Sitting of 22 July 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Gold
    Mr. Simon Burns: What the difference was between the money the Treasury received from the recent sale of gold and the purchase price of that gold. [91091]
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: How much gold from the National Reserves he will sell next month. [91092]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Continuing the policy of the previous Government, this Government have accepted the principle of gold sales and have therefore continued to support the sale of International Monetary Fund gold to fund debt relief for the poorest countries.
    In order to achieve a balanced portfolio of our national reserves, we will sell 125 tonnes of gold this year by the preannouncement and phasing of sales. There will be no sales of gold in August.
    In answer to the first part of the question asked by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), most of the gold held in our reserves was acquired before 1950 at a purchase price of $35 an ounce or less. Therefore, in answer to the hon. Gentleman's detailed question, the 25 tonnes of gold sold on 6 July would have been purchased for a notional $30 million or less. The gold was sold for $209 million, which makes a cash profit of more than $170 million.
    Mr. Burns: I am slightly surprised that the Chancellor did not give the figures in updated terms. Does the Chancellor accept that, between 7 May and the present, the price of gold per ounce has fallen from $287 to $254? That means that, as a result of the sale, every man, woman and child in this country has paid £10. Does the Chancellor think that the gold sale on 6 July helped or hindered the national interest? Given the fall in the gold price and the uncertainty in the gold market as a result of his announcement, will he postpone or put on hold future sales?
    Mr. Brown: The answer to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no. The mistake was made by the
    1310
    previous Government. When the price of gold was valued at anything between $300 and $800 per ounce, they took no action while other countries around the world were rebalancing their assets portfolios. Although the hon. Gentleman complains about the British sale, over the past few years, Australia, Austria, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland have been selling their gold portfolios. Canada has sold 500 tonnes, the Netherlands has sold 700, Belgium has sold 707 and Switzerland plans to sell 1,300. We plan to sell 125 tonnes this year.
    If the hon. Gentleman wants to take up the case of South Africa, I must inform him that it has halved its gold assets in the past 20 years and it sold more gold last year than we will sell this year. Those are the facts of the position. It is about time the Conservative party looked at the facts instead of being opportunistic in this matter.
    Mr. Fabricant: Have not the Government achieved a double whammy not only by trumpeting the sales of gold as the price has fallen, but by saying that 40 per cent. of the sale proceeds will be used to purchase euros? Although the euro rallied slightly this morning and, as the Chancellor will know, is currently valued at $1.0535, is he not aware that the value may fall again in three or four months? What is his estimate of the value of the euro in three, four or six months or a year?
    Mr. Brown: There is no change in the balance of our portfolio between euros, dollars and yen. The hon. Gentleman, who was a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Treasury, should know that the Chancellor whom he served supported the principle of gold sales in relation to the IMF. We will take no lectures about the use of the national reserves from the party that, when in power, lost £4 billion in a day on Black Wednesday 1992.
    Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the Chancellor refused to answer my question about the value of the euro, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Madam Speaker: In that case, I must move to the next question.

    Windfall Tax
    Mr. Michael Clapham: What evaluation he has undertaken of the use made of the windfall tax on the privatised utilities. [91093]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Let me explain to the House what has happened. When an hon. Member says that he intends to raise a question on the Adjournment, I must end the exchanges and move on.
    Mr. Brown: The windfall tax, which raised £5.2 billion, has enabled the Government to embark upon the new deal—the biggest ever programme to get the unemployed into work. More than 284,000 people have now entered the new deal through the young person's scheme and almost 100,000 long-term unemployed have

    1311
    entered the scheme. The windfall tax has also enabled the Government to inject much-needed capital investment into more than 10,000 schools. We will launch the new deal for the over-50s in the autumn. Therefore, we will continue to expand the new deal over the next few months.
    Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, which shows clearly that the windfall tax has been used to create hope and opportunity for tens of thousands of young people. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to reach the Government's objective of eliminating child poverty within the next 20 years, we must complement what has been done at regional and local levels in areas such as Barnsley where the average income per household on council estates is between £5,000 and £6,000 and 34 per cent. of children come from families that are in receipt of family credit or income support? Does he agree that we need more opportunity, greater equality and further redistribution of wealth if we are to eliminate child poverty and remedy the neglect that the Tory party inflicted on older industrial areas?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—when we came into power in 1997, a third of our children were in low-income families and 40 per cent. of children were being born into low-income families. That is why the first thing that we had to do was to create new job opportunities for the unemployed. That is why, with nearly 600,000 more people in work and nearly 300,000 young people involved in the new deal, we are creating working opportunities for families in this country.
    As my hon. Friend rightly says, the second challenge is to make work pay, and it is very surprising that the Conservative party still opposes the new deal, the minimum wage and the working families tax credit. On every issue, it is on the wrong side for the needs of working families, and I hope that at some point the shadow Chancellor will withdraw his remark that the new deal is
    "a waste of public money and a fraud perpetrated upon a great many people."—[0fficial Report, 4 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 881.]
    The fraud is what the Conservatives perpetrated on the unemployed.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: How can the Chancellor have the gall to stand there and say that the windfall tax and the new deal have been a success? How many genuine jobs at full pay have been created? How much do those jobs cost? What will the Chancellor do in two years, when the windfall tax revenue will have run out?
    Mr. Brown: There are 100,000 young people now in jobs. If only one young person had got a job, that would be satisfactory, but 100,000 young people are now in work. I should have thought that despite party politics, the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that there are more people in jobs.
    On the use of the windfall fund, we have a new deal not only for young people, but for the long-term unemployed and single parents, and in October we shall introduce a new deal for the over-50s. If anybody considers the cost of unemployment under the Conservative Government, they will realise that the introduction of a windfall tax to get people back to work is the best use of public money.
    1312
    The Conservatives' problem is not only that they opposed the new deal, but that they opposed the windfall tax, which was the right measure to take revenue from companies that had made excess profits as a result of the unfair privatisations and to use it to get people back to work.

    Financial Services
    Mr. James Plaskitt: What steps he is taking to ensure that people in poorer communities have access to financial services. [91094]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Following the publication of the report of the social exclusion unit, "Bringing Britain Together", we established two policy action teams, led by the Treasury to consider the problem of financial exclusion. We have involved community groups, credit unions, banks and buildings societies in their work and we expect to publish their reports and action plans in the autumn.
    Mr. Plaskitt: Does my hon. Friend welcome the new duty imposed on the Financial Services Authority to perform an educational role? Does she agree that it should seek to concentrate its efforts on people with lower incomes, who have not previously had access to financial services? Does she further agree that the impact of the national minimum wage and the forthcoming working families tax credit will give lower-income families far greater opportunities to draw on financial services? Do not all those measures extend financial opportunity to the many, as opposed to the few?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right on both points. First, the Financial Services Authority has an important role to play in spreading information among all sections of consumers, particularly those on low incomes. Secondly, the Conservative party is opposed to the minimum wage, the working families tax credit and the new deal for the unemployed. In other words, the Conservatives would make the poor even poorer while a Labour Government are delivering opportunities and social inclusion for all.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: While we are on the subject of poor communities, does the hon. Lady think that the Chancellor understands that his decision to sell our gold has plunged South Africa into crisis, and only today 2,500 Ghanaian miners have been laid off, and they and their many dependants have been plunged into abject poverty? Is that a good way to help poor communities throughout the Commonwealth?
    Ms Hewitt: I quite understand that the hon. Gentleman's question and the question that the shadow Chancellor was planning to ask about gold sales were destroyed by friendly fire. I do not really think that the hon. Gentleman can get them out of that hole.
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made the position on gold sales absolutely clear. We are continuing the policy of the previous Government, to support gold sales by the International Monetary Fund in order to help to relieve the debt burden of the poorest people in the poorest communities—because, unlike the Conservative

    1313
    party, we are determined to deliver opportunity and security, and to help the poorest people, whether in our own country or in the poorest countries of the world.
    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I thank my hon. Friend for meeting a delegation of community-based credit unions the other week. She knows the concerns that they raised about the balance between community-based credit unions and other credit unions. Will she give us an undertaking to ensure that the balance is redressed and that community-based credit unions are supported?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend has taken a long-standing interest in this matter. I entirely agree that credit unions have a very important role to play, especially in the most disadvantaged communities. We have some very successful credit unions in this country, such as the one that I recently visited at Speke in Liverpool, but they could obviously play a much larger role in helping to combat financial exclusion.
    We shall shortly publish the report of the task force chaired by Fred Goodwin of the Royal Bank of Scotland, on how banks and building societies can help promote credit unions throughout the country, but especially in the poorest areas.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Following the Chancellor's eloquent comments in the Daily Mail earlier this week about the abuses in the mortgage market, is the hon. Lady aware of the disappointment at the fact that the Government continue to disregard the advice of the Treasury Committee and the Treasury Joint Committee on the Financial Services and Markets Bill that mortgages should be brought within statutory regulation and not allowed to remain within the self-regulating framework of the very institutions that are abusing the market?
    Ms Hewitt: I know that the hon. Gentleman was not always able to attend meetings of the Joint Committee, but I think that he will be aware that, earlier this week, we published a consultation document on whether the sale of all mortgage products and advice on those products should be brought within the scope of the new Financial Services Authority. As we said then, we shall decide on the scope of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, and in particular the issue of mortgage regulation, before the end of the year, but we shall do so following proper consultation, and following a proper cost-benefit analysis, so that we can ensure that we get the best possible deal for every consumer and home buyer.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: I am pleased by the focus that we have had this morning on credit unions, but will my hon. Friend admit that credit unions in this country have tighter restrictions than those in Australia and other countries? Are the Government considering relaxing those restrictions so that credit unions may expand, as they have in several countries?
    On a different subject, do the Government look favourably on the expansion or development of local exchange trading schemes?
    Ms Hewitt: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising both those points. We have already issued proposals for a deregulation order that would improve the capacity and the ability of credit unions to offer wider
    1314
    services, for instance by enabling them to bring into membership people who work in a specific area as well as those who live in it. We are currently considering the responses to that consultation.
    We are also considering in the social exclusion policy action teams the role that LETS can play, especially in helping unemployed people to develop skills that may be useful to them on returning to work.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Does the Economic Secretary agree that one way of making financial services less accessible to people would be to put VAT on them? Will she therefore comment on the fact that, with the Treasury's knowledge and consent, Customs and Excise is engaged in discussions organised by the European Commission about extending VAT to financial services? To prevent the Government getting into the same muddle on this as they have on the withholding tax, where they are led along into damaging negotiations, will she make it clear now, in advance, that the Government will veto any attempt to extend VAT to things such as credit cards, bank charges or mortgages, and will she give that categorical assurance now, in advance of the negotiations, which are already under way?
    Ms Hewitt: I am astonished by the right hon. Gentleman's ability to see European conspiracies even in a question about financial exclusion and credit unions. I remind him that it was the Conservative Government who imposed value added tax on fuel and who would have increased it to 17½ per cent. had we not stopped them and brought the rate down. It is a disgrace for the right hon. Gentleman to try to divert attention from what we are doing to promote competition in financial services and to ensure that the poorest people have access to mainstream financial services.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the consultation paper to which my hon. Friend referred include any reference to rates of interest paid on building society deposits, which many low-income families are very much dependent upon?
    Ms Hewitt: The consultation document to which I referred deals with many of the problems that consumers have raised with us and with others in relation to mortgages. My hon. Friend will be aware of many of those problems, including the danger of lock-in periods, high financial penalties and the bundling of some mortgages with expensive home-and-contents insurance policies. The best way to deal with interest rates on both mortgages and on savings deposits is to ensure that there is healthy competition within a well-regulated banking and financial services sector. That is precisely what we are delivering through the Financial Services and Markets Bill. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently invited Mr. Don Cruickshank to conduct a special review of competition within the banking sector.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Having grown up on a road where there was no bank, I know how people always look to the Post Office for savings and other services. I welcome the Minister's statement on credit unions. Given that consultation is taking place, may I suggest that she does not give too much credit to those

    1315
    who might be opposing credit unions because they have vested interests? I have seen how credit unions have freed many small, poor communities and given them more liberty in spending.
    Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I happily assure him that we will not allow any vested interests to stand in the way of the development of credit unions and other services for low-income areas. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the announcement that the Government made in May about computerisation of the Post Office network.
    As we modernise Post Office Counters Ltd. so it will be able to offer efficient banking and financial services to everybody within the communities that it serves, including rural and deprived communities. It will be able to do that in partnership with banks and building societies, which may in the past have withdrawn their branches from rural and deprived communities.

    VAT (Buildings)
    Mr. Bob Russell: If he will reduce the level of value added tax charged on works undertaken to existing buildings. [91096]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): No. European Community agreements prevent us from bringing in a general reduced rate of VAT for works to all existing buildings.
    Mr. Russell: I am disappointed by the Minister's response to what was meant to be a friendly question supporting the Deputy Prime Minister's document entitled, "Towards an Urban Renaissance". It would seem that it is not getting the support of the Treasury team. I wonder whether the Treasury and Treasury Ministers have bothered to read what has been proposed in the document. Given the hon. Lady's answer about value added tax, does she agree or disagree with some of the conclusions in "Towards an Urban Renaissance"? One passage states:
    "We propose removing the anomaly whereby renovation work on empty dwellings carries Value Added Tax…at a punitive 17.5%, but new housebuilding"
    is exempt. The paragraph continues:
    "Ideally, refurbishment and conversion work should be zero-rated…we would propose applying the minimum rate of 5% VAT to all housebuilding and conversion. A significant proportion of the extra revenue raised should then be used to fund regeneration and development on recycled land."
    Madam Speaker: Order. That was far too long a quotation.
    Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reading to me a report which I have already seen. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer met Lord Rogers yesterday. The urban task force's report is being considered carefully by the Treasury. Our response will be in the urban White Paper. I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not more familiar with VAT legislation, and particularly the prevention of returning to a zero rate.
    Mr. David Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. The full version of the report is even better
    1316
    than the appendix. I urge her to bring VAT rates for new build into line with rates for existing buildings. That is the key issue, not the rate itself, and it is urgently needed to ensure the proper allocation of housing on brown-field sites, rather than relying, as we do too heavily, on green-field sites.
    Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is right. The Government want to encourage sustainable housing growth. We must carefully consider what role tax will play in encouraging such growth. Lord Rogers's recommendations are being carefully studied.
    Mr. John Bercow: Despite her risibly unsatisfactory answer to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), does the Paymaster General recognise the potential merit of the proposal made in February 1999—by the European Commission, curiously enough—for the imposition of lower rates of VAT on labour-intensive services? As her right hon. Friend the Chancellor is the heaviest plunderer of the pockets of the British people in the country's history, why does she not consider supporting that proposal, as it stands or in a suitably amended form?
    Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the proposals for an experimental reduced rate which are being discussed in the European Union are intended to reduce unemployment, and as he knows, unemployment in his constituency has gone down by 33 per cent. since the general election. It is the Government's view that in order to reduce unemployment, we should pursue the policies of skills development, job creation and a stable economy, which the Conservative Government did not pursue. With regard to those discussions, it is our view that they will not contribute to a reduction in unemployment, but we will study the proposals from member states for taking the matter forward.

    Working Families Tax Credit
    Fiona Mactaggart: How he will monitor the impact of the working families tax credit on incomes within families. [91097]
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: What progress he has made with the implementation of the working families tax credit. [91099]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Our aim is that every child should have the best possible start in life. The working families tax credit will be implemented in October this year, including the new, generous child care tax credit. It will benefit nearly 1.5 million families, almost twice as many as under the old system of family credit, and about 3 million children. It will provide a minimum guaranteed income for a family with someone in full-time work of £200 a week—£80 more than the family would receive on income support. On average, families will gain £24 a week, and that will make work pay.
    Together with the national minimum wage, the largest ever increase in child benefit, and the reform of taxation in national insurance and in income tax, the working families tax credit will lift about 800,000 children out of poverty.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for all the measures that he has taken to help low-paid

    1317
    workers while they are bringing up their families, including the working families tax credit, which will benefit 150,000 people in my region. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, if the Conservatives got their way, it would mean a £24 a week tax increase for each of those families.
    I am concerned that my right hon. Friend should ensure that his generosity does not get stuck in the pockets of fathers, and that it reaches children and their mothers. Will he ensure that there is independent evaluation of the distribution of his generosity within families, so that it gets to children and their mothers?
    Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend. We will have a monitoring system to see how the working families tax credit works. If there is a dispute about who should get the credit, it will normally be paid to the main carer. My hon. Friend is right. At the next election the Conservative party will have to defend its proposal for a tax rise of £24 a week for 1.5 million of the poorest people in the country. Even now, the Conservatives should desist from their opposition to a measure that will relieve family poverty, make work pay, increase child care and deal with the poverty traps.
    Mr. Savidge: I welcome the extent to which the working families tax credit will help to tackle the appalling legacy of scandalous levels of child poverty that we inherited from the Conservative Government. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the Conservative party not just for that legacy, but for their continuing opposition to the measure?
    Mr. Brown: I would have hoped that the measure could be supported by all parties in the House, but it is now clear that not only does the Conservative party oppose the working families tax credit, and the shadow Chancellor say that it means state dependency when it is about the dignity of work and helping children, but the Conservative party now even opposes the advertising campaign which is designed to achieve the take-up of the new benefit that we want to see.
    The previous Conservative Government spent £21 million advertising the British Gas sale, £36 million advertising the British Telecom sale and £60 million advertising water and electricity sales, but they cannot bring themselves to support the spending of £12 million to advertise a benefit to 1.5 million of the poorest families in Britain. The country will draw the right conclusions from that.
    Mr. David Ruffley: Ministers will be aware that, on 26 January this year, the CBI said that the working families tax credit will be a "new burden" for companies, and that the costs will be significant, especially for small companies. What evidence does the Treasury have for thinking that the CBI is wrong?
    Mr. Brown: I have spoken to representatives of all the small business organisations in the past few weeks about the implementation of the working families tax credit, and they have been involved in discussing its implementation. Mr. Stan Menden, of the Forum of Private Business, says:
    "The delivery of tax credits through payroll is clearly more effective than direct state handouts in freeing the labour market and reducing dependency and the cost of welfare."
    1318
    It was a former director general of the CBI who proposed the measure in the first place.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Chancellor accept that one way of helping to relieve the problems of the working poor is to raise the level at which people start paying tax, which would remove the necessity for many of them to receive the working families tax credit? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment that he will raise the tax threshold at the earliest opportunity to take minimum wage earners out of tax altogether and, subsequently, bring it up to the levels that applied at the end of the war when one could earn 50 per cent. of the average wage before paying tax rather than the 25 per cent. today?
    Mr. Brown: We are in the 1990s, not in 1945, and we must devise a system to make work pay that is relevant to the changes in the 1990s. If I recall correctly, the hon. Gentleman's proposal, designed, no doubt, to solicit votes in the Liberal Democrat leadership election, would cost about £20 billion. Our proposal takes many more people out of poverty, helps to make work pay, deals with the problem of inadequate child care and tackles the poverty trap. I should have thought that it would benefit the hon. Gentleman's campaign to become leader of the Liberal Democrats if he supported our proposal.
    Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I congratulate the Chancellor on the historic achievement of the working families tax credit, but he will know that some families will not gain as much as they might because of the steep rates of housing benefit withdrawal as income rises. Will the Chancellor guarantee that, for the Treasury, housing benefit reform should take place as soon as possible, that there should be no losers apart from those who are guilty of fraud and that those moving into work should be substantial gainers, so that the great advances of the working families tax credit are not clawed back by the steep withdrawal of housing benefit?
    Mr. Brown: A housing policy review is taking place under my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, but my hon. Friend should not go away with the impression that people are losing out as a result of the working families tax credit. Many families will be £50 a week better off as a result of measures that we are introducing. On average, the benefits are £24 a week. That is going to exactly those groups of people whom he would want to see benefit from the measure—mothers who want to work, and people in low-paid families who were deprived under the previous Government not only of the minimum wage but of an adequate system of family credit. My hon. Friend could help us to put the message across throughout the country that this is a benefit that helps exactly those people who were denied help under the previous Government.
    Mr. Francis Maude: Does the Chancellor think it matters that he has been condemned by the CBI, by the Institute of Directors and by the Federation of Small Businesses for turning employers into unpaid benefit officers? As the CBI has said, costs are particularly great for small businesses, which are always hardest hit by red tape. Does any of that matter to him or is he going to brush it all aside as he usually does?
    Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman was stuck after failing to ask his question about gold, so he has repeated one that I have already answered. The Forum of Private Business has made its views clear and the CBI was originally involved in a proposal that would have led to the introduction of a working families tax credit. The right hon. Gentleman is opposing a proposal that even Ronald Reagan in the United States of America was prepared to support.
    Under the previous Conservative Government, whom the right hon. Gentleman supported, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), the former Secretary of State for Social Services, wrote in his book "Ministers Decide" that
    "our original proposal was that Family Credit should be paid through the pay-packet. This had a number of advantages. It brought tax and benefit closer together, and putting family credit explicitly on the pay-slip showed total new earnings—demonstrating…the gap between take-home wages and unemployment pay."
    He wrote that, after right-wing Conservative opposition,
    "with some regret we eventually changed our proposal".
    There are even members of the right hon. Gentleman's own party who wish that they had done what we are doing.
    Mr. Maude: There were a lot of disadvantages to the proposal, which is why the Conservative Government did not introduce it. It is a scandal that the Chancellor is abolishing the system of family credit which the Conservatives introduced. Only this Chancellor could defend as helping the poor a measure that extends social security benefits to top-rate taxpayers.
    Is not the working families tax credit yet another burden that has been imposed on business by a Government who claim to be the friend of business? Yet again, they say one thing and do another. On top of £30 billion of extra stealth taxes and £5 billion a year in costs for extra regulations—on the Government's own figures—businesses face a new energy tax and a new attack on information technology and other entrepreneurs. Is it any wonder that Britain has already slipped from fourth to eighth in the world competitiveness league? Is it surprising that the price of all that extra red tape has been calculated as more than 800,000 jobs? As always under Labour, the poor will suffer most.
    Mr. Brown: The one group that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention in his diatribe is the working families whom the measure is designed to help. We are cutting the poverty trap that we inherited from the previous Government; we are tackling the problem of child care, which they never even bothered to address; we are dealing with the problem of making work pay; and we are dealing with the problem of child poverty in this country. It is unfortunate that the dividing line between us and the Conservatives is that we support a minimum wage; a working families tax credit; helping people who receive child benefit; helping pensioners through the £100 winter allowance; and allocating £40 billion for health and education—all central measures that will help working families—while the Conservative party is more extreme than ever in its opposition to anything that will help either the working poor or middle-income families in this country.

    Local Government Finance
    Laura Moffatt: What assessment he has made of the effect of the borrowing requirements of local authorities in the next financial year on his plans for fiscal and monetary stability. [91100]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): Local authority spending levels, including borrowing requirements, were taken into account in last year's three-year spending settlement. The resulting levels of public expenditure are reflected in the Government's plans for fiscal and monetary stability.
    Laura Moffatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that good Labour authorities such as Crawley borough council will benefit most from fiscal stability? Such authorities managed to build houses for rent through the lean Tory years. They are still delivering good services and are regularly congratulated by the Audit Commission. Now Crawley borough council will have the stability that it needs to move forward and deliver even better services to the people of Crawley.
    Mr. Milburn: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right and I pay tribute to the work of Crawley borough council, which is obviously a well-managed and well-run local authority. We have made additional resources available for local government and for our public services. The comprehensive spending review settlement for local government included a doubling in schools investment, an extra £3.5 billion of capital receipts for housing, £700 million more for local authority transport services, £800 million more for the new deal for communities and £2.3 billion through a reshaped single regeneration budget. All those measures will help to modernise our public services to give people in areas such as my hon. Friend's a better deal. They would all be threatened by the Conservatives' spending plans, because the Conservatives are interested in cutting back public spending whereas we are interested in investing in them.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that he has effectively cut services in sectors such as social services, education and police throughout North Yorkshire? Does he not also understand that he has subscribed to the economic convergence criteria, so beloved of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which are set out in the Maastricht treaty, and that the Government should therefore be discouraging public sector borrowing requirements by all local authorities?
    Mr. Milburn: We have a further split in the Conservative party: there are divisions not only among those on the Front Bench, but between Back Benchers and Front Benchers. The Back Benchers want to spend more money and the Front Benchers want to spend less—less money for vital public services with the Conservatives and more with the Labour Government.

    EU Economic Convergence
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What estimate he has made of the rate at which the UK economy has achieved sustained convergence with other EU countries since his statement to the House in October 1997. [91101]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government have said that there is no realistic prospect of the UK economy demonstrating, before the end of the current Parliament, convergence that is sustainable and settled rather than transitory. We have put in place policies for economic stability that have delivered low inflation and the lowest interest rates for more than 30 years, but the biggest threat to economic stability and to convergence would be a return to Conservative policies of boom and bust.
    Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that one of the principal causes of the accelerating divergence of the UK economy from the continental cycle is the historic and growing ownership of assets in the United States by UK companies, and of assets in the UK by United States companies? What does the hon. Lady intend to do about the coincidence of managerial decision making and culture to which that gives rise? Does she intend to introduce measures to restrict the ownership and purchase of such assets, in the same way as she has assisted the European Union in its assault on the transatlantic art market?
    Ms Hewitt: Like so many Conservative Members, the hon. Gentleman seems to forget that 50 per cent. of our trade is with the European Union, but we have no need whatever to choose between our close relationship with the EU and our close relationship with the United States of America. I had hoped that he would congratulate the Government on the consequences of our policy of economic stability and growth, which has delivered a 39.6 per cent. reduction in unemployment in his constituency. We took the decision to make the Bank of England independent to secure economic stability and low interest rates. The Conservatives have opposed independence for the Bank of England, just as they have opposed all our other policies for growth and stability.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the granting of operational independence to the Bank of England has brought the greatest economic stability in this country in a generation? Will she confirm that she will resist the demands from the Conservative party to move away from operational independence?
    On the specific issue of the single currency, does my hon. Friend agree that it is right and proper that we continue to monitor convergence and the degree to which we are meeting the criteria that we set for entry? It is right that, if we meet those criteria, we let the people decide the issue in a referendum. It would be totally wrong to give in to the Conservative party and to accept the demand that, whatever the circumstances and the national economic interest, we will not let the people decide the issue for an arbitrary period of 10 years.
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right. We took the tough decision to give the Bank of England operational independence. Every month for the past two years, the Conservative party has denigrated and opposed that decision. It will have no credibility left if it now tries to pretend that it is in favour of that policy. On the question of joining the single currency, the reality is that the Conservative party is now so extreme and so anti-European that it would oppose joining a single currency, even if it were good for the British economy, for business and for jobs.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: We have had some more bad examples this morning of the Government cooking the figures and trying to spin away the facts, not least in a thoroughly disreputable answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) about gold sales. Had the Chancellor—
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Davies: Had the Chancellor quoted the sale price and the purchase price in constant prices—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I am on my feet. He must also keep within the terms of the question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Davies: I am asking the Government how they will cook the figures or spin away the facts in comparing the growth rates in this country with those in the rest of the European Union. How will they explain away the fact that, in the last five years of the previous Parliament, we consistently had a higher growth rate than the rest of the EU, while this year and next year we shall have a lower growth rate than the EU average?
    Ms Hewitt: The fact that the hon. Gentleman cannot explain away is that he is in favour of Britain's membership of the EU, while his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), is against it and wants to withdraw. The divisions on the Conservative Front Bench on this issue will damage the national interest. This Government have delivered economic stability and the lowest interest rates for more than 30 years.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Did my hon. Friend have a chance to read the remarkable article in the Financial Times two weeks ago, which reported the shadow Chancellor as saying that the euro would be a success? Has she noticed that, since that speech, the euro has gone up? Will she encourage the right hon. Gentleman to make more such speeches and unleash the passionate pro-euro feelings of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who, every time he opens his mouth at the Dispatch Box, sees the euro go up and converge with the pound? His great dream of entering the single market will then come about sooner than he hopes.
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes his point quite brilliantly. It is highly appropriate that the shadow Chancellor—the man who signed the Maastricht treaty—should now apparently be responsible for a rise in the value of the euro.

    Savings Ratio
    Mr. Robert Syms: What estimate he has made of the savings ratio in 1999–2000. [91102]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): The March 1999 Budget showed the savings ratio rising to 7.5 per cent. in 1999 and beyond.
    Mr. Syms: Will the Minister apologise for the vicious attack that the Government have launched against savers: the £5 billion that they are taking out of pension funds; and the abolition of personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts? Is it any wonder that, since the last election, the savings ratio has plummeted to 7 per cent?
    Mr. Milburn: If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would be careful about quoting savings ratios, because under his Government the savings ratio hit a low of 3 per cent. It is now 7 per cent. and rising. It is rising precisely because of the economic stability that this Government have created. I tell the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members who are chuntering from the Front Bench that the worst enemy of savers is the rampant inflation that we saw under the previous Government.
    Mr. Christopher Leslie: Is it not the case that pensioners with savings gain most from the current extremely low level of headline inflation? Is not that beneficial product of the Labour Government's policies a contrast with the prolonged double-figure inflation rates that we had under the previous Government?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: pensioners and others are benefiting from the low-inflation climate that we have managed to create. We have created a form of economic stability that this country has not seen for many years, with interest rates at their lowest level in more than 20 years, mortgages at their lowest rate for more than 30 years, inflation down and public finances under control. All of that is in marked contrast to the economic turmoil that we saw when the previous lot were in power.
    Mr. Howard Flight: The savings ratio was 9.7 per cent. on average in the last three years of the Conservative Government. How does the Chancellor reconcile his fine words about increasing investment with the fact that the savings ratio has fallen by 26 per cent. since his Government came to power? It is, indeed, the attack on savings that has led to that. Not only have the subscriptions to individual savings accounts in the first quarter, in value terms, been enormously down on PEPs and TESSAs; not only are pension funds losing £5 billion a year; but the Chancellor will find, following the initiatives on stakeholder pensions, that there is a massive fall in the value of company pension scheme provisioning to money pensions, and a massive increase in people cashing in personal pensions. Here again we have the Government spinning one thing and doing another.
    Mr. Milburn: I know that the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party do not like individual savings accounts, but the truth is that savers do. In the first two months following their launch, savers invested more than £4 billion in them—more than twice as much as was invested in PEPs and TESSAs during exactly the same period last year. What is most heartening from the Government's point of view—and, I should have thought, from the point of view of the House as a whole—is that most of the savings were invested in cash ISAs, which will benefit small savers especially. The Government are creating not only economic stability, but an environment in which saving will expand and increase.
    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking his question, because, in many respects, his is the authentic voice of the Conservative party. He is the man who says that he wants state pensions to be privatised, and sickness and unemployment benefits to be transferred to the private sector. Moreover, rather than agreeing with his hon. Friends on the Back Benches that public spending should be increased, he wants it to be cut by £50 billion this year, next year and every year. That is the authentic voice of the Conservative party.

    Green-field Housing Development
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What plans he has to impose a tax on green-field housing development; and if he will make a statement. [91103]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The Chancellor has no present plans to impose a tax on green-field developments. The Government keep under review the scope for using economic instruments to complement the planning system in achieving their social and environmental objectives.
    Mr. Mullin: I am disappointed by that reply. As my hon. Friend will know, agricultural land that is normally worth between £3,000 and £5,000 per acre is now changing hands at up to £8,000 per acre, and much of the gross gain is being rolled over for the purposes of capital gains tax. Is this not one area in which the Treasury, without arousing any political controversy, might raise some extra money for the public?
    Mrs. Roche: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I know of his long-standing interest in the matter, and I know that he has had a meeting with my hon. Friend the Paymaster General.
    Roll-over relief enables businesses to modernise and expand. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that we are giving careful consideration to Lord Rogers's report, and, as my hon. Friend the Paymaster General has said, will return to the House with our conclusions.
    Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Earlier this morning it was the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew); now it is the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). Clearly a campaign is developing on the Labour Back Benches for the introduction of a tax on new housing development. Given the Government's track record in regard to the introduction of new taxes, does the Financial Secretary not owe it to potential home owners to rule out categorically the introduction of such a tax?
    Mrs. Roche: I am astonished at the right hon. Gentleman's cheek. He was a Treasury Minister in the Government who introduced the measure that imposed VAT on fuel—the measure that hit hard-working families most. He should spend some time examining his own record—the record that got the Conservative party into such a mess.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a great opportunity for the next 10 years? With a taxation policy married to an environmental policy that is sensible and far-sighted, we can regenerate our towns and cities by tackling brown-field and contaminated sites. However, a flow of taxation moneys will be needed to help brown-field sites to compete with green-field sites.
    If I were asked to advise the Government, I would advise them to emphasise the importance of making brown-field development a priority, rather than taxing green-field development.
    Mrs. Roche: I understand completely the points that my hon. Friend makes, and—as he knows—the Government have set a target for increasing the proportion of new housing on brown-field sites. He is also absolutely right to talk about the need for a joined-up and co-ordinated approach, not only in the Treasury but in all Departments, in achieving that goal. Consequently, we are very grateful to Lord Rogers and are considering his recommendations very carefully.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the hon. Lady please tell the House what type of incentives are being considered to encourage brown-field rather than green-field site development?
    Mrs. Roche: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the Rogers report—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The Rogers report is very detailed, dealing not only with a range of fiscal measures, but with all the other initiatives that the Government are undertaking in urban areas. It is very much a report for all Departments, and Treasury Ministers will be considering it very carefully. However, as my hon. Friend the Paymaster General said, it is a matter not only for the Treasury but for other Departments; on planning, for example, it is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We shall make a co-ordinated response as soon as we possibly can, after we have considered the report.

