current circumstances. I am sorry that our decision has caused my hon. Friend dismay, but it is important that decisions taken now do not pre-empt the mayor's choice, either in the final form of the crossings or the financial structures put in place to secure them. I am certain that the approach adopted by the Government will achieve the most satisfactory and secure outcome to this important but complex issue.
My hon. Friend focused on a short section of Thames road, which he has highlighted as the only single carriageway section of the south Thames development route in Bexley. He also referred to the findings of a recently published study sponsored by the Government office for London. The south Thames development route could play an important role in any strategy which arises from this study. Certainly that could lead to improved public transport links on this section of Thames gateway.
I understand that the London borough of Bexley is keen to develop the case for this road scheme in its interim transport plan. In the event, it would certainly wish to focus on the regeneration benefits for Thames gateway and any potential contribution to improved transport integration. However, my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would be wrong of me to go further than that in prejudging the merits, or otherwise, of the Bexley interim transport plan.
As I said in my opening remarks, the House has been privileged to hear the wealth of detail, stemming from direct experience, which my hon. Friend brought to this evening's debate. He detailed the overwhelming importance of the development of the Thames gateway, not only economically and environmentally, but socially. I reassure him that the Government share his appreciation of the importance of Thames gateway.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Director of Public Prosecutions (Annual Report)
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Director of Public Prosecutions intends to publish his Annual Report. [92528]

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions has today published his Annual Report and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC (Funding)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) of 12 January 1999,Official Report, columns 131–32, on the review of future funding of the BBC, when he will publish the findings of the review panel. [92693]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I expect to receive the panel's report at the end of July and will publish it as soon as possible thereafter. Copies will be sent to hon. Members in their constituencies and placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Publication of the report will mark the start of a period of public consultation which will run until 1 November 1999. I will reflect on the evidence gathered during that consultation with a view to taking decisions on the recommendations by the end of the year.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Rail Travel
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to encourage and promote rail travel. [90372]

  Property/land

  Bought

  Sold

  Street House

  21 July 1992

  22 December 1997

  The Georgian House

  28 January 1993

  25 November 1998

  Roxby House

  1 February 1994

  22 January 1999

  Leases Farm

  12 May 1994

  26 February 1999

  Hopetown Farm Buildings

  28 July 1994

  22 January 1999

  Hopetown House

  6 July 1996

  31 October 1996

  Thoroughway House

  31 October 1994

  14 November 1997

  Leases Grange

  27 November 1995

  18 November 1998

  The Croft

  11 July 1996

  29 March 1999

  New Inn Farm

  31 December 1996

  28 May 1998

  Land at Little Holtby

  6 June 1996

  1 June 1998

  The Shawgills

  26 August 1993

  20 March 1998

  512
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Promotion of the use of the rail network will be one of the main objectives of the Strategic Rail Authority, to be established by the Railways Bill which received its second reading on 19 July. Meanwhile the shadow Strategic Rail Authority has been in operation since 1 April and is making a head start on the strategic planning which the industry needs. We have made three key rail appointments, which look to the future of railway industry.

  February's National Rail Summit produced commitments from the industry to deliver year on year improvements in terms of new drivers, new trains and better performance.

  In addition we have established two new funds, the Infrastructure Investment Fund and the Rail Passenger Partnership scheme as well as providing extra funds for the freight facilities grant.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to allow motorcycle couriers to use bus lanes in London. [91488]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We currently have no plans to allow motorcycle couriers to use bus lanes in London. Two pilot projects have been conducted in Bristol and Reading on the use of bus lanes by powered two wheelers. These were a useful source of information about the traffic and safety effects on powered two wheelers. But there was no monitoring of the situation before implementation and there are unanswered questions about their impact on pedal cyclists and the abuse of bus lanes by other drivers. We would, therefore, welcome proposals from local authorities interested in conducting properly monitored pilot studies of the use of bus lanes by motorcycles to help inform decisions on whether there is a case for motorcyclists to be allowed to use bus lanes.

  Al (Upgrading)
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the properties purchased alongside the Al road between Scotch Corner and Rainton in Yorkshire to allow for the upgrading of the road to motorway standards and (b) the total cost of the properties; what plans he has for these properties; and what is the future of the upgrading scheme. [90792]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 14 July 1999]: The Highways Agency has bought and sold the following 26 properties and pieces of land:
  513

  Property/land

  Bought

  Sold

  Land at Station Road

  29 January 1993

  20 May 1999

  The Little Bistro

  3 June 1994

  23 March 1999

  St. Annes Cross

  25 January 1995

  29 May 1998

  Scurragh House

  24 August 1995

  27 March 1998

  Gatherley Villa

  14 November 1995

  27 March 1998

  South Lodge

  15 June 1992

  27 March 1998

  Firholme Farm

  18 November 1998

  retained

  Lodge Farm

  11 October 1995

  not yet sold (but offer accepted)

  Leases Hall

  24 August 1994

  not yet sold (but offer accepted)

  Leases Tip

  23 August 1994

  for sale

  Bedale Hunt Inn

  28 August 1992

  for sale

  Brookside

  24 September 1992

  retained in part (sale of remainder being negotiated)

  Land South of Station Road

  30 March 1999

  retained

  Land at Catterick South Junction

  1 September 1989

  retained

  This is at a total cost of some £5 million in connection with earlier proposals for improvements along the Al between Dishforth and Scotch Corner.

  The improvement schemes were withdrawn from the Trunk Road Programme in 1996. Other than properties directly affected by the extant Orders for the Leeming to Scotch Corner scheme, the Highways Agency is selling the land and properties which it was required to buy under blight provisions for the schemes.

  Buses
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will

  Local bus services: passenger journeys by area

  million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Greater London

  1,129

  1,117

  1,167

  1,205

  1,242

  1,294

  Tyne and Wear

  189

  182

  170

  168

  165

  161

  Merseyside

  178

  166

  168

  165

  163

  153

  Greater Manchester

  252

  236

  226

  224

  212

  211

  South Yorkshire

  176

  166

  163

  158

  150

  144

  West Yorkshire

  231

  232

  222

  219

  207

  200

  West Midlands

  356

  355

  381

  358

  349

  368

  Rest of England

  1,307

  1,274

  1,277

  1,265

  1,265

  1,248

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what will be the cost of installing the planned 360 on-bus cameras for the enforcement of bus lanes in London. [91487]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The London-wide expansion of the Traffic Director/Metropolitan Police to use cameras to enforce bus lanes was announced last year. Every bus lane in London will be covered by March 2003. The scheme is estimated to cost £10 million. This includes around 325 on-bus and 35 portable roadside cameras and associated common costs such as signing, computer hardware and software (including development) and type approvals.

  Wembley
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what capital sums English Partnerships has allocated to the Wembley Task Force in 1999. [91703]
  514
  list annual bus ridership figures from 1992 to 1998 in (a) Greater London, (b) Tyne and Wear, (c) Merseyside, (d) Greater Manchester, (e) South Yorkshire, (f) West Yorkshire, (g) West Midlands and (h) the rest of England. [91406]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Across England as a whole bus patronage rose by one per cent. over the year 1996–97 to 1997–98. Bus ridership, measured as bus passenger journeys, is shown in the table. Data appear in tables 10 and 16 of the Transport Statistics Report "Focus on Public Transport Great Britain: 1999 edition", published by The Stationery Office. Data for 1998–99 will not be available until later this year.

  Mr. Raynsford
  None. Should the proposed Task Force identify any projects where support for physical regeneration may be required then it is for English Partnerships to consider each project proposal on its merits, against London-wide priorities, and in light of the resources available to the Agency. The Task Force will be seeking to maximise private sector investment in to the area on the back of the significant investment already made by the public sector.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Wembley Stadium Development Monitoring Committee has to consult and involve(a) Brent Council and (b) local stakeholders. [91704]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Wembley Monitoring Committee is there to ensure effective co-ordination across Government and their agencies in respect of the national stadium project, to consider issues arising and agree handling. As the local planning authority, it is not appropriate for Brent to be part of that Committee. We are, however, maintaining close contact with Brent and
  515
  my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport and the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Caborn), met the Leader of Brent Council last week. The local community will, of course, be consulted as part of the planning process.

  London Underground
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what responsibility the Minister for Transport takes for operational performance of London Underground Ltd. [91484]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 15 July 1999]: The responsibilities of the Secretary of State and his Ministers for the operational performance of London Underground Ltd. are laid out in the London Regional Transport Act 1984, as amended.

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to reduce the use of official cars by officials in(a) his Department, (b) executive agencies of his Department, (c) his Department's-sponsored non-departmental public bodies, including regional development agencies and (d) the Government Offices for the Regions. [91452]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 15 July 1999]: Green Transport Plans covering our Headquarters buildings, Executive Agencies and Government Offices aim to reduce the environmental impact of the journey to work and travel on official business.

  In addition, our travel and subsistence rules have been revised, with now only a single mileage rate to encourage the use of public transport rather than rates based on car engine size. Claims also have to verify that the most cost effective means of transport was used and the use of a car is considered only where public transport was not a viable option.

  Further Green Transport Plans will be in place, in line with the Government target, for all other key Departmental buildings, i.e. those where it is the major occupier and has over 50 staff, by March 2000.

  Fuel Storage Tanks
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to require the owners and operators of fuel storage tanks(a) to ensure that drain cocks on such tanks are fitted with a lockable device to prevent accidental spillage and (b) to ensure that operating procedures are in place to ensure that such devices are used. [91777]

  Mr. Meale
  The Environment Agency's Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG2) on above ground oil storage tanks recommends that all tanks should have valves or cocks with lockable or removable hand wheels to prevent accidental spillage. The Guidelines (PPG11) also state that a routine programme of inspection and maintenance should be established.
  516
  The Government are considering whether further measures to prevent water pollution from industrial, commercial and institutional (residential and non-residential) oil storage installations are needed. We expect to make an announcement shortly.

  Countryside Agency
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money his Department has provided to the Countryside Agency for the development of quiet lanes. [91800]

  Mr. Meale
  The Countryside Agency has allocated £253,000 of its grant in aid for this financial year to the Quiet Roads initiative. This will bring the total spent on the initiative since it was launched by the Countryside Commission two years ago to £450,000.

  Water Companies
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend the programme of work which water companies are being requested to carry out on the environment during the period 2000 to 2005 following the recent adjustment to the cost of capital made by the Director General of Water Services for the 1999 periodic review. [91798]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government's guidance to the Director General on the environmental and water quality improvements to be delivered by 2005 was published under the title "Raising the Quality" in September 1998. More detailed proposals for individual company programmes were announced on 1 March 1999.

  These programmes and the cost of capital will both be factors which the Director General takes into account in the draft price determinations he plans to announce on 27 July.

  Affordable Homes
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many affordable homes to rent were developed in(a) 1997 and (b) 1998 in (i) Salisbury district, (ii) North Dorset district, (iii) New Forest district, (iv) Kennet district and (v) Test Valley district. [91794]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The additional rented social lettings provided in these districts in 1997–98 and 1998–99 by registered social landlords, with support from the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme (ADP) and Local Authority Social Housing Grant (LASHG), were as follows:

  District

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Salisbury

  121

  95

  North Dorset

  93

  51

  New Forest

  124

  148

  Kennet

  218

  138

  Test Valley

  57

  68

  These additional social lettings come from new build, the purchase and rehabilitation of existing property and from empty properties brought into use for temporary

  517
  social housing. The ADP and LASHG also support the provision of homes for shared ownership and incentive schemes which assist social tenants to move into home ownership and vacate their lettings for others in housing need.

  According to information provided to the Department by local authorities, there was no new building of council housing in these districts in 1997–98 and 1998–99 (other than that provided by LASHG).

  Local Government Act 1988
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people have been prosecuted in each year since 1988 under section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. [91868]

  Mr. Meale
  No local authority to date has been taken to court for breach of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. I should clarify that the restrictions in the section apply to the actions of local authorities, not individual people.

  Waste Strategy, London
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has commissioned on a waste strategy for London; what were the results of that research which has been completed; and if he will make a statement. [91781]

  Mr. Meale
  My Department has not commissioned any such research.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is the waiting time for a practical car driving test in Carlisle; and if he will make a statement; [91442]

  (2) what is the target waiting time for a practical car driving test set by the Driving Standards Agency. [91443]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: The current waiting time for driving tests is nine weeks in Carlisle. The Driving Standards Agency has brought in two extra examiners to help reduce the waiting time locally.

  The Agency's service targets for test delivery are that the national average waiting time will not exceed six weeks, and that appointments will be available within 10 weeks at 99 per cent. of permanent driving test centres.

  Central Railways
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what meetings have taken place between Special Advisers in his Department and representatives of or advisers to Central Railways. [91989]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: None.

  North West Development Agency
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which 518
  persons acted as independent assessors in the sift and interview of candidates for appointment to the Board of the North West Development Agency. [91473]

  Mr. Meale
  Dr. Joan Firth acted as independent assessor in the sift and interviews of candidates for appointment to the Board of the North West Development Agency.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what potential conflicts of interest were taken into account when appointments were made to the Board of the North West Development Agency. [91474]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions asked all candidates for appointment to complete a questionnaire, giving details of any companies or partnerships of which they were or had been a director or partner during the past 10 years. Candidates were specifically asked to declare any facts that they felt might be raised in public in the future in relation to their suitability to hold the appointment, particularly anything that could be presented as a conflict of interest.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the names of individuals and other bodies who nominated persons to the Board of North West Regional Development Agency; [91470]

  (2) in what journals a general advertisement was placed seeking nominations to the Board of North West Regional Development Agency [91469]

  Mr. Meale
  Nominations were invited from regional stakeholders. I list here the names of those individuals and bodies who nominated people. A press release was issued to the regional press saying that Regional stakeholders had been invited to make nominations. In addition an advertisement inviting applications for board membership of all DETR' s NDPBs was placed in The Sunday Times, The Guardian and the Journal (ethnic press).

  Nominations for the RDA Board were received from the following organisations/individuals:

  Action with Communities in Rural England

  Angela Eagle MP

  Association of Colleges

  Bank of England North West (Manchester Agency)

  Bank of England North (Liverpool)

  Ben Chapman MP

  Bolton City Challenge

  Bolton Metro

  Brian Iddon MP

  Brian Simpson MEP

  British Chamber of Commerce

  British Pakistani and Kashmiri Councillors Forum—North West

  Business in the Community

  Cabinet Office, Public Appointments Unit

  Central Lancashire Development Agency

  Cllr John West

  Confederation of British Industry (CBI)

  Co-operative Retail Services Ltd.

  Co-operative Union Ltd.

  Cumbria County Council

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  519

  Department of Trade and Industry

  DfEE

  East Lancashire Chamber of Commerce

  Engineering Employers' Federation

  Enterprise plc

  Environment Agency

  Federation of Small Businesses

  Forum of Private Business

  Gerry Fitzhenry

  Home Office

  Hurlston Management Ltd.

  Ian Stewart MP

  Jane Kennedy MP

  Lancashire Council of Mosques

  Lancashire County Council

  Lindsay Hoyle MP

  Lord (Lewis) Carter

  Lorna Fitzsimons MP

  Louise Ellman MP

  LWS Waste Services

  Manchester Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  Merseyside Development Corporation

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Mrs. A. Rea

  National Farmers Union

  Nicholas R. Winterton MP

  North West Council for Training and Enterprise

  North West Region Co-operative Enterprise Ltd.

  North West Regional Association

  North West Tourist Board

  Prof. Martin Harris CBE, on behalf of the Vice-Chancellors NW

  Universities

  Partnership Projects Ltd.

  Paul Goggins MP

  Prof. John Last CBE

  Richard Corbett MEP

  Roy Phillips

  Rural Development Commission

  TEC National Council

  The National Trust

  The NW Federation for Sport, Recreation and Conservation

  The right hon. Margaret Beckett

  The Rural Development Commission

  Tim Collins CBE, MP

  United Kingdom Co-operative Council

  United Utilities PLC

  West Cumbria Partnership

  Wigan MBC

  Zeneca Group plc.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will instruct the North West Development Agency to carry out an internal inquiry into the change in the costs of mileage allowances arising out of the transfer of English Partnership offices from Cockermouth to Penrith. [91464]

  Mr. Meale
  No. This is an operational matter for the North West Development Agency.
  520
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the location is of the office in his Department which held the data relating to nominations to the Board of the North West Development Agency. [91471]

  Mr. Meale
  The data relating to nominations to the Board of the North West Development Agency are held by the Government Office for the North West, located in Sunley Tower, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate has been made of the freehold value of English Partnerships' offices in Cockermouth on the basis of English Partnerships remaining as a tenant. [91472]

  Mr. Meale
  Issues relating to accommodation are a matter for the North West Development Agency. The English Partnerships office at Cockermouth transferred to the Agency on 1 April 1999. I understand that the portfolio of premises, including the offices at Lakeland Business Park, is valued annually by independent valuers. The most recent valuation took place on 31 March and reflected the occupation of the premises by Agency staff. For commercial reasons the precise detail of the annual valuation is confidential.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which organisation will receive the moneys raised from the sale of English Partnerships' offices at Home Wood in Cockermouth. [91457]

  Mr. Meale
  I understand that Home Wood is now known as Lakeland Business Park. It was transferred from English Partnerships to the North West Development Agency (NWDA) on 1 April 1999. The estate at Lakeland Business Park consists of a number of office blocks, one of which is occupied by NWDA staff. The premises at Lakeland Business Park are owned by the NWDA and any proceeds from the sale of those premises would come to the Agency subject to the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions' accounting regulations. The premises, however, are not currently programmed for disposal.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 6 July 1999,Official Report, column 447, what estimate has been made of the letting value of the English Partnerships offices in Cockermouth. [91458]

  Mr. Meale
  Issues concerning accommodation are a matter for the North West Development Agency. I understand from the Agency that the current rental estimate for the premises at Cockermouth is £4.50 per square foot.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if all offices to be occupied by the North West Development Agency have or are to have BREAM ratings. [91459]

  Mr. Meale
  Issues relating to accommodation are a matter for the North West Development Agency. I understand that it is the Agency's policy to ensure that all new offices will obtain a BREAM rating.
  521
  The Agency is currently either occupying premises which it has inherited or occupying existing premises on a temporary basis. The premises at Mercury Court in Liverpool, Lakeland Business Park in Cumbria, New Town Hall in Warrington and Mulfield House in Birchwood, Warrington, do not have a BREAM rating.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the annual(a) office-related costs and (b) total of salaries and estate-related costs for the English Partnerships offices in Cockermouth for each of the last two years. [91460]

  Mr. Meale
  The annual figures for English Partnerships Cockermouth were as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Salaries

  357,000

  322,000

  Other office related

  157,000

  170,000

  Estate related

  353,000

  343,000

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will establish an independent inquiry into the change in the costs of mileage allowances arising from the transfer of English Partnerships' offices from Cockermouth to Penrith. [91463]

  Mr. Meale
  No. This is an operational matter for the North West Development Agency.

  Aarhus Convention
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the changes to procedures adopted by his Department and its agencies following the Government's signing of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Environmental Information; [91817]

  (2) what plans he has to ratify the Aarhus Convention on Access to Environmental Information; and if he will make a statement. [91816]

  Mr. Meale
  We intend to ratify the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the 'Aarhus Convention') as soon as we have all the necessary measures in place to implement its provisions.

  Like most of the other European Union member states, the UK expects to be in a position to ratify by the end of 2000. To date, only the Republic of Moldova has ratified.

  Implementation of the Convention is through a mixture of administrative actions and legislative measures. In a great many respects, the UK already fulfils the provisions of the Convention. However, new legislation will be required to implement some of the provisions on environmental information and the consultation paper on the draft Freedom of Information Bill stated that current environmental information regime would be revoked and replaced with provisions in the Bill.

  In the past year, we have continued to promote activities relevant to the Convention. For example, the Environment Agency issued a consultation paper on its proposals for extended public consultation on selected
  522
  licence applications on 16 July, draft Planning Policy Guidance Note 12 on Development Plans promotes active public participation in the preparation of a development plan and the Environment Agency has published a new Pollution Inventory on the internet.

  Non-UK Driving Licences
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of people who have been driving regularly in the United Kingdom with non-UK driving licences in each of the last five years. [92023]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is not collected.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many and what proportion of road accidents have involved people driving with non-UK driving licences in each of the last five years. [92022]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No information is collected nationally on the country of issue of licences held by drivers involved in road accidents.

  Rail Use (London)
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of passengers using rail transport(a) to commute into London and (b) to travel around London in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 and (iv) 1998–99. [92398]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The estimated number of people from 1995 onwards entering central London by rail during the morning peak period between 7 am and 10 am on an average weekday is as follows:

  Thousand

  Surface rail1

  LUL and DLR only

  1995

  395

  348

  1996

  399

  361

  1997

  435

  373

  1998

  447

  395

  1 Includes transfers to LUL and DLR

  The estimated numbers of annual passenger journeys by rail in London from 1995–96 onwards are as follows:

  Million

  Surface rail1

  LUL

  DLR

  1995–96

  761

  784

  15

  1996–97

  800

  772

  17

  1997–98

  846

  832

  21

  1998–99

  892

  866

  29

  1 Surface rail data covering the London area are not available—these figures refer to passenger journeys in the former Network South East area.

  Development Agencies
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance has been provided to members of development agencies as to circumstances in which conflict of interest might exist and the action which should be taken when such guidance is ignored. [91465]
  523
  Mr. Meale
  The letters of appointment sent to members of the North West Development Agency provided guidance on potential conflicts of interest and the responsibility to declare any such interests.

  The Codes of Conduct, which have been drawn up by the agencies in accordance with guidance produced by the Cabinet Office, cover the issue of members' interests. Agencies are required to maintain a Register of Interest of their members. Board members have attended a training course on their roles and responsibilities as members of non-departmental public bodies. The issues of conflicts of interest and propriety were among the issues covered.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Bosnia
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the level of misuse of international aid sent to Bosnia; and if she will make a statement. [91719]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have made no assessment of the level of misuse of international aid to Bosnia, although we monitor the general effectiveness of international development programmes to which we contribute. We have no evidence to suggest that international aid is being misused in Bosnia.

  Somalia
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what steps her Department has taken to promote the inclusion of Somalia within the ACP group of countries for development purposes; [91928]

  (2) what steps her Department has taken to raise the issue of Somalia with the European Union and ACP group of states in negotiations on the successor to the Lome Convention. [91927]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Somalia is an ACP member. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) on 14 July 1999,Official Report, column 224.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many individuals his Department has recruited under the New Deal for Young People. [91896]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on 25 May 1999,Official Report, column 116.

  Two New Deal appointees are expected to join the Department by the end of July. We also expect to submit approximately six further vacancies to the Employment Service in the remainder of 1999 with a continuing annual programme of 10 to 12 New Deal appointments thereafter.

  Appointments (Quangos)
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many appointments to quangos she made between(a) 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998 and (b) 1 June 1998 and 31 May 1999; and in each case of those how many were members of Britain's (i) Asian and (ii) ethnic minority communities. [92140]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Between 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made 41 appointments to quangos. Six of the appointees were members of Britain's ethnic minority communities, of whom five were from the Asian community.

  The number of appointments made for the period 1 June 1998 to 31 May 1999 was 15, of which none were from the ethnic minority communities.

  We are committed to achieving by the end of 2002 a target of 10 per cent. of the public appointments for which we are responsible to be held by members of the ethnic minority communities.

  Official Documents
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will publish a list of all those official documents of the last Administration which have been seen by(a) her, (b) other Ministers in her Department, (c) special advisers in her Department and (d) non-career civil servants appointed since May 1997 in her Department. [92177]

  Mr. Foulkes
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: A large number of official documents were generated during the period of the previous Administration, many of which were published or put in the public domain. Since May 1997, the Department has been guided by the convention governing access to the papers of a previous Administration, as set out in the then Prime Minister's reply to a written question on 24 January 1980, Official Report columns 5–7.

  Kosovo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development by what criteria the Government will decide what proportion of the costs incurred by her Department during the Kosovo crisis between and including March and July will be met from Treasury Contingency Reserve and what proportion from her Department's budget; and if she will make a statement. [92230]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Government have already decided that £30 million of the £56 million cost incurred by DFID on the Kosovo crisis between and including March and July should come from the Reserve.

  Gender Impact Assessment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the subject of each gender impact assessment drawn up by her Department since June 1997, indicating in each case whether the outcome has been(a) put out to consultation and (b) published. [92003]
  525
  Mr. Foulkes
  Gender impact is routinely assessed in each Evaluation Study commissioned by DFID's Evaluation Department. These studies are put out in draft for comment among persons associated with the project or programme under evaluation, and are routinely published in hard copy and on DFID' s Internet Website. A global evaluation of DFID's work in promoting gender equality will be commissioned later this year.

  Evaluation studies completed and published since June 1997 include:

  Natural Resources Research

  Pheromones Research and Development

  Whole Crop Harvester

  DDT Impact Zimbabwe

  RNR Research Synthesis

  Emergency Relief/Rehabilitation

  Emergency Aid Synthesis

  Higher Education

  Higher Education Synthesis

  Good Governance (DAC)

  Institutional Strengthening

  Privatisation and Divestiture

  Population

  Kenya Population III

  Population Synthesis

  Small Enterprise Development

  Kenya BASE K-REP Juhudi Credit

  Kenya BASE Enterprise Initiatives

  BRAC Small Enterprise Development

  Slovakia Enterprise Education

  Russia Business Planning Agency

  Small Enterprise Development Synthesis

  Privatisation

  Assistance to Russia Privatisation

  EU Programmes (joint multi-donor)

  ACP/ALA/MED Regions and ECHO.

  Studies in hand include:

  Primary Education

  Kenya SPRED

  India APPEP

  Indonesia ALPS

  Primary Education Synthesis

  Health Management

  Pakistan ADB3

  Caribbean Health

  Health Management Research Programme

  Health Sector Reform Synthesis

  Environment

  Environment Synthesis (including four Country Studies)

  Poverty

  Poverty Synthesis (including four Country Studies)

  Police

  Namibia

  Indonesia

  Uganda

  Police Synthesis

  Sustainable Agriculture

  Revenue

  Public Sector Reform

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Offences (Sentences)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a consolidated list of criminal offences together with the minimum and maximum lengths of sentences which attach to each type of offence. [91668]

  Mr. Boateng
  No consolidated list of criminal offences currently exists and to produce one would be an expensive and time-consuming exercise with limited benefits. I therefore have no plans to do so.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the enforcement of the law in relation to pedal cyclists who ride(a) through red lights and (b) on pavements. [91562]

  Kate Hoey
  Enforcement of the law in respect of cycling offences is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police. The hazards caused by cyclists who ride through red lights and who cycle inconsiderately on the pavement are recognised by chief officers and appropriate action is taken where such offences are detected. In order to assist the police, we are introducing, from 1 August, a fixed penalty for the offence of cycling on the pavement. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty will need to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. But it will provide the police service with a direct and simple means of dealing with inconsiderate cycling.

  Sexual Harassment (Prison Service)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many allegations of sexual harassment have been made by female employees in Her Majesty's Prison Service in each of the last five years for which records are available. [91553]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Records have only been compiled centrally since 1998. These consist of cases notified to Prison Service headquarters by equal opportunities officers. The recorded information is given in the table:

  Year

  Number of allegations

  January-December 1998

  31

  January-June 1999

  5

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of sexual harassment in Her Majesty's Prison Service have been settled by employment tribunals in each of the last five years for which records are available. [91551]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The table provides information about all cases, including sexual harassment, brought under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 which were settled either by negotiation or by Tribunal decision.
  527

  Year

  Industrial/employment tribunals

  1995

  3

  1996

  5

  1997

  5

  1998

  6

  1999

  0

  Home Office Headquarters
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the(a) objectives and (b) progress of the planned re-location of Home Office headquarters from Queen Anne's Gate. [92195]

  Mr. Straw
  The objectives of the Home Office Central London Accommodation Strategy Private Finance Initiative project are to provide accommodation which meets Home Office and Prison Service long-term requirements for headquarters accommodation in central London; meets operational and business requirements; supports the Home Office modernisation programme; provides a healthy, safe and secure working environment for staff; and complies with Home Office and wider Government environmental policies.

  An invitation to submit best and final offers was issued to three bidders in August 1998. Their bids were received in November 1998. None of these bids were acceptable and it is now proposed to invite further best and final offers based upon a revised statement of requirements. Bidders have been told that we expect to do this in September. The new accommodation is likely to be ready for occupation no earlier than 2004.

  Prior Convictions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances police may make public a defendant's prior convictions in cases where anonymity has been granted in a criminal trial. [92109]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The rules of evidence governing the admissibility in criminal proceedings of a defendant's criminal record apply regardless of whether anonymity has been granted in those proceedings.

  The law on previous misconduct is currently under consideration by the Law Commission. The Law Commission issued a consultation paper on this subject in July 1996 and their final report is expected early next year.

  European Year Against Racism
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the membership of the National Co-ordination Committee for the 1997 European Year Against Racism; what reports he has received on the Committee's work; and if he will place copies in the Library. [91536]
  528
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Permanent members of the National Co-ordination Committee for the 1997 European Year Against Racism are:

  Permanent Members of National Co-ordination Committee for 1997 European Year Against Racism

  Membership

  Department/Organisation

  Timothy Kirkhope

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Home Office)

  Baroness Flather

  Michael Gillespie

  Home Office

  Trevor Hall

  Home Office

  Caroline Rowe

  Home Office

  Julie Clouder

  Home Office

  Graham Bann

  Race for Opportunity

  Marilyn Macy

  Department for Education and Employment

  Paul Brice

  Department of Health

  Will Haire

  Northern Ireland Office

  Gerald Laufer

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Sukhdev Sharma

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Colin Hann

  Commission for Racial Equality Sukhvinder Stubbs Runnymede Trust

  Kay Carberry

  Trades Union Congress

  Loraine Martins

  Sia

  Brian Pearce

  Interfaith Network

  Alison Wheeler

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Robin Mayho

  Association of County Councils

  Joslyn Fisher

  Association of District Councils

  Gordon Mitchell

  Welsh Local Government Association

  John Preston

  British Phonographic Industry

  Julie Mellor

  CBI

  Richard Flint

  Heart of England TEC

  John Jordan

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  The Report from the Commission of the European Communities on 'The Implementation of the European Year Against Racism (1997)' was issued in Brussels on 3 June 1999, and received here shortly afterwards.

  Copies of the report and a covering Explanatory Memorandum are available in the Library.

  Community Relations Unit
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the principal functions of the Community Relations Unit and set out its priorities for 1999 and 2000. [91535]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The aims of the Race Equality Unit (formerly the Community Relations Unit) for 1999–2000 are to promote race equality and to increase ethnic minority representation in the public sector. This includes:developing, implementing and monitoring race equality employment targets for the Home Office Services;
  launching a new grant scheme to promote race equality;
  contributing to and, where appropriate, giving a lead on race equality issues internationally;
  developing policy on religious discrimination and other faith issues;
  support for the Home Secretary's Race Relations Forum which provides ethnic minorities with an effective voice at the heart of government;
  reviewing the effectiveness of the criminal law in race relations; and
  supporting the reception of refugees including the Kosovan Humanitarian Evacuation Programme.

  Albania
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) British passports and (b) visitor's permits have been issued to (i) male and (ii) female Albanians in each of the last two years; what estimate he has made of the number of Albanians who are in this country illegally; and if he will make a statement. [92217]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is on grants of British citizenship and the issue of non-settlement entry clearance at the British Embassies in Tirana, or in Rome and Istanbul which were the designated entry clearance issuing posts for applicants resident in Albania before the British Embassy in Tirana provided full entry clearance-issuing facilities in 1999. The data are given in the table. No information is readily available on the gender of the applicants.

  There is no estimate of the total number of Albanian nationals currently living in the United Kingdom who have no lawful right to be here.

  Year of grant

  1997

  1998

  Albanian nationals granted British citizenship

  3

  9

  Albanian nationals granted non-settlement entry clearance issued at the British Embassies in Tirana1, Rome and Istanbul

  639

  1,240

  1 All issues, not necessarily to Albanian nationals

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the terms of reference given to the inquiry into procedures at Harlan UK's breeding establishment in North West Leicestershire; how many inspectors are engaged in the inquiry; and what is its planned timescale. [91814]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have asked the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate to investigate all the allegations made against this establishment by the British

  Date

  Location

  Minister

  Irish minister

  13 January

  Dublin Castle

  Lord Dubs

  Mr. Noel Dempsey TD

  Mr. Bobby Molloy TD

  3 February

  Department of Education and Science, Dublin

  Mr. McFall

  Mr. Michael Martin TD and three officials

  17 March

  Armagh

  Lord Dubs

  Mr. Jim McDaid TD

  26 March

  President's Hall, Dublin

  Lord Dubs

  Dr. Michael Woods TD

  1 April

  Aghalane Bridge

  Lord Dubs

  Mr. Noel Dempsey TD

  21 April

  Kings Hall, Belfast

  Lord Dubs

  Mr. Noel Davern TD

  22 April

  Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Dublin

  Mr. Ingram

  Mr. J. O'Donoghue TD and four officials

  23 April

  Slieve Donard Hotel, Newcastle

  Lord Dubs

  Mr. Noel Davern TD

  29 April

  Ballyconnell, Co. Cavan

  Lord Dubs

  Taoiseach

  4 May

  Conard Hotel, Dublin

  Mr. McFall

  (1) Dr. Tom Moffett TD

  (2) Mr. Brian Cowen TD and five officials

  17 May

  Enniskillen College

  Lord Dubs

  Mr. Noel Davern TD and one official

  17 June

  Lancaster House, London

  Lord Dubs

  Lord Donoghue

  Mr. Joe Walsh TD

  RUC
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she plans to publish the 1998–99 report on the Royal Ulster Constabulary by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary. [92526]
  530
  Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) in so far as they relate to possible contraventions of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; the terms and conditions of licences and certificates issues under the 1986 Act; and the Codes of Practice issued under section 21(2) of the Act. I have asked that, should any other indications of possible contraventions be uncovered during the course of the investigation, these be investigated too. The investigation is not restricted to any particular part of the establishment or to the material contained in the BUAV's report or compilation video tape recording.

  One Superintending Inspector is heading the investigation. He is being assisted, as necessary, by other members of the Inspectorate and by other civil servants in the Animal Procedures Section at the Home Office.

  I have not set a time limit on the investigation. We are still waiting to receive from the BUAV the evidence that they collected, and the amount of time needed will depend on what this material shows and the other findings that emerge from the investigation. I expect, however, that it could take two to three months to complete. I will receive reports at appropriate points during the investigation and any immediate action needed to protect animal welfare will be taken.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times Ministers in her Department have held meetings with Ministers and officials of the Irish Government since 1 January, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved and the names of the Irish Ministers and officials at each meeting. [90410]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have met Irish Ministers very frequently throughout the Talks Process. Other meetings held by Northern Ireland Office Ministers since 1 January 1999 were:

  Mr. Ingram
  Copies of the 1998–99 Inspection Report, which is the fourteenth RUC Inspection Report to be published, have today been placed in the Library.

  Her Majesty's Inspector's overall remit is to examine police operational efficiency and effectiveness and offer

  531
  his independent and professional recommendations. I am sure the Independent Commission on Policing will be interested to note the recommendations and I am extremely pleased to see that Her Majesty's Inspector is optimistic about the future of policing in Northern Ireland, as indeed I am myself.

  This report covers a number of areas relating to matters such as RUC planning strategies, consultation arrangements, performance management, and community relations. The Chief Constable will now consider these issues and in due course the Police Authority will publish any comments either the Chief Constable or the Authority may have.

  Construction Service
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Construction Service in 1999–2000. [92527]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  For 1999–2000, the following performance targets have been set for Construction Services:

  Quality of Service

  1. To achieve a 90 per cent. compliance in customer assessments of Agency performance against Service Level Agreements.

  2. To obtain a 90 per cent positive response in customer assessments on project work.

  3. To place 80 per cent. of orders in response to requests for reactive maintenance work within 7 days.

  4. To place 75 per cent. of orders in response to requests for supplies work within 7 days.

  5. To respond to 85 per cent. of customer advisory inquiries within 6 weeks.

  Efficiency

  6. To achieve 3 per cent. efficiency gains on running cost expenditure.

  7. To ensure that actual costs as a percentage of agreed target costs on project work do not exceed the agreed percentage.

  8. To ensure that staff costs as a percentage of construction spend for maintenance work do not exceed the agreed percentage.

  9. To ensure that staff costs as a percentage of construction spend for supplies work do not exceed the agreed percentage.

  Financial Performance

  10. To maintain expenditure within cash limits and to approved budgetary plans.

  11. To recover the full cost of Agency Operations from customers with a tolerance of ±2 per cent.

  CCTV
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish the guidelines, procedures and rules governing the town centre CCTV challenge competition; what criteria will be used to make financial allocations; and if the scheme is subject to policy appraisal fair treatment guidelines. [91531]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Police Authority for Northern Ireland issued a detailed guidance document on the bidding process when the first Northern Ireland Town Centre CCTV Challenge Competition was launched on 24 June 1999. This document sets out the procedures for submitting a bid and details the criteria against which all bids will be assessed. The guidance document has been 532
  widely circulated to interested parties across Northern Ireland and further copies may be obtained by contacting the Authority. As demonstrated by the announcement in March last year of the new Targeting Social Need initiative, the Government remain committed to securing equality of opportunity and equity of treatment for all the people of Northern Ireland. The rules of this competition have been developed in line with this policy and the awarding of funds will also be so governed.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures she has taken to ensure that victims of sectarian crimes of violence and their relatives are consulted and encouraged to become involved in local partnerships receiving funding through town centre CCTV challenge competitions. [91530]

  Mr. Ingram
  Details of the Northern Ireland Town Centre CCTV Challenge Competition have been widely disseminated throughout Northern Ireland by way of both television coverage and local press articles. All members of the community have been equally encouraged to participate in the establishing of local partnerships which will clearly benefit from being as inclusive as possible. Membership of the partnerships is open to anyone with an interest to contributing to the crime reduction effort in their local area.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what rules govern the use of recordings made as a result of town centre CCTV cameras; and what safeguards are available to protect against(a) the unauthorised use of a recording and (b) the abuse of an authorised use. [91533]

  Mr. Ingram
  Any CCTV scheme funded as a result of a bid in the Northern Ireland Town Centre CCTV Challenge Competition must be governed by a Code of Practice. The development of such a Code is a critical element of the bidding procedure and is required to take account of generally recognised standards and safeguards relating to the use of CCTV.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will require the Police Authority to make public police objections to partnerships seeking funding through the town centre CCTV challenge competition; at what level of command the decision to make an objection must be taken; and what body will assess in the first instance that an objection meets the requirement of reasonableness. [91532]

  Mr. Ingrain
  Individual partnerships will receive a full report on any police objections to proposed town centre CCTV schemes. The decision to make an objection to a proposal should be taken at Superintendent level or higher. Partnerships unhappy with the police view of their proposal may wish to raise this matter with the Police Authority for Northern Ireland.

  Sectarian Violence
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what studies her Department has commissioned on the age, gender and social and economic profile of the perpetrators of sectarian assaults. [91534]

  Mr. Ingram
  To date the Government have not commissioned studies on this issue.

SCOTLAND

  Genetically Modified Fish
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the notifications under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 1992 (as amended) for work on genetically modified fish to be undertaken in Scotland. [88730]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: None. Activities involving genetically modified animals and plants need to be notified if they fail to meet criteria for safety to human health specified in the Regulations.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has assessed about biotechnology research involving(a) the transfer of fish genes into other organisms and (b) genes into fish. [89024]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: The only information assessed related to a premises notification submitted in 1994 under the Genetically Modified Organism (Contained Use) Regulations 1992 and related to work on transgenic fish undertaken at Otter Ferry Salmon Ltd., Argyll, with the assistance of a Canadian company. It was a pre-market pilot study and as such did not involve commercial release. This work has now ceased.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times ministers in his Department have held meetings with ministers and officials of the Irish Government since 1 January 1998, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting, the ministers involved, and the names of the Irish ministers and officials at each meeting. [90403]

  Dr. Reid
  My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) held an ESDP bilateral in Dublin with Dan Wallace, Minister of State at the Irish Department of the Environment, on 12 March 1998. In accordance with convention the names of officials in attendance are not given.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish, through concordats or other appropriate documents, the administrative measures taken to clarify the arrangements within Government Departments on demarcation between matters dealt with by the Scottish Executive and those relating to Scotland continuing to be dealt with by the Scottish Office or other Whitehall Departments. [91236]

  Dr. Reid
  The devolution legislation defines the scope of the responsibilities of members of the Scottish Executive. The Scottish Ministers' responsibilities include functions in relation to matters in Scotland which are not reserved by schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 and functions transferred to them under section 63 of that Act (e.g. under The Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 1999, SI 1999 1750).

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact 534
  which the proposed climate change levy will have on the Scottish agricultural sector; and if he will make a statement. [91675]

  Dr. Reid
  The climate change levy will play a key role in helping the UK meet the greenhouse gas emission targets we are committed to achieve. It is a priority objective for the Government to mitigate the global impacts of climate change. My right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is responsible for this matter, will consider all submissions on the levy before he makes an announcement on its final form.

  The National Farmers Union of Scotland has submitted its views on the levy to HM Customs and Excise. The National Farmers Union has joined representatives of other energy intensive sectors in negotiations for energy efficiency agreements with the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. Sectors which make satisfactory agreements will be eligible for lower rates of levy. I understand that there has been good progress in the negotiations.

DEFENCE

  Warships
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark will be in service; and if he will make a statement. [85960]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]: The current approved ISDs are March 2002 and March 2003. However, the DPA has been informed that Marconi Naval Systems (MNS) (formerly VSEL) is experiencing difficulties with maintaining the LPD(R) construction programmes on schedule at their Barrow shipyard. I cannot confirm whether we will need to revise the in service dates until the company has completed their detailed negotiations with the DPA.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the percentage of the total value of the Eurofighter which is to be manufactured in the United Kingdom. [89928]

  Mr. Spellar
  Eurofighter workshare entitlements are based on the number of aircraft each of the four partner nations is purchasing. As the United Kingdom is purchasing 232 aircraft from a four nation total of 620, the percentage value of Eurofighter work accruing to the United Kingdom is 37.42 per cent. Any imbalances that arise between production activity levels and entitlements will be addressed during the life of the programme using mechanisms established in the Eurofighter Memoranda of Understanding signed by the four partner nations in December 1997.

  TRIGAT Programme
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the medium-range TRIGAT programme. [90175]

  Mr. Spellar
  On 10 June the Secretary of State for Defence announced that the UK intended to join the Industrialisation and Production phase of the MR
  535
  TRIGAT programme. The UK, France and Germany have now signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) covering that stage of the programme. Subject to signature of the MOU by the remaining partner nations, Belgium and the Netherlands, and satisfactory final negotiations with the Prime Contractor, Aerospatiale, we expect to place a contract for the Industrialisation and Production of the weapon system later this year.

  Project Budgets
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current budget of(a) the Active

  Project

  Original predicted in service date

  Current predicted or achieved in service date

  Current estimated project cost at 1999–2000 prices (£ million)

  Active Decoy Round-Outfit DLH

  December 1997

  April 2000

  108

  Chinook Medium Support Helicopter

  December 1997

  December 1997

  322

  Counter Battery Radar

  December 1993

  December 2002

  180

  Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS) for RN Ships

  June 1993

  December 2002

  358

  JTIDS for Sea Harrier

  June 1998

  December 2004

  —

  JTIDS for Sea King

  December 1999

  July 2001

  —

  Skynet 4

  May 1997

  May 1998

  500

  Truck Utility Light

  December 1994

  September 1997

  241

  Truck Utility Medium

  December 1994

  April 1997

  —

  Truck Utility Medium (Heavy Duty)

  December 1994

  May 1995

  —

  Tomahawk Land Attack Missile

  December 1998

  December 1998

  200

  43 Brigade
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many redundancies there will be in Exeter following the removal of 43 Brigade to Bulford, Netheravon and Tidworth. [91566]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Our current estimate is that 27 people may be made redundant; this excludes members of the MOD Guard Service. The effect on MOD Guard Service personnel will depend on the future access control requirements at Wyvern Barracks, Exeter, which are yet to be finally determined.

  British Forces Broadcasting Services
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make funding available to British Forces Broadcasting Services to enable the temporary radio station for the Colchester Garrison to be made a permanent service. [91793]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The 'garrison radio' service at Colchester is part of a trial facility over a 12 month period from April this year at the four largest UK mainland Army garrisons, as part of the Army's Corporate Communications Strategy. The facility uses a short-term (28 day) restricted service licence granted by the Radio Authority and each location (Bulford/Tidworth, Catterick, Colchester and Aldershot) will be covered twice during the trial period. A decision on the future of this service will be made following an assessment of the outcome of these trials and the availability of suitable frequency licences.

  Official Documents
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a list of all those official 536
  Decoy Round-Outfit DHL Project, (b) the Chinook Medium Support Helicopter Project, (c) the Counter Battery Radar Project, (d) the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System for Royal Navy Ships and Aircraft Project, (e) the Skynet 4 stage 2 Project, (f) the Truck Utility Light/Medium/Medium Project and (h) the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile Project; and in each case what was the original and what is the current in-service date. [90428]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information is as follows:

  documents of the last Administration which have been seen by (a) him, (b) other ministers in his Department, (c) special advisers in his Department and (d) non-career civil servants appointed since May 1997 in his Department. [92182]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: A large number of official documents were generated during the period of the previous Administration, many of which were published or put in the public domain. Since May 1997, the Department has been guided by the convention governing access to the papers of a previous Administration, as set out in the then Prime Minister's reply to a written question on 24 January 1980, Official Report, columns 305–07.

  Biological and Chemical Weapons
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to announce the outcome of his Department's review of the defence response to the threat posed by biological and chemical weapons; and if he will make a statement. [92694]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a paper setting out the conclusions of our review. The paper entitled "Defending Against the Threat from Biological and Chemical Weapons", explains our policy and the ways in which we plan to develop our capabilities further.

  We will continue to pursue, through international agreement, the verifiable elimination of biological and chemical weapons. Valuable progress has been made in recent years as a result of our efforts, but there is a long way to go before our objectives are met in full. In the meantime, we recognise that the use, or threatened use, of these weapons remains one of the potential challenges we must face.
  537
  I therefore place a high priority on ensuring that our Armed Forces are protected, with the training and equipment they need to deal with the risks such weapons continue to pose. We are enhancing our capabilities with a range of equipment programmes, for example by bringing into service additional Prototype Biological Detection Systems. We are also establishing the Joint Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Regiment, and an NBC Defence Headquarters. As a result of our review, I have also set up a new Central Staffs Directorate in the Ministry of Defence to co-ordinate and take forward further work on NBC defence issues. They will maintain a rolling plan of action and report progress to me on a regular basis. In total we plan to spend over £270 million in this area over the next three years.

  No potential adversary should believe that the use, or threatened use, of biological or chemical weapons would determine the outcome of a conflict or deter this government from taking action it believes is right.

  Appointments (Quangos)
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many appointments to quangos he made between(a) 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998 and (b) 1 June 1998 and 31 May 1999; and in each case of those how many were members of Britain's (i) Asian and (ii) ethnic minority communities. [92137]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following number of appointments were made to Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) for which my Department is responsible:

  (a) 1 June 1997 to 31 May 1998: 34; (i) nil; (ii) nil.

  (b) 1 June 1998 to 31 May 1999: 30; (i) nil; (ii) nil.

  These figures include new appointments as well as reappointments.

  Appointments to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body are not included as they are made by the Prime Minister. Appointments to the technical Boards under the Defence Scientific Advisory Council are not included (they have previously been included in answers to similar questions). The Cabinet Office has recently agreed that as these Boards are sub-Committees of the Council they should not be classified as advisory NDPBs. Appointments to the Council itself are included.

  Within the overriding principle of selection based on merit, MOD is committed to increasing diversity in appointments to its NDPBs and raising the representation of women, people from ethnic minority groups and disabled people in line with government-wide objectives. To this end MOD publishes an annual Plan for Public Appointments and Equal Opportunities (the plan for 1999–2002 was published in "Quangos: Opening up Public Appointments") which sets objectives and targets.

  Defence Vetting Agency
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Vetting Agency in the financial year 1999–2000. [92695]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Defence Vetting Agency was launched on 1 April 1997 with a staff of 349, at four separate Units in Central London, Portsmouth, Woolwich and Corsham. The Agency carries out some 130,000 vetting checks and investigations each year. The Agency 538
  is embarked on an ambitious modernisation programme aimed at creating a highly responsive and highly efficient, integrated organisation, exploiting the capabilities of modern information technology to the benefit of its customers. Central to the modernisation initiative is collocation of the Agency at York. 1999–2000 will see the run up to collocation. The Chief Executive has been set the following Key Targets:
  Quality
  Key Target 1
  At least a 90 per cent. success rating in dealing with Contentious Cases, and zero Serious Errors.
  Timeliness
  Key Target 2
  To complete 87 per cent. of Security Checks within 6 weeks (30 working days).
  Key Target 3
  To complete 84 per cent. of Counter Terrorist Checks within 6 weeks (30 working days).
  Key Target 4
  To complete 90 per cent. of all Developed Vetting clearances within 6 months (120 working days).
  Key Target 5
  To maintain average times for Security Checks and Counter Terrorist Checks of 4 weeks (20 working days) and 4.6 weeks (23 working days) respectively, and to complete Developed Vetting clearances on average within 3.1 months (62 working days).
  Efficiency
  Key Target 6
  To maintain the Financial Year 1998–99 Unit Cost of Output.

  I have arranged for advance copies of the Corporate Plan to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Data Series
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what new data series separated by gender, race, disability and age have been commissioned by his Department since June 1997. [90823]

  Mr. Mudie
  In January 1999 the Department carried out a re-survey of all its staff to update the information held on an individual's ethnic origin and disability information. The response rate by May 1999 was 94 per cent. of all staff.

  Information on gender, age, ethnic origin and disability is automatically collected when a member of staff joins the Department. In addition individual members of staff have on-line access to their own computerised personnel file to enable them to notify the Department of any inaccuracies which may be held.

  Laboratory Teaching
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations he has had with industry on the financing of scientific laboratories in schools in the past two years. [91285]
  539
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have had no consultations with industry during the past two years on the financing of science laboratories in schools although we do, of course, promote the Private Finance Initiative as a means for attracting private finance into the schools capital programme generally.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the school scientific laboratory teaching curricula in the sciences. [91282]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The proposals for a revised National Curriculum for schools issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 13 May include new measures to improve the quality of experiments pupils carry out when studying biology, chemistry and physics. A copy of the consultation materials was placed in the Library.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what recommendations he has made for the design, layout and organisation of school scientific laboratories; [91284]

  (2) what studies he has undertaken in the last two years on the standards set for the design and equipment of school scientific laboratories for the teaching of (a) physics, (b) chemistry, (c) biology, (d) environmental sciences and (e) other sciences in (i) primary schools and (ii) secondary schools. [91286]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department has published guidance on the design and layout of school science rooms. Building Bulletin 82, "Area Guidelines for Schools", offers advice for both primary and secondary schools, while Building Bulletin 80, "Science Accommodation in Secondary Schools: A Design Guide", provides more detailed advice for the secondary sector, which requires dedicated, science accommodation. The design needs of secondary schools has been examined during the past two years as part of our rolling programme for producing, and updating, design guidance and, as a consequence, a replacement for Building Bulletin 80 will be published during the coming month.

  A-level History
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what estimate he has made of change in the proportion of A-level history students choosing to study(a) pre-1066 and (b) medieval English history in the last 20 years; [91555]

  (2) what recent research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the teaching of (i) pre-1066, (ii) medieval and (iii) post-1485 English history; [91556]

  (3) what plans he has to ensure that A-level history students have the opportunity to study pre-1066 English history; [91557]

  (4) what representations he has received concerning the place of pre-1066 English history in the A-level history syllabus; [91558]

  (5) what representations he has made to A-level examination boards concerning the A-level history syllabus. [91559]
  540
  Mr. Mudie
  Information about the proportion of A-level history students choosing to study pre-1066 and medieval English history is not collected centrally. The Department has commissioned no recent research into the teaching of English history. To date we have received one representation on the availability of pre-1066 English history at A-level, as well as early day motion 829 tabled on 15 July. In the light of the concerns expressed, we have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which is responsible for regulating and approving all A-level specifications offered by the awarding bodies in England, to investigate this matter urgently.

  Local Education Authorities
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take steps to ensure that local education authorities which have been severely criticised in Ofsted reports do not offer generous early retirement packages to their chief education officers. [91790]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The issue of early retirement is a matter for individual local authorities in the light of relevant employment and education law. We expect them to take decisions with the aim of securing value for money for the whole education budget and high quality education for their pupils.

  Teachers
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of teachers in maintained(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in England and Wales were aged (i) under 30, (ii) 31–40, (iii) 41–50 and (iv) over 50 years in each of the years from 1996 to 1999. [91942]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Full-time qualified teachers in the maintained sector in England and Wales, 1996 and 19971, by phase and age are as follows:

  Percentage of all ages

  31 March 1996

  31 March 19972

  Nursery and Primary

  Under 31

  20.9

  22.0

  31–40

  20.2

  20.0

  41–50

  43.1

  42.9

  Over 50

  15.7

  15.2

  All ages

  100.0

  100.0

  Secondary

  Under 31

  16.8

  17.9

  31–40

  25.3

  24.3

  41–50

  43.3

  43.4

  Over 50

  14.6

  14.5

  All ages

  100.0

  100.0

  1 Data on teachers by age are not yet available for 1998 and 1999.

  2 1997 data are provisional.

  British Teachers (EU Schools)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if British nationals employed through the European Union to teach in European schools are entitled to receive promotion and responsibility allowances on their national scale; and if he will make a statement. [91796]
  541
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The overall salary level for teachers employed by the DfEE and assigned to posts in the European Schools is determined by the European Schools Board of Governors and set out in its document "Regulations for Members of the Seconded Staff of the European Schools". The DfEE fully meets its statutory obligations in respect of promotion and responsibility allowances paid with national salary.

  School Teachers (Attacks)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many attacks on school teachers at schools in Greater London by(a) pupils and (b) parents, were reported in each of the last five years. [92007]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not available centrally.

  Staff Movements
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what research he has commissioned on the impact of staff recruitment and retention in sixth form colleges of the salary differentials between the further education and secondary school sectors; [91818]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the likely impact on staff recruitment and retention in sixth form colleges of the current proposals to reform the salary structure in primary and secondary schools. [91815]

  Mr. Mudie
  While we have not commissioned specific research, we meet regularly to discuss recruitment and retention issues with representatives of staff and employers in sixth form colleges and further education colleges generally. The Government have injected £725 million of new funds into further education over this year and next and we also welcome the Further Education Funding Council's proposals to increase the funding for full time 16–19-year-old students.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what monitoring his Department undertakes of the flows of teaching staff between sixth form colleges and secondary schools; and if he will publish the available data for each of the last five years. [91819]

  Recipients of housing benefit broken down by local reference rent and single room rent schemes, for all London authorities, for 1996, 1997 and 1998

  January 1996 Local Reference Rent Scheme

  October 1996 Single Room Rent Scheme

  October 1997 Local Reference Rent Scheme

  Local authority

  August 1996

  August 1997

  August 1998

  August 1997

  August 1998

  August 1998

  Camden

  3,170

  2,490

  1,720

  360

  260

  660

  Greenwich

  1,380

  2,110

  1,970

  80

  70

  270

  Hackney

  2,790

  4,340

  3,320

  330

  400

  1,280

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,470

  2,240

  1,570

  130

  70

  370

  Islington

  570

  880

  1,160

  50

  110

  900

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,120

  1,420

  1,050

  170

  110

  430

  Lambeth

  370

  3,450

  1,980

  90

  100

  1,320

  Lewisham

  2,840

  4,090

  3,320

  270

  180

  660

  Southwark

  1,420

  2,240

  1,520

  60

  50

  220

  Tower Hamlets

  740

  970

  1,010

  120

  120

  230

  Wandsworth

  2,100

  2,940

  1,370

  140

  70

  1,290

  542
  Mr. Mudie
  The Local Government Management Board undertakes an annual survey of teacher recruitment and retention on behalf of the Sixth Form Colleges' Employers Forum. Ministers meet regularly with representatives of the Employers Forum to discuss these, and other issues.

  Data from the survey are available for the years 1993 to 1997 and are reproduced in the following table:

  Year

  Leavers to schools

  Recruitment from schools

  1993

  35

  93

  1994

  55

  82

  1995

  40

  91

  1996

  58

  86

  1997

  85

  35

SOCIAL SECURIT

  Benefit Recipients
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) of 1 July 1999,Official Report, column 244, if he will list the current numbers of recipients of each benefit listed broken down to show the number of recipients per head of the adult population in each region and nation for each of the last three years. [90940]

  Angela Eagle
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the numbers of recipients of housing benefit in the form of(a) single room rent, (b) full local reference rent and (c) partial local reference rent in each London borough in each year since they were introduced. [91782]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  The table provides the number of recipients who were being paid under the Local Reference Rent and Single Room Rent Schemes. The first column includes those recipients who received 50 per cent. top-up above the Local Reference Rent.
  543

  Recipients of housing benefit broken down by local reference rent and single room rent schemes, for all London authorities, for 1996, 1997 and 1998

  January 1996 Local Reference Rent Scheme

  October 1996 Single Room Rent Scheme

  October 1997 Local Reference Rent Scheme

  Local authority

  August 1996

  August 1997

  August 1998

  August 1997

  August 1998

  August 1998

  Westminster

  2,240

  2,930

  2,090

  200

  160

  790

  Barking

  890

  1,610

  1,040

  50

  20

  850

  Barnet

  2,210

  3,220

  2,750

  240

  180

  760

  Bexley

  1,050

  1,630

  230

  150

  60

  1,530

  Brent

  3,640

  6,420

  4,520

  310

  240

  1,860

  Bromley

  960

  1,520

  1,400

  50

  50

  120

  Croydon

  1,870

  3,740

  3,070

  150

  160

  930

  Ealing

  2,470

  4,130

  3,800

  210

  180

  380

  Enfield

  1,870

  3,030

  2,490

  110

  100

  750

  Haringey

  2,980

  6,410

  3,350

  190

  260

  3,570

  Harrow

  1,240

  2,070

  930

  100

  260

  510

  Havering

  730

  1,310

  950

  60

  100

  390

  Hillingdon

  710

  1,190

  940

  50

  40

  390

  Hounslow

  1,970

  2,750

  1,720

  150

  90

  1,140

  Kingston upon Thames

  560

  740

  450

  170

  10

  190

  Merton

  1,180

  1,720

  1,440

  60

  40

  190

  Newham

  4,920

  7,530

  6,990

  320

  180

  1,340

  Redbridge

  2,570

  4,120

  3,450

  130

  80

  960

  Richmond upon Thames

  730

  1,220

  460

  50

  30

  370

  Sutton

  670

  940

  480

  110

  90

  440

  Waltham Forest

  1,390

  6,260

  3,030

  350

  270

  1,270

  Notes:

  1. Figures given are for recipients of housing benefit

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest ten

  3. The data will contain estimations for non-responding authorities

  Source:

  Management Information System Quarterly Caseload counts taken on the last working day of the month in August 1996 and 1997, and on the second Thursday of the month in August 1998

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research he has commissioned on the impact of the single room rent provision on housing benefit; what were the findings of that research which has been completed; and if he will make a statement. [91778]

  Angela Eagle
  In June 1997, this Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions jointly commissioned the London Research Centre to carry out a study on the impact of the rent restriction rules introduced in 1996—the Local Reference Rent and the Single Room Rent. The study also focused on exceptional hardship payments and pre-tenancy determinations. The findings have been published by DETR in the report entitled "Housing Benefit and the Private Rented Sector", a copy of which was placed in the Library.

  We are considering the future of the Single Room Rent as part of our review of Housing Benefit. We will be taking account of all the available research as well as the implications for public expenditure and work incentives.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals his Department has recruited under the New Deal for Young People. [91882]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on 25 May 1999,Official Report, column 116.
  544
  Since the date of the information previously provided, this Department has employed an additional 23 young people under the New Deal arrangements bringing the total to 41.

  CSA
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of CSA cases(a) went to appeal and (b) succeeded on appeal in the last year for which figures are available. [91837]

  Angela Eagle
  The total number of live Child Support Agency (CSA) cases as at 31 December 19981 was 873,000. During the period 1 January 1998 to 31 December 1998 there were 7,217 CSA appeals (0.83 per cent. of 873,000) of which 4,740 (65.7 per cent.) were decided in the appellant's favour.
  1 1998 is the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average cost of the appeal procedure for CSA cases. [91838]

  Angela Eagle
  The Child Support Agency, who deal with child support appeals to the point where they are submitted to The Independent Tribunal Service/The Appeals Service (ITS/TAS), advise that the average cost of a maintenance appeal is £457.31; the average cost of a departure referral is £475. ITS/TAS advise that the national unit cost of clearing a child support appeal was £221 in the 1998–99 financial year, the last year for which figures are available.

  Australia
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met the Australian Social Security Minister; and what discussions were held on the social security agreement between the United Kingdom and Australia. [92035]

  Mr. Timms
  I met Senator Jocelyn Newman, the Australian Minister for Family and Community Services, on 12 July. Senator Newman informed me that, because the United Kingdom Government do not uprate State Retirement Pensions paid in Australia, her Government intended to terminate the bilateral social security agreement between the United Kingdom and Australia. Senator Newman subsequently issued a public statement to this effect.

  It would be unfortunate if there was an end to this long-standing agreement. UK and Australian pensioners would lose out, although no one already receiving a benefit under the agreement would be affected. The UK Government will continue to work closely with the Australian Government on issues of common concern.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many pensioners have suffered unreasonable delays in receiving contributory benefits as a result of NIRS2 problems; [92193]

  List of Health Authority and National Health Service Trust appointments which expired in 1998 and for which no appointment had been made by 1 July 1999

  Region

  Body

  No. of chairs

  No. of non-executives

  North West

  Liverpool Women's Hospital National Health Service Trust1

  0

  1

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust2

  0

  1

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Calderdale and Kirklees Health Authority3

  0

  1

  London

  Croydon Community Health NHS Trust4

  0

  1

  Enfield Community Care NHS Trust5

  0

  1

  Trent

  Grantham and District Hospital NHS Trust6

  0

  1

  South West

  Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust7

  0

  1

  West Midlands

  Walsall Community Health NHS Trust8

  0

  1

  Total

  0

  8

  1 In January, the Trust decided that they wanted to review their establishment with aim of possibly reducing the number of board members from five to four. At the end of April the Trust made the decision to stay with five board members. A collective decision was made that in trying to identify candidates that recommendations should go at the same time as recommendations to fill the November appointment.

  2 Submission to fill the vacancy sent to Minister on 8 June 1999. Delay in putting forward recommendations due to Chairmanship not being filled until March and wanting to take in to account new chairman's views on possible recommendations.

  3 Vacancy has been outstanding since June 1998. RO have been searching for suitable female candidates to put forward after discussing the requirements with the local chair. Have now identified suitable candidates who are meeting the local chairman informally later this month. A submission will go forward after local discussions are complete.

  4 New chairman appointed 1 December 1998—taking opportunity to assess the strength and weaknesses of the board before considering candidates for this vacancy.

  5 Minister indicated that he wanted ethnic minority candidate to consider for the remaining vacancy on this board. Suitable candidates specific to the local area are still being identified.

  6 When making the submission in November 1998 there were three appointments which came to an end plus on ad-hoc vacancy that needed to be filled. Regional Chairman recommended that only two of the four posts be filled. This would allow them to identify other suitable candidates coming forward from the national ad. Given that the Trust are now likely to merge the vacancy is being held open pending possible merger.

  7 Region have been searching for a suitable candidate to put forward. A submission was sent to Ministers on 6 July with candidates to fill the vacancy.

  8 Minister asked in last round for ethnic candidate to be put forward for consideration. There are few ethnic candidates on RO database and have been trying to find suitable candidates to put forward. Submission sent to Minister on 6 July.

  546
  (2) how many pensioners have so far received £10 compensation as a result of NIRS2 problems; and how many are still due to receive payment. [92194]

  Mr. Timms
  NIRS2 was originally due to be operational by February 1997. Delays in completing the system have inconvenienced many benefit claimants.

  The number of pensioners who have suffered significant delays because of the NIRS2 problems may be up to 285,000.

  The number of pensioners who have received £10 compensation as a result of NIRS2 problems, to 30 June, is 166,989. The total number of pensioners entitled to the £10 compensation payment will not be known until all cases have been reviewed.

HEALTH

  NHS Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the National Health Service trust and health authority appointments which were not made by the due date and which remained outstanding on 1 June. [90992]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 21 June 1999,Official Report, column 228. Information for 1 July 1999 is now available and is given in the table.

  Data Series
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new data series separated by gender, race, disability and age have been commissioned by his Department since June 1997. [90831]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department already collects and publishes a range of information about its work force analysed by gender, race, disability and age. We collect ethnicity and disability data using the Cabinet Office's classification. Further details are available from http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/stats1.htm. In addition, this Department carried out a staff attitude survey in September 1998. The information that respondents were asked to provide included details of gender, race, disability and age. Analyses using these categories were included in the survey findings.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to ensure equal access to services for infertility treatment across the country. [91005]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have pledged to tackle unacceptable levels of geographical variations in access to infertility treatment and have set in motion a programme of work to achieve that aim. A Departmental survey of current health authority infertility service provision is taking place at the moment to enable the cost implications of any policy changes to be estimated. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists aim to complete their third, and final, set of evidence based clinical guidelines on infertility this autumn and these will indicate the circumstances in which infertility treatment can be most clinically effective. We can then move towards fairer access to National Health Service infertility services where those most able to benefit from such treatment receive it.

  Fluoride Review
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list(a) the professional, academic and other qualification, (b) the organisation represented by, (c) the declarable interests of, and (d) the period of appointment of, each member of the scientific review team examining fluoride and health; [90993]

  (2) when the scientific review team examining fluoride and health was appointed; when it first met; and how long it is expected to continue; [90996]

  (3) when he expects the results of the scientific review examining fluoride and health to be published; [90994]

  (4) what are the terms of reference of the scientific review of fluoride and health commissioned from York University. [90995]

  Mr. Denham
  The scientific review will assess the evidence for the safety and efficacy of fluoridation of drinking water to prevent caries. The review is being led by Professor Jos Kleijnen, Director, National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York. His team comprises two Research Fellows from the Centre and a Senior Lecturer in Dental Public Health. An advisory group offering a range of expertise and perspectives will also be appointed to oversee its scientific rigour and impartiality. The contract 548
  between the Department and Professor Kleijnen begins in August and the review is due to be completed by the end of February 2000 and we will consider publication then. The date for the first meeting is being considered.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his letter of 30 June, regarding beta interferon, what plans he has to improve the quality of life for multiple sclerosis sufferers. [90810]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service is there to provide services for everybody on the basis of clinical need and it provides a considerable number of services to which people with Multiple Sclerosis have access. Under the present system it is, of course, for health authorities and primary care groups to plan and arrange the services available to people in their care. They are closest to the people they serve and best placed to respond sensitively to their needs.

  We remain committed to improving standards of healthcare. We have set out our plans to address unacceptable variations in services via a modernisation programme to deliver more consistent and higher quality care for patients. New treatments, including new medicines, are introduced into the NHS as fast as possible where they represent a genuine therapeutic advance and are cost effective.

  In addition, the move to new commissioning arrangements will bring about improvements in services for people with conditions like MS. Longer term agreements, reflecting dialogue between clinicians and focusing on health improvement and quality objectives will increase the emphasis on programmes of care that cross the traditional boundaries to meet patients' needs best.

  We are likely to ask the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to prepare guidance on the place of beta interferon among the range of interventions and services available for MS sufferers.

  Stroke Services
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the National Service Framework for Older People will improve access to organised stroke services; and if he will make a statement. [91325]

  Mr. Hutton
  An external reference group (ERG) was set up to advise the Government on the development of the National Service Framework (NSF) for Older People. A number of task groups were set up to support the ERG and one of these is looking at stroke. The aim of the NSF for Older People is to improve the quality of, and reduce variations in, NHS services for older people, including older people who have had a stroke.

  The ERG will be reporting to Ministers in the coming months and it is too early to anticipate their advice. However, emerging findings will be published in the autumn with the NSF itself following in Spring 2000.

  Injury Prevention Programme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the cost of implementing
  549
  council common position 70/98 of 23 November 1998 [OJ C404]; what was his position on this proposal; if qualified majority voting procedures applied; and if he will make a statement. [91843]

  Ms Jowell
  The United Kingdom voted in favour of the proposal for the injury prevention programme set out in Common Position 70/98 under the qualified majority voting procedure and now adopted by Decision No 372/1999/EC.

  The programme is a valuable initiative which we believe will enhance injury prevention work in the UK for a relatively modest outlay. In particular it will allow for the further development of a Community injury database, initially a continuation of the European Home and Leisure Accident Surveillance System (EHLASS), which has driven the raising of safety standards safety throughout Europe.

  Implementation of the programme is expected to cost euro 14 million (estimated £9.9 million) over five years, of which the UK contribution is estimated at £358,000 per annum. This, however, will be offset by payments the UK will receive under the programme for the supply of information to the database. The precise figures for these payments has yet to be determined but similar payments to the UK under the EHLASS system in 1996 amounted to £216,000.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many individuals his Department has recruited under the New Deal for Young People. [91886]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on 25 May 1999,Official Report, column 116.

  The reply of 25 May 1999 gave the number of new deal staff recruited into the Department as of 1 April 1999. Since then, the Department has recruited three further employees under the new deal programme. We have now recruited a total of 11 staff, of whom five are in the 18–24-year-old category.

  Health Impact Assessments
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of health impact assessments, with special reference to the work of the Health Development Agency. [91910]

  Ms Jowell
  We are committed to applying health impact assessments to relevant key Government policies, including those with indirect health consequences, in order to protect and improve people's health. These assessments will build awareness of health and health inequality into the policy making process at every level. We anticipate the Health Development Agency maintaining an up-to-date public health evidence base which will help to underpin health impact assessments.

  Detoxification Centres
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government have taken to establish detoxification centres. [91847]
  550
  Ms Jowell
  Local authorities and health authorities are responsible for determining local needs and priorities for drug and alcohol treatment in their areas and for arranging the provision of services accordingly through the statutory or voluntary sector. Such services could include detoxification where a need for such a service is identified.

  One of the objectives of the Government's drugs strategy is to increase the participation of problem drug users in treatment programmes. One of the main objectives of the United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator's first annual report and national plan is that by the end of 1999–2000 each Drug action team will have to produce an action plan to meet the local demand for detoxification and substitute prescribing services and community based structured therapeutic programmes.

  Centre for Tobacco Research
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding his Department(a) has contributed to the establishment of and (b) plans to provide on an annual basis, for the Centre for Tobacco Research based at the University of Strathclyde. [92013]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has made no contribution to the Centre for Tobacco Research, nor have we any plans to do so.

  Polio Vaccine (Contamination)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on the implications of contamination of polio vaccine in the United Kingdom with simian virus 40 between 1955 and 1963, for the development of cancers in humans. [92020]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: The Secretary of State has received no recent representations on the implications of contamination of polio vaccine with simian virus 40.

  Methadone
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator has to tackle the problem of the misuse of prescribed methadone. [90893]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government are keen to reduce the availability of prescribed controlled drugs such as methadone on the illicit market. Revised clinical guidelines for doctors treating drug misusers were launched in April and sent to all GPs as well as specialists working within the field of drug misuse. They emphasise the importance of supervising the consumption of controlled drugs such as methadone, to improve patient compliance and prevent prescribed drugs reaching the illegal market. Instalment dispensing is also recommended, to avoid drug misusers receiving prescriptions for large quantities of drugs. The working group of experts which drew up the Clinical Guidelines also made a number of recommendations for additional controls on prescribing to addicts. These are intended to underpin the Guidelines by ensuring that only doctors who are properly trained and resourced engage in addiction treatment. The Government will soon be consulting on these proposals.

  Drug Treatment Services
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he proposes to set targets for the reduction in waiting times for drug treatment services. [90899]

  Ms Jowell
  The United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator's Annual Report and National Plan details that by 2002 all Drug Action Teams will be required to have established a locally agreed maximum waiting time for admission into a drug treatment service and be monitoring agencies' performance. The Department currently has no plans to set a maximum centrally for waiting times for drug treatment services.

  One of the conditions for local authorities to receive Drug and Alcohol Specific Grant moneys in 1999–2000 (about a quarter of them will) is to achieve three targets:
  A 10 per cent. increase in the number of problem substance misusers participating in effective treatment and care programmes purchased or provided by local authorities.
  A reduction in the time spent by problem misusers in waiting for an assessment of their needs, after engaging with a service, to 48 hours.
  A 10 per cent. increase in the proportion of decisions to approve funding made within two weeks of a misuser having been formally assessed as needing funding for a service.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Russia (Nuclear Waste)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the extent of the problem of Russian ships storing decaying nuclear waste; and if he will make a statement. [91770]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are concerned about the poor state of repair of some Russian vessels around the Kola Peninsula used to store spent nuclear fuel and a lack of safe storage for this material ashore. A fuller assessment is set out in our "Background Brier entitled "The Nuclear Environment in North-West Russia". This is available on the FCO website and I am placing a copy in the Library. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has personally seen some of the storage ships during his visit to Murmansk in February and has announced over £3 million of assistance.

  We are actively working with the Russians, both directly and through international donor groups, to identify suitable projects. For example, Britain has offered to assist with the licensing of interim storage casks that would permit offloading spent fuel from the Lepse, a storage barge in a particularly unsafe condition and presently moored in Murmansk harbour.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further plans his Department has for assisting with the safe handling of nuclear waste in Russia; and if he will make a statement. [91769]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are in discussion with the Russian authorities, other international donors and industry experts to identify the priorities in what is a highly complex and large scale problem. An important prerequisite is a framework agreement with the Russian Government to 552
  deal with certain key issues such as the taxation, liability and auditing of nuclear assistance projects but we are looking forward to getting action on the ground at the earliest possible date. This process requires the input of various Departments here and we have convened a working group to co-ordinate the work.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many individuals his Department has recruited under the New Deal for Young People. [91888]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on 25 May 1999,Official Report, column 116.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the purpose of the publication, "Britain: Creativity, Innovation and Quality, Design Guidelines for Implementing the Strapline for a New Identity for Britain"; how many requests for copies have been received; which consultants were engaged in the selection process for the logo; and if he will make a statement. [91842]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member for Buckingham to the answer I gave to him on 11 May 1999,Official Report, column 117.

  There have been requests for 702 copies of the guidelines.

  No design consultants were engaged in the selection process for the logo. The conception and development of the strapline were undertaken internally by FCO officials and endorsed by Ministers.

  Iraq
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 December 1998,Official Report, column 419, on Iraq, what action he has since taken to support the Indict campaign. [91789]

  Mr. Hoon
  We continue to support the Indict campaign. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary sent me a personal message of support to Indict in March when the campaign held a meeting in the House to commemorate the eleventh anniversary of the Iraqi chemical weapons attack on the Kurdish town of Halabjah. I recently discussed the campaign with my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and plan to speak at an Indict function in the margins of the Labour party conference. FCO officials are in regular contact with Indict representatives to offer advice and support as appropriate, and have briefed other governments on Indict's work.

  Nationality Applications (New Delhi)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how long applicants to the
  553
  High Commission in New Delhi for British nationality wait for an initial interview; and what instructions he has issued to expedite dealing with applications. [92192]

  Mr. Hoon
  All applications for registration as a British citizen made to our overseas missions are passed to the Home Office for a decision. This process, at present, takes 20 months.

  However, those resident overseas who feel that they may already have an entitlement to British nationality through circumstances of birth or descent are normally advised by the British mission to submit a passport application in order to establish their claim. They may be required to attend an interview if the entitlement is not clear.

  All our overseas missions are governed by the Citizen's Charter. They aim to process properly documented passport applications within five working days.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's efforts to assist in finding a solution to the conflict in Sri Lanka. [92019]

  Mr. Hoon
  We believe a lasting solution to the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka can be reached only through a political settlement. We have made clear that we are ready to help in the search for peace if both sides ask us to play a role.

  Dependent Territories (Environment)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what follow-up action he has taken to the conclusions of the Conference on the Environment in the Dependent Territories, organised at the Zoo, Regents Park, on 29 and 30 June by his Department, in relation to(a) degradation of coral reefs and (b) mangrove swamps. [90729]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: I thank my hon. Friend for his valuable contributions to the recent conference, "A Breath of Fresh Air", about environmental issues in the UK's Overseas Territories. We are now establishing with Overseas Territories' governments the best ways to protect these key habitats, with support where appropriate from new funding announced in the March White Paper, "Partnership for Progress and Prosperity".

  We are also publishing a report commissioned by the British Indian Ocean Territory Government on the problem of coral mortality in the Chagos Archipelago. We have commissioned an educational video for use in the Overseas Territories about key themes discussed at the conference, including coral reefs and mangrove swamps.

  Tajikistan
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the peace process in Tajikistan; and if he will support an extension of the UN Mission of Observers there. [92154]
  554
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: The Government fully support the peace process in Tajikistan and the efforts of the United Nations. We welcome recent positive developments and hope the constitutional referendum and Presidential elections will be held on time later this year. We supported renewal of the mandate of the UN observer mission for six months when it was last discussed in the Security Council in early May and agreed by UN Security Council Resolution 1240.

  East Timor
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to support the proposed United Nations mission in East Timor; what level of troop deployment is planned for the mission; and what plans he has for UK troop deployment there. [92155]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: We have despatched seven British police officers with UN Bosnia experience and two Military Liaison Officers to East Timor. The United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET), which has a British head, is now at full strength and consists of 241 international staff members, 420 UN volunteers, 280 civilian police, 50 Military Liaison officers and 4,000 East Timorese staff. We have no plans to deploy further police or military personnel to the territory.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the confidence-building measures and discussions between the two communities in Cyprus. [90466]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: In line with the UN Secretary-General's initiative of 30 September 1998, his Special Representative, Dame Ann Hercus, has been conducting a process of on-island contacts with the leaders of the two communities aimed at reducing tensions and promoting progress towards a just and lasting settlement.

  The UN Security Council, in its Resolution 1250 (1999) of 29 June, welcomed these contacts and urged the UN Secretary-General to invite the two leaders to enter without preconditions into comprehensive negotiations starting in the autumn. We have confirmed to the UN Secretary-General that he will have our full support in his efforts to get negotiations underway.

  Yemen
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the trial in the Yemen of British citizens. [92241]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Foreign Secretary's statement to the House 11 January 1999,Official Report, column 21. On 22 June the trial in Aden of the eight British nationals was adjourned until 25 July when the Court plans to deliver its judgment. British consular officials, who have attended the trial from the outset, will attend also for the judgment. I can make no further comment on the case at this stage since it remains sub judice.

  Saharawi Refugees
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions he is taking to assist the Saharawi refugees to return home. [91903]

  Mr. Hoon
  We fully support the United Nations in their efforts to repatriate the Saharawi refugees. We regularly urge both sides to cooperate with MINURSO in their efforts to prepare the way, and to keep to the UN Secretary-General's deadlines.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Dairy Farming
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to promote agri-environment measures for smaller dairy farmers to offset lower commodity prices. [91298]

  Mr. Morley
  Agri-environment schemes provide payments for farmers to manage their land with the objective of protecting and enhancing the natural beauty and diversity of the countryside. The schemes are not designed to offset the effects of lower commodity prices. Payment rates are calculated on the basis of the income forgone and costs associated with managing the land in accordance with scheme requirements.

  The schemes do, however, include measures which provide smaller dairy farmers with the opportunity of managing their land in an environmentally sensitive way.

  The schemes are promoted through the issue of scheme literature, project officer advice and targeted publicity.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many individuals his Department has recruited under the New Deal for Young People. [91894]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on 25 May 1999,Official Report, column 116.

  We have recruited five individuals under the New Deal for Young People.

  Appointments (Quangos)
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many appointments to quangos he made between (i) 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998 and (ii) 1 June 1998 and 31 May 1999. [92047]

  Mr. Morley
  The following appointments have been made by my right hon. Friend the Minister:

  (i) Between 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998: 228

  (ii) Between 1 June 1998 and 31 May 1999: 67.

  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many members of Britain's(a) ethnic minority communities and (b) Asian community he appointed to quangos between (i) 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998 and (ii) 1 June 1998 and 31 May 1999. [92118]
  556
  Mr. Morley
  Two members of Britain's ethnic communities were appointed in each of the periods stated. All of these were members of the Asian community.

  Departmental plans on equal opportunities, setting objectives and targets for improving representation of women, people from ethnic minority groups and people with disabilities, were published by the Government on 25 May 1999 and deposited in the Libraries of the House.

WALES

  Oncologists
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of clinical and medical oncologists per 100,000 population for each health authority in Wales. [90805]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information on NHS medical and dental staff is collected annually as at 30 September. The latest available information is in the following table. It gives the number of whole time equivalents (Wte) in post in September 1997.

  Staff in post at 30 September 1997 (excluding locums) per 1 million population1

  Consultants

  All grades

  Health authority area

  Number

  Wte

  Number

  Wte

  Medical Oncology

  North Wales

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  —

  2.1

  0.4

  Morgannwg

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bro Taf

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wales

  0.3

  0.3

  0.7

  0.4

  Clinical Oncology

  North Wales

  1.5

  0.7

  1.5

  0.7

  Dyfed Powys

  6.3

  0.7

  8.4

  2.8

  Morgannwg

  8.0

  7.4

  14.0

  11.7

  Bro Taf

  14.9

  12.0

  36.7

  30.6

  Gwent

  1.8

  1.0

  1.8

  1.0

  Wales

  5.8

  4.7

  12.6

  10.5

  1 Consultants who work in more than one health authority are counted in each health authority but only once in the total for Wales.

TREASURY

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the reduction in employers' national insurance contributions in compensation for the climate change levy will go to public sector bodies. [89952]

  Ms Hewitt
  Provisional estimates suggest that, on the basis of the illustrative rates of climate change levy set out in the Customs and Excise consultation document, the climate change levy proposals, combined with the reduction in the main rate of employers' National Insurance Contributions of 0.5 percentage points, might lower costs in the public administration sector by some
  557
  £100 million to £150 million annually. The rates of levy set out in the Customs and Excise consultation document on the climate change levy are purely illustrative and final rates will not be set until Finance Bill 2000.

  Estimates were derived from economic data published by the Office for National Statistics.

  Jill Dando
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will donate a sum equivalent to the revenue that the Inland Revenue will receive in inheritance tax from Jill Dando's estate to the reward being offered to catch her killer. [90623]

  Mrs. Roche
  I am unable to comment of the tax affairs of individuals.

  Financial Services Act 1986
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many actions have been brought under section 133 of the Financial Services Act 1986; and how many such actions resulted in prosecution. [91072]

  Ms Hewitt
  We are not aware of any actions brought under this section.

  Fuel Duty Rebate
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of the fuel duty rebate in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998–99; and what the projection is for (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01. [91404]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Expenditure on fuel duty rebate in Great Britain as a whole and the rate of rebate per litre for diesel (the fuel predominantly used by bus operators) in each of the years requested is as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure (£ million)

  Rate of Rebate (Pence per litre)

  1995–96

  229

  25.14

  1996–97

  228

  25.14

  1997–98

  227

  25.14

  1998–99

  271

  29.85

  1999–2000

  1333

  35.07

  1 Estimated

  Number of deaths in Kidderminster registration district, where the River Severn or an unspecified river is mentioned, 1993–98

  Verdict

  Cause

  River Severn

  River not specified

  Suicide

  Drowning

  1

  0

  Open

  Drowning

  3

  1

  Cause not ascertainable

  1

  0

  Accident

  Fall into water

  1

  1

  Fall into water in course of epileptic fit

  0

  1

  Drowning

  1

  0

  Total

  7

  3

  558
  Expenditure in future years will depend on the total fuel consumed in operating eligible routes for which bus operators make claims for rebate, and on decisions still to be taken on the proportion of duty to be rebated in each year.

  Tax Certificates
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to ensure that all applications to the Inland Revenue for C1S6 and C1S5 certificates are processed before 1 August; and if he will make a statement. [90787]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 July 1999]: The Inland Revenue is doing all it can to ensure that certificate applications are processed quickly. It takes about four weeks to process a certificate application (against one week for registration cards) because of the compliance checks. Where a subcontractor applies for a certificate late there may now not be enough time to make sure that it is processed before 1 August. Where the Inland Revenue consider that there is not enough time to process the certificate application they will arrange for a registration card, or temporary tax payment card to be issued so that the subcontractor can be paid.

  River Severn (Deaths)
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many members of the public have died in(a) accidents and (b) suicides in the River Severn in the Wyre Forest District Council area in the past 10 years; and what was the cause of death in each case. [91581]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Lock, dated 21 July 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question on how many members of the public have died in the River Severn.
  Between 1993 and 1998, there were seven deaths in the Kidderminster Registration District, which is broadly coterminous with the area administered by Wyre Forest District Council, where the River Severn was mentioned on the coroner's certificate of death. In addition, there were three deaths which occurred in a river not specified by the coroner. Corresponding data for years prior to 1993 are not available.
  The verdicts and underlying causes of the ten deaths are given in the table.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a copy of the terms of the contract under which Andersen Consulting are currently developing the NIRS2 computer system. [91652]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 July 1999]: The terms of the contract with Andersen Consulting are commercially confidential and are exempt from disclosure under paragraph 13 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Construction Industry Scheme
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many firms are on the waiting list to register for the construction industry scheme; and what is the average time taken from application to registration. [91655]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: There is no waiting list for subcontractors who wish to apply for registration cards or certificates for the construction industry scheme. A subcontractor must complete an application form and take it to a tax office for an identity check. This can be done almost immediately. On average it takes one week to process an application form for a registration card.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advertisements the Inland Revenue has placed to inform businesses of the need to register under the new construction industry scheme; and what has been the cost of the advertisements. [91656]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: The Inland Revenue has paid for five phases of national advertising to inform business, contractors and

  Maternities in England and Wales by multiplicity 1990–1998

  Year

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Singletons

  692,885

  685,477

  675,329

  659,962

  650,826

  633,366

  634,979

  626,814

  620,846

  Twins

  7,934

  8,160

  8,314

  8,302

  8,451

  8,749

  8,615

  8,899

  8,776

  Triplets

  201

  208

  202

  234

  260

  282

  259

  295

  297

  Quadruplets

  10

  10

  8

  12

  8

  7

  8

  7

  7

  Quintuplets

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sextuplets

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Septuplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Total maternities

  701,030

  693,857

  683,854

  668,511

  659,545

  642,404

  643,862

  636,015

  629,926

  Social Security Acts
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received the report from the Government Actuary on the operation of the Social Security Acts for the five years from April 1990. [92525]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have today laid before the House a report that the Government Actuary has made on the operation of the Social Security Acts between 6 April 1990 and 5 April 1995 in accordance with Section 166 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  It provides a detailed look forward into the next century of the possible future costs of benefits paid out of the National Insurance Fund and the contributions likely to be needed to pay for them.
  560
  subcontractors about the construction industry scheme at a total cost of £2,450,000. The key messages have progressively moved from general awareness raising, through a call to action to 'apply now' and has featured in the main tabloids, construction press and commercial radio. On top of this there has been local and regional advertising of the local office opening times.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of businesses that should have registered under the construction industry scheme by 1 August; and what projection he has made of the number which will have done so by that date. [91658]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: The Inland Revenue estimates that approximately 635,000 businesses are due to complete application forms for the construction industry scheme. They expect 90 per cent. to have done so by 1 August.

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish for each year from 1990 the numbers of(a) maternities and (b) sets of twins, triplets, quadruplets, quintuplets, sextuplets and septuplets born in England and Wales. [92262]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 21 July 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the numbers of maternities in England and Wales.
  The requested data are shown in the following table:

  Following the Social Security (Transfer of Functions etc.) Act 1999 this report is made to both the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Social Security—but the responsibility for laying the report rests with Treasury Ministers.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the regulation of mortgages. [92362]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury has issued a discussion document to form the basis of a review to determine whether there is a case for the statutory regulation of advice on and marketing of mortgages. Copies of the document have been placed in the Vote Office and Libraries of the House.

  Invest to Save
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to extend the first round of Invest to Save pilot projects. [90884]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) on 19 May 1999,Official Report, column 366.

  The second bidding round of the Invest to Save Budget is presently under way. Expressions of interest have been submitted to the Treasury and bidders will be advised in due course whether they will be invited to submit proposals for the final bidding stage. I expect to announce winners at the end of the year.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  BNFL
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the members of the Liabilities Management Unit of BNFL. [92055]

  Mr. Battle
  The Liabilities Management Unit (LMU) at BNFL consists of 34 BNFL staff and 1 agency worker based at the Sellafield and Berkeley sites. The Head of the LMU is Robin Sellers, based at Sellafield.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list his reasons for announcing his proposals for BNFL through a written answer rather than an oral statement. [92058]

  Mr. Battle
  As the hon. Member is aware, it is a matter of judgment whether to make an announcement through a written answer or oral statement.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the new index against which BNFL's safety, health and environmental performance will be measured. [92054]

  Mr. Battle
  BNFL and the Government regard safety, health and the environment as being of paramount importance. That is why the targets set for BNFL look to the company to achieve continuous and measurable improvement against the Safety, Health and Environment (SHE) Index. The Index is based on similar indices used in the United States, including the US Department of Energy, and will measure the company's performance against standards achieved in conventional, radiological and environmental safety, and health. The Index is being developed by BNFL in close discussion with the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and the Environment Agencies.

  Miners (Respiratory Diseases)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial controls have been put in place by his Department regulating the flow of payments of compensation to former miners suffering from respiratory disease. [92063]

  Mr. Battle
  Since assuming the former British Coal's health liabilities in January 1998 the Government have made clear that they will provide the funds necessary to meet the cost of legitimate claims. Financial structures 562
  will be put in place to ensure that the funds are properly disbursed. Claims will be settled as rapidly and as fairly as possible within this framework.

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of those ex-miners receiving compensation for respiratory diseases are having their cases settled under the expedited payment system; and what proportion are receiving payments under the system by which compensation is reduced due to other factors. [92062]

  Mr. Battle
  To date Healthcall—the service provider—has carried out some 3,300 spirometry tests. Of these, we have processed 1,793 and offers of expedited payments have been made to 500 of these. The number actually receiving payments will depend on how many claimants accept the offers.

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the total number of recipients of compensation for former miners suffering from respiratory diseases; how many cases have been(a) settled and (b) paid; what is the average number of cases settled each week; and what steps he is taking to speed up the processing of claims. [92099]

  Mr. Battle
  The Department have received some 77,000 claims from former miners, and their dependants, for compensation for respiratory diseases. We anticipate receiving in excess of 100,000 in total. The Department is unable to estimate how many of these claimants will receive compensation until they have all passed through the procedures contained in the handling arrangements which are still to be finally agreed with those representing the claimants. Pending the signing of the handling arrangement, full and final settlements have so far been made to the seven lead cases decided by the court. In addition the Department has made offers of interim payments and bereavement awards to 13,700 claimants, totalling some £31 million.

  A contract for a national programme of spirometry testing for all respiratory disease claimants has been awarded and testing centres are being established in coalmining areas. This will enable us to make further interim payments and, in some cases, full and final offers to those who may not wish to pursue their claim further. We are also tendering for the delivery of the national medical assessment process and we hope to make the first full and final settlement offers later this year.

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many widows of deceased miners are currently awaiting interim payments for the Respiratory Disease Litigation Scheme; how many such widows have already received payments; how many are being paid each month; and what factors underlie the current backlog. [92064]

  Mr. Battle
  We have made some 500 interim payments in the form of bereavement awards, totalling nearly £4.3 million over the last six months. A further 1,600 claims, accompanied by valid death certificates supporting the claims, have been received but require validation of the deceased's work history. The procedure for carrying out this validation has been agreed only very recently with the plaintiff solicitors. We are now processing these outstanding claims as a matter of urgency.

  Debts (Late Payment)
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports he has received from the late payment monitoring unit at Bradford University since the implementation of the first stage of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. [91902]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: The Credit Management Research Centre, based at Leeds University Business School since July 1998, has produced two "Credit Management Quarterly Review Results Bulletins" since the implementation of the first phase of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act in November 1998. They have covered the periods October 1998 to December 1998 (published in March 1999) and January 1999 to March 1999 (published in June 1999) respectively.

  The Quarterly Reviews report on and analyse payment and credit trends and specific topical issues, including the introduction of the late payment legislation. My officials keep in close touch with the work of the Centre.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 July. [91813]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I met the Israeli Prime Minister and later visited Winsford in the Eddisbury constituency. Later today, in addition to my duties in the House, I will have meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

  Anglo-Italian Summit
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Anglo-Italian Summit. [92763]

  The Prime Minister
  I was pleased to host the British-Italian Summit on 19 and 20 July. This is the first such Summit to take place since 1995. In addition to Heads of Government, the Summit brought together Foreign, Defence and Industry Ministers, allowing us to develop and broaden our dialogue with one of our key partners in Europe. The Summit produced three joint declarations on strengthening European Defence Capabilities; a proposal for action from our two Governments on a new European Social Agenda; and reform of the European Commission. Copies have been placed in the Library. The Summit highlighted the congruence of views between Britain and Italy on these and a number of other issues, and specifically

  Complement

  Percentage Male

  Female

  Age 40–60 years

  Age 61–72 years

  Supreme Court Judges

  11

  100

  0

  5

  6

  County Court Judges

  14

  93

  7

  10

  4

  District Judges

  4

  75

  25

  3

  1

  Resident Magistrates

  17

  88

  12

  14

  3

  Masters

  7

  71

  29

  4

  3

  564
  identified areas where Britain and Italy would work together, for example defence industry restructuring and energy liberalisation.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judicial Appointments (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions and on what dates since 1969 his Department has reviewed the method of judicial appointments in Northern Ireland; and what steps have been taken to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religion or community origin. [91537]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Lord Chancellor assumed responsibility for judicial appointments in Northern Ireland in 1973. Successive Lord Chancellors, including the present Lord Chancellor, have adopted a policy of continuous improvement to the appointments processes, of appointment purely on merit and of ensuring equality of opportunity.

  The Lord Chancellor has recently extended his practice of advertising vacancies for judicial office to include the post of High Court Judge and such advertisements include a statement on the Lord Chancellor's equal opportunities policy.

  Posts are advertised (in professional journals) and there are job descriptions and detailed objective selection criteria as appropriate. Candidates are assessed against these criteria. Members of selection panels receive written and oral briefing which in particular covers equal opportunity issues.

  All these measures support the Lord Chancellor's objective to ensure that judicial appointments procedures are open and transparent.

  Appointments to the judiciary and magistracy and safeguards for protecting their independence are also part of the terms of reference of the Review of Criminal Justice currently in train.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will estimate the overall composition of the judiciary in Northern Ireland according to(a) perceived community origin, (b) gender and (c) age. [91538]

  Mr. Vaz
  The current complement of full-time judicial office-holders in Northern Ireland is 53. The perceived community origin of appointees is not a factor in judicial appointments and so is not recorded as part of the judicial appointments process. Details of gender and age of these postholders are as outlined.
  565
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the dates of judicial appointments in Northern Ireland since 1969, in each case describing the perceived community origin of the appointee. [91539]

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  July 1999

  Lord Chief Justice

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Lord Justice of Appeal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  High Court Judge

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  County Court Judge

  —

  1

  —

  2

  I

  —

  2

  3

  —

  District Judge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Resident Magistrate

  1

  1

  3

  1

  1

  —

  2

  2

  1

  Masters of the Supreme Court

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  1

  2

  9

  3

  3

  1

  9

  7

  3

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many court actions for mortgage repossessions have been brought in the last five years for which figures are available in(a) Edmonton and (b) Enfield Magistrates Court. [91801]

  Mr. Vaz
  Applications for mortgage repossessions are civil actions made in County Courts. The figures in Edmonton and Barnet County Courts are as follows:

  Year

  Edmonton

  Barnet

  1994

  1,518

  506

  1995

  1,106

  459

  1996

  1,126

  521

  1997

  864

  337

  1998

  920

  367

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what date the Courts Service received appeal papers in respect of Mr. Liaqat Ali (ISB/F4245) husband of Mrs. Jehan Akhtar of Aylesbury; when he expects the Courts Service to let Mr. Ali and Mrs. Akhtar know the date of their appeal hearing; and if he will make a statement. [91786]

  Mr. Vaz
  It has not been possible to trace the appeal from the limited information provided. Although there are several appeals listed under the name of Liaqat Ali, none match the date of birth or reference number quoted. perhaps the hon. Member will write to me if further details can be provided.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average time between receipt of the Courts Service appeal papers in immigration cases and notification of the date of appeal to the parties in(a) May 1997, (b) May 1998 and (c) the most recent month for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [91787]

  Mr. Vaz
  No figures are available for May 1997. In May 1998, 40.9 per cent. of certified appeals and 100 per cent. of other appeals were issued within five
  566
  Mr. Vaz
  Judicial appointments in Northern Ireland from 1991 to July 1999 are as set out. Information prior to 1991 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The perceived community origin of appointees is not a factor in judicial appointments and so is not recorded as part of the judicial appointments process.

  working days. In June 1999, 100 per cent. of certified and other appeals were issued within five working days of receipt.

  Child Abduction
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when is the next planned meeting of the Parent/Carer Child Abduction Co-ordinating Group. [91788]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Parent/Carer Child Abduction Co-ordinating Group met on 14 July. The next meeting of the Group is in the process of being arranged for mid-October 1999.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many individuals the Lord Chancellor's Department has recruited under the New Deal for Young People. [91895]

  Mr. Vaz
  At present, the Lord Chancellor's Department has recruited three young people under the New Deal. We have undertaken to employ a further nine people under the scheme and arrangements are being made for their recruitment and training.

CABINET OFFICE

  Anti-drugs Co-ordinator
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the work of the UK Anti-drugs Co-ordinator. [90879]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The UK Anti-drugs Co-ordinator published his first annual report and national plan in May. The report outlined progress made in relation to the strategy during 1998–99. The plan set challenging targets for the strategy for the short, medium and long term.

  Civil Service (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proportion of the senior civil service are from ethnic minorities. [90881]
  567
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  On 1 April 1998, 1.6 per cent. of the Senior Civil Service came from ethnic minorities.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will publish the Government's proposals to ensure effective inter-departmental co-ordination of policies on genetic modification, in preparation for the World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle in November. [90882]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Ministerial Group on Biotechnology and Genetic-Modification reviews all areas of Government policy relating to genetic modification. There will be effective interdepartmental co-ordination in preparation for the World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle with regard to all subjects under discussion.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what sources of advice he uses on the issue of genetically modified food. [90883]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Government are advised on the issue of genetically modified foods by a range of sources including expert advisory committees such as the Advisory Committee for Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP). We also receive advice from the Chief Scientific Adviser, and the Chief Medical Officer.

  My ministerial colleagues and I are also in regular contact with a large number of groups which have an interest in genetically modified foods such as consumer groups, environmental groups and biotechnology companies.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what representations he has received on the documents relating to genetically modified food produced by the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser and published by them. [90888]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I have received a number of representations from hon. Members, consumer groups, environmental groups and biotechnology companies.

  Biotechnology Commission
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he plans that the new Biotechnology Commission should start its work. [90885]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  There will be two new advisory commissions—the Human Genetics Commission and the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. Both of the new commissions will be in place by the end of the year.

  Public Bodies
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to ensure the accountability of non-elected appointees to public bodies. [90887]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  All board members of non-departmental public bodies are accountable through Ministers to Parliament. The Government are implementing a range of measures to strengthen accountability which were set out in "Quangos: Opening the Doors", copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what is the average time it takes for Government departments to answer letters from hon. Members; and what plans he has to reduce the time taken. [90889]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The majority of letters from hon. Members to Ministers are replied to within the target times set by individual Departments, which is typically 15 to 20 working days. The Government are determined to improve their performance in handling correspondence from hon. Members and Ministers are now working towards replying to at least 90 per cent. of all correspondence within the target times set by their Department.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many visits to the city of Birmingham, and for what purpose, have been made by members of the Social Exclusion Unit. [90891]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Officials from the Social Exclusion Unit have visited Birmingham on a number of occasions as part of their work in preparing reports on a range of policy areas. Their purpose has included project visits, attendance at conferences and consultations with the local government and voluntary sector.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's anti-drugs strategy in South Yorkshire. [90892]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Drug Action Teams in South Yorkshire have drawn up action plans for 1999–2000 establishing local priorities in line with the strategy. In preparing their 2000–01 action plans, they will review their priorities in the light of local circumstances. They will set local targets in line with those published in the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinators annual report and national plan.

  EU Regulations
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to use the Intergovernmental Conference next year to reduce the amount of regulation from the European Union. [90894]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  This Government achieved much through the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) in terms of rasing the importance of the better European regulation agenda. In particular, the Protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality requires the Commission to take due account of the potential burdens from proposed legislation. These successes, along with the consensus among member states for a short, focused IGC, mean this Government do not intend to push for wide areas of the Treaties to be opened up for renegotiation. However, the Government do believe that the principles of better regulation should influence the EU' s decisions making process and will be pushing for this as part of their wider objectives for reform of the Commission and other institutions.

  Public-private Partnerships
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will ensure that pension rights of public service workers are protected in public-private partnerships. [90895]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on protecting pensions in PFI and PPP deals, 14 June 1999,Official Report, column 30.

  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on what steps he is taking to protect the employment rights of public sector staff under public-private partnership deals. [90898]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office announcing the publication for consultation of a Statement of Practice on Staff Transfers in the Public Sector, 5 July 1999,Official Report, columns 388–89.

  Building

  Location

  Running costs (£)

  Status

  Comment

  Cabinet Office1

  Government offices on Great George Street

  London, SW1

  3,188,932

  Occupier/not owner

  Alencon Link2

  Basingstoke

  848,048

  Owner occupier

  Property was sold in 1999–2000

  Queen Anne's Chambers

  London, SW1

  309,388

  Occupier/not owner

  36 Whitehall2

  London, SW1

  732,243

  Owner occupier

  10/12 Downing Street2

  London, SW1

  2,798,311

  Owner occupier

  Admiralty House2

  London, SW1

  299,066

  Owner/not occupier

  70 Whitehall2

  London, SW1

  4,579,477

  Owner occupier

  Hepburn House

  London SW1

  762,911

  Occupier/not owner

  Ashley House

  London, SW1

  742,877

  Occupier/not owner

  Grosvenor House

  Basingstoke

  375,731

  Occupier/not owner

  10 Great George Street

  London, SW1

  360,768

  Occupier/not owner

  Matthew Parker Street

  London, SW1

  Nil

  Occupier/not owner

  Hercules House

  London, SW1

  91,404

  Occupier/not owner

  53 Parliament Street2

  London, SW1

  155,659

  Owner/occupier

  Hampton House

  London, SW1

  4,507

  Occupier/not owner

  11 Belgrave Road

  London, SW1

  163,005

  Occupier/not owner

  The Arch/Ripley/Kirkland House2

  London, SW1

  682,645

  Owner/not occupier

  Chessington

  Chessington

  3,008

  Sold/residual

  Dacre House

  London

  833,610

  Occupier/not owner

  Figures include costs associated with OHSA who have vacated the premises

  Murray House

  London, SW1

  591

  Sold/residual

  Sovereign House

  Norwich

  360,761

  Occupier/not owner

  Chadwick Street Centre2

  London, SW1

  86,343

  Owner/not occupier

  13–15 Great Scotland Yard2

  London, SW1

  120,652

  Owner/not occupier

  Britannia House

  London, SW1

  75,581

  Occupier/not owner

  Tufton Street

  London, SW1

  Nil

  Occupier/not owner

  No cost to Cabinet Office and now vacated

  St. Clement's House

  Norwich

  77,252

  Occupier/not owner

  St. Christopher House

  London, SE1

  146,000

  Occupier/not owner

  RAF Burtonwood

  Warrington

  86,000

  Occupier/not owner

  Civil Service College2

  Sunningdale Park

  Ascot

  1,932,616

  Owner occupier

  Belgrave Road

  London, SW1

  608,449

  Occupier/not owner

  Government Car and Despatch Agency

  Pontin Road

  London, SW8

  815,637

  Occupier/not owner

  Colchester Industrial Estate

  Cardiff

  14,765

  Occupier/not owner

  Commerce Court

  Bradford

  6,236

  Occupier/not owner

  Mount Street Business Centre

  Birmingham

  2,688

  Occupier/not owner

  Property Advisers to the Civil Estate

  Trevelyan House

  London, SW1

  864,071

  Occupier/not owner

  28 Thistle Street2

  Edinburgh

  154,381

  Owner occupier

  Alexandra House

  Leeds

  126,699

  Occupier/not owner

  West Point

  Manchester

  105,470

  Occupier/not owner

  38 George Road

  Birmingham

  198,672

  Occupier/not owner

  Beauford Court2

  Bristol

  147,141

  Owner occupier

  Better Regulation Initiative
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to introduce new regulations under the Better Regulation Initiative in the forthcoming parliamentary session. [90896]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Government will continue to put forward draft orders for consideration of the House of Commons Deregulation Committee and the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee of the House of Lords. The Government are also looking at the scope for reform of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and will bring forward proposals as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the location and running costs in the last year for each of his Department's buildings. [90863]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The table lists the buildings of my Department, including executive agencies, and gives the running costs for the last financial year.
  571

  Building

  Location

  Running costs (£)

  Status

  Comment

  Central Computer and Telecom. Agency

  Rosebery Court

  Norwich

  1,713,220

  Occupier/not owner

  Steel House3

  London, SW1

  62,255

  Occupier/not owner

  The Buying Agency

  Royal Liver Building

  Liverpool

  320,000

  Occupier/not owner

  Central Office of Information

  Hercules House

  London, SE1

  2,349,000

  Occupier/not owner

  Wellbar House

  Gallowgate

  45,385

  Occupier/not owner

  Sunley Tower

  Manchester

  81,017

  Occupier/not owner

  City House

  Leeds

  67,235

  Occupier/not owner

  Five Ways House

  Birmingham

  81,369

  Occupier/not owner

  The Pithay

  Bristol

  67,041

  Occupier/not owner

  Belgrave Centre

  Nottingham

  46,626

  Occupier/not owner

  Three Crowns House

  Cambridge

  51,119

  Occupier/not owner

  1 The Cabinet Office metropolitan telephone services are accounted for separately. The total cost of this service in 1998–99 was £719,138.

  2 A notional capital charge is included as part of running cost calculations for the building, as indicated in the Voted Supply Estimate. Capital charging was introduced from 1 April 1998. Departments pay capital charges, on the property they hold, from running cost provision. Departments record on the Vote matching receipts outside running costs classified as negative expenditure. Capital charge calculations are revised each year and based on the value of the property.

  3 Figure represents estimated annual running costs for Steel House. No charge was made to CCTA in 1998–99 as agreed with the property holder.

  Note:

  Figures reflect running cost expenditure in-year. Figure may be revised following completion of 1998–99 accounts.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many individuals his Department has recruited under the New Deal for Young People. [91893]

  Mr. Kilfoyle: I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on 25 May 1999, Official Report, column 116.