    Public Sector Investment
    Ms Beverley Hughes: What is the level of extra investment he has allocated to the public sector since May 1997. [91104]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): The comprehensive spending review, in July 1998, allocated an additional £65 billion within total departmental expenditure limits over the next three years. Of that, some £40 billion is extra investment in health and education.
    Ms Hughes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information, which demonstrates that—unlike the previous Government, who tried to destroy public services—this Government are investing massively in the future of those services. Does he agree that, after those Tory years, across the public sector, we need not only new ways of doing things, but new ways of thinking—such as more responsive services, much higher quality and more creativity? How will the Government ensure that the extra investment provided will produce the radical transformation that we need?
    Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Our public services not only have a repair, maintenance and infrastructural improvement backlog but need to be modernised so that they provide the responsive and modern services which people nowadays quite rightly expect. That is why the record levels of investment that we have made available for health, education and other public services are tied to specific outcomes—and why, in our public service agreements, we have set 600 targets that we expect to be met. The end result will be not only smaller class sizes, shorter waiting lists and less congestion, but dramatically improved public services in communities across the land which people will be experiencing in the next few years.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: In an ideal world, should the proportion of gross domestic product taken by the public sector increases or decrease?
    Mr. Milburn: I know that the hon. Gentleman likes talking about ideal worlds, as that is easier than living in the real one. Nevertheless, on his question, he should have a word with his Front-Bench spokesmen—such as the shadow Chancellor, who, when we announced our record extra investment in health and education, described our spending plans as madness; or the Leader of the Opposition, who described our spending plans as reckless; or the shadow Chief Secretary, who said that they were dangerous. The Conservatives now say that they want to sign up to them—but their spending plans do not add up any more than their figures do.

    VAT (Church Buildings)
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What representations he has received recently on the level of VAT on church building repairs and renovations. [91106]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Treasury Ministers have received a number of letters asking for a zero rate or reduced rate of VAT for repairs to church buildings.
    Mr. Pike: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in many parts of the country, churches are an important part of our heritage, and that many of the older buildings cost considerable sums to maintain and operate? Is there not a very strong case for at least reducing VAT on such repairs—accepting that they cannot be zero-rated—to 5 per cent?
    Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend will know that the construction of new churches, church halls and village halls is free of VAT, and that, each year, £20 million is granted for the maintenance and repair of churches. Within current VAT legislation, the Government do not have the ability to reduce the rate.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the Minister looked at the problems in many inner-city areas where people are trying to renovate buildings rather than knocking them down and starting again or using green-field sites?
    1328
    A moment ago the Financial Secretary to the Treasury referred to joined-up government. Is there not a suggestion that, unless the issue is tackled, there constantly will be an incentive for people to knock down and start again or to go to a green-field site?
    Dawn Primarolo: Yes, the Government are aware of that, and Lord Rogers has looked at such subjects in the urban task force report. It is a pity that the decline of those areas occurred not just since the last general election but under the last Government, who did absolutely nothing about it.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Sir George Young: Would the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business of the House for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 26 JULY—Conclusion of consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Relations Bill.
Supplemental allocation of time motion relating to the Local Government Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government Bill.
TUESDAY 27 JULY—Debate on public expenditure on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The provisional business for the first week back after the summer recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY 19 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on the first report from the Treasury Committee on the Office for National Statistics, followed by a debate on the reports from the Select Committee on Public Administration on the work of the ombudsman. Both debates will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 20 OCTOBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day [20th Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 21 OCTOBER—Debate on the fourth report from the Procedure Committee on the procedural consequences of devolution.
FRIDAY 22 OCTOBER—The House will not be sitting.
Sir George Young: We are grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us next week's business and an indication of the business for the first week back. Having said that, today's statement is not a happy one with which to conclude before the recess. I very much regret that, at short notice last night, the Government decided to guillotine two Bills, neither of which the Opposition had planned to delay. The right hon. Lady has now announced yet another guillotine for Monday. I will set out the reasons why we feel that the Government have overreacted when we debate the motion later. At this stage, I would say that the Government have played their hand badly and sent the House off on the wrong note.
Can the right hon. Lady assure the House that Members will be able to get here for the next guillotine debate on Monday? I understand that another group of citizens whom the Government have driven to despair are to lobby Parliament—this time, the truckers, following the latest meeting of the road haulage forum on Monday, which demonstrated that the Government are interested only in delay and not in genuine discussion.
I welcome the proposed debate on the Procedure Committee's report on the consequences of devolution, for which I—and you, Madam Speaker—have been
1330
calling. We will do our best to help the Government find the right way through the consequences of devolution for this House which, clearly, they have not thought through.
Also in the first week back, we are due to discuss the Office for National Statistics. Should not we use the time to debate the royal commission on long-term care—a debate that has been called for repeatedly in the six months since publication of the report and which the Government seem anxious to avoid?
Finally, I understand that the Government will publish their annual report next week. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the place to hold the Government to account is not before the press and civil servants in the rose garden at No. 10—as last year—but here, before Members of Parliament, in the Chamber of the House of Commons?
Mrs. Beckett: I, too, regret the fact that the Government have found it necessary to introduce timetable motions on the debates of which I have given notice today. Conservative Members seem to have got it into their heads that things run all one way in the House and that they are at liberty to play the rules as they choose, without the Government being able to have similar regard to those rules. We will be able to touch on those matters if Conservative Members want to debate them. We, too, regret the fact that it was not possible to reach agreement on the handling of legislation. We have to protect not only Government business but the interests of the House as a whole.
On groups being driven to despair, I am not sure what those who were lobbying the House yesterday were driven to, but they were certainly making the most extraordinary noises, which I presume were supposed to be evocative of some part of their argument; they were certainly interesting, if not illuminating.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the debate on procedure, for which, as he rightly said, both he and Madam Speaker have asked us to find time. I reject the notion that there is something unforeseen about the debate. We need to consider how our procedures can evolve and we will have a useful opportunity to discuss that.
I think that we have been waiting—as the right hon. Gentleman would put it—for the debate on long-term care for closer to four months than six. We will of course have that debate, but we will not be able to have it as early as he suggests.
I listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on the annual report. I am slightly surprised if he is saying that it should be announced in a statement to the House, as I rather had the impression that he thought otherwise in the past, but I will certainly bear his remarks in mind in the future.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Will my right hon. Friend find time in the not-too-distant future for a further debate in a calm atmosphere on the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee on pre-legislative scrutiny? I chaired the Special Select Committee on the Food Standards Bill, which took evidence from two Ministers on two occasions and from 24 organisations and three other individuals. We spent many hours producing a report most of whose recommendations the Government accepted. In view of this week's events, especially as there were more than 20 Opposition amendments on

1331
Report, following both Second Reading and the Standing Committee, we need to decide whether this is how the Modernisation Committee wanted us to proceed or whether legislation should go through Parliament in a calmer and more sensible way.
Mrs. Beckett: I had thought that the whole House was grateful to my hon. Friend and the Committee for the excellent work that they did on the Food Standards Bill. Until yesterday, those proceedings were thought to have been a model of the way in which we would all want the all-party recommendations of the Modernisation Committee to be implemented. The Special Select Committee did excellent work, as Select Committees always do, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the hope was that the legislation would be handled all the better, and would be better legislation, because of the degree and the kind of scrutiny that it had received. I was especially sorry to hear Conservative Members criticising the work of the Special Select Committee.
I agree that if we are to proceed with proper modernisation, we must bear in mind that it will never happen if, at the last minute, when all the proper procedures for a modernised debate have been carried through, people want to take the opportunity to exploit the use of time and not to debate a Bill properly. The House will have to take that into account.
Mr. Don Foster: I urge the Leader of the House to find time for the Government to explain to the House why they have made a material change to the contracts for special advisers. Is she aware that, under the previous Administration, special advisers were specifically warned not to engage in purely party political activities, whereas under the new Labour contract they are specifically encouraged to brief Labour Back Benchers?
Will the Leader of the House find time for the Government to explain why the House has been told that there has been no change in the arrangements, when that is clearly not the case? Why have we been told that no records are kept of briefings given by special advisers, when I have in my hand an example of a Department for Education and Employment briefing that is titled, dated and numbered, gives specific references to other titled, dated and numbered briefings and states where copies of such briefings can be obtained? Can the Leader of the House explain why the House has been told that no records are kept?
Finally, on the first question raised by the shadow Leader of the House, will the right hon. Lady provide time to reflect on the use of guillotine motions? Does she accept that the orderly programming of business by timetable motions agreed by all parties is for the benefit of the House, but that the procedure is being brought into disrepute by the sudden introduction of guillotines of which the Opposition parties have had no notice?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions about political advisers. I do not know why the House has been told that no records are kept. Perhaps it is because they are not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Perhaps?"] Well, I do not know. The hon. Gentleman makes several suggestions about changes that he says have taken place in the way in which special advisers are employed under
1332
this Government compared with under the previous Government. I am not familiar with the arrangements under which special advisers were employed by the previous Government. On at least one occasion, statements were made purporting to suggest changes in the way in which special advisers are able to operate, which—I am told—were not well founded. Conservative Members suggested, for example, that there were changes in the rules that had operated when they were in government when that was not the case. As for the hon. Gentleman's basic assertion that under the previous Government special advisers held themselves aloof from the impurity of party politics, I can only say that the large number of former special advisers decorating the Opposition Benches suggests that that policy was spectacularly unsuccessful.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the orderly progress of business and timetable motions. I entirely share his view. I am not sure whether he was able to be in the House last night. If he was, he will know both that I regretted that we felt we had to introduce these timetable motions and that I made it plain that an agreed timetable was sought and it was only when agreement was not forthcoming that we felt we had to take action to protect not only today's but tomorrow's business.
Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I for one do not question in any way the right of the Opposition to delay business? That is the legitimate right of the Opposition. Is it not the case that during the 18 years that we were in opposition, when we delayed business, the Government's response was always to introduce a guillotine motion? Therefore, there is absolutely no difference in the responses of the previous and the present Governments. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that on Monday night, when we stayed until two o'clock in the morning—I make no complaints whatever—some Opposition Members voted against every order on the agenda, including one that would have extended the opening hours for the millennium celebrations? They are spoilsports and we should tell the country so.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I am particularly grateful to him for drawing attention to the fact that the Conservative party voted against the licensing extension for the millennium celebrations. Their constituents should all be made aware that the Conservative party wishes them to stay at home without the opportunity of alcoholic refreshment—the new killjoy approach to politics.
Mr. Peter Brooke: In the light of the last remark of the Leader of the House, may I say that I voted against the motion because my constituents do not wish the licensing laws to be extended through the night and Westminster city council contributed to the consultation paper exactly on those lines?
Mrs. Beckett: I am even more grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—if that is possible—because I was under the misapprehension that many Conservative Members voted to make a gesture without being fully aware that, as he has made plain, it was a deliberate decision.

1333
That reinforces the argument that it is only right for their constituents to know that they have made that decision, as they are perfectly entitled to do.
Mr. Alan Williams: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that four regions of the United Kingdom have benefited from billions of pounds of aid from Europe under objective 1 status. Is she aware that the deadline for the initial submission is the end of October, just after we return? To meet the deadline, those four regions need to have indications of support from a series of Government Departments. May we have a statement before the House adjourns on the financial support that will be available for objective 1 applications?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to my right hon. Friend that we will be able to find time for such a statement. However, I understand the point that he makes and I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of the relevant Departments and my right hon. and hon. Friends there.
Sir Peter Emery: Will the right hon. Lady reflect that I cannot remember when guillotine motions were introduced in the last week of a Parliament, when we could sit on a few extra days to have all the debate that we might want? It really seems a little strange that that is the line that the Government are taking. During next week and the recess, will she consider whether the Government can produce an answer to the important suggestion that has been made by members of the Modernisation Committee that hon. Members might be able to table written questions when the House is not sitting? As we are not sitting for 12 weeks, many hon. Members reasonably feel that they would like to get answers out of Ministers during that time. The answers could be published in Hansard on a weekly basis. That would enhance the way in which Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House could keep the Government up to scratch.
Mrs. Beckett: I take on board the strong and powerful request that the right hon. Gentleman makes for the House to sit for longer and not to adjourn next Tuesday. It is not entirely clear to me whether he carries the majority of his party with him in making that request. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Oh, he does. Well, that is interesting, especially in view of the number of occasions on which Opposition Members have pressed me, over such a sustained period, to give the dates of the recess.
I recognise that one characteristic of opposition is that the memory fails a little. I am aware, but the right hon. Gentleman has perhaps overlooked the fact, that the recess dates that I have proposed are shorter than those for four out of the five years of the previous Parliament. Far from proposing a longer recess, as some Opposition Members allege that the Government have done, we are already proposing a shorter one. However, I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about written questions. It is a matter that the Government are considering. He will know that there are implications for the staff of the House as well as for others. The matter is under discussion and I accept that it is a worthwhile point to consider.
Mr. Syd Rapson: Can time be found for a debate on yesterday's Court of Appeal
1334
decision on my constituent, Mrs. Carol Glass. To be of help, Madam Speaker, the lady in question has a son of 12 who is disabled. Doctors decided to hasten his death by the injection of diamorphine. The parents objected severely and wanted a court decision. It was refused. The Court of Appeal decision yesterday was not clear and it needs redefining. Only the House could discuss the issue in its own way, to define the matter for the future.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have, of course, as the whole House will have, great sympathy for families and, indeed, clinicians who find themselves in those difficult circumstances. However, with great respect, although the House is a forum in which such matters may be aired, I am wary of seeking to decide such issues within this forum. It is difficult enough for the courts, clinicians and families to make such decisions. I fear that, much though I sympathise with the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised, I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the near future.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Bearing in mind the new-found fondness of the Leader of the House for finding time on Fridays for private Members' Bills, will she give us an assurance that, before the House considers such Bills in the next Session, she will have found time for consideration of the fifth report of the Procedure Committee? The report notes that, when ministerial statements are made on Fridays on private Members' Bill days, the House should be given extra time to discuss those Bills, so that the time for ministerial statements is not taken out of private Members' time. That might have ensured that my Bus Fuel Duty (Exemptions) Bill, which would have given a rebate to community transport, would have passed through the House instead of being talked out by a Minister. I find the right hon. Lady's new fondness for private Members' Bills somewhat insincere.
Mrs. Beckett: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman on his desire to assist community transport. It is perhaps unfortunate that he did not manage to do so when he was a Minister at the then Department of Transport, and has been forced to rely on the private Members' Bill mechanism—but there we go; I realise that we all have difficulties from time to time. However, we are giving proper and thorough consideration to the fifth report of the Procedure Committee.
Angela Smith: The Leader of the House will be aware of the announcement earlier this week of new improvements to the vaccine for meningitis C. As secretary of the all-party Cuba group, I have been observing progress on the disease for some time, because the Cuban Government have largely eradicated meningitis C; I hope that we can do the same. May we have a debate on the achievements in the NHS? I realise that there has been an Opposition debate on the NHS, but it seemed to be critical of and did not do justice to the staff in the NHS—nurses, doctors, clinicians and support staff. Would it not now be opportune to hold a debate on the achievements of the NHS and its staff?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I share her view that there is much to celebrate in the achievements of the health service; it is a pity that

1335
sometimes the focus of debate in this place is on problems rather than on successes. Although I accept the strength of my hon. Friend's case—I am aware of the work that she and her group have carried out in studying the issue—I regret that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the near future.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House confirm that, during the next few days, the Government will make an announcement on those regions in the United Kingdom that may be eligible for objective 2 status under European Union structural funds? Does she acknowledge that such an announcement is vital for many regions represented by Members on both sides of the House? Does she accept that the way in which the decision on regional selective aid was made—at a press conference—did not allow Members the opportunity to cross-examine Ministers on the announcement? Does she also accept that, as there are only a few days left before the summer recess, it is imperative that she finds time, at the appropriate moment, for a statement by Ministers on that matter, so that Members can cross-examine them on the result of the announcement?
Mrs. Beckett: Consideration is being given to how we can inform hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that great effort was made by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to give Members of Parliament as much information as possible. I understand that consideration is being given to how that can be followed up and the fullest possible information can be made available.
Mr. David Borrow: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, since the general election, there has been no debate on the aerospace industry in general, although there have been debates in the context of defence procurement. Given that major changes are due in the European aerospace industry over the next few years, will she be able to find time, after the recess, for a debate on the future of the UK aerospace industry?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in these matters; I believe that he is the new chair of the all-party aerospace group—on which I heartily congratulate him. I fear, however, that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the aerospace industry in the very near future, although I am aware of the enormous importance of that industry throughout the UK—not least in the north-west—and of its international success. I fear that that success will have to go somewhat unsung—at least 'for a little while. However, we shall soon be at the stage of considering which issues will be discussed in the Queen's Speech. My hon. Friend may find an opportunity to raise the matter in those debates.
Sir Teddy Taylor: When can we have a debate about the massive expenditure of public funds through the common agricultural policy? Is not the need for such a debate all the more urgent in light of the appalling information that I received in a written answer from Ministers last week, which revealed that last year the European Community spent £100 million on destroying a vast
1336
amount of food, including 174,000 tonnes of cauliflowers and 240,000 tonnes of tomatoes? As we are spending £100 million on destroying food, is it not time that the House of Commons debated that subject?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have long shared his view that the common agricultural policy needs significant reform. That view is being shared more widely across Europe and the world. The hon. Gentleman will know also that some reforms have been undertaken—although not as many as we would like. We are all seeking opportunities to continue to pursue the issue of CAP reform, not least through international discussions that may take place in the next year or so.
Mr. Phil Hope: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the work of the electoral commission and revitalising democracy? I visited Eddisbury yesterday where voters were clearly motivated by the chance to meet by-election candidates and the Prime Minister but were turned off by the yobbish behaviour of the Conservative party. We need new, radical proposals to revitalise interest, particularly among young people, in the democratic process.
Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's view about that important issue. I know that some people continue to believe that we should make it difficult for people to register their vote, but I think that we should make it easier. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary presented a full list of proposals on that matter last week. I am aware that the voters of Eddisbury have the opportunity to express their views today, and I am sure that all Labour Members—but perhaps not Opposition Members—hope that, when they do so, they will bear in mind the Government's many achievements, such as the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, low inflation, a successful and stable economy and no more boom and bust.
I am strongly of the view that, in elections of any sort, we should pay some attention to the deficiencies of our system. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time to debate that subject in the near future, but I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's remarks.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will be aware that we have been pressing for some time for a general debate on Northern Ireland. She will be aware also that the IRA issued a strange statement this morning. May we have a debate in the spill-over period so that we may reflect upon the issues coolly and calmly? Senator Mitchell was invited to travel this road four years ago, but he missed that part of the journey. The decommissioning body then missed its opportunity. Political discussions then led to the Belfast agreement and the decommissioning body was tasked with producing a report. However, the reality is that we have had no decommissioning. What message are three democratic Governments—this Government, the Republic of Ireland Government and the United States Government—sending to terrorists throughout the world when we pander to that sort of behaviour?
Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, all those Governments are continuing to send the consistent message that we believe in the Good Friday agreement,

1337
that we want to see it carried through and that we want the peace process to reach a successful conclusion. I cannot undertake to find time so far in advance for the debate that the hon. Gentleman seeks in the spill-over period. However, I obviously do not rule it out. As we get nearer to the time, it may prove to be the correct thing to do. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request, but I am sure he understands that I cannot give him a date at present.
Mr. Steve McCabe: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the war being waged by South Birmingham community health council to prevent the building of a new hospital in south Birmingham? It appears that 14 individuals are prepared to use the health council as a cover for their campaign which is based on information that they know to be false. How is that an acceptable use of public funds? Will my right hon. Friend try to find time in future for a debate on the funding and accountability of community health councils?
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I was not aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. I can well understand his concern if he thinks that difficulties are being caused for the provision of health care to his constituents. I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for a debate on the specific subject that he raises, but I undertake to draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. David Maclean: Does the right hon. Lady not now regret building in the extra, unnecessary week's holiday in February so that Labour Back Benchers can have a few more days off? Will she now reverse the distressing trend of the new Labour Government to give longer and longer recesses so that less and less time is spent in the House and then ruthlessly to curtail debate on every item of substance? [Interruption.] There would be plenty of time to debate matters in the House if the right hon. Lady followed the conventions and traditions of parliamentary debate, rather than guillotining debates.
Mrs. Beckett: I could not quite hear all the right hon. Gentleman's final remarks because of the noise that his colleagues were making. I simply say to him that he is living in a fantasy world. He clearly did not take the trouble to conduct even the most cursory scrutiny—which would be in sound parliamentary tradition—of the facts before he made his points. It is totally untrue to say that the Government have given longer recesses than previous Governments, as I have already pointed out to the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery). This recess is shorter than was the norm under the Government whom the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) served so comparatively recently.
As for the mid-February break, I do not regret that, because, Madam Speaker, you will recall, as the right hon. Gentleman clearly does not, that the all-party Modernisation Committee recommended that break because it believed that it would be conducive to the smoother and more effective working of Parliament. Only a few Conservative Members objected, at least publicly, when I sought to accommodate the expressed wish of the House, which is also consistent with parliamentary tradition.
1338
The right hon. Gentleman needs to get it into his head that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said earlier, it is of course right, proper and consistent with the traditions of the House for the Opposition to seek to exploit the opportunities available to them regarding the use of time. It is also well within the traditions of the House for the Government to have to deal with those attempts from time to time.
Mr. David Drew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time that we revisited the Modernisation Committee's work on electronic voting? In particular, is it not a great waste of time that we go though the Lobby to vote on motions that have not even been debated in the House? At the very least, could we consider the opportunity to use electronic voting on such motions?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point that, as he will know, is raised from time to time in the context of modernising the House. I fear that I cannot find time for a debate on that in the near future. Everyone understands that there is flexibility within the rules of the House for hon. Members, as individuals or as organised groups, to make their case by causing disruption to the proceedings from time to time. That is well within our parliamentary traditions, but hon. Members must realise that if feeling begins to grow in the House that those traditions are being frivolously misused, that will cause problems.
Mr. Robert Syms: Will the Leader of the House find time before the end of the Session for a debate on England? We have spent a considerable time debating Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and there has been major constitutional change. It would be useful if hon. Members could express their views on the English question, what should happen and what should be the relationship between English Members of Parliament and other Members of the House. There is no English Question Time or any other opportunity for us to raise those issues, so a debate on England over two or three days would be more than welcome.
Mrs. Beckett: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He regularly attends business questions, so he will have heard you, Madam Speaker, draw attention a couple of weeks ago to the fact that this is the United Kingdom Parliament and we are elected as United Kingdom MPs. There is wariness about arguments and steps that seem to jeopardise that union.
The hon. Gentleman will also have heard me make the point before that the Government have been minded to use the Standing Order, which is within the control of the House, on the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, so that a further forum for the exploration of some exclusively regional affairs could be established. That proposal has hitherto been blocked by the hon. Gentleman's party, so I say to him with great respect that although I do not question his sincerity in raising the matter, I question the sincerity of the Conservative party in saying that there is a lack of time for such a debate.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the need for more rigorous controls at our airports of passports sold for

1339
£30,000 apiece by the sleazemaster general of the Tory party, Mr. Michael Ashcroft, and about the great concern that they are now in the hands of some very dubious gentlemen who are not welcome in this country, even if they do bring money to the new sleaze fund of the Tory party?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not entirely sure whether the handling of passports of a foreign country falls within our remit. I know that my hon. Friend will have made his points to the relevant Secretaries of State who deal with immigration matters.
Mr. Eric Forth: May we have a debate on the so-called review of matters relating to Northern Ireland? It really is time, is it not—I hope that the Leader of the House will agree—to cut through the smoke and mirrors of the review, particularly in light of the fact that we now know that the IRA never had any intention of giving up any weapons? [Interruption.] It has now said so; that is now clear. Please, therefore, may we have no more pretence, and certainly no more releases of terrorists and murderers, so long as the IRA has made it clear, as it now has, that it has no intention—and has never had any intention—of giving up any of its weapons?
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman down that road. He knows that Senator Mitchell has only today begun discussions on his work. As I told the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), the Government remain committed to the Good Friday agreement. I was under the impression that it was also the policy of the Conservative party to be committed to the Good Friday agreement, although, as I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, the request that he has just made would be in danger of jeopardising that agreement. Judging by the noises that were made in support of what he said, I am wondering whether the Conservative party does any longer support the Good Friday agreement. I hope that that is a mistaken impression.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the right hon. Lady tell me whether she expects a statement from the Government about their response to the consultation paper on leasehold reform before we rise for the recess? If not, will she assure us that we shall get a debate on the subject in the spill-over period? However, if that is not possible, do we assume that there will be no legislative progress in this Parliament on the reform of leaseholds?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot promise the hon. Lady a debate on the matter before the Session ends. I shall draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing. As to assumptions about whether anything will be done in this Parliament, the hon. Lady will know that it is never wise to make assumptions about future legislative programmes.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: In the context of the ensuing statement on consumer protection, might time be found to discuss the scam, which has been revealed by some excellent investigative journalism by the Aberdeen Press and Journal, that a Liverpool-based
1340
business man, Mr. Peter Quinn, is offering for sale bogus degree certificates for the university of Aberdeen, the Robert Gordon university and the university of Stirling? That will be a matter of concern not only to those hon. Members who, like me, are graduates or honorary graduates of those universities, but, as it obviously involves criminal fraud, it will be of concern to the House, which I am sure will wish the police, trading standards officers and the courts to deal with the matter as swiftly as possible.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the whole House shares with the concern that he has expressed, and will welcome the moves that the Government are making to strengthen consumer protection in that and other respects.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) would give me the relevant address.
Will the Leader of the House see what she can do to provide time in what I know is a packed programme—perhaps this could be arranged for the spill-over period—for the House to have a debate solely on the Territorial Army, so that in the light of events in Kosovo and elsewhere and of the enormous demands for engineers and signallers, many of whom come from the TA, we can question how it was possible for the Prime Minister to say in the House yesterday that the cuts made in the TA by the Labour Government were good for the TA and further for the United Kingdom?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a specific debate on the TA. I have no doubt that from time to time there will be opportunities to discuss defence matters. The hon. Gentleman will know that the first phase of the structural reform of the TA is now complete.
The remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday stem from the view that is widely held, not least within the armed forces, that the TA as reformed will be a more relevant, more useful and more integrated part of our defence capability. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will not be converted to that view. I fear that I cannot offer him an early opportunity again to air his view.
Mr. Tim Collins: May I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider her answer of a few moments ago to the request for a debate on the English question? She referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. When will the Government recognise that England is not merely a collection of regions but a nation? If the Labour party will not speak for England as a nation, others will.
Mrs. Beckett: I think, not for the first time, that the hon. Gentleman has not noticed that although the Conservative party may feel that it should speak for England, it is the Labour party that speaks for England. The Labour party has a majority of Members in England. Of course, the Conservative party has no Members in Scotland and Wales.
I will not reconsider my earlier reply. I think that the integrity of the United Kingdom is enormously important and the Government are determined to protect

1341
it. The Conservative party is playing a dangerous game in raising such fire. I think also that it must be a matter of some concern to its Scottish and Welsh parties. What will Conservative candidates in Scotland and Wales say in the next general election? Will they say, "Vote for me although my party has rejected me and does not want me to play a part in Westminster"?
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady give further thought to the reply that she gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who asked for the opportunity during the recess to table written questions so that the Government could be held to account during that period? The right hon. Lady, in what I hope is not her penultimate appearance as Leader of the House, did not give a terribly satisfactory reply. It would be a lasting memorial to her years as Leader of the House if she were able to give us an assurance that the Government will be held to account during the recess.
Will the right hon. Lady deprecate the way in which certain Members have abused parliamentary privilege? Does she agree with me that accusations about individuals who cannot answer in the House should not be lightly made, and should be made only if there is real substance in the allegations? When we return from the recess, will she arrange for an early debate on the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege that touches on those and other important matters?
Mrs. Beckett: I said to the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) that I thought that he had made an interesting point and that it was one to which I was prepared to give consideration, although it raises questions for the House authorities as well as for others. I would say to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) that the tabling of written questions during a recess would be unprecedented. It is not a practice that the Government are withholding because it is something that no previous Government have been prepared to do or to concede; I am prepared to give the matter consideration but I am not able or prepared simply to say today, "Yes, this is a change that the Government will make." As for a lasting memorial, I am not in a memorial-erecting mood today. I appreciate the thought and I will bear it in mind.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the abuse of parliamentary privilege. He is right to say that matters should not be raised lightly under the cloak of privilege. However, the purpose of privilege is to allow matters to be raised. If privilege were being abused, that would be a matter for the Chair and not only for Members. I feel confident that Madam Speaker would draw us to order were that to be required. The hon. Gentleman has asked for a debate about that and I acknowledge that we will be seeking to find time for it. I cannot tell him now exactly when it will take place.

Consumer White Paper
1.15 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the White Paper published today to promote the interests of consumers. The White Paper forms a key part of our programme to support competition, innovation and enterprise.
Far too many people feel that they live in rip-off Britain, where they pay high prices compared to other countries, where cheats are allowed to prosper and move from one scam to another with ease, and where there are more shoddy goods than high-quality products.
For too long, the attitude in Britain has been that things could be worse, rather than that things should be better. We do not want to create an army of Victor Meldrews, but we do need confident and informed consumers. That is why the Government are publishing a comprehensive consumer strategy today.
Consumers who are knowledgeable and demanding get a good deal. They also promote innovation and improve the competitive position of business, which in turn means better products and keener prices for consumers. The White Paper will create a virtuous circle between knowledgeable consumers and business performance. It will do that in four ways.
First, the Government will work with business and consumer groups to introduce codes of practice that actually mean something, instead of giving false reassurance to consumers. Codes already pepper the Yellow Pages, but many are little more than marketing devices, offering no safeguards to customers.
The White Paper therefore proposes to introduce legislation to give the Office of Fair Trading powers to approve codes of practice that guarantee high standards of customer service, including proper redress if things should go wrong. That approval will not be a one-off. The Office of Fair Trading will withdraw its approval if the code no longer meets these principles. The OFT's seal of approval will provide at-a-glance assurance for the consumer.
We will also develop an e-commerce code, with industry and consumer groups, to be monitored by an independent body. As purchasing over the internet expands, it is vital that people feel that they have security when they make purchases. That is why we will introduce an e-hallmark, which will provide safeguards for the purchaser.
Secondly, we want to strengthen the role of those who protect the public against those who continually cheat consumers. The current law is ineffective. It offers no deterrent to the determined cheat, the perpetual scam merchant, and the exploiter of the weak and vulnerable, and no deterrent against the one-day sale in a hotel that is simply a rip-off, or the car repairer who fails to deliver and threatens those who complain. As constituency Members of Parliament, we all know of many other examples that have been drawn to our attention.
The traders often disappear before action can be taken, then reappear elsewhere to conduct themselves in exactly the same way. The White Paper therefore proposes stronger action against such fraudsters. I want the OFT and trading standards officers in local authorities to have

1343
powers to seek injunctions to stop traders carrying out specified practices, and to give the courts the power to ban them from all trading. Cheats who continually rip off their customers should be treated in this tough and responsible way.
We will consider the imposition of criminal sanctions where appropriate. We must also be able to respond quickly to new scams that might develop. We therefore propose a power to make orders by secondary legislation, which will specify that certain practices that have been shown to be harmful should be made illegal.
The third key proposal in the White Paper is better access to advice. People need quick, accurate answers to consumer problems. We will promote the development of a new advice network, building on the existing agencies. People will be able to see easily where they can get good-quality advice. We will also set up a new telephone helpline. Today, I have launched a new consumer gateway on the internet, to provide easy access to consumer advice and information.
Fourthly, we will improve research on consumer issues, so that our policies are based on sound evidence. Many feel that they are paying higher prices for everyday items than people in other countries. We can all understand why rice costs less in China than in Chingford, but why do trainers cost less in New York than in Newcastle, or a CD less in Washington than in Winsford?
I have, therefore, launched a full survey of international price comparisons. That will compare the prices of some 100 products across four countries—the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the United States. I already have powers to refer prices in a particular sector to the Director General of Fair Trading, and I will use those if the survey shows that the British consumer is being overcharged.
The White Paper contains some 70 measures, which cover a whole range of issues. We will make prices clearer to customers; consult on plans for tougher controls on misdescription of services; make sure that a pint of beer is a pint of beer; and make it easier for people to spot if the mileage reading on a car has been fiddled. We will also support and improve enforcement agencies so that they are better able to meet the expectations of consumers and business.
We do not want to distract business from its focus on serving its customers. We will in addition, therefore, begin a programme of reviewing all consumer protection legislation to find out whether it is still effective in meeting the needs of consumers, or whether it has simply become a burden on business with no apparent benefit to the consumer. To start the review, I have today published a consultation document on the law covering weights and measures.
The programme in the White Paper is ambitious. It reinforces our commitment to modern, open markets. It works with the grain of the knowledge economy. It promotes stronger business performance as well as a better deal for consumers. It rejects endless regulation as the saviour of the consumer in favour of competition, information and effective sanctions against rogue traders. It is forward looking and sets a framework for the future. It charts a new way forward in which consumers and business serve each other's interests—benefiting us all through quality products and improved services.
1344
A fair deal for all our people—that is the vision of this White Paper, and I commend it to the House.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I thank the Secretary of State for making the documentation available to me just over an hour ago; I am most grateful.
There is much that we can welcome in the White Paper because it gives the consumer a fair deal. In particular, we welcome the fact that research into identifying retail price differentials between the United States, Germany, France and the United Kingdom will be improved. It is important that we identify exactly how the pricing structure is achieved before there is any hasty action to name and shame. For example, the strength of the pound, employment costs, land prices and so on will have a different impact in different countries. Therefore we welcome the Government's initiative in that area.
The Secretary of State mentioned enforcement and, in particular, the Office of Fair Trading and trading standards officers, but he did not mention resources. Given existing legislation, never mind any additions that he may intend to make, it is clear that resources, particularly in trading standards departments, are extremely important. It would be helpful if he would say how much new money will be put into backing the White Paper, particularly for trading standards officers.
To give just one example, since the Government took office, trading standards officers have been charged with the task of identifying the GM content of processed foods. The technology developed in the past few years to carry out such tests is still extremely expensive and trading standards officers do not have the resources to carry out that task. We are looking to the Government to endorse the proposals in the White Paper with detail on how they intend to resource the promises.
The Secretary of State's decision to review all consumer legislation is welcome, as long as no additional burden is placed on business. It is not acceptable simply to consider the legislation with a view to adding to the unnecessary burdens on businesses. He says that he does not want us to be a nation of Victor Meldrews; I say to him, "I don't believe it!" because the hallmark of the Government is their introduction of ill-thought-through legislation and their subsequent reliance on endless regulations, which are a burden and a brake on enterprise and on business.
Consumers have more spending power today than ever before, and we support any initiatives to give them best value and to ensure that they are well informed, but may I ask the Secretary of State about a particular part of his statement? He said that the Government have been able to respond quickly to new scams, which is good, and that they therefore propose to introduce a power to make orders by secondary legislation, specifying that certain practices that have been shown to be harmful should be made illegal. Will his suggestion lead to the creation of a criminal offence? If so, is secondary legislation the appropriate means for dealing with such an offence? I should be grateful if he identified in more detail what he means by practices that have been shown to be harmful and exactly how the law will follow his suggestion through to ensure that such practices do not occur.
The Secretary of State also mentioned the important matter of electronic commerce, which is a growing area for consumers and something that we welcome. It will