  Family-friendly Employment Policies
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress he is making in developing family-friendly employment policies within Government departments; and if he will make a statement. [90875]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  All Government Departments already have a range of family friendly policies in place which include flexible working arrangements, help with child care and career breaks.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Lord Lea of Crondall
David Edward Lea, Esquire, OBE, having been created Baron Lea of Crondall, of Crondall in the County of Hampshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord McCarthy and the Lord Murray of Epping Forest.
Lord Elder
Thomas Murray Elder, Esquire, having been created Baron Elder, of Kirkcaldy in Fife, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Haskel and the Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Glyphosate Residues in Food
2.47 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
When and upon what basis the decision was made to increase the maximum residue level of glyphosate in food by 200 times; whether the increase also applies to glufosinate ammonium; and whether it is their practice to advise food manufacturers and retailers when such changes are made.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, currently there are 152 statutory maximum residue levels (MRLs) for glyphosate in various foods. Only the one for soya has increased.
This decision was taken by the European Union following a full risk assessment which indicated that residues at the new level do not represent an unacceptable risk to consumers. The new MRL of 20 mg/kg was implemented into United Kingdom legislation on 30th April 1997 following, I am advised, the usual consultation arrangements at that time. The MRL does not apply to glufosinate ammonium.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that full reply. Is he aware of Italian work which shows that glyphosate is genotoxic and that it has particular affinity for liver and kidneys? In view of the fact that soya is widely used in our foods, and that we have a problem with genetically modified soya in that it cannot easily be separated from soya that has not been genetically modified, should we not express particular caution with this product? Is the noble Lord also aware that it seems to be the commercial, as
966
opposed to the technical, formulation which is causing the problems? Further to Written Questions that I have asked about other products, is it not very important that we know what the so-called inert ingredients and surfactants are in these products?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I bow to the noble Countess's greater knowledge of this subject. I must confess that as of 24 hours ago my knowledge was not very profound.
This matter was subject to a full scientific scrutiny before the approvals were given in Europe and brought into legislation by the previous administration. The increase in the level is considered to be well within safety levels; indeed, it could be increased a further ten times without risk. If the noble Countess is concerned about any further technical aspects, I shall certainly write to her.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister say why it was fixed previously at such a low level? Surely there was some negligence there.
Lord Donoughue: No, my Lords. The previous level—which I think was 0.01—was effectively a zero level. It operated before the matter had been considered and when it was not a practical question. It then became an issue of trade. The low level prevented the import of soya treated in this way from, say, the United States. When that issue was raised, the level was increased by 200 to make it a more relevant level. The previous level was effectively a zero level.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Lord identify the name of the committee at the European level; whether it was a regulatory, advisory or management committee; and the name of the person who represented the United Kingdom on that committee? Can he say whether the results of the committee's deliberations were, in addition to the Government, made available to Parliament as a whole?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I cannot reveal the name because the matter was conducted under the previous administration and all such information is kept secret. The matter was scrutinised by the appropriate and relevant European committee, which has approved already some 11,000 maximum residual levels and continues to do so. Again, if there is anything of relevance in what my noble friend has asked, I will write to him.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, is the Minister aware that cattle across the country are fed high volumes of soya? Does that have any effect on humans? Has any work been carried out to check the levels taken in by cattle and whether that in any way can be passed on to humans?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not know about work into cattle feed. Currently soya is being monitored by the relevant working party on residual levels in

967
pesticides. Three kinds of soya are being investigated this year. I am not aware that animal feed is being investigated.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, before we leave the Question, can the Minister tell me what is glyphosate?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I sympathise with my noble friend. I asked the same question at 10.15 this morning. Glyphosate is a total weedkiller which is used by a number of companies. In this case it is marketed by one particular company. It also acts as a desiccating agent. It is a total weedkiller and therefore is of relevance to the issue of genetically modified crops issues in that seeds which are resistant to it are being developed.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, my understanding is that the level was raised because of the introduction of GM crops and the fact that such crops are able to be sprayed at a later stage rather than at seed stage. Can the Minister comment on that and on the question of the noble Countess about the implications for human health?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not agree. The increased level was not introduced for genetically modified foods but for non-genetically modified soya. It was introduced at a later stage for genetically modified food. As I said, that happened under the previous administration.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, are the Government's advisers in agreement with the advisers to the Commission on this specific issue?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, yes. As far as I understand it, our advisers are in agreement with them.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, was the Minister informed in his briefing that glyphosate is one of the most common causes of complaint to the UK Health and Safety Executive's pesticide incidents appraisal panel? In those circumstances, is not it a matter of great concern, in respect of soya or any other product, that the levels of glyphosate—or Roundup, I think was the word the Minister was trying to use earlier—should be correct. It is manufactured by Monsanto; that is the company with which we are concerned. Should not the Government reappraise whether the level is correct?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the Government are concerned about any threats to health and safety; that is why the working party is looking at this issue. It is Roundup; I did not wish to give a plug to the company marketing that tradename. We are looking at that aspect in relation to soya. The advisory committee is concerned with safety in relation to glyphosate and other organophosphates. This is an OP, and that is why we are reviewing the whole issue.

Digital Broadcasting Licences: Religious Bodies
2.56 p.m.
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to permit religious bodies to hold digital broadcasting licences.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Broadcasting Act 1990, as amended by the Broadcasting Act 1996, disqualifies groups whose objectives are wholly or mainly of a religious nature from holding a terrestrial digital radio multiplex licence or a programme service licence. The Government have received legal advice to the effect that the UK's policy on national radio licensing represents a legitimate aim for the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights and that the Broadcasting Acts pursue those aims in a fully defensible way. We have no immediate plans to introduce new government broadcasting legislation, but then would be the time to review matters of broadcasting policy.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that disappointing but also somewhat encouraging reply. I should declare an interest as chairman of the trustees who own Premier Christian Radio, which broadcasts throughout the Greater London area. Does the noble Lord appreciate that all such bodies are effectively being barred from applying for the new licences currently being advertised in an industry that is growing at an unprecedented rate? Are the Government prepared to allow time in the next Session for a Private Member's Bill to correct this anomaly and to permit religious organisations to hold terrestrial digital radio licences?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is certainly an anomaly in the sense that the amendment of the Broadcasting Act 1990 by the Broadcasting Act 1996 allowed local analogue licences but did not allow local digital licences. That was an omission from the 1996 Act. As I made clear in my first Answer, the Government do not have any plans to introduce legislation. We would take any private Member's legislation on its merits.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, my noble friend has a point. This is an appropriate matter for Parliament to consider, particularly against the background of the revolution in digital broadcasting. Now is perhaps the right time to investigate fully whether it is appropriate to allow the regulators to consider whether or not licences should be granted, rather than to exclude those who wish to broadcast religious programmes from applying for licences because of the inhibitions of the 1996 Act. As the Government are somewhat wedded to reviews, is not now the time to launch such a review?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should make it clear that no new frequencies are available at

969
present. The prohibition that affects groups whose objectives are wholly or mainly of a religious nature is not confined merely to religion but applies also to local authorities and political organisations. I hope that the noble Baroness, whose government legislated in this way, will agree that it would be undesirable, where frequencies are limited, to have them taken up by organisations whose objectives are—I put it in a totally neutral way—propaganda-based. We should be encouraging channels which reach a broad cross-section of consumers. It would not be right for us to re-investigate the matter now, in the absence of any programme of primary legislation.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, does the Minister understand that his responses; must be seen in the context of a reduction in religious broadcasting and its marginalisation on normal terrestrial channels? Would any investigation also include that consideration?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know that I can accept that. The Central Religious Advisory Committee, which meets the BBC, the ITC and the Radio Authority twice a year, has not taken the lead in any representations in support of United Christian Broadcasters, the organisation to which I imagine that the original Question referred. If there are problems about the religious content of broadcasts more generally, they can be taken up without raising the issue referred to in the Question.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am worried about my future, and that that is why I gave way to the right reverend Prelate? At the risk of sounding like a politician turned preacher—if only because the preachers may turn into politicians and get their own back—may I ask my noble friend whether he agrees that we should save the people of this country from the American experience? That country has extensive religious programming, broadcast by what are no more than money-raising organisations. Does he further agree that the morning service on a Sunday morning and "Songs of Praise" on Sunday evening are very acceptable to the people of the United Kingdom, and that we should not go further than that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know that I want to encourage any analogy between religious broadcasting in the United States and United Christian Broadcasters, or indeed Premier Radio. My noble friend is right, in that our objective—which was also the objective of the previous government in introducing the Broadcasting Act—must be to encourage diversity in broadcasting. That means broadcasting that reaches a broad cross-section of consumers. That includes the ability, but not the obligation, to listen to religious broadcasting on general channels.

Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
3.2 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that enhanced debt relief to heavily indebted poor countries, agreed in Cologne, will be used to reduce poverty and meet the 2015 international targets.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we welcome the G7 Cologne statement that the central objective of the HIPC initiative is to release resources for programmes to reduce poverty and thus help to meet the 2015 international targets.
The second phase of the HIPC review will focus on how that commitment is to be implemented. The Government have submitted proposals to the review. The outcome will be settled at the annual meeting of the World Bank and the IMF in September.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that helpful Answer. Does she agree that there is an element of the emperor's new clothes about the announcement at Cologne? One wonders how much of the money will ever reach the poorest people for whom it is intended. For example, Tanzania, which is one of the poorest countries, is already unable to pay half of its debt interest. It is down to about three dollars per head for the education of its children. In those circumstances, will the noble Baroness give some reassurance that at the autumn meeting there will be a further undertaking to relate debt relief to poverty and to the targets at which we are all aiming for 2015?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I assure the noble Earl that we welcome the fact that part of what came out of the Cologne statement was a clear recognition that the central objective of debt relief is to release money for anti-poverty spending. In the case of Tanzania, if the changes to the HIPC framework go through, they will provide deeper and faster relief for Tanzania. It means that it will qualify in a three-year rather than a six-year period, because it will be able to get interim debt relief from the point of decision-making, which is three years before the point of completion. In addition, with the Ministry of Finance in that country, we have been assisting Tanzania through a capacity building programme to enable it to negotiate more effectively in relation to debt relief.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, it has been reported today that a further 2,000 jobs have been lost in gold mining in Ghana. While apologising to my noble friend Lord Lucas for trespassing upon his Question, I ask whether the 2015 targets are being compromised by the Government's policy of selling gold, leading to worsening unemployment in many HIPCs? (PCs? Will the noble Baroness confirm that DfID was consulted about that policy in advance, particularly given that it is acting detrimentally upon the Government's stated wish to offer a hand-up, rather than a hand-out?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Earl. One of the reasons that there

971
has been a commitment to selling 10 million ounces of IMF gold is to meet the costs of providing additional debt relief under an enhanced HIPC process. It is essential to secure financing for the proposed revision, and the sale of IMF gold is the best way to meet the fund's share of the costs.
We acknowledge the concerns of poor-country producers of gold. We have a commitment to ensuring that the sale of that gold is managed carefully. The long-term trend of the gold price is down. That has nothing to do with the recent sales. One of the things that DfID has done and is continuing to do is to urge developing countries to diversify their production so that they are not so dependent on gold exports. So we are doing everything that we can, both through supporting the HIPC process and through supporting individual countries through our bilateral programmes.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, returning to the third Question, what safeguards will be put in place? Are there any systems for monitoring how the money is spent?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, that is one of the areas that are being carefully considered. We do not see the point of releasing money through the debt relief process if we cannot ensure that the money is then well spent in terms of anti-poverty programmes within the countries concerned. The World Bank, for example, is looking at the ability to carry out monitoring. We have made a submission to the World Bank, which is available in the Library of the House. In that submission, we encourage it to look in detail at ways in which the spending of those countries can be monitored to ensure that debt relief leads to enhanced poverty eradication programmes.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, in seeking to further the point made by the noble Earl, when examining this problem, will the noble Baroness always bear in mind the many instances on record in recent years of money being diverted from aid for the poor to aid for the person governing the particular country?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that we take an extremely robust approach to this. We have said to governments with whom we work that we will not tolerate corruption, that they need to have transparency and good government structures in place. We will assist those governments to put the structures in place if they are not already there.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that there is a particularly strong European dimension in this? In terms of European migration, we are seeing surges of immigration from countries which fail, where disorder breaks out and order breaks down. If we fail to have a strategy for debt relief and assistance for good government in those
972
countries, it will become evident at the European borders in terms of people from those countries desperately trying to get in.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it is important for us to look at the complexity of the relationship and the fact that we are living in a global world. So there is an intricate and close relationship between what is happening in developing countries and its impact on us and on our European neighbours. I entirely agree that if we do not look after what is happening in developing countries, there will be a knock-on effect to European countries.

UK Gold Policy: African Representations
3.10 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have received from Commonwealth governments in southern Africa and East Africa about the United Kingdom's policy of selling gold.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have received representations from South Africa and from the Southern African Development Community, which also represents Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, the Seychelles, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. I do not suppose the Minister is surprised that the representations are being made. Is not the gold market in a delicate condition, to say the least? Were the gold price to fall another 10 per cent, we might expect major mine closures and financial difficulties in those and other highly indebted developing countries. Under those circumstances, it behoves the British Government to show a lead. It is not just a question of the 100 tonnes that we are selling, but of people's belief that the 34,000 tonnes that are in government and similar hands in the world—a third of all the gold that has ever been mined—may come on to the market and depress the price even further.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course the Government are sympathetic to the concerns of gold producers, wherever they may be, but particularly, in terms of the original Question, those in southern Africa and East Africa. However, we must consider the quantum involved. The sale of 25 tonnes of gold which took place on 6th July, which was the first of the five tranches of sales by this country, represents only 1 per cent of the annual mining supply of the gold industry and 3 per cent of the daily bullion turnover in gold. From those figures, I cannot think that it can be asserted that the British sales of gold with which the Government are concerned have had a significant effect on gold prices.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the impact of the sale of gold is particularly

973
strong on South Africa? Gold is its largest single industry and the country's prosperity relies on it. Is my noble friend telling us that we did not consult the Government of South Africa before embarking on this., frankly, dubious practice of selling gold, and, if not, why not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept my noble friend's assertion that it is a dubious practice. It is a proper portfolio decision, as was confirmed by the Bank of England, which advised us on the matter. As to consultation, a decision on sales of gold is market-sensitive. It would be unwise of us to consult in private before making market-sensitive decisions. The Government of South Africa and all the governments of the Southern African Development Community were informed immediately after the decision was taken.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why, if the decision was market-sensitive, it did not make any difference to the market? Can he further dispel the rumours which have been widespread in the City that several finance houses, one in particular, had gone heavily short on gold? Had not the price fallen sharply, they would have made significant losses. Can he say whether any employees or the spouses of any employees of that house had access to the Treasury and had knowledge of the discussions?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, an issue is market-sensitive if it could be market-sensitive. The Government are pleased that the decision did not have the effect on the price of gold which might have been anticipated. As to the rumours to which the noble Lord referred, I know nothing of them. If he cares to write to me about them, I shall investigate and reply.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Minister may not think that the selling of British gold had any impact on the market, but President Mbeki of South Africa thinks that the action exhibits smug moralistic naivety. Will the Minister pause, even for a moment, in his answers, to consider the 2,000 people made unemployed from the gold mines in Ghana, in addition to the 5.000 so affected last week in South Africa? I wonder whether he saw the television programme last week on the demonstrations in South Africa, with people carrying placards saying, "Britain: stop killing poor countries". Is that an ethical foreign policy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not pause for a moment before making my answers, but I pause very long and hard before thinking out what my answers should be. I am confident that we are doing the right thing in these matters. The support being given by the Department for International Development for retrenched miners in South Africa is significant. In addition, there is a considerable contribution from this country to the HIPC trust of £171 million. We are the largest contributor to that trust and we are conscious of our responsibilities. But, as I made clear, the portfolio decision which we took cannot be held responsible for the long-term decline in gold prices which is the cause of unemployment in gold industries.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that I am delighted not to have the noble Lords,
974
Lord Tebbit and Lord Mackay, or my noble friend Lord Shore advise me on my investments. Does the Minister accept that there are two separate issues? The first is how we can best help developing countries. The other is how we can best manage our financial affairs in this country. What is being done with the sale of gold is obviously in the best interests of this country.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the longer-term decline in the price of gold is extremely serious for this country. Let us examine the record of the previous Conservative government from 1979 to 1997. The Bank of England has calculated that our failure to adjust the balance between gold and currencies in our portfolio, as a result of which we have forgone the interest payments which are available on currencies but not from gold, has amounted to a loss of £9 billion. That is money which we can use for many worthwhile purposes, but it was forgone deliberately and callously by the previous government.

Company and Business Names (Chamber of Commerce, Etc.) Bill
3.18 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

Road Traffic (Use of Mobile Telephones) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Immigration and Asylum Bill
3.19 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 114:
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—

Immigration and Asylum Bill

  NON-DETENTION: PERSONS UNDER 18 YEARS
  (" . A person who appeals under section 59 and who is under the age of 18 shall not be detained for any period while the outcome of his appeal remains undetermined.").
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 114, I wish to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 115. The amendments refer to the detention of children. Amendment No. 114 proposes that no child appellant under the age of 18 should be detained. That might be thought by the Government to be rather sweeping or even drastic, but then so is imprisonment, in particular for children. At present some are detained in detention centres, but from time to time some are detained in prison. Generally speaking, that is a much more traumatic experience for the children in question.
  The amendment principally applies to unaccompanied children before an appeal is determined. If an appeal takes place and fails, and the child is to be deported, then the amendment would not prevent such a child being held in custody pending the deportation. I realise that the Government have said on a number of occasions that the power to detain children while an appeal is pending will be used only in exceptional circumstances. However, I gather that the Refugee Council has worked with around 80 unaccompanied children in the past two years. Some of them were aged 13 or 14, and some were detained in adult prisons, to which I referred.
  It has been suggested that the detention of refugee children violates Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, because it is unregulated and without judicial oversight. Furthermore, it violates Articles 22 and 39 of the convention. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will take the convention into account and consider how the powers in the Bill square up with it.
  While I welcome the fact that children will be detained only in exceptional circumstances, nevertheless it seems to me that every effort should be made to avoid detention wherever possible, particularly as regards unaccompanied children. By definition, those children have known traumatic circumstances in their countries of origin, and by succeeding in gaining entry to this country, they have probably also been through great traumas and difficulties.
  I was told by one of the children's organisations of a 13 year-old Nigerian girl whose parents were political activists in that country. Both had gone missing and were believed killed. The girl arrived here on a false passport, because that was the only way she could leave Nigeria. One of the false statements on the passport made her a good deal older than she was. Again, that was necessary if she was to succeed in her aim of escaping the country. Out of fear, she did not at first admit the false statement to the immigration officers. She was sent to a detention centre and held there for several months before eventually being released on bail on her 14th birthday. That case illustrates several of the issues behind the purpose of the amendment, and explains why I wish to draw attention to the matter at this stage.
  A large number of unaccompanied children—probably the majority of those detained—encounter a dispute about what is their real age. Often they will have travelled on false documents, in much the same way as
  976
  the young lady I referred to had done. That is where the second amendment, Amendment No. 115, comes into the picture. On an earlier amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the subject was raised of what happens when the age is disputed. In those circumstances it can be very difficult to decide precisely what is the age of a child or a young person. Amendment No. 115 attempts to ease the situation, although obviously the basic decision will remain just as difficult, whatever the underlying law says.
  The purpose of the amendments is not dissimilar to that of the Government; namely, to avoid as far as possible children—particularly unaccompanied children—finding themselves in detention, and especially, where it can possibly be avoided, finding themselves being held in adult prisons. In the vast majority of cases it should be possible to avoid that. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Lord has made a strong prima facie case for action to be taken along the lines suggested in the amendments. However, I suspect that there are technical difficulties that may stand in the way of including the provisions in the Bill. No doubt my noble friend will advise the Committee of whether that is the case. However, I for one certainly view very sympathetically the suggestions put forward by the noble Lord. At this stage we would expect no more from the Government—I would not, although I do not know what the noble Lord would feel—than that the matter should at least be viewed in a sympathetic light. If there are technical and drafting problems, those may be dealt with at later stages of the Bill. The noble Lord has made a strong case for careful consideration of the issues.
  Lord Dholakia: I support the amendment. It is a sensible provision, and if there are technical reasons why it should not be included, then we shall want to know them. Equally, however, there is no reason why such technical difficulties cannot be overcome with appropriate wording.
  I should declare once again my interest as a trustee of the Save the Children Fund and a number of other children's organisations. They have produced accurate material on the amendment. The provision refers to refugee children. First and foremost, they are children. The detention of refugee children raises serious questions about protection. Children can be detained in two circumstances: first, as unaccompanied children; and, secondly, as children in families.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, asked whether detention violates Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Perhaps I may also ask the Minister whether the detention of refugee children violates Articles 22 and 39 of the convention.
  It is always difficult to make distinctions on the matter of age. Its determination has raised a considerable amount of concern. We welcome the Government's declaration that unaccompanied children will be detained only in exceptional circumstances, and that the Government do not knowingly detain anyone under the age of 18. However, children's organisations have produced firm evidence on this point. I have been

  977
  told that in 1996–97 the Refugee Council worked with 80 unaccompanied refugee children held in detention. Those are 80 too many. Some were detained in young offender institutions and others in adult prisons. Some of these children are as young as 13 or 14. It is clear that unaccompanied children are being detained for long periods, as revealed by the case of the Nigerian girl mentioned by the noble Lord. Other cases have been cited, for example, the Tunisian girl who was detained at Campsfield House. An intimate paediatric examination was required which determined that she was 17.
  I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to these matters, including the need to obtain appropriate paediatric reports for the assessment of age. But for as long as this matter still raises doubt it is right and proper that we should try to protect young people under the age of 18 from detention. I support the amendment.
  3.30 p.m.
  Lord Judd: I too hope that the Minister will be able to give the amendment serious consideration. The arguments have been well rehearsed, and I simply underline two matters. First, many of these children will already have suffered extraordinary trauma. To impose further trauma upon them is almost unthinkable. Secondly, to make arrangements for their detention, particularly in prison, at a time when the Minister is battling so valiantly against all that is wrong with our prisons and centres of detention for young people is highly questionable. If, in our prisons and centres of detention, the system operated perfectly, perhaps the situation would not be so alarming. I am sure that, whatever the technical difficulties, the Minister will give serious consideration to the amendment.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, to which I have added my name. The amendment asserts some important points about the way we treat children. I said in Committee on Monday—the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, made similar points today—that we are considering children first and asylum seekers second. An absolute declaration of the Government's intention that no child should ever be held in a detention centre would be welcome. If it were possible to write on to the face of the Bill a safeguard along the lines set out in Amendments Nos. 114 and 115, that would be desirable.
  The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to the case of a Tunisian girl who was given exceptional leave to remain at the end of the process. Other cases have been brought to our attention by Save the Children. The case of the Nigerian girl, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, spoke, was referred to that organisation by Amnesty International. That illustrates what can happen in these circumstances. In a further case, a Nigerian boy was held at HM Prison Rochester because of an age dispute. Despite the existence of evidence about the boy's age, the immigration service refused to release him. He was eventually released following a paediatric examination which confirmed that he was a minor. He
  978
  was subsequently diagnosed as being severely depressed, with possible post-traumatic stress disorder compounded by his detention. He has been refused asylum and exceptional leave to remain in the UK. These are children first and asylum seekers second.
  I do not believe that there is a world of difference between all those who have spoken today as to the likely response of the Government. However, although I strongly welcome the assurance given by the Government in a Special Standing Committee on 18th May that children detained in social services care would be subject to Section 25 of the Children Act, I believe that the Committee would be assisted by clarification of that assurance; in particular, the conditions under which children would be detained outside that provision. That would go some way to meet the concerns raised by Members of the Committee.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I speak to Amendment No. 115. Surely, there is total agreement that Amendment No. 114 is entirely right. I recall that in the debates on the 1996 Act we ran into the problem of how age was to be determined, especially in cases where youngsters arrived without any documents to support their age. In the event, the proposal for independent paediatric assessment was not accepted and, therefore, there was no provision in that legislation that children could not be detained. I believe that Amendment No. 114 is dependent entirely on finding a way to establish the age of a person, or making a reasonable assessment of age. I am informed by those who are authorities in this matter—I well remember the earlier debates—that it is extremely difficult to determine the age of a young person and that such an assessment may give rise to a discrepancy of anything up to five years.
  Therefore, I believe that the core of Amendment No. 115 lies in subsection (1)(b); namely,
  "a finding of 'reasonable likelihood' from any such assessment shall be construed as though it were confirmation that the person is under the age of 18".
  As I understand it, it is not possible to reach any absolute judgment about age, and therefore the test of "reasonable likelihood" is perhaps the best solution. I support Amendment No. 115 because without it we stand very little chance of getting anywhere with Amendment No. 114.
  Earl Russell: I too support Amendment No. 115, to which I have put my name. The Minister may he glad to know that I shall not attempt to repeat anything I have previously said on the subject. There are two pieces of information, widely separated, in the Ramsbotham report on Campsfield House. One is that no children had been admitted to Campsfield House; the other is that a large number—my memory tells me 49, but I do not swear to it—had been discharged from Campsfield House into the care of Bicester social services. Whatever the brewery advertisements suppose since none of us has yet discovered a way of getting younger, this suggests that the matter of the age of alleged children is open to some doubt.

  979
  Civil wars and civil unrest are not good for records, so the countries from which most asylum seekers come are likely to be in a state where the records are in more than usual confusion. That means that an independent paediatric examination is the only acceptable way of obtaining real evidence and that the test of "reasonable likelihood" in this amendment, however lacking in certainty, is the best we shall ever get. If it is the best we shall ever get, we had better take it.
  Viscount Brentford: I warmly support these two amendments. I believe that the Government's White Paper refused to outlaw the detention of children, arguing that the power to detain had to be kept for limited circumstances. Have the Government considered or publicised the limited circumstances so as to provide guidance to those who have this responsibility? The detention of children is a very important issue. I am sure that all Members of the Committee agree that, wherever possible, we must keep the practice to an absolute minimum. Perhaps we should set out exactly the conditions in which it is absolutely necessary for the Government to detain children.
  The Earl of Sandwich: About 10 years ago I worked with Save the Children on a committee concerned with children in Africa. It was at exactly that time that the Children Act came into force and I became aware of how many organisations and individuals had worked on that legislation. The Minister will give us an assurance that the Children Act carries on. But why is it that so many of the same organisations, 10 years later, looking at this legislation, have decided that it is not adequate and that these new provisions should be inserted?
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): I fully understand the intention behind the amendments and although I am unable to support them I think that the Government's aims and those of the mover of the amendment and its supporters are very similar. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, seeks to deal with concerns about persons where there is no dispute about their being under 18 years of age and those where age is in dispute. It may be helpful to explain to the Committee the policy and practice in respect of unaccompanied minors and children in families, first, where age is not in dispute.
  Unaccompanied minors are only ever detained where absolutely necessary, and even then only for a short period; for example, overnight following arrival if the local social services department is unable to offer immediate assistance. An unaccompanied child claiming asylum or one appealing against a decision to refuse asylum would therefore not be detained save in very limited circumstances until more appropriate care arrangements had been made by the relevant local authority. This position was confirmed in the White Paper; and I confirm it again today.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, says that every effort should be made to avoid detention of under-age children wherever possible. I agree, but we recognise that there are certain limited circumstances
  980
  where it is not possible for a short period of time to avoid detention. In those circumstances, Amendment No. 114, which would prevent detention ever, is not appropriate.
  I give one example of the circumstances in which such detention might be appropriate. A child's application is refused. He lodges an appeal; he absconds; he sleeps rough; he comes to the authorities late one night; and social services cannot respond. Amendment No. 114 means that he could not be sent to a detention centre even for the night.
  Families are detained only as a last resort, most usually when removal directions have been set and it is clear that the family are unlikely to depart from the United Kingdom voluntarily. It would be most unusual for a family to be detained while there was an appeal outstanding against a decision to refuse asylum. Children will never be detained if they have one or both responsible parents to care for them outside detention. Furthermore, if we are advised that the best interests of a child would be met by separation from a detained family, the child will be referred to local authority care.
  It is our view that wherever possible the family should be kept together as a single unit unless the best interests of the child indicate otherwise. In family cases detention should again be for the shortest possible period, usually overnight prior to removal. If further representations are made which necessitate the deferring of removal it would normally be appropriate to release the family. A further consideration is that, as we currently have only one family unit at Tinsley House detention centre, there would be no operational benefit to be gained in using it to detain one family for a lengthy period and so prevent its use for other families who are removable and whose circumstances require short term detention. I hope very much that the assurances I have given will set noble Lords' minds at rest. I shall come to Section 25 of the Children Act in a moment.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister said that the normal situation would apply in the circumstances to which he alluded. Does he feel that in order to deal with the somewhat abnormal circumstances that can arise it would be helpful to offer some advice or directions to the authorities so that difficulties might be obviated without necessarily including such provisions in the Bill?
  Lord Hylton: Following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, would the Minister make inquiries to see whether a small pool of foster parents could be recruited, living, if possible, near the principal airports, to meet precisely the emergency situations to which he referred earlier?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: On the first point of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, it seems obvious that guidance should be given to authorities dealing with the question of the detention of unaccompanied children. Perhaps I may make inquiries as to what guidance will be given. Putting children into foster care is a matter for local authorities to whom children may in certain

  981
  circumstances be remitted in the context of an asylum application. I am unable to give the assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, seeks.
  The second proposed new clause refers to detention in cases where a person's age is in dispute. The instance of asylum seekers claiming to be under 18 is rising. In age dispute cases it is our practice to detain for longer periods only where circumstances demand and we have reasonable grounds for believing that the person is 18 years or over. In reaching a decision on the age of an applicant, we take into account any medical or other information which suggests that the person is a minor. All cases involving minors are referred as a matter of routine to the children's panel of the Refugee Council. In cases of doubt the person concerned is given the benefit of the doubt and will be treated as a child, allowing for his or her release into appropriate care.
  As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will know, assessment of age is, according to the medical profession, an inexact science. We have been in consultation with the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health on the subject of age assessments. It informs us that medical age assessments are very difficult to make and any statutory provision placing greater weight on medical assessments than is already given under current arrangements would be unwelcome within the medical profession. Amendment No. 115 in effect proposes that a paediatric assessment be done and particular weight given to it. On the basis of the advice we are receiving from the bodies that I have indicated, that would be unwelcome within the medical profession and I think that we are sensible to take its advice.
  In a recent case drawn to our attention by the Refugee Council a consultant paediatrician had assessed the young man's age as 17 years, plus or minus 1½ years. However, in a subsequent interview with an immigration officer, in the presence of his legal representative, the person confirmed that he was 21 years old. This fact was borne out by documentary evidence given by another member of his family.
  I hope that noble Lords are reassured by my assurance that the benefit of the doubt is given wherever possible in cases of age dispute. The introduction of the Government's proposed statutory presumption in favour of bail will provide an added safeguard in all cases, as will the new routine bail hearings provided by Part III of the Bill. Indeed, the special status of minors is to be reflected in the very narrow exception to be drafted to the statutory presumption in respect specifically of minors.
  Amendment No. 115 also proposes that Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 shall apply wherever a child under the age of 18 is detained. Section 25 sets out the circumstances in which a child who is being looked after by a local authority may be placed in secure accommodation and applies in this context without the need for any amendment along the lines proposed.
  Without going into the detail of it, Section 25 of the Children Act sets out very limited circumstances in which a secure accommodation order can be made in respect of a minor. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked passionately: why, if everything is all right, as
  982
  I suggest, are these bodies complaining? I have gone through the arrangements carefully. I believe that if one considers the problems legitimately raised in relation to the detention of minors, the Government's thinking and that of noble Lords who raised the point are quite similar. The only difference between us is the body of thought which says, "You should never, come what may, even for a night, detain an unaccompanied minor." We think that there may be certain limited circumstances where that is necessary.
  As regards breach of the United Nations convention on rights of children, there is judicial oversight of detention. Not only are there bail applications, judicial review applications, and habeas corpus applications, but in future there will also be the routine bail applications referred to in the Bill. Indeed, there will he a presumption in favour of bail.
  In certain cases, it may be in the interests of the child to detain him or her for a short period of time until appropriate arrangements are made. Also, there are cases in which age is in dispute. In such cases, investigations are made, but we give the benefit of the doubt to the detainee. We do not see that in those circumstances there would he any breach of the United Nations convention or, in particular, of any of the articles referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in relation to the proposals we are making. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will be minded to withdraw his amendment.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: May I press the Minister on two points? The gap between the thinking of those of us who have tabled the amendments arid what the Minister has just said is narrow. I imagine that the question turns on whether it will be possible to indicate on the face of the Bill that only in exceptional cases would a minor be detained, instead of a broader expression of the situation with regard to minors.
  On Amendment No. 114, would it be possible to indicate in circulars to local authorities that minors should not be put in custodial or similar accommodation, but in accommodation suitable for young people, as a way of dealing with children under the Children Act 1989? That would be a simple solution and would not require primary legislation.
  On Amendment No. 115, may I ask the Minister why the drafting of that amendment, in particular subsection (2), does not meet the exact point that he made—that the burden of proof should rest on the immigration authorities rather than on the child? Therefore, in cases in which paediatric specialists hold that there was a reasonable likelihood that the person was in fact under the age of 18, he or she should be treated as a minor.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As far as the present law is concerned, it is for the courts to determine whether bail is granted. If they remit the child to the local authority, it is entitled to put the child into secure accommodation only if the conditions of Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 are satisfied. They set high tests before the court can make an order for secure

  983
  accommodation. If an order for secure accommodation is not made, it is for each individual local authority to decide what to do. I hope that that meets the point.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: No.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As I understood it, the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, was making was, "Please take care to ensure that children under 18 are put in appropriate accommodation and, in particular, not in semi-gaols by local authorities". Children can be put into secure accommodation only if the conditions of Section 25 are satisfied, and that is a matter for the magistrates' court rather than the local authority. Does that meet the point?
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: "Secure accommodation" is a term that can be interpreted in several ways. We are suggesting that secure accommodation should not be custodial accommodation; that is to say, it should not be a prison or a detention centre in any circumstances in which a local authority can provide accommodation more suitable for a minor—for example, local authority secure accommodation, which is not the same as a prison or a detention centre.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Such accommodation is still custodial. That very issue is dealt with in Section 25 of the 1989 Act. I am not sure what the noble Baroness is after on this point. The 1989 Act deals with the question of when local authorities can put a child into "secure accommodation", as defined by that Act. I do not see what more we can do in statutory terms to satisfy the point.
  The second point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, was why we did not make it clear that it was for the immigration authorities to establish the position. First, there is a statutory presumption in favour of bail, so a reason must be given why—in the circumstances of the case and even if age is disputed—bail should not be granted. Secondly, the immigration authorities, as a matter of practice in cases of doubt, treat the person as being under 18. I should have thought that those two factors met the point.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: The evidence that we have received from the Refugee Council and others, including the Save the Children Fund, suggests that the immigration authorities do not always interpret the situation in the way that the Minister suggested. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and others gave several precise examples. The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, gave another, and we could give more. In such cases, the immigration authorities have insisted that someone appeared to be over the age of 18. Although it turned out that they were not over that age, they were detained for some time while the argument continued. The examples given (of a Tunisian girl and a Nigerian boy) did not match the Minister's description of how the immigration authorities proceed.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It will always be possible to give examples in either direction. I have
  984
  cited—although I do not rely too heavily on it—the case in which someone asserted that they were under 18 and had paediatric evidence to support it, but they turned out to be 21. Where does either sort of example get us? There will always be cases on either side of the line. There will be many cases in which there is a genuine dispute about age and we must grapple with those cases in the statutory procedure we set out.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: These are extremely important points. The Minister mentioned the Children Act 1989. What will be the position of children in Scotland under Scottish legislation? Is it the same? If the Minister has not ascertained that, I should be grateful if he could perhaps write to me. We have to keep an eye on such things these days.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Baroness is absolutely right to raise the matter. I am afraid that I am not in a position to give her an answer and I shall write to her with the details.
  Earl Russell: I shall attempt to be helpful. The Minister asked where all this has got us. That is a fair question and it deserves an answer. In relation to Amendment No. 114, the Minister gave the example of the child who absconds and is found late at night. There are much neglected powers in Section 51 of the Children Act 1989 to send children to a children's refuge, where they may stay for two weeks while their best interests are investigated. Those are important and valuable powers, about which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, knows much more than I do in connection with his work with Centrepoint. I am glad to observe that he nods. Those powers would be one way to deal with the situation. They would meet the Minister's argument that there are cases in which detention might be in the child's best interests, and would meet also our argument that even if detention is in the child's best interests, it should not be detention under the immigration and asylum legislation, which is not necessarily the most satisfactory form of detention in our legal system.
  On the point about proof of age, the Minister said that determination of age was an inexact science. I have already said as much myself. I understand and respect the doubts and hesitations of the medical profession, but there is sense in Aristotle's maxim that we should seek for no more certainty in any matter than the nature of the matter will admit. Paediatric examination is the greatest certainty available, no matter how small it may be. If the Minister will not accept Amendment No. 115, can he think of a better way to achieve our aim?
  4 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The problem is that if one takes a child to a children's refuge, there is nothing to stop him running away immediately. Secondly, not all the country is covered by children's refuges. Thirdly, paediatric assessments will not always be the best means of determining age. It will depend very much on the circumstances. For example, in some cases, certain documentary evidence will be more compelling than

  985
  paediatric assessments. We should be wrong in statute to focus on one particular method of proof which may be the most effective only in certain cases.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: The Minister will appreciate that there is concern not only on the Floor of the House, but among highly respected organisations outside, not least the Save the Children Fund. The organisations which have supported the amendments include UNICEF, Barnardo's, the Children's Society and the Refugee Council's Children's Panel. Would it not be helpful if between now and the Report stage the Minister would agree to meet representatives of those organisations in order to assess whether there is a way to address the paramount issue of the needs and interests of the children? The Minister has conceded that the children's interests should be paramount, which is what the organisations are calling for. The Minister shakes his head and indicates that the children's interests will not be paramount. I find that surprising—
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have set out the limited circumstances in which children will be detained. Of course we shall be willing to meet representatives of any organisation which has suggestions to make. The organisations which the noble Lord listed are of the highest repute and one would imagine that they do have specific suggestions to make.
  In going through the amendments that have been made, I have tried carefully to analyse the problems and to see whether more needs to be done in the statute to deal with them. As the noble Baroness said, it is a narrow point which comes down to the question of whether the position is such that no child should ever be detained. While recognising that to do so should be exceptional, we realise that there are limited circumstances where it is necessary.
  If I am wrong, please come and tell us. I accept the invitation and my noble friend Lord Williams will see such people. However, what has not been put forward in the debate is a reasoned argument as to why those limited circumstances are not preserved. If there is such an argument, tell us and we shall listen. As yet, it has not been put.
  The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked whether we should say that paediatric assessment will provide a way out as regards age. We thought very carefully about that and took advice from the Refugee Council and medical bodies. They tell us that that is not necessarily the most reliable way to determine someone's age; it will depend upon the circumstances.
  If there is a better view, let us know, but that is the view that we have formed. We have not been told why it is wrong.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response and to Members of the Committee who have taken part in this short debate. The Minister was right to emphasise what the noble Baroness said; that the gap is relatively narrow. After all, the Minister's reply was in its tone sympathetic to the points which have been made. He gave two examples, among others, of exceptions of detention
  986
  which did not appear to stand up. The first related to a child being kept overnight in a detention centre because suitable local authority accommodation was not available. It did not strike me that legal custody was required in that case. Clearly, a place for the child to stay was required and it might conveniently be a detention centre. That is different and I should have thought being detained in custody may not amount to much in practice if a child is sleeping in the same bed in the same room, but it is a legal distinction.
  Another example he gave related to the period prior to removal. Amendment No. 114 was successfully framed so as not to affect that. As regards the assessment of age, I understand that sometimes documentary evidence will be available, but sometimes it will be unreliable. I gave an example of false documents, which is highly likely to be the case in the circumstances, particularly in relation to younger children. We recently saw the deliberate destruction of documents in the former Yugoslavia in order to make life difficult for those who would become asylum seekers. It was sometimes done by themselves, sometimes by other people. The statutory presumption in favour of bail, which has been introduced into the Bill, is a safeguard in these circumstances, and that is helpful and welcome.
  The Minister did not refer to young children or to those under 18 being detained in prison, which sometimes occurs. I am sure that he would deplore that, except in circumstances where it may be avoidable. We shall come to that in a later amendment.
  Finally, the Minister seemed to say that Section 25 of the Children Act applies if a local authority is involved, but by implication it does not apply if the child is detained somewhere else; for example, in a detention centre or prison. I must read the Minister's reply carefully in order to make sure that I have understood it correctly. Clearly, these are matters of great concern not only to me but to others who have added their names to the amendments. We shall need to return to them at a later stage when we have fully digested the Ministers comments and considered them with others.
  We are grateful to the Minister for volunteering the services of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to receive representatives of the organisations concerned. The noble Lord has been extremely generous in giving such assurances on his own behalf so I am sure that he will not mind.
  Subject to what those who have been kind enough to add their names to the amendment may say, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 114.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 60 and 61 agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 not moved.]
  Clause 62 agreed to.
  Clause 63 [Limitation on further appeals]:
  Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 117:
  Page 41, line 20, leave out ("On the issuing of a certificate by the Secretary of State") and insert ("If the Adjudicator agrees with the opinion of the Secretary of State as expressed in a certificate issued").
  The noble Baroness said: At first glance, the amendment may look a great deal less significant than the one that we have just debated. However, it has a considerable bearing on the fairness and justice of the Bill. Clause 63 deals with people who have reached the final appeal stage; that is, who had a first hearing, then an appeal which may have been dismissed.
  Amendment No. 117 deals with the question of whether an applicant will be treated as having already made out his case in an appeal in such a way as not to entitle him to any further appeal. In general, we on this side of the Committee agree that the appeal procedure can be abused and that there is a great deal to be said for limiting the number of appeals to those which can receive a final judgment.
  However, Clause 63 enables the appeal finally to be determined either on the ground that the case has already been heard or on the ground that it was not heard or advanced but could have been. What then happens is that the Secretary of State is permitted to issue a certificate signed by himself, on the strength of which he is able to argue that the appeal will be either upheld or rejected. We are greatly concerned that that makes the Secretary of State the judge of his own court.
  The purpose of the amendment is to make the adjudicator the person who makes the decision on the basis of the certificate. Then, and only then, will the certificate hold on the basis of the opinion of the Secretary of State. In other words, the Secretary of State could not on his own issue a certificate which would end the process of appeal, given that that is the applicant's last chance, without the agreement of the adjudicator.
  It seems to us absolutely critical that the adjudicator should be brought into the process and that the matter should not be left wholly to the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State were the sole issuer of a certificate, he would in a sense be both judge and jury. Therefore, the amendment seeks to provide that the adjudicator must agree to the issue of the certificate. Again, I remind the Committee that that brings the whole process to an end. I am particularly concerned that some appellants, especially those without legal advice, may be unaware of the complex grounds on which an appeal can be made; for example, with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights, or other international conventions. I therefore repeat that in our view it is absolutely critical that the adjudicator should be part of the process and that only with his agreement can the whole matter be brought to a conclusion. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I rise to support the amendment. Looking at the matter, it seemed to me to be the case that one party to the granting or otherwise of the possibility of an appeal was to make the decision
  988
  rather than the adjudicator who is the judicial authority in this case. Not being highly legally educated, I could not think of any other example in British law in which one of the parties—in this case, the Secretary of State—made the decision as to whether or not the appeal should be allowed. If there are other examples, no doubt the Minister will point them out to us.
  Earl Russell: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question which I am sure he is legally well qualified to answer. Will he explain why, in the Government's opinion, this provision does not lay the Secretary of State open to judicial review as being judge and party in his own court? If he is any danger from that, my noble friend's amendment would save him from it. I believe that he ought to be grateful.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: The purpose of the amendment is to remove the Secretary of State's ability to thwart repeat appeals, which the noble Baroness condemned, by certifying that the grounds for further appeal contain nothing which has not already been considered. Clause 63(6) states:
  "On the issuing of a certificate by the Secretary of State under subsection (5), the appeal"—
  I emphasise the next words—
  "so far as relating to those grounds, is to be treated as finally determined".
  The circumscription is there, and it is deliberate. It means that we are looking to a new system to prevent people making a series of appeals on the same issues. I am sorry to repeat that again. I must say—I hope that it will be to the comfort of the Committee—that where a genuinely new situation arises after the determination of the appeal, we cannot and should not deny a fresh hearing if a further right of appeal exists. I give the Committee an example. A person may make a further claim, having already failed to become a refugee here, if there has been a coup in the country of origin. That would not disentitle any application or appeal to be brought forward by virtue of the Secretary of State's certificate.
  I am quite unable to accept that there should be a fresh hearing if all the issues have already been determined by the appellate authority. If the amendment were accepted, there would have to be a hearing in every case for the adjudicator to agree the Secretary of State's certificate—in other words, a completely pointless exercise. If the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, were to be accepted as a protection for the Home Secretary from legal challenge, I should be the first to accept it. But I must point out that although the certificate is expressed in the way that it is expressed, judicial review can be brought against the issue of the certificate on the normal grounds for judicial review.
  Bearing in mind the emphasis I have given to those grounds, we are really saying that if the grounds are the same, and they have been fully ventilated, the Secretary of State is entitled to certify that. If he behaves in a way which is susceptible to judicial review, that remains.
  4.15 p.m.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am generally puzzled by the Minister's response. Perhaps he may be able to help me to understand it better. Like the Minister, we do not want to see a system under which people may appeal on grounds already advanced; nor do we want to see a system where someone may appeal who could perfectly well have advanced those grounds earlier but chose not to do so. We fully share the Minister's desire to conclude the process. However, with respect, our argument is different; namely, that in concluding the process, the Secretary of State should not be the sole decision-maker, but should couple with his views those of the adjudicator, who will, for those purposes, be treated as independent of the immigration authorities in a way that no Home Secretary can be as they are answerable and accountable to him.
  We have no desire to prolong the appeal process, provided that the adjudicator and the Home Secretary are of one mind. If they are not, in our view the matter should not be concluded. An exact parallel can be drawn with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4, the wording of which we drew on for our amendment. In respect of convention cases, paragraph 9(2) states:
  "If, on an appeal to which this paragraph applies, the adjudicator agrees that the claim is one to which this paragraph applies, paragraph 22 does not confer on the appellant any right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal".
  In other words, that is another instance of certification which brings to an end the process of appeal. In this case, the issue of judge and jury in one's own court is properly dealt with because the adjudicator must agree with the certificate. That is all that our amendment seeks to achieve. With great respect, I did not follow the Minister's argument on that point.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am sure that that was my fault. I was trying to say that we believe that the certification by the Secretary of State is perfectly rational and can be upheld as a system, because he is required to certify that all the grounds have been considered earlier and that there is nothing further on which the adjudicator needs to decide. There is no live issue left.
  The consequence of the noble Baroness's amendment, were it to be accepted, would simply be a further spinning out of the process. As I said earlier, there would have to be a hearing before the adjudicator—
  Lord Avebury: As the Minister has twice mentioned a hearing, will he confirm that there is nothing in the amendment which says that the adjudicator must have a hearing for the purpose of reaching his decision? My noble friend is suggesting that he should confirm that the grounds on which the appeal would be based are a repetition of those which have been heard earlier. He is simply confirming the opinion of the Secretary of State that that was the case. Surely he can do that without a hearing.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I imagine that the legal approach in those circumstances would be what we have already discovered. If the adjudicator comes to a view,
  990
  both parties will be entitled to be heard by him in that judicial context. I have no doubt that that would he used yet again as a device to spin out the procedures in a way that is quite illegitimate. I stress that we are dealing with a certificate that is judicially reviewable. It is a certificate from the Home Secretary to say that the matter has already been considered.
  I shall certainly give some thought to the matter. I can give no more favourable reception than that. The circumstances envisaged by paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 are different. Before we look at sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 9 we need to examine the context—convention cases and those involving removal from the jurisdiction. There are quite different circumstances, which is why we have adopted a different approach.
  I shall give careful thought to what the noble Baroness said. I believe that we have struck the right balance to give people fair hearings, fair opportunity and fair legal representation, but, at the end of the day, we can say that all the matters have been adjudicated upon and there is nothing new in the appeal.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: Many of us welcome the fact that the Minister has said that he will look at the matter again without commitment. The Minister must recognise that none of us favours an endless series of appeals on precisely the same issue. Clearly, that would be an abuse of the system.
  I want to raise two points. First, I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the point put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. Is there a precedent for the power being given to a Minister to bring an appeal process to an end? That may be impossible to answer, given the constraints of time.
  Secondly, like my noble friends Lord Avebury and Lady Williams of Crosby, I believe that the adjudicator could be the person to make the determination rather than the Secretary of State. Otherwise, there will inevitably be a belief that the Secretary of State is acting as judge in a matter in which it would be inappropriate for him to make the final judgment. I can see no difficulty about allowing the adjudicator to make that decision. I do not want to press the point today, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will review the matter. Inevitably we shall want to return to it on Report. The quality of the Bill might be improved if the Government were to make concessions, which would be welcomed by all.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is a most generous approach, as I invariably expect from the noble Lord. I shall certainly look at the proposal. Any tinkering is likely not to produce the result that we all want. All noble Lords who have spoken have adopted that view.
  Perhaps I should respond to the wholly unfair question from the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, accusing me of possessing a vast reservoir of legal knowledge. Experienced as I am in paddling in extremely shallow waters, I shall take up what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said and carry out some research. I am sure that there are examples—I can think of one or two—but, to my mind, they may not be

  991
  the most compelling. I shall certainly look into the matter. I am sure I can find some. I almost said dredge some up. I shall look at them and take up the offer of the noble Lord.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 118:
  Page 41, line 34, at end insert—
  ("(11) Nothing in this section shall apply to an appellant who was not legally represented at the time of his original appeal.").
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 118 is simple but, like the last amendment, important. It provides that the dismissal of the entire appeal process, implicit in Clause 64, will not occur if the original appeal has been held without the applicant having legal advice.
  In the course of the Bill we have discussed the extreme importance of the applicant having legal advice. All noble Lords recognise how incredibly complex immigration law has now become, made yet more complicated by the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. Anyone familiar with immigration laws knows that they need a comprehensive understanding of British law, some understanding of European conventions, some understanding of international conventions and some understanding of the immigration rules, which are being revised at the present time, as well as codes and conducts of practice.
  That means that someone who may not be an English speaker, who may have arrived in this country in a state of great stress and strain and who has little knowledge of any of the matters I have briefly outlined, is in no position to make out his or her own case, however strong that case may be. That is why on these Benches we strongly accept and support the idea that legal aid should be given only to recognised and registered practitioners and to well established centres of legal advice.
  We recognise that the sheer complexities of immigration law are an open door to some of the most dubious, racketeering and undesirable practitioners of the law that one could want to meet. Incidentally, some of them hang around ports in the hope of persuading innocent asylum seekers to accept their services. Often those services are not worth the time of day, let alone the considerable costs which asylum seekers are driven to pay. We are all familiar with such terrible cases where the legal representative does not show up or does not give the proper advice, or does not bother to try to give the proper advice. In all those matters we are wholly on the side of the Government.
  The point of the amendment is that if an asylum seeker tries to handle his own hearing, perhaps because he cannot afford legal advice or does not have a decent legal adviser, he will find it extremely difficult to make out a case in a way that fully reflects the facts of that case. If he attends an initial hearing, where he will
  992
  probably not be represented, and continues to a first appeal, where again he may not be represented—this amendment deals only with people who have no legal advice—the curtailing of appeal rights will mean that he can have no further voice in the matter and will be deported to a country where he may be at risk of life and limb. We believe that that is acceptable only in a situation where the asylum seeker has had decent legal representation.
  The purpose of the amendment is to propose that while we accept the curtailing of the appeal process to a single one-stop appeal, we do not feel able to accept and support that position in the event of an asylum seeker having no legal advice at all at either the first or second and final stage of the hearing. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is suggested that we discuss Amendment No. 120, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Astor, together with Amendment No. 118. My only hesitation about giving total support to Amendment No. 118—I hope the Minister will not think it unfair of me—is that it goes some way to making the use of lawyers compulsory. I am hesitant about that. I accept the point that immigration law is now incredibly complicated, made more so as a result of these provisions, but Amendment No. 120 suggests that when an immigration officer serves a notice on an applicant, the notice should specifically advise that legal advice should be sought on receipt of such a notice. That does not make it compulsory but it encourages applicants to go for legal advice and makes clear that it is legally advisable before they become entangled in the appeals process, which might have enormous consequences for them.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I support the tenor of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, though his amendment does not go as far as I would wish. Telling people that legal advice is available is a useful first step; but in most cases, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said, it is desirable that an appellant should be properly represented at a hearing.
  My difficulty with Amendment No. 118 is that it could lead to circumstances where someone deliberately chose not to be represented so that the other parts of the section in which this was included would not then apply. It could therefore be used as an instrument of obstruction and achieve some of the undesirable possibilities described by the noble Baroness that she would not want to support.
  The basic argument that someone should be properly represented during proceedings is the right one and if a more felicitous form of wording could be devised to ensure that it is not open to abuse, it is an argument which we should take seriously.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for what has been said. I do not believe that there is a fundamental difference of approach between us.