1345
create a lot of changes. He is, of course, aware that there is a global marketplace; people are already buying across national borders. He mentioned an e-hallmark to cover goods sold through electronic commerce. How will that work? Will it apply to goods sold from a base in the United Kingdom? Is he seeking EU standards? How will the e-hallmark work in respect of people who make electronic purchases beyond the shores of the United Kingdom, particularly from the EU and further afield? We should be grateful for more detail on that.
Bearing in mind that this point has been flagged up in the press, so one must assume that it is true, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he intends to release the draft e-commerce Bill in the next 24 hours? Can he also confirm that no statutory licensing provisions will appear in it? We welcome his reference to weights and measures, but the Government failed to push in Europe for an additional moratorium for market traders. They are concerned because the regulations will change at the turn of the year, and traders in loose goods will be required to label goods in metric and imperial weights. Why did not the Government press for the derogation to be extended for another 10 years? This matter will cause those traders and their consumers a great deal of concern.
I must pick the Secretary of State up on one point. At the beginning of his statement, he said that there are more shoddy goods than high-quality products. We want the scams to end, and we want people who produce defective goods and services to be brought to book so that consumers are protected from them, but I caution him: that sort of language talks down the majority of traders and the bulk of the goods in this country. He needs to strike a balance. I shall leave him with a quote from John Ruskin, who died in 1900—the turn of the century. He said:
"It is not cheaper things we want to possess but expensive things that cost less."
Most consumers would agree with that; it is nothing new. If the White Paper can achieve that, it will have the support of Conservative Members.
Mr. Byers: I am grateful for the support that has been offered by the Opposition to many points in the White Paper. I hope that it is one of those sectors where, in a spirit of partnership, the House can go with the grain of what we seek to achieve. We will wish to pursue the issue in that way.
The hon. Lady raised a number of questions. On retail prices, clearly, a range of issues needs to be taken into account in addressing why products cost more in one country than in another. It is dangerous to look at the matter in a superficial, headline way. We need to get below the figures and to find out exactly what makes them up; I am very keen that we should do so. We should expose all the arguments, even if some may be more difficult to address than others.
With regard to legislation and burdens on business, I hope that, when the hon. Lady has had the chance to look at our document on weights and measures, she will get a clear feel for the direction in which we want to go, which is very much about reviewing the current position.
Most businesses are concerned about the mass of detailed regulations that come from the weights and measures legislation. We are considering ways in which to withdraw some of them to make life much easier
1346
for business. That will not compromise the position of consumers, who will still have protection, but it will make life much easier for businesses.
On e-commerce and buying through the internet, in international transactions, there is a real issue about where the contract is actually made and about which legislation would apply if there were a dispute after a contract was not complied with. In the White Paper, we say that we will seek agreement with the company or organisation that is selling through the internet. If it agrees to meet certain standards in complying with our consumer law on guarantees of quality of product, delivery and so on, we will give it our e-hallmark. If businesses do not agree to that, they will not receive the hallmark. That will be a simple way in which consumers can see whether the person with whom they are dealing, whether based in the UK, continental Europe, America or elsewhere, is meeting those standards. It is also an effective way in which businesses can comply with the standards. The pay-off for them is that, on their website, they will be able to demonstrate the e-hallmark to show the consumer that they have guaranteed those standards.
We hope to publish the e-commerce Bill in draft tomorrow. The hon. Lady needs to wait until then to see the detail, although she may have a good idea of what might be included in it.
We need to be able to move quickly on new scams. It is a dramatically fast-moving area: new scams are developing almost daily. We may find that, if we try to put something in stone today, we shall be out of touch by tomorrow, so we need some flexibility, although I take the point that criminal sanctions are a significant step. I said in the statement that we were considering criminal sanctions in certain sectors. We will consult fully before we embark on that road.
The hon. Lady makes an important point on enforcement. If we are to ensure that, day to day, enforcement is effective, we will need to provide trading standard officers with the means to deliver on the ground. Because of the priority that we attach to the White Paper and to consumers, whom we now want to bring centre stage, I will devote from my Department—redirecting resources that are earmarked within the budget to go elsewhere—an extra £30 million to deliver on the White Paper proposals.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I now call Mr. Dennis Turner.
Hon. Members: He has just walked in.
Mr. Dennis Turner: I was sitting here when I listened to the excellent statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I should like to say without any further interruption how much I appreciate the White Paper, particularly the reference to giving the millions of beer drinkers in this country the protection and consumer support that they deserve. In the previous Session, I tried to introduce the Weights and Measures (Beer and Cider) Bill which sought to do just that. I look at the expressions of Conservative Members. The Conservative party had the opportunity to support earlier legislation in the interests of beer drinkers, but it refused to do so. In 1992, it took similar legislation out of the programme and refused to give that

1347
protection—what a contrast with the Labour Government and the Secretary of State, to whom I am extremely grateful. The beer drinkers of Britain will also be extremely grateful. I hope that, as a consequence of the White Paper, before too long we shall see this long-overdue legislation and that every beer drinker in Britain will get the fair measures that they deserve.
Mr. Byers: I look forward to raising a full measure with my hon. Friend later today to celebrate the full measure contained within the White Paper. I am sure that the White Paper will be welcomed by beer drinkers throughout the country and by millions of other people. I compliment my hon. Friend on raising this matter over a number of years to try to get a fair deal for the British beer drinker. I am delighted that we have been able to find space in the White Paper to take up his best proposals. This is a good example of a Government working for everyone, including beer drinkers, unlike the Conservative Government who worked just for the few.
Mr. David Chidgey: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for providing me with his statement an hour before he delivered it. Incidentally, it puts excellent flesh on the bones of the summary provided by BBC Online from about 9 o'clock this morning.
I welcome the first proposal and should like to raise a few points on the key principles for consumers: access, choice, information and redress. On codes of practice, it is important that trade associations achieve a change of emphasis from self-interest to consumer interests. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he intends self-regulation to be a universal concept, applied wherever possible, across all sectors of commerce and trading? Codes of practice are one thing, but compliance with them is another. Will he confirm that non-compliance with the code of practice would be an automatic cause for redress by consumers, with prosecution to follow where appropriate? Will he confirm that the breaking of the code of conduct will trigger the process?
Like the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I welcome the strengthening of trading standards officers' powers. The Secretary of State mentioned the £30 million in his coffers. He knows that trading standards officers are incredibly overstretched. What discussions has he had with his colleagues in the Cabinet to ensure that more resources are available to strengthen trading standards departments in local authorities, which are at the sharp end?
I welcome the promotion of the advice network for consumers set out in the statement. How will that link in with the CBA network—[HON. MEMBERS: "CAB".] Yes, I beg hon. Members' pardon. Citizens advice bureaux are often the first port of call when consumers seek redress if they have a problem with goods or products. [Interruption.] Although I enjoy the humour of Conservative Back-Bench Members, this is an important issue. What consultation is the Secretary of State carrying out, and what proposals does he have to enable CABs to provide better legal advice, leading to redress in the courts, for people who find themselves in that position?
Consumers have a right to full information about the goods that they purchase and the choice available. What plans does the Secretary of State have to enforce full
1348
and clear labelling on food products? I am thinking particularly about products that may contain genetically modified organisms.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton asked about metric weights and measures. Do the Government intend to pursue the opportunities that they still have to preserve imperial weights and measures at the point of sale for goods that are sold in bulk?
We all welcome the strengthening of consumer protection, but will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what assessment he has made of the additional costs that will inevitably be borne by the taxpayer, and by business?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman welcomed the broad thrust of my proposals, and I welcome the broad thrust of the support that he has expressed.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the role of trade associations. I think it important to make clear what we mean by the seal of approval from the Office of Fair Trading. The code will be purely voluntary. Members of the public will recognise the seal of approval; they will be able to see it clearly in Yellow Pages. It will meet a standard—
Mr. Chidgey: A kitemark?
Mr. Byers: A kitemark, perhaps; call it what you will.
That is the nature of the seal of approval that we want to introduce for businesses that sign up to the code of practice. However, there will still be businesses that do not sign up, and customers will need to be aware that they are dealing with organisations that have not received the seal of approval. The full range of the law will apply to businesses—as it does to all businesses—that fail to deliver on the contracts into which they have entered, and do not provide proper compensation.
The hon. Gentleman asked about trading standards officers. Yesterday, we had a useful meeting with the group representing trading standards officers' organisations, which has been closely involved in the development of the policies in the White Paper.
There remains the question of how we can target the extra funding to ensure that it is used specifically for consumer-related matters. We shall be considering whether we can find a mechanism enabling us to do that, through local authorities, and we shall be engaging in discussions to that effect.
The hon. Gentleman raised the important issue of the role of citizens advice bureaux. No doubt many hon. Members' constituencies contain CABs that play a vital role in the provision of this and other information. We have just allocated an extra £1.3 million to the CABs nationally, so that they can use their computer network to provide advice on consumer matters as well as other issues. The CABs have also been closely involved in the details of the White Paper, along with the Consumers Association. They broadly welcome our approach, and especially welcome the possible opportunity for CABs to get together with other information-providing organisations and to be located in the high street, so that they can give consumers information more readily.
The hon. Gentleman asked about labelling. We insist that any food with GM ingredients in tins and other containers must be clearly labelled: that is the approach that we have taken, and will continue to take.

1349
As for the issue of imperial measures, there is no question of our preventing people from going into a high-street shop in Wallsend and asking for a pound of Cox's apples. We are also ensuring that shops do not suffer an undue burden because of the dual pricing that will be necessary. Consumers will not be affected: they will still be able to ask for a pound of apples, a pint of milk or a pint of beer.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I appeal for short, sharp questions—and, of course, short, sharp replies?
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I wholeheartedly welcome the policy of sanctions against rogue traders. I think that this will be the key legislation in the current Parliament, because the public want change. They want an end to rip-off Britain. But what are we going to do about premium phonelines? People telephone a number, and are ripped off. What are we going to do to stop that?
Mr. Byers: I agree that strong action against rogue traders will make a huge difference to many of those whom we represent. Let me give clear notice that we intend to introduce strong, tough measures, reflecting the wishes of the British people. That will, of course, require legislation. There is nothing worse for a person who works hard all week and then goes out at the weekend to spend some of his own money than to find that he has been ripped off by one of these rogue traders—one of these scam merchants. We will act to stop that.
Premium phonelines are a matter primarily for Oftel, and we are discussing with Oftel how we can improve the present position. As most hon. Members recognise, it needs to be dealt with.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the e-commerce hallmark will include any guarantee of the security of the electronic infrastructure, and what discussions he has had with the industries involved on secure electronic infrastructure? Will he also say whether the better regulation task force has been involved in the White Paper's preparation or will be expected to comment on it? How many deregulation measures does he expect to bring before the Deregulation Committee as a consequence of the White Paper?
Mr. Byers: I think that the hon. Lady will find that the weights and measures consultation document proposes a number of deregulation measures and that it will be very much welcomed by business. The better regulation task force has been fully consulted on the White Paper's details and it is supportive of our proposals.
The e-commerce hallmark is intended to ensure that people know that if they deal over the internet they retain their normal consumer rights. The e-commerce hallmark will address that issue.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I welcome the White Paper. I also very much welcome my right hon. Friend's emphasis in the White Paper on the need to make markets work properly. If we have a choice between
1350
competitive markets and overweening regulation, we should realise that consumers are served best by better-working markets.
In recent months, I have been very much involved in the financial services and markets pre-legislative inquiry, which has highlighted the fact that big financial decisions—such as buying a pension or obtaining a mortgage—can not only change consumers' lives but dog them throughout their lives. I hope that the emphasis will be on providing good information to consumers so that they are able to make a reasonable choice. Communication and information are essential for people who, without them, are lumbered with poor deals, poor pensions and poor mortgages.
Mr. Byers: Once hon. Members have had the opportunity to examine in detail the philosophy underpinning the White Paper, I think that they will realise that it very much recognises that consumers benefit when markets work well, and that not only businesses benefit from effective markets. We have no doubt that competition must be the driver in ensuring that consumers get a good deal or that competition creates lasting consumer benefit.
On the specific point about financial services, the White Paper is very clear in stating that those who are considering giving a mortgage, for example, will have to state very clearly the rates of interest that will be charged and present that information in a manner that is easily understood by those who are probably about to embark on the biggest financial transaction that any of us undertake. Those people have to have clear and precise information, and the White Paper proposes measures that will ensure that they are properly informed.
Mr. Christopher Fraser: In his statement, the Secretary of State raised several e-commerce issues. Will he say more precisely how the independent body that he mentioned will be constituted to address those issues? Will he also be more specific about the "knowledge economy" that he mentioned?
Mr. Byers: The knowledge economy is a recognition that whereas, in years gone by, the prime responsibility of business and of Government was to encourage investment in capital such as plant, machinery and equipment, if we are to win in the 21st century, investment will have to be in human capital such as skills, learning, knowledge and education. We have to respond to that priority. However, we are not saying that traditional spheres are not part of the knowledge economy. The hon. Gentleman made a good point in saying that if we are to be really successful we shall have to marry the two together. One of my priorities is to ensure that traditional spheres such as manufacturing both embrace and receive the benefits of the knowledge-driven economy of the future.
The independent body on the e-hallmark will have responsibility for judging whether a business qualifies to receive the hallmark. We think that it is far better if businesses themselves are involved in the process, which we shall have to monitor. The Office of Fair Trading, too, will have a role to play. Nevertheless, that is the role that the independent body will play in ensuring that when we award the e-hallmark for internet trading—whether in the

1351
United Kingdom or internationally—people will know that consumer law applying in the United Kingdom will apply also to that transaction.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: A great deal was said in May by candidates of all parties for the Scottish Parliament on stronger action against fraudsters, the powers of trading standards officers in local authorities, criminal sanctions and scams. How does this measure fit in with legislation that the Scottish Parliament claims as its own?
Mr. Byers: These are reserved powers, but we will work closely with the devolved Administrations to make sure that our proposals are implemented in a way that is compatible with and supported within them.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that one of the products to be the subject of international price comparison will be the pump price of petrol and diesel? Will he give a further assurance that that will include also comparative rates of tax across the international market?
Will e-hallmarking be carried out by the e-envoy? What happened to the two candidates for e-envoy who were submitted by the right hon. Gentleman's Department to the Prime Minister's office in March? Have they both said they are not willing to take on the job? Does the Secretary of State think that giving a decision to job applicants within a reasonable space of time ought to be part of the new consumer standard?
Mr. Byers: The appointment of e-envoy will be made by the Prime Minister, who will make his decision known in the near future. Petrol and diesel prices are constantly monitored by the European Commission.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Many people in my constituency are fed up to the back teeth with being ripped off by one-day salespeople—for example, table-top salespeople at Cheltenham—and will be encouraged that the Government are at last tackling the problem. Will there be an obligation on one-day salespeople to give prior notification to trading standards officers that they will be in an area? It is all very well talking about criminal sanctions but, by their very nature, those people are literally here today and gone tomorrow. The question of prior notification is central.
Mr. Byers: The people to whom my hon. Friend has referred are well known to trading standards officers, but their frustration at the moment is that they have no effective powers to deal with them. Our measures, which will require primary legislation, will be able to tackle at source the type of activity to which my hon. Friend refers.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: In his welcome statement, the Secretary of State did not mention counterfeiting or whether he intends to take action on it. When he attacked hotel sales and table-top sales, should he not have put greater emphasis on saying to people, "Buyer beware"? People who buy from reputable retailers have protection, but some take a chance and buy cheaper goods from areas without the protection that we would
1352
expect from larger retailers. The right hon. Gentleman will be causing great trouble if he gives the impression today that the Government are able to underwrite every one of the millions of transactions that take place in this country. The one thing that disturbs me about his statement is that he is giving a false impression that somehow the Government will stop all these transactions.
Mr. Byers: If I have given that impression, I now have the opportunity, thanks to the hon. Gentleman, to say clearly that we recognise that the principle of caveat emptor—buyer beware—is important. There is a responsibility on consumers to make sure that they get goods that meet the given description. We believe that we will be able to achieve that only if consumers are informed, knowledgeable and confident, and those principles underpin the White Paper. We are taking action on intellectual property rights and counterfeit, and we are discussing how we can make the provisions in relation to intellectual property more effective.
Jane Griffiths: Can my right hon. Friend offer an assurance to organisations such as Yellow Pages, which employs 900 people in my constituency, that they can boost and maintain public confidence in themselves and that people who find a service or product through them will be safe from rogue traders?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is a great advocate for the important role that services such as Yellow Pages play; they are a great source of convenience. I am pleased to say that there will be a dedicated part of Yellow Pages for those organisations that have received the Office of Fair Trading seal of approval, which will make life easier for the many consumers who have to find a builder, joiner or engineer in a hurry to do work as a matter of urgency.
Mr. James Gray: We are very grateful for what the Minister said about the proper labelling of foods containing GM products, but is he aware of the widespread abuse of the country of origin labelling of meat products? Meat pies labelled as made in Britain may well contain meat from cows that were grazed and slaughtered in Bolivia and were merely minced in the United Kingdom. Will the White Paper take account of that and put a stop to the abuse? If it does, both consumers and farmers in my constituency will certainly welcome it.
Mr. Byers: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is pursuing that matter and we are raising it in the World Trade Organisation because we think that it must be dealt with internationally. We want the country of origin to be clearly identified.
Mr. David Borrow: I want to highlight the weakness of the consumer in respect of ancillary services. The White Paper deals with hotel telephone charges. I want to raise the related matter of the problems of mobile home owners. Once they have purchased their home and pay ground rent, they are ripped off for ancillary services. Will my right hon. Friend take that weakness on board when the legislation is introduced?
Mr. Byers: There is specific legislation dealing with the position of the mobile home owner. I listened to my

1353
hon. Friend and I will certainly reflect on the need to review the law in the light of the White Paper and the consultations surrounding it.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Will the Secretary of State take on board the fact that if, despite his best intentions, he undermines the principle of buyer beware, the message from today will be beware Byers? Will the Bill become law in time for the next general election and apply to the next Labour manifesto, because many voters regret the fact that it did not apply to the fine print of the current manifesto?
Mr. Byers: We had a raffle about who would be the first to say, "Byers beware" or "Beware Byers"—not a raffle, a guess.
Mr. Alan Duncan: A sweepstake.
Mr. Byers: Indeed, a sweepstake; thank you so much. I always wondered what role the hon. Gentleman was meant to play on the Front Bench there. He is very helpful and I shall pass a note of thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for so sagely appointing him. I have quite forgotten what the question was now.
I am sure that our manifesto for the next general election will prove as popular and as accurate as the previous one.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Two weeks ago, Volvo was found guilty of pricing malpractice, and yesterday there was a newspaper headline—"£6 billion rip-off"—referring to the Competition Commission's public hearings about car sales in Britain. Can any action be taken against Volvo under existing law, and will the White Paper help to tackle the enormous scandal of thousands of pounds more being charged for a car in Britain than in European markets?
Mr. Byers: I agree that it is a scandal. It is a matter for regret that the law is ineffective. A whole range of powers will be introduced next year as a result of the Competition Act 1998. Next week we will announce the sanctions that we intend to use under that legislation. They will be significant and will make companies examine carefully their conduct in this important area. I am afraid that the whole Volvo saga shows that the law was deficient and that we need to have new remedies in place. We are providing them in the competition legislation that will come into force next year. The measures in this White Paper will help too.
Mr. Ian Pearson: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on today's statement and the White Paper. In particular I welcome the proposed e-commerce code and e-hallmark. Young people in my constituency increasingly buy CDs over the internet from the United States because they are typically 30 per cent. cheaper. I am sure that many more will do so when they have guaranteed consumer rights. I am sure also that American companies will not be slow to apply for our e-hallmark. What can my right hon. Friend do to encourage British companies so that in future my constituents can buy goods over the internet from Birmingham rather than Boston?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am pleased that the e-hallmark will be an effective way
1354
to give reassurance to people who will increasingly trade and buy goods over the internet. It is already happening with books and, in particular, CDs. I have no doubt that when we can get in place a framework with which consumers feel at ease and so want to deal over the internet, companies and businesses in Birmingham as well as Boston will want to be part of the new information age and the way in which transactions will take place in the 21st century.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we already have similar types of controls on people such as solicitors and doctors, and he will know how dissatisfied people often are with these controls which are expensive to put in place. Is it not the case that often well-meaning Ministers add additional costs to the honest trader while the dishonest trader gets away scotfree? Clearly, we are trying to help the honest trader to improve trade rather than to penalise him. How will the Secretary of State's magic bullet get over this real problem?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In drawing up the White Paper we have consulted representatives of the building trade—joiners and so on—to ensure that our proposals go with the grain of what they want. The hon. Gentleman will find that today's proposals have been welcomed. Nevertheless, over the months and years ahead we will continue to work in partnership with legitimate business because in tackling the cowboy builder we do not want to affect the legitimate trader. That is why we will work in partnership with business to make sure that we get it right.
Mr. Geraint Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for drawing a line in the sand between Arthur Daley Tory rip-off Britain and new Labour consumer empowerment. Does he agree that the combination of internet sales with the single currency and e-hallmarking will give enormous power to the consumer in terms of relative price comparisons—the single currency makes that easy to see—and quality assurance which we should herald as a great success for Britain?
On a separate issue, can my right hon. Friend give any assurances that he will look into the bundling of products such as mortgages and insurance, which often confuses consumers and leads to excess commissions—indeed, unbundling?
Mr. Byers: On the bundling of financial services, my hon. Friend will be aware that today Mr. Don Cruickshank, who has been heading up the banking review on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is publishing his interim report which will address some of those issues specifically. We welcome the proposals that he is putting in place which will benefit consumers. The British consumer is already beginning to compare prices. That has been one of the drivers behind today's proposals. That is why we are looking at more than 100 products, comparing prices in the United Kingdom, the United States, France and Germany. That will be of real benefit to British consumers.
Mr. John Bercow: Does the White Paper deal with the growing problem of unsolicited faxes, which affects thousands of businesses and consumers the

1355
length and breadth of the country? Moreover, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this important issue was originally aired earlier this Session in a ten-minute Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), with warm support from both sides of the House? Given that Members of Parliament, among others, regularly receive a stream of faxes, regrettably sometimes from people who appear to be a sandwich short of a picnic, early action to deal with the problem would be greatly appreciated.
Mr. Byers: There is a regional difference here: it is a pork pie short of a picnic in the north-east of England.
I compliment the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) on his ten-minute Bill, which drew the matter to the attention of all Members of the House. We have been discussing with the director general of Oftel how we can carry this forward. He is putting in place proposals to allow people to secure their fax machines so that they do not receive unsolicited faxes. That is touched on in the White Paper.
Dr. George Turner: I warmly welcome the fact that we are to tackle the problem of cowboy builders and tradesmen, who are the real despair of many pensioners, especially in my constituency.
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the real rip-off in our pubs and clubs nowadays is the price of soft drinks? If we compare the prices in the supermarkets with what we are charged in pubs and clubs, it is clear that the typical family in Norfolk is being asked to pay sometimes as much per pint for the child's lemonade as for the father's beer. As we want young people and drivers to drink soft drinks, should not something be done to deal with the rip-off that families currently experience?
Mr. Byers: Those Members of the House who, like my hon. Friend and me, buy just soft drinks will know that the costs are excessive. Many consumers do not realise the cost because they often mix soft drinks with alcoholic ones. It is a real problem. We need to guarantee that prices are posted so that people can see what they are paying. The most effective way to drive down prices is to make consumers aware of what they are paying. That is what we intend to do, and we are discussing with the industry how that can best be secured.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about cowboy builders. They often prey on some of the most vulnerable members of our society. We all know of people, especially pensioners, who have had work done by a builder and have been intimidated when they find that the work has not been done properly. Once we have established the system, they will be able to go to a builder who has the code of approval. They will have the security and assurance of knowing that the person is technically competent and has a financial guarantee to underpin the work.

Points of Order
2.8 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During business questions, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) raised with the Leader of the House the question of the abuse of privilege in the House. The Leader of the House rightly said that it was a matter for the Chair. I draw to your attention the fact that yesterday the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) used parliamentary privilege to attack the treasurer of the Conservative party. I understand that on "The World at One" today, the editor of The Times admitted that he had provided at least some of the information that formed the basis of the hon. Gentleman's attack.
Given that this is not the first time that a Member of the House has used parliamentary privilege to be an agent of a national newspaper—the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) was used by The Guardian in the last Parliament—do you consider it time that the House took action to ensure that hon. Members do not allow themselves to be used as pawns for national newspapers seeking to protect the position of their editors by increasing their circulation at the expense of the truth?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): First, I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have had the courtesy to notify the hon. Member of whom he makes a criticism. Secondly, on the main point made by the hon. Gentleman, the matter is not one for the Chair. If the House wants to change its rules, that is entirely up to the House; it is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Howarth: May I be clear about that, Mr. Deputy Speaker? You suggest that it is not a matter for the Chair, although the Leader of the House said that she thought that that was the case. On a point of accuracy, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West well knows that, on many occasions, I have mentioned his part in the matter that I raised, so I did him no discourtesy. The House will probably agree that the hon. Member for The Wrekin has already done enough discourtesy to the House. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Please let me answer. Regardless of the personal opinions of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), he should always notify an hon. Member of whom he intends to make a criticism. The use of privilege is for hon. Members to consider; it must be used responsibly. It is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On Monday, after the debate on the Railways Bill, and yesterday, in Madam Speaker's ruling on that matter, the Government were pressed to make clear what the progress of the Bill would be. Today in business questions the Leader of the House failed to take the opportunity to do so. Will you please rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after due consideration, that, if the Government do not spell out their timetable for the Bill's progress by

1357
the time we go into recess, the Bill cannot progress beyond Prorogation in November? May I refer you to the first report of the Modernisation Committee? Paragraph 70 states:
"Any changes proposed in this area of the legislative process must clearly contain stringent safeguards."
The report pointed out that the House of Lords would also have to be involved. Paragraph 102 refers to the need for
"the identification by the Government as early as possible of any Bill it wished to be subject to a carry-over procedure."
We have reached the point at which any need for a carry-over procedure for that Bill should be stated. I should be grateful if you would rule on the matter in due course.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Once again, that is not a matter for the Chair. Bills die at Prorogation.
Mr. John Bercow rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have other business to consider.
Mr. Bercow: I am aware of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your guidance on that point; however, you will be aware that several right hon. and hon. Members have inquired about the procedure for the handling of legislation. When the issue was raised with Madam Speaker yesterday, she advised Members who were concerned about it to raise the matter with the Leader of the House at business questions.
Mr. Ivor Caplin: No one did.
Mr. Bercow: There was no opportunity to do so.
Can you now advise the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether, in future, it is intended that there should be published criteria according to which Bills will or will not be referred to a Select Committee, and according to which there will or will not be two Second Reading debates rather than one? That information is of the utmost importance, and the Leader of the House is in a position to provide it. May we please have guidance?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The only guidance that I can offer the hon. Gentleman is that it is nothing to do
1358
with me. The hon. Gentleman may want to take the matter up with the Leader of the House—[Interruption.] Order. The right hon. Lady is a most approachable Minister; the hon. Gentleman should go to see her.
Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to you for your previous ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I also ask you to guide the House in respect of "Erskine May"? Page 536 of the latest edition states:
"A Commons bill reported from a select…committee is normally recommitted to a Committee of the whole House."
Given that the Railways Bill will not come back from the Select Committee for Report until the middle of November, which is effectively the end of the Session, and given that the Bill cannot be amended in the Select Committee, will you please rule that the Bill will require a further Committee stage and that it is therefore bound to die at the end of this Session?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill was referred to the Select Committee; it was not committed to the Select Committee.
Mr. St. Aubyn: I apologise for taking up the Chair's time on this highly complex matter. It confuses many of us, although it would not do so if the Government had made their position clear. "Erskine May" refers to a Bill being reported from a Select Committee, regardless of the way in which it went to the Committee in the first place. Whether the Bill is referred or sent to the Committee, the Committee is charged with reporting back to this House. According to "Erskine May", at that point it is required to be "recommitted" to another Committee. In those circumstances, may we have the advice of the Chair on the likelihood that time will run out for the Railways Bill in this Session?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have nothing to add to the advice I have already given the hon. Gentleman. It may not be satisfactory to him, but it is the best that I can offer.

Orders of the Day

  Food Standards Agency Bill and Employment Relations Bill (Allocation of Time)
  2.15 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Food Standards Bill and on the Employment Relations Bill—

  Timetable
  1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Food Standards Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and shall, if not previously concluded be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

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

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

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

  (3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a New Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (4) If two or more questions would fall to be put, under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on Amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those Amendments or Motions.
  3.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1(2).
  (2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.
  (3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

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

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

  (4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

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

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

  (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
  (6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
  (7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or disposed of an amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put
  1360
  forthwith a separate Question on any other amendment which is moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.
  (8) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
  (9) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting on the allotted day.

  Miscellaneous
  4. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings—

  (a) on the Food Standards Bill at today's sitting, and

  (b) on the Employment Relations Bill on the allotted day,

  and those proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House.
  5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on either of the Bills.
  6. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on either of the Bills are taken or to recommit the Food Standards Bill; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
  7. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to either of the Bills except by a Minister of the Crown; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
  8. The Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall be put forthwith; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to proceedings on any such Motion.
  9.—(1) If at today's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (as that Standing Order has effect in accordance with the Order of the House [16 December 1998]) stands over to Four o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Food Standards Bill.
  (2) If on the allotted day a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over to Seven o'clock (or, in accordance with the Order of the House [16 December 1998], Four o'clock), and proceedings on the Employment Relations Bill have begun before that time, or if such a Motion stands over from an earlier day, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Employment Relations Bill.
  10. If at the sitting today or on the allotted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under paragraph 1(1) or (2), no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Interpretation
  11. In this Order, 'allotted day' means any day on which the Employment Relations Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.
  I propose to be extremely brief, as I am conscious that time taken on this debate will be time taken from debate on the measure. The Employment Relations Bill and the Food Standards Bill are important elements of the Government's legislative programme—indeed, both were referred to in our manifesto. Both Bills have already received substantial discussion and consideration in the House. As the whole House will be aware, the Food Standards Bill, in particular, received an unprecedented amount of scrutiny—public consultation, which produced 1,000 replies; a Special Select Committee; a Second

  1361
  Reading; and an ordinary Standing Committee. The Government are now keen to maintain the momentum of the measure.
  It was not possible to complete consideration of the Lords amendments to the Employment Relations Bill last night; that is why it was necessary to table an allocation of time motion today. The motion must be seen against the background of a lack of progress and of the difficulties that have occurred throughout the week. I fear that it has become quite clear—
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: As the right hon. Lady was present during the earlier exchanges, will she explain to the House why, at the start of this week, it was necessary to take up a whole day's sitting on a Second Reading of a Bill that clearly cannot progress to fulfilment during this Session? That has now caused the right hon. Lady to introduce a guillotine motion on other important Bills.
  Mrs. Beckett: No, I do not propose to get involved in that matter, for the simple reason that, as I have pointed out, I do not want to take time from the matters that we are now discussing-the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is not one of them. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends did not have the chance to raise the matter at business questions, but that is not a matter for me. The issue was not raised with me and, consequently, I did not deal with it. [Interruption.] I do not propose to deal with it now, no matter how often it is raised. If hon. Gentlemen want to raise it, they should please not waste the time of the House.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am confused about what happened yesterday to make the right hon. Lady decide to curtail business. She will know that the House expected that the Access to Justice Bill—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I shall not allow hon. Members to mention other Bills. We have an allocation of time—
  Mr. Bruce: On timing.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have an allocation of time motion before us, which specifically relates to the Food Standards Bill and the Employment Relations Bill. No other Bill should come into that discussion.
  Mr. Bruce: I apologise for naming that particular Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, because of the way in which yesterday's business was conducted, both the Leader of the House and I did not actually return from Buckingham Palace in time to vote. We were expecting a vote at 6 o'clock, but the vote took place 20 minutes earlier. The right hon. Lady will probably remember that the second vote was so early that she arrived from the Palace still wearing her hat—looking very elegant. Surely, we were moving faster yesterday and today's guillotine motion is not justified.
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes some kind remarks, but flattery will get him nowhere.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the specific timing expected for a particular vote, and what that indicated as to the passage of legislation. He alleges that a particular vote was expected for a particular time; that is a matter that
  1362
  relates to the information that he had. I do not want to take up too much time, so I simply say to him and to the House, that, through the week, it had become clear that a small number of Opposition Members were keen to disrupt the smooth passage and progress of business. I make no complaint about that, although it can be annoying to other Members. Such tactics are sometimes regarded as trivial, but they are a perfectly legitimate operation of the Opposition's role and of their rights in the House. I have no quarrel with that whatever.
  However, as all hon. Members know, rights involve responsibilities. The Government have a responsibility to protect our business and to see it through and to protect the private Members' business that is set down for consideration tomorrow. That is the last day available to consider private Members' business and many hon. Members hope to see their legislation progress. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) raised that matter with me during business questions.
  Events throughout the week led to our conclusion that a few hon. Members were keen to slow down progress. Although I recognise that programme motions are preferable to guillotine motions, even if programme motions had been agreed on this legislation—and they were not—we would then have had to ask whether that promise could have been delivered. The Government chose to move this guillotine motion against that background and in the light of events during the past week.
  Mr. David Maclean: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Lady's comments. Is she suggesting that, because about five Opposition Back Benchers kept Labour Members up until beyond midnight on Monday, she proposes to guillotine the Food Standards Bill—which had Opposition support in Committee, which came out of Committee bang on time and upon which I think the Government will admit they received the full co-operation of my right hon. and hon. Friends? Is that the right hon. Lady's justification for chopping ruthlessly the time allowed for its consideration today?
  Mrs. Beckett: We are not chopping it ruthlessly. We have provided adequate time to discuss the Bill and that will occur so long as we do not take up too much time considering this motion. I am well aware of, and the Government recognise, the part played by Opposition Members in the Committee's considerations—in which I understand the right hon. Gentleman also played a distinguished role. It is not a matter of time, or of people being kept up late. The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that, of the nine Divisions that were called on Monday night after a couple of hours of debate, seven related to statutory instruments and all of them had been to Standing Committee and passed unopposed.
  Let us not be mealy-mouthed about this. We all recognise and understand the tactics employed—they are legitimate tactics for Opposition Members to use. However, it is equally legitimate for the Government to recognise when they are being used and to take the decisions that a Government must take.
  2.22 pm
  Sir George Young: The motion before us would curtail the debate on two Bills—the