  993
  If Amendment No. 118 was adopted, the mischief identified by the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Cope, would be available. We are looking to prevent repetitious or late claims of no merit. It would be wrong to avoid further opportunities by allowing someone to say, "I do not want to be represented".
  I am happy to remind the Committee that when notices of an appealable decision are served, the applicant has to be given, by virtue of the Immigration Appeals Notices Regulations 1984—I repeat, "must" be given—details of how to obtain free representation. It is not right then that applicants can deliberately avoid the consequences of Clause 63 simply by electing to represent themselves.
  Taking up the point made by the noble Baroness, there is nothing to stop the unscrupulous adviser acting outside the system taking rapacious amounts of money and saying, "My best advice to you is to turn up without representation". That is an obvious mischief which could be the consequence of her amendment. But I ought to go further and say what the practice is.
  Adjudicators will not normally allow a case to proceed without representation unless satisfied that the appellant is able to argue his case—I take her point about him not being familiar with the English language. Sometimes the case is adjourned for representation to be arranged; on other occasions a duty counsellor is called in. That is what happens at the moment. I hope I have been able to reassure the Committee as to how the system works; how it is intended to work in the future; and how Amendment No. 118 would produce undesirable consequences.
  I am entirely in agreement with what has been said in relation to Amendment No. 120; that those who are given notice: should be advised to obtain legal assistance. But we go further and say that the legal adviser must be a qualified person by virtue of Clause 74, about which we have spoken on earlier occasions. Clause 64(9) provides for regulations to prescribe the procedures for serving notices. It is more appropriate for this point to be covered in regulations and I am happy to undertake to the Committee that that will be done.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I thank the Minister for that explanation, which goes a long way to meet the concerns I expressed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 63 agreed to.
  Clause 64 [Duty to disclose grounds for appeal etc.]:
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 118ZA:
  Page 42, line 2, at end insert—
  ("() This section also applies if—

  (a) the Secretary of State has decided to make a deportation order against a person under section 5(1) of the 1971 Act as a result of his liability to deportation under section 3(5) of that Act; and

  (b) that person, while he is in the United Kingdom, is entitled to appeal against that decision under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 or this Act.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 118A not moved.]
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 119:
  Page 42, line 3, leave out subsection (3)
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 119 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 121. I can he brief because this amendment flows from the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and its comments that the House may wish to consider whether the Bill should be amended to place the categories concerned on the face of the Bill, leaving the regulations to make any necessary adaptation. My amendments crudely followed up the point made by the committee. The reason I can be brief is that both amendments have been supported by the Minister on the Marshalled List. I have every hope therefore that he will speak in their favour. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: This group consists of Amendments Nos. 119, 121, 121A, 122D, 207B and 210B. I am grateful for the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and, as he said, we are in agreement with the principle. We accepted with gratitude the recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in respect of the regulation-making powers in Clause 64. But we tabled additional amendments to go a little further than Amendments Nos. 119 and 121.
  The new clause following Clause 64 sets out the categories of case to which the regulations would have applied the one-stop procedures. Much of it simply reflects the equivalent provisions of Clause 64, which the Committee has already agreed. The additional categories are illegal entrants, overstayers and port applicants without a form of pre-clearance on arrival. The one-stop procedures will apply to those if, and only if, they make a claim that removal or requirement to leave would be contrary to either the refugee convention or the human rights convention. The purpose is to ensure that such persons do not claim under one convention and, if that claim is refused, claim under the other.
  Amendments Nos. 122D, 207B and 210B are consequential. They essentially speak for themselves and I am happy to accede to the noble Lord's invitation and commend the amendments.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am also grateful to the Minister, in particular for his response to the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. However, will the regulations under the new Amendment No. 121A following Clause 64 be subject to the affirmative or negative resolution?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe our present experience is described as a "short hiatus" while I obtain confirmation that what I am about to say is accurate. I do not want to give misleading or incomplete information. I understand it is negative, but wanted to be sure.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
  Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 120YA:
  Page 42, line 14, at end insert ("and, where the applicant is a child, such period shall take account of any relevant circumstances applicable to the serving of the notice").
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment speaks for itself and I shall not waste the time of the Committee. We simply ask that the period shall take account of relevant circumstances because repeatedly UNICEF, Save the Children Fund and others have pointed out that it often takes a good deal longer to obtain information from a child than from an adult, particularly where there may have to be the establishing of some sort of relationship of trust between the child and the person questioning that child and trying to put together a case. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: This group consists of Amendments Nos. 120YA, 120ZA and 122. Perhaps I can deal with our response generally.
  We want to avoid unnecessary delays and this group of amendments, if accepted, would provide that the serving of a statement from a child applicant to the Secretary of State might, without penalty, exceed the period prescribed. I share the concern underlying these amendments relating to children, which is the same fountain of concern which caused the more lengthy discussions when my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer was dealing with earlier amendments.
  I hope that I can persuade the Committee that these amendments are unnecessary. I am happy to repeat that each application will be considered on its merits. Generally speaking, a failure to meet a deadline by a person who genuinely could not comply with it for reasons beyond their control would be considered a "reasonable excuse". I remind the Committee that that saver is to be found in Clause 65(3)(b).
  Children, in particular those without a responsible adult acting for them or assisting them, may well come within the category of those persons who had a reasonable excuse for not meeting the deadline. That is one of the reasons why we have the "reasonable excuse" saver. I personally believe that it is better to have that general discretion rather than try to limit matters. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the noble Baroness that that would be a saver which would enable children in those circumstances to be given decent consideration.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: Amendment No. 120ZA in my name, although it is worded slightly differently, goes to the same point. I am reassured by what the Minister has said. The noble Baroness may wish to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 120ZA and 120A not moved.]
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 121:
  Page 42, line 26, leave out subsection (10).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 121A:
  After Clause 64, insert the following new clause—

  DUTY TO DISCLOSE GROUNDS FOR ENTERING ETC THE UNITED KINGDOM
  (" .—(1) This section applies if a person who—

  (a) is an illegal entrant,

  (b) is liable to be removed under section 8, or

  (c) has arrived in the United Kingdom without—

  (i) leave to enter;

  (ii) an entry clearance; or

  (iii) a current work permit in which he is named,

  makes a claim for asylum or a claim that it would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Human Rights Convention for him to be removed from, or required to leave, the United Kingdom.
  (2) The person responsible for the determination of the claim must serve on the claimant and on any relevant member of his family a notice requiring the recipient of the notice to state any additional grounds which he has or may have for wishing to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.
  (3) The statement must be—

  (a) in writing; and

  (b) served on the person who is responsible for the determination of the claim before the end of such period as may be prescribed.

  (4) Regulations may prescribe the procedure to be followed in connection with notices given and statements made in accordance with this section and, in particular, may prescribe the form in which such notices and statements are to be given or made.
  (5) Regulations may prescribe the persons who, in relation to a claimant, are relevant members of his family.
  (6) Regulations may provide that, if a claim is determined against the claimant, prescribed provisions of section 63, 65, 66 or 67 are to apply to an appeal against that determination by a person on whom a notice has been served under subsection (2), with such modifications (if any) as may he prescribed.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 65 [Result of failure to comply with section 64]:
  [Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
  Clause 65 agreed to.
  Clause 66 agreed to.
  Clause 67 ["One-stop" appeals: other cases]:
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 122A:
  Page 44, line 5, leave out ("Special Immigration Appeals").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 68 [Transfer of appellate proceedings]:
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 122B:
  Page 44, line 10, after ("2(1)") insert ("or 2A").
  The noble Lord said: In this group we find Amendments Nos. 122B, 122E, 217A and 217B. I speak first to Amendment No. 217B, which relates, as the Committee will have seen, to Schedule 13 to the Bill. That schedule concerns consequential amendments to other Acts as a result of provisions in this Bill.
  Amendment No. 217B concerns a consequential amendment to the Special Immigration and Appeals Act 1997. It puts into the 1997 Act a new Section 2A, which gives jurisdiction to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to hear appeals concerning claims that an authority acted in breach of the appellant's human rights appeals. It is clearly vital that, in a case where SIAC is involved, it is possible for it to take into account any claims based on human rights grounds. At the moment, by virtue of Clause 55, it is not possible and that is why this amendment is necessary.
  Amendments Nos. 122B and 122E are consequential amendments to Clause 68 of the Bill, inserting a reference to the new Section 2A of the 1997 Act. Those are the purposes of those amendments. Amendment No. 217A is also in this group. It relates to the fact that under the present legislation in Section 2(1) of the 1997 Act, there is a right of appeal to the SIAC only in cases covered by Section 13(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, which deals with refusal of leave to enter, and not to cases covered by Section 13(2) of the 1971 Act, which deals with refusal of entry clearance.
  The Government's intention is to make similar provisions in this Bill. The current text of paragraph 100 of Schedule 13 inadvertently extends jurisdiction to the refusal of entry clearance. Amendment No. 217A puts that right. In other words, no right of appeal is being removed. It is simply a continuance of the present circumstances. Accordingly, in due time I shall move those amendments formally. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 122C:
  Page 44, line 12, leave out ("Special Immigration Appeals").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I apologise if I failed to follow the Minister's exact words. Can he remind the Committee by whom the appeal will be heard after transfer? It will not be the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. Therefore, to whom will the appeal be passed as a result of this amendment since the phrase now remaining is simply "commission" with no reference to what commission?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall take instructions on that. In maintaining the status quo I should have fully familiarised myself with that under the 1971 Act. Perhaps the Committee will allow me a moment to take those instructions. I know that they are coming hot-foot. Entirely as I anticipated and as I said earlier, this is simply a drafting amendment. One finds the definition of "commission"—I should have known this—in Clause 155. Therefore, I hope that the answer to the question from the noble Baroness is to be found in the definition in that clause.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am grateful to the Minister. I suggest he amends his remarks by removing the word "entirely".
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 122D:
  Page 44, line 15, after ('64") insert ("or (Duty to disclose grounds for entering etc the United Kingdom)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 122E:
  Page 44, line 16, after ("2(1)") insert ("or 2A").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 122F:
  Page 44, line 19, leave out ("Special Immigration Appeals").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 69 agreed to.
  Clause 70 [EEA nationals]:
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 122G:
  Page 45, line 6, after ("national") insert or a member of the family of an EEA national,").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 122H, 122J, 122K, 122L and 122M. These amendments relate to EEA nationals and their family members. Amendment No. 122H, if it is accepted, extends the circumstances in which provision for appeals may be made under the regulations to include entitlement conferred under agreements by which the United Kingdom is bound. That will ensure that we can fulfil our obligations to provide appeal rights whether they are contained in agreements to which the United Kingdom is a party or in agreements by which the United Kingdom is hound, although not a party; for example, certain agreements between the Community and third countries. Such agreements may already be in existence or may come into existence in the future.
  Amendment No. 122J allows for regulations to make any necessary amendments to the provisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 and the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994. Amendment No. 122K removes from the definition of an "EEA national" a person who is, or who claims to be, a family member. This is because Amendment No. 122L requires a person claiming to he an EEA national to produce certain documents, which will not necessary be relevant to family members. It was, therefore, inappropriate to include family members within the definition of "EEA national". However, Amendment No. 122M enables the regulations to prescribe who, in relation to an EEA national, is a family member and to make provision for establishing how such family membership is to be established.
  Amendment No. 122L requires an EEA national to produce a valid passport or national identity card issued by an EEA state in order to exercise a right of appeal under Clause 70. This is to prevent a person claiming that he is an EEA national and being afforded a right of

  999
  appeal, even though no proof of his alleged status has been seen. The effect of subsection (8B) is to clarify that a passport or an identity card, produced for the purposes of subsection (8A), will be regarded as genuine unless its falsity is reasonably apparent, or unless it is reasonably apparent that it relates to another person. I ask Members of the Committee to accept these amendments. At this point, I beg to move the first of them.
  Earl Russell: Perhaps I may ask a small question about Amendment No. 122M. This is the amendment which relates to membership of a family being defined in such a way "as may be prescribed". The question relates more to drafting than substance. I wonder whether prescription by regulation is the correct way to proceed in this case, or whether it would be better to leave it to be established in the courts or in tribunals, according to precedent. That would apply especially to the families of asylum seekers, which are likely to be fractured.
  Families may take unexpected forms. The case occurs to me of a Kosovar child accompanied by an aunt, the parents being dead. They claimed to be a family, but there was some problem in getting the authorities to accept this. If one proceeds by simple, total enumeration by regulation, one may be liable to miss some quite unexpected family forms which stress may produce. Would it not be better to leave the judicial authority to recognise a family when it sees one, rather than being quite so prescriptive through regulation? This point runs through the drafting of a great many different statutes. I raise the matter at this point because this is one of the many places where I believe that the question applies. I hope that the usual process of osmosis, by which information reaches Ministers in this Chamber, has run its course.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for speaking with such extended clarity; indeed, the osmotic process was about to take its course. The noble Earl has made a fair point. However, one has to balance the benefit of regulation and prescription because it does give clarity and, therefore, certainty to those who may otherwise be uncertain. Nevertheless, I take the noble Earl's point that, sometimes, one does not want over-prescription. I shall certainly think about what he said, but the balance is quite a difficult one to strike. The noble Earl is quite right. Family circumstances do change, not simply in the international connection but also in the domestic connection; and what one feels ought to be a familial relationship—and was such in 1849—is not necessarily so in 1999.
  We need clarity and certainty. That is why we have taken this route. Of course, any prescription by way of regulation would be obliged to comply with EU law; indeed, that may be another aspect that we shall need to consider. I recognise that there is an underlying validity to what is really a philosophical approach by the noble Earl. Perhaps I may think about it. If he returns to the
  1000
  question on Report, I imagine that we shall have a concluded view at that stage. That view may remain unchanged, but it will not remain unconsidered.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I understand that a change has been made to a schedule to the Bill as regards removing the words, "child of a head of a family or his or her spouse", which does in fact widen the area within which family members can be included. I speak with some feeling here because two members of my own family have become family members because of the unexpected deaths of my brother and his wife; indeed, they are effectively my son and daughter. Will the Minister consider the possibility of picking up the phraseology used in the schedule and, possibly, translating it into this part of the Bill?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: It seems to me that if we stick to the regulations path, as is more likely than not to be the case, it might be appropriate to pick up the references in the schedule and place them in the regulations. I do not put forward that suggestion as a nit-pick; I am simply saying that there is virtue in what the noble Baroness has said and that we might also need to consider that possibility. However, I think that it would end up in regulations rather than in this clause of the Bill.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments No. 122H to 122M:
  Page 45, line 14, at end insert ("or by which it is bound").
  Page 45, line 25, at end insert—
  ("() The regulations may—

  (a) amend sections 2 and 2A of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (appellate jurisdiction of the Commission);

  (b) amend or revoke the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994.").

  Page 45, line 30, leave out paragraph (b).
  Page 45, line 32, at end insert—
  ("(8A) If a person claims to be an EEA national, he may not appeal under the regulations unless he produces—

  (a) a valid national identity card, or

  (b) a valid passport,

  issued by an EEA State other than the United Kingdom.
  (8B) For the purposes of subsection (8A), a document—

  (a) is to be regarded as being what it purports to be unless its falsity is reasonably apparent; and

  (b) is to be regarded as relating to the person producing it unless it is reasonably apparent that it relates to another person.").

  Page 45, line 33, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
  ("() Regulations may—

  (a) prescribe the persons who, in relation to an EEA national, are the members of his family; and

  (b) make provision as to the manner in which membership of a person's family is to be established.").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 122N:
  Page 45, line 37, leave out subsection (11).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 71 [Grants to voluntary organisations]:
  [Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
  Clause 71 agreed to.
  Clause 72 [Interpretation of Part V]:
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 124:
  Page 46, line 6, at end insert—
  (""business" excludes any registered or exempt charity;").
  The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 141. These are both probing amendments, so I can be very brief. The first amendment seeks to ask the Minister whether charities have to register as a "qualified person" to provide immigration advice or services. We should also like to know the difference between, say, a charity doing this and a legal adviser or, indeed, a business. Can the Minister say how that works?
  The second amendment slightly widens the question and also concerns advisers and voluntary organisations. It probes what the commissioner may, or may not, have to take into account with regard to voluntary organisations. We seek a brief explanation from the Minister. I beg to move.
  Lord Dholakia: I support these amendments. I believe that an explanation in this respect would be very helpful. Although we are trying to regulate those who exploit asylum seekers, especially as regards heavy financial charges, we should bear in mind that one of the difficulties here is that there are some legitimate bodies, including charities, which perform a very useful task. I have in mind students' unions, for example, which students quite often consult for advice and help. There are also a number of local bodies with no financial interest whatever in such matters which are able to offer assistance, or at least to direct individuals in the right way to approach their particular case. We want to know how such exemptions will apply to bodies which are genuine. In trying to regulate those who exploit, we do not want to harm those who carry out very valuable work in this particular field.
  Lord Avebury: Can the Minister remind us of the position in this respect of Members of this and another place?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: If I understand the noble Lord correctly, I believe I dealt with this point earlier in the proceedings on the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, asked whether Members of Parliament—I beg their pardon, I meant Members of another place—might he liable to criminal sanction if they were carrying out their ordinary constituency business in such circumstances. With a certain measure of regret, I had to tell him that Members of the House of Commons would not be liable to criminal sanction because they
  1002
  would not be discharging their functions in the course of a trade or a business. I believe that that answers the noble Lord's question.
  I am grateful to Members of the Committee for the questions which have been put, and especially for the way that the issue has been approached. I believe that we are absolutely in agreement. I am also grateful to the noble Viscount for saying that these are probing amendments to ascertain the Government's view on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, made exactly the same point.
  Amendment No. 124 would exclude any registered or exempt charity from the requirements of Part V of the Bill. As the Committee knows, Part V is critically important. I was grateful to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on this matter. He has made his position absolutely plain in the past. We want to stop unscrupulous and incompetent advice being offered. Obviously if it is unscrupulous advice which is being used to prey on people, that is morally wrong. However, incompetent advice is also a scandal as regards those who are far away from their own homeland in a country which is foreign to them in every respect.
  I am happy to be able to say that Home Office officials have on a number of occasions met representatives of the voluntary sectors who provide immigration advice and services. The voluntary sector recognises—most responsibly, I think—that some organisations are well meaning but are simply not competent. I believe that it is accepted by the voluntary sector generally that such organisations need to be regulated.
  Exemption is allowable under paragraphs (a) and (d) of Clause 74(4). What we have done so far—I am happy to repeat this commitment—is to work with the voluntary sector and with the education sector on the exemption process. As I have said, we have had a series of meetings. We are developing the possible criteria for exemption. We do not want to exclude charitable organisations in this area, but we want to exclude incompetent advice. We do not think that one ought to exempt a body until that body has demonstrated that it meets the proper criteria for exemption which I mentioned a moment or two ago. There will be a lead-in period between the commencement of the scheme and the prohibition on the provision of immigration advice and services to allow persons to seek either registration or exemption.
  I am sorry to say that some voluntary bodies although well meaning are just not competent. In the particular context of Amendment No. 141, I do not think it is right or properly protective of those who need protection to allow incompetent activities to go unregulated for a period of three years.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I hope that the. Minister will allow me to intervene. I think that he agrees that this is an important point. I have considered paragraphs (a) and (d) of Clause 74(4). In the absence of the right reverend Prelates. I ask the Minister about the position of the Churches and visitors to detention

  1003
  centres as regards this matter. If a member of a church—let us say a priest, vicar or rabbi—is approached by an asylum seeker (as they often are because, as the Minister will know, they work closely with them) and is asked for advice on, for example, making an appeal, to what extent would the Bill as it now stands catch what is, as it were, friendly advice from someone whom the asylum seeker considers is unlikely to be a dubious figure? Obviously it is part of the job of such a member of a religious faith to offer such help and advice. He may, unwittingly, give incompetent advice because he may not be fully cognisant of immigration law.
  Those who visit asylum seekers were, quite rightly, praised at an earlier stage of the Committee. They, too, are often asked for general help and advice; for example, advice on obtaining legal representation. To what extent would that kind of well meaning help—offered by people who are not likely to seek registration because this activity constitutes only a small part of their normal activities—be caught by the Bill?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall expand on the rather Delphic answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, because I had dealt with the matter at greater length when replying to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, on an earlier occasion. I hope that I can reassure the absent right reverend Prelates through their present earthly representative!
  I think that the answer is to be found in Clause 72, the interpretation clause. Clause 72(1) defines "immigration advice". I do not think it is helpful to the Committee to read that out as it speaks for itself. "Immigration services"—another aspect that the noble Baroness mentioned—are also defined there. However—I think this is of comfort to the noble Baroness—Clause 72(2) states,
  "In this Part, references to the provision of immigration advice or immigration services are to … and in the course of a business carried on (whether or not for profit) by him or by another person".
  I cannot see that a voluntary visitor to an asylum seeker in detention is offering advice or services,
  in the course of a business";
  nor would the members of a church be providing advice,
  "in the course of a business".
  That is the same general saver, as it were, that I mentioned when the noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked me about the position of a Member of the Commons going about his constituency business. I believe that this is the same point as was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, some days ago and by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, this afternoon. It is now raised by the noble Baroness.
  Viscount Astor: I hope that the Minister can clarify a point for me. Is a charity carrying on a business? I am not sure whether a charity or a voluntary organisation that is offering advice would be carrying on a business under the Minister's definition.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Some charities carry on businesses. One thinks, for example, of charity shops. Those are undoubtedly businesses. I repeat that the
  1004
  scheme we are discussing does not seek to catch the well meaning Member of Parliament, Member of this Chamber—I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—or members of organised religious bodies, as mentioned by the noble Baroness. There are capacities and capabilities for exemption, but it is right that—in order to protect people who need protection—such bodies should be able to meet the relevant criteria. I stress that the relevant criteria and the methods of examination, as it were, are the subject of continuing dialogue with charitable and voluntary organisations. I have no doubt at all that many charitable and voluntary organisations will be exempt from the measure. However, a minority of them are well meaning and good-hearted but have disastrous effects.
  Lord Dholakia: I hope that I may press the Minister a little further. Earlier I mentioned the Legal Aid Board which has sent a document to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and has made a number of recommendations to him. I understand that some discussions have occurred on access to quality immigration services. I do not expect a reply to that point now, but it may be helpful to know the Lord Chancellor's reaction to that document. I hope that the Minister will write to me on that point and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall certainly do that. When the noble Lord raised this matter on a previous occasion, I believe that I said that discussions were still continuing. However, I shall try to establish the up-to-date position before we rise for the Summer Recess. Of course, I shall, as always, place a copy of my letter to the noble Lord in the Library.
  Viscount Astor: I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the Minister for his reply to these amendments. I believe that voluntary organisations will want to consider whether or not they are carrying on a business. However, I also believe that this issue will become clearer as the summer progresses. No doubt if there is a problem here, we shall have an opportunity to return to the matter on Report. As I said, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 124A:
  Page 46, line 15, at end insert—
  (""designated judge" has the same meaning as in section 119(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990:").
  The noble Lord said: With this amendment are grouped Amendments Nos. 125A, 126, 128, 128C, 129A, 131A, 131B, 132, 144A, 145, 145A, 149 and 149A. Therefore, this is quite an extensive group!
  Amendment No. 125A requires the Secretary of State to consult the Scottish Ministers prior to appointing the commissioner. This amendment is being made to match the requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the Lord Chancellor prior to the appointment of the

  1005
  commissioner. We think it is right that he should consult the appropriate body in Scotland prior to this appointment.
  Amendment No. 126 would have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State to consult the Advocate General for Scotland about the appointment of the commissioner. Government Amendment No. 125A requires consultation with the Scottish Ministers so the present amendment is unnecessary. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed—not because it was a wrong approach, but because we have dealt with it in an appropriate way.
  Amendment No. 128 would require the immigration services commissioner to consult each of the designated professional bodies and other persons appearing to him to represent the views of persons engaged in the provision of immigration advice or services as he considers appropriate before making or altering the commissioner's rules.
  The commissioner's rules apply to those who are registered with the commissioner. Practising members of the designated professional bodies are not required to register with the commissioner and are therefore not affected by any rules which the commissioner may make in respect of registered persons.
  The commissioner is already required to consult those persons appearing to him to represent the views of such persons engaged in the provision of immigration advice or services as he considers appropriate. He may choose to consult the designated professional bodies, but there is no obligation on him to do so. Given that the legal professions are, to a large extent, unaffected by the rules in respect of registered persons, I do not understand why he should be specifically obliged to consult them. In due course, I shall invite the Committee not to accept this amendment, if it is moved.
  Amendment No. 128C requires the commissioner to consult the designated judges, the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland before issuing or altering the code of standards.
  There is already a requirement on the commissioner to consult the designated professional bodies, as I indicated earlier. We consider that it is useful and necessary for the commissioner to consult the designated judges and the Lord President in this regard. "Designated judge" is defined in Amendment No. 124A and has the same meaning as in Section 119(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. This includes the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the Vice-Chancellor and the President of the Family Division. I shall in due time commend to the Committee both of these amendments.
  Amendment No. 131A requires the Secretary of State to consult the commissioner before making an order to extend the code of standards to a designated professional body. It also requires the Secretary of State to consult the Legal Services Ombudsman, or her territorial equivalents, prior to making an order. Amendment No. 129A is consequential to Amendment No. 131A.
  Amendment No. 131B has been tabled to require the Lord Chancellor to consult the designated judges or the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and to require
  1006
  the Scottish Ministers to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session before approving an order to extend the scope of the code of standards to a designated professional body. We think that it is right that those persons should be consulted.
  Amendment No. 132 requires the immigration services commissioner to consult each of the designated professional bodies and such other persons appearing to him to represent the views of persons engaged in the provision of immigration advice or services as he considers appropriate before establishing a complaints scheme. If a scheme is to work effectively, the commissioner will have to work closely with the disciplinary bodies of the designated professional bodies to develop such a scheme. Officials from the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department have met representatives of the legal professions on a number of occasions to discuss how a complaints scheme might operate. One possibility which has been discussed is the drafting of a memorandum of understanding between the commissioner and the professions. We are happy to accept this amendment.
  Amendment No. 144A requires the Secretary of State to consult the Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales, or the territorial equivalents where he is proposing to make an order to remove a body from the list of designated professional bodies. The Legal Services Ombudsman, or equivalents in the territories, has a duty to oversee and report on the legal professions. In view of the role of the ombudsman, it is only right that the Secretary of State should consult her prior to making an order to remove a body from the list. I ask the Committee to accept this amendment.
  Amendment No. 145A requires the Lord Chancellor to consult the designated judges or the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland before giving his approval to the Secretary of State to make an order removing a body from the list of designated professional bodies. It requires the Scottish Ministers to consult appropriately. We have been asked by the legal professions to include this amendment. It is right and appropriate that we should do so. In due time, I shall invite the Committee to agree the amendment.
  Amendment No. 145 requires the Secretary of State to have the approval of the Legal Services Consultative Panel and the designated judges prior to making an order of removal. The Secretary of State is required to have the approval of the Lord Chancellor before making an order, or of Scottish Ministers. Government Amendment No. 145A requires the Lord Chancellor to consult the designated judges prior to approving an order of removal.
  There is nothing to prevent or preclude the Lord Chancellor consulting the Legal Services Consultative Panel. However, I am happy to take this idea away and to consider whether this should be placed on the face of the Bill. For the moment, therefore, I ask that the amendment is not pressed. Obviously, I shall consider it with an open mind.
  Amendment No. 149A requires the Lord Chancellor to consult the Scottish Ministers before making or altering the rules of procedure for the immigration

  1007
  services tribunal. It is right that the Scottish Ministers should be consulted in this regard. This corresponds to the other amendments which have been tabled in respect of consultation. In due time, I shall invite the Committee to agree the amendment.
  Amendment No. 149 would require the Lord Chancellor to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session about making rules as to the procedure and practice to be followed by the immigration services tribunal. In fact, it is appropriate for the Lord Chancellor to consult the Scottish Ministers, not the Lord President of the Court of Session. That is the subject of the previous government amendment to which I spoke, Amendment No. 149A. Bearing in mind that Amendment No. 149A is now in this group of amendments, I shall ask the noble Lord not to move his amendment because we have dealt with the matter appropriately.
  I am sorry to have taken the Committee through the amendments in a little detail. However, they are matters of importance because they relate to appropriate consultations. I hope that Members of the Committee will think that we have got the right balance and that we have paid proper attention to the representations made. I beg to move.
  5.15 p.m.
  Viscount Astor: I am not clear why we are looking at the list in a different order from the Minister. Will the Minister go back a page and consider what he said in relation to Amendment No. 132? I can then deal with the other amendments standing in my name.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall do that at this stage. I said that we would accept Amendment No. 132, and were considering the possibility of a memorandum of understanding. I am quite happy to accept Amendment No. 132.
  Viscount Astor: I am very grateful. I was so surprised to have an amendment accepted; I just wanted to check that I was right.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps the noble Viscount should sit down now.
  Viscount Astor: I did not want to thank the noble Lord for accepting an amendment and then find that I had made a terrible blunder.
  Perhaps I may now deal with my amendments. I am entirely happy not to move Amendment No. 126 because I think that Amendment No. 125A covers its point. As to Amendment No. 128, I am satisfied by the Minister's answer. Again, I am grateful for his acceptance of Amendment No. 132. I am extremely grateful for his offer to consider the issues raised by Amendment No. 145, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. No doubt he will wish to say something in a moment.
  I am concerned about Amendment No. 149. Perhaps the Minister will consider one point. I should say at the outset that I am no expert on the Scottish system of law
  1008
  and that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon is not in his place. I am afraid that I am rather inadequately filling in for him.
  If the rules and practice are to operate efficiently in the Scottish system, it would seem sensible for the Lord Chancellor to be able to take advice from the Lord President of the Court of Session. The Minister might say that in the normal circumstances the Lord Chancellor would do so; I am not clear about the interaction between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President of the Court of Session. If the noble Lord cannot respond now, I should be happy for him to write to me.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may attempt to be helpful. The only difference between us on Amendments Nos. 149 and 149A is that Amendment No. 149A requires the Lord Chancellor to consult the Scottish Ministers, including those whom I mentioned earlier. Thereafter, it is for the Scottish Ministers to decide whom to consult. If they wish to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session, they would be able to do so. We are simply saying that, constitutionally, it is appropriate for the Lord Chancellor to consult Scottish Ministers about what will be procedure and practice within the Scottish jurisdiction.
  Lord Dholakia: Perhaps I may intervene as my name is attached to one of the amendments. The Minister seems to have recovered from his flu and he is fairly generous today. I do not want to pursue any further points. I am delighted with his explanation and his acceptance of some of the suggestions that have been made.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 73 [The Commissioner]:
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 125:
  Page 47, line 24, leave out ("the Secretary of State after consulting").
  The noble Viscount said: This is again a probing amendment. Clause 73(2) states that,
  "The Commissioner is to be appointed by the Secretary of State after consulting the Lord Chancellor".
  The words which the amendment seeks to delete seem unnecessary. If the Lord Chancellor wants to consult whomsoever he wants to consult, he will no doubt do so. Obviously, the Secretary of State has an interest, but it is one of which the Lord Chancellor would be bound to take account in any event. I shall be interested to hear the noble Lord's reply. I beg to move.
  Lord Dholakia: My noble friend Lady Williams has her name to the amendment. I referred to the Minister's generosity. Perhaps I may now press him further.
  There is nothing new in what is sought in the amendment. As early as 1987, the rule-making powers in relation to the immigration appeals process, including in respect of the judicial leadership of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal, were transferred from the Home

  1009
  Office to the Lord Chancellor. The principle proposed in the amendment is therefore consistent with that approach.
  The principle is simple. The amendment is intended to ensure the independence of the immigration services commissioner. It would avoid the question of the Secretary of State having the power to appoint the commissioner, who effectively controls the "opponents" of the Home office in immigration arid asylum cases. The Lord Chancellor already appoints immigration adjudicators.
  The Bill provides that the commissioner should be appointed by the Secretary of State. That breaches the principle of natural justice. The amendment is intended to ensure the independence of the immigration services commissioner as the proposed regulator. The advisers and representatives whom the commissioner will regulate will be in an adversarial relationship with the Secretary of State. As I said, it would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to have the power to appoint the commissioner, who will effectively control the "opponents" of the Home Office in asylum and immigration cases. He will have too close an interest in the outcome of cases on which the advisers may be assisting. The Bill proposes a quasi-judicial function for the immigration services commissioner. The commissioner should therefore be appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
  If the amendment is made, a number of consequential amendments will be necessary, including amendments relating to the various administrative provisions concerning the commissioner, his status, remuneration and staff under Schedule 5. Those administrative provisions should also be independent of the Secretary of State for the reasons that I have cited. Amendment No. 144 deals with the same aspect and will give rise to consequential amendments.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Is it really necessary to stipulate in a statute that one Minister should consult another? Does not the ordinary machinery of government take care of that? I know that the Treasury is deeply wedded to reiterating in statute after statute that nothing must be done without consulting the Treasury. That is bad enough. It is all quite unnecessary. But need we go beyond that, having allowed for Treasury paranoia?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is one occasion when no Treasury paranoia can be pointed to, because the Treasury is not concerned in this aspect at all. What we have done—rightly, I believe—is to provide, in Clause 73(2), for the commissioner to be appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Lord Chancellor. That is a perfectly sensible way of proceeding. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will say that that is excessively cautious. However, in a sense we are in new territory here, and it is wise to place upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department the duty of consulting the Lord Chancellor.
  I turn to the burden of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. We must bear in mind that the role of the commissioner is wholly administrative. He has no
  1010
  judicial function; therefore, it does not fall for the appointment to be made by the Lord Chancellor. I agree that members of the immigration services tribunal will exercise a judicial function, and for that specific reason their appointment will fall within the remit of the Lord Chancellor. That is why we make provision for it.
  The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised the important point of independence. That is why I invite the Committee's attention to paragraph 11 of Schedule 5. The safeguards are built into the paragraph. There is a defined term of office; namely, five years, subject to resignation; and there are severe limitations on the Secretary of State as regards dismissal. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was right to raise this issue. I am happy to give that reassurance, with specific reference to paragraph 11 of Schedule 5.
  Amendment No. 144 deals with a different theme. It gives a power to the Lord Chancellor to make an order to remove a designated professional body from the list of designated professional bodies in the clause. The power is with the Secretary of State. He has the responsibility for the scheme to regulate advisers. It seems to me only sensible, in terms of coherent administration if nothing else, that he should have the responsibility for making the order for removal.
  However, I must underline the fact that, before an order is sought, the Secretary of State must consult the commissioner; he must notify the body concerned of the proposal, and must give a reasonable period within which representations may be made; and he must consider those representations. He must also have the approval of the Lord Chancellor or the Scottish Ministers if the order relates to a designated professional body in Scotland.
  Although I understand the motives behind the amendments, they should not be pressed. I invite the Committee not to agree to them if they are.
  Lord Dholakia: I have followed what the Minister has said. The situation needs to be carefully monitored over a period of time.
  Viscount Astor: I found the Minister's answer convincing. It convinced me that I had got the amendment wrong. However, it also convinced me that an amendment was necessary. I understood him to say that the commissioner did not have a judicial function. Therefore, it seemed to me that instead of taking out,
  "the Secretary of State after consulting",
  the phrase should read,
  "by the Secretary of State".
  Then we would take out,
  "after consulting the Lord Chancellor".
  It seems to me that that is unnecessary and I am grateful to the Minister for giving me guidance as to what amendment to put forward at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw this one.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 125A:
  Page 47, line 25, at end insert ("and the Scottish Ministers").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 127:
  Page 47, line 27, at end insert ("and, in particular, to ensure that only those who are trained to do so provide such advice or services in respect of children").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment is very much a probing exercise at this stage. The Minister will not be surprised that a number of children's organisations have a vested interest in what is being proposed. The purpose of the probing amendment is to obtain information about how the Government envisage the requisite expertise, skill and sensitivity to deal with asylum-seeking children.
  We welcome the move to regulate immigration advisers and service providers designed to improve the quality of legal representation for asylum seekers. However, we are concerned that legal representatives must be suitably trained in representing children. This opportunity is taken to do so.
  There are a number of organisations which firmly believe that child asylum applicants require specialist legal advice and legal services such as they already receive in other areas of law. For example, members of the Law Society's Children's Panel act for children in proceedings under the Children Act 1989.
  The issues of concern are not only on the representation of children but also the importance of developing child-sensitive legal representations whenever required. It is also a matter where we need to communicate with child clients. Children may express themselves differently from adults and have greater difficulty in expressing wishes and needs. How will those factors be taken into account? Children's sense of time can be different from adults' and waiting to hear about a decision can be disturbing to them. They need regular reassurances about their claim.
  Child-specific requirements for legal representation mean knowledge of special rules, procedures and policies that apply to unaccompanied children, knowledge of child-specific forms of persecution, knowledge of the Children Act 1989 and skills in communicating with and interviewing children and young people.
  It is not the intention of the amendment to restrict the number of advisers who can represent children. It is only to ensure that those who are the most vulnerable within the system receive the best possible advice, for which people are appropriately trained. I beg to move.
  Viscount Astor: We support the amendment in so far as it will enable the Minister to explain how the Government envisage that the expertise, skill and sensitivity to deal with asylum-seeking children will
  1012
  be assured in all the aspects of the provision of the immigration advice services. We look forward to the Minister's explanation.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: These are important questions and I shall spend a moment developing and explaining our thinking on this. I entirely appreciate the thinking behind Amendments Nos. 127 and 142.
  One of the main objectives of the regulatory scheme which the Committee has generally approved in concept is to ensure that we provide or have provided competent immigration advice. The matters raised by noble Lords are matters which the immigration services commissioner will wish to consider, including in the code of standards and rules. That is the proper place for them, rather than on the face of the Bill.
  We are conscious of the particular needs of children referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. He knows that we in the Home Office fund a scheme under which the Refugee Council provides representatives to act on behalf of unaccompanied children. So there is a substantial body of expertise that we are keen to use.
  Finally, on the general point put by both noble Lords who spoke, I return to Clause 73(5). There is the very important obligation in the present context under that subsection that,
  "The commissioner must exercise his functions so as to secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that those who provide immigration advice or immigration services"—
  then we reach the two critical matters in the context of children—
  "are fit and competent to do so".
  I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said: children have different requirements whenever one represents them. Secondly, those who provide services must,
  "act in the best interests of their clients".
  That is extremely important and it is the basis on which we approach matters. I reiterate that I am sure that the immigration services commissioner will want to consider those matters for inclusion in the code of standards and rules.
  Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 4 agreed to.
  Schedule 5 [The Immigration Services Commissioner]:
  [Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 128A:
  Page 114, line 43, at end insert—
  (" .—(1) The Commissioner's rules must be made or altered by an instrument in writing.
  (2) Such an instrument must specify that it is made under this Schedule.
  (3) Immediately after such an instrument is made, it must be printed and made available to the public.
  (4) The Commissioner may charge a reasonable fee for providing a person with a copy of the instrument.
  (5) A person is not to be taken to have contravened a rule made by the Commissioner if he shows that at the time of the alleged contravention the instrument containing the rule had not been made available in accordance with this paragraph.
  (6) The production of a printed copy of an instrument purporting to be made by the Commissioner on which is endorsed a certificate signed by an officer of the Commissioner authorised by him for that purpose and stating—

  (a) that the instrument was made by the Commissioner,

  (b) that the copy is a true copy of the instrument, and

  (c) that on a specified date the instrument was made available to the public in accordance with this paragraph,

  is evidence (or in Scotland sufficient evidence) of the facts stated in the certificate.
  (7) A certificate purporting to be signed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) is to be treated as having been properly signed unless the contrary is shown.
  (8) A person who wishes in any legal proceedings to rely on an instrument containing the Commissioner's rules may require him to endorse a copy of the instrument with a certificate of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (6).").
  The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 128A, 203B and 203C are in the next grouping. Amendments Nos. 203B and 203C are tabled to clarify that the immigration rules and the commissioner's rules are not subject to the provisions of Clause 154. They are not to be made by statutory instrument.
  Amendment No. 128A makes further provision for the commissioner's rules. It stipulates that the rules must be made or altered by an instrument in writing and that they must stipulate that they are made under Schedule 5. They must be printed and made available to the public subject to a reasonable fee.
  The amendment also provides for a person not to be taken to have contravened a rule made by the commissioner if it is shown that at the time of the alleged contravention the instrument containing the rule had not been made available. It provides for a printed copy of the instrument certified by an officer of the commissioner to be taken in evidence that the instrument had been duly issued.
  This amendment therefore places essential requirements on the commissioner with regard, first, to the promulgation of the rules and, secondly, that those who are registered will he aware of the rules. I beg to move.
  Lord Avebury: Could not these rules be placed on the Internet like so many other documents nowadays? That means they would be readily available to anyone who has the necessary Web address. It could be held to constitute publication.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: What the noble Lord said has a good deal of validity. We have been much more open-minded in the Home Office to the noble Lord's more recent request about the provision of material in that way. I shall give it careful thought and write to him. We are looking for the bare minimum that anyone likely to be affected by
  1014
  something is entitled to have it in writing available to the public at a reasonable fee. I do not dissent from the noble Lord's general approach.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 128B:
  Page 115, line 7, leave out from ("services") to end of line 9 and insert ("other than—

  (a) a person who is authorised by a designated professional body to practise as a member of the profession whose members are regulated by that body;

  (b) a person who works under the supervision of such a person; or

  (c) a person mentioned in section 74(6).").

  The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
  Viscount Astor: Included on the Marshalled List with Amendment No. 128B are Amendments Nos. 129, 130, 130A and 131. I believe the Minister and I have the same groupings. I do not know whether he would like to speak to Amendment No. 128B before we start.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am happy to do that and I am grateful for the suggestion. The noble Viscount is quite right that Amendments Nos. 128B, 129, 130, 130A and 131 are all in this group.
  Amendment No. 128B clarifies who is not caught by the commissioner's code of standards. They are persons authorised to practise by a designated professional body, those working under the supervision of such a person and those mentioned in Clause 74(6).
  Amendment No. 130A is a drafting amendment tabled to ensure consistency with the language of Section 74(2)(c). Amendment No. 129 would remove the provision for the extension of the commissioner's code of standards in part or whole to designated professional bodies. It is intended that the provision would be used if a professional body was failing to regulate its members effectively in the provision of immigration advice or services. It is a useful interim measure. If the provision was removed, the first option would be for the commissioner to seek the removal of a body from the list of designated bodies and require every member of the body offering immigration advice to register individually. That would work to the disadvantage of the professional body, because it would not be given what most people would regard as a fair opportunity to improve its regulation following the application of the code of standards to it. I ask the noble Viscount not to press it for that reason. It offers the "nuclear option" as the only alternative.
  Where the commissioner's code of standards is extended to a designated professional body, Amendment No. 130 would require the body to take account of the code rather than requiring its members to comply with the code. It is intended that the provision could he used if a professional body is failing to regulate its members effectively. In the event of such a failure, it would be inappropriate and ineffective to require a professional body to take account of the code of standards rather than expecting its members to comply with it fully.

  1015
  Amendment No. 131 is consequential on Amendment No. 130. For the reasons that I have given, I ask the noble Viscount not to press them.
  Viscount Astor: I understand the Minister's argument. Perhaps a brief explanation would help. I realise that the amendment is flawed because it goes wider than was intended. It arose from the concerns expressed by the Law Society of Scotland, which already has its own code of conduct and code of practice to cover solicitors practising in that area of the law. It felt that another code was not necessary. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. We shall consider it carefully. I shall not be moving any of the three amendments in my name.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 128C:
  Page 115, line 14, after ("bodies;") insert—

  ("() the designated judges;

  () the Lord President of the Court of Session;

  () the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland;").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): Before calling Amendment No. 129, I advise the Committee that if it is agreed to. I cannot call Amendments Nos. 129A to 131B inclusive due to pre-emption.
  [Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 129A:
  Page 115, line 21, leave out (", after consulting the Commissioner,").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 130A:
  Page 115, line 24, leave out from ("to") to ("and") in line 25 and insert ("practise as a member of the profession whose members are regulated by that body;").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 131A:
  Page 115, line 26, at end insert—
  ("() If the Secretary of State is proposing to act under sub-paragraph (11 he must, before doing so, consult—

  (a) the Commissioner;

  (b) the Legal Services Ombudsman, if the proposed order would affect a designated professional body in England and Wales;

  (c) the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, if the proposed order would affect a designated professional body in Scotland:

  1016

  (d) the lay observers appointed under Article 42 of the Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, if the proposed order would affect a designated professional body in Northern Ireland.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 131B:
  Page 115, line 31, at end insert—
  ("() Before deciding whether or not to give his approval under sub-paragraph (2)(a), the Lord Chancellor must consult—

  (a) the designated judges, if the order affects a designated professional body in England and Wales:

  (b) the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, if it affects a designated professional body in Northern Ireland.

  () Before deciding whether or not to give their approval under sub-paragraph (2)(b), the Scottish Ministers must consult the Lord President of the Court of Session.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 132: Viscount Astor?
  Viscount Astor: Not moved.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 133: Viscount Astor?
  Viscount Astor: Paragraph 4 of Amendment No. 133 gives the commissioner the power to investigate complaints on a number of matters. Sub-paragraph (2)(c) refers to an alleged breach of the code. This clarifying amendment matches the corresponding provision in sub-paragraph (2)(d) in relation to a complaint that the commissioner's rules have been breached. It could not have been intended that any persons not subject to the code—
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: We have been moving with some rapidity. I think that the noble Viscount wanted to move Amendment No. 132, because, to his surprise and justified delight, I had agreed to it. We have skipped over that too quickly.
  Viscount Astor: I am very grateful to the Minister. Having been offered an amendment, I seem to have missed it. I am delighted to move Amendment No. 132 formally.
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 132:
  Page 115, line 35, at end insert—
  ("(1A) Before establishing the scheme or altering it, the Commissioner must consult—

  (a) each of the designated professional bodies; and

  (b) such other persons appearing to him to represent the views of persons engaged in the provision of immigration advice or immigration services as he considers appropriate.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  5.45 p.m.
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 133:
  Page 115, line 42, at end insert ("by a person to whom the Code applies").
  The noble Viscount said: I apologise for jumping the gun and nearly ruining my modest success.
  Paragraph 4(2)(c) refers to an alleged breach of the code. This clarifying amendment matches the corresponding provision in sub-paragraph (2)(d) in relation to a complaint that the commissioner's rules have been breached. It could not have been intended that any persons not subject to the code should be investigated on the basis of an alleged breach of it.
  Under Amendment No. 134, the immigration services commissioner would have the power to refer any alleged breach by a member of a designated professional body of that body's rules to the relevant professional body. The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors will be given additional powers of investigation under the Access to Justice Bill. The aim of the amendment is to avoid the unnecessary conduct of two investigations on the same alleged breach.
  Amendment No. 135 is designed to ensure the referral of complaints about members of professional bodies to their relevant professional body for investigation. The aim is to ensure that all complaints relating to members of one body are conducted by the same body and to avoid members being subject to the unnecessary conduct of two investigations by their professional body and the immigration services commissioner.
  The aim of Amendment No. 137 is to ensure that the exercise of the powers to set targets is consistent with that conferred on any legal services complaints commissioner under the Access to Justice Bill. There is also a requirement for consultation on the approach to the drawing-up of directions setting a timetable to be followed by a designated professional body. A reasonable timetable should be based on the principle that matters should be handled with all due despatch.
  Amendment No. 143 is intended to ensure consistency with the powers conferred on the Lord Chancellor and any legal service complaints commissioner appointed by him under the Access to Justice Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is an intricate group of amendments. Amendment No. 133 stipulates that a complaint is relevant if it alleges a breach of the code of standards by a person to whom the code applies. Paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 5 already makes it clear to whom the code of standards is intended to apply, so the amendment is not necessary.
  Amendment No. 134 is a little different. It would remove an alleged breach by a member of a designated professional body of one or more of the rules of that body from the definition of a relevant complaint. It would provide for the commissioner to bring to the attention of the designated body any complaints relating to the competence or fitness of someone working under supervision or employment. I believe that we have been unanimous in our discussions on these matters. We must control the behaviour of unscrupulous immigration advisers.
  1018
  The Government feel—and I believe that the Committee has agreed—that the best way to achieve this is to have a statutory regulatory scheme. It is unfortunately true that some extremely bad examples of unscrupulous behaviour have been perpetrated by members of the legal profession. In those circumstances I believe it is entirely wrong that a complaint made against a member of one of the designated professional bodies would not, were this amendment to succeed, be regarded as a complaint to be investigated by the commissioner. I have to say that I quite fundamentally part company with the noble Viscount on that point.
  In respect of complaints about breaches of the rules of the regulatory body of a designated profession, it is intended that the commissioner should pass such complaints to the relevant regulatory body once he has conducted an investigation himself. Paragraph 8(1)(c) of Schedule 5 enables the commissioner to determine complaints against members of the designated professions and then refer the complaint and his decision to the relevant regulatory body. The amendment runs contrary to the spirit of a regulatory scheme.
  I shall give the Committee an example. If, for instance, a solicitor or a member of the Bar has behaved in a quite disgraceful professional way and he is subject to the sanction of the commissioner in the immigration context, in some circumstances it may well still be entirely appropriate that his own professional body should consider whether to impose different sanctions if the unprofessional behaviour is proved.
  Amendment No. 135 provides for the commissioner to bring to the attention of a designated professional body complaints made against a member of that body which relate to the competence or fitness of a person, or of those working under his supervision or employment, to provide immigration advice or services or a breach of one or more of the relevant rules. The commissioner already has a similar power under paragraph 8(1)(c) of Schedule 5. He may determine a complaint and refer the complaint in his decision to the relevant regulatory body. It is important that the commissioner should be able to form a preliminary view on the complaint before referring it. He is an independent regulatory authority and can add value to the process.
  The Bill contains a provision already allowing the commissioner to give directions setting a timetable to be followed by a designated professional body in considering a complaint referred to it by the commissioner. If accepted, although I ask the Committee not to accept it, Amendment 136 would limit the commissioner to requiring a body to provide an explanation where a complaint is made to him about the time taken by the body to deal with the complaint and to give him a timetable within which the complaint will be dealt with. If the body then failed to adhere to the suggested timetable, the amendment would allow the commissioner to set a timetable.
  Again, there is a difference in our approach. W e believe that it is only right that all professional bodies should deal with complaints in a reasonable time. It is true to say that

  1019
  the record in terms of timeliness when dealing with some complaints against some members of the legal profession has not been a happy one. Very often the delay causes such grievance that, even if the complaint is upheld, members of the public rightly feel that their complaints have not been given decent, focused attention. It is perfectly reasonable to give the commissioner the power to set a time-scale for the conduct of an inquiry into complaints against members of the legal professions.
  The purpose of the scheme is to make it as certain as possible that people receive quality immigration advice, are not overcharged for it and that complaints are effectively investigated within a reasonable time-scale. A reasonable time-scale introduces structure and discipline and is itself important in maintaining standards. The amendment would have the effect, in the case of some complaints, of lengthening the time-scale for effective resolution.
  Amendments Nos. 143 and 137 would mean that the commissioner could not set a timetable unless the Lord Chancellor had first made a direction. Amendment No. 137 also provides for the bodies to make representations to the commissioner before targets are set. They should not need that. As an article of faith, all professional bodies ought to be able and willing to deal with the idea that complaints should be dealt with in a reasonable time. The amendments give further powers to organisations sometimes wrongly described, I am sure, as "conspiracies against the laity". However, they do not need any more powers.
  Lord Avebury: What will happen if a person makes a complaint simultaneously to the commissioner and to a professional organisation? Would the two investigations proceed in parallel; for example, an investigation by the commissioner and one by the Law Society? How would priority be given to one rather than the other?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: No priority would have to be given. However, I can envisage circumstances where the Law Society or the Bar Council professional conduct committee might reasonably say that they will wait to see what the commissioner has to say. That, I believe, provides the added value I referred to. It is more a case of looking at the individual circumstances but avoiding delay at all costs.
  Viscount Astor: The amendments to which I spoke arose from concerns expressed to us by the Law Society of England and Wales and indeed the Law Society of Scotland. Far be it from me to accuse the Minister of being a poacher turned gamekeeper. However, I am convinced by his arguments, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 134 to 137 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 138:
  Page 119, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 139:
  Page 119, line 21, leave out (", with the approval of the Treasury,").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 140:
  Page 121, line 10, at end insert—
  ("Disqualification for Scottish Parliament
  23A. After section 15(1)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 insert—

  "(e) he is the Immigration Services Commissioner or the Deputy Immigration Services Commissioner."

  Disqualification for National Assembly for Wales
  23B. After section 12(1)(d) of the Government of Wales Act 1998 insert—

  "(e) he is the Immigration Services Commissioner or the Deputy Immigration Services Commissioner."").

  The noble Viscount said: This amendment is needed to fill a lacuna in the drafting of the Bill. As it stands, the immigration services commissioner and the deputy immigration services commissioner would be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, there is no provision for disqualification from the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand the apparent gap. However, the reason for it is that should the Parliament in Scotland and/or the Assembly in Wales wish to disqualify, that would be a matter for them as part of their internal regimes to bring about the disqualification. That is a necessary part of the post-devolution settlement.
  Viscount Astor: The Minister has made the position clear. However, the Bill covers asylum and immigration matters for the whole country. I wonder whether the Government would find it uncomfortable if the commissioner were a member of the Scottish Parliament. I shall ponder the Minister's reply, and in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 74 [Provision of immigration services]:
  [Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 74 shall stand part of the Bill?
  The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, I should like to address the Minister on two points. First, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in saying how delighted I am, as I am sure is the whole Committee, to see the Minister back on true form.
  Secondly, the clause deals with prohibitions on giving advice. I trust that the Minister is aware, given his many years of experience with the Financial Services Act, that

  1021
  the lessons of the pitfalls in that Act must by now have come to light. They should be borne in mind when drafting the provision.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am happy to give a positive and affirmative response to both of the points raised by the noble Earl, and I am happy to accept his gracious remarks.
  There are lessons to be learnt about regulation, and one would be a fool not to keep one's mind constantly open to lessons which could have been learnt in earlier years.
  Clause 74 agreed to.
  Clause 75 agreed to.
  6 p.m.
  Schedule 6 [Registration]:
  Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No 142:
  Page 121, line 21, at end insert ("which, in the case of applicants proposing to provide advice or services to persons under the age of 18, shall include evidence of appropriate training and experience").
  The noble Baroness said: Further to the kind remarks of my noble friend Lord Dholakia and those just made, I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, informs the Committee how a person can recover from 'flu within 24 hours. That would be helpful to us all.
  It may be that Amendment No. 142 is more appropriately related to paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 6 which makes plain that,
  "the Commissioner may require the applicant to provide him with such further information … as [he] may reasonably require".
  Amendment No. 142 is related to those who give advice to children. We have already discussed children a great deal in Committee and recognised that the expertise of a person who deals with minors is rather different from that of a representative who provides advice to adults. In particular, we are concerned that the advice or service given to such young people should be given by individuals who have some training in the whole area of advising and consulting youngsters. It may be that the Minister will respond by saying that that is a matter which the commissioner can take into account.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: If the noble Baroness is now speaking to Amendment No. 142, I believe that she may have been absent when the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and I had an extensive discussion on Amendments Nos. 127 and 142 which are in the same grouping. I tried to be as helpful as possible to the noble Lord. If the noble Baroness is dissatisfied with what I said—I do not believe that she will be—I am more than happy to discuss it with her.
  [Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
  Schedule 6 agreed to.
  Clause 76 [Designated professional bodies]:
  [Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 144A:
  Page 49, line 27, at end insert—
  1022
  ("() consult the Legal Services Ombudsman, if the proposed order would affect a designated professional body in England and Wales;
  () consult the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, if the proposed order would affect a designated professional body in Scotland;
  () consult the lay observers appointed under Article 42 of the Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, if the proposed order would affect a designated professional body in Northern Ireland;").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 145 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 145A:
  Page 49, line 35, at end insert—
  ("() Before deciding whether or not to give his approval under subsection (5)(a), the Lord Chancellor must consult—

  (a) the designated judges, if the order affects a designated professional body in England and Wales;

  (b) the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, if it affects a designated professional body in Northern Ireland.

  () Before deciding whether or not to give their approval under subsection (5)(b), the Scottish Ministers must consult the Lord President of the Court of Session.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 146 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 147 or 148 due to pre-emption.
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 146:
  Page 50, line 8, leave out subsections (8) to (10).
  The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 146 I should like to speak also to subsequent amendments. Amendment No. 146 removes the power of the commissioner to levy a fee against a designated professional body and to recover that fee as a debt due. This is a Scottish concern. It is not apparent why such fees should be payable in Scotland, especially as Scottish solicitors already pay subscriptions to maintain, inter alia, the disciplinary system. I am informed that the annual subscription paid by each solicitor is £375. That maintains the Law Society of Scotland and its consumer protections, such as the Guarantee Fund, the Master Policy and the system of complaints adjudication.
  Amendment No. 147 is designed to ensure that the annual fee payable by a designated body is based on the costs incurred by the commissioner in relation to that body's members. When the Bill passed through another place the Government did not explain their thinking on how a self-financing scheme could be effected. We seek an undertaking that the annual fee relates only to the actual and reasonable costs of the commissioner's activities in relation to the members of a designated body.
  Amendment No. 148 is intended to ensure that the Government's indication to the professional bodies that no charges will be made to the legal professions in the first year will be recorded on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: All members of the Law Society or Bar Council in the jurisdictions of England and Wales are required to provide an annual subscription. Part of that subscription is used in internal disciplinary complaints procedures. I do not believe that the Law Society of Scotland is in any different position. However, I can be helpful to the noble Viscount to the extent that we have written to the professional bodies to inform them that they will not be required to pay a fee in year one of the scheme. In year two they may be required to pay a fee. I am happy to confirm that any fee will be based on an estimate of the likely regulatory activity carried out by the commissioner in year two in respect of each body.
  The noble Viscount wanted me to say—I do so—that each professional body would not cross-subsidise the regulatory activity of the commissioner in respect of any other professional body or those registered or exempted from the scheme. It is only right that each body should be expected to pay a fee for any regulatory activity that is carried out by the commissioner on behalf of that body. Amendment No. 147 is not, strictly speaking, needed. The commissioner may not charge the legal professions for services which he does not provide in respect of them under the terms of the scheme.
  I hope that I have dealt with the concerns raised by the noble Viscount, not least specifically those relating to Amendment No. 148. We have been able to write to the professions concerned and inform them that they will not be charged financially in year one.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful for the Minister's response to Amendment No. 148. No doubt his reply to Amendment No. 147 will be closely studied north of the Border. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments No. 147 and 148 not moved.]
  Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 77 agreed to.
  Schedule 7 [The Immigration Services Tribunal]:
  [Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 149A:
  Page 123, line 38, at end insert—
  ("() Before making or altering any such rules, the Lord Chancellor must consult the Scottish Ministers.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 150:
  Page 124, line 5, after second ("party") insert ("having been given due notice of the hearing").
  The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 150 provides that there should be clear proof of the fact that all parties to a tribunal have received fair notice of the time, date and place of a hearing before the tribunal can proceed in the absence of any relevant party. The amendment attempts to ensure that protection is afforded to all parties to the proceedings so that an unscrupulous person cannot take advantage of the tribunal system and seek to proceed in the absence of the other party without first showing that due notice has been given to that other party. This is an important point which I am sure the Minister will want to consider carefully. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand the purpose of the amendment. The amendment stipulates that appeals should be determined only where a party has failed to appear and that party has been given due notice of the hearing. I am happy to tell the Committee that this point is already covered. The determination of an appeal is allowed only where a party has failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with any reasonable direction. If one has not been told, self-evidently there is a good case for saying that there is a reasonable excuse for not complying. It is worth ventilating the point, but ultimately I believe that this is a matter for the procedural rules, not the face of the Bill. However, I am happy to give the noble Viscount that reassurance.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful for the Minister's reassurance and explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 78 agreed to.
  Clause 79 [Disciplinary charge upheld by the Tribunal]:
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 150A:
  Page 51, line 26, leave out ("fine") and insert ("penalty").
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 150A is a drafting amendment. On reflection we thought that it should be a penalty which is directed rather than a fine. A penalty is more apt in the context of a disciplinary charge; the term fine is more appropriate for offences.
  Amendment No. 150B enables a direction given by the tribunal to a person who has been found to have charged unreasonable fees for immigration advice or services to repay to the clients concerned a portion of the fees or to pay a penalty to the commissioner; and, if it is a penalty to the commissioner, to be enforced by the clients concerned or the commissioner as if it were an order of a court, or, in Scotland, as if it were an order of the Court of Session. So in the first instance it is almost a conceptual variation; and, secondly, it gives teeth to the scheme which has been generally welcomed. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 150B:
  Page 51, line 27, at end insert—
  ("() A direction given by the Tribunal under subsection (5) (or under subsection (6)) may be enforced by the clients concerned (or by the Commissioner)—

  (a) as if it were an order of a county court; or

  (b) in Scotland, as if it were an order of the Court of Session.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 80 [Orders by disciplinary bodies]:
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 150C in Clause 80 I remind the Committee that if Amendment No. 150C is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 151 due to pre-emption.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 150C:
  Page 52, line 4, leave out ("by a designated professional body").
  The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 151 and 151 A.
  Amendment No. 150C is linked with Amendment No. 151 A. These amendments are designed to ensure that all regulatory bodies set up for the purpose of heating disciplinary charges against members of a designated professional body, including those set up in statute, are included in the definition of "disciplinary body". That is their purpose and I invite the Committee's assent.
  Amendment No. 151, in the names of the noble, Lord Cope, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, would widen the definition of "disciplinary body" to include those bodies set up under statute. The current definition is a body which appears to the Secretary of State to be established by a designated professional body for the purpose of hearing disciplinary charges against members of the body and specified in an order. Having considered Amendment No. 151, we accept that clarification is needed here. This is the purpose of government Amendment No. 150C, which achieves the same effect but in the technically correct manner. Therefore, the point of Amendment No. 151 having been attained, I invite the noble Lords to withdraw their amendment, and ask the Committee to approve my amendment.
  Viscount Astor: As drafted, the Bill does not provide for disciplinary bodies established by statute, or the professional body itself, such as the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal which is established by Section 50 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. I presume that Amendments Nos. 150C and 151A cover that point in the way I sought to do in my amendment. If the Minister confirms that, I shall be happy not to move Amendment No. 151.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, I do.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 151 A:
  Page 52, line 6, leave out ("the") and insert ("a designated professional").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 81 to 83 agreed to.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool moved Amendment No. 152:
  Before Clause 84, insert the following new clause—

  SECRETARY OF STATE TO ENSURE ACTIONS OF OFFICIALS PROMOTE ASYLUM SEEKERS
  (" . It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make arrangements with a view to ensuring that officials of hi;; department and all other providers of assistance to asylum seekers and their dependants operate the provisions of this Part of this Act and exercise their functions in such a way as shall best promote the welfare of asylum seekers and their dependants, if any, who requite assistance under this Part of this Act.").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 153.
  We turn now to Part VI of the Bill and the support to be made available to asylum seekers. Before doing so, it is worth reiterating the concerns that I and many other Members of this Chamber raised at Second Reading about the impracticality, the bureaucratic nature, and undesirability of the voucher system. We expressed anxieties about the inevitable creation of destitution, pitifully meagre levels of support, dispersal of vulnerable families, the forced co-option of church and voluntary organisations as arms of the state with requirements to fulfil tasks which are not and never have been hitherto their responsibility, and the duty that, as legislators, we have towards children who are caught up in these nightmare situations.
  Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 go to the heart of those issues in setting out the duty of the Secretary of State towards asylum seekers. Amendment No. 153 deals with his specific duty towards children.
  At Second Reading, the Minister graciously promised anyone who was a Member of this House or of representative organisations dealing with issues concerning asylum seekers that he would make himself available to discuss their concerns. My noble friend, Lord Sandwich, and I took him at his word, and he kindly made time available to us last week. We were accompanied by the indefatigable Mr Mike Kaye from the Refugee Council who has done so much during the proceedings of the Bill to keep the Committee alerted to the practical effects of many of the clauses we have been discussing.
  Following that meeting, notwithstanding 'flu—his extraordinary power of recovery this week has been commented upon—the Minister found time to reply to some of those questions and to set out his reasons for questioning the desirability of placing a duty in the Bill. He has placed a copy of the full response in your

  1027
  Lordships' House. Perhaps I may be permitted to refer to the second paragraph of that letter. The Minister says:
  "You asked why we had framed the provisions on the support for asylum seekers as a power rather than a duty. We feel that a power gives us rather more flexibility in the manner in which we set up the support arrangements. But this does not in any way lessen our commitment to ensuring that proper support arrangements for asylum seekers are developed. We have made clear commitments on our plans both in parliament and elsewhere. Indeed, it is inconceivable that with all the provisions we are building into this Bill, we would not be planning to establish proper support arrangements. While I understand your concern about the nature of the Government's commitment, I doubt that changing a power into a duty would significantly affect this. What you and others will quite properly want to look at is the way in which the support is delivered and the practical safeguards for asylum seekers within this".
  The argument, therefore, revolves around whether it is desirable to give Ministers and the Home Office the flexibility to which the Minister refers in that response, or whether we should instead place a proper duty on the Minister. That is what Amendment No. 152 seeks to do.
  It is not that anyone doubts the sincerity of this Minister of State, nor indeed the Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw. But they will not always be in office. It is, therefore, important to place on the face of the Bill more than goodwill and more than just an expectation that because they are benign others in the future may not be malign in their interpretation of the legislation. Therefore duties do count. We place duties on Secretaries of State in other legislation. I know that the Minister is not keen to use legislation as a system of semaphore. Nevertheless, it sends signals that if Ministers do not accept a duty in this regard, it will be assumed that they are trying to avoid their commitments to the most vulnerable in our midst.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 152 is to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to operate the system to the benefit of its recipients. The wording of the amendment derives from the former government's legislation underlying the supplementary benefits legislation which was in force from 1980 until 1988. The aim is to ensure that, notwithstanding the temporary nature of the support on offer and the fluctuating numbers of recipients and other practical difficulties likely to be encountered, those who operate the scheme do not lose sight of the fact that they have been entrusted with the welfare of vulnerable human beings.
  In answer to the amendment that was tabled in the Special Standing Committee in the other place—on its 24th sitting on 18th May, columns 1588 and 1599—the Minister, Mr Mike O'Brien, stated that it was unacceptable because it did not make reference to the interests of the taxpayer and provide for them to be weighed in the balance. I shall return to that point. But when I examined further the Minister's comments, I was concerned by two statements. On the then Clause 76, he said:
  "If we allow things to remain the way they are, all sorts of legal challenges may be mounted under the Children Act…to undermine the way in which the Asylum Support Directorate provides accommodation in particular areas, offers financial support and operates the dispersal policy".
  On the then Clause 99, he said:
  "Everything would be subject to judicial review. The state would have to be far more careful about decisions to offer accommodation and take much greater care in its analysis of circumstances".
  The Committee will understand that comments such as those further make the case for reminding the support directorate, which it is intended will have responsibility for people who have been tortured, for children and for others who have fled persecution, that it has a duty and a responsibility to those people, all of whom are reliant upon it and a substantial proportion of whom will receive recognition as refugees or grants of exceptional leave to remain and hence the opportunity to remain in and contribute to this country.
  The new clause makes reference to provision in Part VI and to the functions of the officials concerned, and thus it recognises that a duty exists within the statutory framework of the obligations on a government department to spend money wisely. Therefore the Minister's earlier comment about getting value for money does not apply. There is always a duty on the Government to obtain value for money, but refugees should not simply be viewed through the prism of expenditure. Treasury interests must be held in tension with our duty to care for the vulnerable.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 153 is to require the Secretary of State to have regard to the standards of the general law in respect of children. The wording of this amendment derives from Section 1 (1) of the Children Act 1989. The onus should surely be on anyone who wishes to assert that the welfare of the children of asylum seekers merits a lower standard of consideration to justify that position. The onus therefore is not on those of us who support this amendment but on the Government to say why the safeguards that have always been in place have been removed. The status of the child should not be inferior because he or she is a refugee.
  The world can be a hard and bitter place for a child. We have only to consider the situation of children in countries such as Colombia or the Philippines to know the truth of that. As I said on Second Reading, a few weeks ago I was privileged to be part of an Anglo-Israel Association visit to Jerusalem. While we were there, we visited Yad Vashem. That memorial contains a special sanctuary to the memory of the 1.5 million Jewish children who died during the Second World War which brings home to one the need in every generation to renew our sense of duty and commitment. Recorded at Yad Vashem is the story of how the British people through the Government of the day turned back a boat carrying children which was fleeing from Vichy France. As a consequence of our actions, the children were eventually deported to Auschwitz. In every generation, we have a duty to safeguard the welfare of children above all other interests.
  In the past 10 years we have seen a fascinating shift in perceptions about rights and duties, not least because of the work of men such as David Selbourne in his excellent book The Principle of Duty. That much-needed shift should also be recognised in the sense of duty and responsibility that governments must have as we try to displace some of the flaccid language of rights.
  Among the groups supporting Amendment No. 153 are some of the most respected organisations that deal with children's issues in this country. The Children's Society states:
  "The Children's Consortium … supports this amendment which would place a duty on the Secretary of State to take the welfare of any child involved in asylum proceedings into active consideration when exercising his powers under Part VI of the Bill. The amendment would do much to assuage many of the Consortium's concerns in relation to part VI of the Bill, as it would ensure that the Asylum Support Directorate was obliged to actively consider and act in the best interests of children at all stages of its proceedings".
  It continues:
  "This amendment would bridge this gap between promoting children's welfare and preserving the integrity of the asylum support system, by ensuring that the Secretary of State has a duty to actively consider and safeguard children's welfare in providing support for families. As such, it would ensure that the Secretary of State has a duty to consider compassionate circumstances when determining support arrangements for children and families".
  The amendment is also supported by the Medical Foundation, which helps the victims of torture. It states:
  "The Medical Foundation considers that this amendment should in no way be regarded as controversial. It echoes the Children Act 1989, and the government has claimed that provision under the Support Directorate will place children in a position no less favourable than they would be under the Children Act".
  If that is so, why can we not incorporate this as a duty in the legislation?
  The Medical Foundation states that in its evidence to the Special Standing Committee it expressed its concern that the impact of the UK reservation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—which was criticised by the Committee on the Rights of the Child as apparently incompatible with the convention and which allows us to legislate on immigration without regard to the convention—could be extended to the detriment of asylum-seeking children by the inclusion of welfare matters within the province of the Home Office and of immigration control. The foundation states that it continues to call for the UK to remove the reservation which puts both children and this country's international reputation at risk.
  UNICEF states:
  "The United Kingdom ratified the Convention in 1991, simultaneously entering several reservations including one pertaining to nationality, immigration and asylum. In effect, the reservation has severely limited the operation of the Convention in several areas, with the effect of impeding the three theoretically inalienable guiding principles of the Convention: those of non-discrimination … the primacy of the best interests of the child"—
  a point that the amendment tries to draw out—
  "and the importance of the child's wishes in matters that concern him/her".
  It continues:
  "British law has in these ways had the effect of depriving many children of the fundamental rights set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, both directly through discriminatory or inappropriate legislation and indirectly through insufficient provision of protection for vulnerable children in difficult situations".
  The opportunity exists in Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 to put that situation right and I commend them to the committee.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I have much sympathy especially with Amendment No. 153. The noble Lord,
  1030
  Lord Alton, makes a powerful case and I find it difficult to understand why the issue should not be the paramount consideration in the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers. The case is reinforced by several respectable organisations that deal with the rights of children.
  I am not sure whether the provision in Amendment No. 152 should be a duty or a power. One must ask, what is the difference? I ask my noble friend what are the sanctions for an unreasonable failure to exercise a power on the part of the Secretary of State. Is there a major practical difference between the two consequences? Of course, there is a failure to exercise the duty, but, in practice, would a failure on the part of the Secretary of State to exercise a power amount to something similar? What rights would be conferred on the persons who would be prejudiced by that failure?
  That is the major criterion here. Perhaps in practice we are not talking about two distinct issues. Perhaps the situation will be unnecessarily complex, but it is for my noble friend to answer that point.
  In my view, the position in relation to Amendment No. 153 is different. The compelling arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, deserve careful consideration by the Committee and my noble friend.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I shall be brief in my support for Amendment No. 153, which relates to a duty to ensure the welfare of children. I should like to bring a particular instance to the attention of the Committee. When people see Kosovar refugees begging, many become annoyed and say, "They are receiving fair benefits, so why should they be begging?". However, on numerous occasions I have seen such people dragging tiny, barefooted children who can hardly walk. They are in dense traffic, stopping at cars and certainly putting the children at considerable risk. They do so not only for a couple of hours but for the full length of the day. I cannot: imagine that anything less than a duty on the part of those responsible would be acceptable.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am grateful for what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. I, too, should like to turn to the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Perhaps we may go back into the history of the Home Office. The Minister and those associated with the Home Office will recall that at one time it was responsible for children's officers. They were an impressive part of the Home Office's responsibility at that time.
  As a result of decisions made about the allocation of duties between that department and the Department of Health and Social Services, the children's officers were moved into the DHSS with a serious loss to the Home Office in terms of a balancing professional concern unconnected to services related to law and order. Many of the amendments are rightly concerned with how the asylum support directorate will carry out its duties and obligations, not least because for a generation that department has had no direct experience of running such a directorate. Many of us are concerned that the new directorate will not have the experience or awareness of

  1031
  how to deal with asylum seekers and refugees in the position in which they will find themselves as a result of the legislation.
  Like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I was concerned about the remarks made by the Secretary of State in another place. He was right and fair to say that the concerns of taxpayers must be borne in mind. It would also be fair to say that a good deal of Part VI is about that. But that is not the whole story. I was particularly concerned with the statement he made in the Special Standing Committee, which examined Clause 99. He stated:
  "If this kind of provision was passed, the state would have to be far more careful about decisions to offer accommodation and take much greater care in its analysis of circumstances".
  I fully accept that phrase; it is a good argument for passing the amendment before us.
  Amendment No. 152 balances the directorate's responsibilities in terms of administration and saving public money with a recognition that it also has a duty towards the welfare of asylum seekers. I understand that a power is enabling and that a duty is an obligation which cannot be left to discretion. It is a duty which must be carried out by the department in all circumstances. That is what we are seeking: that the asylum directorate will balance the welfare of asylum seekers against the other considerations that it takes into account relating to administrative convenience and taxpayers' concerns.
  With regard to Amendment No. 153, I want strongly to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said. In the White Paper, the Government stated that they wanted to ensure that,
  "the needs of children are fully respected and their welfare and rights respected.".
  That is a useful and powerful commitment. Many of us believe that it could properly be borne on the face of the Bill and that is what Amendment No. 153 would do. I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to these two amendments, which set a framework within which the asylum directorate would be working. As a form of guidance, it would be useful to it in its work.
  Finally, I strongly support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about the position of children today. One of the problems about our world is that increasingly children are used as weapons of war. The Minister will be familiar with the terrifyingly changed ratio on the loss of life of civilians and of soldiers in today's battles. We now know, for example, that in the Yemen children are regularly seriously mutilated as part of a political purpose.
  In such a situation, we, as a civilised country, must put at the forefront our concern for the next generation. I believe that Amendment No. 153 would be in the best traditions of this country and would stand to the credit of the Government if they accepted it.
  Lord Judd: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on tabling the amendment. It goes to the kernel of the legislation. In some ways, this is a Second Reading debate.
  1032
  I am not a lawyer and in the detail of the Bill legal minds are most important. However, I chair the refugee sub-committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and I have spent most of my life working in humanitarian agencies. For those of us who are carrying out such tasks, the amendment is highly relevant. Perhaps I may underline why.
  First, the noble Baroness made the point that there is a growing and deep concern among all of us in humanitarian agencies about the effect of conflict and repression on children. It leaves psychological scars for the rest of their lives. There is a need for counselling and psychological support, which do not exist. In that context and in the administration of this part of national policy, we should wholeheartedly fulfil our responsibilities by ensuring that the humanitarian dimensions of what we are trying to do are second to none and that our commitment to children is self-evident.
  As regards Amendment No. 152—and as we discussed a great deal in the Council of Europe sub-committee—we must examine legislation in the context of the culture in which it is being applied. We all know that the number of refugees and asylum seekers with whom governments are grappling is out of all proportion to anything imagined in the immediate post-war period. We also know that there is abuse. There is no argument about that. We also know that there is a responsibility to the taxpayers. There is no argument about that. But we also know that everything that the political leadership of post-war Europe was about was the humanitarian responsibility for refugees and asylum seekers. That is why we introduced human rights provisions and legislation in this area.
  Because of the preoccupations with the other elements to which I have referred, when a Bill such as this is being debated it is very important to reassert the primary commitment to genuine refugees and asylum seekers. We should be sending that message strongly as a message of support to those in the front line who are administering the policy. They should understand that that is what Parliament wants: to see the issue dealt with generously and openly, while the other points are taken into account. My fear, which is shared by my fellow members of that sub-committee of the Council of Europe, is that in one country after another the more negative aspects which I have described are becoming so preoccupying that the primary purpose is overlooked. That is why anything that my good and noble friend the Minister can say tonight to help to strengthen and reassure us all, and to set the tone for what is being done in the name of the Bill, will be tremendously important.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: As the noble Lord has just said, this debate has turned into something of a Second Reading on Part VI of the Bill. I am not complaining about that. It has happened in a general sense. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to some general points relating to this part of the Bill at the start of his remarks. I shall not follow him into that matter. We have made clear our general position, which is that we want to see genuine asylum seekers properly looked after, particularly the children, but at the same time we recognise the Government's duty to deal with the problem of bogus asylum seekers which is, as the noble Lord said, generally accepted.

  1033
  The only general point which I would make, as I do not believe that it is raised under any of the following amendments, is that I am not persuaded that the 300 proposed staff of the new support directorate will prove anything like sufficient to carry out the duties which the Committee seeks to place on them in this part of the Bill. I shall not develop that point.
  I am sympathetic to the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and by the others in the debate, particularly on Amendment No. 153. Looking at the next few pages of the Marshalled List, I note that a number of other groups of amendments touch on the same point in specific ways, but it is made in a general way in Amendment No. 153. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, was quite right to say that, were Amendment No. 153 or a similar amendment to be tabled at the start of Part VI of the Bill, there would be far less need for the other, more specific amendments at later stages. I am not very qualified to judge whether the precise wording is correct or could be legally improved. However, I support the sentiment behind inserting a general provision to put the consideration of the child's welfare in the minds of everyone concerned with those matters.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is right. The debate is in the nature of a Second Reading revisit to Part VI. I have no complaint about that at all. I should like to take slightly more time than is usual at this stage in dealing with the general questions, but shall not then return to the general questions on every specific subsequent amendment, if that is acceptable to the Committee.
  Amendment No. 152 would place on the Secretary of State a duty.
  "to make arrangements … and exercise … functions in such a way as shall best promote the welfare of asylum seekers and their dependants".
  I hope that I am not being harsh in saying that that would give primacy to the welfare of asylum seekers, however that is defined—it is not defined in the amendment, but that is not an essential part of my argument—at the expense of all other considerations, such as cost and competing legitimate aspirations that others who live in this country may well have. I believe that it is important to set the issue in that context.
  I shall cover Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 in rather more detail in a moment. The scope of Amendment No. 153, which has had the general approval of a number of noble Lords who have spoken, is very wide. It states:
  "When any question arises with respect to a child, or with respect to any household which includes a child, the child's welfare shall be the Secretary of State's paramount consideration in the exercise of his powers under this Part of the Act".
  That means that all other considerations, whether of cost or more widely, would have to be subordinated to that single test. I appreciate that that is a reflection, of a sort, of considerations in the Children Act, but that consideration in the Children Act is utterly and completely different from the context with which we are dealing, as I hope to demonstrate in a moment.
  1034
  The approach of my noble friend Lord Judd is a correct one. We have no doubt at all of our obligations under the 1951 Convention on Refugees. I agree with him that the scale of recent, almost volcanic, movements is perhaps one which we had not anticipated. By "we", I mean all governments in different countries who are faced with those problems. We need and want to ensure that a person seeking asylum is not prevented pursuing the claim by virtue of destitution. Hence our commitment to provide support in terms of accommodation and essential living needs for destitute asylum seekers. We want to do that efficiently and humanely. We have not succeeded in that in the past. I repeat what I have said on a number of earlier occasions: delay and uncertainty are no friends to those who will, in the end, be successful; nor are they helpful daily companions to those who are going to fail.
  I do not believe that anyone can dispute that we currently have ramshackle, incoherent, unstructured and unsatisfactory arrangements which have been developed over the years, significantly, on an ad hoc basis. The question of whose fault that is is utterly beside the point. The fact is that that is an accurate description of the present situation.
  I return to the point made by my noble friend Lord Judd. He is quite right in saying that we want to promote the welfare of asylum seekers. We shall ensure that desk instructions to our own staff will make that perfectly plain. The obligations imposed on our contractors will lay emphasis on the need—I am happy to re-affirm that again to my noble friend—to have full regard for the welfare of asylum seekers. That means that they have sufficient support; proper access to medical and other facilities so that they are able to cope in a strange society; and that they are protected from harassment or other threats. We shall have a budget of £300 million to provide that support during the first full year.
  I take the point made by the noble Baroness about people who claim to be from Kosovo—whether they are or not, I do not know in every case—who beg with small children in the street. When the point was last raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, I pointed out that most of us have had that experience. That point does not derive from whether or not the arrangements will put the interest of children paramount. Social services departments have a proper role to play in cases where children are at risk as a result of behaviour, some of which, without being uncharitable, is certainly questionable to many of us as to whether it is based on true need as opposed to organised begging, which sometimes comes close to intimidatory behaviour for some people. I do not believe that the noble Baroness and I disagree on that point.
  Whether or not we reach conclusions agreeable to all Members of the Committee, we have been prepared to listen. I invite noble Lords to look at the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was kind enough to refer. It is quite extensive and deals with concerns raised by him, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and Mr Kaye. We have replied to it in some detail. I hope we have been able to give some detailed replies to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.

  1035
  I know that a good deal of concern was expressed at Second Reading and in conversations with colleagues on all sides of the House about the level of support. We shall consider support levels in more detail. Perhaps I should tell the Committee one or two of our developed thoughts.
  We have decided, after listening carefully over a period of weeks, that the provision of spending power in respect of children under the age of 18 should be set at a level that is the current equivalent of income support personal allowance for children. At present values that would increase the spending power of a family of four—two adults and two children—from about £90 a week to £106 a week. Some of that will be paid in cash and the remainder in vouchers.
  We propose that the provision for adults should be on the basis that there will be a combination of cash— I mentioned the increase a second ago—and vouchers. However, we should not overlook the "in-kind" provision: accommodation that is furnished, fuel and power paid for; the full range of domestic utensils, linen, pots and pans and so forth. I can fairly say that that will broadly represent what those adults would receive on income support. Following what I have said, I do not think it will be easy to say that we are offering something less than comparable with what would be available on other support systems.
  I repeat that we have listened carefully to what has been said in another place, here and in discussions with officials and colleagues. I do not want to be unkind or to be seen to be harsh. We cannot discharge any governmental duty—I hope that does not sound too pompous a phrase—to one section of those who are worthy, without considering the interests of all. We see others in our society begging in the streets, sleeping rough and close to destitution. Others in the community are near destitution and we have to consider fairly the cost of providing support. We need to ensure that the arrangements provided support those in genuine need.
  Therefore, we are trying to secure that the asylum seeker will broadly be in the same situation as a local person who is similarly destitute and who is receiving income support and other social security benefits. I do not believe that that is an unreasonable or ignoble stance.
  The different way of providing benefit to asylum seekers reflects our concern. To have a separate system of support for asylum seekers we have to cater—to take up the point made by my noble friend—for the particular needs of people who arrive in this country often with no possessions, and without the normal means of coping independently in a strange environment. I believe that to accommodate sensitively people from a particular linguistic, ethnic or cultural group in an area where there are others of the same linguistic, ethnic, cultural or national group is a generous step, rather than dumping them in anonymity, as has often happened, in a place where there is no local, friendly hand to be stretched out to them.
  I cannot accept either of the amendments, but I am spending a little time—as I promised—giving the reasons. I do not think that Amendment No. 152 achieves the necessary balance between the welfare of asylum
  1036
  seekers, on the one hand, and proper alternative considerations which we need to have—I have mentioned them briefly—on the other.
  In relation to Amendment No. 153, I respect the concerns, as always, of the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Dholakia, who tabled the amendment. The welfare of children should never be treated lightly. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, this is a reflection of what is found in the well known words of the Children Act. The paramount description in the Children Act is used in a specific limited context and refers to the considerations that the court must have in mind in making an order in respect of a child. That is the context and that is the derivation. That is quite different from the wide context which is proposed in Amendment No. 153.
  I understand perfectly well why it is introduced in Amendment No. 153. However, if that is to be construed, as it must be, in the ordinary meaning of words, the child's welfare, irrespective of all others, must be the paramount consideration. We could not deliver that. We have to have sensible regard to cost; we have to have sensitive regard to the legitimate, sometimes competing, often distinct demands of others, who are not necessarily all well off and who have financial deprivation to deal with as part of their every day existence.
  I repeat that assistance to children of asylum seeker families will continue to be available under the Children Act. I do not believe that any government could deliver on Amendment No. 153.
  I turn to a specific point, which I hope has not been overlooked. Clause 113 places a clear duty on the Secretary of State. I turn to some of the themes developed by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. Subsection (3) of Clause 113, on page 70 of the Bill, states:
  "If it appears to the Secretary of State that adequate accommodation is not being provided for the child, he must exercise his powers … and if his offer is accepted by providing or arranging for the provision of, adequate accommodation for the child as part of the eligible person's household".
  So the duty is in Clause 113(3). There is a further duty in Clause 113(4) which states:
  "he must exercise his powers … by offering … essential living needs for the child as part of the eligible person's household".
  I believe my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis is quite right. We are looking at different concepts. We say that we have the power and we have the obligations under Clause 113, but we cannot have a duty which is as widely put as this because that would mean there would be enforceable sanctions on the Secretary of State irrespective of other considerations. I repeat, I hope not harshly or with any hard feeling, that no government could operate on that basis.
  Again my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis is quite right in respect of the difference between a duty and a power. The exercise of the power, or non-exercise, would be subject to judicial review on the usual basis of rationality or irrationality. We want to exercise our powers in a decent and sensitive way. I hope that some of the things that we have done, even the announcement that I have been able to make to the Committee this evening about the difference in support, reflect that we have been listening.

  1037
  I cannot accept any amendment that would require the Secretary of State to give primacy to one consideration, even the welfare of a child, above all others. I repeat that I am not aware of any government that can deliver on that.
  We are making the provision because we want to make sure that children and families are properly and decently cared for. I repeat the commitment—I hope at not too great a length—that if the average time for processing the initial application for asylum by a family is not down to an average of two months by 1st April 2000—that is not far away—we shall not bring families into the new support arrangements at that time.
  In future, families will rely and will need to rely on the new support arrangements for a fairly short period of time. Within that time period we shall make arrangements to ensure that families with children will be entitled to the full range of support and assistance, including education, free school meals, milk vouchers, healthcare, free prescriptions and access to social services. In other words, we shall take full account of the welfare needs of the child.
  I go back to my noble friend Lord Judd. We shall want to reflect those matters in the guidance that we give to case workers and those providing services on the ground. I can go no further than that. It is a reasonable point to have arrived at. I am perfectly happy, as always, to consider detail, but I repeat, I hope without discourtesy, that we cannot go further than that.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Judd: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I can say that some of his remarks go a long way to meeting my point. I thank him for that, though we shall want to see the guidance and the spirit in which he spoke put into words. However, I hope my noble friend will forgive me if I pick up on two points.
  The first is a specific point dealing with what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said. The complaint is not whether in the aggregate vouchers and money reach the same level as would be available to destitute people in this country, though that is a pretty minimalist approach. My noble friend talks genuinely about the "real" refugees and the "real" asylum seekers. We have to recognise that people who have been through that situation are looking for security. They are desperately affected by the stigma of vouchers. They do not have the cash in their hands to the same extent as an English person would to give them even that degree of confidence. Their vulnerability and insecurity are accentuated. That is why there is concern on that issue.
  The second point is more about presentation. My noble friend is someone I greatly respect and I am glad he is in the work he is in. But I wonder whether he will read some of the comments he made tonight. He is inclined to say, "Yes, we will do this. Yes, we have this commitment. But we must remember that we have other responsibilities". Some of us would say that that is exactly what is wrong. We should be saying, "Of course we have responsibilities to the taxpayer. Of course we have responsibility for dealing with people who are abusing the system. But we must remember that we have our commitment to the refugees and asylum seekers and that must be the guiding principle".
  1038
  It is a balance of language and I ask the Minister, as a friend, to look at some of the things he said tonight to see whether in the future the balance of language can be changed.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I wonder whether my noble friend would agree with this. It is not so much a question of a balance of language; it is a balance of commitment and attitude. The way in which certain Ministers in the Home Office in the past dealt with their responsibilities, in my view, fell short of what is desirable or even acceptable. I do not know how we legislate for that situation.
  I have every confidence that, as a Minister, my noble friend shows every indication of sympathy for the arguments adduced on these issues. I am sure that in so far as it falls to him to administer these matters, they will be dealt with sympathetically. I would feel aggrieved, in fact, if any Minister in this Government adopted any position other than that. The difficulty arises in being able to formulate this commitment in a statutory form acceptable to the community at large. It is important that we generate within the community a respect for and understanding of the way in which refugees arrive in this country. We must not do anything to create a rift or lack of understanding— there is enough misunderstanding already. It is the job of government to try to deal with that situation, but not necessarily by statute.
  That is the appeal I make to my noble and good friend Lord Judd. I share his sentiments, though I am not sure I arrive at the same conclusions in relation to whether or not the statutory form giving rise to those sentiments can be set out. There is considerable difficulty in imposing that duty. My noble friend dealt adequately with that point and I accept his reasoning in relation to it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will accept that I agree with much of what he expressed but do not feel that he necessarily chose to go down the right route.
  Lord Dholakia: Perhaps I can add a further question to that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Will the Minister accept that we are dealing with an unusual situation? We have a backlog of between 70,000 and 80,000 asylum applications. Many of them, on his own estimate, are people who may be economic migrants to this country. However, the present Bill locks all doors through which asylum seekers can come to this country. At some stage, before long, we shall be dealing with only a handful of refugees and asylum seekers. Why therefore do we need a voucher system which has not worked in other parts of the country? Why do we need effectively to create a bureaucracy on the basis of the inability of the previous and present governments to clear the backlog and one that will cost more to run than the system presently available to asylum seekers?
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: As we seem to be putting a number of questions to the Minister at this stage, perhaps I can press him on one further matter in relation to the figures with which he provided the Committee on the levels of benefit. He claimed that with additional resources being made available the benefits payable were

  1039
  largely comparable to those being paid to people on income support in this country. He will be aware that those figures are contested.
  I believe I am right in saying that with the additional provision, the Minister said that around 90 per cent of the true benefit is being paid. The claim is being made elsewhere, on good grounds, that that figure should be 80 per cent. Furthermore, that is a level of income benefit which is widely recognised as being inadequate for the proper and reasonable support of people in this country. The Minister is therefore taking a figure which is widely regarded as low and reducing it further. Under those circumstances, is it not going to be difficult for people to maintain, with any dignity and reasonableness, the kind of life to which they ought to be entitled in this country?
  The Earl of Sandwich: My noble friend is itching to get back on his feet once the Minister has sat down. I shall try not to anticipate what he is going to say.
  What is not in dispute is the courtesy of the Minister; a courtesy which, as my noble friend said, was shown when we came to see him in his office. But he did not use the big guns that he has just brought out; he was using more moderate tones and, in particular, as my noble friend said, the word "flexibility". But it was the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, who suddenly brought me back from the idea of flexibility to the principle that we are facing when we are thinking of the universality of children and the best interests of the children. Those phrases lead me back to the Children Act; they do not lead me to the asylum support directorate.
  We are talking about a different kingdom when we go along that route. I recall the words of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. He asked what signal the Government were sending. I refer briefly to one small signal in Written Answers this week in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. On the question of free school meals for children of asylum seekers, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said
  "If the Asylum Bill currently before Parliament is enacted, it will remove the right of asylum seekers to claim these benefits".
  The Minister continued,
  "However, their children and unaccompanied children seeking asylum will be eligible for free school meals".—[Official Report, 19/7/99; col. WA 86.]
  Children have the same basic living needs whether they are asylum seekers or resident. This kind of signal to the Committee and society at large seems to me to be in contradiction of the principles agreed under the Children Act.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the noble Lord, Lord Alton, considers his final remarks in response to the Minister perhaps I may raise another issue. The Minister has quite fairly pleaded with us to limit ourselves very much to particular points in further amendments. Therefore, in a sense he has invited us to talk more widely on these two amendments and to limit ourselves thereafter. I shall abide by that.
  There is one other issue which is very close to the one raised by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, which relates again to children. We welcome what the Minister has said
  1040
  so far. But one of the assumptions made in the provisions for support within Part VI of the Bill is that there will not need to be replacement of the possessions of asylum seekers in this country.
  My noble friend Lord Dholakia has pointed out that in the much more stringent system which this Bill will introduce those who are likely to arrive in this country will probably be the most extreme cases of desperation among refugees. This country responded relatively generously to the refugees from Kosovo. They were literally run out of their homes, some with 10 minutes notice, and took nothing with them. Evidence has attested to the fact that they did not even bring another set of clothes, a pair of shoes, a handbag or anything of that kind.
  More than anyone else, children require the replacement of essential articles. Children grow out of their shoes. They need replacement nappies. They need new clothes as they grow. They need to attend school without being stigmatised as the kid that comes wearing nothing but a pair of old gym shoes with holes. That is another aspect of our concern about children. The replacement of goods for children is particularly acute. Alas, the singling out of children by their peer group is often an act of common child cruelty with which most of us are familiar.
  The right reverend Prelate pointed to the way in which vouchers stigmatise children and so they do. Yet, if the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is correct, they will have no access to school meals and there will be problems in receiving the kind of support they need. In his response perhaps the Minister can address this aspect of a problem which concerns many of us.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall. I hope that I shall not be accused of bringing up the big guns. I am saying that we have to bear in mind that there are competing demands that need to be attended to. A great number of the questions which have been raised I addressed in a quite lengthy letter to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I shall come back to them because it may be that some Members of the Committee have not seen them.
  In the second paragraph of the letter I set out the nature of the accommodation that will be provided. It states,
  "Some asylum seekers will be given hostel accommodation with full board and lodging, and will need cash only for incidentals. Where they are given self-catering accommodation, this will come with the utilities paid for, and with full equipment (which a normal tenant might be required to provide for himself) provided by the Home Office. Taking these factors into account we are clear that our support would generally be equivalent to around 90% of what is available to people on income support. But we are thinking carefully about whether the present package will meet all the needs of asylum seeker families".
  That is dated 15th July and today I have given an indication of what we are going to do about increasing the cash.
  Questions have been raised about the accommodation of asylum seekers in unsuitable areas. I said in that reply,
  "we are genuinely concerned about the pressures that current arrangements are placing on housing in London;".

  1041
  If anyone suggests that that is not true they are living in a different world. I did not put that in the letter. That is my observation and it is true.
  "these are unsustainable in anything but the short term. We therefore feel it would be better to re-house the asylum seekers in areas of the country where there is less pressure on housing. We envisage that the areas we select will build on the experience that the Local Government Association and local authorities are now developing…. As we indicated some months ago, our criteria for areas suitable for receiving asylum seekers will be, firstly, that there is a reasonable supply of suitable accommodation; secondly, that there is a viable multi-ethnic community or at least a history of racial tolerance in the area; thirdly, that there is a potential for developing viable support arrangements for asylum seekers. Certainly we do not wish to see asylum seekers left isolated or at risk of threat or attack".
  All those points depend entirely on the points that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, raised. I did not read them all partly because I sent the letter so recently. I do not believe that one can say that one is bullying, intimidatory or using the big guns. I am simply saying that we are approaching this matter in a humane way.
  I turn to one or two other points that were made. There are other questions discussed in our meetings with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about access to medical attention and care. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, also raised them. I hope to be able to give some positive news about some of their queries.
  Perhaps I may deal with one or two questions and phrases used. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked about school meals. I intend to bring forward at Report stage an amendment to allow asylum-seeker children free meals. I am not claiming that as a virtue; I am simply saying that we have genuinely listened to the kinds of questions, including the general spectrum, raised recently by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
  When I was replying at some length earlier I said that we would be looking to provide a full range of support and assistance, education, free school meals, milk vouchers, healthcare, free prescriptions and access to the social services. Both my noble friend Lord Judd and the right reverend Prelate said that some of the figures were in dispute. I do not believe that an up-to-date calculation has been made on the figures that I gave this evening because it was not possible to do it. Both the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Judd said that I was comparing something that I was offering with something which is fairly minimalist anyway. That underlines my point.
  In this country we have a system of support for those who would otherwise be destitute. I am saying—I hope not in a disagreeable way—that what we are trying to offer people who come to these shores in need is something roughly comparable in terms of support to what we give our own citizens who are also destitute and who can sometimes be seen sleeping rough in London or begging at railway stations.
  When I say that no government can deliver what Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 demand, I am simply telling the truth. It may be a disagreeable truth, but I am not prepared to say things which are hopelessly unrealistic and which raise and then cruelly shatter people's hopes. I appreciate that we are discussing amendments, although by general consent we have gone off into a wider review on a Second Reading basis.
  1042
  As regards Amendment No. 153, the child's welfare should be the paramount consideration. But it is not unkind or threatening to say that no government that I know of can deliver that. There is no point in putting matters in Bills which become Acts of Parliament to make us all feel better. That helps no one.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The amendment does not say '"In any question". It states,
  "the child's welfare shall be the Secretary of State's paramount consideration".
  In other words, it is part of a hierarchy of considerations that the Secretary of State will take into account, but above all others his paramount concern will be the welfare of the child.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I may have misread the amendment. It states,
  "When any question arises with respect to a child, or with respect to any household which includes a child, the child's welfare shall be the Secretary of State's paramount consideration".
  I do not believe that I have a wrong copy of the amendment. I am simply saying as gently as I can that no government will be able to deliver that provision. I repeat as kindly as I can that putting things in Acts of Parliament to make us all feel better and all the more humane is not to the point. What is to the point is achieving a regime which is fair and decent, which does not make people destitute, but which has to be looked at in the context of a country in which other people live.
  Members of the Committee may find these truths to be disagreeable. Perhaps I may, for example, turn to the remarks made by the noble Baroness. I should point out that I am trying to answer a number of different questions, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has the infinite benefit of the last word. The noble Baroness said that no one wants children to be stigmatised and no one wants to see them going to school with raggedy clothes. Of course they do not. I am putting forward the generally comparable nature of what we are offering to asylum seekers as being truly generally comparable with what we offer our own citizens. That is not a perfect answer. Indeed, the noble Baroness might say, although she is too generous, that that is an ignoble answer. I am simply saying that what we provide for people in the difficult circumstances described by noble Lords has to have an appropriate measure in the context of what we offer others.
  The noble Baroness said, as we all know, that when children grow up their feet grow at an alarming rate and they need new shoes every five minutes. Indeed, they also need changes of clothing, as do working parents in this country and those who have no employment. People who sleep along the Embankment feel the cold and the rain in the same way as we do. Therefore, in every instance I do not think that the responses have been proportionate to what we are doing, as opposed to what people say we are doing.
  I return to Amendment No. 152. What we have here are really declarations of desired objectives. I do not believe that there is any sentient being who would not regard these objectives as being desirable. I am simply saying that if

  1043
  one puts such provisions in the Bill, they are not capable of being delivered. I personally think that the best way forward is to listen carefully to what noble Lords say in this Chamber and elsewhere to see what we can manage to achieve. If the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will not mind, perhaps I may take just one example. They were particularly concerned about access to specialist medical attention—I know that the noble Earl has also raised this matter—for those who are victims of torture. We shall deal with that issue later this evening, but I believe that we have been able to think carefully and constructively in that respect. That is the way to get a better outcome.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: Does the Minister concede that some of us on this side of the Committee have pressed very hard for what we regard as a somewhat better deal for those wearing raggedy clothes among our own citizens?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Of course I do. I have always recognised that fact. I am simply pointing out that as we have to deal, by and large, with the world we recognise rather than the world which we wish to inhabit—though the two may not always be enormously different—any government have to consider how such provision will fit into the general social context. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis is absolutely right. Anyone we assist from foreign countries is not coming here to live in a bubble or a balloon; he or she will live in a community.
  My noble friend is also right to say that one wants to be as constructive and moderate in language as possible. I did not regard my language as at all incendiary or disagreeable, although my noble friend Lord Judd chided me about it. If one is poor and one's life is pretty disagreeable, someone will have to answer the perfectly fair question: "Who's paying for all this?" Everyone in this Chamber has a duty to answer that, and pretending that the question is not there does no one any service.
  Earl Russell: Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether I could possibly be dispensed from his request to make general remarks on this amendment. I would prefer to make my remarks on Amendment No. 156 for two reasons. First, they are germane to that argument and wide of this one; and, secondly, I missed the beginning of the debate on this amendment and, therefore, have remained silent. I hope that that is agreeable to the Minister and the Committee.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am here to serve the Committee. I shall do my best to reply to amendments. However, I think that I serve the Committee best by replying to specifics rather than generalities. The debate has ranged widely, and that is perfectly reasonable. Indeed, I do not criticise noble Lords for doing so. I have been longer in my response than I normally hope to be. However, I cannot be expected to deal with every general review of the wider panorama when dealing with each specific amendment in Committee. I believe that that is fair.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: We have had a wide-ranging debate. I am sure that we look forward to hearing the
  1044
  noble Earl, Lord Russell, on subsequent amendments. I am sure that he will, as always, ensure that his remarks are in order and that they will be pertinent enough to require relevant replies from Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said that this had been akin to a Second Reading debate. I think that it has almost been a pre-emptive clause stand part debate. There is perhaps something to commend the idea of looking at the sections of this Bill, or Bills like it, in the way that we have done. In that way, we would look at Part VI in some thorough detail, thereby setting the scene, and could then contextualise the amendments which follow. There is merit in that approach.
  However, as we have moved from the generalities to the specifics of the two amendments, it has been difficult. Therefore, in my short reply I shall deal with the two amendments under consideration and the actual words which appear in the Marshalled List. The Minister is far from being "disagreeable"—the word that he used in response to his noble friend Lord Judd. The problem with the noble Lord is not that he is disagreeable but that he is an eminent lawyer and knows his way around statutes probably far better than anyone else in this Chamber. I am sure that people in the past have paid him substantial sums of money for presenting the argument in the very eloquent way he has done tonight. I am sure that we get him very much on the cheap. No doubt the Committee will agree that we are privileged to be able to listen to him dealing with these questions from the Dispatch Box.
  I should like to take the noble Lord back to the remarks he made about Amendment No. 153.1 pointed out to him that the amendment does not say, "When any question arises with respect to the child … this will be the paramount consideration", in the sense that anything at all that is raised concerning a child will outweigh any other consideration. I felt that the noble Lord used his eloquence as a lawyer to put forward his argument. In fact, he persisted throughout the debate in suggesting that in some way this provision would place an unspeakable duty on all of us which was undeliverable. Indeed, he said that this was something which could not be delivered. He also said that no government could operate on that basis.
  However, that is not what we are asking for in Amendment No. 153. It refers to,
  "any question [which] arises … in the exercise of his powers under this Part of this Act".
  It is specific to the issues that affect children arising under this Act. The amendment does refer to "paramount consideration"; in other words, we would not ignore every other consideration, not least those which are imposed on the Secretary of State to get value for money. As regards the Minister's slightly wider comments when talking about vouchers, I should point out that the Secretary of State also has a duty to get value for money.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and others suggested, we are left high and dry as regards knowing what the costs involved will be of the voucher system. For example, in a Written Answer to me early last week, the Minister said:
  "It is not certain at present how many personnel will be required solely to administer the voucher system. It is intended that the administration of the voucher scheme will be contracted out and contractual negotiations will take place during the Autumn. A small

  1045
  number of staff in the Asylum Support Directorate will be responsible for administering that contract".—[Official Report, 15/7/99; col. WA 59.]
  All of us would like to know what this will cost; and what the opportunity costs involved will be which could be used on processing applications. That, too, is a value for money argument. However, although it is an important consideration, it is not the only one.
  The Minister also referred us to Clause 113 and pointed out that there it is in statute. He said that there are obligations placed on the Secretary of State in subsection (3). If it is not possible for us to impose a duty in the way suggested during the debate, why it is possible for this subsection to state,
  "If it appears to the Secretary of State that adequate accommodation is not being provided for the child, he must exercise his powers under section 85";
  in other words, there is real duty and obligation expressed there in terms?
  Although I am open to the argument that, of course, the suggested provision could be rephrased in words that would be more acceptable to the Government, all that I am seeking to do in this amendment is to ask the Minister to accept the arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Clinton-Davis, and others from this side of the Committee. Here is a duty that ought to be written on the face of the Bill. I give way.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: In one case that the noble Lord cited there is a discretionary element, whereas the other issue is mandatory. I do not think that the noble Lord is drawing a distinction between the two.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: The distinction that I am drawing is that there ought to be a mandatory requirement on the Government to have a duty towards the paramount interests of the child. This is not something that we should just leave to the discretion of Ministers. Elsewhere in the legislation mandatory obligations are laid down. I have just mentioned the one—to which the Minister referred—in Clause 113 as a model for dealing with this matter. It states that we should require the Secretary of State to exercise his powers under this part of the Bill in a way that puts the interests of a child at the top of the hierarchy of considerations.
  The same kind of words are used in Amendment No. 152 which states,
  "exercise their functions in such a way as shall best promote the welfare of asylum seekers and their dependants, if any, who require assistance under this Part of this Act".
  That does not, of course, mean that that provision will exclude all other considerations. However, the amendment seeks to place a provision on the face of the Bill that simply to take into account all the other factors that appear in these 148 pages of legislation will not be the sole preoccupation of the Home Office but there will also be a clear duty to take into consideration the way in which this legislation will affect the interests of the asylum seeker and the refugee.
  We have had a useful debate. Many good points have been made, not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, who talked about the sight of tiny children in their mothers' arms. The noble
  1046
  Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, reminded us of the bench-mark in the Government's own White Paper. A series of other points were made, including that made by my noble friend Lord Sandwich on the question of school meals, to which the Minister responded. I was grateful for that response. I know that my noble friend will also be grateful for it. These are questions that go to the heart of the support that is given to one of the most vulnerable groups of people. Every one of the children's organisations that I mentioned in introducing the amendments said that they supported the terms of these amendments and that they would wish to see them incorporated in this legislation.
  With the passage of this Bill we should not leave the situation any less favourable than that which applied under the terms of the 1989 Children Act. My fear is that we have taken away the safeguards of that legislation and we have put nothing else in its place. The words I have suggested may not be the best words, but I hope that between now and Report stage the Government will give further consideration to these issues. They have already said that they will meet the children's organisations to discuss related questions. I hope that they will discuss these matters with them too and perhaps when we reach Report stage the Government will bring forward their own amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
  Lord Burlison: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.35 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