  1363
  Employment Relations Bill and the Food Standards Bill—neither of which we have sought to delay. At no time in her speech did the Leader of the House allege that the Opposition intended to obstruct the measures. These Bills have been caught up in some wider Government agenda—about which they have been less than explicit—which requires some display of virility and the exercise of their majority in this place before we rise for the summer recess.
  I shall deal first with the Employment Relations Bill and to the events of yesterday. The House began considering the Access to Justice Bill and the Lords reasons for disagreeing with House of Commons amendments at 3.56 pm. Consideration concluded three hours later after one Division, which was called by the Opposition. There was no delay and no evidence of any obstruction of the Government's business. We then began considering Lords amendments to the Employment Relations Bill at about 7 o'clock. By 10 o'clock, there had been one vote—which we had called—and we had finished considering all the issues in which we were interested, with the exception of two upon which we wanted to have a brief debate and to vote. The rest of the business was Government amendments.
  I have looked through yesterday's Hansard to see whether there was any filibustering by my hon. Friends. I saw some references to "The Goon Show" and to "Hancock's Half Hour" but they were made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who also asked whether druids were exempt from the minimum wage. The Secretary of State made the longest speech in the debate leading up to the guillotine announcement. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman was called to order in column 1288 of Hansard for moving away from consideration of the amendment. Only one of my right hon. Friends was called to order, at column 1283 of Hansard, for straying from the subject under consideration. There were no long speeches, only good, serious contributions to the argument.
  A 10 o'clock motion on yesterday's Order Paper in the name of the Prime Minister would have enabled the House to sit beyond 10 o'clock, and I have no reason to doubt that consideration of the Bill could have concluded at a reasonable hour. The Order Paper then listed for consideration another Bill, the Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Bill, which is clearly not very important, as it has now disappeared into the spill-over. There was nothing in the conduct of the Employment Relations Bill yesterday to justify imposing a guillotine.
  The House did not begin its final deliberations on the Food Standards Bill yesterday because it was due to be considered today. We did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading and we dealt with it in Committee in three weeks, which is a reasonable time scale. I assure the House that the Opposition did not intend to disrupt the passage of the Bill today, and it is simply absurd to imply that we wanted somehow to threaten private Members' business tomorrow.
  1364
  The Leader of the House asserted yesterday—she repeated that assertion today—that we did not agree to a programme motion. That is a wholly new doctrine: "Sign this programme motion or we will guillotine you." That is not how the business of the House is arranged.
  Mrs. Beckett rose—
  Sir George Young: Perhaps the right hon. Lady would allow me to finish my point. We gave an undertaking, which I believe that the Government accepted, that we would not delay the passage of the Bill.
  Mrs. Beckett: That is not what the Government are saying. If the right hon. Gentleman looks over the pattern of events this Session, he will see that, on the last few occasions when the Government felt obliged to guillotine legislation, we sought programme motions that were refused. When we embarked on the process of debate, there was then substantial delay. So, unfortunately, there is a history of the refusal to agree to a programme motion leading to subsequent delay, which has made it necessary to impose a guillotine.
  Although we were only a third of the way down the amendment paper when I made my business statement last night, the right hon. Gentleman makes much of the fact that the Opposition wanted to raise only one or two minor points, which he implies could have been dealt with speedily. Why did no Opposition Member approach the Government side to explain that the Opposition wished to continue for another half an hour, an hour, or whatever? We all know that that is a perfectly ordinary way of discussing and arranging business through the usual channels. However, it was not done.
  Sir George Young: The right hon. Lady has raised many points. However, with respect, she did not deal with the final point that I made before her intervention—perhaps because she had decided to intervene before I made it. We gave an undertaking—which I believe that the Government accepted—that we would not delay the passage of the Food Standards Bill. That denies the right hon. Lady's reference to an earlier case, when no similar undertaking was given. In this case, we said that, although we did not agree to a programme motion, we would not delay the passage of the Bill. I believe that that undertaking was accepted.
  The Leader of the House said that there was no implied threat. However, she said yesterday:
  "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."—[Official Report, 21 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 1296].
  That is a clear implication that, if we did not agree to the programme motion, we would expose ourselves to a guillotine. That is not how the House does business, and I hope that we will not be confronted with that sort of argument in the future.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: Many hon. Members who were in the Chamber on Monday night witnessed Divisions for two hours—if our constituents had seen it, they would have thought that we were barmy—on issues that had appeared before Standing Committees and been agreed without Divisions. The right

  1365
  hon. Gentleman had no control over the Opposition Whips or his Back Benchers that day. He can do nothing to stop those people disrupting Parliament. The Government have every right to protect the business of the House if he cannot protect us from half a dozen of his Back Benchers.
  Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman has given the game away. The guillotine has nothing to do with these two Bills; it is revenge for what happened on Monday.
  The Leader of the House has announced another guillotined debate for next Monday on yet another Bill. So the Government are planning to end the Session in the high-handed, dictatorial manner to which we have become accustomed.
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Leader of the House is motivated not by revenge but by judgment, because the Opposition have shown that they are singularly incapable of controlling their own Back Benchers?
  Sir George Young: The Government are guillotining discussion on two Bills on which the Opposition have given undertakings. At no time in the speech that we have just heard did the right hon. Lady challenge our undertakings or imply that we were going to obstruct the Bills. As she said yesterday, and as we have heard today, the guillotine has nothing to do with the Bills; it is a result of what happened on Monday. When I asked yesterday what was the reason for the guillotine, the right hon. Lady said:
  "Time has been taken up in the House."
  One wonders what the House is for if not to take up time.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Is not the right hon. Gentleman embarrassed by the fact that his party is being run by about six or seven vigilantes who are disrupting the business of the House? He ought to be ashamed of trying to defend them.
  Sir George Young: That is an absurd allegation about a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who take their duties to the House as seriously as did a number of Labour Members during the 18 years when we were in government. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to cast no aspersion on the late Bob Cryer or on the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Is he directing at them the remarks that he has just made about some of my colleagues? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. We cannot have hon. Members shouting across the Chamber.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am sure that, in his study of Hansard, my right hon. Friend will have noticed that, on Monday night, we were having an important debate about an entirely new procedure, which was being invented on the hoof by the Government for their own purposes, and that debate was foreclosed by the Government's action without any attempt to answer the important questions being asked. It is Labour Members who are not taking their responsibilities to the House as seriously as they should.
  Sir George Young: I quite agree, and my hon. Friends' reward is simply to be called "vigilantes" by Labour Members.
  1366
  The reason given by the right hon. Lady last night for the guillotine was that it was in view
  "of the lack of progress on business this week".
  Later, she said that
  "it was the progress and the general climate of the handling of business over the week…that led to the Government's concern."—[Official Report, 21 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 1292–95]
  In other words, discussion is being guillotined on these Bills not because the Government are concerned about what might happen to them, but because, as we have heard, the Government wasted Monday on the Second Reading of a Bill that will have to have another Second Reading when we return in November. The House sat late, perfectly legitimately, and not nearly as late as we used to sit in 1979 and 1980, when we had many more late-night sittings. It is deeply disturbing that, after one late night, the Labour Government have overreacted in this way.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that last night's business could and would have been completed by a reasonable hour. In that case, surely six hours is enough time to complete the business today, so why does he not sit down and allow the House to get on with the business in hand?
  Sir George Young: The Government are guillotining two Bills. If the hon. Gentleman accepts our undertaking, why is there any need for a guillotine?
  The reason for the guillotine dates back to earlier this week, so the Government must have been planning it for some time. Yet, when we had a debate on the summer recess arrangements yesterday morning, there was no mention of the guillotine for the remaining business. The first that I knew about the guillotine was at about seven minutes to 10 last night, which was at about the same time as everybody else. We expect the normal courtesies to be extended if the House is to manage its affairs sensibly. That is simply no way for the Government to treat not only this Opposition party, but the Liberal Democrats, and it is no way to treat the House of Commons. It is not the right arrangement for the measures that we want to discuss.
  Mrs. Beckett: I simply remind the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the point that he has just made, that, when I was shadow Leader of the House, I had experience of being in my office and seeing the Leader of the House on the screen telling the House about a guillotine motion, so I had no notice at all.
  Sir George Young: The right hon. Lady made it clear that the reason for the guillotine motion was related not to what happened yesterday but to what happened earlier in the week. Against that background, she could have observed the courtesies of letting us know through the usual channels earlier than seven minutes to 10. Her hon. Friends had to call a Division to allow the Government more time to get their act together.
  I say to the right hon. Lady that we have helped the Government when they have made a reasonable case. About a fortnight ago, I added my name to a programme motion, so it is nonsense to assert that we do not act reasonably. In the case of the Food Standards Bill, we gave undertakings that the Government accepted.

  1367
  The guillotine is therefore unnecessary and vindictive. I believe that it an attempt to unite the Labour party after its well-advertised splits and tensions, and it does so at the expense of the freedoms of the House. For those reasons, we shall vote against the motion.
  2.35 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): I do not intend to follow precisely all the points made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) because I do not think that repetition will help and it will certainly take time from the debate when our purpose this afternoon is obviously to get on with that debate.
  I remind the Leader of the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) asked at business questions specifically about the terms on which guillotine motions are brought before the House. I hope that, if she has time during the summer months, she will reflect carefully not only on those terms but on the consultation that takes place in advance.
  Liberal Democrat Members' general approach is that a guillotine motion, which is a sledgehammer, should be used only as a very last resort. The way in which we use them at the moment does no credit to Parliament, individual parties or their individual members. It guarantees less effective scrutiny and less effective legislation, and both Parliament and the public lose out as a result. Moreover, the aggressive antics that inevitably follow such actions are not to the benefit of the reputation of the House or the work that we do.
  The Leader of the House made much of what happened earlier this week in justifying the motion. I propose to spend a moment or two on that subject. Surely the aggressive antics that we have witnessed do not justify the particular motion in front of us today. As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire has said, the origins of the motion lie in the events on Monday night.
  I was here throughout those proceedings, and I took part in the debate on the business motion. It became clear in that debate—I hope that, when the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food replies to the debate, he will recognise and respond to this point—that, unless the Minister concerned knows the reason for a business motion, the House will be in a complete state of disarray. It was clear that the Minister for Transport did not know the answers to the questions that were being asked about the business motion. For example, she did not know whether, as a result of the Select Committee inquiry, there would be a second Second Reading. She did not know what would happen at prorogation. She did not know whether Standing Committee proceedings would follow.
  The failure of those on the Treasury Bench to give adequate answers to important questions that were asked by hon. Members on all sides of the House resulted in a mess. Frankly, the events of Monday night were absurd, but the Government must take responsibility for failing to explain what would happen.
  The Leader of the House has made much this afternoon about the progress of business through the House. All that happened on Monday night was that some of the usual hooligans—the term "vigilantes" is too much of a
  1368
  compliment—sought to disturb the business of the House. In the previous Parliament, the hooligans were members of the right hon. Lady's party; such people are a fact of parliamentary life. However, on Monday night, the hooligans had some justification for their actions, in that, at the end of the debate, there was no conclusion. The Whips moved a closure motion, but no answers had been given to the questions that had been asked. There had been a failure in communication.
  I hope that, this afternoon, closure will not again be moved before the Minister has responded to the proper issues raised by those of us who want to improve the way in which the House deals with business.
  I can only concur with the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire about the panic business statement last night. We witnessed the charade of Labour Back Benchers forcing an entirely absurd Division so that the Leader of the House could arrive with an adequate statement. There was a complete lack of consultation. The right hon. Gentleman and I stood by the Dispatch Box just before the business statement was made and were told what it might contain. We had no opportunity to conduct proper consultation or find out whether we could agree on a process that would help the House to deal effectively with its business.
  In an intervention, the Leader of the House implied that she was simply following the bad example of her Conservative predecessors. For goodness' sake—if we develop on that basis, the modernisation of the House will go into reverse. Taking a bad example from the past and adopting it as the process for the future—
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip for giving way, and I am very excited to hear his opinion that he and the Conservative Front Bench spokesman should consult on these matters, but the House is the representative institution for much more than Front Benchers. It must also enable Back Benchers to express their views. Back Benchers, I regret to observe across 20 years, are not always ad idem with the views of their party's Front Benchers, and that will apply to the Government as well as to the Opposition. If it is just a cosy-up between three Front Benches, where is the interest of constituents throughout this country protected, and where is the opportunity for Back Benchers to pursue an interest that may seem minor in the great scheme of things but is of great importance to their area or constituency?
  Mr. Tyler: I welcome that intervention because I entirely agree with it. The way in which on-the-hoof decisions are sometimes taken, even when the bipartisan usual channels are in operation, does not help the House to do its business in a way that is to the service of all our constituents. That is why short notice is, by its very nature, the antithesis of good consultation.
  I happened to be sitting in my office watching the debate, and at 9.55 pm I happened to see the text come up at the bottom of the screen, saying that there would be a business statement at Ten o'clock. I had no foreknowledge. For the Leader of the House to tell us that, on a previous occasion, she sat in her office and was told nothing, is merely to suggest that no lessons have been learned from the mistakes of the past. Two wrongs do not make a right; surely we should know that. I hope that there will be no repeat of that

  1369
  It is extremely important to bring one piece of information before the House. I understand that the Conservative party was offered a programme motion—no one has yet denied that. However, I do not know the terms of that motion, or whether the Conservatives turned it down flat and were not even interested in talking about it. If so, I think that we should know. I, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, was never even offered the opportunity to comment on a programme motion. We would have been very sympathetic to it.
  The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and I are both members of the Modernisation Committee, so he knows that I welcome sensible discussion in advance of business. I should like there to be a business committee to take over that responsibility, so that we do not have to rely on the usual channels. By definition, in a House that is now multi-party, a two-way conversation, with one person saying yes and another person saying no, is also the antithesis of good consultation of the whole House, and we must get away from it.
  That may be necessary in exceptional circumstances—
  Mr. Maclean: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyler: No; I want to make progress, because I want to get on to the debate.
  Mr. Maclean: On that point.
  Mr. Tyler: The right hon. Gentleman may make his point in due course. I am sure that it is vital, but, even so, I want to make progress.
  In my book, there is a very important difference, not of degree but of substance, between a programme motion, which is agreed to, and an imposed guillotine, which by definition is disagreed to. I hope that we shall find ways to develop the former, so that the opinions of those in all parts of the House have a better opportunity of feeding into the way in which we conduct business.
  The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire has mentioned the two Bills that are the subject of the timetable motion. Throughout yesterday evening, I carefully watched the way in which the Employment Relations Bill was debated. For once, the ingenuity of the Opposition was comparatively brief. The ingenuity of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was, uncharacteristically, extremely long winded. Any complaint about progress on the Bill should therefore have been directed by the Leader of the House at her colleagues, not at the Opposition. My hon. Friends were extremely brief.
  As far as I can judge, the Government amendments were comparatively straightforward. They were also comparatively welcome to the Opposition and, to a considerable extent, they tidied up some inconsistencies that had been left by the Committee.
  The House had not had an opportunity to judge whether there would be major problems on the Food Standards Bill. It had not been put to the test. All the signs were that there would not be major problems unless some of the Conservative Back-Bench hooligans had subtly thought up some new problems and wanted to cause trouble, in which case I am sure that we could have relied
  1370
  on the good offices of the shadow Leader of the House to keep them firmly under control. He is a firm disciplinarian, as we shall discover in a few minutes.
  This is a test of the Conservatives' sincerity. If several Conservative Members pop up in a minute, and go on in a way that one or two of them can, we shall know that there is some hypocrisy among those on the Conservative Benches, because the important issue is surely to make progress on the Bill.
  Mr. David Drew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyler: No; I am making progress.
  I believe that last night's events very seriously—I hope not permanently—undermined cross-party co-operation on progress on business. We have made some real progress in this Parliament. The Government have been forthcoming with the programme motions following the advice of the Modernisation Committee. However, there must be real progress hereafter, and I hope that we shall find that last night's events were an aberration, not the pattern of what is to come.
  The Food Standards Bill covers important matters, and I do not propose to speak for much longer. The Food Standards Agency is supported by Members in all parts of the House and by the wider public. There will be important issues to discuss, but I am confident that the Government will be forthcoming in meeting some of the concerns of my right hon. and hon. Friends as well as of the Conservative Opposition, not least in relation to smaller enterprises.
  I hope that we shall avoid a full three-hour harangue. That is where the discipline of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire will come into play. Yes, in the past, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has provided the hooligan element. Yes, in the present, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) does much the same thing. However, this afternoon is a test of the ability of the House of Commons to deal with an issue on which we basically have no fundamental political differences, and I very much hope that we can now get on with it.
  2.46 pm
  Fiona Mactaggart: I shall be brief. I want to share with the House the confusion that I felt, as a new Member, about the attitude of the Chamber to time. A historical convention seems to have developed whereby time is the only weapon available to the Opposition and to Back-Bench Members. That is a foolish weapon. The time has come for us to give Back-Bench and Opposition Members other opportunities to influence the progress of legislation.
  It seems to me peculiar that, when issues are raised by those who are not members of the Government, usually the only vote that we may have is on whether the House shuts down its business completely. That does not sufficiently respect the interests of our electors or of those on the Government Back Benches, which might sometimes differ from the interests of those on the Front Bench. In a Chamber where the only weapon of anyone who has any criticism is time, Ministers naturally desire to keep their Back Benchers silent.

  1371
  It is time that we grew up and that we admitted that we all have an interest in representing the interests of our constituents and advancing the programmes on which we were elected. It is time to consider mechanisms that can better achieve those aims.
  Interestingly, we used such mechanisms to some extent in the case of one of the Bills that is subject to the allocation of time motion—the Food Standards Bill. The Bill was introduced relatively late, but it received pre-legislative scrutiny, which fundamentally changed it on an issue on which the Opposition led the charge, but about which many Labour Back Benchers shared their concerns: the poll tax to fund the Food Standards Agency. Because that was done intelligently, we won on that issue without there being a great row.
  The problem with the fact that the only weapon that is available to us in this place is time is that it encourages tribalism. It says, "This side are the good guys and that side are the bad guys," or vice versa. That may very well—
  Mr. Shepherd: I appreciate that the hon. Lady is concentrating on time. Does she agree that time can be used to enable intelligent Members of Parliament, also trying to represent their constituents, to employ the device of intelligent, rational argument by which, if there is a problem, one unpicks a contention within a Bill? This guillotine motion, or any guillotine motion, is designed to curtail that opportunity. The hon. Lady's rationale does not address what is central to the purpose of the House of Commons—not this foo-fa of good will and good intent, but the detail of analytical and rational argument, dealing with the content of a Bill.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making an important point. By regarding time in the Chamber as the only valuable time, we do not get rational debate. We sometimes endure midnight chunterings, which are not examples of thoughtful and rational debate. Would we not be better off if we genuinely provided time to enable analytical, thoughtful debate to take place, to which I know the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is committed? Such debate could make a difference and not simply provide the opportunity to bore and tire those on the other side of the Chamber into submission. We could actually change things. I think that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and I are united in believing that that is our job in this place. We could do our job better if we had a more modern and grown-up attitude to time.
  We should programme every Bill and we should know when the House will be in recess well in advance. I come from a tradition that knows that the pressure of the deadline often produces better work. However, we should focus on opportunities to debate that can produce thoughtful, intelligent and better responses, rather than indulging in ritual tribal warfare that degrades the Chamber.
  2.52 pm
  Mr. James Paice: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that time-wasting last night stemmed very much from Labour
  1372
  Members. At 9.58 pm they called a wholly unnecessary Division. They had to produce two Labour Back Benchers as stooges to be the Tellers because there was a zero Opposition vote. That Division occupied 12 minutes, which perhaps enabled the Leader of the House to get her act together. I cannot help but wonder how much more of the meat of the debate could have been dealt with in that 12 minutes.
  Mr. Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Paice: I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, but before I do, I suggest that over the coming weekend or during the summer recess, he has a chat with his father, who was a past master at prolonging debate unnecessarily.
  Mr. Hoyle: I do not have the opportunity to get a word in with my father.
  To say that no Opposition Members voted in the Division to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not quite correct. I think that he will find that two of his hon. Friends went through the Opposition Lobby. They realised that they had made a mistake and went back through the other side of the Lobby to cancel their votes. How does the hon. Gentleman explain that?
  Mr. Paice: Hansard records in column 1291 that there were no "Noes". There were just two Tellers. If Members had gone through the Lobby and had been head counted, they would have been recorded as having voted. It is as simple as that.
  I wish to underline what a shambles the Government have made of taking the Food Standards Bill through its parliamentary stages. As the Leader of the House has said, it is one of the Government's flagship Bills. The Labour party heralded it in its manifesto and it has not been opposed by any Opposition party.
  Let us reflect on what has happened in the Government's handling of a flagship policy. The White Paper, on which the Bill was to be based, was published in early 1998. It was very welcome. It then went out to consultation. We were promised the draft Bill in the summer of 1998, after consultation had taken place. We did not get it until February 1999. The Government, properly, suggested that it should receive pre-legislative scrutiny. That was a sensible approach to the consideration of such a Bill and I have no criticism of that. However, the Government sought to complete that scrutiny in only seven weeks.
  It is worth referring to what the Special Select Committee that scrutinised the Bill said. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who chaired the Committee, is no longer in his place. It should be borne in mind that that Committee was massively dominated by Labour Members. It stated:
  "This period of just over seven weeks is by any standards a very short one for an inquiry by a Parliamentary committee."
  Paragraph 8 reads:
  "Given the way in which a select committee undertakes an inquiry, by requesting written evidence, taking oral evidence, and finally producing a report, it is clear that seven weeks is a far from ideal amount of time. We are concerned that this first exercise in ad hoc committee pre-legislative scrutiny should have taken place under difficult time constraints".

  1373
  It was flagged up clearly at that stage that even Labour Members felt that the Government were not providing enough time for the Bill.
  There were the usual discussions through the usual channels immediately after Second Reading. I do not think that I am giving away any secrets when I say that the Labour usual channels wanted the Bill to be considered in Standing Committee in only one week, on the basis that there had been pre-legislative scrutiny.
  The Select Committee that considered the Bill did so carefully and its report is an ideal example of what can be achieved. It produced recommendations relating to the principal issues arising from the Bill. It did not go through it line by line in the technical way that a Standing Committee does, but made a number of proposals. In one instance, thankfully, the Government accepted that Committee's advice and backed down on charging. If we have time this afternoon, we shall debate the Meat Hygiene Service, which is a clear example of the Government taking no notice of the Standing Committee's advice, or not responding to it properly.
  It has been widely accepted that in Committee we addressed the issues constructively. Where we felt that specific issues had been debated thoroughly, we withdrew or did not even move amendments later in the proceedings, so that we might move on without rehashing old arguments.
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: To complete the picture, I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that only eight of the original 42 clauses remained unamended and survived the draft of the Bill that we considered in Committee. The vast bulk of the draft Bill had been amended.
  Mr. Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has considered these matters carefully. She makes the point that the Standing Committee had to scrutinise the Bill that was before it, which was not the same as the draft Bill originally presented. Some of the changes were welcome because they were responses to the recommendations of the Select Committee. That did not mean that the Standing Committee did not have a responsibility to examine the Bill.
  On specific issues, we wanted more scrutiny. We said that we would raise those matters on Report. Last night, the Leader of the House accused me of not being present at business questions and suggested that I should have asked for more time to consider the Bill during previous business questions. However, there was no need to do that; we thought that we would have a full day on Report, with perhaps an extra hour or two hours. The right hon. Lady has implied that that would be perfectly acceptable. Six, seven or eight hours would have been adequate for what we were planning to do in raising certain issues.
  If we had known that the Bill would be guillotined, we would have explored some of the key sections of the Bill rather more deeply in Committee. As it is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said, we delivered the Bill as we said we would. At the end of three weeks in Committee, we had not run over time. Indeed, we finished with about an hour to spare. No one can suggest that three weeks in Committee—only 11 sittings—is a sign of time-wasting.
  The amendments and new clauses selected for consideration today are set out on one side of one sheet of paper. They are fairly well spaced out. There are not
  1374
  huge groups of amendments, as we sometimes see in other selection lists. Often, we find huge groups of Government amendments. Only 35 amendments were tabled and they were not all selected for debate. Three new clauses were tabled, one of which was not selected, and the Government tabled a new schedule. There are 13 groups on the selection list, one having been tabled by Plaid Cymru. As Plaid Cymru was not represented in the Committee, it should have the right to bring its amendments to the Floor of the House. One amendment was tabled by a Labour Back Bencher, supported by a couple of Liberal Back Benchers. That can hardly be laid at the door of the Opposition. Two groups of amendments are Government concessions, which we welcome, and one group consists of miscellaneous and drafting amendments.
  No objective person would classify the amendments and new clauses tabled for this afternoon as time-wasting. Why should we waste time? We are not against the Bill. We support the principle. It now seems unlikely that we will reach all the major issues dealt with in the groups of amendments, in particular the Meat Hygiene Service, which we discussed to a degree—
  Mrs. Beckett: I shall take only a second. The hon. Gentleman says that hon. Members wanted a day to debate the Bill and that that would have been adequate. A normal parliamentary day is six hours, and six hours is what the motion allows. He is not debating the Bill, but that is his choice.
  Mr. Paice: If the right hon. Lady had listened, she would know that I said about a day, or six, seven or eight hours, which for many years has been a more typical day. Six hours is the minimum—
  Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Leader of the House is trying to suggest to the House, as did the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) in his sanctimonious speech, that somehow it is improper to take time debating one of the most vicious and ruthless guillotines that I have experienced in 16 years in the House. Owing to the way in which the guillotine motion has been drafted by the Government, of course time spent on it will take time out of the debate, but God help this House if the Government say that we cannot discuss guillotines in future because that is inappropriate and takes time out of important debates.
  Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. I am certain that, if challenged, the right hon. Lady could not name a guillotine motion in the 18 years of the previous Government on which the Opposition did not speak, or which they allowed to go through on the nod, as she implied by her comments today.
  I limit my remarks to the Food Standards Bill. The legislation has been welcomed across the political spectrum, by outside bodies ranging from the National Farmers Union to the National Consumer Council—the entire spectrum of the food industry. They would be horrified by the arrogance of the Government in trying to rush through a Bill that must be right if the agency is to have the credibility that everyone wants it to have.
  The Minister of State said that the agency will be the most powerful quango in the land—it may well be. Surely that justifies our demand that the Bill should be properly

  1375
  examined. If the Government do not want it to be scrutinised, that is an indictment of their approach to the House and to legislation.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Paice: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall conclude in a moment. I am sure that he will have a chance to speak later.
  When I entered the House, it was the convention that Bills were not timetabled—guillotined—until they had had 100 hours in Committee. That is not so long ago, and certainly well after both the Leader of the House and the Minister of State entered the House; they both preceded me by some years. Now it seems that the Government are riding roughshod over democracy in order to get their way.
  Last night the right hon. Lady said that the Government needed certainty. That is the language of dictatorship, not of democracy. In any event, she has that certainty. It is represented by the hundreds of grinning eunuchs on the Benches behind her, who are not prepared to undertake proper scrutiny of the Bill, which it rightly deserves and which consumers throughout the country expect it to have.
  3.3 pm
  Mr. Geraint Davies: What a charade this is. We have already taken almost an hour on the allocation of time motion, and we have only six hours to debate that and substantive issues. It is clearly a case of arrogant self-indulgence from a few egos on the opposition Benches. Such enormous time-wasting is essentially anti-democratic. We know that we have only six hours. The posturing and pomposity of Opposition Members will make no difference to that. I am sick of listening to synthetic emotion from hon. Members who are incapable of making speeches less than 10 minutes long.
  We need proper timetabling in this place, similar to the sittings motion before consideration of the Finance Bill, so that people will not jump up on their hind legs and speak for 20 minutes or half an hour about nothing. That is a waste of the time available to us and an example of end-of-term public school spirit on the part of the Opposition.
  The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) let the cat out of the bag when he said last night—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: Hold on. I will give way in a moment. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire said that the business last night was in good order and could have been completed by a reasonable hour. It follows logically from that that we could easily complete the business today within six hours. That is ample time, which is why so much time is being wasted by Opposition Members, and here is another one of them.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am exceptionally grateful to the gracious Member for giving way. I hope that he
  1376
  will apologise to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) for his attack on public school people, given that she is a product of Cheltenham Ladies college.
  Is the hon. Gentleman aware that throughout the period of Labour opposition—18 long years, throughout which I was in the House—every guillotine motion was debated in full? Were his right hon. and hon. Friends guilty of synthetic fury?
  Mr. Davies: I am glad to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) contained her remarks within less than five minutes. I hope to do the same.
  As regards guillotines, the point backfires. The number of guillotines imposed by the previous Government was enormous. That shows the contradictory position of the Opposition now, when they jump up and down. Why do we not get on with the business in hand and discuss the Bills on the Order Paper?
  3.6 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: It was the Lords amendments to the Employment Relations Bill that I addressed at about 6.50 pm yesterday. That business has been lost, although we could have completed it last night. [Interruption.]
  I am asked why I am speaking from the Back Bench. I am doing so in order to contribute and to put on the record of the House the reason why an important Bill—a Government Bill—was thwarted by the Leader of the House at 10 pm last night.
  As a member of the Conservative Front-Bench team, I co-operated with the Labour Whips to an extent that is probably unprecedented. Before I took my place last night, I had already indicated to the Whips that I would be quite happy for the first two groups of Lords amendments to be nodded through. I had indicated on the amendment paper the areas of debate on which I wanted to concentrate, and I had given every indication that the work last night could be concluded in good time.
  There were, as the House knows, 19 sets of grouped Lords amendments, but only five amendments had been tabled to those amendments. Two had been tabled by my hon. Friends and me, one had been tabled by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and two more had been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and cross-party members of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
  I made it clear to hon. Members on both sides of the House that we would conclude the business last night. I also made clear the aspects that warranted discussion. There were two aspects in particular. One was the amendments tabled by the Intelligence and Security Committee, which took only three quarters of an hour to debate and were not pressed to a Division, despite the fact that the relevant Lords amendments were tabled very late in the progress of the Bill and had not been subject to debate or scrutiny in Committee either in this House or in another place.
  Those amendments had important security implications for the country. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) uses dismissive language about the tenor of the debate. Had she been in her place

  1377
  last night, she would know only too well that in our discussion of the Employment Relations Bill last night, we concentrated on matters of national security and on the other matter, relating to clause 15, on which ministerial commitments made in another place about amendments on Report had not been forthcoming.
  Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Lady misunderstood me. I made no dismissive remarks about last night's debate. Indeed, I was extremely interested in the proposals from the Intelligence and Security Committee. Had I been able to be present, I would have been in the Chamber for that debate.
  My concern is that the House seems to have developed a habit recently of having, very late at night—[Interruption.] My constituents think that after 10 o'clock at night is a funny time to do one's work. The House has developed a habit of engaging very late at night in debates that are ridiculous rituals. If we held our debates earlier in the day, they might be less so.
  Mrs. Browning: Of the 19 groups of amendments scheduled for debate last night, we completed six, the first two of which I agreed to nod through. But the two which took up the substantive amount of time were the two that I mentioned—one relating to national security matters raised by the Intelligence and Security Committee, which should have had proper scrutiny, and the other to clause 15, on which the House divided because commitments made by Ministers in the other place had not been honoured. It was when we then moved on at approximately 9 o'clock that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry decided to share with us, amusing as it was for those of us who were present, anecdotes about Spitfire pilots and scenes from "Hancock's Half Hour". From 9 o'clock onwards, it was clear that the Government Front-Bench spokesmen were under instruction to filibuster.
  Mr. Clive Betts (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Rubbish.
  Mrs. Browning: I did everything that I could to co-operate with the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. At one stage, I referred one of his colleagues to other channels. I am not other channels, but, being in charge of the legislation, I was convinced that we could conclude it satisfactorily. Without the intervention of the Leader of the House at 9.50 pm, we would probably have concluded the Bill, including one more vote, by 10.30 pm. For that business to be lost to the House last night and deferred until next Monday was unnecessary.
  Mr. Tyler: If it was not an intentional filibuster, it was certainly an effective unintentional filibuster. If the Government were not under instruction, they seemed to be doing it anyway, which seems an extraordinary situation. The credibility of what the Government have said has surely been blown to smithereens by their subsequent action of calling an absurd Division.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman says that it was a filibuster; it certainly developed in that way. However, those of us who set out in good faith on the next group of amendments had no idea that it was to be turned into a filibuster by no less a person than the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  1378
  How shall we be able to accept the Government's word during future legislation? Knowing how to allocate one's time effectively in order to give due consideration to those issues that require it is becoming a pretty precarious business.
  Dealing with amendment No. 17 last night I said:
  "I will be happy to allow speedy progress on some amendments on the Order Paper, but not amendment No. 17. What has happened as a result of the amendment bears full examination."—[Official Report, 21 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 1262.]
  Throughout the evening I gave every indication of where I needed to spend time on matters of substance while reinforcing the message that, where we could make rapid progress, we would.
  There still seems to be something of a mystery about the Government's agenda last night in curtailing progress on the Bill. Having voted to overturn a Lords amendment, it is clear that, even when we dispatch the Bill on Monday, it will have to go back to the other place.
  Matters of great importance arise here, such as the timing of the application of the legislation for industry and employment. Given that the Government's excuse seems to be that they were all tired after Monday, the only conclusion to which I can come is that they were not only tired but pretty emotional as well.
  3.15 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Under the new Labour Government, guillotine motions are becoming increasingly ritualistic. The Leader of the House and I have voted long and often against the principle and employment of guillotine motions as an instrument of Executive abuse of process. The House, as a collective body of elected representatives, can only attest, or assent—if it is a higher order of attestation—to the proposals brought before us for consideration.
  I felt for the Leader of the House because, towards the end of any Session, with the pressure of the necessity of returning to our constituencies and giving our constituents undivided attention for 14 weeks, the Government naturally want to ensure that they have secured all aspects of their business.
  The Leader of the House tried to negotiate that concept, and adduced arguments which were essentially arguments of divination. I say divination, because as one reads the arguments that the right hon. Lady adduced last night, and which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) cited, they have a curious ring. The right hon. Lady said:
  "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."—[Official Report, 21 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 1292.]
  In the exchange that the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) was kind enough to allow me to pursue with her, I thought that we accepted that Members of Parliament have the right to try to express arguments on details, which are often outside the consultations. Therefore, any hon. Member can anxiously wait for an opportunity to rise on a clause which might be dismissed by a guillotine motion.
  A generation ago and before, guillotine motions were looked upon as something shocking because they are the denial of freedom of speech. They may have something to do with the enormous legislative programmes that modern

  1379
  Governments seek to carry through. To list such programmes is almost the parliamentary equivalent of soundbites. From my own memory, I can recall a previous distinguished Prime Minister—to put it that way—who was elected on the basis that we have far too much legislation, coming to the Conservative 1922 Committee and cheering us, with a ringing affirmation, for passing 44 pieces of legislation during our first period of government. "Jolly good," the Prime Minister called out, then added, ominously, "but we can do better."
  The claim to reduce the burden of legislation going through the House was in the Conservative party's election manifesto. But within one brief parliamentary Session that was out of the window and we were into the business of proclaiming how many pieces of legislation we had scuttled through the House.
  Nearly 20 years later, a new Government have come in, and what is one of their most ringing cheers? Of course, they have to clear up the detritus, the misgovernment of Britain for 2,000 years, the misappropriation and all the rest. I seem to recall that one of the current Prime Minister's ringing and cheering assertions to the nation is of 52 pieces of legislation.
  Perhaps the House and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will forgive me for just reflecting on what is the point of a Queen's Speech. It cites 16 or 18 pieces of legislation, but no longer reflects what we shall all be condemned to doing in the House during the next 12 months. I make those observations because they affect why the House sometimes becomes tense over the progress of Bills through the Chamber. That is really what this is about.
  Why did I say that the Leader of the House was into divination? Although the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) made a very sour speech, if I may be allowed to say so, it is probably agreed by Members on both sides of the House that, on reflection, genuine questions were not answered. For example, although I try to follow such matters, I have no certainty about how one moves amendments in a Select Committee. So we come to the guillotine motion; in a sense, it is addressing the failure to satisfy the House on Monday. [Interruption.] I see that the usual channel has absented himself from the corner of the Chamber which he occupies.
  The motion contains one of the features that we have taken up a number of times. It would not be true to say that those on the Treasury Bench invented the device of including the three hours, as set down in the Standing Orders, for discussions on guillotine motions within the overall time allocated for consideration of a Bill. I regret that that happened on one occasion that I can identify before 1997. However, the toy that has been given to the Government means that that is becoming a standard feature of guillotine motions. That is why I am very disappointed in the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I do not want to detract from the fact that he made a very good speech but hon. Members should note that, having almost completed it, he turned round and said, "But I hope no one else will cause any obstruction by making a speech, because we want to be able to discuss the merits of the Bill."
  Mr. Maclean: Sanctimony.
  Mr. Shepherd: I shall not go as far as saying that that remark was a little sanctimonious. The hon. Member for
  1380
  North Cornwall was saying, "I am quite prepared to be coerced by guillotine motions of this nature." To pursue his argument, we must ensure that the Government are ashamed of encompassing substantive argument on a Bill within the time allowed for a guillotine motion.
  Mr. Tyler: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to know that during my previous sojourn in this place in 1974, throughout the period of the Conservative Government and during this Parliament I have always voted against guillotine motions on principle.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am very cheered by that enunciation and I hope that it becomes part of the Liberal party's programme. I would say that, wouldn't I? However, I recall that the hon. Gentleman came close to falling into the hands of Lucifer over the absurd provisions of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, which the House considered last September. Not only was he not going to vote against the guillotine motion, but he actually signed it. Fortunately, the good and intelligent argument of his own colleagues and other Members of the House convinced him that it was inappropriate for him to sign that motion. In one of the most touching moments that I have ever witnessed in the House, a signatory to a motion on the Order Paper—presumably, signing the motion reflected a considered position—withdrew his support by standing up and saying, "I withdraw my signature." I do not condemn that, because we sometimes change our opinions. After all that the hon. Member for Slough has said on that point of rational argument, I accept it; I sometimes have my mind changed.
  The point that I want to make is about a three-hour guillotine motion encompassing argument on the substantive legislative issues before the House and I hope that the Government—and the usual channel, who unfortunately is not in his usual place—will take it on board. In truth, using that little device does no Government any credit. Either the Government want to give us three hours' debate on these matters or they want to give us six. Surely they do not want to coerce us into surrendering a proper debate about whether the allocation of time is adequate. That is what we are discussing.
  The divination to which I referred is in the words of the Leader of the House, who said:
  "The course of events over this week led the Government to have some anxiety about the progress of the Food Standards Bill."
  This matter has nothing to do with the Food Standards Bill itself and, by a process of divination, the right hon. Lady knows that the character of certain Members makes it unsuitable for them to be permitted to address it. Why do I say unsuitable? Because she said that time had been wasted
  "not necessarily by the official Opposition as such."
  How gracious; now we are allowed—as an official Opposition, no less—to be commended for the way in which we discharge our business, although the hon. Member for Croydon, Central does not believe that there is merit in that position.
  The Leader of the House continued:
  "It is no good hon. Members asking questions if they do not want to listen to the answer."
  She was saying, "We'll guillotine it if necessary." She went on:

  1381
  "The Opposition have every right to use time in the House"—
  That was very big of her—
  "that is their legitimate right".
  She then talked about
  "the duty of the Government".—[Official Report, 21 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 1292.]
  I know that after 10 o'clock we are all driven to make some absurd comments, but the particularisation and characterisation, which I think are wrong, is that any Member, however humble or however recently elected, can be guillotined out of the way.
  Acceptance of the Food Standards Bill is what is behind the motion. I have no way of testing this until the debate has finished, but when the guillotine falls we may have three hours, less up to 20 minutes for a Division, to debate the Bill. That means that the Government consider only two hours and 40 minutes to be appropriate for such a debate. I do not believe that a Bill that has received almost universal support and attracted the good will of Members on both sides of the House should be treated so casually. However, the Government are not treating the Bill casually; they are treating casually the right of those who send us here to represent them to have their say.
  Perhaps the 52, 54, 56 or 57 pieces of legislation that the Government hope to pass next year should be viewed by their business managers with a much more jaundiced eye. Good government in this country means, by and large, a sense of fairness and recognition that other people sometimes have different views. The motion should be opposed, because it strikes at freedom of speech and exerts the absolute control of the Executive over the Chamber.
  3.28 pm
  Mr. David Maclean: The motion before the House is intolerant and it has been tabled by a Government who are becoming increasingly intolerant. I exempt from that accusation the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister for Public Health because of their behaviour and demeanour in Committee when we were discussing the Food Standards Bill. They behaved with exemplary courtesy and were grateful for some of the contributions from the Opposition; I think they said that some of those contributions helped. I feel that I know the Minister of State slightly better than I know the Minister for Public Health, and I cannot imagine that he is behind the tabling of the motion.
  The Minister of State was probably as appalled as the rest of us last night when he discovered what was going to happen today. The motion is certainly not his style, considering the way in which he handled proceedings in Committee. I would be the first to acknowledge that his patience would soon run out if there was one second of time-wasting today and we did not make proper progress on the Bill. He would be calling on the business managers to use a guillotine motion to get the Bill through the House.
  However, that is not the scenario. The Employment Relations Bill and the Food Standards Bill are being guillotined not because there was one second's time wasting by the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats or anyone else, but because the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and the business managers concluded that the
  1382
  climate during the conduct of other business in the week indicated—as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, the Leader of the House concluded through divination—that the Food Standards Bill might be delayed, or filibustered. That is an extraordinary way in which to run business in the House.
  Mr. Drew: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously asking Labour Members to accept that he would not have been filibustering last night in advance of his filibuster on Friday on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill?
  Mr. Maclean: I can give an absolute assurance that I would not have spoken at all last night. I did not have a particular interest in the Bill. One cannot be a specialist—one cannot be an amateur—on every Bill before the House, so I had no intention of speaking last night.
  I had intended to speak on the Food Standards Bill today. I assumed that it would kick off at about 2.30 and finish about 7, 7.30 or 8; that would be the normal amount of time. I also assumed that, if we finished at 8 o'clock on Thursday night, that was not too late for the precious luvvies and darlings on the Labour Benches, who seem to wilt and to turn into pumpkins if we go beyond 10 o'clock.
  I do not intend to do any filibustering on Friday. In fact, if I did filibuster, Mr. Deputy Speaker would be ruthless in pulling me up. I may have one or two points to make on other Bills, but that is an entirely different matter.
  I get back to the point of the guillotine. It has been introduced because, on Monday night, some Divisions were called by some Opposition Back Benchers. Because of those Divisions, proper sensible debate on the Employment Relations Bill and on the Foods Standards Bill will be ruthlessly curtailed.
  What happened on Monday night? I agreed with much of the speech of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), but take issue with two little points. On Monday night, the Minister for Transport failed to respond to the points in the debate and then, all of a sudden, decided to move the closure. One of my hon. Friends had given way to the Minister or a Government Whip, and suddenly the Minister or the Whip moved that the question be now put, without us hearing a cheep from the Minister in response to any of the crucial questions that had been asked. Those questions were crucial because, in opening the debate, the Minister for Transport had not a clue what would happen.
  I assume that the reason was not the briefing because the civil service cannot have gone downhill that much in two years; I assume that the Minister had been given, as usual, excellent briefing. Why she decided not to use it, or not to call for answers from the Box, is beyond me. Because there was no response and because the closure had been moved, I, with other Opposition Back Benchers who were annoyed at the lack of a proper response, forced a Division.

  1383
  What else can an Opposition do? What else can individual Members do when we make serious points in a debate and then find that there is no response? Of course Divisions were called. If the Government wanted to avoid—
  Fiona Mactaggart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclean: In a moment. I shall comment on the hon. Lady's speech soon.
  If the Government want to avoid what they consider to be unnecessary Divisions, they should have the courtesy to answer questions that are asked of Ministers. The Government can control all the motions and all the business before the House. Ministers' refusal on Monday night to answer some simple questions was directly responsible for five or six Opposition Members forcing Divisions.
  Fiona Mactaggart: The right hon. Gentleman asks what else a Member can do. That seems to be the nub of the problem. We need to establish procedures whereby Members can make their views known and have their questions answered through a sensible, reflective procedure, rather than by dancing round and round in circles at 2 o'clock in the morning.
  Mr. Maclean: We have those procedures. We asked the Minister for Transport some questions. She had a Parliamentary Private Secretary behind her who could have run to the Box to obtain the answers. As usual, she had her big red folder. I suspect that all the answers were in there to begin with, but she decided not to respond. Whether that was out of arrogance and contempt for the House, or whether she did not like the questions and did not want to respond, we do not know.
  We do not need to invent some new fancy procedure. The Minister could have read out the answers in her briefing notes if she had wished to do so. Because of that failure, as everyone knows, some unnecessary Divisions were called. The hon. Member for North Cornwall was right that that was the genesis of some of the Divisions on Monday night but, being a typical Liberal Democrat, he castigated the Government for causing the problem and then castigated some Opposition Members for voting. It was an absurd charade, he said. Fortunately, I have had the benefit of checking Hansard. He and other Liberal Democrats voted in almost every one of those Divisions—certainly between midnight and 1.30 am.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall has re-entered the Chamber. I am refreshing hon. Members' memory, mentioning that he said that some of the votes on Monday night were absurd. I notice that he participated in those votes, but I congratulate him on getting the point correct: those votes happened because of the Government's arrogance in not responding.
  As a result of that, we have a guillotine motion. There is no question of delays on the Employment Relations Bill being caused by any Opposition Member. The delays on the Bill were caused by the Secretary of State for Trade
  1384
  and Industry. He deliberately delayed the Bill after 9 o'clock, when he got the message to keep talking until the Government cooked up a guillotine.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: It was not only the fact that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spent a considerable amount of time speaking in yesterday's debate that caused the problem. It was also the fact that, because of the Government's bad drafting of the Employment Relations Bill, a huge number of Government amendments had been tabled. If there had not been so many Government amendments, there would not have been so many groups of amendments to discuss.
  Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. No Labour Member can deny that.
  The Leader of the House made a virtue out of making a very short speech on the guillotine motion. She said that she did not want to take time out of the rest of the debate. We know why she made a very short speech: she had nothing the say. There was no justification for the motion. She could not justify it on the basis that the Opposition were delaying the legislation yesterday. The Opposition were not; they were co-operating fully. The only person delaying it was the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  The Leader of the House could not justify the guillotine motion on the basis of the behaviour of the Opposition, the Government or anyone else on the Committee that considered the Foods Standards Bill. I have served on quite a few Committees and taken a few Bills through the House; parts of some of them were opposed vigorously by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. I cannot remember a time when a Committee was conducted in such a spirit of sensible co-operation.
  We had the odd stormy moment but, in the main, there was complete co-operation. The Opposition—Conservatives and Liberal Democrats—tabled amendments. The spirit of some of them was accepted by the Government, who are coming back with improvements. On other occasions, Ministers pointed out why the amendments were helpful but not necessary, saying that, through guidance or codes of practice, the point would be addressed. Ministers know that.
  That is why I feel sorry for the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister for Public Health. Although I am critical of this intolerant Government for their disgraceful motion, it is not those two Ministers who are responsible for it. To use the expression of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) in her imitation of the Prime Minister, "They are the good guys." They are not demanding the introduction of what is an unnecessary guillotine.
  Why did the Government not see what would happen? Why did we not start on the Food Standards Bill? It would be a bit difficult to filibuster or delay the few sensible amendments that my hon. Friends have tabled. Moreover, if we wanted to wreck or mess about with the Food Standards Bill, as the Government know, some of us are capable of tabling more than 13 amendments.
  Fiona Mactaggart: The right hon. Gentleman made it clear earlier that his strategy when he is frustrated by one thing is to fuss about something completely different.

  1385
  He made it clear that he did that on Monday night. That is what I described as a failure of the procedures of the House. I imagine that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House thought that he might choose this occasion to do it again.
  Mr. Maclean: What a preposterous idea. I assure the hon. Lady that, had we intended to disrupt the Food Standards Bill, there would be 50 amendments in my name on all aspects of it. I have tabled no amendments to the Bill because I was largely satisfied by most of the Minister's comments in Committee. I am also satisfied with the few—it is a few in parliamentary terms—sensible amendments that have been tabled by my hon. Friends, which are adequate for debate. It is preposterous of the hon. Lady and outrageous of the Leader of the House to suggest that a Bill that we have not even started to discuss on the Floor of the House should be guillotined, especially given that there was utterly sensible co-operation from the Opposition in Committee.
  Mr. Barron: Ten minutes ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that all that he wanted to do this afternoon was discuss the Food Standards Bill, the Standing Committee considering which we both sat on, until 7.30 or 8 o'clock tonight. Why, then, does he not sit down so that we can do that?
  Mr. Maclean: Because I shall not be blackmailed by the Government, who want to curtail remarks on a guillotine motion by wrapping it up with the substance of the Bill. That is the evil that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills complained about, and that is what other Labour Members have been threatening us with today. They are saying, "Don't talk on the guillotine motion. Stay gagged. Let us drive it through ruthlessly, because every minute you talk on the motion takes time out of discussion of the Bill."
  I deplore the fact that time is being taken out of the debate. That is not happening because my hon. Friends and I are talking on the motion; it is happening because the Government have phrased the motion in that way. They could have phrased it to give us two or three hours on the guillotine motion and then presented a separate time limit for discussion of the Bill itself. This is, therefore, a simple blackmail motion, because we know that for every second that we take in protesting about the Government's illiberal behaviour in trying to drive through guillotines, we are taking time out of discussion of the Bill. Although the Bill is extremely important, the freedom of Members of Parliament to have a say on all aspects of legislation is even more important.
  Labour Members also suggest that, because this and other Bills have been before a Special Select Committee, we need less time to debate them. They suggest that they can be guillotined and that it does not matter if we have a shorter debate on Report because Special Select Committees of experts have looked at them. That is a jolly good thing for the 17 people fortunate enough to be on the Special Select Committee, excellently chaired by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), but what about all the other Members of the House? What about those who were not even more fortunate in being on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill line by line? The only opportunity for those 635 Members to discuss the Bill is on the Floor of the House.
  1386
  This motion is preventing that discussion from happening, not because I am protesting about the motion, but because the Leader of the House has drafted the motion in such a way that every word of protest against this illiberal, intemperate motion takes time out of the debate. That is why I shall vote against the motion. It is wrong because it seeks to curtail parliamentary democracy when there has not been one second wasted on the Food Standards Bill, or on the Employment Relations Bill last night.
  Mr. Hoyle: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that he is taking time away from Back Benchers who want to get on with the debate. He must realise that he is filibustering.
  Mr. Maclean: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is stupid or slightly deaf, but he has missed the point that I am making.
  Mr. Hoyle: Sorry?
  Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is using the standard blackmail on us. His Government have phrased this motion in such a way that it amounts to parliamentary blackmail.
  Mr. Hoyle: How can the right hon. Gentleman say that I am blackmailing him when I simply asked him to get on with the debate and allow Back Benchers who were not on the Select Committee to contribute to it. That is not blackmail. The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his disgraceful comments; he should know better.
  Mr. Maclean: I have been here slightly longer than the hon. Gentleman, and I profess that, on this matter, I do know slightly better. It is parliamentary blackmail to phrase a motion in such a way that, every minute that one takes in protesting against the illiberal nature of the motion takes time out of the subject that we really want to debate.
  This motion is the Government's responsibility. They should have phrased it differently, as such motions used to be phrased on most occasions in the past. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) can laugh his head off, but he is part of the parliamentary blackmail. If he really wants time for debate on this measure, he should vote against the guillotine motion.
  The motion is not necessary for the Food Standards Bill and I doubt whether it is necessary for the Bill that we were dealing with last night. I shall oppose it because I shall not be blackmailed by the Government into staying silent on a guillotine motion.
  I wish to exempt, once again, the Ministers responsible for the Food Standards Bill, because I do not believe that they are guilty on this occasion. Indeed, I am absolutely certain that they are not. They will have been as appalled about this motion as the rest of us. Whenever the Government table a guillotine motion that is not necessary, I shall oppose it, as I will tonight.
  3.47 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Leader of the House made it abundantly clear that the motion arises out of the events of Monday night. I do not

  1387
  want to dwell on that, but I shall say this: after last week's business statement, both my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and I drew to the attention of the Leader of the House the fact that such problems would arise. We flagged up the fact that Monday's Bill would require a second Second Reading.
  When the Minister for Transport was unable to explain the events that would follow on from the motion that she was proposing, Conservative Members naturally, and quite properly, wanted to investigate that fully in the debate that followed. As that debate was then curtailed arbitrarily—and improperly, in my view—it led to the subsequent Divisions that kept hon. Members up until 2 am. As a consequence, we now have the motion before us.
  The motion is absurd; it is a punishment motion. The Government are saying, "You did this on Monday night; therefore we shall do this now." It is an absurd way for the Government to run the business of the House.
  The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said, in support of the motion, that we should have programme motions on all our business and sensibly agree a timetable in which to discuss Bills. We have been through that. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) will agree that, when we sat through hour after hour of the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill, all of which had been timetabled through the usual channels, the timetable proved thoroughly inadequate because it was a straitjacket. Indeed, the Bill was effectively guillotined.
  The timetable constrained debate of matters that arose quite naturally out of the investigations and probing amendments of Back Benchers. When issues were suddenly discovered that required fuller and more expansive debate, the timetable simply could not accommodate that. Timetables drawn up in advance cannot take account of what may be discovered by proper scrutiny.
  I am against guillotines in principle, but I am against this one in practice. As the Leader of the House has made clear, it does not arise from any fear about the passage of the two Bills involved; it arises from the right hon. Lady's desire to be seen to be taking firm action following what happened on Monday night.
  3.50 pm
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I expected that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) would have much more to say. Given that he does not, I certainly do.
  I agree with those of my hon. Friends who, like me, were present throughout Monday's proceedings, that we have been traduced by the way in which Ministers have described our behaviour this afternoon. We have heard from other Labour Members that we are hooligans and vigilantes. Various other phrases have been used, but they have not discouraged the Leader of the House from saying that we employed legitimate tactics. We are not surprised that the right hon. Lady considers it all right for Back Benchers to be hooligans and vigilantes, because last night we saw a Minister being a hooligan, delaying the very legislation that is now to be subject to the timetable motion. It is the Government's Front-Bench hooligans who pose the real problem.
  1388
  That Minister is not the only one, however. This whole difficulty arose from an attempt on Monday to assuage the pride and the prejudice of the Deputy Prime Minister. His pride demanded that there should be a Railways Bill from his Department—a Bill which, as is becoming clearer by the day, simply cannot proceed in the current Session. That is what provoked all that happened on Monday night. A Minister was not prepared to admit to us how the Bill would proceed and would not reply to the points that I was making. I gave way to one of her ministerial colleagues in the belief that we would be enlightened about how the Government would deal with the innovative structure for Bills; instead, we were faced with a closure motion, as a result of which we spent three and a half hours on procedure. We shall spend more than three hours on procedure this afternoon and we shall spend more than three hours on it on Monday. If we take into account the time spent on points of order concerning these issues over the past few days, that amounts to a total of 10 hours of debate on procedural matters.
  People outside this place will ask what has resulted from our spending nearly three times as much of our precious remaining time on procedure as will be spent on consideration of the important Bills that we shall discuss this afternoon and on Monday. The solution is simple: the timetable motions should be withdrawn. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) helpfully reminded us today that he had signed a timetable motion a year ago but, having heard the arguments presented in the House, had decided to oppose it. It is entirely within the rules of the House for a Minister to say, "Having received reassurances from Conservative Back Benchers, and having understood why their actions on Monday night were entirely justified, we are prepared to drop the timetable motions for today and Monday, and proceed with a clear, well-intentioned, well-timed but untimetabled debate on these two key Bills."
  The Parliamentary Secretary's eyes light up at the prospect. If he is tempted down that road, he will have struck a blow for democracy, for the freedoms of the House and for the mutual respect in which we hold our arguments. I am afraid that that mutual respect was sadly lacking in the Minister's colleagues on Monday night: despite numerous offers, they spurned all attempts to make them explain how they proposed to proceed with the Bill that we were considering.
  Mr. John Bercow: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend who is making a powerful point, but did he observe that Labour Members began chuntering a moment ago when he referred to points of order? Does he agree with my recollection—I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office is listening attentively—that most of those points of order concerned the procedure for the handling of legislation? The need for them could have been readily avoided if the Government, via a statement, had made clear what the criteria were for the future handling of all Bills—if they had made it clear when Bills would and would not be referred to Select Committees, and when it would or would not be necessary for there to be two Second Readings as opposed to one. The Government may

  1389
  chunter, from a sedentary position, about points of order, but they know that the way to avoid such problems in the future lies in their hands.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. A week ago, during business questions, I heard the Leader of the House being told for the first time that she would have to explain how this week's Bills would be dealt with. I was present throughout business questions and I know that the right hon. Lady had no answer.
  On Monday, we observed that hon. Members received no reply when they constantly asked the Government how the Bill could possibly proceed. Points of order have been made to the Chair over a number of days, and no doubt many hours have been spent in the Speaker's Office in an attempt to resolve the enigma of the Railways Bill. I expect that there will be chapters about it in "Erskine May". All that was required, however, was a little thought and a clear statement from Ministers.
  The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) asked why we could not have a mechanism allowing Back Benchers to receive answers from Ministers. We would love to know her ideas but, in fact, we have such a mechanism: the mechanism which we employed on Monday night.
  Ministers, their Whips and the usual channels all knew exactly what was happening on Monday night. They knew exactly what would happen if they refused to give any answers; they knew exactly what would happen if the closure was moved and they forced us to use such tactics. There was no mystery about it. It has happened time and again. Labour Members who are now trying to present themselves as innocents employed exactly the same tactics when they were in opposition. The mechanism is there, and it was used. This afternoon, in a reflex reaction, Labour control freaks are trying to punish Back Benchers who used the mechanism which, because she was not present, the hon. Member for Slough did not witness on Monday night.
  Fiona Mactaggart: My point is that the mechanism used on Monday night, if understood by hon. Members, was certainly not understood by our constituents. It did not constitute a reasonable, proportionate way of dealing with the problem that may have existed. Would it not be better for us to use our imagination to find a more sensible, transparent way of dealing with the problems, rather than simply saying, "We have always done it that way"?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I heard the speech the first time. The hon. Lady clearly was not here on Monday night—her votes are not recorded—and she may not even have read the report of the debate. The response on Monday night was entirely proportionate to the events that preceded it. We had an "unlimited time" motion, which the Chair described as a free-standing motion outside Standing Orders. If the hon. Lady likes innovation, she should have been here on Monday night because Ministers were
  1390
  innovating on the hoof. What became increasingly clear was that they either did not know or, much more likely, were not prepared to admit—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is dwelling over-long on the proceedings that took place on Monday night, and is becoming a little repetitive. I ask him to address his remarks to the motion.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am trying to explain that the behaviour of hon. Members on Monday night was entirely reasonable. If hon. Members are behaving reasonably, closure and timetable motions are unnecessary.
  The entire history of guillotine motions in this Chamber is based on the unreasonable behaviour of hon. Members in the previous century, when Irish Members used quite unreasonable methods to delay progress on Bills. Historically, the House has always justified passing timetable motions on the basis of dealing with unreasonable behaviour. Today, Opposition Members have demonstrated quite conclusively that, in this instance, there has been no unreasonable behaviour—except for Ministers' totally unreasonable behaviour, on Monday, yesterday and today. That is why all hon. Members who respect the House's rights and privileges must oppose the motion.
  4 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I do not recall speaking in any previous debate on a guillotine motion. I am speaking in this one because a Bill in which I have an interest has, this week, become the innocent victim of wranglings in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) has just described those events, on Monday and again last night.
  On Monday, the Government did not lose their business—they obtained a Second Reading of their Railways Bill, which was the House's business on that day. Subsequently, there was a wrangle over procedure, but I should be very surprised if any right. hon. or hon. Member could have any objection at all to the way in which Back Benchers expressed their concern and anger about the Government's proposals on further consideration of that Bill.
  As we all recognise, the Government were proposing a slightly unusual way of proceeding on the Railways Bill. Indeed, given that the Bill had already been considered by the Committee to which it has now been referred yet again, to many of us, the Government's proposals seemed to be very strange—thereby giving rise to legitimate questions whether Back Benchers would be able to table amendments in Select Committee as they should have been able to do had the Bill been referred, in the normal way, to a Standing Committee.
  I, too, was in the House last night when more of the House's time was wasted. Last night, I clearly heard the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who has intervened also in this debate, calling for a vote on the motion. Last night, it also seemed—at least to Opposition Members—that there was complete confusion among Labour Members. Many of us were perplexed about why some Labour Members were calling for a yes vote, whereas others were calling for a no vote.
  Last night, there was such confusion among Labour Members that one of my right hon. Friends said, "Lindsay, what are you doing? You've got it wrong." However,

  1391
  the hon. Member for Chorley did not hear my right hon. Friend, because he knew perfectly well what he was doing: acting, under instructions from the Labour Whips, to force a Division, absorbing yet more time allocated to debate on the Employment Relations Bill.
  It was sheer effrontery for the Leader of the House to tell the House, as she did a few moments ago, that we shall now have a guillotine because, last night, "it was not possible" to make progress on the Employment Relations Bill. That is simply not true. Last night, had there been discipline among Labour Members, we should have had additional time, before 10 o'clock, to debate the Bill.
  Moreover, last night, the 10 o'clock motion was not moved. Therefore, it was a matter not of insufficient time to debate the Bill but of the Government denying us the opportunity to do so. Today, the Government are proposing a guillotine motion on not one Bill but two. I do not know whether such a motion is unprecedented but, in my time as an hon. Member, I certainly do not recall ever seeing one before.
  Last night, had the 10 o'clock motion been moved and debate been allowed to continue, if the debate had got out of hand and the Government thought that there was a filibuster, it would have been quite open to Ministers to move a closure motion at any time after 10 o'clock to close down the business. Yesterday, if they had allowed the debate to continue after 10 o'clock but had to move closure, today it would have been perfectly legitimate and reasonable for them to ask for a guillotine.
  As I said, I am speaking to the motion because the Food Standards Bill, in which I have an interest, has been the casualty of the Government's ineptitude. Ministers know that the row started on Monday because they were not able to answer Back Benchers' questions on the future of the Railways Bill. In the circumstances, the Government—knowing what they wanted to do—without fear or favour should have known what the next step would be and how to answer the questions quite legitimately asked by Opposition Members.
  As many of my right. hon. and hon. Friends have said, the Food Standards Bill itself commands widespread support. There has been no attempt to obstruct the Bill, which easily obtained a Second Reading. In the House, as in Committee, the Opposition have co-operated in every way in the Bill's passage.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) is not leaving the Chamber now as I should like to say one or two words about what she had to say. She clearly is leaving the Chamber, but I hope that she will appreciate that I have tried to observe the normal courtesies of the House by warning her that I shall be mentioning her name.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gill: Yes, but I have much to say.
  Mrs. Winterton: I shall be very brief and am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He mentioned courtesies of the House. I wonder whether other hon. Members noted that the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies)—whose speech was very sadly
  1392
  described as "sour" by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is considered to be one of the most courteous Members, with tremendous integrity and a consistent record in speaking for his constituents—clearly is very discourteous and does not understand the courtesies of the House, such as that of remaining in the Chamber until the next speech has been completed. Does my hon. Friend join me in deploring such behaviour and in wishing to see the old-fashioned courtesies continue? Perhaps Ministers could also make that point to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central when, eventually, he returns to the Chamber.
  Mr. Gill: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's comments. I was not in the Chamber when that happened, but perhaps the hon. Member for Croydon, Central, who is a relatively new Member—I believe that he was elected at the last general election—left the Chamber unaware of those courtesies of the House. Perhaps he does not understand them.
  I should add, having been prompted by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), that today it was unfortunate that the hon. Member for Chorley left the Chamber after making a very direct, but not necessarily very courteous intervention on an Opposition Member. As he is implicated—because of his actions yesterday, which I have described—in the matters that we are now debating, one would have thought that he should remain in the Chamber to hear more of this debate, rather than leaving shortly after making an intervention. I am very glad that he is back in the Chamber now.
  As I was saying, the Opposition have in no way tried to obstruct the Food Standards Bill, which commands widespread support. Nevertheless, the Bill raises issues of great importance which I, for one, had hoped to be able to address on Report or Third Reading. However, as I said, the Bill is the unwitting victim of earlier events in the House. There is no evidence that the Bill would have been obstructed on Report or at Third Reading. I would go so far as to say that I had a genuine fear that it would not go the distance, and that there would be insufficient Members in the Chamber to sustain the debate until 7 o'clock this evening.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I have been doing a calculation while my hon. Friend has been speaking—although I was listening to every word that he said. Some 35 amendments have been selected by Madam Speaker for debate. If we had the full six hours to go through them, we would be allowed 10 minutes of debate per amendment. Does my hon. Friend agree that 10 minutes per amendment is a gross insult not only to Parliament but to the people whom we serve?
  Mr. Gill: I very much regret that the Bill will not have a greater amount of time. My hon. Friend is right to point out how little time is left for each group of amendments. He will recognise that some of the amendments are more important than others and that some will demand more time than others. Nevertheless, he is right to say that the average time allowed is insufficient.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. A few moments ago, he made it quite clear

  1393
  that he thought that there might be insufficient Members present for the Bill to run its full time. Now he is agreeing with the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) that there is not enough time to debate the amendments. He needs to be clear on what he is saying to the House.
  Mr. Gill: I am saying that I very much regret the way in which a Bill in which I, as a Back Bencher, have an interest, and in the debate on which I wished to participate this evening, is being dealt with. I am debating this issue because of something outwith my control. If the Government had got a grip on their business and had been able to answer the questions that arose on Monday, we would not find ourselves in our present bind, which has been compounded by what happened last night.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am trying to work out whether the hon. Gentleman approves or disapproves of the suggestion by the Modernisation Committee that there are three ways of dealing with a Bill, any one of which can be open to the House. That is relevant to the discussion. We do not want to go back over Monday's discussion, but the House was following the procedures set down by the Modernisation Committee, and voted. Some of us might not think it particularly sensible, and some might be totally opposed to guillotines—whichever Government move them—and even more opposed to the moving of double guillotines. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to know which of these approaches the hon. Gentleman supports.
  Mr. Gill: Like the hon. Lady, I am not a great lover of guillotines although I understand that, from time to time, Governments will seek to impose them. I believe that that should be done sparingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said powerfully that we are talking about the denial of opportunity for Back Benchers to contribute to debates.
  I am concerned that, because the Railways Bill has been referred to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, the opportunity for Back Benchers to contribute are severely restricted. How do Back Benchers make their views on the Bill known to the Committee? Are Back Benchers allowed to table amendments? Is the Committee allowed to consider them?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again going over the Railways Bill and the debate on Monday evening. I would be grateful if he came back to the motion.
  Mr. Gill: I will follow your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you will appreciate that I was responding to an intervention by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Before my hon. Friend took the intervention from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), he said that the Government had lost control of their business on Monday. What I find so bizarre is that the Government did not lose control of their business on Monday—they got their business on Monday and have continued to do so this week. Yet, in her extraordinary statement at 10 o'clock
  1394
  last night, the Leader of the House said that we would have this guillotine motion due to the lack of progress on Government business.
  Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend misunderstands me. I did not say that the Government had lost their business—I made the point that the Government did get their business on Monday. I have explained to the House that it was spurious of the Leader of the House to say that a guillotine was to be imposed because the Government could not get their business, and I went on to explain that she said that it was not possible to make progress last night. I have demolished that argument as well. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) will forgive me for being hard on him, but he could not have been listening carefully to what I said.
  Mr. Maclean: If my memory serves me correctly—others can check Hansard— the only business lost on Monday night was when Labour Members objected to a motion moved by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on behalf of the whole House.
  Mr. Gill: That event will have been recorded in the journals of the House, but I take my right hon. Friend's point.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gill: Not again.
  At this stage, I should remind the House that I am not a professional politician who comes to this place simply to talk for the sake of talking. I come to the House to speak when I feel strongly about something and when I have something to say on a subject that I know and understand. I am acting very much out of character this evening by speaking in this debate, but I want to make it clear why I feel constrained to do so. A Bill in which I am interested is being sabotaged because of the Government's ineptitude on Monday, their failure to answer the questions that they were asked and their failure last night to get a grip on Labour Back Benchers, who forced divisions that we need not have had.
  I refer now to the comments of the hon. Member for Slough. The House will applaud the way in which she made her suggestions about how the House might operate better. In all sincerity, I say to her that we have all been there. We have all felt frustration about the way in which the House conducts its business, and we have all felt that the House sometimes denies us the opportunity to say what we want or to get our own way. I wish to outline to her, from my experience, how the procedures of the House have been changed by Back Benchers speaking in this House consistently on certain subjects. This has led to amendments to the routine of the House, which have gone a long way towards improving the situation in the way that the hon. Lady would like.