Western European Union
7.33 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they see the development of the defence role of the Western European Union.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I joined the WEU Assembly some two years ago. Since then a lot has happened to change and to accelerate the course of European defence. Indeed the continuation of the Western European Union itself is now under question.
It is worth recalling some of the factors affecting WEU's relationship with NATO and its European members. WEU countries combined spend only 40 per cent of the total NATO defence budget. The German Government have recently said that they plan to cut their defence budget and the Austrians spend less on defence than they do on opera. The US provided 80 per cent of the aircraft used in the recent Kosovo campaign. George Robertson described this situation as "embarrassing"; the Washington Post put it more bluntly, saying it would take the Europeans two decades to catch up with the Americans,
"even if they had the money—and the will to spend it".
There has long been a desire to create a greater European defence independence, while most agree security and defence must remain the prime responsibility of national governments, accountable to their own parliaments within a NATO framework. While the Treaty of Rome sought to maintain peace and security in Europe through a Common Market, it was the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 which specifically called for a common foreign and security policy (CFSP), including the eventual set up of a common defence policy.
Since Tony Blair became Prime Minister, European defence initiatives have accelerated. The Amsterdam Treaty in October 1997 saw the CFSP develop with closer co-operation with the EU, WEU and NATO under the Combined Joint Task Force initiative, where NATO assets were made available to the WEU for limited humanitarian intervention, commonly known as "Petersberg" tasks.
The Anglo-French St Malo declaration of 3rd and 4th December 1998 gave further impetus to strengthening the European defence identity. The two key events were the signing of a letter of intent on defence co-operation and signing a joint declaration that called for Europeans to complete the provisions of the EU's Amsterdam Treaty to develop the CFSP. It also ruled out any responsibility in this area for the European Parliament or the European Commission, quite rightly in my view.
NATO's 50th anniversary summit in Washington again gave further impetus to a CFSP by moving NATO into a direct relationship with the EU. After Washington there was a far greater likelihood of the WEU being absorbed into the EU in some form or other.
This year's Cologne Summit in June further strengthened the CFSP, with the appointment of Javier Solana as the EU's first High Representative for foreign and security policy. The Cologne Summit also reiterated the EU's determination to develop its capacity to undertake the so-called "Petersberg" tasks.
Throughout the past two years the Prime Minister and Secretary of State have repeatedly argued that Europe needs to focus on its capabilities and its assets rather than on institutions. And it is no doubt their determination not to be sucked into sterile arguments about institutional responsibility which has contributed to the progress which has been made so far.
But I intend to argue tonight that the time has come to look at the institutional arrangements for European defence. The Americans have made it plain what they want to avoid in the development of a European CFSP. The three Ds: decoupling, duplication and discrimination. By decoupling they mean that the decision-making process should not be separated from the broader alliance considerations. There should not be duplication of NATO and European assets and there should be no discrimination against NATO members who are not EU members.
To these three Ds I would add a fourth: democracy. The WEU might not have an impressive operational track record, but in terms of building an institution
1048
which brings in the new democracies and provides a democratic forum to debate European defence issues it has an unparalleled record. I believe that this should be used and built on in whatever institutional arrangements are made in the future. It is the associate partners who give the WEU its life: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Hungary and others. I well remember travelling with the WEU's political committee to Macedonia and Albania. In our party we had Hungarians, Turks and Croatians, as well as the old democracies represented by French, Italian and British parliamentarians. No other institution brings together such a diverse group of nations to debate their common security needs. It is precisely this institutional diversity which should be maintained in any future arrangements. Members, associate members, observers and associate partners should all continue to have a voice, though not necessarily a vote, in future European defence arrangements.
I return to the outcome of the Cologne Summit. The European Council decided in Cologne on the inclusion of only a limited number of the WEU's functions in the EU and the creation of a number of structures similar to those which already exist in the WEU. EU crisis management would take place under the CFSP, the second pillar, but this would not affect the WEU's other functions, including collective defence, which will remain outside the EU. This approach could be made to work and it could work without decoupling, duplication and discrimination, but it raises four important questions.
First, what are the constitutional implications of our existing treaty arrangements, some of which can remain in force inside the EU and others of which cannot? I am thinking of the modified Brussels Treaty, which is the collective security agreement of the WEU. This cannot be brought into the EU because of the neutral states who are members of the EU. So what of our treaty arrangements?
My second question concerns the EU cherry-picking the WEU's assets. What happens to the assets which it does not cherry pick? I have already referred to my third question; that is, what is the fate of the associate members, the observers and the associate partners?
My fourth, and perhaps most substantial, question concerns the democratic deficit which would be created if the WEU Assembly were not also included in the EU's second pillar. While defence remains exclusively the responsibility of nation states, it would be impossible to ask the European Parliament, made up of directly elected parliamentarians who are not answerable to member states, to take on the task of democratic parliamentary scrutiny. Senor de Puig, the President of the WEU Parliamentary Assembly, has called for a bicameral parliamentary system for defence. In his paper he says:
"the responsibilities of each chamber would initially be determined by the nature of the subjects they arc required to deal with, the Chamber of Nations having greater weight of authority in matters which continue to fall within the national remit"—
such as security and defence. The WEU Assembly could lay claim to being a fledgling Chamber of Nations.
It is worth noting that similar ideas were floated in other contexts. At the recent Council of Europe debate on the report of the committee of the wise persons it was suggested that the Assembly of the Council of Europe might become a second chamber to the European Parliament. While I am talking about parliamentary assemblies, what about the NAA? Surely it could be given a more constructive role in European and NATO defence.
I am sure that my noble friend Lady Symons will open her speech by saying it is capabilities which matter and debates on structures are of secondary importance. I agree; but I hope she will recognise that the WEU's greatest achievement has been its structures. It is the structure of the WEU which has given that institution its second youth. It has brought many countries from the former Soviet Union into our debates on our collective defence. I hope my noble friend agrees that these structures are an achievement, that they are worth learning from and that in many cases they are worth preserving.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I must start with a congratulation and an apology. The congratulation is for my noble friend Lord Ponsonby on having raised this important matter; my apology is to the House for the fact that I shall have to leave before the end of the debate, irregular as that may be. That is because it is the 21st birthday of my eldest grandson and there is virtually no alternative.
Only when we have analysed what has just happened will we be able to see the way ahead. It seems to me that the main points are these. First, as far as concerns the negotiations which took place before the recent war, we should remember that the Yugoslav Parliament was only seized of them the day before bombing started. There was also Mrs Albright's private commitments to the KLA, which the Albanian Foreign Minister broadcast on 24th February, promising the KLA that it could become part of the Kosovo military establishment and have State Department support.
Was the war lawful? The International Court of Justice will eventually tell us. My noble friend Lady Symons has confirmed that, as she said last November,
"there is no general doctrine of humanitarian necessity".
So humanitarian necessity may demand action, but for it to be recognised as customary law, many other nations will have to agree.
There is also the question of the lawfulness (under the Geneva Conventions) of some of the weapons used. I refer to the "graphite bomb", depleted uranium and perhaps others. I am glad to see that my noble friend Lord Gilbert is here.
What of the opportunities given to defence firms to test their new systems? Some Kosovo weapons are already being hotly marketed. To some, the war was a commercial opportunity. Today the shareholders in weapons firms have a real, thick-wallet interest in the wars where their products can be both tested and used up.
1050
As far as concerns the legality of the targeting, is it lawful to attack the civil infrastructure on the grounds that it helps one's own victory? We are not talking about bombing in the course of a war of self-defence, but about an attack on a country whose government had indeed committed grave crimes against their own people but had not attacked us. Was it lawful to attack chemical, petrochemical and pharmaceutical works when the result could have been potentially life-threatening transfrontier pollution; to knock out the electricity supply when the result is hospitals without power; and television centres? Mr Netanyahu has said that when he bombed Lebanon's infrastructure a few weeks ago he was copying what the Americans were doing in Serbia. Was the bombing of the two civil nuclear reactors in Yugoslavia contemplated? Serbian intelligence warned scientists working at Vinca in advance, and they appealed to the International Atomic Energy Authority.
The long-term effect of the attack on the Chinese Embassy is that because it was precisely the areas in it used for intelligence co-ordination which were hit, the Chinese believe that it was intentional. Now they are letting us know all about their neutron bomb. They see the United States,
"arranging chessmen on the most critical places on the chessboards of the European and Asian continents [in an attempt] to establish two strategic platforms".
Those are their words of course. The Russians agree and are again carrying out nuclear exercises.
General Clark, writing in the current issue of NATO Review, mentions only the success of the forces under his command. But was the war's ending solely due to the effectiveness of the air war rather than to the work of Mr Ahtisaari of Finland and Mr Chemornyrdin of Russia and, at last, to a UN Security Council resolution, to which Milosevic bowed and in which NATO did not figure?
We must also consider the effect on non-nuclear weapons states around the world of this attack on a non-nuclear weapons state by the world's sole military superpower and its allies. Here was a major boost to all proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Some of us visited NATO last week. We were told that even this short war resulted in massive overstretch and ever more evidence of the technological disconnect between the United States and the rest of us. US officials are already declaring that we Europeans must spend much more on defence if we are to be useful military collaborators "next time". So over that looms the question of how to be the ally of a country which will not put its own troops' lives at risk and whose military plans are summed up as "full spectrum dominance", going from space-based lasers, through universal peacetime electronic monitoring, to dragonfly-sized UAVs for the conduct of urban warfare.
Do we think that the United States is, in general, in the big world, going in the right direction? Is its leadership both useful and responsible? We sometimes have to answer "no". Think of the UN, Kyoto, the WTO, the International Criminal Court, anti-personnel

1051
landmines, claims to extra-territorial jurisdiction; think, in short, of Senator Helms—and there is so often a Senator Helms.
There is a current American tendency to suppose that if there is not a diplomatic solution, there must be a military one. It is Mrs Albright's naive early question, "If we have this wonderful military, why don't we use it?". We should see whether we can somehow work with the American people rather than with what President Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex and the bureaucratic scientific elite within the Washington beltway.
I submit that those may be useful pointers to the distribution of functions among the three organisations: NATO, the European Union and the Western European Union.
7.50 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is a pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I wish his grandson a happy 21st birthday party. Having listened to the points he made, especially in regard to the United States of America, the conclusion that we draw is that we need a common European defence, foreign and security policy.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for introducing this Unstarred Question. The noble Lord has been heavily and directly involved in the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. My small contribution to western European security was to command an armoured regiment troop and armoured car medium and close reconnaissance squadrons over a five-year period. The whole security map has changed since I did so. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I also visited the NATO headquarters, SHAPE and the WEU last week.
Those who approve of the role of the WEU and its contribution to western European security over half a century and who approve its aspirations and its work owe a particular debt to its secretariat, not least to the current Secretary-General, Mr José Cutileiro and his staff. I draw attention to Alyson Bailes, the British civil servant who is director for political affairs. I would describe their briefings to us as robust and up-beat. But during the question time session, it became clear that there was uncertainty as to the future of the WEU. That cannot be good for any organisation—as we know in this House. I hope that the Minister, in replying, will be able to dispel that uncertainty. Among the European nations, it is our nation—since the signing of the Treaty of Brussels in 1948 establishing the Brussels Treaty Organisation, modified in 1954 to become the WEU —that has fielded a disproportionate share of resources compared with other nations to promote security in Europe.
The main objectives of the WEU, as was demonstrated elegantly and eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, were as relevant then as they are desirable now, especially in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Without the WEU we should have found it far harder to integrate the
1052
Federal Republic of Germany, to restore confidence among the European nations, and to avoid waste and enable consultation to take place with the European Community when we most unwisely turned our backs when, in 1955, our friends met at Messina.
Likewise today, I suggest that, as we have failed to expand both NATO and the European Union as rapidly as we should have done since the demolition of the Berlin Wall, the WEU is the only forum where western European nations, the nations of central Europe, known as the 28 WEU nations, can conduct a dialogue.
In the wake of the break-up of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and events in Kosovo, it has been demonstrated that the WEU, even if it can call upon NATO troops, is not a forum for swift action. What we should have done is integrate the nations that were formerly under the Soviet Union into all our western institutions as rapidly as possible. They need us, and we need them.
Secondly, we must attempt to achieve a common European foreign and security policy, to which I understand Her Majesty's Government are committed and for which my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire and others on these Benches have argued skilfully and persuasively over the past five years.
I welcome the confirmation at the special European Union summit in Berlin in March that NATO's Secretary-General is to become the EU's first head of foreign and security policy. Does that mean that the European Union will absorb the functions of the Western European Union and develop the capability to act more independently of the United States than has been the case over the past five decades? If so, when?
In order to mount a sustainable European foreign and security policy, it is surely necessary to collaborate more than we have done. EU members spend £100 billion a year on defence and have 2 million of their citizens in uniform. Yet we still find it impossible to deploy a ground force quickly enough to deter a medium-sized state such as Serbia from murdering, deporting and brutalising nearly a million of its neighbours. The WEU as constituted has neither the military might nor the political will to achieve that. The European Union should, and must, have that; and it must be in place as quickly as possible.
I have three questions for the Minister, and I ask for reassurance on these three points when she replies. If the WEU is incorporated and absorbed into the EU, where does that leave the self-styled "neutrals"—Ireland, Finland, Sweden and Austria? Will they have the right to participate in political decisions or opt out of military decisions? Will they have a veto on future policy?
Secondly, will the Government press at Helsinki in December for a speeding-up of the process of integrating those nations in central Europe such as Romania, Slovenia and Lithuania, which have made such gigantic strides in adapting their defence forces to the NATO way of operating. We need their manpower, and they need our mutual security.

1053
My third question concerns relations with what are called the third countries. I declare an interest as a member of the British Ukrainian All Party Parliamentary Group. There will be a WEU/Ukrainian seminar in Kiev in early October. What will be the role of Her Majesty's Government at the conference? How do they intend to enhance co-operation within the framework of European security with those two nations, in particular with Ukraine?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I must interrupt the noble Earl. He is well over his time.
The Earl of Carlisle: I shall conclude my remarks. It makes sense for the European nations to co-operate more closely, to obtain value for money, and to have the military capability and the political will to act rapidly when the US is unable or unwilling to do so. That can best be done through the European Union with a common foreign and security policy.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I join previous speakers in thanking my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede for initiating this important short debate on a matter which is current and meaningful.
When I added my name to the list of speakers, I was not sure how the trend of the debate would go. I was greatly reassured by my noble friend's opening remarks. His overview and his comprehensive statement do not leave much for the rest of us to say. However, I should like to make a couple of points.
I have taken part in the delegation to the WEU for about 12 years. I am reconciled to the fact that institutional change will occur. There is no point in continuing to talk about rapid reaction forces, satellite surveillance units, the training of police forces in Albania and so on; those matters will move within the EU purlieu. There is no question about that. Therefore, the area of capability will move into the EU's environs. Again, there is little point in complaining about that, although some who are active in the WEU do not like the idea.
The principal difficulty, which has already been touched on, is the question of what happens so far as the associate members, and indeed the observer nations, are concerned. A democratic deficit will occur. About five years ago, with colleagues from the WEU, I engaged in a conversation with EU defence parliamentarians. At that first meeting and two subsequent ones over the next two or three years, it was clear to me that when there occurred such a transfer as is now being proposed, the WEU parliamentary concept of some kind of democratic control would be swept aside in a huge amalgam-type committee within the EU structure. One important event in the past few years in the WEU has been that a limited democratic control has been shown by parliamentarians from national parliaments.
I hope that at the least later this evening when the Minister replies, she will give an assurance that parliamentary assembly control in some form will
1054
survive. It cannot be within the structure of the EU because it would not take account of the associate member and observer status.
8 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, one of the problems facing the WEU as regards the parliamentary assembly is that since it was established we have had to send the same delegation to the WEU as to the Council of Europe. The latter is more prestigious, perhaps more interesting, it has a wider remit and from time to time it exercises influence in a way which is not possible in the WEU. It is therefore always pleasing that there are members of the delegation who take the WEU seriously. During the two years in which he served, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby devoted considerable attention to it. The House should be aware that he did not do so to the neglect of his responsibilities in the Council of Europe.
I paid a private visit to the assembly on its 50th anniversary and heard the tributes paid to my noble friend for the splendid work he had done to promote youth music in Europe. He has done the House a great service this evening by pointing out the difficult situation in which Europe is placed in regard to the organisation of its security. My noble friend has perceived the value of the WEU and I do not believe he has ignored the weaknesses. There are weaknesses, particularly of complacency within the Council of Ministers. There was complacency as they patted each other on the back over the past 20 years, when there has been a clear understanding and knowledge that most European member states within the WEU have been scarcely capable of offering any defence for themselves or any useful or reasonable contribution in the exercise of the cause of international peace and stability.
There has also been the problem that the parliamentary assembly has often been equally complacent, happily accepting being slaughtered if it were ever placed in a different position from that of the Council of Ministers. I recall from a debate on the subject last year that the assembly was prevented from pursuing something. The Secretary General then said to me that the assembly was only entitled to information about military forces for those units which were directly under its control. Those have been few and far between.
The difficulty is that the past 10 years should have demonstrated to the WEU (as I think they have) as well as to the EU (I am less certain of that) that Europe has been far too weak. It has happily sheltered under the American umbrella and often been jingoistic at the same time. It watched the horrors of Yugoslavia develop and did little or nothing until the American involvement began. Even now, one has doubts about the promises and commitments of all the member states in the alliance to ensure that Kosovo can clear its mind and return to peace and a vestige of normality.
One hears of the continuing reduction in defence in some member states, despite the uncertainties in Europe and beyond. It is absurd. It is quite wrong for Europe to continue to prosper and yet be insufficiently capable either of contributing to its own security or to the cause of international peace and stability.

1055
I fear the uncertainties—although my noble friend Lord Kirkhill is less uncertain—as to the direction in which Europe is going. A reference was made to the NATO journal today. I shall read the following from it,
"Future operations involving European Allies",
will possibly be led by the WEU or the EU. That alternative has been under debate in Europe for the past 10 or 15 years. The journal goes on to mention the need to have "focused interoperability" and the acquisition of "advanced capabilities". I wonder whether interoperability will be helped if responsibility is passed to the EU. That is particularly so, given the neutrality factor to which reference has been made.
Despite its weaknesses, the WEU has a great deal of knowledge and a considerable amount of experience. It has improved dramatically with the appointment of Colin Cameron as the clerk to the assembly, an appointment probably overdue and one which offers considerable advantages.
If we were to cede SCAT we would be doing ourselves a disservice. It would merely extend the period in which Britain has borne a necessary but inequitable share of European security and defence. Attention needs to be given to that, perhaps gently, in diplomatic language, but it ought to persist until fairer shares allow Europe to make a better contribution which the future will require.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I also welcome the debate. To anticipate the Minister's closing speech, capabilities matter but institutions matter too. Rules and obligations matter. If the Government are to succeed in raising European defence capabilities, they will have to strengthen the European framework for shared capabilities. As we all know, institutions and rules help to bring pressure on governments to come up to the capabilities needed.
The WEU has always been a mechanism for doing something else. It is 51 years since the WEU was originally formed in 1948 in order to get the Americans to commit themselves to Europe. It was a pathway to the Atlantic alliance. A few years later, the British Government, Anthony Eden, used the WEU as a mechanism for sorting out the re-armament of Germany. It served to bring Germany into the Atlantic alliance. A few years after that, under the Harold Wilson government, it served as a mechanism for keeping discussions between Britain and the six alive, when General de Gaulle shut us out of the European Community.
In the 1980s it served as a means by which the French could edge back towards the NATO integrated organisation by reviving European defence. Since 1990 it has served two useful roles: one, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, pointed out, is in helping to bring the applicant states of central and eastern Europe closer towards western institutions, both the EU and NATO; and, secondly, serving as a pathway for sorting out the defence dimension of the common foreign and security policy in the European Community.
1056
I welcome the extent to which Her Majesty's Government are now pushing for an effective European pillar within the North Atlantic treaty. It has, after all, been Liberal Democrat policy for a long time. We all welcome sinners who repent and I look forward to the Conservative Party in turn, in about the 2006 general election manifesto, acceding to the same overall approach.
After all, NATO has now moved in that direction. In the Washington communiqué of last April we had a clear commitment to reinforcing the European pillar of the alliance. In the NATO strategic concept we had the clear statement that we want to reinforce the transatlantic link by ensuring a balance that allows the European allies to assume greater responsibility. The Americans and the Europeans are moving towards greater integration of European defence with European foreign policy. We are edging slowly towards a common foreign and defence policy. The appointment of Secretary-General Solana to the European Community's council secretariat is a significant step forward. We all recognise that it is necessarily a slow and delicate process, but I pay tribute to the British and French Governments for taking the lead and pushing in the right direction in the St. Malo declaration and subsequently.
I wish that the Government were a little more open about the institutional implications. I understand from the discussions that one hears quietly among officials at Brussels that the issue is intended to be on the agenda of the intergovernmental conference, to which we are committed. That is not surprising. The Maastrict and Amsterdam treaties both dealt with the Western European Union and edged it a little closer towards integration into the European Union.
We are slowly putting in place the foundations of a European foreign and defence policy. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, is right to ask about the continued usefulness of the WEU institutions. I have had professional dealings over the past few years with the WEU Institute for Security Studies in Paris. That is a valuable organisation and it is important that its work should continue. The assembly serves a helpful purpose in bringing national parliamentarians from European countries together to discuss defence and foreign policy. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked whether it should be a European assembly of national parliamentarians or should become a more effective transatlantic body, merged with the North Atlantic Assembly. Those issues need to be explored further.
In passing, I should say that one needs to beware the COSAC model of a chamber of national Parliaments alongside the European Parliament. I have been to COSAC meetings. The French want it to be a national alternative to the European Parliament. One eats extremely well, but I am not sure one comes back having learnt an enormous amount.
What should our future policy be towards the development of a defence role for the Western European Union? I hope that the Minister agrees that we want a progressive movement towards the absorption of the WEU into the EU as the defence dimension of a common foreign and security policy and as the European pillar of the Atlantic alliance.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I should be most interested to know from where the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, gets his brief, because it was identical to one that was given to me, even down to the fascinating statistics about the Austrian Army's expenditure on opera and the quotation from the Washington Post. My brief was prepared by a Conservative Member of another place.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, that is quite right. The noble Lord is referring to Michael Colvin MP. He and the Labour MP Jim Marshall provided me with the brief. They are both writing the submissions of their respective groups in the WEU Assembly on what they hope will happen to that assembly. There is a lot of cross-party agreement among British members of the WEU on that.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, that is obviously the case No doubt we shall be singing much the same song. I have a feeling that the Minister will be singing a song that she has sung many times before, because we have had debates on this and similar subjects many times. There is one difference for the noble Baroness in that she has the slightly larger figure of myself rather than my noble friend Lord Moynihan to deal with. My noble friend does an immense amount of work and has given me enormous sheaves of bumf, on which I could have based six speeches. In March 1998, my noble friend said:
"I offer the Government our unreserved support for resisting merging the European Union with the Western European Union. The Prime Minister is rightly proud of the article in the treaty which states that NATO rather than the European Union is the cornerstone of our defence".—[Official Report, 26/3/98; col. 1425.]
WEU members combined spend 170 billion dollars a year and the United States spends 270 billion dollars. Not unnaturally, the Americans complain about Europe's failure to carry its fair share of the burden of collective security. It is Utopian to believe that a federal United States of Europe would be able to agree a level of expenditure that would allow it to spend even half of what America spends on its own. The whole concept of a United States of Europe is Utopian. I pray that it will not exist during the lifetime of those of us sitting on all three Front Benches. We need to consider an alternative defence policy for the WEU that is at least remotely realistic. I appreciate the words of the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, who emphasised the relative strength of various countries.
NATO has preserved peace for 50 years, but today we have Instability and strife where the WEU has singularly failed to cope with the conflicts that have arisen. NATO, which involves American military resources, has come to the rescue. The Maastricht Treaty in 1992 called for the first time for the implementation of a common foreign and security policy. The Amsterdam Treaty called for closer co-operation under the common joint task forces concept. The St. Malo declaration gave a further boost to the idea of a European defence identity. At the Cologne summit in June the European Union
1058
committed itself to increasing its capacity for a joint foreign and security policy. That should mean that the will is there.
While I was preparing what I should say this evening, my noble friend Lord Carrington came in and expressed his regret that he was unable to speak this evening, because he would have had to leave halfway through the debate. I am sure that we miss what he would have had to say. I cannot accept the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who I hope will read what I am saying in tomorrow's Hansard. My noble friend expressed forcefully his view about the chances of getting European governments to pay—he authorised me from his height to make that remark—particularly given the number of neutral countries involved.
All over Europe defence expenditure is falling. If that policy is in accordance with the political judgment of the countries of Europe, it becomes all the more important for Her Majesty's Government to maintain their close links with the United States. The most desirable policy seems to be to merge the political responsibilities of the WEU with the European Union. That is of course a compromise, with some of i he disadvantages of all compromises, but it has the incomparable advantage of keeping America involved in European defence. The figures on Kosovo show that it is the only realistic and viable course. Not only is it the only realistic course, it underlines the policy of these Benches and increasingly of the Government as well.
This is not the time for any action that would lead to a federal Europe in which there was a loss of government accountability to national Parliaments. In particular, it is not the time to merge the WEU with the EU. Nor should the WEU be revitalised by giving it a more distinct and discrete security identity within NATO. That would undoubtedly give closer relations with Russia and the Ukraine, but the disadvantages would come from having a common foreign and security policy without defence.
In a previous debate I laid emphasis on the value of the Article 5 mutual security obligations. Any policy that discarded those, although making the WEU a happier place for neutral countries, would lose for the participating countries the security that American involvement means. That is a real danger if the European countries come too close together. I hope that the Government will continue their policy of a close relationship with the United States as well as with Europe. I must quote, "Be sure to keep a hold on nurse, for fear of finding something worse".
8.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede for introducing the debate this evening. I thought the quality of his briefing was superb. It is only that I feel desperately left out as I failed to obtain the brief which so obviously the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, had, as did my noble friend.
It is important that we start from the position of Her Majesty's Government at the forefront of the new initiative, launched last October at Poertschach by my

1059
right honourable friend the Prime Minister, to improve the effectiveness of Europe's contribution to European security. The Western European Union is at the heart of the debate, as was pointed out by my noble friend. Of course, Kosovo has reminded us all of the very real issues at stake.
The first half of 1999 marked a defining point for European security and defence. NATO was enlarged on 12th March with the historic admission of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. In April in Washington, the NATO Summit looked at the future of the alliance, and agreed further to develop its European pillar. The Bremen meeting of the Western European Union highlighted the importance of developing European capabilities, and launched the second phase of an audit of those capabilities to enable us to learn where the gaps are and what must be done to fill them; and at Cologne, just over a month ago, the European Council took the debate a stage further.
As noble Lords have remarked, the EU appointed Javier Solana as the High Representative for its common foreign and security policy. Its historic declaration on European defence, following the welcome given to the process at Washington, committed member states to develop the Union's ability to take decisions on the full range of crisis management tasks. We agreed at Cologne that the EU should have the capacity for autonomous action backed up by credible military forces in order to be able to respond to international crises.
But, as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby pointed out, Europe needs to do more. European forces make up the bulk of KFOR under General Jackson. Collectively, we continue to play a leading role in SFOR in Bosnia. Yet with some laudable exceptions—above all the British forces—the deployment of many of the so-called European rapid reaction units earmarked for Kosovo was uncomfortably slow, a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle. In the months leading up to the entry of KFOR, and during the bombing campaign, we demonstrated our reliance on US technology and firepower. The European contribution was of course very far from negligible. It was alliance unity that won the day. But our various responses to the developing situation in Kosovo illustrated only too well the mismatch between our continent's size and economic weight, and its international presence.
This imbalance was one of the factors that prompted my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to launch the debate on the development of a security and defence capability to back up the EU's common foreign and security policy. I am glad that that initiative has been so warmly welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. The common foreign and security policy needs to be underpinned with credible military capability if the EU is to meet the challenge of playing its rightful role on the international stage. This capability is, and must be, based on our investment in NATO. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, when he said that NATO remains the cornerstone. I emphasise that to the noble Lord, although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, will accuse me of saying the same
1060
things in many of our debates; but at least that has the merit of consistency. However, it is important that I reiterate the point, which has been raised again.
When we look at this issue, we must consider not only NATO, but its structures and infrastructure. Equally, Europe must not be so heavily dependent on NATO for peace support operations. The fact is that our North American allies may not wish to be involved in every crisis. We should develop further our capacity for acting without active US involvement. That should help us to contribute better to our cornerstone in NATO, and enable us to act where the alliance as a whole is not necessarily militarily engaged.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, pointed out, we have discussed these issues in your Lordships' House on a number of occasions. I have made it clear that our focus is on capabilities and functions, and not on institutions. The noble Lord exhorted me not to repeat that point, but I think that I should because it is important. Our aim is a real improvement in the way in which Europe tackles the crises it has to face. The agreement at Washington ensured that new security arrangements will develop in a way that is fully compatible with NATO. The Cologne declaration commits us to putting those new arrangements in place in the EU. Both guarantee that defence decisions will continue to be intergovernmental, respecting member states' sovereign rights to deploy and control their own armed forces. There is certainly no question of a European army, or a role in defence for the Commission or the European Parliament beyond their current role in CFSP.
At Cologne, member states agreed to include in the European Union those Western European Union functions which would be necessary for those new responsibilities. Final decisions should be taken by the end of the year 2000, at which point Cologne envisaged that the WEU as an organisation would have completed its purpose. This is consistent with our approach of examining what the EU needs to enable it to take decisions and rapidly to translate those decisions into action. The EU as a crisis manager should build on the achievements of the WEU.
The initiative launched yesterday at the UK-Italy Summit to set a timetable and challenging criteria for European defence capabilities and performance is an important stepping-stone along that path. It sets out Europe-wide goals for enhancing military capabilities to undertake crisis management, and national capability objectives to achieve this wider European aim.
But if the Western European Union is to have served its purpose by the end of the year 2000, it will have a great deal to do in the interim. I assure noble Lords that the WEU will continue to play a role until final decisions on defence in the Union are taken and the functions of the WEU are transferred to the EU. It is important that as we work on strengthening Europe's defence capability, we do not find ourselves in a transition period in which neither organisation can function properly. I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath that the WEU has, over the years, built up a legacy of crisis management "best

1061
practice", including a close working relationship with NATO. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, that we shall want to ensure that this legacy is carried over into the EU. That is something which should be a priority over the next 18 months of discussion.
We shall be looking for conclusions from the WEU Luxembourg ministerial meeting in November that we can use to develop our European defence performance criteria ideas. The audit of European defence capabilities, to which I referred earlier, is focusing on real defence outputs: force deployability; flexibility; sustainability; and, of course, at a time when multinational operations are increasingly the norm, as many noble Lords have said, the importance of inter-operability. Kosovo has demonstrated the importance of troops being trained and equipped to be able rapidly and effectively to face the challenges of modern operations. Identifying the gaps that need to be filled, and deciding how best to fill them, will be an important task for the WEU to fulfil.
There is another key feature of the WEU's legacy which we must use as a model for the EU. I am aware that, like other noble Lords, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby is concerned that European security arrangements should be inclusive. That was also a matter on which the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, concentrated. We agree that we should not build new harriers. The WEU has six associate members who are NATO allies, although not EU members, and seven associate partners who are members of neither organisation but are all associates of the EU and NATO Partnership for Peace.
I deal next with the European neutrals, on which the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby touched. The neutral members of the EU have welcomed our initiative. Through existing WEU arrangements they are already able fully to take part in planning and decision-making for European crisis management to which they want to contribute. In particular, they welcome the emphasis in both the St. Malo and Cologne declarations on the need to improve European crisis management capability. We are encouraging them to strengthen their capabilities to enable them in future to take part actively in EU-led operations relating to such tasks.
There are also those who are in NATO but are not part of the EU. These allies, too, welcomed our initiative at the Washington Summit on 24th April. We support the participation of non-EU European allies in European military operations under the right auspices. We look forward to working closely with all allies as we take forward the work to develop NATO's European pillar.
Our attention has also been drawn to the WEU associate partnerships which include Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Slovakia and the Baltic states. The Cologne declaration makes it clear that the EU will put in place arrangements to allow WEU associate partners to take part to the fullest possible extent in the new arrangements that we are considering. Similarly, we recognise the importance of the Ukraine to European security. We shall take part in that conference in October. We welcome such events.
1062
Reference was made to the democratic deficit. We agree that national parliamentary oversight of defence and security matters is crucial. We have discussed this on a number of occasions, not least when we debated CFSP in the context of the Treaty of Amsterdam. I reiterate this evening, as I did then, that democratic parliamentary control in these areas is absolutely vital.
My noble friend Lord Kennet is not in his place. I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that I regard a grandchild's 21st birthday as a reason for absence. I would have hoped that a family-friendly House could accept that. The points raised by my noble friend have been rehearsed in your Lordships' House on a number of occasions. For the record, Her Majesty's Government believe that our military action in Kosovo was lawful and that our targets there were legitimate.
This has been a momentous few months for European security in both theory and practice. There is no time to sit back because there is a great deal of work still to be done. The Western European Union will continue to play an active role in the work under way in Europe to strengthen the European contribution to Europe's security. The WEU will need to examine how best to transmit the legacy of its 50 exceptional years to the EU. It will play an active part in the ongoing efforts in all the organisations about which we have been speaking—the EU, WEU and NATO—to improve the real defence capabilities that we need in Europe. All this work must be clearly focused and co-ordinated to ensure that there is no mismatch between expectations and results. Your Lordships can be confident that Her Majesty's Government will remain at the forefront of that endeavour.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.34 to 8.35 p.m.]

Immigration and Asylum Bill
House again in Committee.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 154:
Before Clause 84, insert the following new clause—

Immigration and Asylum Bill

  ACCESS TO LEGAL ADVICE FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS
  (" . In providing, or arranging for the provision of, support for persons under Part VI, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make arrangements with a view to ensuring that those persons have access to legal advice from a representative chosen by the asylum seeker.").
  The noble Baroness said: We have already had a very full debate on aspects of support. Therefore, I shall adhere closely to the guidelines set out by the Minister who, very reasonably, suggested that in view of previous detailed and wide debate the Committee should confine itself to a close description of any amendments that follow.
  Amendment No. 154 is essentially a probing amendment. It is likely, as the Minister said just before the break, that asylum seekers and refugees would be dispersed around the country. He pointed out that the major criteria related to the provision of adequate accommodation, the existence of communities with which refugees and asylum seekers could identify and a history of good race relations within the area. It is possible that a number of refugees and asylum seekers will find themselves a long way from London. That is fair enough. However, in many cases the legal advice that they receive is concentrated in London and a small number of other major cities.
  The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that those who are involved in the asylum support directorate do their very best to ensure that asylum seekers and refugees are given information about access to legal advice and, where possible, are facilitated in getting it. It may be that some legal advisers will be willing to travel to meet a number of people who seek that advice in a particular area; and that is something which we hope the directorate will take into account. I give one example. In many cases it will be of assistance if the Home Office advertises the fact that, as seems likely, there is a list of registered practitioners, and particularly the two centres that are generally recognised to provide exceptional service.
  It would be extremely helpful if in the areas to which refugees were dispersed they could have access to such information on their arrival or, for example, by way of advertisements in ethnic newspapers. That would also be very much in the interests of the Home Office. Where legal advice is available it is likely that the appeal system will work much more efficiently and will not give rise to judicial review and matters of that kind. Therefore, it is in the interests of the Home Office, the immigration directorate and those who are concerned with the welfare of refugees that, as far as possible, this information should be made available.
  In one respect the amendment does not represent the views that we put forward, and therefore the wording is defective to that extent. At the end of the amendment the Committee sees:
  "a representative chosen by the asylum seeker".
  We believe that the reference should be to:
  "a representative from the registered list selected by the asylum seeker".
  We fully accept the Government's strictures as to from where legal advice should come. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Committee in considering this amendment is concerned also with Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 in the name of myself and my noble friend.
  I have to differ from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. Amendment No. 170, although identical in wording, appears in a different place in the Bill! That is the only difference between us. Whether it is inserted before Clause 84 or after Clause 88 I am
  1064
  content to leave others to decide. But it is important that asylum seekers should have the possibility of legal advice.
  The Committee has the great advantage of the Minister giving us legal advice at frequent intervals during these debates. We have learnt to appreciate it even more than before. But we have also appreciated in the course of the debates the incredible complexities—to which, sadly, we add by these debates. None of us is in any doubt about the value of legal advice. That is reinforced in the case of those who are asylum seekers who by definition come from other countries, from traumatic situations, often speaking no English, and so on. I do not need to labour the point.
  Amendment No. 171 is closely related to the other two amendments. I am glad to support them.
  Lord Hylton: I support the thrust of all three amendments. It occurs to me that the amendments might be too narrowly drawn. They refer to legal advice and not also to legal representation.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, makes the point that many asylum seekers have poor or non-existent English, and will need to be represented before an adjudicator or an appeal tribunal. In addition, they may be totally unfamiliar with our legal systems. For that reason, again, they require representation.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: One cannot impose a lawyer upon a client. It is one thing to offer him access to legal advice. It is important that that is done, but I do not think that the provision needs to be included in a statute. Advice may be given. There are various ways of offering that advice. I speak as a solicitor and I do not want to deny the opportunity of work to my colleagues in the profession. But this provision comes very close almost to insisting that someone should be legally represented, either in terms of advice, or, more particularly, in terms of representation. There may be a very good reason why someone does not wish to have legal representation through a professional lawyer. To insist upon that—the amendment comes very close to insistence—would be dangerous.
  I do not demur from the idea that someone should be advised if they want advice. But it should not go further than that. It is not necessary to include a provision in an Act of Parliament. The Minister may differ from me.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: The phrase used in the amendment is "have access to". It does not oblige anyone to accept legal advice. It simply says that there should be a duty on the asylum support directorate to make sure that individuals have access—and it is implicit in that—if they wish to use such access. It does not impose any action upon them.
  8.45 p.m.
  Lord Renton: These amendments refer to the granting of legal advice. In my opinion, the genuine asylum seeker should be given legal advice with legal aid, if legal aid is needed. I have been looking at other clauses of the Bill. I should be grateful if the Minister

  1065
  could say to what extent legal aid will be provided to people who turn out to be genuine asylum seekers. It is known that the majority of those who apply turn out not to be genuine. The genuine ones turn out to be the minority. For the bogus ones to be given legal aid, whether gaining advice or legal help in any other way, would seem to me to be wrong. I do not see why the British taxpayer should have to pay for that. But if the asylum seeker is genuine, it is perfectly reasonable that we should have to pay. Perhaps the Minister will be so good as to clarify that matter.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I gave way to the noble Baroness, and then to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, but he has made his own speech, which is fine.
  I do not agree with what the noble Lord says. It begs the question of who is a genuine asylum seeker. It may be a matter upon which there is dispute. I hope that I have not misinterpreted the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. Making available access to a lawyer is one thing, but to insist that someone should be legally represented or receive legal advice on matters may be going too far.
  I come back to this point. It is not necessary to include the provision in the Bill. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate whether some satisfactory explanation stating what may be available could be provided for someone who comes to this country. We cannot insist on legal representation either in the form of advice or representation.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I support the noble Baroness. When we considered the first amendment in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, chided me gently because I mentioned that in this country we had either professional organisations or trade unions to assist us when we wished to be legally represented. He pointed out that there was a very good scheme of visitors who draw to the attention of asylum seekers the existence of legal advice. I took the point. However, with the dispersal policy, it will be more difficult for such advice to be given. Therefore the noble Baroness's point is important.
  The system is intended to be speedier. It is of paramount importance to ensure that a determination is not reached too rapidly without proper consideration of the asylum seeker's case. It is important that asylum seekers realise that they can have access to legal advice. I agree that the amendment refers to access. It is up to an individual to decide whether to make use of that access.
  With reference to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, one may be a genuine asylum seeker without being an asylum finder. Individuals may well have a good case which at the end of the day is not agreed by the person making the determination or on appeal. But those people may have a genuine case which needs to be heard. Part of the whole point of the system is that cases should be heard and determined. There will be those who have a good case, but at the end of day it will not be accepted. But they should be regarded as genuine asylum seekers.
  Earl Russell: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that one cannot compel anyone to
  1066
  have a lawyer. That is why my noble friend's amendment uses the word "access". You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. You can give access to a lawyer; you cannot compel the person to use it. It was in that spirit that the amendment was put forward.
  Perhaps the most important and clearly necessary of these amendments is Amendment No. 171 which deals with travel costs. The right reverend Prelate has mentioned the problem of dispersal. It is a specialist field of law and those who are expert in it are overwhelmingly concentrated in a few firms in London. Almost all the great legal victories of which one reads are won by those firms of lawyers. I once had to advise a correspondent from Colchester—not an urea that Christopher Hill used to call one of the dark comers of the land—who had fallen into the hands of an incompetent adviser. My correspondent's case was good, but it was not until I put him in touch with Bates Wells and Braithwaite in London that anyone was able to develop the case for him to any satisfactory conclusion. Once I had done that, the case was strong and successful.
  Someone on the level of support that would be given to asylum seekers under the Bill might have to come down from Newcastle to consult a lawyer in London. The vouchers may be redeemable in many places, but I do not think that they will be redeemable at rail ticket offices. If Amendment No. 171 is not accepted, I do not see how deserving clients will be put in touch with competent lawyers. If that does not happen, injustice will. I hope that the Minister, who has done so much to help us already—that is much appreciated—will sympathise with the amendments.
  Lord Warner: I rise to speak against Amendments Nos. 154 and 170. It seems to me that they are based on a misconceived view. As far as I am aware, in this country we do not give people who may or may not be entitled to social security benefit access to legal advice about their entitlements. The amendments relate to Part VI of the Bill, which deals with support for asylum seekers. They are not about legal advice connected with people's entitlement to stay in this country.
  It is a longstanding principle of public administration that the agencies responsible for particular services make explanatory leaflets and materials available to those who might be entitled to their services. That is how the housing benefit system operates in relation to our own citizens, and the same is true for relief from council tax and access to social security benefits. Indeed, for social security benefits, we print the leaflets in different languages so that people have access to them. As far as I recall, before the 1996 Act, asylum seekers did not have access to legal advice about their entitlement to social security benefits. The amendments would be a change of direction that would be out of kilter with the way we run support arrangements for our own citizens.
  Earl Russell: If the noble Lord, Lord Warner, reads the report of an Unstarred Question of about three months ago on the take-up of social security benefits,

  1067
  he will see that domestic policy is taking a similar change of direction to that proposed by the amendment. It is not as far out of line as he suggests.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: May I also add the point that one of the responsibilities of the new asylum support directorate will be to deal with benefits and to handle the dispersal of asylum seekers? The point about access to legal aid is directly related to the dispersal policy. Therefore, it is right that the directorate should bear some responsibility.
  Lord Hylton: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, will appreciate that the positioning of Amendment No. 154 is precise. It comes before Clause 84, which is the interpretation clause, and before Clause 85, which deals with support. It is a free-standing amendment that deals with legal advice that can determine the whole future of applicants, and whether they are allowed to remain in this country or are deported to another country where they may easily suffer persecution and even death.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: It may be that the wording of the amendment does not achieve what we seek. What I had hoped to achieve through Amendments Nos. 170 and 171, and what I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, has achieved in Amendment No. 154, is access to legal advice on all the issues that arise under the Bill. Money for travelling will be provided under Part VI of the Bill, but the legal advice will not be limited to questions arising under Part VI. The point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon about dispersal is important.
  I point out to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that not all legal wisdom resides in London. I recall a case that went on for a large proportion of my time as a Member of Parliament. A constituent in Chipping Sodbury took local legal advice that unfortunately did not make the best of the case. He went to a big firm of London lawyers to sue the Chipping Sodbury lawyer and ended up suing the London lawyer. When he acted as a litigant in person, he succeeded where the local firm in Chipping Sodbury and the well-known firm of solicitors—I shall not mention the name—had failed. That demonstrates that one cannot anticipate the outcome of legal actions, even if it seems that the legal situation is clear.
  I have made the point before that half the lawyers in the country are proved wrong every day in court, because half of them lose although the other half win.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I am proved wrong three or four times a day. Why cannot this matter be dealt with in the more informal way that I have suggested? Is it absolutely necessary to impose a legal obligation in the Act? Could not the Minister accept my suggestion that the issue could be dealt with by way of ministerial advice to those who deal with asylum seekers to the
  1068
  effect that on arrival at a port or elsewhere, they should be given a document that sets out what they may receive?
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I cannot answer that question until I have heard the Minister's reply. Perhaps we should allow that now to happen.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. I agree with the comments made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon about the problems that will be posed by dispersal. The more that we spread the load of asylum seekers around the country, the more that people will have to travel to centres of excellence to get legal advice. In my years as a constituency representative in Liverpool, people frequently used firms of solicitors in Manchester who specialised in such issues. Even within a region, there are well known firms that specialise in such matters and people have to travel to see those solicitors.
  In Amendment No. 171, the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, picks up the issue of travel expenses. I make the practical point that although I welcome the Minister's earlier comments about dependants, the position of under 25s remains the same. Under Part VI of the Bill, a person under 25 would receive £27.90 a week, of which £10 would be in cash and the rest in vouchers. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, vouchers are hardly likely to be accepted at railway stations so the person would be left with £10 a week for travel. Put another way, that is £1.30 a day. No doubt many of your Lordships use public transport. It has been much in the news in the past few days, not least in the constituency of Eddisbury, where the Secretary of State, Mr John Prescott, used it. Everyone has been trying to wear their public transport credentials on their sleeve and I welcome that. But a bus ride from Pimlico to Westminster—a route which I know many noble Lords take because I see them on the bus from time to time, will cost £1. If only £1.30 a day was allocated to you, you would not have the money to make the simple return journey from one part of London to another, let alone from one part of the country to another.
  In practical terms, we need to improve the level of support. That again relates to the arguments about vouchers and the wider issues which we explored in the earlier debates. I shall not trespass into those territories because I, too, am happy to adopt a self-denying ordinance on that. However, there is a specific point to which the Minister ought to reply and the sooner I stop speaking the more quickly he is likely to do it.
  9 p.m.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: Perhaps I may make one final point. In many ways, Amendment No. 171 supports the Government's policy of limiting the number of legal representatives to which asylum seekers and refugees should have access. That limit is likely to mean that in some parts of the country there will be no one on the registered list. There will be a great temptation for asylum seekers to be approached by some

  1069
  of those we least want to see representing anyone because they give a poor service. But they will be accessible and they will be there.
  If the asylum seeker or refugee has no means of travelling to the people on the registered list, or to the refugee legal centre or the IAS, both of which have limited numbers of offices, the temptation to be represented by someone who just comes by, whose name they will not know is not on the list, will be very great. I beg the Minister to bear that in mind when replying to the amendment.
  Lord Avebury: At an earlier stage, we discussed the situation in Northern Ireland and the Minister said that special assistance will be given to the RLC and the IAS to establish an office in Belfast. Will he tell the Committee in what other parts of the United Kingdom special assistance will be given to those bodies to establish offices? Will they have offices in Scotland, Newcastle or Eddisbury? I was interested to hear the noble Lord's reference to that constituency, which was once represented by my grandfather. I dare say that anyone living in Eddisbury will have to travel to Manchester. I do not know how much the fare is, but I am sure that it is more than the £1 which the noble Lord mentioned as being the amount a person will receive for one day.
  Even if provisions are made for the establishment of RLC and IAS offices in the principal centres of population in the United Kingdom, unless the dispersal policies of the Home Office ensure anyone sent to the provinces will be within easy reach of such an office, a large proportion of their disposable income will be spent on travelling there.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: With respect to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, I do not believe that any of these amendments is necessary. From the drafting, it appeared that the concern was directed to the fact that the asylum seeker should be entitled to have the legal representative of his choice, m the course of the speeches, that has changed to providing them with legal advice. Legal advice and assistance is already available to asylum seekers in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Aid Act 1988 and will continue to be available under the provisions of the Government's Access to Justice Bill.
  In addition, the Home Secretary makes grants under Section 23 of the 1971 Immigration Act to the Immigration Advisory Service and to the Refugee Legal Centre, which are two voluntary organisations which provide free advice, assistance and representation at asylum appeals.
  The amendments propose that an asylum seeker should have legal advice from a representative whom he or she has chosen. As the noble and nimble Baroness spotted, that gave rise to problems about unscrupulous immigration advisers, a concern which we all share, so she gave an oral amendment to her amendment—that it should apply to those on the registered list. In that context, at the request of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised the issue with my noble friend Lord Williams of
  1070
  Mostyn—the Legal Aid Board has published detailed proposals for contracting immigration and asylum work to ensure that asylum seekers have access to good quality legal services. The Government are considering those proposals and will make their response known soon. The proposals are contained in the document Access to Quality Services in the Immigration Category. The proposals will limit the firms able to provide advice and assistance to those holding immigration and asylum contracts with the Legal Aid Board or Legal Services Commission. Contracting will improve the overall quality of advice and assistance provided and guarantee that asylum seekers receive competent advice.
  The report also proposes that legal aid funding should be extended to allow contracted firms to provide representation before immigration adjudicators and the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. Therefore, under the existing framework, legal aid and assistance are available. It is a matter for the Legal Aid Board as to how they are provided. In the document to which I have referred, it is consulting on the best way to provide it. The means it suggests would get rid of the unscrupulous immigration advisers and would seek to ensure that the advice is competent and widely available. That deals with the first two amendments.
  The third amendment, which was pushed hard by a number of Members of the Committee, relates to travelling expenses. The Government carefully considered that point when at an earlier stage they decided to provide under Clause 94(7) for the reasonable travelling expenses of appellants to asylum support adjudicators. The noble Lord's amendment would extend this to an entitlement to reasonable travelling expenses throughout an asylum seeker's time in the United Kingdom whenever he or his legal representative felt that a meeting was advisable.
  We do not believe that such a wide-ranging power is an appropriate use of resources. For one thing, the making of an asylum application does not require legal advice. Asylum seekers can present their cases to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate without the need for any assistance from a legal adviser.
  I would draw the attention of the Committee to Clause 86(1)(c), where the power is taken for the asylum support scheme to pay expenses incurred in connection with an asylum claim. The kind of expenses with which noble Lords are concerned—namely, travelling expenses to the legal representative—would fall under this power. The power is there in the appropriate case. It is better that it should be a discretionary power than a power as of right. In these circumstances, I believe that every point has been dealt with. I hope that the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I should like to raise two points with him. I have before me the advice of the Legal Aid Board, which is of course described as recommendations to the Lord Chancellor. Before this moment, we had no reason to believe that those recommendations had been accepted—I do not know whether they have been. In the document, the Legal Aid

  1071
  Board points out, as we have done, that good quality advice and assistance should be made available at the earliest possible opportunity, but the board itself goes on to say that, in a number of cases, refugees and asylum seekers do not find it easy to obtain legal help and that it is widely acknowledged that individuals tout their services to new arrivals at main ports of entry.
  We are anxious to make sure that the individual asylum seeker or refugee is assisted to gain access to the legal advice which will help him, and not to anyone who happens to be cruising around. In that regard we have the Government's own wishes at heart. We simply suggest that the recommendations of the Legal Advice Board be accepted, and made viable for people who have been dispersed beyond the area where they can easily travel to obtain that legal advice.
  Finally, I very much welcome the Minister's comments on the refugee legal centres and the AIS, both of which we greatly respect in this Committee. However, the problem still arises that, at the moment, as far as I know, they have a very limited number of offices where the people who work for them can interview and see asylum seekers. I am sure that that is why the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, raised the issues that he did in speaking to Amendment No. 171.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The document to which the noble Baroness refers indicates that the Legal Aid Board is addressing the very problems which she raises. We cannot create high-quality immigration services throughout the country, where there are none. The amendments seek to make it a right for an asylum seeker to have the lawyer or legal assistance of his choice. In the course of this debate that has been expressed as the necessity of making legal aid available. It is available; the basis is set out in that document. As I have said, the Government are considering those proposals and will make their response known shortly. I do not believe that much more can be done on the face of the Bill.
  I recognise the importance of the point raised on travelling expenses, but would that not be best dealt with by a discretionary power to provide travel expenses where that is considered appropriate by the asylum support group? I am not sure what more one could do.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: That point would be met by the earlier issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who said that it might be dealt with in another way. We are simply concerned about the possible effects of dispersal on some asylum seekers' ability to obtain legal advice. Therefore, we should wish to see whether the matter could be dealt with in some other way. Perhaps the Minister would like to suggest another way, possibly through regulations or guidelines to the asylum support directorate. We shall obviously be concerned if the Minister feels unable to provide any assurance of any kind about what will happen to someone dispersed some distance away from any reputable legal centre. There are indeed such places—I
  1072
  can think of several—where the only advice available was advice that I should not for one moment recommend anyone to take.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The effect of the acceptance of the Legal Aid Board's proposals would be that there would then be a definitive list of those people who were respectable and those who were not. That would go quite a long way towards getting rid of the fly-by-nights by whom no one would like advice to be given. With regard to the asylum support scheme to pay expenses incurred in connection with an asylum claim, which would include travel expenses to see a lawyer, I should imagine some guidelines would be set down and that the question of whether they would be provided would be dealt with there.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 84 [Interpretation of Part VI]:
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 154A:
  Page 54, line 11, leave out ("over") and insert ("not under").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 155B and 155C. Amendment No. 154A arises from the decision which we have reached, which is the intention in Part VI that the Secretary of State should have power to provide support for destitute asylum seekers aged 18 and over. We reflected on the wording of Clause 84(1), and thought it better to amend it so that it is clear that eligibility begins on the day that an asylum seeker becomes 18, rather than the day after.
  Amendments Nos. 155B and 155C provide that asylum-seeking families with children being supported under the Secretary of State's scheme will continue to receive support for as long as they remain in the United Kingdom. As originally drafted, that concession was limited to the legal or biological offspring of either the principal asylum seeker or his spouse. That provision harks back to an example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, relating to whether one ought to be too restrictive about dependants. I said that we listened carefully to those thoughts. I believe that I can demonstrate that in these two amendments.
  In Clause 84 there is power to extend the definition of "dependant" for the purposes of Part VI. When the Bill was considered in another place, my honourable friend Mr O'Brien gave an undertaking that consideration would be given to amending the Bill so that the definition of "dependant" in Clause 84(1) would also apply to Clause 84(5). We have thought about that and, therefore, with the leave of the Committee, we shall amend Clause 84(5) to bring it in line with Clause 84(1). That is the purpose of the amendments. I hope the Committee will consider that this is an example of listening with care and improving the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Lyell: I wonder whether I may intervene. I have been silent so far on this matter. Has there been a

  1073
  problem with a young asylum seeker as his or her 18th birthday was "over" and "not under" 18? I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, explained the matter very well. Does this clear up a problem that has occurred? Is this part of general syntax or good grammar? I was interested in the way in which the noble Lord phrased his explanation to make it clear that it referred to an asylum seeker's 18th birthday. Has there been a problem with definition or is it a case of the noble Lord expressing matters with his customary clarity?
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is no problem at the moment because Part IV, let alone any other part of the Bill, has not yet become law.
  One ought to have clarity in an area where there may be difficulty. We aim, on this occasion at least, to benefit an individual. Amendment No. 154A is not the most important in the group. I believe that Amendments Nos. 154B and 154C are more important.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: It is a great pleasure to thank the Minister for having listened to what my noble friend Lord Russell and I had to say on this matter. We are grateful to him and believe that the amendment clarifies what could have been a slightly grey area in the Bill. We thank the Minister for having taken notice.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool moved Amendment No. 155:
  Page 55, line 3, at end insert ("and shall in any event be extended—

  (i) in the event that either party indicates an intention to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal or Court of Session, or to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of an asylum claim or other aspect of an asylum seeker's immigration status, for a period reasonably long enough to enable him to do so, and

  (ii) for so long as any such proceedings, and any further appeal or proceedings arising from them, remain pending, and

  (iii) whether or not such proceedings are proposed or taken, for so long as the Secretary of State has under consideration further representations in respect of the claimant's immigration status, and

  (iv) whenever and for so long as the Secretary of State does not or is for any reason unable to effect the removal of an asylum seeker or his dependants, or both, following rejection of an asylum claim.").

  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 155 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 155A in the mime of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby and Amendment No. 157 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. I strongly support those amendments to which I am sure they will speak in due course.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 155 may best be summed up by saying that it prevents the support directorate from cutting off support to an asylum seeker after the Home Office has determined the application or when the appellate process before the IAT has been
  1074
  exhausted. To put it another way, it ensures that support is not prematurely terminated in circumstances in which it would be necessary for the power of the Secretary of State to support asylum seekers to be continued beyond the initial appeal stage. The amendment is also concerned with ensuring that destitution is not used as a weapon against a bona fide asylum seeker.
  The amendment falls into four parts. In a moment I shall explain what the four parts seek to do. First, I should like to put on record that the amendment has the support of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, of the Asylum Rights Campaign and of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture.
  The Earl of Dartmouth: Does it have the support of British taxpayers?
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: If the noble Earl had been able to contribute to earlier debates, he would have heard me say that I hope that noble Lords will not see all these issues through the prism of the interests of the, taxpayer. Sometimes we should also consider our interests and duties towards asylum seekers and refugees. Those questions have to be balanced one against another.
  In the debate on Second Reading I said that less than a quarter of 1 per cent of our entire national social security budget is allocated to all refugees and asylum seekers before we start to deal with anyone who may falsely be claiming expenses.
  I believe that we are disproportionate in the terms in which we raise the sort of intervention of the noble Earl. We would do better to concentrate on ensuring that there is justice for people who come from backgrounds of persecution, who may be dependants with children, who may be fleeing appalling regimes and who may have suffered grievously. We have a duty towards them.
  The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture says:
  "It is wholly unacceptable that any class of people in this country should be left without food or shelter, or any means of obtaining these".
  To answer the intervention by the noble Earl, we are not talking about continued support for persons who over-stay and those who have gone to ground. I make that clear. The Minister of State in another place indicated that support may be available through the voluntary sector for some, although not for all, who have reached the end of the process. That is not an adequate or proper solution. It is no answer for the Minister to say, as he said to the Special Standing Committee, that,
  "If individuals want their case to be taken further, they will have to reflect on how they can support themselves. They could look to the voluntary sector or to their own communities for support".
  That is effectively another punishment that we are heaping upon the heads of people who have already suffered quite grievously. That punishment, once again, is entirely out of proportion to the mischief that it is supposed to address.
  I said that I would turn to the four parts of the amendment and shall try to do that briefly. Sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) in Amendment No. 155

  1075
  concern further proceedings which either the asylum seeker or the Secretary of State may have the right to bring with the leave of the court. Hunger and homelessness should not be used to block access to justice by asylum seekers who may have good grounds to go to higher courts or to apply for judicial review. The rule of law is nullified if access to justice is denied to the most vulnerable, especially if they are literally starved out of their legal rights by the other party to the legal proceedings in question—in this case, the Government.
  As matters stand, there is no power to extend support, even where it is the Secretary of State who seeks to challenge a favourable determination. So an applicant who has satisfied the appellate authorities that he merits recognition as a refugee must choose between the Charybdis and the Scylla—that is, between the country where he fears persecution, or remaining in destitution for however long it takes the Secretary of State to pursue higher court proceedings. That is self-evidently wrong. We should not put people in the position of choosing between that rock and a hard place.
  It is no less wrong, and equally a breach of the human rights convention, to impose destitution in an attempt to prevent asylum seekers taking up their legal rights to seek to challenge unfavourable determinations. That aspect of the present proposals is perhaps especially worrying in the light of the 81 per cent success rate in immigration cases where leave to move for judicial review was granted in 1996–97; but the principle will be the same whatever the statistics. It is not just a question of how many were successful. It should not be for the Government to establish a support scheme in such a way as to pre-empt such applications for political reasons, but for the courts to determine their legal merits. So sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) seek to establish that principle.
  Sub-paragraph (iii) concerns the Secretary of State's power to reconsider cases. It is wrong again to fetter the duty and discretion of the Secretary of State to consider an adjudicator's recommendations or further representations following a failed appeal by depriving him of the power to extend support while he does so. There may be changes in family or other circumstances, or non-asylum humanitarian considerations, into which the Secretary of State would wish to make further inquiry, but, as things stand, he may be effectively constrained from taking the necessary time to do so by the fact that the asylum seeker meanwhile has no means of even feeding himself.
  Finally, sub-paragraph (iv) concerns the various other circumstances in which unsuccessful asylum appellants may not be immediately removable from the United Kingdom. The asylum seeker may be in an advanced state of pregnancy, for instance, or otherwise unfit to travel; or there may be problems and delays in travel documentation; or the circumstances in the country of origin may be such that removal to that destination is, for the time being, literally impossible or may be dangerous. For example, for the past year or more, UNHCR has advised that failed asylum seekers cannot safely be returned to Angola, with the result that some
  1076
  failed Angolan asylum seekers have been on temporary admission for months, since the dismissal of their appeals, with support where necessary from their local authorities under the National Assistance Act and the Children Act.
  What will happen to families such as those unless we put this belt-and-braces provision into the legislation? What will happen to such people in the future if this part of the Bill is passed unamended? They would literally be thrown out of support scheme accommodation in whatever location they might have been dispersed to, with no other means to feed or house themselves. As,
  "persons subject to immigrations control",
  they would have no access to local authority assistance. What do the Government believe people in that predicament will do? They will beg; they will steal; they will sleep in the streets and do all the other things that we know form part of a begging-bowl culture. In fact, reverting to our earlier debate and the remarks the Minister of State made in relation to people in that position, the truth is that sometimes we force them into that position. Unless we amend the legislation, we will increase the number of people who sometimes intimidate in the way that the Minister of State described earlier.
  It would be inhuman and prohibitively expensive to detain individually all those who, through no fault of their own, cannot yet be removed. But unless this amendment is passed, the alternative is the creation of a roaming vagabond class of unknown size and with no incentive to maintain contact with the authorities whatsoever, save that for some a hot meal in a warm cell may actually be a lure to crime and preferable to the position in which they find themselves at that moment.
  In another place the Minister of State, Mr O'Brien, said that provision may be made for support through the voluntary sector. I have referred to the evidence that he gave to the House of Commons Special Standing Committee. That is not an adequate response. We shall return later in these proceedings on this part of the Bill to the role of the voluntary sector. But I know that there is deep resentment among many voluntary groups, community groups and Church-based charities which feel that they are being turned into an arm of the state and that they are being co-opted into a role which they have never asked to take on. Often that is done with paltry resources available to them. It is therefore inhumane and a breach of our obligations under the Human Rights Act that such food and shelter should not be approved. In those terms I commend Amendment No. 155 to the Committee. I beg to move.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I believe it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to address all three amendments. They are very close to one another in the sense that all of them argue that support should be maintained until the end of the judicial process of appeal and review. That must be right. I was concerned at one stage that in an earlier draft of the Bill there was a suggestion that support would be removed when the process of appeal had been concluded short of judicial review. That cannot be right since an

  1077
  asylum seeker must have the ability to use the facility of the judicial review which is open to him. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, he should not be forced by economic stringencies and distress to abandon his obvious right to make an appeal through a judicial review if that is open to him.
  I add one other point. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has set out in great detail the arguments for this amendment. My own experience of the British citizen is perhaps somewhat different from that of the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, in the sense that it has been the case over and over again that the British people have responded with extraordinary generosity when they have seen real need. Whether because of the hurricanes in Central America, the famine in Somalia or distress in Kosovo, time and time again the voluntary bodies and others have pointed to the astonishing level of response. I do not believe that most British citizens would wish to see those trying to get their rights within our judicial and legal process, of which we have every reason to be extremely proud, prevented from doing so by destitution.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has pointed out, destitution would be the situation of those for whom there was no support of any kind from any source and who were not entitled to work in order to keep body and soul together. These amendments must be right if we believe in our own system of justice, the fairness of our courts and the right of everyone—"the poorest he among us", as the Levellers would have said—to receive that justice.
  I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and I would fully accept whichever of these amendments appears to be the best drafted and covers the widest range of possibilities. We would rejoice to see that amendment accepted. But it would be quite wrong to end the support system when the right of an asylum seeker to continue to pursue his rights under our legal system was still open to him. I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and present my own.
  Earl Russell: The noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, asked whether this amendment has the support of the British taxpayer. It certainly has the support of this one. The short answer is that the only way to find out would be to carry this amendment in the Lobbies and send it to another place to find out what it thinks about it. If the noble Earl is ready to co-operate in that endeavour I shall be happy to join him, although probably not tonight.
  However, the argument goes a little wider. It is the obligation of any British government—and the duty of any king or queen of England before that—to do justice. That obligation goes back to Magna Carta and to the Coronation Oath. We think that this amendment is part of that obligation; and that obligation is one to which the British taxpayer has consented. It is indeed the very essential reason why he has a government. There is no point in having a government if it does not do justice.
  1078
  But you cannot have selective justice. Justice, if it is to deserve the name at all, must be extended, in the biblical phrase, to,
  "the stranger that is within [our] gates".
  That has been recognised for a very long time and is the underlying purpose of this amendment.
  If something like this amendment is not accepted, there is a real danger of refugees being forced back to their own countries where they have been at risk of persecution. In fact, there is a real danger of constructive refoulement, contrary to Article 33 of the UN convention. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, seems to have a doubt on that point. But if people cannot live where they are, they tend to go somewhere else at whatever risk. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, suggested, it is an alternative that they may live in a disorderly way. The threat to public order has long been recognised by Ministers of the Crown as one of the most important reasons for supporting the destitute, including over the centuries a great many who have come from other countries. Most of us have ancestors who have come here from other countries at some stage in their lives in a state of destitution, often as victims of persecution, and who have enjoyed the hospitality of this country. I think that we should pass on the generosity from which our ancestors benefited.
  There is also a real risk of legal trouble if something of this sort is not done. I have spoken before about the potential conflict between the powers of statute and the principles of natural justice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, indicated that he very much agreed with me that it is better for that not to be explored too thoroughly. I said that there were some things which one does not really want to find out, when dealing with the question of which of these has the superior authority. The noble and learned Lord nodded vigorously. I agree with him.
  This Bill, seen from the perspective of the courts, might seem like an attempt to interfere with justice. I do not want the supremacy of statute or natural justice to have to be argued out; but we should not lead Her Majesty's judges into temptation. If this Bill is not amended, I think that Her Majesty's judges will be led into temptation. It is not for me to say whether or not they will resist it, but it is a risk that I do not think we ought to take. We ought not to interfere with the course of justice, as will be done if people are deprived of support while they have perfectly valid outstanding claims to a hearing. That is my central reason for supporting this group of amendments.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: Amendment No. 157 stands in my name and that of my noble friend, as well that of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. It is a different drafting of a similar point to that expressed in Amendment No. 155 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I prefer the drafting of our amendment and, until I have heard the Minister's response, I have no reason to change my mind as regards the detailed differences between the two formulations.

  1079
  There is a point of principle behind what is proposed, but there is also an extremely practical point as to when the support will stop during the legal process. With due respect to the noble Earl, it is not a point which can be decided solely on the basis of our traditions in this country. Nevertheless, I sympathise with a great deal of what the noble Earl said.
  However, the situation has changed in recent years. The world has become smaller and there are more economic migrants. As was said in our earlier debates, many of us would seek to be economic migrants if we did not have the good fortune to live in this or a comparable country. Nevertheless we have to distinguish between economic migrants and the genuine seekers of asylum who deserve it and whom we all wish to assist.
  As I say, I have no particular pride as between the two formulations that are proposed. However, a real point of principle and also a highly practical point lies behind both of them.
  The Earl of Dartmouth: As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, I have not attended the many days of discussion on this Bill. However, I feel flattered that a mere nine-word intervention from me should inspire paragraphs of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and an entire speech from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to be printed in Hansard. I am a tremendous admirer of the speaking abilities of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I always enjoy his speeches. Therefore I feel even more flattered that a nine-word intervention from me should inspire an entire speech from him.
  However, there is a serious point here. I asked whether the measure had the support of the British taxpayer. I infer from the lengthy address of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the eloquent speech of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the short answer to that is "no". Although I have attended few of the proceedings during the passage of the Bill through this Chamber I was present when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, introduced this Bill with his customary eloquence. However, he seemed to me to imply that he rather disagreed with that introduction. I do not have his words in front of me but he mentioned a large number of statistics which appear to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt to an objective person that there are a large number of bogus asylum seekers who have come here in order to live off the British taxpayer. That is what the statistics demonstrate.
  Bogus asylum seekers abuse our hospitality and exploit our humanitarian feelings. That goes against the grain of British generosity and fair play which the noble Baroness so rightly mentioned. Many people have participated in debates on this Bill during its passage through the Chamber but it seems to me that the interests of the taxpayer have been under-represented.
  I wish to make a point of detail on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I am not picking on him; it is just the way "the cards break". There is a logical fallacy at the heart of what he said. He said that 81 per cent of immigration applications are granted by judicial
  1080
  review after leave to appeal has been granted. One has to make a separate application to get leave to appeal. The leave to appeal is a screening process. One would expect that to be the case. The amendment states,
  "in the event that either party indicates an intention to apply for leave to appeal".
  Therefore, however weak their case, they can string out the legal process and live off the British taxpayer.
  As I heard the Minister introduce the Bill—that seems many months ago—it seemed to me that the Bill's intention was to rebalance the application of the law as between asylum seékers and the taxpayer. The Government's unexpected interest in the welfare of the taxpayer is very welcome. I urge the Government Front Bench to stand firm against these and other self-interested and unobjective amendments.
  Lord Hylton: The intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, has reinforced the point I have tried to make on previous occasions. We are seeking the highest quality of decision at the first instance when a case is tested. If that can be achieved, it will bring with it considerable savings, not only in legal appeals and tribunal costs but also in social security support.
  Earl Russell: May I ask the noble Earl to withdraw the word "self-interested"?
  The Earl of Dartmouth: Of course; I do not have the noble Earl's felicity of phrase. I shall write to him when I have had a long time to think about it and have come up with a better and more accurate word.
  Lord Dholakia: I do not want go down the same road as the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth. There are no ways in which we in this House can gauge the effect on taxpayers of what we do unless we promote a referendum of some kind on these matters. I remind the noble Earl that it was a Conservative government who undertook the obligation of admitting 28,000 Ugandan Asians to this country. They did not ask for a referendum; they did not ask the taxpayer; it was an act of compassion.
  The Earl of Dartmouth: I must answer the noble Lord's point. The Ugandan Asians were genuine asylum seekers; we are talking here about bogus asylum seekers. That is the concern of people in this country. If the noble Lord had stood in an election recently he would know that.
  Lord Dholakia: We are not talking about bogus asylum seekers; we are talking about genuine asylum seekers who are being persecuted, who need help, and who have come to this country for help. Those are the people we are talking about. The entire Bill is about how to help genuine asylum seekers to this country. My comments applied not only to the Ugandan Asians but also to the Vietnamese refugees, to people from Kosovo, as was mentioned, and to Hong Kong citizens, as my noble friend has just reminded me.

  1081
  But let us not be diverted by that red herring. The Government indicated in the Commons that consideration would be given to making funds available to organisations which support asylum seekers who are granted leave to seek judicial review. Obviously, that is a welcome sign. However—perhaps the Minister can help me—the Legal Aid Board's recommendation to the Lord Chancellor suggests that legal aid will be available for applications for leave for judicial review, subject to strict merit and means tests. In cases where leave has been granted, legal aid should generally follow the eligible clients as a matter of course. Only those quality approved organisations with a contract will be able to apply for legal aid to seek leave. It is therefore unclear why asylum seekers who have been granted legal aid to apply for leave for judicial review should be denied subsistence support.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this is an important issue. Let me make a preliminary point. Although one of the amendments refers to "dependent children", all of these amendments would affect only asylum seekers without dependent children. Under the provisions of subsection (5) of Clause 84, those asylum seekers who have dependent children will remain entitled to assistance under Part VI for as long as they remain in this country, even where their claims for asylum have been finally determined. So in this range of amendments, we are talking only about adults without dependants.
  There are various gradations in the amendments. The most extreme—I do not put that in any pejorative way— is the one that says that support should be provided until the asylum seeker is removed from this country, irrespective of whether any kind of proceedings are continued and irrespective of whether the asylum seeker deliberately seeks to evade removal. The proposals then go down in gradations, seeking to cover various kinds of legal proceedings.
  Perhaps I may briefly set out the policy. Under Clause 84, by the time an asylum seeker ceases to be eligible for support, he will have had his claim for asylum considered, first, by the Home Secretary. Assuming that that claim has been rejected, he will have had the opportunity to appeal to the immigration adjudicator, who is independent of the Home Secretary. If that has proved unsuccessful his case may be taken to the immigration appeals tribunal. And if that is unsuccessful, he may also take it to the Court of Appeal. I should say in parenthesis that some of the amendments refer to support being extended pending a hearing in the Court of Appeal. Support would continue in any event, whether there is an application to the Court of Appeal in respect of an appeal from the immigration appeals tribunal.
  We are talking about a situation where an adult asylum seeker with no dependants has potentially had his claim heard by four separate executive bodies or independent tribunals: the Home Secretary; the appeals adjudicator; the immigration appeals tribunal; and the Court of Appeal. That is a fair and extensive judicial process for the consideration of a claim.
  1082
  There may be a small number of cases where there is scope for further examination of the case by the court. I should add that no more than a quarter of applications for judicial review, which is one route that can be followed instead of the process to which I have referred, actually result in the granting of leave. However, I should make it clear that the Government recognise that there is a role for such a challenge. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, rightly pointed out, some of these challenges do succeed. They most often succeed not on the basis of the merits of the claim, but on the basis that there should be some reconsideration by one or other of the bodies to which I have referred.
  We recognise the validity of this limited role for further challenge by making available funds to the voluntary sector to provide further support for hard cases who are still pursuing such applications. Indeed, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, might be a means of indicating which are such cases; for example, cases where leave has been granted, or cases where legal aid has been granted because the Legal Aid Board takes the view that there is merit in the application, although ultimately it must be a matter for the voluntary sector as to where it believes its money should be spent. I should make it clear that the power to give grants to the voluntary sector in what is now Clause 102 was extended in another place to cover support of former asylum seekers precisely to cater for such circumstances.
  The concern of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness is to protect former asylum seekers who are seeking further recourse to the courts. The proposal would cover people who are continuing to make representations of any sort, and often without any merit. It would also extend to people whom the Secretary of State has simply not been able to remove for any reason. I remind the Committee that in many cases, sadly, the failure to remove someone reflects that person's lack of co-operation in the removal process.
  It is a sad fact that about two-thirds of all applications for asylum are eventually found to be without merit. Some of those are applications by people who believe themselves to have a real claim for protection that ought to meet the criteria of the 1951 convention. Others are made by people who have reached this country in order to benefit from the better life that is available here without having any real expectation that a claim for asylum would be met.
  To allow everyone who has made an application for asylum an entitlement to support for as long as they remain in this country—which is what the amendment would in effect do—would encourage such people to prolong their claims for as long as possible and by whatever means or representations they could make. It would encourage them not to co-operate in the removal process. The sums we are making available for the support of meritorious asylum claims is considerable. We do not wish to devote yet further resources to supporting former asylum seekers whose claims have proved to be without merit. In substance, we have made available a long, comprehensive and fair judicial system of dealing with these claims.

  1083
  With great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, he overstates the case dramatically and unfairly when he suggests that this is a matter where justice would not be done. He also suggests that the judges would be "tempted" to put natural justice before statute. Involuntary movements of my head on a previous occasion should not be taken in any way to indicate assent to any proposition that Parliament is not sovereign. The courts will always strive to ensure that the statutes are construed in accordance with natural justice. But there is no principle in this country that natural justice can overturn statutes. That appears to be what the noble Earl suggested.
  The procedure laid down by the Bill, giving substantial rights of appeal and ensuring that there is money for the voluntary sector to deal with the hard case, is a well thought-out process. On the one hand, it makes sure that people can pursue their rights sensibly but, on the other, it does not provide a system where there is encouragement to people to apply again and again for leave to apply for judicial review or to make representation after representation to the Home Secretary to ensure that their support continues.
  That is the effect of all the amendments put down by noble Lords. In all of them, the simple act of making an application for leave to apply for judicial review, or further representations to the Home Secretary, prolongs the right to assistance. I do not believe that the balance would be right.
  The noble Baroness shakes her head, but that is the effect of the amendment as drafted.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: The noble Baroness is involuntarily shaking her head and the Minister should not read anything into it. I wish to draw his attention to one aspect of Amendment No. 155A. The phrase used is:
  "and such period shall in any event be extended in the event that either party has been granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal or Court of Session, or leave to move for judicial review".
  The amendment restricts itself to those who have received such leave. That is not because they are continually pressing illegitimately a demand for appeal, but because a court has decided that there are sufficient grounds to grant that leave. It would rule out a great many of the cases to which the Minister referred. It would place on all fours a right that the court recognised that the appellant had and that should be sustained by offering the appellant sufficient support to enable him to survive until the court has completed its considerations. That is what I understand by justice being seen to be done.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In so far as the application to the Court of Appeal arises as an appeal from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, support will continue in any event. I do not wish to take a drafting point, although I can hardly resist it. The effect of the last three lines of the amendment is that if there are any proceedings pending it would include a further application for leave and then support continues.
  1084
  Let us ignore that and take the noble Baroness's point that all we are dealing with is a case where leave has been granted for judicial review. The way it should be dealt with is by the voluntary sector providing support in hardship cases. That can be an emblem to them of when they should provide support.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: That is the weakness of the Minister's argument. We all accept that there are hardship cases that fall outside the process of review. Those properly fall to the voluntary sector. I find it difficult, even impossible, to accept that while a court has granted judicial review to an asylum seeker—and in some parts of the Bill judicial review is recognised as being the acceptable route—the Immigration Appeal Tribunal is not open to the asylum seeker though there are parts of the Bill of which that is true. It also covers convention appeals. In those instances it is incumbent on any government to provide adequate support to enable the appellant to be sustained while he completes his legal rights. He cannot misuse them because he is dependent on the court giving him leave to make that further step.
  Earl Russell: Before we go any further I should like to clear my name from the suggestion that I was arguing that the principles of natural justice overrode statute. I may have inadvertently misled the House because I took trouble not to repeat myself. It seems that I was mistaken. I think that I dealt with the point on Clause 9. The principle on which I was relying was that stated by the Master of the Rolls in R v. Home Secretary ex parte Fayed. If Parliament wishes to confer a power to act unfairly it must say so in express words. That respects parliamentary sovereignty, and it was and is my position.
  The Home Office's record in predicting the results of judicial reviews should not inspire us with confidence on whether that will interfere with the course of justice. One cannot know what the result of a case will be before the case is over. One may often vehemently suspect that there will be a particular result, but favourites do not always win, as all bookies know. It is not possible to tell the result of a case without hearing it. The deprivation of support may prevent a hearing and may therefore deny justice. It is argued that we cannot give such people support because it only encourages them. We have all been careful to moderate our language, but I cannot find that acceptable.
  The Lord Bishop of Southwark: The Minister has said several times that the Government intend to grant funds to the voluntary sector for the hard cases that have been discussed. Have the voluntary organisations been consulted on that and have they given their consent to be involved in that way?
  The Earl of Dartmouth: I do not know whether I am out of order, but I want to point out that, despite my earlier remarks, I was struck by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. If leave for appeal has been granted, a large proportion of the argument that I put forward earlier falls away and there

  1085
  is a reasonable case for support, which the Government should at least consider. It will be interesting to hear the Minister respond to that thought.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The persuasive powers of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, are unrivalled to have secured the agreement of the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth. It is an unholy alliance, if I may say so.
  The noble Baroness has moderated her position. She appears to have accepted that it would be right for the voluntary sector to support certain hard cases. Her argument appears to be that when leave to apply for judicial review has been granted, it is not appropriate for the voluntary sector to be involved, but there should be a right to continuing support.
  That is one moderately small category of case, although the amendments are wide-ranging. Even in those cases—which will also be hard cases, but the easiest ones for the voluntary sector to identify—there should not be a right to support. The Government should make such support available indirectly through the voluntary sector.
  We have consulted the voluntary sector on the right reverend Prelate's request and we are in continuing discussions on the issue.
  10 p.m.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: In response to some of the points made by the Minister, I should like to draw his attention to correspondence I have received from two groups I met here, along with other noble Lords. They are from the voluntary sector, and it may well be that the Government are still in discussion with them. I hope that the Government will take note of the kind of comments made by the Brentwood Diocesan Commission for Justice & Peace in a letter to me following last week's meeting. It states:
  "For many years, the voluntary organisations and faith groups have provided a much-needed safety net for asylum seekers, especially the destitute, and particularly since the Immigration and Asylum Act 1996. The work of this sector is recognised and valued by the Home Office to such an extent that it is now proposed, under the new Bill, to co-opt these organisations directly into the administration of official support arrangements for asylum seekers, and to provide funding for the work undertaken.
  This creates a moral dilemma for the voluntary sector. Care of the destitute, and alleviation of their plight, is the main objective of much of the work of the organisations involved and in particular of faith groups. Now they are being asked to administer a system that is inherently biased against the interests of many asylum seekers, and which will operate under very strict guidelines. Co-opted agencies will not be permitted, for example, to assist asylum seekers who fall outside the proposed support arrangements and for whom the future will be bleak".
  I will not quote at length from a second letter from the Notre Dame Refugee Centre in London. This letter was sent to the Minister of State and is dated 15th July. The letter states:
  "As the director of just such a group, connected with the French Catholic Church of Notre Dame de France, I wish to express the dilemma we face in regard to the new measures proposed".
  The voluntary organisations, the Churches and the charities which came to the House for a meeting last week in the Moses Room expressed concerns about the
  1086
  way this is being carried out. For that reason, I hope that when the Minister reflects on the debate he will weigh those questions carefully.
  I welcome what he had to say about exemptions, and I am grateful for that. However, it raises an interesting point about the anomalies in the Bill. I am glad that we are showing compassion to families with dependants, who will continue to receive support. But why is it that someone, simply because he does not have dependants, will not have the same access to the judicial system? Is not that in itself discriminatory, and does that not put yet another anomaly into the system? We should be even-handed in this matter.
  I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, for his subsequent intervention in the debate. I hope that he will continue to play an active part in our proceedings and will make further interventions like the second one he made. However, I am always arrested in my tracks when people talk of immigrants and asylum seekers as those who want only to take out of the system. In different terms, the Minister spoke of two-thirds coming here without merit. Those people are economic migrants who want to come here for a better life.
  Like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who has spoken in these terms in other debates, I remember my own family history. That makes me feel that you should do to others as you would wish to be done by others. In my case, my mother came here at the end of the war as an immigrant. Her parents had died of meningitis and she left a large family in the west of Ireland. If it had not been for the generosity she was shown when she arrived here, I do not know what would have happened to her. Was she an economic migrant? Was she someone who would have been one of the two-thirds without merit? I do not know. However, I do know that many people who have arrived here for various reasons have made a significant contribution and have put a thousandfold back into the life of our nation.
  The noble Earl, Lord Russell, reminded us of our duties since Magna Carta. He also reminded us of our own Judaeo-Christian tradition of treating the alien in the land as you would wish to be treated yourself. It is written in the discourses on the Decalogue, where Jews, Moslems and Christians look to that system of values. We should always treat the alien in the land with justice.
  The other side of the coin of justice is the word "mercy". If there is something missing in our debates thus far, I believe that it has been inadequate reference to the word "mercy". People who find themselves in the desperate circumstances described by noble Lords in speaking to these amendments should not only be treated justly but also mercifully. We have had a useful airing of the issues, and we may well wish to return to them at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 155A not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 155B:
  Page 55, line 6, leave out ("of his, or of his spouse,").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 155C:
  Page 55, line 7, leave out ("dependent on him") and insert ("a dependant of his").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 156:
  After Clause 84, insert the following new clause—

  ELIGIBILITY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS WHILST AWAITING ASYLUM DECISIONS
  (" . An asylum-seeker, and his dependants if any, shall be eligible for any social security benefits to which they would have been entitled if neither Part VI of this Act nor Schedule 1 to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 had been in force, until such time as the Secretary of State has placed a report in the Library of the House of Commons giving details of the average process times in the determination of—

  (a) initial asylum decisions; and

  (b) appeals to adjudicators against initial asylum decisions,

  and certifying that the average time from the lodging of an application for asylum to the determination of an adjudicator of the appeal against the initial asylum decision is less than six months.").
  The right reverend Prelate said: This amendment has an obvious and clear purpose. It proposes that the voucher system will not be triggered until the Government's target of six months for initial application and appeal is met and certified by the Secretary of State by means of a report placed in the Library of the House of Commons. We owe a debt to the parliamentary adviser to the Refugee Council, Mike Kaye—I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Alton—who has provided a good deal of explanation to many of us. However, this amendment is tabled with the support of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and the Asylum Rights Campaign.
  The Government have already indicated that they would trigger the voucher system for families with children only when the target is met. This amendment extends that trigger to all families and single people. In support of the amendment I put forward four arguments. First, under the Government's proposal that the trigger should extend only to families with children, there is a great danger that their applications will be processed quickly while all others will be left on the slower track. That has happened in similar circumstances in the past. For example, under the 1993 Act all new applicants were processed quickly but those already in the system were left to languish for an average of six and a half years for initial decision. Although I do not suggest for a moment that that will apply in the present case, there is necessarily a strong possibility of a slower track for those without children. Under present arrangements, they will be on the voucher system for the whole of the waiting period.
  Secondly, there is a stigma attached to vouchers. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has already spoken to this matter, to which we shall return later in Committee.
  My third, and perhaps strongest, argument relates to cost. The cost of the asylum support directorate will be considerable. The additional cost of the voucher system is substantial. To what purpose? The Government may well argue that it is to keep out economic migrants who want to take advantage of our benefits system. There is no evidence that the changes which have already been made have affected the number of asylum seekers. The Government believe that the drop in asylum applications during 1996 was the consequence of the removal of benefits from in-country applicants, but the drop in asylum applicants began three months before the benefits were withdrawn. There was no last-minute rush to get in. The fact that 1995 saw the second highest number of asylum seekers ever received in the United Kingdom made it highly likely that the figure would drop in 1996.
  Moreover, the pattern of applications has not changed. In-country applications still represented some 49 per cent of all applications made in 1997 and 1998, despite the fact that in-country applicants did not have access to benefits. If benefits in cash were an incentive, port applications would be expected to increase. There would also be an expectation of an increase in asylum applications in Scotland where cash benefits continue for all applicants, including in-country applicants.
  Is it not likely that most asylum seekers are unaware of the complexities of the scheme which is hard enough for some of us to grasp even when we are not under pressure and have the benefit of considerable advice and support? For what purpose is the asylum support directorate being established? I realise that its purpose is wider than simply the administration of the voucher scheme. It will manage dispersal as well as support. But if it does not keep asylum seekers out, what does it do? Does it reassure the natives? That is us. If that is the purpose, the comment of the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, is relevant here. Do we wish to bear the cost of such reassurance? It seems to me that the interests of asylum seekers and taxpayers coincide at this point.
  Is there not a much better use for many of the resources that are being put into the asylum support directorate? Could they be used by the asylum directorate? I find this language very confusing. I understand that the asylum directorate is that part of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate which deals with asylum applications. But it is confusing to have a term so similar to "asylum support directorate". I hope that I have indicated their responsibilities in the correct way.
  The asylum directorate is concerned in the making of initial determinations. Surely support put towards it would meet the earlier point of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that good initial determinations are a key to reducing the backlog, and to ensuring that the later stages of the process referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, are not invoked.
  The Public and Commercial Services Union, which represents about 2,000 of the Home Office officials in the IND, has estimated that the switch of resources from

  1089
  the asylum support directorate to the asylum directorate would enable an additional 51,000 initial determinations a year to be made. That is a huge number and would begin to make credible the government claims that that will reduce the period of initial determination and appeal to six months in all cases; or at least to an average of six months. At the moment, it is difficult to believe that those targets will be achieved. The backlog of applications awaiting initial determination rose by 13,000 in 1998, and by a further 13,515 in the first five months of 1999. The backlog of initial determinations has risen every month from March 1998, when it was 50,590, to May 1999, when it was 78,285—an increase of almost 30,000.
  In its evidence to the Special Standing Committee, the Public and Commercial Services Union has described the proposed targets of the Government as wholly unrealistic. It estimates that there will still be a backlog of nearly 50,000 initial applications by April 2001. That is the date by which the Government hope to clear the backlog. In the face of that evidence, on what further evidence do the Government claim that their figure is achievable?
  The point is important because the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, argued that the new support system is fair if it is applied for only a short period. In Hansard of 29th June 1999 at col. 251 he said:
  "I do not pretend that that is a wealth untold, but it is not unreasonable … if we can deliver on the two-month and four-month targets".
  Is not the corollary that it is unreasonable if the Government cannot deliver on those targets? I suggest that the evidence points to the possible, indeed probable, failure to do so.
  I return to my original argument. The costs of the asylum support directorate could be very considerably used to enable the Government to deliver on these targets by reallocating at least some of the resources to the IND for use within the asylum directorate for making initial determinations. The case seems overwhelming, especially as it is likely to get the Government out of a very considerable difficulty. The Home Office Minister in the other place, Mr Mike O'Brien, recognised that,
  "increasing the speed at which decisions are taken is a key to resolving problems in the asylum system. That is the best deterrent and the best way of resolving the appalling shambles that is our current system".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/5/99; col. 1599.]
  Provided that that is done with a proper attention to good initial decisions resulting in fewer appeals, we should all say "amen" to that.
  The amendment would not do away with vouchers, but it would considerably reduce the responsibilities of the asylum support directorate, which the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, has already claimed will be greatly under-resourced for the responsibilities that it will have to undertake. Instead of the directorate being invited to perpetuate a system that is inefficient and that will do nothing to achieve the Government's objectives, the amendment will reduce its responsibilities and enable some of the resources to be used more efficiently
  1090
  and effectively to decrease the backlog. A smaller bureaucracy will be all that is necessary to deal with the situation that will then pertain.
  I recognise that my argument builds largely on the claim that the resources directed to the asylum support directorate could be directed elsewhere and that that might be considered slightly wide of an argument for the amendment as it stands. I wish to end my remarks with an argument that is directed precisely to the amendment. Before doing so, I shall summarise my first three arguments, which are the dangers of the two-track system—one for families with children and one for families without—the stigma attached to vouchers and the cost of the asylum support directorate.
  I suggest a fourth argument. If the Government are confident of meeting their targets, what is their difficulty in accepting the amendment? By doing so, they would be expressing their confidence in their judgment that the targets will be reached, so triggering the reduction of benefits. On the other hand, if the Government resist the amendment, they will clearly signal that they do not have confidence in their ability to reach the targets. Let the Government clearly send the opposite signal that they believe the targets will be met and the new support system will come into being. Let them avoid the situation that will pertain if they fail and, if this amendment is not accepted, the result that large numbers of asylum seekers will be left on a system that will provide them with support that—by implication from the words of the Minister in the other place—will be unreasonable for the long period that they will have to survive before their applications will be heard. I beg to move.
  Earl Russell: Some weeks ago I was approached by members of the Rationalist Press Association. They asked me to subscribe to a press release arguing that a reformed House should not include any Bishops. To their utter dismay, I refused point blank to do any such thing. We have heard tonight some of the reasons why I did so. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon has brought to our debates on the subject not only a wealth of pastoral experience but a philosophical position that, because it is oblique to those normally held by politicians, has immeasurably enriched our debates on this subject. We are privileged to have him here and I was delighted to listen to him.
  On the matter of the amendment, I am reminded of an occasion when I was new in my lecturing job. The college maintained that it could only manage to pay us once every two months, because it was far too difficult to do anything else. A senior professor who was expert in accountancy was allowed to examine the books. He came back rubbing his hands in glee, saying that he had heard that there was once such a system of accounting but he had never thought to be privileged to see it in operation.
  That is very much the way I feel when I look at paragraph 8.19 of the White Paper. It indicates that the Government are committed to providing such a safety net, but they are determined to do so in a way which minimises the incentive for abuse by those who do not really need the support or who would make an

  1091
  unfounded asylum application in order to obtain the provision. That is the myth of our exceptionally generous benefits system. That myth is etched into our national consciousness, but it is about as out of date as the belief that Britannia rules the waves.
  A little over 24 hours ago, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford was in the Chamber and spoke extremely powerfully in a debate on an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, about the inadequacy of our benefit levels. He and I were among many speakers in every quarter of the Chamber who supported the proposition of the Acheson Report, itself a reputable enough source, that our benefit levels are now too low to sustain good health. If we look at them in a comparative dimension, they are on the low side of the EU benefits. I understand that Eurostat figures create technical problems with which I shall not detain the House, but whichever way we look at it we are somewhere in the bottom half of the EU as regards generosity of benefit levels. According to methods of calculation, we come probably somewhere between ninth and twelfth; either just above or just below Ireland, depending on the method of calculation chosen.
  If benefits are acting as an incentive to draw people to one country in the West rather than another, one would expect the flow of applicants to this country to be rapidly diminishing because our levels of benefit are not among those which are particularly generous. I have previously given reasons for doubting how much they know in the back streets of Jaffna about British benefit levels. But if they do know, it is not working. If they do not know, it never will work. In any case, it gives me some apprehension to think of conducting a Dutch auction between the prosperous countries of the world as to which can lower their benefit levels fastest in order to make themselves least attractive to asylum seekers. If it is a Dutch auction, we are near enough to winning it not to need to put in a bid to undercut ourselves!
  In the case of China, we have some interesting evidence about how far benefit levels attract or deter. Before the benefit changes, 71 per cent of Chinese asylum applications were at ports. In 1997–98, when only port applicants received benefits, those figures had dropped to 26 per cent and 25 per cent. Clearly, these people are not acting as a classic free-market economic man either because the need to live is more important than the level of benefits or, more likely, because they do not know the information.
  Whether it is really a good idea to deter and make less attractive when we are already in the bottom half and people do not know what is happening anyway is a difficult issue. The level of benefits is low enough already, but it appears to me that what is being offered here, whatever the Government may say against it, is lower than the benefit level that is available to other people.
  The Government make several points about utensils and so forth, but there is a vital principle involved in the possession of cash; namely, choice. If you are supplied with all your own equipment, as I am sure all
  1092
  those who have rented holiday villas have discovered occasionally the hard way, what is provided is not actually what you need.
  Let us take the case of the Chinese asylum seekers to whom I referred just now. How many of them will move into social housing in Newcastle or Salford and find that they have been provided with a wok? I would guess not very many. That sort of problem will be repeated over and over again. Utility costs are quoted, but the percentage of a budget which goes on utility costs varies quite sharply from household to household. The calculation of a standard amount will be wrong in a great many cases.
  It is argued that we can have a lower level of benefit because there will be no need to replace items. As the right reverend Prelate touched on, that is true only if the Government genuinely achieve their targets and people are on benefit vouchers in the short term. But in fact, even in the short term, it will not be true anyway. We know that many people who came out of Kosovo came carrying only what they could grab in a few seconds as they turned to run. For those people, replacement costs will be an extremely high proportion of their budget. There is no allowance in the vouchers for any equivalent of access to the Social Fund. That alone would make the figures very far from reliable.
  On the first amendment on this part, the Minister said that we must take account of costs. I agree with him. I have often said so in this Chamber. But one of the objections to the Government's proposals is that, considering the cost of administration, the costs of the Government's proposals are actually higher than those of using an existing benefits system which has a well-established administration to run it. The Government are spending more in order to give less. In my book, that is not good value for money. When one considers cost, I believe that that is an argument for deferring what the Government are doing.
  The Minister also said that we should take equal account of those who are destitute in our own country, and that we should not attempt a higher standard of provision than we give to them. I believe that that was roughly the purport of his argument. If he said anything like that—it is my recollection that he did so—
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I said quite clearly that when discussing the level of different sorts of benefits to be given to those who come from other countries, it must be in the general context of what we provide for our own. I am happy to repeat that.
  Earl Russell: I entirely accept that proposition. It is to that proposition that I was arguing yesterday. I believe that that provision is itself inadequate. Our provision for asylum seekers should not be more inadequate than that. However, I believe that the Government's current proposals are indeed thus. I take the point already made by the Minister that in this case we are dealing with single people, not with families with children. The concession made on children today is one which I welcome very warmly indeed.

  1093
  But single people have rights too. The tendency to assume that single people cannot be in hardship is one that I increasingly deplore. Of course one must care for children. But if you are single and your stomach is empty, it hurts just as much.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I put my name down to the amendment, but with all my characteristic ingenuity, I can think of nothing to add to the speech made by the right reverend Prelate or to that of the noble Earl opposite. Therefore, I do not wish to say anything more.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I fear that clapping will break out sharply throughout the Chamber. I should like to add a few words in support of the right reverend Prelate's amendment. I echo the remarks by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in paying tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. Many of us know that he will shortly be retiring from the House and indeed will not be here for the Report stage of the Bill.
  I believe that we shall be the poorer as a result of that. I also believe that asylum seekers and refugees, who have benefited so much over the years from contributions made on their behalf, will be the poorer as well. We hope that there will be many more platforms on which to advance their cause in the future.
  In opening the debate the right reverend Prelate referred to the stigmatising effect of vouchers. I was struck by some remarks made to me by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, hardly a radical organisation trying to drag down the Government. That organisation took a long look at the voucher system.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not sure why the noble Lord is talking about the merits or demerits of vouchers rather than the merits or demerits of the amendment.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I shall refer to their relevance to the amendment in due course, if the Minister will forbear. The right reverend Prelate, in introducing the amendment, referred to vouchers. That was not commented on by the Minister. As this amendment deals with eligibility for social security benefits while awaiting asylum decisions, and the new system will incorporate vouchers into that limited system, it seems perfectly relevant and in order to refer to them. A few moments ago, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, described at some length the disadvantageous effects of the voucher system. I shall simply add a few remarks of my own.
  The CAB has stated:
  "the voucher system will inevitably lead to social exclusion and discrimination … A system which requires asylum seekers to identify themselves as such whenever they visit the supermarket can only foster these regrettable features of our society".
  That may make for unpalatable listening; nevertheless, it is a fact that if people have to produce vouchers in supermarkets when living—if other parts of this legislation are enacted—in dispersed areas, sometimes on sink estates or in areas where there may be
  1094
  considerable deprivation already, they can easily become targets for racism and vicious assaults by people who would resent their presence. Therefore, they will be stigmatised and singled out.
  The issue of value for money was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I agree with him. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the evidence given to the Special Standing Committee by Kent Social Services that the voucher system was,
  "the difference between 4p and 14p in the pound".
  That means that the voucher system is three and a half times more expensive than benefits. So where is the value for money? Where is the benefit to the taxpayers about which we have heard so much this evening?
  I also want to support the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the level of these entitlements that will be made available to people in the United Kingdom in future. In a comparison with our European neighbours, we do not appear very high in the league table. Although Germany receives twice as many asylum applications as we do, it provides £38.63p a week compared with our £27.90p a week, of which only £10 a week is paid in cash. Switzerland and the Netherlands, which take about the same number of asylum seekers as we do, provide £41.07p and £46.58p respectively. Therefore, it is clear that we are not over-generous in our provision for asylum seekers, as the amendment standing in the name of the right reverend Prelate recognises.
  The voucher system has been tried and found wanting in other countries. In the early 1990s, Switzerland, for example, operated a system that allowed refugees to be given vouchers, but it was found to be administratively cumbersome. The agency that co-ordinates the work of refugees in Switzerland, the OSAR, was not aware, when asked, of any district still using the voucher system. The system has been abandoned because it was demeaning for asylum seekers and impractical to operate.
  For all those reasons, I feel that the system that the Bill introduces will fail, that it is ineffective, and that it will stigmatise. For the reasons advanced by the right reverend Prelate, I hope that noble Lords will support the alternative that he has offered.
  Lord Warner: This amendment contains a major flaw. The speeches seemed to be an attempt to re-open the whole issue as to whether or not the asylum support directorate should be established to run a more comprehensive and integrated system of providing support, including accommodation, to asylum seekers. This does not seem to me to be the place to conduct that debate.
  The fundamental problem with Amendment No. 156 is that, if passed, it would effectively require the Government, and the Home Secretary in particular, to organise two systems of support for asylum seekers alongside each other. It would not change the requirement to continue with establishing and putting in place the asylum support directorate and all that goes with it. But it would require the Government to put in place, through the Benefits Agency, arrangements for

  1095
  social security benefits to be paid to asylum seekers in this narrow group of circumstances. That puts further costs on the Government and a further set of arrangements which are unnecessary. I suggest therefore that we do not support the amendment.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall limit myself, as was agreed earlier, to the amendment.
  This clause is trying to focus on the commitment to reduce the time taken to reach an initial decision. I repeat what my right honourable friend Jack Straw said on Report in the other place. He confirmed that asylum seeker families with minor children would not be taken into the new support system at 1st April 2000 unless he was satisfied that the target of two months for a decision time in those cases could be achieved.
  I recognise that that may mean, at the outset of the new support arrangements, that the average waiting time and hence the average time spent on the new support scheme may be a little longer. But continuing with the current support arrangements, as my noble friend Lord Warner indicated a moment ago, is unsustainable. Asylum seekers will receive a fairer deal under the new support arrangements, which is why we want to give effect to them as soon as possible. I cannot agree therefore that it is appropriate to delay the commencement of Part VI in the way suggested.
  I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate is to leave us soon. He and I had helpful discussions which we both found productive, in particular on the Human Rights Act. I had not realised that he was to leave until the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said so and I share his personal regret.
  Earlier this evening we spent a great deal of time with various Members of the Committee urging that we ought to have a two-track system for those, in particular, with children; that is what it came to. Now the two-track system, as it is alleged to be, is said to be utterly wrong in principle. It is said that vouchers are a stigma. But all this amendment does is put off for a time the intermediate period up to the time when asylum seekers would all be on a voucher system. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned cost and the level of benefit across Europe was spoken of. I find those comparisons of limited use. Many countries provide more generous benefits to their own citizens, but do not give the same level to asylum seekers. Many countries have quite separate arrangements.
  I was asked about delay by the right reverend Prelate. We are putting in an additional £120 million over three years to achieve our targets. We are recruiting 2,000 additional caseworkers. Decisions at the moment, in terms of case resolution, have been running at an average of about 900 decisions a week. We have to invest money in casework. We have to provide funding for support in any event. If we look at the overall arrangements in the Bill, they will be more cost effective.
  It is said that benefits are not a magnet. I have to disagree. It is difficult otherwise to explain rationally the large number of applicants from Eastern Europe—
  1096
  I am not talking about the noble Earl's knowledge of those who live in the back streets of Jaffna. A large number of applicants are from Eastern Europe. They have a very low success rate; they make every effort to apply for asylum at port of entry and therefore receive benefits. They generally congregate in the south-east.
  If I inadvertently said an additional 2,000 case workers, I am very sorry. I thought I had said 200. If it was heard correctly or misheard as 2,000 I correct myself immediately. I am obliged to my noble friend Lord Burlison for jogging my arm on that.
  It is said that changes in application rates in 1996 were not as a result of benefit changes. I believe that they were. It is very difficult to resist the conclusion that the withdrawal of benefits, draconian though it was, did not have an effect.
  In summary, therefore, we have come to a policy decision. We have given the undertaking which I have repeated and which Jack Straw made about families with dependent children. Being realistic, as I say, there may be a slightly longer time than average spent when the new support scheme starts. We are intent on starting it. I am not going to re-traverse the dispute about vouchers, whether families with children should be treated differently and whether the cost is going to be affected. I believe that we shall deliver something which is efficient, effective and humane. Therefore, I ask the Committee not to agree to this amendment.
  Earl Russell: Before the Minister again speaks in that slightly dismissive way about the low rate of successful applications from eastern Europe, I ask him to look at the Refugee Legal Centre's hearings on the claims of the Roma who landed at Dover. I believe he will find that it is not quite as simple as he suggested.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I set the facts before the Committee.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am greatly warmed by the gracious words of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. I particularly liked the way in which the noble Earl phrased his impression of the distinctive contribution which came from these Benches and which we hope that we shall be permitted to continue. I also very much enjoyed the humour with which he made his points about benefit levels. I know the back streets of Jaffna having lived on the island of Sri Lanka for some years. Indeed, it was my perception of the mismatch between what was happening there and the perception in this country of what was occurring there which first drew me to be concerned with these issues. I am glad to support the remarks the noble Lord made about the inadequacy of the support proposed.
  The noble Lord, Lord Alton, made points about the exclusion which will be induced by having to produce vouchers and the way in which it will be easy for asylum seekers to become targets for the resentful. As regards the major flaw which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, mentioned, it seems that there will have to be two systems because of the concession which has been made

  1097
  for families with children. 'Therefore, regardless of whether this amendment is accepted, or something like it, we shall be operating with two systems.
  The Minister did not address the issue of the Government's confidence in their own ability, even with the additional resources he mentioned, to meet their own targets. It seems to me that in refusing this amendment the Government effectively are having to admit that they are covering themselves in the event of their targets not being realised. I do not believe that it was a satisfactory answer. I hope that we shall return to this matter at Report stage. As has already been mentioned, I shall not myself be present in the House then as a Member. I shall sadly miss not only these debates but those which I have shared in your Lordships' House over the years concerning many matters.
  I was encouraged yesterday to train young Bishops in the issues of immigration and asylum. I mentioned to my colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, that I had received some encouragement to do that. I believe that he was flattered to be considered a young Bishop. In any case, he will be the lead Bishop on the issues of asylum and immigration in your Lordships' House in the future. I know that he will perform that role with great confidence and success. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 157 not moved.]
  Clause 85 [Persons for whom support may be provided]:
  Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool moved Amendment No. 158:
  Page 55, line 23, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 159 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. The purpose of this amendment is to give the Secretary of State not only the power but also the duty to provide support under the scheme in Part VI.
  I would draw the attention of Members of the Committee to the debate which took place in the Special Standing Committee in another place on 4th May of this year. I cannot really better the words of Mr James Clappison, the Member of Parliament for Hertsmere, who spoke on behalf of the official Opposition during those proceedings, when he said:
  "I was curious because the choice of the word "may" rather than the word "shall" seems to envisage asylum seekers or their dependants possibly being destitute according to the conditions described in subsection (1). They could have become destitute, but the Government might choose to withhold support because they are under no duty to provide it. The subsection seems to contemplate a situation where support is withheld. The Minister needs to clear up that curious feature of this Bill".—[Official Report, Commons, Special Standing Committee, 4/5/99; col. 1272.]
  This amendment gives the Government the opportunity to do just that. By definition, the support scheme is a final safety net whose recipients would otherwise be destitute, with nowhere else to turn for food or shelter.
  1098
  It is therefore necessary that the provision of support under the scheme be a matter of duty imposed on the face of the primary legislation. That is why the amendment seeks to leave out the word "may" and to insert "shall".
  Nothing short of that will do, not even assurances from the present government of an intention that the power will always be exercised. To rely on that would be to take the risk that some future Secretary of State will withhold support from the destitute. This is a theme that we have returned to time and again during Committee. It is not the good faith of the present Government or of the Ministers who sit on the Government Benches which is in doubt; it is the possibility that others who follow them, in some future incarnation, may not be prepared to act in the same way. It also ought to be said that if it is unthinkable that any Secretary of State would ever decline to exercise the power, there can be no reason not to make it a duty. That seems to me to be the most powerful argument of all. If it is unthinkable that all this will not be exercised as a duty, why not put it on the face of the Bill?
  In addition to the humanitarian consideration which destitution should always inspire, it should be remembered that some asylum seekers will, in due course, be recognised as refugees to whom the UK owes international duties (not favours) under the 1951 convention. The reason given in another place for rejecting this amendment was that there was a need to retain "flexibility"—again, that word has mentioned a great deal in our debates. I understand the reason why Ministers would want to leave themselves some room for manoeuvre, but it was stated that there would be less flexibility if support were, "an entitlement in the formal sense". Those arguments were not fleshed out and they do not stand as either principled or practical objections to denying recognition of a duty on the Secretary of State to make provision for asylum seekers to receive food and shelter. They are matters of acknowledging responsibility for meeting the basic human rights that anyone is entitled to and should be placed on the face of the legislation.
  The Minister may well say that it is his aim to prevent destitution, rather than waiting for it to happen. However, the issue here is not about "Waiting for Godot", and it is not about flexibility; it is about what duty we ought to impose. It would cost the Government little to put it on the face of the Bill. Not to do so will, conversely, raise serious questions about the Government's reasons for not acting in that way. With those words, I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: Amendment. No. 159, which has been grouped with Amendment No. 158, stands in my name, that of my noble friend and that of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It seems to me that both of them go together, in the sense that Amendment No. 159 seeks to question subsection (2) of Clause 85, which allows the Government in "prescribed circumstances" to exclude people from this support. If anyone is to be excluded