  1395
  Select Committees were introduced by a Conservative Government in 1979. The consensus of opinion would be that these have been a success. The fact that we can now refer legislation to Select Committees and to other—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is wandering away from the motion again.
  Mr. Gill: I take note of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Fiona Mactaggart rose—
  Mr. Gill: Before I give way to the hon. Lady, she should note that if she wants to say something more on the theme that occupied her earlier—a theme that interests me and to which I would like to respond—either she or I will be ruled out of order.
  Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman referred to the establishment of Select Committees in 1979. As I recall, it was Richard Crossman who first had the idea some years before, and—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is completely irrelevant to the motion, and the hon. Lady knows it.
  Mr. Gill: Being a law-abiding citizen, I shall follow your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and conclude my remarks.
  This is probably the first time that I have ever spoken in a guillotine debate. I have no ambition to speak in another. I hope that the Minister and the House understand why I felt constrained to be on my feet for however many minutes it has been, on this rather singular occasion.
  4.21 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) has entertained us greatly.
  I could not help feeling that the Leader of the House did not have her heart in it when she moved the motion. She has not come back for most of the debate. I do not criticise her for that; she is exceptionally busy and I cast no aspersions, but her heart is elsewhere. The becoming hat that she wore yesterday at the garden party, which some of us had the privilege of glimpsing, suits her far, far better than the Madame Defarge creation that she sported briefly this afternoon.
  It is interesting that my old friend, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is to respond to the debate, as it was he who said:
  "The Leader of the House knows that the full three hours will be taken on a guillotine motion…We are at fault if we do not fill all three hours."—[Official Report, 1 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 807–8.]
  He once occupied the position that I now occupy and made scintillating speeches, castigating the then Government for introducing guillotines. Unlike some of my distinguished right hon. and hon. Friends, I do not
  1396
  carry the baggage of Government, and there were occasions when he took me with him, both in the argument and into the Lobby.
  I remember an occasion when a guillotine was introduced on a health Bill and I was so appalled that the House was not being given a proper opportunity to discuss it that I made my contribution to the debate and left. Labour Members should remember that they support a Government with an enormous majority. They are playing into the hands of a potentially tyrannical Executive if they too easily support guillotine motions. Incidentally, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) charmingly called them "guee-otine" motions. I hope that she enjoys her holiday in Paree.
  Of the two underlying reasons for the debate, one has not yet been mentioned, and that is the way in which we have changed the business of the House and fundamentally altered our Thursdays. I did not approve of the experiment, driven by the Government's proposals, of having Thursday morning sittings and trying to end everything by 7 o'clock. Without that change, we would not be under the current time constraints. Today's debate proves that ending at 7 o'clock on a Thursday, for all our good intentions, is not always possible.
  The more immediate reason for this debate is the character of our proceedings—the charade—on Monday night. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)—a distinguished theologian, as I gathered as I thumbed through Dod this afternoon—and for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) all underlined the fact that, had it not been for the way in which the Government handled Monday's business, there would have been no unduly late sitting that night.
  Those of us who have been here a very long time—I remember sitting through the night, night after night, on industrial relations legislation in the 1970s—do not consider 2 am especially late. However, our proceedings were protracted by the fact that the Government had no direct and sensible answers to perfectly permissible and sensible questions. That point was also made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who talked eloquently about the reputation of the House, about last night's filibuster by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and about that farce of a vote in which there were two tellers, but no voters, for the Noes.
  The Government must bear the responsibility for what is happening today. They have behaved extremely badly. We all know that July is a bad month. T. S. Eliot said that
  "April is the cruellest month"
  but, for parliamentarians, it is certainly July. I hope that, when we have a structured parliamentary year, the House will rise a little earlier than it will this year.
  We are in this quandary today because the Government behaved both arrogantly and incompetently on Monday. Arrogance and incompetence provoke Oppositions. We were told that often enough—in as many words, sometimes—by the Minister, who is now gazing at the ceiling.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I was checking how long the hon. Gentleman had been speaking.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I frequently used to check how long the hon. Gentleman spoke, and he had several marathon records. If he wants to hold a competition, perhaps we can do it for charity one day.

  1397
  Farce is added to today's proceedings by the fact that there has been no filibustering by either the official Opposition or the Liberal Democrats on either Bill. There have been no fancy points of order or ridiculously involved and complicated speeches on trivial subjects. My hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) both spoke knowledgably, and we had further testimony on the Food Standards Bill from my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow.
  Ministers have behaved well over the Food Standards Bill and there has been an unusual—for this Government—willingness to listen to constructive points. An important amendment was accepted and everything proceeded in an orderly and sensible manner. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border complimented both the Ministers concerned, and I am entirely happy to echo that. Then, last night, in a fit of midsummer pique—it can be described in no other way—at a few moments' notice, a timetable motion was imposed. The Food Standards Bill was not in jeopardy. Nobody was going to seek to talk it out—not that we could anyhow when the Government have such a massive majority. The Bill was receiving mature and proper consideration, and that was what we wished to continue to give it.
  It is not for Labour Members to criticise us for taking time on the guillotine motion. In an extremely important, impressive speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is a considerable parliamentarian, talked with great eloquence, and the House listened with great respect as it always does to him, about the background to this manoeuvre. He pointed out, as he is particularly well equipped to do, how Government after Government promise less, not more, legislation. Then, we have repeated breaking of that pledge. This Government are more guilty than any other Government of recent years, as they have driven to get their legislation through. As a result, they treat the House with scant regard and, indeed, sometimes even with contempt. In that splendid speech, my hon. Friend said that what was at issue was freedom of speech, and he was right to make that telling point.
  We had just two contributions from the Labour Benches. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) made a brief and, frankly, disgraceful little speech. He then waltzed out of the Chamber and has not been seen since. His attitude was: what a tiresome thing is an Opposition. I say to him in his absence—I hope that he will at least take time to read Hansard— that if, as is most unlikely, he retains his seat or gets another one at some stage, there will come a time when he will sit in opposition. What will he then say about an Opposition being tiresome? Many hon. Gentlemen who are present know full well that what I say is true.
  Mr. Barron indicated assent.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman nods his head. He should take his hon. Friend to the bar one day
  1398
  and tell him what opposition is all about. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central made a petulant, vindictive speech that was riddled with bitterness.
  Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend took three minutes.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: In three minutes, the hon. Gentleman poured out more bile than the Minster, who is exceptionally good natured, could pour out in three hours.
  As for the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), I do not accuse her of any discourtesy for leaving the Chamber because, as she left, she looked across and said, "I'm starving." She had sat throughout the debate and I hope that she is now enjoying a well-earned snack, so will not mind what I say about her. She talked about the need for consensus, and many of us would agree with much of what she said. However, as a supporter of the Government, she should not lecture this side of the House on consensus.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), shadow Leader of the House, has signed two or three programme motions where we have agreed with the allocation of time. There was no attempt properly to seek consensus on the time to be allocated to the Bills that we shall discuss later this afternoon and on Monday. The Government must learn to behave in a parliamentary way. [Interruption.] That was a jolly quick snack and we are delighted to see the hon. Lady back. I hope that she enjoyed it.
  It is interesting to see that one Member who has sat throughout the debate and has obviously taken pleasure in it is the hon. and genial Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). If he wants to learn a little about how frustrating opposition can sometimes be and how important it is for an Opposition to speak out against what they consider to be draconian actions, all he need do is walk to the other end of the Corridor and see his recently ennobled father. How glad I am to see that he describes himself on his writing paper as "the Honourable".
  Mr. Hoyle: I am amazed to hear that about my writing paper. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I certainly would not use that title. Will he please check the writing paper, because it certainly is not mine?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: If I am wrong in that, of course I apologise. I would hate to make an accusation that proved to be wrong. Certainly, the hon. Gentleman is so described in official literature that I have seen and I am delighted that he is, because nobody deserved the ermine more richly than his honourable dad.
  We now have a Government who regard Parliament as their creature. That is a dangerous attitude for any Government to adopt. The Government treat Parliament with a degree of derision that is bad for the body politic. They react with the indignation of the short-tempered owner trying to house-train a puppy when he thinks that his will is being thwarted. It is right that the Government's will should be thwarted. It is right that, this afternoon, we should seek to thwart their will and it is extremely wrong that the Government should have brought this motion to

  1399
  the House in the way that they did. I hope that we shall not have any more guillotine motions in this Parliament, but I suspect that we will, beyond the one—
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: There is one on Monday.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I know that there is already one on the Order Paper for Monday.
  If we do have further guillotine motions, I hope that the Government will never again behave with this ill-tempered petulance, which has been provoked by their own arrogance and incompetence in dealing properly with a Bill, and has put the House of Commons into a legislative straitjacket. This is a sorry day for Parliament. It is a sorry note on which to come to the end of a long and fairly gruelling parliamentary Session. I have no hesitation in urging all my right hon. and hon. Friends, and anybody in the Chamber who cares about the House and the democratic process, to vote emphatically against the Government.
  4.38 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): This has not been an interesting debate. First, I apologise to the House on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for her unavoidable absence during the latter part of the debate and the winding-up speeches.
  I may be wrong but, as I look at the Conservative Benches, I see only two faces who have that incredible beauty of experience of having sat on both sides of the House before this Government took office—the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and, I think, the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). [Interruption.] I may be wrong, but the point is that the vast majority of them have, until now, spent all their life in this House on the Government Benches. I accept, therefore, that opposition is a new experience for them.
  The procedures of the House have changed over the years since I came in. I fully accept that I have made speeches that can be thrown back at me—the longer we are here, the more likely that is to happen. I should like to say, however, that I have learned from those experiences. I know how to play parliamentary games, but I also know how to get a result. I like to make progress and to make changes to bring this place, at least remotely, into the latter part of the 20th century by introducing quality legislation. On any assessment that might be done, if this place were in the private sector, of our performance in terms of the quality of legislation, it is abysmal. We have attempted from day one to produce quality legislation on the Food Standards Agency. That does not necessarily mean that we used the old methods. In fact, by definition, we have had to use different methods.
  The proposal to establish an agency started life when the Labour party was in opposition. Professor Philip James was commissioned to have a look at the idea of a food standards agency and see how it would work and what its functions and powers might be. We received the
  1400
  report a week after the general election, published it and then consulted on it. We received some 600-odd submissions.
  Mr. Gill: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Rooker: No I will not give way for the moment. We then produced a White Paper "The Food Standards Agency: a Force for Change" in January 1998, on which we received about 1,100 submissions as a result of a systematic consultation.
  The Select Committee on Agriculture conducted an inquiry in 1998 into the general issues surrounding food safety, and published a report. We fully intended to produce a draft Bill last summer or autumn but, for reasons that have been explained in the past few months, it was not possible. Even in the Queen's Speech debate, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that it was our intention to produce a draft Bill and, if possible, to legislate this Session. That depended to some extent on matters in the other place.
  We produced a draft Bill with notes on clauses in January this year, on which we again consulted systematically, not just as a paper exercise but by taking almost a roadshow to the regions. I went to five separate regional meetings and listened to, rather than spoke to, 1,500 or so people. We consulted on what was in the draft Bill and the consultation paper in respect of the levy.
  At the same time, we set up the Special Select Committee. As we still intended, if possible, to legislate this Session—everyone can see the kind of timetable that we were working to—we asked the Special Select Committee to do a quick job. The general consensus among those who have read the report is that it did an excellent job in the short time available. It rightly made it clear that it would have liked more time. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health spent two sessions in front of the Special Select Committee at the beginning and the end of its proceedings, for a total of five hours. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who chaired it, the Committee took submissions from 24 outside bodies and three individuals and produced a report that resulted in about a dozen substantial changes to the draft Bill.
  Earlier, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) criticised the Government for changing the draft Bill before it became the main Bill that came to the House. I cannot imagine anything more ludicrous. We have listened throughout and consulted at each stage. We made substantial changes to the proposals from Philip James's report to the White Paper, from the White Paper to the draft Bill, from the draft Bill to the Bill that came to the House.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Rooker: I will give way in a minute. I am going to finish the point. We did not make all the changes that the Select Committee suggested, and we have explained why. We have not made changes furtively, and we are happy to explain the changes that we have made later today in discussions on the amendments.
  Every Government amendment on the amendment paper today is the result of the Government's commitments in Committee. I shall tell the House now,

  1401
  because there will not be time later on, that other Government amendments—technical amendments relating to devolution for Northern Ireland and Scotland—which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have refrained from tabling today, will be tabled when the Bill reaches the other place. We knew that, if those amendments were not reached today or, for some reason, the Government decided not to move them, that would send the wrong signals—it has nothing to do with food safety—to the countries involved.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Rooker: No. I want to finish the point that I am making.
  We were still committed to obtaining Royal Assent this Session. The advertisements for the chair and deputy chair of the Food Standards Agency were published a couple of weeks ago, within a week of Second Reading. It has been public knowledge for a while that Second Reading of the Bill in the other place, subject to the will of this House, is programmed for Friday 30 July. To make that a reality, the Bill has to be delivered to the other place today, not tomorrow. We knew that all this week. Therefore, when we saw the possibility that that would not happen, we had to take appropriate action.
  Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Rooker: No. I am going to finish this point. I will then take questions, if we are going to have a Select Committee-type of operation.
  We have to deliver the Bill today so that the other place can complete its Committee stage and any other investigation in the carry-over period so that we can deal with any Lords amendments before the end of this parliamentary Session.
  Amendments have also been tabled relating to the financial provisions. It is up to the Opposition whether we have a debate on them so that they can be explained. As I promised in Committee, I have some information and some figures that I should like to give to the House about the financing of the agency. I cannot organise the business—we are in the hands of the Opposition. That being so, we had to take action to guarantee that the Bill would complete its stages today.
  I am not saying that there would have been a filibuster on this Bill. It was quite possible that yesterday's business could have knocked out today's business. No one can contradict me on that. It is also clear that delivery of the commitments that were honourably entered into by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen could not be delivered. Therefore, in the interests of the package of business that the Government are asking the House to approve, and given that we have announced the dates of the recess, it is wholly reasonable to move a timetable motion on a Bill on which we have nothing to hide.
  At 7.30 pm on Tuesday, I personally handed to the Opposition copies of all the Government amendments being tabled that evening. I even gave them the opportunity to table amendments to the Government amendments. We were open. We gave all those commitments in opposition. There is nothing new in
  1402
  the Government amendments today. It is true that we have conducted the Bill in a different way from day one. For that, I make no apology on behalf of the Government. We are determined to get quality legislation through this place so that the agency works from day one.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister must realise that we do not criticise his conduct of operations, or the Bill. We accept that it is, by and large, a sensible Bill, which has great cross-party support, but why, oh why, would he not accept the undertaking that he was given? I can tell him that it would have been delivered. Instead, he has ended a good ministerial story with a rather sad last chapter by imposing a guillotine.
  Mr. Rooker: In replying to the debate, I have concentrated on the specifics. The whole of my contribution was devoted to answering that question. I shall give way to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), and then I shall conclude.
  Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I want to make it clear that he has treated me—as the leading Opposition spokesman on the matter—and the rest of the Committee with the utmost courtesy throughout the Bill's proceedings so far; I appreciate that. I hope that its remaining stages will be dealt with in the same manner.
  In that light, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the accusation that he threw at my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)? She and I—in my response to her intervention—were not suggesting that the Government should not have altered the Bill. We were simply making the point that, because they had altered the Bill—quite rightly in many instances—it was necessary to study the new version and give it proper scrutiny. To change the Bill does not remove that objective.
  Mr. Rooker: The underlying theme of the criticism seems to be that, for some reason, if any change that the Government make to the draft after the White Paper is not subject to parliamentary debate, we are cheating somehow. We are not. We have been wholly and utterly open about the matter. To improve the Bill as it went along cannot be a charge that can be held against us. There was no criticism in Committee that we had changed it from the draft. I sincerely hope—
  Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rooker: I will, but only because I like the hon. Gentleman. He has been extremely positive about the measure. Furthermore, he was a Member of this place for only six months in 1974 and was out of the place for 18 years. I shall give way to him and then I am determined to sit down, or we shall be in danger of losing the chance to discuss the amendments.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the Minister; I cannot take all these compliments from both sides of the House—they are most damaging to my reputation.
  I agree with the point that the Minister made at the outset; the experience of the Bill has been uniquely constructive. It has been most helpful.

  1403
  However, that does not explain why this motion is before us. The Minister is right to say that there might have been a problem with the Employment Relations Bill, but that could have been dealt with separately. There is no evidence, from anything that he has told us this afternoon, that the treatment of the Food Standards Bill would be obstructed—none whatever.
  Mr. Rooker: I explained that there were time constraints because of the need to send the Bill to the other place. There are 13 groups of amendments. At two hours a group, I could easily organise a two-hour debate on any group of amendments, and that would make 26 hours. That is the reason for the motion.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 108.

  Division No. 271]

  [4.51 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Colman, Tony

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Allen, Graham

  Corbett, Robin

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cousins, Jim

  Ashton, Joe

  Cox, Tom

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cranston, Ross

  Barron, Kevin

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Battle, John

  Cummings, John

  Beard, Nigel

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Berry, Roger

  Darvill, Keith

  Best, Harold

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blackman, Liz

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Borrow, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Denham, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Browne, Desmond

  Doran, Frank

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Burden, Richard

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Burgon, Colin

  Edwards, Huw

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Efford, Clive

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Cann, Jamie

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Caplin, Ivor

  Flynn, Paul

  Casale, Roger

  Follett, Barbara

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Clapham, Michael

  Foulkes, George

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Galloway, George

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Gapes, Mike

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clelland, David

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Gerrard, Neil

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Cohen, Harry

  Godsiff, Roger

  1404

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Merron, Gillian

  Grocott, Bruce

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Grogan, John

  Mitchell, Austin

  Gunnell, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hain, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Morley, Elliot

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Healey, John

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Heppell, John

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Norris, Dan

  Hill, Keith

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hoey, Kate

  Olner, Bill

  Hope, Phil

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Pendry, Tom

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hurst, Alan

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Plaskitt, James

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Rammell, Bill

  Rapson, Syd

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kemp, Fraser

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rooney, Terry

  Khabra, Piara S

  Roy, Frank

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Salter, Martin

  Laxton, Bob

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Leslie, Christopher

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Linton, Martin

  Sawford, Phil

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lock, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Love, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McAllion, John

  Singh, Marsha

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Skinner, Dennis

  McCabe, Steve

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Snape, Peter

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Soley, Clive

  McNamara, Kevin

  Spellar, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  MacShane, Denis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Stevenson, George

  McWalter, Tony

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  McWilliam, John

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Stott, Roger

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stringer, Graham

  1405

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wills, Michael

  Todd, Mark

  Winnick, David

  Touhig, Don

  Wise, Audrey

  Trickett, Jon

  Wray, James

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Vaz, Keith

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Leigh, Edward

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Letwin, Oliver

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Loughton, Tim

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Blunt, Crispin

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Body, Sir Richard

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Brazier, Julian

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Burnett, John

  Moore, Michael

  Burstow, Paul

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Norman, Archie

  Chope, Christopher

  Öpik, Lembit

  Clappison, James

  Page, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Paice, James

  Colvin, Michael

  Prior, David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Cotter, Brian

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Sanders Adrian

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Day, Stephen

  Shepherd, Richard

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Duncan, Alan

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

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Spring, Richard

  Faber, David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Syms, Robert

  Flight, Howard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Tyler, Paul

  Fraser, Christopher

  Tyrie, Andrew

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Viggers, Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Wallace, James

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Walter, Robert

  Gorrie, Donald

  Wardle, Charles

  Gray, James

  Waterson, Nigel

  Green, Damian

  Wells, Bowen

  Greenway, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Willetts, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Willis, Phil

  Hancock, Mike

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Harvey, Nick

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Woodward, Shaun

  Horam, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  1406

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Food Standards Bill and on the Employment Relations Bill—

  Timetable
  1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Food Standards Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
  (2) Remaining proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to the Employment Relations Bill shall be completed on the allotted day and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement on that day.

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

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

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

  (3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a New Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (4) If two or more questions would fall to be put, under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on Amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those Amendments or Motions.
  3.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1(2).
  (2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.
  (3). If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

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

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

  (4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

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

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

  (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
  (6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
  (7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or disposed of an amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall

  1407
  put forthwith a separate Question on any other amendment which is moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.
  (8) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
  (9) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting on the allotted day.

  Miscellaneous
  4. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings—

  (a) on the Food Standards Bill at today's sitting, and

  (b) on the Employment Relations Bill on the allotted day,

  and those proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House.
  5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on either of the Bills.
  6. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on either of the Bills are taken or to recommit the Food Standards Bill; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
  7. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to either of the Bills except by a Minister of the Crown; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
  8. The Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall be put forthwith; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to proceedings on any such Motion.
  9.—(1) If at today's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (as that Standing Order has effect in accordance with the Order of the House [16 December 1998]) stands over to Four o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Food Standards Bill.
  (2) If on the allotted day a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over to Seven o'clock (or, in accordance with the Order of the House [16 December 1998], Four o'clock), and proceedings on the Employment Relations Bill have begun before that time, or if such a Motion stands over from an earlier day, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Employment Relations Bill.
  10. If at the sitting today or on the allotted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under paragraph 1(1) or (2), no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Interpretation
  11. In this Order, 'allotted day' means any day on which the Employment Relations Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.
Orders of the Day
  Food Standards Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Food Standards Bill
    New Clause 1

      LABELLING OF FOOD PRODUCTS
      '.—The Agency has a duty to require that all food products are accurately labelled with a complete list of ingredients, whether they are genetically-modified, the country of origin of each major ingredient and the system of production where appropriate.'.—[Mrs. Spelman.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.3 pm
      Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in clause 7, page 3, line 35, after 'matters', insert
      ', including the country of origin of all major ingredients,'.
      Mrs. Spelman: As a relatively new Member of the House, I feel as if I have just been present at a family row, in which some family members who were drawn into the discussion were never really implicated in the first place. I want to place on the record the fact that there was never any intention on the part of members of the Standing Committee, who worked in the most constructive atmosphere with the Government on the Bill, to imply that the guillotine had anything to do with the conduct of the Committee.
      I want to place on the record also a tribute to the work of the members of the Special Select Committee. It was the quality of their work that enabled our deliberations in Committee to be conducted in an extremely constructive and cordial manner.
      I reiterate that I was not criticising the extent of the modification of the original draft Bill, but pointing out that, because of the extent of the modification, the Bill needed careful and considered scrutiny in the Standing Committee. I re-emphasise that that was not criticism of the modification per se.
      Obviously, we are disappointed that the time for Report stage has been limited. For tactical reasons, some things are best kept to be raised on Report instead of being debated—and perhaps rejected—in Committee. The eighth group of amendments on today's selection list is just one example of something new, which has not yet been thoroughly debated, that we wanted to keep for Report. I am anxious in case, in the time available, we do not manage to reach the important subject of appeals procedure.
      As we said several times in Committee, we are keen for the new Food Standards Agency to be a success. That success will be measured by the confidence that producers, retailers and, above all, consumers, have in the information and advice that emanates from it.
      We have amended the original amendment that we tabled in Committee, which may have created a misapprehension that we sought to usurp local authorities'

      1409
      role in enforcing the present labelling rules. That was never our intent, and I hope that the new clause makes it perfectly clear that we recognise the very important role that local authorities play in enforcing labelling rules. However, our concern is about the present labelling rules. Fundamentally, the new clause would address the weakness in the present rules that govern labelling.
      An important opportunity will be missed if the Food Standards Agency does not, once and for all, crack the problem of the weakness in the present arrangements for food labelling in this country. The duty of labelling, although mentioned in the explanatory notes, does not appear in the Bill. We do not intend, in this guillotined discussion of the new clause and the subject, to revisit arguments that took place in Committee. I know that hon. Members diligently read the Hansard of the proceedings of the House and of Committee.
      I have tried very hard to bring some fresh points to the discussion of the very important issue of food labelling. In last night's edition of the Evening Standard, an extract was printed from Sue Dibb's book, "What the label doesn't tell you", which makes cautionary reading for the consumer. It lists a series of meaningless or misleading terms that are currently used in the labelling of food. For example, what are called "low fat sausages" may contain less fat than sausages not labelled "low fat" but are not necessarily low in fat. The terms "lean" or "extra lean", often used in relation to meats, can mean whatever one wants. They are essentially meaningless.
      Mr. John Bercow: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because I am spurred by the motive force of self-interest. As a keen consumer of beef, and specifically of minced beef, my ears pricked up when my hon. Friend referred to "lean" and "extra lean". That is a source of concern to me because I often buy "extra lean" minced beef, thinking that I am being thoroughly healthy in the process. Is my hon. Friend seeking to disabuse me of that hope?
      Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Obviously, we sincerely hope that, in future, it will be the role and responsibility of the Food Standards Agency to define precisely what "lean" and "extra lean" mean. Some retailers supplement the information on the label by stating the percentage of fat, but there is no clearly defined standard for what is meant by "lean" or "extra lean". In case my hon. Friend should be tempted to try other cuts of meat, they, too, suffer from a similar problem, because I should tell him that the word "trimmed" has no specific definition either.
      Another example is to be found on pre-packed, carton-packed fruit juices. The term "pure juice" is often used. In fact, that applies to concentrated fruit juice which has been shipped, diluted and heat treated. That is distinct from the term "juice drink", a product which contains as little as 5 per cent. juice. These terms are misleading, but not always after the consumer has tasted the product. At that stage some of the differences become much more apparent. At the time of purchase, however, things are a little unclear.
      Another example of a misleading product might affect the consumption patterns of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The term "smoked bacon" would probably lead hon. Members to envisage a
      1410
      traditional smoke-house for the production of rashers of bacon to be consumed at breakfast. I regret to inform the House that in many instances the smoked flavour is an added solution in the production process.
      Another misleading term is "light beer". We often think of "light" in terms of a reduced calorie product. In this instance, however, it means lighter in colour, and has nothing to do with alcohol or taste.
      There is misleading labelling of fruits. For example, the term "strawberry flavour" has nothing to do with strawberries. It may be a completely artificial flavouring. However, the term "strawberry flavoured"—everything is in the "ed" at the end—makes all the difference. It means that the flavouring has come from real strawberries.
      Dr. Ian Gibson: The hon. Lady is talking about misnomers, and I notice that the new clause includes the term "genetically-modified". Is that not a misnomer? We have been genetically modifying food crops for years and years. Indeed, we eat lots of foreign DNA every day. Whenever we have an apple we eat some DNA. Is there not a dreadful misnomer in the new clause?
      Mrs. Spelman: I shall be talking at length about genetic modification and labelling. The Food Standards Agency could begin by providing a proper definition of genetic modification. I think that that is the hon. Gentleman's point.
      I learned a thing or two from the guide to misleading labelling. New to me was the fact that bottled water that is labelled "spring water" could be tap water. Only bottles that are labelled "mineral water" strictly contain mineral water from a source as defined by the law.
      I have taken some of the time of the House by reading into the record some examples of present problems with labelling. I have done so because it is my sincere wish that the FSA will get to grips with precisely these misleading terms as soon as the provisions come into force.
      We might think quite lightheartedly of examples of foods and beverages that we have known and consumed, and perhaps we have learned to live with some misleading terms. However, the extent of misleading labelling may have serious consequences. I am sure that all hon. Members would join with me in extending condolences to the family of Ross Baillie. He suffered from a nut allergy and was unaware, on consuming a packet of coronation chicken sandwiches, that that product contained the very ingredient to which, regrettably, he was fatally allergic. There is a serious side to misleading labelling.
      The new clause highlights the need to specify the country of origin of each major ingredient and the system of production used. As a result of food scares, consumers have become anxious about methods of production used. Present labelling is unhelpful in that respect. I shall cite the example of eggs, a product that has been at the centre of controversy in the past. The consumer can be easily confused. Upon entering a supermarket, he or she will find an array of egg boxes on the shelves, which can be labelled in a variety of different ways. For example, boxes may be labelled "farm fresh eggs". The consumer may be led to think that these eggs have been produced in a free-range style. However, farm fresh eggs can be laid by battery hens. The same is true of the term "country fresh

      1411
      eggs". Those also can be laid by battery hens. Barn eggs are laid by hens that are not caged, but may well still be enclosed in a barn. Only the term "free range eggs" provides an assurance that the hens have continuous access to outdoors.
      How the chickens are kept matters to many consumers. They believe that that may affect the safety of the product and/or the welfare of the bird. Unless they go shopping with a glossary of the terms used to label food, consumers may easily think that they have bought a product from a production system that is entirely different from the reality.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: I have seen the term "organic eggs". Can the hon. Lady help me by defining an organic egg?
      Mrs. Spelman: The term "organic" is much more precisely defined. Organic producers in agriculture have a vested interest in making sure that the term is used strictly, only in relation to organic means of production, and as the House knows, they are extremely concerned when there is any possibility that their organic methods of production may have been contaminated. Like the term "mineral water", "organic" is one of the terms used in the labelling of food products in which the consumer has learned to have more confidence. However, that confidence can be sustained only if the organic nature of the production is truly protected.
      British food producers and retailers have had to pay dearly for past food crises. The Minister said in Committee that producers in this country have had to be doubly or trebly careful about their production methods in order to restore confidence in British produce. It is not difficult to understand producers' desire for the word "British" on a food product label to be associated in the consumer's mind with a premium product, in which the consumer can have more confidence than in an imported product, whose method of production may not have been as strictly controlled as in this country.
      The industry may reasonably expect careful production to be a plus point attributed to British food, yet the labelling of country of origin remains elusive. Beef labelling is a case in which some progress has been made. The beef industry particularly has had to go the extra mile to restore confidence in its product. It has done so to good effect, leading to restored levels of beef consumption.
      It is permissible for the country of origin of beef to be stated on the label. It remains unclear to members of the Standing Committee why that does not apply to pigmeat, sheepmeat and poultry produced in Britain. Consumers want to see the country of origin on the label of the meat that they purchase, for good reason—their confidence in the safety and public health aspects of the domestic product.
      Consumers have a right to such information in order to make an informed choice. That is the essence of clause 7. Concern about the system of production has become more acute in the case of imported produce. As a result of the unfortunate British experience of food scares, we have stricter controls on our methods of production than some of the countries from which we import food.
      1412
      The use of prophylactic antibiotics, which has been banned in production systems in this country, is still allowed in some countries from which we import meat. Yet the consumer has no way of knowing whether a product comes from a domestic source, where the restrictions are tighter, or has been imported.
      There is growing concern that antibiotic resistance in humans may be linked to the use of prophylactic antibiotics in rearing animals. That is undoubtedly why limitations have been imposed in Britain. The consumer rightly does not wish to expose himself or herself to that risk if at all possible. But under the present labelling rules it is not possible for the consumer to determine whether a product has been imported.
      The strongest argument against labelling food with the country of origin is that it would lead to protectionism. But, in truth, the consumer simply wants to know where his or her food has come from to protect public health. The failure to label food by country of origin will make the agency's role of advising the public all the more difficult in the event of a foreign food scare.
      Take the recent example of products from Belgium which may have been contaminated with dioxin. Initially, the Ministry advised consumers that there had been no imports of poultry and eggs from Belgium which may have been contaminated—only to be corrected, rather embarrassingly, by the supermarkets, which said that some might have come in.
      That very week I showed my nanny the problem. A pack of chicken breasts that she had purchased from the local supermarket had no clue as to their origin. There might have been a label on the shelf that made it clear that they had come from British hens, but a few days on, and to me as a secondary consumer, there was no way of knowing from where the products had come. The advice at the time from the Ministry was, "When in doubt, bin it", so bin it we did.
      Dr. Desmond Turner: I am interested to hear an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman advocate the advance of the nanny state. That is quite unusual. Given the deficiencies that the hon. Lady is pointing out in labelling legislation, will she remind us of its history?
      Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman might have misunderstood my reference to my nanny. I was obviously talking about an employee of my own. Far from being an advocate of the nanny state, I am saying that the whole point of the clause is to provide information to ensure that the consumer can make a well-informed decision. It is not a question of taking a decision on behalf of the consumer, but allowing the consumer to decide. That is our strongest argument for ensuring that some misleading labelling terms are corrected.
      With the vast growth in the range, quality and sophistication of food retail products, the need for labelling has become all the more imperative.
      Mr. Christopher Gill: Does the hon. Lady agree that, where the product in question comes from outside the EU, within which we are assured that all the rules and regulations are enforced in an equal and even-handed way as compared with the United Kingdom, there is perhaps an even greater need for it to be labelled.