  1099
  under this subsection, subsection (1) has to say "may" rather than "shall"; otherwise, the exclusion would have no effect and there would be an obligation on the Secretary of State to provide the support. Therefore, I do not think that Amendment No. 158 necessarily has the sort of apocalyptic connotations which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, seemed to suggest in part of his remarks.
  However, on the other hand, as will be apparent from the fact that I have tabled Amendment No. 159, I have some interest in who will be excluded from this provision. We obtained some guidance on this matter from the Explanatory Notes that were issued with the Bill. We are all grateful for them. Paragraph 241 states:
  "Regulations can be made under subsection (2) to exclude people from entitlement under prescribed circumstances; for example, a person who had previously caused serious damage to property provided under the support arrangements might be excluded".
  I understand the wish to penalise someone who has caused serious damage to property, but to exclude him entirely from support in those circumstances may or may not be appropriate to the damage which has been caused. The details of that provision would need to be carefully spelt out.
  The paragraph continues:
  "or an asylum seeker who was entitled to benefits".
  It seems to me that under the normal rule a person should not receive two lots of support from the state. Therefore, I am not sure how the final provision in that paragraph would apply. If one assumes that there are asylum seekers who are entitled to benefit, I do not think that they should receive support under the arrangements we are discussing on top of that benefit. I tabled Amendment No. 159 to probe who will be excluded from support under the prescriptions which will be laid down.
  Earl Russell: In supporting both these amendments, I should like to say a few words in support of Amendment No. 159 to which I have added my name. The amendment seeks to delete the words,
  "In prescribed circumstances, a person who would otherwise fall within subsection (1) is excluded".
  This is a Henry VIII clause of a fairly far-reaching kind. It authorises the Secretary of State to remove a right to benefits from such people as he sees fit. I quote only the comments on this clause from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which states,
  "We question the need for clause 85(2), which would enable the Secretary of State to remove this lynchpin of support from those who, in the words of clause 85(1) are 'destitute or … likely to become destitute', and recommend its deletion from the bill, or at the very least that the circumstances under which the power may be exercised are set out on the face of the bill".
  I shall not try to say it better.
  Lord Hylton: When we covered this ground previously, the relevant legislation was in many ways draconian and it appeared likely that many people—
  1100
  many of them with genuine cases—would be left destitute. On that occasion we were rescued by the Court of Appeal which found an earlier statute which could be helpful. There seems to me a strong case for making new legislation certain in the first place. On those grounds, I support Amendment No. 158.
  Lord Avebury: How can an asylum seeker who is entitled to benefits be destitute?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As regards Amendment No. 158, we have in this Bill a clear commitment to establish a proper scheme for the support of asylum seekers. As the Committee will know from the extensive consultations we have already engaged in, we are well on the way to achieving this. There is a clear policy on how we propose to operate the power set out in Clause 85 which will be fleshed out further in regulations covering the operation of the scheme, drawing on the various regulation-making powers that are contained within this part of the Bill.
  Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 are, in effect, two sides of the same coin. They seek to raise the following question; namely, in what circumstances could someone appear to be destitute—because that is the test under the Bill—and yet not receive support under the scheme?
  There is plainly merit in keeping the powers in this area fairly open and flexible. Legislation such as this will be on the statute book for a good number of years and may well have to address scenarios that we do not currently envisage. I would remind the Committee that the number of asylum seekers has grown tenfold over the past 10 years. We do not know what we will need to cope with in the future or how. I doubt that future governments would thank us for tying their hands with a specific duty rather than a flexible power.
  We are committed to ensuring the proper support for people pending the outcome of their asylum applications. The noble Lords cannot be unaware that we are investing considerable resources in establishing comprehensive new support arrangements to be effective from 1st April 2000. We are committed to making these work.
  In relation to the kinds of cases we would wish to take out of support, perhaps I may mention three. First, as the Explanatory Notes indicate, there is a small number of people claiming asylum who may be eligible for social security benefits; for example, those already here on indefinite leave or members of countries that are signatories to the European Social Charter or the European Convention on Medical and Social Assistance. They do not need access to this support. They will be removed from the exclusions from benefit contained in Clause 106 by virtue of regulations under Clause 106(3). The power in Clause 85(2) is complementary to that one.
  Lord Avebury: Such people must be deemed to be destitute because, if they are not deemed to be destitute, they do not come under subsection (1).
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: They would if they appear to the Secretary of State to be destitute. Let us look at the definition of "destitute" in Clause 85(3):
  "For the purposes of this section, a person is destitute if—
  (a) he does not have adequate accommodation or any means of obtaining it … or … he has adequate accommodation or the means of obtaining it, but cannot meet his other essential living needs".
  On the test, he would appear to be destitute, yet he has the means to get benefit and therefore the asylum support scheme should not apply.
  Earl Russell: That is a bigger admission of the inadequacy of benefits than I have heard from any Minister. The noble and learned Lord might like to reconsider his words.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: If a person is here on indefinite leave and has no means of support except access to benefit, he would appear to be destitute under the meaning of Clause 85(1). It seems to me a matter of common sense that he would not there fore be entitled to support both under the benefits system and under the provision of the support scheme under Clause 85. That is all I am saying. It seems to me a short and rather straightforward point. I do not see why he should be supported twice. That would be the effect of the removal of Clause 85(2) and the change of the 'word from "may" to "shall'.
  Let me take a second example. There are those who in some way abuse or seek to exploit the new arrangements. Someone who arrives with £50 in his pocket will very shortly become destitute; there is no suggestion that he should not be covered. But what about someone who arrives with £5000 in cash and who, three days later, turns up claiming to be penniless, with no explanation of where the money went? Would the Committee wish that the full range of assistance be automatically available to that person, even where he presents himself as prima facie destitute? That is a case where he could appear to the Secretary of State otherwise to be destitute.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the Minister proceeds with his remarks, may I press him a little further. We have already recognised in Clause 85(1) that the person concerned is or is likely to be destitute. We secondly find that the Bill, under Clause 85(2), states:
  "In prescribed circumstances, a person who would otherwise fall within subsection (1) is excluded".
  It does not explain in any detail who that person might be. It is a very wide power. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee made clear that such a power is inappropriate in a Bill of this kind. I quote the words of the committee:
  "We question the need for clause 85(2), which would enable the Secretary of State to remove this lynchpin of support from those who, in the words of clause 85(1) are 'destitute or … likely to become destitute', and recommend its deletion from the bill, or at very least that the circumstances under which the power may be exercised are set out on the face of the bill".
  1102
  This is a matter of great seriousness. The Government have been responsive to many of the points that we have made. However, it is fair to say that we know of no case where a recommendation expressed in such powerful terms by the Select Committee has been rejected by a government. I think that those Members of the Opposition who represent the Conservative Party will be able to confirm that that is their experience with regard to the government who were in power until 1997.
  We beg Ministers to think again about this provision. It would set a very dangerous precedent, one that would enable Henry VIII powers to be widely introduced. Certainly, to disregard the advice of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation without the most powerful arguments being adduced— and with great respect to the Minister they have not so far been adduced—seems to us extremely unwise.
  11 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I confirm that it is my understanding that the previous government did accept the recommendations of the Select Committee.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: First, I accept that this is a very important issue. I accept that it is sufficiently important for the noble Baroness to repeat the ipsissima verba of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who quoted precisely the same part of the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. That was a perfectly legitimate response.
  With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, she asked for the circumstances to be explained in which there will be cases where a person might appear to be destitute but would not receive support under the asylum support scheme. I have indicated the first occasion, which is where a person might be eligible for benefit; the person would fall within the provisions in Clause 85(1) but it would not be appropriate to obtain support under the scheme. The second example I gave was where a person may appear to be destitute but the circumstances in which that person has become destitute are so suspicious that the Secretary of State should be entitled, without necessarily having to go behind the appearance of destitution, to say that benefit is not appropriate in this case. The third case is the one referred to in the Explanatory Notes; namely, where a person has previously caused serious damage to property provided under the support arrangements.
  One of the two circumstances in which a person is to be treated as destitute under the terms of the Bill is where that person does not have adequate accommodation or a means of obtaining it, whether or not other essential living needs are met. What is the state to do where someone who has been provided with adequate accommodation severely damages that property and does so on a number of occasions? Is the state obliged in those circumstances to go on providing property?
  The examples that I give cannot be exhaustive. However, they indicate three perfectly sensible cases where it would not be appropriate to provide support under the benefit scheme provided under Clause 85. If

  1103
  that is correct, it is right that Clause 85 should not be in terms of duty but in terms of power. Secondly, it is right, as a reinforcement or reverse of that, that there should be circumstances in which the Secretary of State can prescribe circumstances in which someone who would otherwise appear to be destitute could be excluded from the support scheme under Clause 85.
  Having said that, I should make it clear that we have given undertakings that we will provide a comprehensive new support arrangement, which we are determined should be effective from 1st April 2000. I should also make clear that these arrangements would take the form of regulations governing the operation of the scheme which will obviously come before Parliament again. In those circumstances, there is not much between us. Once it is established that there are circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to provide someone with support under the scheme who otherwise appeared to be destitute, the form of drafting appears to me appropriate. This is about drafting and nothing else.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: Perhaps I may take it one stage further. As the Minister argues that there are clear circumstances where the continuation of any form of support would be inappropriate—and one can think of examples—would he be willing to accede to the Committee's proposal that this be set out on the face of the Bill? Can the noble and learned Lord tell the Committee why he believes that, so far at least, that has not proved to be possible?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Because it would be inappropriate in a case such as this exhaustively to set out the circumstances in which someone would not be entitled to support under the scheme. This scheme will last for a considerable time. It must be sufficiently flexible for the benefit of both the asylum seeker and the taxpayer in the sense of what is available and what is not. In determining a whole system of support, it does not seem to me that the details should be on the face of primary legislation.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: The Minister responded in terms that many of us assumed he would as regards this debate. It is very much in line with the remarks made by the Minister of State in another place. The noble and learned Lord will not be surprised that some of us found them a little disappointing, although we recognise that he has also expressed his determination to ensure that this does not militate against the most disadvantaged.
  The basic proposition in our argument does not question the good faith of the Minister or the Home Office but how it might be interpreted by others if it is not written on to the face of the Bill. The only flexibility that is available by not incorporating the word "shall" instead of "may" in Clause 85 is the flexibility not to provide destitute asylum seekers with food and shelter. I find that extraordinary.
  I do not believe a great deal separates us on the need to address the problem. As the Minster has marginally left the door ajar for him to think about the wording of
  1104
  the amendment, I hope that between now and Report stage we will have a chance to see whether there is a form of words which would meet the arguments. I suspect that otherwise Members of the Committee will wish to return to the subject. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 160:
  Page 56, line 5, at end insert ("except insofar as that fact may affect adversely the welfare of a child").
  The noble Lord said: In view of the extensive debate earlier on Amendment No. 156, I take the view that children and those with children should be given an element of special consideration in the arrangements that we make under this part of the Bill. It is one narrow and special point. The idea of the amendment is to prevent children being put at risk by virtue of the explicit exclusion of having regard to the fact of accommodation being shared. It is an extremely narrow point, but nevertheless it has an importance of its own.
  It is suggested that we should discuss it with other amendments listed in the groupings which include Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 standing in my name and the names of my noble friends. By taking out the word "not", Amendment No. 165 would permit the Secretary of State to have regard, in deciding where an asylum seeker and his dependants were to be sent to live for the time being, to a preference as to the locality in which the accommodation was to be provided. That does not mean that the asylum seeker would be able to make the decision, but the Secretary of State could take into account and either ignore or agree to the preference expressed by the supported person. That seems more reasonable than the provision in the Bill that expressly forbids the Secretary of State to take any account of preferences.
  Amendment No. 166 would delete subsection (3) of Clause 87. It follows the recommendation in the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee's report on the Bill. Paragraph 22 begins by saying:
  "The Committee does not consider the Henry VIII power in Clause 87(3) justified".
  The report goes on to express the Committee's reasons. I am sure that your Lordships have seen it and I do not need to expand on the reasons. We should pay careful attention to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which is a senior and important committee of the House that does a great service to us all by examining the small print of matters within its remit. It has been the habit of governments of both parties to take the committee's recommendations very seriously. I believe that they have all so far been agreed to. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I wonder if I could help the Committee by dealing discretely with the point about the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee's

  1105
  recommendation in case others had similar concerns. We are reflecting on the best way of addressing the issue and we intend to return to the matter on Report.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I am sure that the whole Committee is grateful for the Minister's pre-emptive strike. I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 161 and 164 and I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, on his amendments.
  The two amendments in my name concentrate on the housing needs and the basic requirements of asylum seekers in the neighbourhoods where they are settled. My noble friend Lord Sandwich and I raised our concerns last week during the meeting with the Minister of State and his officials to which I referred earlier.
  Twenty years ago I was the chairman of one of the country's largest housing committees in Liverpool. The committee was well intentioned in wanting to help some of the boat people from Vietnam who were seeking refuge in this country. Along with the other Merseyside boroughs, we put together a plan to assist those asylum seekers and more than 1,000 came to Merseyside. Our experience leads me to question the assumptions on which some of the Government's policies are based, particularly the issue of adequate housing needs rather than suitable housing needs, which is the subject of Amendment No. 161.
  We were well intentioned, but hard-to-let accommodation on sink estates was inevitably used. In dispersed areas, mainly around the periphery of the city, people were left without common or familial support systems. They had no access to language facilities to help them. In one way the council was being relieved of the embarrassment of empty properties from which it was drawing no rent.
  I was concerned to learn during the recent Kosovo crisis that the same local authority was suggesting that properties that have been vacant for some years might be made available to refugees. I know that that would draw in resources to a local authority that often finds itself short of funds, but the properties were not suitable for our tenants, who had been moved out of them some years before, and would certainly not be suitable for Kosovan refugees any more than the properties that we made available 20 years ago were suitable for the Vietnamese refugees.
  Based on that hard experience, I commend Amendment No. 161, which would specify that the accommodation provided must be suitable for the needs of the individual even though it is temporary. The asylum support information document states an intention to make "acceptable" provision for asylum seekers. This amendment in a sense probes the good faith of that statement.
  Accommodation, however temporary, which is not suitable to the needs of the individual asylum seeker, and his dependants, if any, is not capable of taking them out of destitution and is thus not capable of fulfilling the basic purpose of the scheme. For example, accommodation that is perfectly adequate in itself may be unsuitable for a wheelchair user if the sleeping and
  1106
  toilet facilities are not on the same level, or someone with a phobia about heights may find that the accommodation he is offered is on the 14th floor.
  The point about location suitable for resettlement is crucial to making good the Government's stated intention that new arrangements should not penalise refugees. The particular accommodation offered under the scheme will be temporary, but every effort should be made to locate asylum seekers in areas where they can start to put down roots as soon as possible. It is accepted that those whose claims ultimately fail will then be uprooted. But for those who are recognised as refugees, there should be a realistic possibility of staying on in the area where they first settled, along with all the support systems that surely have to go with the policy of dispersal.
  The Home Office itself has emphasised that it wishes to see those asylum seekers who are recognised as refugees, or are otherwise granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom, settle in the areas to which they are dispersed. It would prefer not to see secondary migration, particularly not back to the capital. The cases of the Ugandan Asians and the Vietnamese are examples of the way in which previous dispersal schemes have lasted for only a short time before secondary migration has taken over. If the Government are to achieve their stated objectives, then the factors set out in Amendment No. 161 must be taken to heart.
  I would also commend to the Minister a first-hand experience of recent months. I commend to him a report which appeared on Thursday, 8th July, in the Harrow Times, which described how a man set fire to himself after facing eviction from a property. The report states:
  "An Iranian asylum seeker who was due to be moved from a Harrow Weald hostel to Devon tried to set himself on fire because he was so upset by the news, a Harrow court heard last week".
  The report goes on to say:
  "The court was told that the 32-year-old barricaded himself in his room when he was told to leave temporary accommodation … and wrapped himself in a sheet and set light to it while holding a knife to his throat until police broke down the door".
  It is cases like that which illustrate my point. What we may regard as being perfectly adequate may not be suitable. Therefore, we should look carefully at these definitions, which have been used in housing legislation over the years. "Suitable" has particular connotations in the context of legislation dealing with homeless people.
  I wish also to commend Amendment No. 164. The amendment provides a duty to assist destitute asylum seekers. It would be a way to fulfil the covenant set out in the White Paper. However, as the provision is drafted, the Home Office would be able to refuse assistance, leaving people homeless and without the means of subsistence. I wish to draw to the attention of the Committee the views of Shelter, one of the most highly respected agencies in this country. It states:
  "There are complex reasons why such housing is empty including the physical condition of properties; isolation of housing from transport, leisure and shopping facilities and employment; crime and the fear of crime and harassment".

  1107
  It goes on to state:
  "The factors which must be disregarded in deciding whether accommodation is adequate are precisely the factors that describe the inadequacy of the accommodation".
  Without labouring the point—I recognise that the hour is late—I commend the two amendments to the Committee.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I thank the Minister for his earlier intervention in dealing with a discrete issue. I apologise to him for failing to respond to remarks made at the end of the debate on Amendment No. 156. He commented on the work that he and I did in the context of human rights. I thank him for his very careful consideration of our concern. My memory is that the concern had been expressed originally by the Conservative Party, but I was also able to express it on behalf of this Bench. That matter gave rise to considerable confusion among the Liberal Democrats at the time. We were extremely grateful for the concession, which was perhaps somewhat unexpected, in relation to that particular Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for his willingness to listen on so many occasions and assist this House in every possible way, and also for his kind remarks about myself.
  The Earl of Sandwich: My noble friend Lord Alton needs absolutely no support from me. Therefore I follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and sit down, having said that the reasons given by the Minister when we went to see him appeared to be rather technical. I hope that he will be able to expand on those reasons, particularly in view of what I am sure will be his general sympathy for the observations that have been made.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I dealt with Amendment No. 166 in an earlier intervention. Therefore, in this debate we are concerned with Amendments Nos. 160, 161, 164, 164A and 165. I respect the concern expressed for the welfare of children in Amendment No. 160. There is no inherent reason why shared accommodation should not be adequate to meet an asylum seeker's living needs, bearing in mind that his stay in this country as an asylum seeker will be for a relatively limited period when we have new support arrangements in place and faster asylum decisions are delivered. Sharing is not the same as overcrowding. Shared facilities may be acceptable, for example where they are shared by only two or three adults. That is by no means uncommon in houses in multiple occupation in the country generally.
  I agree that as for families we may need to consider different criteria in respect of such matters as access to bathroom and kitchen facilities. I confirm that the Government would not regard arrangements that prejudiced the health and welfare of a child as adequate for the purposes of Clause 85. To respond to one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in my view first-floor accommodation without a lift is not adequate for a person in a wheelchair.
  1108
  We have not formulated the details of the scheme by which we shall assess people for destitution and then provide the appropriate support. I assure the Committee that we are alive to the questions that have been raised relating to regulations to be made under Clause 85(8). I do not believe that we need to reflect that by way of amendment to the primary legislation. I hope that I am being helpful in acknowledging that within the secondary legislation we may well wish to reflect the need for the welfare of families to be properly taken into account in making judgments about accommodation.
  I hope that I have dealt with the spirit of the concerns about "suitable" raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. One of the problems is that, as he knows better than I, in the context of housing legislation there is a mass of judicial adjudication. We need to be careful not to confuse the two. Housing legislation is essentially concerned with people who are established in this country. Many of them have extensive possessions and settled lifestyles, and, therefore, their needs are different.
  We want to provide asylum seekers with accommodation that is adequate for their needs: shelter and facilities for the proper preparation of food, sleeping and personal hygiene. But that accommodation must also reflect their circumstances. I do not believe that we need another definition that may be inappropriate for the reason that I mentioned. I undertake to consider carefully whether there is a need to use the regulations under Clause 87 to give a more precise meaning to the new concept of "adequate".
  I turn to Amendment No. 164. I have already indicated our general approach. I doubt that we need to detail matters in primary legislation. Some of the points may well need to be covered in regulations to be made under Clause 87(1)(c); others will be a matter for the Secretary of State's scheme and the desk instructions that go with it. I undertake that we shall consult on the content of the regulations later this year. We shall also publish a revised version of the process manual which sets out the way in which an asylum seeker's case for support will be processed. We shall be asking asylum seekers whether they have any special needs at the time we consider the initial application. If there are special needs—such as physical disability; to take one illustration further—we should want to take those into account in deciding what sort of support to offer and in what location.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I appreciate the tone of the Minister's reply on these points. Can the noble Lord give us any indication of when the regulations to which he refers might be published? Shall we have sight of even a draft version before Report stage?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not sure about the time-scale. I shall write to the noble Lord before we break for the Summer Recess, even if it is to say that my uncertainty remains the same and I cannot give more than an indication. However, I shall do the best that I can by next Thursday.
  I said that we should be looking to considerations of safety and welfare; locations where there are others from the same ethnic background or with similar experiences;

  1109
  putting individuals where they will not be subject to racial harassment; and taking full account of the general need for decent, habitable accommodation.
  The Home Office has surpassed itself. I now have the intelligence that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, wanted. We shall consult in October, and the regulations should be available in the new year (February). At the end of February, I know that the noble Lord will be asking me where they are, but that is the information I have.
  It is important to reiterate what my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and I have said on many occasions: children of asylum seekers will continue to enjoy the full protection of the Children Act in all essential respects, and their accommodation and essential living needs will be provided under the Part VI arrangements. In particular—I am going further than the point raised this evening—if there is a particular need to protect children—for example, if they are likely to be victims of abuse—I am happy to confirm that they will be able to continue to rely on the good offices of local authority social services departments.
  On public health, those seeking asylum at port of entry would normally be subject to a health screening for infectious or similar diseases. We shall consider what other steps need to be taken in the cluster areas (as believe that I can call them) to maintain good public health given the influx of asylum seekers. We expect—it is the point of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia—that legal services suitable to the needs of asylum seekers will develop in the areas where we are relocating. That is part of the continuing discussions with the Lord. Chancellor's Department which my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer mentioned earlier.
  I shall revert in more detail to this point on a later amendment, but touch on it now. A small number of asylum seekers require specialist services to address conditions which result from torture. I pay tribute to the very fine work of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. Where it is clear that someone needs specialised services which cannot be delivered other than through a body of that sort, and the location of that body does not fit in with our normal cluster arrangements, we shall consider the possibility of finding accommodation adjacent to those services. It is a limited number of cases, but that does not make the point any less important. I shall retain for the next amendment the further good news arising out of our conversations so that we can all go to bed content, if not happy.
  We have to look to landlords who can provide quality accommodation on a suitable basis and who will be willing and able to rehouse those who have been granted asylum. I stress that we are talking from our experience. The Bosnian resettlements exercise about five years ago showed that if you put enough effort into it, and people are settled alongside others from a similar background, it can be effective.
  Amendments Nos. 164A and 165 involve an extremely neat piece of drafting. They turn the point of the Bill utterly on its head. For that reason, if for no other, I am unable to accept them. One of the problems at the moment is that some London authorities and their
  1110
  social services departments just cannot cope. In some London boroughs, half of the temporary accommodation that the boroughs use is now occupied by asylum seekers. That is a great difficulty and we should not close our minds to it.
  Other parts of the United Kingdom have a surplus of spare housing. I take the point made by the noble Lord. Lord Alton of Liverpool, that some of it is not good, but some of it is perfectly suitable. In fact, there were more than 75,000 vacancies in local authority housing outside the London area.
  We want to try to house people from the same background in the same areas wherever possible and we shall do our best to do so. At the risk of being rebuked for being Mr Scrooge yet again, I may say that the homelessness legislation, which is the nearest parallel in this context, does not envisage any choice of accommodation for the person being assisted. Most asylum seekers being accommodated at the moment by virtue of judicial intervention—as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said—under the National Assistance Act 1948 are not given any choice about location of accommodation. If we succeed in our aim of having a relatively short period of accommodation, anyone who is granted leave to remain in this country will have the ability to make whatever arrangements they wish.
  I think that I have covered most of the questions that have been raised. I hope that the Committee accepts that I have been reasonably helpful. I stress, as my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton said earlier, that we are having a meeting with interested parties tomorrow. We are willing to approach questions in an open-minded way as long as they are consistent with the general spirit of the Bill. I hope that I have demonstrated that with this clutch of amendments.
  11.30 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to the Minister for his reaction to Amendment No. 166 and for his pre-emptive strike. I remain puzzled by the fact that the Government, as the Minister reiterated, propose to ask the supported people what their special needs may be but will include a statutory ban on the Secretary of State taking any notice of any preference they might express about where they wish to live. That is an odd provision.
  Amendment No. 160 was the main amendment in this group, and I have been reassured by what the Minister said and by the provisions of Clause 113(3) and (4), to which the Minister, had he wished to extend the debate, could also have referred.
  The Earl of Sandwich: I wonder whether the Minister has said his last word on clusters. Has he responded to the concerns of the Medical Foundation and others about specialised medical and legal services?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, at some length. Indeed, I said that I had one more point to make about the victims of torture. Otherwise, I think that I have dealt with the matter quite fully.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 85 agreed to.
  Schedule 8 agreed to.
  Clause 86[Ways in which support may be provided]:
  [Amendment No. 161 not moved.]
  Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 162:
  Page 56, line 32, at end insert ("and obtaining specialist medical care and treatment for himself and his dependants (if any).
  () Costs of travel to appointments with legal representatives acting for the supported person in his claim for asylum, and appointments for specialist medical care and treatment for himself and his dependants, where such services are not available locally, shall be paid under section 85.").
  The noble Baroness said: I note that the lights are slowly going out on us, so I shall make my remarks reasonably short before they disappear completely. It seems an appropriate conclusion to the third day in Committee.
  The Minister was extremely gracious in the way that he received my noble friend Lord Dholakia and myself to discuss, among other things, victims of torture. He listened carefully and sympathised with the concept that victims of torture are among those who are highly likely to be genuine refugees. Indeed, some of those who have undergone torture have done so for the highest possible motives. Only tonight, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, introduced my noble friend to a victim of torture who happened to be a British citizen. He had been tortured in his efforts to try to support the refugees on the borders of Burma and Thailand. Therefore, being a victim of torture is not exclusively the characteristic of those seeking asylum in this country, but sometimes has pertained to British citizens fighting for something in which they profoundly believe.
  On 26th April in another place, the Minister of State told the special committee of the House of Commons that he recognised that victims of torture were a particular group who deserved to be addressed sensitively. He also went on to say clearly that the present provision for victims of torture was inadequate and that we have not sufficient capacity in place to deliver for victims of torture. He made it plain that he recognised that in many parts of the country no adequate provision was available.
  The reason why in Amendment No. 162 we have pressed for there to be special treatment for victims of torture over and above the provision for special treatment already made in the Bill is precisely because those facilities are not available in many parts of the country. The Minister has implied that special consideration will therefore be given to the dispersal of such asylum seekers. I am most grateful for that and hope that he will have more to say in his response to this last group of amendments.
  I wish strongly to underline that, while the British Medical Association has responded generously in attempting to draw up lists of medical practitioners willing to meet victims who claim to be tortured and to see them rapidly, busy doctors will not be free to travel
  1112
  all over the country and will not be able to hold such sessions a long way away from their own centres. Therefore, I shall be grateful to hear more from the Minister about the provisions he intends to make in order to ensure that these particular asylum seekers are given the proper opportunity professionally to establish their claims to have been tortured.
  In that context, I hope that the Minister will bear in mind Amendment No. 169. One of the aspects of the Bill which troubles me is that Clause 88(3)(b) implies that provision made for asylum seekers by, for example, voluntary organisations and others may be taken into account in considering their needs. In the case of that marvellous body, the Medical Foundation for the Victims of Torture, the Minister will be aware that the expenses it bears in order to assist asylum seekers claiming torture to have adequate tests made of their claims amounted in the past year to some £22,000. It expects that in the next year the amount will be about £100 each working day. Most of us are aware that every week or two we receive innumerable requests for charitable assistance to voluntary organisations; to the Refugee Council, the Medical Foundation and many other bodies involved in the work. It may be that one should not look to them to provide the elements which are necessary to establish a claim.
  In Amendment No. 169, we specifically mention the faith communities as not being included within the provisions expected by the Bill to add up to additional assets and support for asylum seekers. In that context, I, too, pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. He is not in his place but I expect that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark will pass on the remarks to him. We shall deeply miss his wisdom, example and enlightenment during many debates in this House. I hope and believe that he will pass on the torch to the young Bishop, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, to whose presence on these occasions we shall look forward.
  I wish to make only a passing remark about Amendment No. 167, to which I suspect others may wish to speak in this group. The amendment affects Clause 87(6) of the Bill on page 57. That rather troubles me because it indicates that for the purposes of subsection (5)—namely, the power which deals with essential living needs—as I read the Bill, any additional support for exceptional circumstances given under Clause 86(1)(c) would simply be set off against the provision of essential living needs.
  While I recognise that the Minister has graciously agreed to some increase in the amount provided for essential living needs, it troubles us that if the provision is simply to be reduced to exceptional needs, in the case of victims of torture we should not be a great deal further forward. I thank the Minister for the clues which he has provided, but we also express our concerns about some aspects of the Bill, in particular, the tension between adopting the cluster method of dealing with refugees and the special problems referred to by his colleague in another place with regard to the provision for victims of torture.
  That is the group of all asylum seekers about which we feel most concerned, indeed, even anguished. They are the people who have sometimes fought for the very things in which we believe at a terrible price to their health and which often involve great risks for their families.
  Lord Avebury: My amendment deals with a completely different point to that raised by my noble friend. The only common feature of the amendments is that they are both attached to Clause 86. I should like to preface my remarks with a comment on subsection (1)(b) of Clause 86. The Minister will observe that the Bill states:
  "Support may be provided under Section 85—by providing what appears to the Secretary of State to be essential living needs of the supported person".
  As a matter of English construction, If do not believe that the Secretary of State can provide for the living needs of a person. He can provide resources to meet the living needs of a person. The wording of that subsection needs to be considered. I should perhaps have tabled an amendment to that effect, but it came to my notice in the course of considering where to put my own amendment, which deals with the question of vouchers.
  The amendment attempts to address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, when moving his amendment a few minutes ago. He emphasised that the use of the vouchers causes a stigma to be attached to the recipient; that he may be subject to racist harassment or abuse as the result of being picked out as different from the rest of the people in the supermarket. My amendment suggests that vouchers should be made transferable to address that problem. I must say as a preface that it is difficult to draft an amendment of this kind when we do not have the voucher scheme before us. We are working blind, as it were. It would certainly have been, and still would be, useful if the Minister could table the regulations which contain the scheme for the vouchers before Report stage so that we can more easily see where such a provision should go.
  My suggestion is that the vouchers should be made transferable so that the asylum seeker himself or herself does not need to go into Tesco's or Sainsbury's, as the case may be, to cash them. He can give them to someone else; that person can do the shopping for him; and therefore he does not need to be singled out in front of the whole crowd of shoppers as a person who is distinct from the settled population.
  A provision of this kind is essential because some of the recipients may not be able to get to a supermarket. They may be disabled; they may be ill; they may be bedridden, and if they cannot pass the vouchers on to another person, it is difficult to imagine how they will provide for their essential needs.
  A situation can be imagined where a number of asylum seekers live together. In response to the previous amendment, the Minister said that it was by no means inadequate for people to live in shared accommodation. If two or more families live in shared accommodation, it would be natural for them to share the burden of the
  1114
  weekly shop by transferring all the vouchers to one person to do the shopping for everyone in the shared accommodation.
  I do not need to say much more about the amendment as it is such a common sense provision that I am sure that the Minister will have no difficulty in accepting it.
  11.45 p.m.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I speak to the amendments standing in my name on the Marshalled List: Amendments Nos. 167, 168 and 169 which have been grouped in what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has rightly described as a disparate group of amendments. In many ways, they have little in common with each other apart from the fact that they fall within the same part of the Bill. It would have been better if they had been separated. However, I want to refer to one or two remarks already made and to add some comments about Amendment No. 167.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, when speaking to Amendment No. 169, reminded me why 16 or 17 years ago I gave up several weeks of my life happily campaigning for her in the Crosby area. It has been a pleasure to listen to her putting the case on behalf of refugees and asylum seekers. Although we sit on different Benches, I concur with everything that she has said throughout our proceedings on the Bill. On Amendment No. 169, she was right to raise the issue of the role of voluntary organisations, charities, churches and religious groups to which I referred earlier. Those arguments still stand, without me having to repeat them.
  The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on Amendment No. 163, referred to an earlier debate initiated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon when several noble Lords mentioned the question of vouchers. I support his comments and refer to some remarks of Oona King, a Member of another place, who gave a good example of how vouchers will reduce purchasing power, and therefore why the value of a package will be worth less. In Commons Hansard of 16th June at cols. 446–447 she referred to the fact that in Sainsburys in Whitechapel, where vouchers are accepted, a pair of new children's socks cost £1.50 while on Whitechapel market, 20 yards away, a pair of children's socks cost only 40p. The same is true of food. Of course, change will not be given for vouchers. I can imagine people becoming involved in arguments in the supermarket as they try, with poor comprehension of English, to sort out all the issues that will arise at the supermarket counter when trying to deal with the vouchers.
  For the reasons that I described earlier, this is an ill-thought-out scheme and no doubt one which in future legislation we shall have to rescind. It would be better if we addressed the matter properly now, rather than incorporating it into legislation only to have to revisit it, as we have done with some of the misplaced ideas that have emerged in the previous two pieces of legislation dealing with such issues.
  I now turn to the substantive amendment standing in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, for his support, to the noble Lord. Lord Clinton-Davis, and to the right reverend Prelate the

  1115
  Bishop of Southwark, who have also put their names to the amendment. Although many of us dislike the voucher system, I recognise that at the moment that is the policy with which the Government are working. Amendment No. 167 tries, in the spirit of that policy, to address the Government's contention with regard to the value of the package that they have laid out in the terms of the Bill. That was a point that my noble friend Lord Sandwich, along with Mr. Michael Kaye of the Refugee Council, took to the Minister and his officials in the helpful meeting that we had with him last week.
  There are four reasons the Government advance against accepting the arguments contained in the amendment. Let me try and deal with them quickly. The first is that the scheme is a short-term basic safety net. Asylum seekers' entitlement to income support has already been reduced to 90 per cent on the basis that they are only supposed to be waiting a short period of time for their decisions. But asylum seekers should not have to survive on less because they are only here on a temporary basis. That is not a plausible argument. Income support is only intended to meet an individual's basic needs, and those needs must be met regardless of whether it is for a period of two months or two years.
  Secondly, the argument is put forward that the package is not intended to cover utility costs. But a family of four in receipt of income support, including family premium, would pay 8.8 per cent of their benefit on utility costs. That is calculated from standard, flat-rate fuel deductions for a family at £12.35 which are used when individual fuel costs are not easily identifiable. That calculation was confirmed by the Official Report, Commons, 10/6/99; col. 455, when it was said that it would be no more than 10 per cent. So the payment of utility costs by the accommodation provider will increase to the value of the package by approximately 9 per cent of the asylum seeker's income support.
  The third argument is that asylum seekers will not need to purchase replacement items. That assertion also needs to be challenged. Asylum seekers will certainly have to replace items within a six-month period. It is not credible to argue that they will arrive in Britain with clothes and possessions which will last them for six months. Furthermore, when fleeing their homes asylum seekers will have left behind many basic items which they will have to purchase again once they reach the United Kingdom. They may also arrive here without appropriate items, such as the appropriate clothes for the British climate. That was recognised by Mr O'Brien in another place when he accepted that,
  "Asylum seekers often arrive with few or no possessions and little concept of how they will cope in this country".
  Those remarks were made in the special standing committee on 4th May.
  The fourth and final point, dealing with some of the arguments put to us during our meeting at the Home Office, was that basic living utensils would be supplied by the accommodation provider and that must be seen to be part of the package. But currently the vast majority of private rented accommodation is furnished and many also provide basic utensils. However, British people
  1116
  living in furnished accommodation do not have their income support reduced as a consequence. To suggest, therefore, that asylum seekers should have a lower level of support because accommodation is furnished is not acceptable. The Government said that accommodation would include kettles, bed linen, light bulbs and other items which are not normally provided in housing. That is true. But the value that that would add to the package would be more than offset by the fact that the voucher system will effectively prohibit asylum seekers from getting the best value for money, as described by Oona King in another place. They will not be able to buy cheap food and clothing in markets or discount stores, which is where most people on low incomes do their shopping. Furthermore, even if the vouchers are issued in small denominations of 50p or 25p, asylum seekers will not be able to obtain change and will therefore lose some of the package. That is another reason for looking again at the overall value of the package that the Bill outlines.
  No allowance has been made for the fact that many asylum seekers have to purchase essential items on arrival, replace items during the six months that they are here or may be in poor health when they reach the United Kingdom. That was certainly the case with many of the Kosovars who arrived here recently.
  Based on that assessment the package of support offered is approximately 10 per cent short of the 90 per cent of income support, and therefore 20 per cent below what is normally considered to be the poverty line. After all, we are not talking of vast sums of money. None of us would wish to try to survive and eke out subsistence on the sums of money that we are dealing with. Asylum seekers will clearly be forced to try to survive well below the breadline and that will lead to more begging, which is an issue raised during our debates tonight. It will lead to illegal working, petty crime and the negative impact on race and community relations which will follow in its wake. Those are the consequences. We should go into this situation with our eyes wide open. Unless we are as generous as we can afford to be—to use the language that has been used consistently throughout this debate—those will be the social consequences. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was right when he warned us earlier on of the consequences of social breakdown if we deliberately create those circumstances.
  The Government state that the value of the package should be 90 per cent of income support. Therefore, Amendment No. 167, which increases the package of vouchers and cash to 80 per cent, is consistent with their policy and I therefore commend this amendment to the Committee.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: As the Committee will have noticed, I have added my name to Amendment No. 167. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about it particularly in view of what he trailed a little earlier on this point and on assistance where children are involved. He also led us to believe that he has a few more favourable things to say. We look forward to that.

  1117
  I did not take part at the appropriate place in earlier debates so perhaps I may use this moment to associate this Bench with the compliments that were paid to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and express our regret at his pending departure from our debates. However, I note in passing that, although he will be retired from this House, he will still be able to use some of its facilities. We look forward to seeing him from time to time on that basis at any rate.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Amendment No. 162 give me the opportunity to clarify our position. I repeat that asylum seekers and dependants will be entitled to the full range of medical and dental services which the general public receive. If they are destitute they can get the appropriate form entitling them to free prescriptions, free spectacles, free dental treatment and free travel to hospitals in the same way as anyone else on income support
  Generally, the provision of medical services is good across the whole country. We would expect that medical facilities in the cluster areas will be, with very few exceptions, fully equal to meeting the need for specialist medical treatment. That would be under normal National Health Service arrangements. We would not expect there to be a need for the asylum seeker to receive additional assistance in getting such treatment.
  As I said earlier, where there is a clear case for special medical treatment which is only available in a limited number of locations, we shall consider that in deciding on location.
  I can deal with legal representation quite briefly because I believe my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer made the position plain in response to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on a number of occasions. I repeat what my noble and learned friend said. If the power is required to pay for travel expenses to arrange an interview with a legal representative, that is to be found already in Clause 86(1)(c).
  The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, had a most helpful discussion a few days ago. I said that I would think carefully about what was urged on me. It seemed to me to be well founded. I hope that the noble Baroness will be as pleased as the rest of the Committee to hear that, in circumstances where a general practitioner concludes that an asylum seeker has been the victim of torture and local medical services do not fully deal with the particular nature of the case, so access to the specialised services provided by the medical foundation would be in the patient's best interests, we would arrange to pay the costs of travel by the asylum seeker to appointments with representatives of the medical foundation. I believe that is really what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord wanted. I believe that that is fair reflection of their concerns. I hope that they find that helpful.
  Amendment No. 163 concerns matters arising from the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, are quite right. We have come to a policy conclusion which is different from theirs. We have decided on a part-voucher system. The
  1118
  noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked in particular about vouchers and when we might have more detail. I take his point. We shall be looking to issue a consultation paper in October on the regulations to be made under these powers. The fine tuning of the exact form of the scheme will be later because it depends on the outcome of the contract to be awarded.
  The noble Lord also raised the question of "essential living needs" under Clause 86(1)(b). The provision is drafted in that way because it is intended to encompass the idea of support in kind—food, pots and pans and utilities— as well as cash or vouchers. I take note of the noble Lord's concerns about user-specific vouchers. The benefit of them is quite clear: they provide asylum seekers with security of ownership. If they can only be redeemed by the asylum seeker to whom they are issued, they are of no value to a thief; indeed, they are useless. Similarly, they are of no value if someone attempts to bully or, as it were, blackmail the asylum seeker to sell the voucher in return for cash at a discount. Therefore, a new, discounted, black market is prevented. Those are important considerations.
  However, I take the noble Lord's point that there may be occasions when, for example, the principal recipient is ill and where it may perhaps be necessary for another member of the family to use the vouchers. In specific response to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I can tell the Committee that we are looking now at a means of introducing desirable flexibility into the scheme. I do not think that that will go as far as the noble Lord wants, but at least we will be looking for a degree of flexibility. Therefore, in exceptional circumstances, we could perhaps have a proviso that vouchers could be redeemed by a nominated person on the asylum seeker's behalf.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 167—
  Midnight
  The Lord Bishop of Southwark: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but as I have attached my name to this amendment perhaps I may have the opportunity to say a few brief words. As I mentioned earlier, I believe that much of the Government's proposal assumes that there will be co-operation from the voluntary sector. As we have drop-in centres for refugees in half of the London boroughs at present, we have a certain experience to feed in the debate on this amendment.
  I should like to say a few words about the argument that the level of support for asylum seekers needs to be less because they will not need to replace items during the limited time in which they will be covered by these support provisions. We had the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury for three weeks last year. During that time, I had to return home twice in order to provide more sweaters and coats for Bishops and their wives from Africa, India and other parts of the world who were battling with the rigours of an English summer.
  Our drop-in centres for refugees are constantly supplying clothing and household items all the year round. If noble Lords wish to see a voucher system working, we could perhaps visit a drop-in centre such as the one in Croydon. Each person who goes there is

  1119
  supplied with a colour-coded ticket, or several such tickets. One ticket is for food, one is for household utensils and one is for clothing. If the volunteers running that centre were asked whether or not asylum seekers, especially those with children, need to return for further items within a six-month period, they would witness to the fact that such people in a strange land, with a variable climate, need to return constantly for appropriate items of clothing and support.
  In an earlier intervention, I asked the noble and learned Lord whether the voluntary sector had been consulted about being involved in hard cases of support and whether it had given its consent. The Minister answered "yes" to the first part of the question but I did not hear him say "yes" to the second part.
  I believe that the voluntary sector is willing and wants to play its part in helping to bridge the gap between the support package on offer and the provisions that we feel are necessary for a civilised society. It is generally felt by those who are most closely involved with helping asylum seekers that the gap that is being created is just too wide.
  Amendment No. 167 would in no way conflict with the Government's stated aims and I believe that it would make the support gap a little more manageable. It would enable those of us who are involved in the voluntary sector better to enter into the partnership which the Government desire.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that I have dealt with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on vouchers.
  I turn to Amendment No. 167. I shall try not to repeat what I said earlier. We are looking to provide a package of support that is appropriate to the needs of particular people. As I said, most asylum seekers have few possessions and limited knowledge of the requirements of daily life in this country. However, they will be in need of support for a few months only. We are trying to provide a focused package that addresses particular needs.
  As I said earlier, for some single people that will comprise full board and lodging in a hostel with a cash allowance. In other cases, it will comprise fully equipped self-catering accommodation. We recognise that in the overwhelming majority of cases these people will not have brought with them domestic equipment such as bedding and pots and pans which we provide—we also provide gas, water and electricity—partly because they will be in the accommodation for a relatively short time and partly because they will not be familiar with the minutiae of arrangements in this country.
  Single adults in receipt of income support currently receive about £45 a week. Under our support proposals, the intention is that they will receive spending power in vouchers and cash of about £35 a week. We are looking to be more flexible as regards the number and nature of retail outlets—to take up a specific point made by the right reverend Prelate—which are willing to accept vouchers. As I say, income support for a single adult is
  1120
  about £45 a week. We believe that with spending power in vouchers and cash of about £35 a week, it is not unreasonable to say that the difference of £10 is accounted for by utilities and the provision of domestic equipment which a person in receipt of social security benefits would normally need to provide and pay for himself.
  I repeat what I said earlier this evening: we have listened carefully to the concerns about children. I said quite plainly earlier tonight that we have now indicated that children under the age of 18 will have a support level set at a level equivalent to income support personal allowances. We propose that the provision for adults should remain unchanged for the reasons I set out earlier; namely, the in-kind provisions.
  Amendment No. 167 seeks to increase the value of the new support arrangements to at least 80 per cent of income support levels for adults, and to 100 per cent for children. I shall say no more about children. As regards adults, the provision is designed to provide a short-term safety net, whereas income support is designed to provide support on a long-term basis with all the costs that that implies. Some Members of the Committee take a contrary view, but having looked at all the arguments I think that that is a perfectly legitimate conclusion. A short-term safety net regime is different, and ought to be different, from a long-term basis of support. One has to bear in mind that we are developing a better position than exists at the moment as we shall provide a degree of advice and assistance provided by voluntary sector bodies working in the "cluster" areas. The asylum seeker will be relieved of the responsibility, which must be quite considerable in a strange land, of finding his own accommodation.
  We want to work in close partnership with voluntary associations. Normally the criticism that I have to meet on these occasions suggests that we do not work closely enough with the voluntary sector or provide it with sufficient grants. Here I am wanting to work more closely with it and am talking about government funding for it—and the reception that I receive is not perhaps entirely overwhelming.
  Amendment No. 168 seeks to delete subsection (6) of Clause 87 which would prevent support given under Clause 86(1)(c) from being taken into account in comparing support given under Part VI with income support levels. Clause 86(1)(c) is a supplement by allowing support to be provided for specific costs which an asylum seeker may incur in connection with his claim for asylum, such as paying for postage stamps, telephone calls and possibly travelling. We do not envisage a separate allowance for such expenses but we wish to retain the option to pay travelling costs in individual cases to enable asylum seekers to attend interviews at IND. We are still considering the basis on which to fix the level at which support is to be given.
  We should look at all the heads of assistance that we give to an asylum seeker and we should consider the possibility of taking into account Clause 86(1)(c) support. By virtue of subsection (6) of Clause 87, such expenses are to be taken into account when comparing expenditure on essential living needs with income support levels, as is permitted by subsection (5).

  1121
  I shall be as brief as I can because I realise that the hour is now very late. Amendment No. 169 would prevent the Secretary of State taking account of support available from faith groups in the voluntary sector. I have already said a word or two about that. We are looking to continue and build up the excellent work in this field, to which I pay ready tribute. We do not expect charities to deplete their resources assisting asylum seekers. However, where there is assistance and expertise it is sensible to take them into account.
  There are many specialist groups set up precisely to assist the refugee community. They attract charitable donations for that specific purpose. It would be wrong to ignore what asylum seekers may receive from these sources. It is not necessary for an asylum seeker to be able to reject support offered by a third party and then look to the Home Office instead. We will not treat a charitable source as though it was available in its totality to every asylum seeker. We shall take it into account, as is proper, but it will be simply one factor among many; it will not be a determinative factor.
  There is no intention of assuming or presuming that asylum seekers can avail themselves of particular sources of assistance where this could be in doubt. The drafting is quite clear; it is support which is or might reasonably be expected to be available. If there is a dispute, the asylum seeker can put his point of view to the asylum support directorate or appeal to an asylum support adjudicator where he has been refused support.
  I see a developing, continuing partnership between the Home Office and the voluntary sector in providing support. We respect and value the charitable sector—not least because it brings a degree of independence and a degree perhaps of wider responsiveness than those who are engaged on a daily professional basis. So the daily professional basis has its virtues and value, as does the assistance we get—which we regard as complementary assistance—and with which we hope to work.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: Perhaps the Minister will deal a little further with his final point about the independence of the charities. One of the points made very powerfully to us last week by the groups which came here is that they feel that if they were increasingly dependent on income from the Home Office—and I understand that this is a rehearsal of a point that is often made to the Minister—and given that often they have an advocacy role on behalf of asylum seekers and refugees, that independence may be compromised and their ability to speak on behalf of these vulnerable groups of people may be neutered if they are effectively co-opted as an arm of the state to administer services.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I take that point. I think that the independence of the voluntary sector is, and remains, intact. I do not think that it is impossible. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and I recently spent a very interesting half day, if not more, at NACRO headquarters. It is my present belief that the Home Office provides some funding to NACRO. I never detected in my dealings with it any lack of independent professionalism. Indeed, quite the opposite was the case.
  1122
  I single out that organisation merely as an illustration Its benefit is that, first, it knows what it is talking about: and secondly, despite the fact that it receives some funding from the Government, it still feels it right—and I agree with that—to criticise us when we have different views. That has been the experience of the past few years; NACRO is not alone in that respect.
  12.15 a.m.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: It being the witching hour, the Minister has suddenly turned part of the pumpkin into a fairy coach. It would be ungracious not to recognise that final miraculous moment of this long Committee stage. We thank him very much. There is a quotation from Max Weber that politics is the boring of hard boards. That seems to be an excellent description of the Committee stage of this Bill. We are most grateful to the Ministers for sticking it out and for showing such unending patience during what must have been a very hard day for them, and for the concessions that they have made, particularly with regard to victims of torture. They listened closely to what the Committee had to say. We are grateful and we should like to thank them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 163 not moved.]
  Clause 86 agreed to.
  Clause 87 [Supplemental]:
  [Amendments Nos. 164 to 168 not moved.]
  Clause 87 agreed to.
  Clause 88 [Secretary of State's scheme]:
  [Amendment No. 169 not moved.]
  Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 169A:
  Page 58, leave out line 35.
  The noble Earl said: To have to move the final amendment of the night is to draw the short straw. The only appropriate response to the short straw is the short speech. I shall try to oblige.
  The words that I seek to delete appear in Clause 88(7) dealing with regulations relating to applications for support. The subsection gives a power for the regulations to prescribe the circumstances in which an application may not be entertained—in fact, to cut people out of the claim to support with no indication as to how those powers will be used, no limit on the vires. It seems to me a rather draconian power, to be exercised by regulations, which are very difficult to challenge in this place. I beg to move.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Earl's amendment seeks to probe the circumstances in which regulations will be made that permit the body not to entertain an application. Perhaps I may give some examples. One example is where a person has made a previous application, it has been rejected by the asylum support directorate, and possibly by the support adjudicator, and there has been no material change in the applicant's circumstances. Processing an application, even when it is without merit, takes time. All the details have to be gone into. Where there is no reason for

  1123
  collecting that information and going through it again, the asylum support directorate should not be required to go through it. One does occasionally receive reports of someone who vexatiously continues to reapply for some benefit in the hope of succeeding not on the basis of the merits of his case, but simply on the basis of wearing down the awarding body.
  In making the regulations governing the support scheme, we may also want to rely on this power in stipulating that applications from people who are plainly not eligible for support should not be entertained; for example, because the applicant is not an asylum seeker.
  In either of the instances that I have given, it would be open to the applicant to demonstrate that he is entitled to make an application, maintaining, for example, either that there has been a material change in circumstances, or that he is a genuine asylum seeker. If he made out that case, the application would have to be entertained. But it is perfectly sensible in a body of rules such as this that there are certain circumstances where a person should not be allowed to make either an application or another application. If he is allowed to do so, the system becomes clogged and those people who should be allowed to make applications will have to wait longer than they otherwise should.
  Earl Russell: The noble and learned Lord's answers, like the fortunes of the fictional Bishop of Ipswich, could have been worse. I shall not argue with any of the circumstances that he took up, but he would be a little
  1124
  optimistic to assume that the amendment is necessarily probing. I have considerable misgivings about the conferring of vires quite as sweeping as those entertained here. But, at this time of night, the amendment is probing. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 88 agreed to.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 170:
  After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—

  LEGAL ADVICE FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS
  (" . In providing or arranging for the provision of support for persons under Part VI, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make arrangements with a view to ensuring that those persons have access to legal advice from a representative chosen by the asylum seeker.").
  The noble Lord said: Before the noble Lord, Lord Burlison, rises, it might be tidier if I refrained from moving Amendments Nos. 170 and 171.
  [Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 not moved.]
  Clauses 89, 90 and 91 agreed to.
  Lord Burlison: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past midnight.

  Montserrat
  Montserrat
  Reproductive Health and Contraception: Catholic Church's Role
  Reproductive Health and Contraception: Catholic Church's Role
  Child Support, Scotland
  Child Support, Scotland
  NHS Wheelchair Prices
  NHS Wheelchair Prices
  Northern Ireland: Decommissioning
  Northern Ireland: Decommissioning
  Business Rates: Forthcoming Revaluation
  Business Rates: Forthcoming Revaluation
  Traffic Reduction Targets
  Traffic Reduction Targets
  Filwood, Bristol: New Bus Depot
  Filwood, Bristol: New Bus Depot
  Kurdistan: Talks under Washington Accord
  Kurdistan: Talks under Washington Accord
  Imported Vehicles for Disabled Users: Tax
  Imported Vehicles for Disabled Users: Tax
  General Pinochet: sub judice Matters
  General Pinochet: sub judice Matters
  Pen Park and Merrywood Schools, Bristol
  Pen Park and Merrywood Schools, Bristol
  Biological and Chemical Weapons
  Biological and Chemical Weapons
  Organophosphate Exposure: Comparative Data
  Organophosphate Exposure: Comparative Data
  Kairos-APAC Trust
  Kairos-APAC Trust