      1413
      For example, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows, it is possible that the chicken that she binned came from Thailand.
      Mrs. Spelman: I am coming to chicken from Thailand next. My hon. Friend reads my mind. But before we leave the EU, there is a problem in relation to labelling a product with its country of origin, even within the EU. For example, the term "made in Italy" can be misleading. That term means that Italy was the last place where the product underwent substantial change. For example, a jar of olives may be labelled "Made in Italy", but the olives could have been grown in north Africa and the finished product assembled in Italy.
      A little closer to home, anticipating this morning that I might have to forgo a regular lunchtime refreshment because of the modernised hours during which the House sits on Thursdays, I sought a product that would be easy and convenient to eat. I purchased a Cornish pasty, but I was dismayed to find that all the label told me was that the product had been produced in the United Kingdom. I could not be sure that the beef in the product had not been imported and, as a consumer, I have concerns about the relative safety of imported beef.
      Mr. Andrew George: The hon. Lady has introduced the magnificent Cornish pasty to the debate.
      Mr. Mike Hancock: The oggie.
      Mr. George: The Cornish oggie, as my hon. Friend says. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important that products described as Cornish or Yorkshire should be made in or derived from that place, otherwise they would not be legitimate?
      Mrs. Spelman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely essential to preserve the integrity of national and regional products.
      Mr. David Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Although I should hate to disagree with her and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), and although I agree entirely that there has to be food integrity, the Cornish pasty is but one example of a food that might not necessarily require a geographical description. Any piece of pastry wrapped round meat of a certain type might be described as a Cornish pasty, which is a generic rather than a geographically based food.
      Mrs. Spelman: My right hon. Friend makes a helpful intervention. He spent many hours with us in Committee and referred to many examples of the way in which the integrity of traditional products should be preserved by accurate labelling.
      Chicken Kiev is another classic example of a modern convenience food. Obviously, its main ingredient is chicken. Very often, the harassed housewife, who combines work and running her home, will aim to buy precisely such a convenience product at the local supermarket. The label may say, "Made in Britain", but she may be completely unaware that the chicken may have been imported from Thailand. Chicken production in Thailand is not subject to the same strict regulations
      1414
      as poultrymeat production in this country. Indeed, substances that are banned from use in poultrymeat production in this country are used in Thailand.
      When such simple examples are given to ordinary consumers, they lose faith in the term "Made in Britain" because they cannot read the label with any confidence and reassure themselves that they are protected from a risk that they have read or heard about. They cannot be sure that reading the label on a product will enable them to take the preventive measures necessary to minimise the risks to themselves. The consumer can be easily misled in that way.
      Numerous examples were referred to in Committee and one of the most notable was the fact that it is possible to import live animals to this country. The Minister is aware that French pigs are imported to Suffolk and turned into bacon labelled "British". The hon. Gentleman expressed his intention to clamp down on such misleading labelling, but that example shows that the food labelling regulations are seriously lacking.
      5.30 pm
      The concern about misleading labelling and the future role of the Foods Standards Agency reaches a topical and controversial point when we come to the labelling of genetically modified material in food. I understand that today's Food Commission report draws attention to the risk of labelling foods "GM free" while accepting a variable tolerance level for some genetically modified ingredients.
      That will do nothing to help to inspire consumer confidence in foods that are produced with that new technology. It may be every bit as bad as the previous problem-now stamped on by the Government—of using the catch-all, throwaway disclaimer, "This product may contain genetically modified material" when, often, in practice, it did not. I am pleased that the Government have clamped down on the easy disclaimer route for the labelling of food, but they may run into another problem if the term "GM free" is loosely used.
      The mere fact that there is discussion of what would be a tolerable level of genetically modified ingredients within any food product—it was reported in yesterday's edition of the Evening Standard—is a warning to the consumer already to have doubts about the phrase "GM free". The consumer cannot be sure that, in reality, the food is as it is described. The supermarket chain Sainsbury's says that it is working with a tolerance level for GM ingredients of 0.1 per cent., but, according to press reports, the European Union is preparing to allow food to be labelled "GM free" even if as much as 3 per cent. of its contents are GMO derived.
      Some retailers claim they will require zero tolerance; others say that they will simply aim at that. The truth is that, if we want to eat GM-free food, it will be remarkably difficult to be sure. The British Retail Consortium has said that it will approach the matter on a de minimis basis, under which ingredients that are present in minute quantities—0.01 per cent. of the total—do not need to be acknowledged.
      The Food Standards Agency is to be set up as a regulatory authority for GM food. There is an immediate and urgent task: to get to grips with the labelling of GM food. That is why we call for that to be made explicit in the Bill.

      1415
      Incidentally, where does it leave the powers and influence of the Food Standards Agency when the Welsh Assembly is already addressing the issue of the genetic modification and the necessary powers to manage its own control and labelling? We discussed at length the implications of devolution for the Food Standards Agency. I have no wish to reiterate the debate in Standing Committee, but that precise example shows that our concerns about different standards arising in the United Kingdom are at risk of becoming a reality.
      We welcomed the Minister's confirmation in Committee that the Food Standards Agency would have the power to act throughout the United Kingdom, without intrusive Government intervention, or its authority being weakened by the piecemeal, devolutionist thrust of the Bill. That final practical example, however, presents a good case for coming back to the question of how to resolve the problems involving the devolved relationship and the Foods Standards Agency.
      I impress on the House how great the demand is for accurate food labelling to be achieved once and for all. Consumers have a right to be accurately informed about the content, origin and method of production of the food that they eat. I draw the Minister's attention to an article on the front page of last week's edition of the Farmers Guardian, which reports that its "Let's have it labelled" campaign has won massive support throughout the farming industry, with more than 5,000 signatures collected at agricultural shows throughout the country. At one show alone, the great Yorkshire show, 500 signatures were collected. They report the demand from local and county shows that imported food should be clearly labelled so that consumers at least have the option to buy British.
      In calling for food labelling to be a duty of the new Food Standards Agency explicitly set out in the Bill, our paramount aim is to protect public health. To achieve that, consumers must be able to read food labels with confidence. We therefore strongly commend the new clause.
      Dr. Peter Brand: I support the spirit behind the new clause, which was moved so comprehensively and at such fascinating length. The examples used by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) demonstrate clearly that people need nutritional value advice as well as food safety advice. I welcome the conversion of Conservative Front-Bench Members on that point.
      Mr. Gill: That is not what my hon. Friend was saying. She was saying that we want information on the label so that consumers can choose. We do not want the Government or any other body to say what people should eat because of its nutritional value. That would be acting as a nanny state, and we do not agree with that.
      Dr. Brand: That is not what I would suggest, either. Consumers need information that is scientifically well founded so that they can make up their minds about what to do. In that sense, I welcome the new clause.
      I was slightly confused about the discussion on the use of antibiotic growth promoters, as it seemed to run counter to amendment No. 10, which we are unlikely to
      1416
      reach if we continue at this rate. That amendment would decouple the FSA from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which clearly makes no sense whatever.
      The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Perhaps the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) will explain that.
      Dr. Brand: Yes. It would be helpful if the hon. Member for Meriden could explain that later in the debate.
      We await with great interest the Minister's response to the new clause. I shall be extremely brief on all the amendments, because it is important that we have an opportunity to speak on every amendment, rather than having them rushed through at the end.
      Mr. Maclean: I rise to support the new clause—[Interruption.] I appreciate the welcoming chorus from Labour Members. It is interesting that they make the effort to speak in this debate when they were remarkably silent in Committee.
      The new clause has considerable merit. It is important that consumers can make an informed choice but, at times, it is important that they can make an ignorant choice, in the proper sense of the word. We make such choices all the time, but at least we have that choice. We often look at the labels on food and make decisions that may not be based on the best science or rationale.
      Sometimes, our choice is based on the product's price. At other times, it is based on our perception of the product. We may sometimes feel that only a bottle of French wine will suffice, but on other occasions we may prefer Australian wine.
      Mr. Peter Luff: English wine.
      Mr. Maclean: There are some good English wines, although I have never found a good red English wine. No doubt that comment will result in more death threats next week. However, there are some quite good white English wines. I can make that choice because the country of origin is on the label.
      The problem with food labelling is that the country of origin is put on the label when it suits the producer or retailer. It is included on all products where the retailer or producer thinks that it is a selling bonus. That happens in the wine business. Stilton cheese is another example—there is an added premium if the country of origin is on the label. If a producer thinks that his product will have a certain cachet because it is American or German, he adds the country of origin to the label. When the consumer does not see the country of origin on a label, he can always resort to the golden rule that the producers or manufacturers of that product are not as proud of it as they should be. There must be some good reason for the country of origin not to be specified; it is easier to persuade the consumer to purchase by making other claims on the label.
      All food labels make claims of some sort. They may not make claims in the technical MAFF sense—claims, for instance, that products contain low cholesterol or low fat—but, by its very nature, labelling is intended to summarise the nature of a product for advertising purposes. It is a selling mechanism in itself.

      1417
      The producers of food, even more than the producers of other materials, try to convey the key messages that they consider to be the strongest selling points.
      Naturally, Governments have traditionally insisted that labelling—not necessarily labelling on the front of products, but certainly labelling on the back of such products as the Cornish pasty mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)—should include descriptions that, at times, food manufacturers may not wish to include. I am thinking of, for instance, nutritional content, fat content, and other important information that the consumer wants.
      I merely say this: why stop at the present amount of information on the label? Of course we want to know about the energy content, the fat content, the salt content and the sugar content. The labels give us the nutritional information. It is sensible to want to know whether a product is gluten free, and whether it is suitable for people with a nut allergy. We will want to know whether the product has been approved as being genuinely organic, but we can only go by some of the approved standards. If there is a symbol on the product saying that it has been approved by the Soil Association, we cannot be sure that it is "perfectly" organic—I do not think that there is any perfectly organic foodstuff in the world—but we can at least know that it has crossed a certain threshold of organic production, and has been approved by the Soil Association or some other organisation.
      Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maclean: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman at any time. I rather enjoy his interventions.
      Mr. Hoyle: I am very worried by what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. I think that he is discrediting all organic farmers, and that he should withdraw his comments. He is making a very irrational point, and there is a grave danger that he could put a lot of people out of business.
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is becoming increasingly ridiculous as the day goes on. Obviously he is not deaf this time—
      Mr. Hoyle: What?
      Mr. Maclean: It must be the stupidity that is cutting in on this occasion.
      It is impossible to describe any product as "perfectly" organic, just as it is impossible to describe any product as "perfectly" safe. If someone proves to me that a product is 100 per cent. organic, I shall be happy to endorse it; but does the Soil Association claim that all products featuring its logo saying that those products are organic according to its standards are 100 per cent. perfectly organically produced? Of course not. Those whose products qualify for the Soil Association logo have crossed the quality threshold, which is very high. That gives the consumer an idea of the nature of the product concerned.
      We are merely suggesting an addition to existing information on labels, which many consumers find helpful, although some will find it irrelevant. Some people
      1418
      who want to buy a Cornish pasty will use criteria other than the nutritional information on the back of the packaging. Some will want to know the proportion of meat in relation to the proportion of pastry; some will want to know whether the pasty has actually come from Cornwall; others will not care about those things, but will want to know the country of origin. Not every consumer reads everything on the label, and makes an informed choice after taking all that information into account. If every consumer did that, the queues in supermarkets would be even longer. When the Minister studies the food surveys that MAFF has produced, he will see that consumers sometimes make irrational choices. Indeed, according to the dietary experts, they sometimes make wrong choices. Nevertheless, the choices are theirs, based on the information on the labels.
      The new clause suggests the inclusion of information that most consumers will find handy and interesting: whether products are genetically modified, the country of origin, and the system of production. I think that, in regard to the system of production, the Government could be in a strong position in the future. Our production systems are one of Britain's strongest selling points, and we need to market that better on labels.
      5.45 pm
      I suspect that the Minister would confirm that any survey of consumers asking, "Do you prefer buying food produced in factory or less humane systems"—however those may be described; whatever may be the current politically correct term for such systems—"or those produced in totally humane systems", consumers will certainly say, "We want products from totally humane systems—the best that there are." One could have disputes on what constitutes humanity or inhumanity in food production, or on which systems are best for food safety and animal welfare, but that is not the point of my speech.
      The point is that consumers say that they are interested in purchasing products from systems that are more humanely organised. At times, however, those very same consumers may not be willing to pay the premium of such systems. Nevertheless, generally—the Minister rightly boasts about this—whether in pigmeat production, free-range chicken meat or in future battery cages, Britain leads the world in systems of animal husbandry and animal welfare. I think that the Minister would also say that Britain leads the world in checks on veterinary products and on residual veterinary contaminants in meat.
      Therefore, identification as "British produced" would be a very great selling point to those concerned about animal welfare, and I hope that we shall be able to take that route. I appreciate that the Minister would have enormous difficulties in persuading his European Union partners to establish such a system and in insisting that foreign food should be so labelled. However, it is certainly within his gift to encourage British producers of quality products to adopt country of origin labelling, and I urge him to do so today.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly on Report—which I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), think is an extremely important part of a Bill's passage. Report and Third Reading provide many hon. Members—who, for one reason or another,

      1419
      have been unable to speak on a Bill on Second Reading, or to play their part in Committee—with an opportunity to comment both on a Bill's provisions and on amendments made in Committee.
      I comment on behalf of my constituents, who consist not only of farmers and growers, but of consumers. To all those who might have criticised me in the past, saying that I was too much on the side of farmers, I point out that I have many more consumers than farmers in my constituency. Nevertheless, I believe that, on the whole, farmers work very hard to produce wholesome foods and other products. I also follow in the footsteps of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) in all that he said about British produce—to which I shall return later in my speech.
      One of the difficulties of a shortened Report stage is that many excellent amendments on important provisions may not be debated—and I am referring specifically to the important provision of a right of appeal. I had always believed that we in the United Kingdom believed in justice and that, if a Government agency ruled on a certain matter, producers would always have a right of appeal against that ruling. Amendment No. 1 would reintroduce such a right of appeal, but we may not be able to consider it, and that is a pity.
      I acknowledge that the Government went to great trouble to introduce an innovative way of ensuring that the draft Bill was scrutinised, and that the results of that process have been widely acclaimed on both sides of the House. Moreover, proceedings on the Bill in Committee were very amicable, and that is also to be welcomed. Members of the public do not always realise that, whichever party is in government, there is often much common ground between the Government and the Opposition on matters of common sense. Therefore, I commend what has gone on.
      The Government are concerned about the wholesomeness of food and the health of the nation. Perhaps it is pertinent to reflect that although the agency to be set up by the Bill will ensure that food produced in the United Kingdom is produced to the highest standards, it will omit the most important part, in that it does not relate, nor could it relate, to food produced on the continent and elsewhere, because of the rules of the EU. These rules always seem to me to be ridiculous, and I cannot understand why neither the previous Government nor this one have tackled the problem with more enthusiasm and energy.
      There is no doubt that for beef, pigmeat or lamb—as well as eggs—the animals have been raised to the highest welfare standards. Farmers in my constituency are proud of the way in which they raise and care for their stock, and they send their stock to market in the best possible condition. We all know that that cannot be said of many countries in the EU. It is essential, for that reason, that British products are properly labelled—by that, I mean not labelled in a misleading way. For example, "British bacon" often comes not from pigs raised in this country, but from meat imported and processed in this country. That is dishonest, to say the least. If new clause 1 were accepted, it would be a major step forward.
      We are to provide more labelling of the nutritional element of food, and other information for the consumer—such as labelling of the country of origin. We
      1420
      must recognise also that these provisions equate with further regulations and added costs to producers, and therefore to the consumer. Many will consider the extra cost worth while, but we must recognise that we are placing added costs on our industry which will not be placed on industries in other countries from which we import food.
      Food labelling is here to stay and is welcomed by many consumers. However, much can be misleading, and the information given must be accurate. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden listed a range of foods and products which were not as they appeared to be. However, organic products in this country—when they are approved by the Soil Association—are recognised as being of high quality.
      Mr. Hoyle: Hear, hear.
      Mrs. Winterton: The often rather belligerent hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) agrees with me, no doubt because he has organic producers in his constituency. When I served on the Agriculture Committee, we undertook an inquiry into these matters. With others, I visited Blagdon farms, where Yeo Valley yoghurt is produced, and we were given samples. I hasten to add that I did not feel that I had to include them in the Register of Members' Interests. Since then, I have bought nothing other than Yeo Valley organic yoghurt. It is excellent, and we ought to be promoting it throughout the EU as something that is produced in a wholesome and—I believe—old-fashioned way.
      I have always sought positively to buy British in everything, but especially in food, not least because I come from a farming and country background from way, way back. I have never, never bought French apples and I have no intention of doing so. When our apples and pears are not in season, I am more than happy to buy them from Commonwealth countries such as New Zealand or South Africa, but I am damned if I will buy those ghastly things that look perfect, but taste of nothing. That brings me to another subject.
      Mr. Luff: New Labour?
      Mrs. Winterton: No, something much more important than that. I am talking about British produce. We need to have British produce labelled as such, because it is the best marketing tool that we have. Sadly, many consumers buy on the basis of price rather than on the basis of quality. I always try to buy the best quality, and if necessary, I will buy less. It is essential to market our quality food. I hope that that message will go home and that we will be able further to promote the excellence of our produce.
      Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I welcome the Bill. New clause 1 would require that
      "all food products are accurately labelled with a complete list of ingredients",
      but that is already done. I assume that that is the law. However, ingredients are often listed in a way that is very difficult to comprehend or even to read.
      I gather from the gossip in the Chamber that if we require country of origin labelling we may run up against European Union law. I hope not. Perhaps the Minister can

      1421
      tell us. Will he let us know whether we cannot compel people to label food as made in this country because we will run up against Brussels?
      Mr. Rooker: I did not want to intervene, because of the time constraints, but if the hon. Gentleman will sit down I will answer him. He does not seem to want me to do that.
      Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I was making the point that labelling food as British is important as a marketing tool. We are moving towards having fewer and fewer subsidies, and we are encouraging our farmers to market quality products that should be better known by the public, such as Southdown lamb or York ham.
      I am not sure whether we can implement the requirement to include the system of production on the label, but the aims of the new clause should be studied seriously.
      Mr. Rooker: I shall do my best to respond to some of the issues raised, but I shall be brief and I apologise to the House for that.
      On virtually every issue about which it has been said during the past hour that the agency should do something, I can honestly say that the agency will act. I can say that because it is being done now to a greater or lesser extent within the joint food safety and standards group under existing law. However, there is always room for improvement—I would not argue about that.
      6 pm
      There are good reasons for my asking the House not to accept new clause 1. The key reason is that it would make matters worse than they are now. The Bill is drafted in general terms, and the powers of existing legislation are being transferred to the Food Standards Agency. If we started listing in the Bill specific duties such as food labelling but did not list, for example, food composition, food authenticity, food additives, food hygiene and chemical contaminants, it would be argued in a court that those issues were less important than food labelling because Parliament had listed food labelling in the Bill. Yet they are all equally important. What is more, they are all covered by the agency's powers. That can be said without any qualification whatever.
      Naturally, some matters can be dealt with to a greater or lesser extent. The right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) invited me—indeed, he almost pushed me—to intervene, but when I stood up he did not sit down. To a certain extent, we are governed by European Union laws on labelling. It is not possible for us to go off on our own and invent a labelling regime. As I said recently at Question Time, there is nothing to stop British supermarkets and food producers putting the country of origin on all their food products, so long as the labelling does not mislead the public. They do not need a law or authority from this House; they can do it. We have to ask ourselves why they do not do it more often. Perhaps they are a bit ashamed of the origin. People should assume that if a product does not say it is British, it is not British.
      1422
      Some smaller supermarkets are going out of their way to label products as British or Welsh, particularly in respect of lamb, and others should be encouraged to do so.
      Mr. James Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Rooker: No, I must cover various points, and time is limited.
      The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) mentioned the beef labelling scheme. It is a Europe-wide scheme which is voluntary now but which will be compulsory in due course. It is governed by a quite separate set of powerful rules and the independent audit of those who use it, even down to the method of slaughter and the sex and tag number of the animal if the person chooses to sell on that basis. That is important. In due course, that kind of scheme will undoubtedly be extended to other meat areas.
      I thought that the hon. Lady would not have the brass neck to mention GM foods but she did. It is worth putting on record again the fact that the Government inherited a policy not to label GM ingredients in foods. On 7 June 1997 we announced the change.
      Mr. Paice: May I lay to rest the absurd criticism that the Minister keeps coming up with? The previous Government voted against introducing labelling for GM foods because, as he said, at that time there was no way of testing for them, so the law could not have been enforced. As it was not possible to test for GM ingredients, it would have been a stupid law. Yes, the technology has moved on and it is now right to do that.
      Mr. Rooker: That is not the reason. The reason for the policy not to label those foods was specifically because they were not technically or nutritionally different. The previous Government's policy was to label those foods if they were technically or nutritionally different. They were following to the letter the American system of not labelling food unless it was technically or nutritionally different. Soya and maize are not technically or nutritionally different; therefore the policy was not to label them. That is why we had to pass separate rules for labelling. The previous Government approved the EC's novel food regulations so that in future any new GM food would automatically require labelling. They approved that before we came to power, so the hon. Gentleman's argument is blown out of the water. They were content for future GM foods to be labelled. That was agreed in 1996, but the regulations did not cover maize and soya—the only such foods that were being imported other than tomato paste, which was always labelled.
      The hon. Member for Meriden also mentioned an issue that has been reported in the press in the past few days. I went to a public meeting just like anyone else. The people from Nestle told the audience that they supplied Iceland under a commercial contract ingredients that included up to 1 per cent. GM ingredients for Iceland to sell as GM-free. I have disclosed that in the past, and I have been criticised by Iceland for doing so. Nestlé did not exactly boast about it, but it was part of the commercial contract. That was a matter of public knowledge. I was a member of an audience at a public meeting.
      The hon. lady also mentioned the important issue of antibiotics. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) said, under amendment No. 10, the

      1423
      Opposition do not want the Food Standards Agency to have anything to do with veterinary medicines. That does not square with what the hon. Lady said about antibiotics.
      Production methods and welfare-friendly labels are also important. The Food Standards Agency will have the power to investigate claims on labels that products are welfare friendly. If people misleadingly label something as welfare friendly and the agency checks on the files and finds that it is not, it will have the power to go on to farms to ensure that welfare-friendly methods are used. The issues raised in the new clause are covered by the Bill.
      My final point relates to imports. There has been a touch of xenophobia in some of the speeches, but I understand the concern. Many years ago, before I came to the House, I wrote a piece in Birmingham. I had gone to buy a rotor arm for my old banger in the days when we had rotor arms. I picked up a product labelled as a Lucas rotor arm in a shop—it may have been Halfords, I do not know. It was vacuum packed and all that the label said was "Printed in the UK". I thought, "I'm an engineer. You don't print a rotor arm, you make it." It turned out that it was made in the Lucas factory in Brazil.
      Labels can give a false impression by putting perhaps only the country where the packaging was printed or where the last part of the process was carried out. There is no doubt that they can be misleading. More work needs to be done and more pressure needs to be put on the suppliers. As I said, there is nothing to stop suppliers insisting that the country of origin is labelled on their produce. We ought to do more to encourage our constituents to demand that. Legislation is not necessarily required to make it effective.
      The hon. Member for Meriden also mentioned imports. We do not always know what is going on and there will not be time to discuss all the amendments, but we are able to turn back imports or check them if there is a problem because they are labelled and we can take them out of the food chain if necessary. We recently picked up some problems with imports of beef carcases from the Republic of Ireland, which had to be labelled. Specified risk materials are found in imports. I understand that one lot was found today; so the checks are going on.
      Reference was made to Belgium. We were able to check pork and poultry consignments from Belgium. They were all impounded and returned to Belgium or destroyed. An enormous amount of work is therefore being done to check these things. Labelling of country of origin or code numbers is important in that connection.
      To accept the new clause would be to make it more difficult for the Food Standards Agency to deal with the issues that I have raised, where problems arise. Those issues are not written into the Bill, but the agency will deal with them. They include contamination, adulteration and food composition. It is important that we leave the agency with as much general power as possible to carry on work that is already taking place. The thrust of the demands of hon. Members who have spoken are covered in the Bill and the powers that the House is giving to the agency.
      Mrs. Spelman: I have listened carefully to the Minister's reply. He clearly stated, as he did in Committee, that a clear transfer of power to the agency is
      1424
      taking place to enable it to take over the role of enforcing labelling rules. That is what he says the agency will be doing. However, we really did want that to be included in the Bill. We are left to fall back on the explanatory notes. I am disappointed that, after we had provided so many examples of the current inadequacy of the rules, we do not seem fully to have made the point that we did not want to transfer the power under the existing set of rules. However, given the Minister's comments, we hope that the agency will take a proactive stance in addressing some of those confusing points.
      I certainly want to dispel any idea that xenophobia lay behind our desire for clear labelling of the country of origin—quite the opposite. The Minister will recall that, in Committee, we heard a good example of why the consumer might want to buy a foreign product. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) referred to the cachet of a foreign product; he gave as an example the contrast between Somerset and French Brie. As the two are largely indistinguishable, they would need to be labelled accurately with their country of origin in order to enable consumers to buy the foreign product if they wanted to do so. That is not xenophobia; it has a great deal to do with choice, but more important—in relation to what lies at the heart of the Bill—it would protect food safety.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) referred to organic standards. If the Government are unwilling to accept the new clause, we want to press the Minister and—through him—the new agency to consider the problem posed by the fact that organic standards are not common throughout the European Union. The standard set by the Soil Association in this country is much higher. Indeed, that is why my hon. Friend has such confidence in the organic products that she buys. However, her point illustrates the weakness of the rules that the Food Standards Agency will inherit. We should like the agency to do something about that.
      Somewhat reluctantly, we take the Minister at his word. He assures us that all the powers for the enforcement of food labelling will be transferred lock, stock and barrel. We urge him to ensure that the Food Standards Agency considers thoroughly the inadequacy of the set of rules with which it will have to work, but, based on what we have heard, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 3

      EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS IN WALES
      '(1) This section applies if the National Assembly for Wales passes a resolution expressing the view that the functions of the Agency ought not to be exercisable in or as regards Wales.
      (2) The National Assembly for Wales shall—

      (a) consider the matters referred to in this Act, and

      (b) within three months of a resolution of the sort referred to in subsection (1) above, make provision for the functions of the Agency provided for in this Act to be carried out in ways other than those provided for in this Act.'—[Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 17, in clause 24, page 13, line 10, at end insert—
      '(7A) If the Agency fails to comply with directions under subsection (1) in a case where the power under subsection (1) has been exercised by the National Assembly for Wales, the National Assembly for Wales may—

      (a) remove from office the member of the Agency appointed by it, and

      (b) remove from office any members of the advisory committee for Wales,

      and until new appointments are made, may itself make provision for the carrying out of the Agency's functions.'.
      No. 13, in clause 33, page 17, line 43, at end insert
      '; or—
      (C) the National Assembly for Wales passes a resolution expressing the view that the functions of the Agency ought not to be any longer exercisable in or as regards Wales.'.
      No. 14, in page 18, line 5, at end insert—
      '(aa) modifying this or any other Act as She considers necessary or expedient in consequence of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales of the sort referred to in subsection (1)(c) above;'.
      No. 35, in schedule 4, page 36, line 5, at end insert—'Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38)—
      . In Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 1998 there shall be inserted—
      "Food Standards Agency.
      Food Standards Agency advisory committee for Wales.".'
      Mr. Jones: It is a pleasure to speak to the new clause and the amendments. The spirit of these matters was discussed in the National Assembly for Wales when the Health and Social Services Committee considered whether there should be a separate agency for Wales. Clause 33 in particular makes one realise that the House is already paving the way, under the devolved provisions, for the possibility of separate agencies for Scotland and Northern Ireland, whereas no such provision is being made for Wales. That is a mistake. If Wales wants to pursue separate policies on food standards and wants the same flexibility as Scotland and Northern Ireland, it should have that opportunity.
      I have considered the advice given to the Committee of the National Assembly on why a separate agency might not be appropriate for Wales. I confess that I do not find it very convincing. For example, it says that a separate agency for Wales would require separate scientific advice. I do not see why that should be so. If scientific advice is available to the agency in England, it could be provided to an agency in Wales.
      6.15 pm
      For example, the Welsh Assembly received scientific advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee when we conducted our inquiry into beef on the bone. It was not necessary for the Welsh Assembly to have separate scientific advice. It was perfectly proper for it to accept SEAC's advice on that occasion, so I see no reason why the situation should be different with the Food Standards Agency. The Bill should allow the Welsh Assembly to have the same flexibility as Scotland and
      1426
      Northern Ireland in developing policies and, in the interests of consistency, we should have similar provisions.
      Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 should be viewed in the context of our argument in support of new clause 3. I therefore move quickly to amendment No. 17. It would give the Assembly the power to remove the agency member for Wales who is appointed by the Assembly under clause 2, and any member of the advisory committee for Wales. That would be a useful addition to the powers conferred on the Welsh Assembly by this legislation. Although I hope that we will never have to call for the removal of appointees, it is important to ensure that the Welsh Assembly has that sanction.
      In the interests of brevity, I shall move on to amendment No. 35. As the House will know, the schedule to the Government of Wales Act 1998 lists several bodies that the Assembly can call to give advice to it and evidence to its Sub-Committees. The Welsh Assembly has been working for only a matter of weeks, but I think that subject Committees are an excellent concept. The Committees are doing excellent work and providing good information to the people of Wales. I strongly urge the Minister to accept this amendment because I think that the Food Standards Agency should be called to give evidence to the appropriate Sub-Committee which will want to consider a range of issues in the interests of probity.
      On that basis, I hope that the Government will feel minded to accept at least some of the amendments.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): Hon. Members will want to debate several important amendments and new clauses later this evening. Therefore, I intend to deal with these amendments quickly, unless I am pressed.
      I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) for the brevity with which he explained his amendments, and I shall deal rapidly with new clause 3 and speak to amendments Nos. 17, 13 and 14. The hon. Gentleman has done what I have come to expect from a member of Plaid Cymru when we consider Bills that involve Wales as well as England: he has tried to rewrite the Government of Wales Act 1998 by giving primary legislation powers to the Welsh Assembly.
      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Quite right.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view. Nevertheless, even if I were persuaded by his argument, I am sure that he will agree that this is not the right vehicle through which fundamentally to redraw the Government of Wales Act, which the people of Wales accepted in the 1997 referendum. I must therefore reject the amendments.
      The intention behind amendment No. 35 is to give the National Assembly for Wales power to require attendance and production of documents by any person who is a member or a member of staff of the Food Standards Agency and its advisory committee for Wales. Having considered that amendment, I think it appropriate that the power of summons should apply to the agency and the advisory committee. Although the agency will be a Crown body, there are no close parallels operating in Wales. The agency will have the full range of policy

      1427
      responsibilities on food safety, which is a devolved area, and it is appropriate that the Assembly should be able to summon agency members, staff and the advisory committee when it deems necessary. We are, therefore, minded to accept that amendment.
      The other amendments, however are not appropriate because they require primary legislation powers. The National Assembly for Wales will have important secondary legislation powers to determine regulations governing food safety in Wales. As the hon. Gentleman will know, those powers allow the Assembly to determine policy on matters such as beef on the bone, the licensing of butchers' shops, codes and practices governing how local authorities enforce food laws, infant food regulations, food additive regulations and food labelling regulations. It is not appropriate to extend those powers to primary legislation within the Bill.
      Mr. Robert Walter: I was a member of the Special Select Committee that considered the Bill, but I was not a member of the Standing Committee. I shall dispel a myth that has pervaded the debates on this Bill. Rather than analysing the Bill clause by clause, the Select Committee considered its general provisions. We did so in a short time, and with some confusion of evidence, because those who were presenting evidence were not sure whether they were doing so to us, as a Select Committee of the House, or to the Government.
      The Select Committee considered the subject of this new clause and amendments, the consequences of devolution and the problems of a UK-wide agency that would be answerable to four different independent bodies: the Department of Health, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Welsh Assembly.
      There is today a supreme irony in the amendments moved on behalf of Plaid Cymru by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) because they undermine the spirit of the devolved Welsh Assembly, which does not, as the Minister stated, have primary legislative functions. They would also take Wales out of the Food Standards Bill altogether, or, as I suspect the hon. Member for Ynys Môn desires, create a separate Welsh food standards agency.
      The irony of that is demonstrated on the front page of today's Western Mail, which carries the headline, "Fury as beef on the bone ban stays", following the announcement yesterday at a press conference in Cardiff of what had been the worst-kept secret in Welsh agriculture for the past week. Meeting in private last week, the Agriculture Committee of the National Assembly for Wales voted to forgo its existing powers in an important area of food standards—the beef-on-the-bone ban. Members of that Committee had earlier said that they would vote to lift the ban, but have now changed their minds.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I am not a spokesperson for the National Assembly for Wales, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it did not vote to forgo its powers; it simply decided not to lift the beef on the bone ban now. The purpose of devolution was to allow the devolved powers to decide for themselves. The fact that Assembly Members—in their wisdom, I believe—decided that they would not, for the time being, take a decision that was
      1428
      different from this body's decision does not remove the fact that they were allowed to do so, and they decided not to.
      Mr. Walter: In his interpretation—that Assembly Members were not forgoing their powers but deciding not to do something—the Minister is playing with semantics.
      The key point that I wanted to make is that the three Opposition parties in Wales—the Conservatives, the Liberals and Plaid Cymru—had campaigned strongly for an early and unilateral lifting of the ban. That was a pre-election pledge of all three parties. Today's Western Mail article points out that
      "It emerged that those on the agriculture committee who changed their minds were largely Plaid Cymru members"—
      a stance which, to some extent, makes nonsense of the amendments in the name of the four Plaid Cymru Members of this House.
      If the ban had been lifted, it would have made nonsense of the Government's desire, to which I believe the Minister alluded just now, for a United Kingdom Food Standards Agency with UK-wide powers and UK-wide implementation—a concept which the Opposition support.
      I should like to examine for a moment the nonsense of the amendments. I shall ignore amendment No. 35, which the Minister has said he is prepared to accept, but I shall focus on new clause 3 and amendments Nos. 13 and 14, which would effectively give the Welsh Assembly the power to opt out, if it so desires, of the new food standards regime completely, or to set up its own regime, with a Welsh food standards agency.
      The Minister mentioned the process that took place in the National Assembly for Wales. The Health and Social Services Committee of the Assembly considered that matter on 23 June 1999.
      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I shall not pass comment on the hon. Gentleman's mischievous earlier remarks; I may refer to them in passing when I reply to the Minister's speech. However, will the hon. Gentleman read the Bill, and will he make specific comments about Wales? Clause 33(1)(a) says that the Scottish Parliament can pass
      "an Act providing for any functions of the Agency to be no longer exercisable in or as regards Scotland".
      What is the difference?
      Mr. Walter: The difference is that the Scottish Parliament was set up with primary legislative powers but the Welsh Assembly was not. The Welsh Assembly was never envisaged as such and, in the referendum on setting up the Welsh Assembly, there was never any suggestion that the Assembly would have those powers. They are not in the Government of Wales Act 1998. The amendments would move us on a ratchet or two, by giving the Welsh Assembly those powers. That was never the intention of the House or of the people of Wales.
      The Health and Social Services Committee of the Assembly was advised to support the proposal in the Bill
      "that the Food Standards Agency should be a UK-wide body, advising and reporting to the Assembly in relation to Wales, and carrying out the food safety and standards functions currently discharged by Assembly staff as well as the new UK functions proposed in the Bill.

      1429
      To ensure that the Welsh dimension is appropriately covered, the arrangements for the Food Standards Agency's operations in respect of Wales will include a Welsh Executive; an advisory committee for Wales; and sole appointment by the Assembly of a board member with special responsibility for Wales."
      There has been general support in Wales for the principle of a UK agency. That approach was recommended by the Government on the grounds of consistency and cost. As food safety and standards are tightly constrained by the European Union legislative framework, there seems to be little scope for variation in secondary legislation.
      6.30 pm
      I shall refer to two items contained in the recommendations to the Health and Social Services Committee on 23 June, which are important to the new clause and the amendments. The committee was told that food safety
      "is an issue of great public concern."
      We would not object to that. The document continues:
      "The need for consistency of policy and advice to the public is therefore a key consideration. Were there to be a separate Agency for Wales, it would need access to separate scientific advice from that which will be provided by existing committees to the Agency in England. There would therefore be a real danger of conflicting advice being made available, which would cause public confusion. In addition, since the scientific advisory committees which currently advise the Government are made up of the highest calibre independent scientists, it would be difficult to find sufficient independent scientists of high enough standing to advise a separate Welsh Agency."
      That was the first part of the recommendation to the National Assembly. The separate point is that the cost
      "of establishing a completely separate Agency in Wales would be far greater than the Welsh share of current costs. This additional cost would have to be met from within the Assembly's current budget at the expense of other priorities. Historically the Welsh Office has relied on expertise in the Department of Health and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in many areas. For example, the Welsh Office has no trading standards advisers. It will be far more cost-effective for the Welsh Executive to use the central services provided by the Agency's headquarters, for example for financial services and I.T. support, than to seek to duplicate these functions in a separate Agency. The Bill provides for arrangements which will make the Agency properly accountable to the Assembly; will ensure that the Agency takes account of Welsh issues in advising the Assembly on legislation and in advising the public; and will allow the Assembly to monitor the Agency's performance and propose changes to its priorities and functions."
      That was the evidence that the Health and Social Services Committee considered. I have read through the committee's minutes and I will refer to a couple of items. It is stated in the minutes that
      "it is also important for Wales to maintain access to the best scientific advice…A separate Welsh Agency would lead to an unnecessary duplication of work."
      That is repeated by the members of the committee.
      The minutes continue:
      "The costs of setting up a separate Welsh Agency were estimated"—
      this was during the meeting on 23 June—
      "to be approximately £6 million, whilst funding a Welsh Executive would require less than £1 million."
      Therefore, ensuring that Wales maintains a strong and distinctive voice within the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency is somewhat more important than
      1430
      having a separate Welsh food standards agency, which would be constrained both in its scientific advice and its financial resources. The minutes record that
      "the Committee accepted the proposal for a UK Food Standards Agency."
      The Minister of State may recall our exchanges in the Select Committee on green top milk, which is banned in Scotland but freely available in England and Wales. We also discussed the beef-on-the-bone ban, even before the Bill was introduced. As has been said, the Welsh Assembly could have lifted that ban this week. Consumers in Chester, Hereford or Bristol could have made the short trip over the border and bought products banned in their local shops. Smuggling would have taken on new connotations in a UK context.
      It is possible, even without the amendments, that the FSA could recommend lifting the beef-on-the-bone ban. That advice could be accepted by the Welsh Assembly but rejected by the Department of Health. However, the consequences of the amendments go beyond those deficiencies of the Bill. The amendments drive a coach and horses through the concept of a UK-wide Food Standards Agency. Separate arrangements for Wales would lead to confusion among consumers. A separate Welsh food standards agency would do a great disservice to the Welsh consumer and to the Welsh taxpayer.
      The cost, as we know, would be at least £6 million, just to create the separate administrative structure. I would be interested in any advice that the Minister could give about the cost of a separate meat hygiene service for Wales, if that were bolted on to a Welsh food standards agency.
      A more important objection to the amendments must be on the grounds of safety and science. The original arguments for creating the agency were that it would be able to call on the best scientific advice available, and would have the resources to pay for it. Separate scientific advice available to a smaller, less-well-resourced Welsh food standards agency could only be inferior.
      I heard the comment of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn that a separate agency could receive the same advice but, if it came to different conclusions, the Welsh consumer might suffer. Welsh consumers deserve the same superior scientific advice as their English and Scots cousins enjoy.
      The fundamental objection to the amendments is constitutional. They are a clear attempt by the Welsh nationalists to move the goalposts in respect of the powers of the Welsh Assembly. The amendments would enable the Welsh Assembly to pass primary legislation. That was never the Government's intention in the Government of Wales Act 1998, and nor was it the will of the Welsh people in the referendum. It would certainly have been opposed by Conservative Members. On those grounds alone, regardless of the scientific and the cost grounds, we have no reason to support the amendments.
      Dr. Brand: It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). I now understand the motivation of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). We have just heard a trainee colonial governor's announcement of what should happen in one of our dependencies. [Interruption.] It is well known that I represent an offshore dependency.
      We welcome the ministerial decision on amendment No. 35. There might have been less support in Wales for the amendments moved by the hon. Member for

      1431
      Ynys Môn if the Government had been less opaque about the functioning and reporting of concordats. I hope that we will have an assurance from the Government that the Welsh Assembly will be an active participant in the drawing up of concordats, and that Assembly Members will be able to discuss them openly and publicly.
      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The speech of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) made the case for devolution better than any argument that I have ever heard. It was paternalistic and arrogant, and the hon. Gentleman failed to understand the concept of devolution. It is little wonder that his party's vote collapsed in Wales during the recent elections to the National Assembly. On that performance, it will never rise again.
      All that we seek to achieve through the amendments is to enable Wales to be treated in the same way as Scotland and Northern Ireland. I would have listened to the hon. Gentleman's remarks much more carefully if he had read the National Assembly's report on beef on the bone. He quoted selectively from the Western Mail, but he failed to tell the House that, in that same report, is a quote from the Conservative Member of the Committee, saying in terms that he accepted that the issue of lifting the beef-on-the-bone ban was not as simple as he had originally thought.
      The National Assembly has decided not to abrogate its responsibility but to listen to the medical advice. When that becomes available in August, we shall reconsider the matter. The hon. Gentleman quotes extensively from some Assembly documents to support his case, but simply ignores others.
      Having put on the record the correct position with regard to the National Assembly, I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to know that, on the basis that he accepts amendment No. 35 and that a quarter of a loaf is better than no loaf at all, I shall not press the three amendments that he was unable to accept, and that I also beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 6

      DEVELOPMENT OF FOOD POLICY AND PROVISION OF ADVICE, ETC. TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
      Mr. Chris Mullin: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 19, at end insert—
      '(1B) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Agency has the function of—

      (a) investigating and monitoring the effect on food safety of—

      (i) animal husbandry systems and practices with inadequate standards of animal health and welfare;

      (ii) the routine use of antibiotics on farm animals for growth promotion or prophylactic purposes; and

      (iii) slaughterhouse systems and practices with inadequate standards of hygiene and animal welfare; and

      (b) developing policies relating to any matters identified during the investigation and monitoring mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) which the Agency considers have a significant effect on food safety.'.

      The amendment would include among the agency's functions a duty to examine the effects on human health of farming systems with low standards of animal health
      1432
      and welfare. It extends the agency's remit in three areas, each of which has implications for human health—first, the conditions in which animals raised for their meat are reared; secondly, the routine use of antibiotics for growth or the suppression of disease, and, thirdly, conditions in slaughterhouses. I shall deal with each in turn.
      I make it clear at the outset that I do not wish to see the principal responsibility for the welfare of farm animals taken away from the animal welfare division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which, by and large, does a fine job. I simply argue that the Food Standards Agency needs to be able to address all the elements that jeopardise food safety, and those clearly include poor animal welfare.
      I make it clear, too, that I do not suggest that intensive animal husbandry is responsible for all or even most of the threats to food safety. Obviously, there are many other factors, including the way in which food is stored and prepared in the catering industry and at home. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the growth of industrial farming has coincided with a dramatic increase in food poisoning—by more than 450 per cent. during the past 15 years. No doubt, there are many explanations for that, but I should be surprised if that was not in some way connected with the appalling conditions in which so many farm animals are reared.
      Most pigs, chickens and turkeys are intensively farmed. Broilers—chickens reared for their meat—are kept for their entire lives in huge windowless sheds, which are so overcrowded that, as the birds grow, the floor is scarcely visible. The birds are kept on litter, usually wood shavings, which is often never changed throughout their short miserable lives. Those birds often literally live in their own excrement. It is hardly surprising that bacteria flourish in such conditions.
      Three years ago, the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food concluded:
      "Poultry meat continues to be a significant route for the transmission of salmonella and campylobacter into industrial, domestic and catering environments."
      The committee drew attention to a 1994 survey by the Public Health Laboratory Service, which found that 41 per cent. of UK-produced frozen chickens and one third of chilled chickens were infected with salmonella. Those figures may be coming down, but they are far too high. Supermarkets find that around 10 per cent. of the 720 million chickens slaughtered each year are infected—that is, 72 million chickens infected each year.
      A 1994 European Community survey found that 44 per cent. of UK-produced chickens are infected with campylobacter. I believe that those remarkably high levels stem in part from unhealthy farming and slaughter practices. My amendment would give the agency power to address that issue.
      6.45 pm
      The second part of my amendment deals with the routine use of antibiotics artificially to suppress the diseases caused by intensive animal husbandry. That must also have implications for human health. For many factory farmers, antibiotics have become a substitute for hygiene and good practice and they are also used to promote growth. Quite apart from the moral issues involved, that gross misuse of drugs is bound to have implications

      1433
      for human health. I am not a scientist, but it seems to me that one inevitable consequence of that will be the encouragement of the growth of bacteria that are resistant not only to antibiotics used on animals, but to those used by humans. In my view, human and animal welfare are inextricably linked.
      When I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on Second Reading, he told me that the use of antibiotics as growth promoters would be within the remit of the agency. My amendment makes that explicit and goes a little further: it would enable the agency to address the misuse of antibiotics for veterinary purposes—that is, as a substitute for humane conditions.
      Finally, my amendment would give the agency power to take an interest in conditions in slaughterhouses, where they are relevant to human health. Modern abattoirs are capable of slaughtering as many as 300 pigs or 8,000 chickens an hour. At that rate, even with the best will in the world—that is not always present—it will be nigh on impossible to safeguard either the welfare of animals or the hygiene of the meat. I shall leave to one side for the purpose of this debate the unspeakable cruelty to which industrial killing on such a scale gives rise and focus instead solely on the implications for human health.
      The 1996 report of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food identified slaughterhouses as a significant contributor to the high levels of salmonella and campylobacter found in poultrymeat. The Committee said:
      "Slaughter and processing operations give rise to a very wide range of practices which can have a serious effect on the spread of microbiological contamination".
      My amendment would bring slaughterhouses within the remit of the agency. I appreciate that it may be argued that there are other agencies with responsibility for the regulation of factory farming and slaughterhouses. I wish them well in their work and I have no desire to diminish their powers. In the interests of joined-up government, which we are all in favour of these days, the Food Standards Agency will no doubt want to work closely with them in any case, but I do not see why slaughterhouses, where relevant, should not fall within the remit of the agency. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Mr. Paice: I want to put on record a few of the Opposition's thoughts on the amendment. We sympathise very much with a number of the points made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) about the objective of ensuring that our food is humanely and hygienically reared and hygienically slaughtered and processed. However, we have some real doubts about some of those points and the way in which the amendment could operate.
      First, the word "inadequate" appears twice in the amendment. I suggest that what is and is not inadequate welfare is a highly subjective matter, and that word in itself would cause major legal problems of interpretation. Secondly, I should put it on record that I think it is very unwise to suggest or imply that different systems of animal welfare automatically bring with them different hygiene and food safety issues. There will not necessarily be such a conjunction. The example of eggs was mentioned in Committee and there is evidence that eggs
      1434
      produced in well-managed battery cages are probably more hygienic and less likely to carry salmonella than free-range eggs. The difference is not the system of welfare and of keeping animals, but the standard of husbandry, the management and the human aspect. The point is not whether chickens, pigs or whatever are kept in a particular system, but whether they are managed effectively.
      The hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred to broilers kept in their own excrement. Such an emotive statement belies the truth entirely. Yes, they are kept on wood shavings, but, as he said, they are there only for a short period and it is not necessary to replace them. Indeed, it would be physically impossible to replace them without huge welfare implications—moving the birds off the shavings so that new ones could be put in would have huge welfare implications.
      To suggest that systems of welfare carry different food safety implications is to ignore the reality. Good farmers will produce safe food in any conditions. Bad farmers—we have to admit that there are some examples—will produce unsafe food whatever the conditions, including free range; the sort of conditions that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South probably espouses. It is the quality of the management that matters.
      Dr. Brand: Is not the purpose of the Food Standards Agency to establish whether there is a link between animal welfare, the methods of rearing animals and producing food and food safety? We can all make assumptions from different perspectives in the animal welfare sector, but we need scientific evidence, such as that quoted by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), to ensure that we are protecting the public.
      Mr. Paice: I am putting forward reasons why the Government would be ill advised to accept the amendment. We do not support it, although it is not out of lack of sympathy. If he looks at the Bill in its entirety, the hon. Gentleman will find that there is plenty of scope for the agency to examine the issues to which he refers. My point is that implicit in the amendment is the suggestion that different animal welfare systems automatically carry with them different food safety implications. I reject that contention.
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said that changes in agricultural practices since the war are responsible for increased food poisoning, but the greatest changes have taken place in methods of food storage and preparation, in the types of food available and in cooking methods—microwaves and all the other food technology—plus a changing population eating on the hoof and not cooking food in the old-fashioned way, when everything was roasted or boiled to extinction.
      Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend makes the point that I was going to make in my next sentence. In the past two or three decades, we have moved from the situation where the housewife—usually the person in the house, although I shall try to avoid sexism—purchases the raw materials and prepares a cooked meal. Nowadays, that is much less often the case. Therefore, a raft of changes could have brought about hygiene problems.
      Mr. Mullin: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember that I acknowledged that point, and said that

      1435
      animal welfare systems were just one of the factors. I did not claim even that they were the greatest factor. I accept his argument.
      Mr. Paice: I accept that.
      The positive side of the amendment, which does not outweigh the negative side—which is why we cannot support it—is that it would allow the Food Standards Agency to emphasise what the Opposition contend are already high welfare standards in this country. There will always be room for improvement. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South would probably disagree about aspects of that improvement, and no one would pretend that there is not always room for some change. However, the Minister of State rightly praised our standards of welfare. This country has already taken steps to outlaw veal crates, sow stalls and tethers.
      We have higher welfare standards than many of the countries from which we import food. Ministers have rightly spoken about the welfare premium. However, that is made at the retail end; it is important that it is reflected in the extra costs incurred by producers. For example, our pig producers, who produce pigs without using stalls or tethers because those are illegal here, must compete with producers of pigmeat produced in countries that use those systems.
      In the previous debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) referred to the importance of ensuring that labelling included the system of production and the country of origin, so that consumers could bear those in mind in making a choice. If a housewife wants to buy foreign pigmeat, she should be able to do so in the full knowledge that it might not have been reared to the standards which we expect to be used in this country.
      Mr. Gill: I happen to know that, yesterday, my hon. Friend met the chairman of Assured British Meats. Does he agree that many of the points that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) made are covered by the scheme of policing, controlling and monitoring all the processes in the production of British meat, which is partly funded from public money? Does not that answer many of the criticisms that the hon. Gentleman made?
      Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend, with his immense knowledge of the meat industry, is entirely right. Assured British Meat, set up and partly funded from public money, is doing a fantastic job in ensuring that our meat is produced to the highest standards, and that that is used as a marketing tool so that the public are aware of it.
      We sympathise with the objective of ensuring that those matters are taken into account—I have not mentioned slaughterhouses as I am sure that the Minister will pick that point up—but we have serious doubts about the phrasing of the amendment. We shall therefore not support it, should it be pushed to a vote.
      Mr. Luff: I share many of the doubts and reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) about the amendment. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and I had an opportunity to discuss these issues, and I understand and respect his concerns. He may be partly
      1436
      right and partly wrong about this issue, but in a sense that does not matter in terms of his proposals because the Bill fully addresses all the concerns that he has expressed.
      The amendment would not extend the Bill, as he suggested in his opening remarks, but would lead to overdue specification of one aspect of the concerns and issues that the agency will address. Clauses 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 deal with the agency's functions. They deal with developing policies for food safety or other consumer interests in relation to food. Clause 7 provides advice and information to the general public. Under clause 8, the agency has the function of obtaining information on those issues. Clause 9 deals with animal feeding stuffs—which, at least in part, deals with the hon. Gentleman's concern about antibiotics. Crucially, clause 10, on the powers of the agency, says:
      "The Agency may, for the purpose of carrying out its function under section 8 or…9,…with a view to obtaining information about…any aspect of the production or supply of food or food sources",
      seek information, including observations about
      "agricultural premises, agricultural businesses or agricultural activities".
      The Bill therefore contains a comprehensive range of provisions, which fully deal with the hon. Gentleman's concerns. Whether his concerns are legitimate or not is irrelevant. The agency has those powers.
      I repeat the concern expressed by the Minister about new clause 1. He said that to accept new clause 1 would be to distort the purpose of the agency. Accepting amendment No. 11 would have the same effect: it would distort the purpose of the agency by putting undue focus on specific activities, concerns and issues in the food chain, when there are so many others that should worry us.
      If the hon. Member for Sunderland, South wanted to highlight one priority, it should have been that which he just mentioned in passing. It is one that he and I discussed, and which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean): the priority of hygiene in the kitchen.
      7 pm
      If I were asked which of all the concerns about food safety was the most important, I would say it was hygiene. To make the issues raised today by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South a priority would be to detract from what I consider to be the priority. It is clear that most instances of food poisoning occur after the food has left the farm, and after it has left the factory, and that it tends to occur in catering establishments more often than in the home. In saying that, I do not intend to excuse poor standards earlier in the food chain. It is crucial for our farmers to produce food to the highest possible standards, and there is no excuse for sloppy practices.
      Dr. Gibson: One of the problems in kitchens now is that some utensils are coated with antibiotics. That is relevant to some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). Antibiotic resistance is being passed on to the human population. You win some, you lose some.
      Mr. Luff: I do not think that we need to debate the merits of the issue. I have a good deal of sympathy with

      1437
      what the hon. Gentleman has said: issues do arise from antibiotic resistance. I think that most of them arise from overuse of antibiotics in human medicine rather than animal medicine, but that is not to deny that antibiotics in animal medicines and practices pose a problem. My Select Committee expressed concern—albeit perhaps a little too simply—in its report on food safety, which was published more than a year ago.
      I share the doubts expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire about the definition of "inadequate". The definition itself is inadequate. Two sub—paragraphs in amendment No. 11 use that word, referring to
      "inadequate standards of animal health and welfare"
      and
      "inadequate standards of hygiene and animal welfare".
      I agree with my hon. Friend that "inadequate" is a very subjective term, and I think that that in itself is a good reason for us to doubt the merits of the amendment.
      I am also worried about the highlighting of "slaughterhouse systems and practices". I respect the concerns that were in the mind of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South when he tabled the amendment, and I do not know the views of other Conservative Members, but I believe that, if anything, slaughterhouses are already over-regulated. Some of the most animal welfare friendly slaughterhouses in Worcestershire have been forced to close as a result of over-regulation, and I think that the Government are doing a tremendous job in monitoring the standards of the abattoirs that remain. The hygiene assessment score system is working extremely well, and I think that it deserves our support.
      The requirement that the amendment imposes on slaughterhouse systems suggests the existence of a worry that the House ought not to have. The Minister of State should be congratulated on what he is doing to drive up standards, but that has already been at some cost. Some of the best slaughterhouses have already gone, and those that remain are paying a heavy price for the privilege of this system of regulation.
      The amendment might have a particularly heavy impact on domestic production, and no corresponding impact on imported products. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire made that point. Many of our greatest concerns are not about British systems, which are generally the best in the world, but about foreign systems, which clearly are not. My hon. Friend rightly spoke at length about pigs. That is a classic example of our standards being the highest in the world, but I fear that the amendment could send a signal to the contrary.
      I am also worried about the fact that the amendment deals only with livestock. Many food poisoning issues have nothing whatever to do with livestock; they relate to a range of other foodstuffs. I do not think that it is helpful to highlight livestock as being a particular problem.
      It is understandable that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South should feel as he does about intensive farming, but disease control is often easier in intensive farming systems than in non-intensive systems. The incidence of, for example, salmonella is often a great deal higher in the case of free-range chickens and free-range eggs, and—ironically—badly managed free-range chicken production is often less welfare friendly than well-managed intensive systems. That, however, is a separate issue.
      1438
      The House should reject the amendment because it is unnecessary. It adds nothing to the Bill and it gives priority to the wrong set of issues. I hope that the Minister will invite the House to reject it.
      Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I want to follow the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and echo his hope that the Minister, in his reply, will not look with favour on amendment No. 11.
      The Minister will be aware that, earlier this year, the Agriculture Minister announced a programme of increased inspections which, if implemented, would have cost the abattoir industry an extra £20 million. However, I am glad to say that as a consequence of representations, he announced a complete deferral of specified risk material inspection costs for that financial year. Subsequently, we have learned that, in the past few years, there has been tremendous improvement—and rightly so—in the United Kingdom's abattoirs.
      The risk that we run now is that, by imposing so many extra costs and regulations, we shall close down the abattoirs and cause something that I am sure that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) would not like at all: longer journeys, at great expense, for animals on the way from farms to the slaughterhouse. Although it is very much better to have those facilities close to farms, in my own area, for example, we have only two small abattoirs left.
      The head of the farm animals department of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said that the originally proposed additional costs represented a serious economic threat, and that there was no doubt that the current proposals would result in the closure of some small abattoirs. We therefore believe that the extra burdens proposed in amendment No. 11 would be counterproductive. If we are to maintain standards and have the farming communities on our side, and in the light of action already taken, we must be very careful to avoid imposing further burdens that will have a counterproductive effect.
      Mr. Andrew George: In supporting the purpose of amendment No. 11, I should like also to draw attention to the significance of small businesses and low-throughput abattoirs in meeting high animal welfare standards.
      If we had had sufficient time, amendment No. 11 could and should have been debated in relation to amendment No. 32—which I had hoped we would be able to debate. However, as we are now entering the third hour of a three-hour debate, but have reached only the third group of amendments, it is becoming clear that we shall not reach the ninth group, which deals with the fact that—for the reasons already given by the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)—small businesses and low-throughput abattoirs meet very high animal welfare standards. I think that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) would accept that, because of shorter travel times and a quieter and less stressful environment inside the abattoirs themselves, low-throughput abattoirs meet high animal welfare standards.
      As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) correctly said, on any objective assessment, inspection levels at small, low-throughput abattoirs are

      1439
      excessively high. Just last week, for example, one small abattoir in my constituency complained that it had four inspectors watching one person work. The week before, the ratio was three inspectors to two workers. Such an inspection level, and the charges consequently imposed, is a burden on small businesses.
      An important aspect of the Bill is its provision for both high animal welfare standards and protecting the interests of small businesses. As I said, I had hoped that, were it not for the antics largely of Conservative Members, we would have an opportunity to consider fully all of the amendments tabled on Report, so that we might be able to consider the very deep and serious concerns of small businesses about the Food Standards Agency's impact on them.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak to a specific amendment and then lament the fact that he cannot go on to further amendments.
      Mr. George: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you will understand the frustrations felt by Liberal Democrats at the lack of progress.
      Having expressed that frustration, I wish to say to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South that there is a crucial link between the importance of meeting high animal welfare standards and protecting the interests of small businesses. It not just a question of low-throughput abattoirs. I hope that the Minister will take account of the impact of the Food Standards Agency on small businesses, because small producers, processors and retailers need advice and help, as well as a recognition that they do not want disproportionate charges laid upon them. Such charges could put them out of business and result in lower animal welfare standards all round and a considerable diminution in the fabric of rural life, severely damaging the economy of rural areas.
      Mr. Hancock: The House is well aware of my hon. Friend's championing of the small business man, and of business generally. However, surely he is not suggesting that the Minister should look sympathetically at proposals which would in any way lower standards of animal welfare, as well as those standards that the public would require from small businesses to remain confident that they were supplying a product which was good enough for them to eat and for their families to enjoy.
      Mr. George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I want to emphasise, as I have done before, that it is not a question of lowering standards for small, low-throughput producers: it is quite the opposite—small producers usually meet high standards of hygiene. We must take into account the effect of the operation of the agency on small businesses; otherwise it will damage the rural economy and the rural way of life, and jobs will be lost. Through that, the quality of animal welfare will be reduced.
      Mr. Rooker: I welcome the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), in that it has provided us with this debate. I recall my hon. Friend's contribution at Second Reading, and he has referred to an aspect of the Bill that is in the shadows and does not have as high a profile as some other
      1440
      issues. Nevertheless, it is an important matter. I hope that I can assure my hon. Friend that the thrust of the issues that he has raised will be taken on board in the Bill.
      The Bill extends the scope of the Food Safety Act 1990 to cover production of food sources. That means that the regulation-making powers of the 1990 Act could, if necessary—for food safety reasons—be used in relation to husbandry matters. There is no question about that. The lead role in the use of antibiotic growth-promoters in farm animals will continue to fall to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, an agency of MAFF. However, the Food Standards Agency will have an effective veto on the regulation of veterinary medicines. A member or placeperson of the agency will be on the Veterinary Products Committee, which gives independent scientific advice to the Government. The agency will be involved closely in any matters concerned with antibiotic resistance, which is clearly a public health matter and goes beyond my Department.
      I understand the issues touched on in relation to slaughterhouses. Hon. Members know that, because of the time allocation, they have used up too much time on that subject, and they cannot debate the Meat Hygiene Service.
      Mr. Paice: There is still time.
      Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman does not know when I am going to sit down.
      7.15 pm
      Legitimate points have been made and I understand the frustrations. I want to make it abundantly clear that the Food Standards Agency will have direct and specific responsibility for both policy and enforcement in all abattoirs. The Meat Hygiene Service will be part of the agency and accountable to it. There will be separate arrangements for auditing, which we discussed in Committee but will not have the chance to debate today.
      The hygiene and animal welfare rules for slaughterhouses are a direct responsibility of the Food Standards Agency. There is no question whatever about that. That is important because the meat industry is big business. We slaughtered 10,000 cattle today for food. We did the same yesterday and we will do the same tomorrow. There are huge factory abattoirs and small abattoirs where slaughtering may occur only one day a week.
      We slaughtered 2 million broiler chickens today; we did it yesterday, and we will do it tomorrow. The hygiene conditions must be tightly controlled and I make no apology for the actions that we have taken in the past two years to drive up standards in the meat industry. I made my own modest contribution by going through a small part of the modules of the Meat Training Council. I got nowhere near slaughtering, of course, but I wanted to show that we are mustard keen on better and more training for everyone throughout the industry. I did not see why a Minister should be kept out of that if I could do something to contribute.
      Mr. Gill: As president of the Meat Training Council, I want to tell the House that we are all in this together. We all want to raise standards and improve training,

      1441
      hygiene and efficiency in the industry. We are most grateful to the Minister for having submitted himself to the course that he underwent.
      Dr. Gibson: The running dogs of the pig industry.
      Mr. Rooker: No, no. Hang on. In the days when we had them, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) was my pair, so leave him alone.
      The Food Standards Agency will be able to go anywhere in the food chain—there are no no-go areas in the food production system—and it will interfere or regulate to a greater or lesser extent at different parts of that chain, hardly touching some and getting actively involved in others. If there are arguments about the quality of welfare-friendly meat and mis-labelling, it will certainly have the powers to get that sorted out.
      I have been to nine abattoirs—I visited one pig abattoir with the hon. Member for Ludlow—to see matters at first hand. Welfare conditions at slaughter are crucial, not only because of our respect for animals but because meat from happy animals tastes better. A happy pig is a tasty pig. There are chemical changes in animals slaughtered in stressful conditions. That is a plain fact. We must treat such issues extremely seriously.
      The amendment is not necessary. The wholly legitimate issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South are covered in the Bill, as the agency will have powers throughout the food chain and in relation to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. The Meat Hygiene Service does not currently set its own policy—the policy is agreed between the Department of Health and my Ministry in the joint food safety and standards group—but the Food Standards Agency will take that role and will be able to deal with clean cattle policy and hygiene rules at slaughtering. So these matters are central to the Bill; they are not outwith it.
      Salmonella was mentioned. In the coming weeks and months we shall be discussing performance targets for the agency—how we can check whether it is doing the job that the House intends it to do. One such measure would not be simply to reduce food poisoning because we do not know its cause. It is multifaceted, so difficult to set as a performance target. However, the eradication of salmonella and campylobacter in the flock could be looked at over a period of years because there are techniques known to do that. One factor in the assessment of the agency's success could be just that. If those bacteria can be eliminated at the beginning of the chain, there are less likely to be problems caused by people handling food incorrectly in the home or the retail and catering trades.
      The agency will be actively involved in animal husbandry and welfare. I hope that I have said enough to give my hon. Friend the encouragement and comfort he needs. I thank him for raising these issues and hope that he will not press his amendment.
      Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the positive tone of his reply. I acknowledge the good work of his Department in raising farm animal welfare standards. Much more progress must be made to eliminate the worst excesses of factory farming, about which we have been complacent for far too long. I appreciate that we can move only at the speed at which we can convince our EC partners to move, but I recognise that the Government are doing their best in this area.
      1442
      We have had a useful little debate. The Bill should not pass without some reference to the welfare of the millions of farm animals that are slaughtered every week. It is an issue of great concern to our constituents and to many of us on both sides of the House.
      To take up a point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), I am a little nervous when I hear people say that we have the best standards in the world. Over the years, I have heard that applied to our police force, our judges and, with rather more accuracy, to our armed forces—indeed, to a whole range of our institutions. It smacks slightly of complacency, if he will forgive my saying so, and we should never be complacent.
      I acknowledge the points made by the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) about the need for local abattoirs to be properly regulated to prevent stressful lengthy journeys to slaughter. I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances and clarifications. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mrs. Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 25, at end insert—
      '(4) Any authority making such a request shall immediately publish its reasons for so doing.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 12, in clause 21, page 10, line 43, at end insert—
      '(4) The Agency shall make a report to Parliament on the exercise of its powers under this section in each calendar year.'.
      Mrs. Spelman: It is my pleasure to speak to these amendments. I intend to be as brief as possible in the interests of reaching some of the meatier subjects, if the House will forgive the pun, further down the amendment paper in the restricted time available.
      The purpose of amendment No. 2 is to add a duty to any authority which makes a request to the agency to exercise its powers. The principal reason behind it goes back to one of the core themes of many of our amendments, which is to preserve the independence and ensure the transparency of the agency.
      I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who has been present throughout much of the debate and who has been a watchdog for this whole question of independence and transparency for the agency. At many points in the Standing Committee Hansard he pointed out the need to try at all costs to preserve the independence of the agency. That is why we believe that it is imperative that when a request is made for the agency to exercise its powers, the reasons should be stated immediately. In that way, consumers, producers and retailers will be able to see the open working of the agency. We feel strongly that if there is any delay in giving the reasons, or if the reasons are not given, for requesting the agency to exercise its power, its independence will be undermined.
      On other clauses, we have called for the reasons for the exercise of power to be clearly stated. For example, in clause 11 the power of entry to premises comes without the agency's having to state the reasons for going in. We understood the reason for the random visiting by foods standards officers and why the reasons could not be stated

      1443
      in that instance, but we believe that it is imperative that the reasons are published immediately where another authority—a Minister, a Department or a devolved authority—makes a request.
      We were pleased that amendment No. 12 was selected on Report because it deals with the huge powers contained in clause 21. We christened clause 21 the Martini clause. Anyone familiar with the advertising will know that the slogan for Martini was "Any time, any place, anywhere". We have some concern that the agency has been granted sweeping powers.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) has wisely spotted the need to introduce some constraints and has succeeded in having the amendment selected. That gives us another chance to restrain the huge powers in clause 21. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health has expressed to me its concern that no clear explanation of clause 21 was given in Committee. Perhaps we may hear from the Minister that some restraining powers will be imposed in connection with clause 21 that would give us some comfort.
      Amendment No. 12 would require the agency to make a report to Parliament on the exercise of its powers in each calendar year as part of its annual report. If it were accepted, it would bring greater accountability to the otherwise sweeping powers contained in the clause.
      Mr. Gill: Amendment No. 12, which is tabled in my name, would amend clause 21, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has just referred as the Martini clause. The Minister of State spoke earlier about the quality of the legislation that had gone through the House. He went so far as to say that some legislation that had reached the statute book was abysmal. I am anxious that we do not put on the statute book legislation that could be described as abysmal. We are all concerned about the amount of legislation that is reaching the statute book and, as a consequence, the amount of regulation to which business in this country is subject. We all want less regulation.
      We need to deal with the problem. The problem is that the Bill is another enabling Bill, despite all its good features. Whenever we put a Bill that can be described as enabling on the statute book, we open the floodgates of regulation from successive Ministers and Departments. Although the Bill is generally accepted to be good in many ways, it is yet another enabling measure, which will give future Ministers—indeed the present Minister—wide powers. Incidentally, I am sure that the House would want to pay tribute to the Minister for the way in which he has steered the Bill through the various processes that he described earlier. We give him credit for the fact that he has used new procedures to ensure that there has been the fullest consultation at every stage. That is much appreciated. However, despite all the consultation and the Minister's best offices, this is an enabling Bill, which gives the Government enormous powers to do almost whatever they want.
      1444
      7.30 pm
      The Minister is aware that, on Second Reading, I was critical of the fact that the Government were taking those unnecessary powers. I pointed out that it would be undesirable because the measure gives MAFF a blueprint to come back with further measures at any stage—"any time, any place", as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden says. Those measures will not be subject to the same scrutiny as the Bill.
      On Second Reading, I quoted the opening sentence of clause 21, which states:
      "The Agency has power to do anything."
      I criticised that. The Minister responded by saying, in effect, that it was grossly unfair of me to have quoted only the first part of that sentence. However, if I now quote the full sentence, the Minister will agree that the sense is not changed in any way. It states:
      "The Agency has power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the exercise of its functions."
      For the sake of brevity on Second Reading, I did not use the whole sentence, but whether one uses only the first seven words or the whole sentence, it makes no difference. Obviously, if the agency has powers to do anything, such powers must be within its remit. I was not pretending for one moment that the Bill enabled the Government to do anything in any matter. It stands to reason that the provision applies only to the Bill. The Minister was being too sensitive in his winding-up speech on Second Reading, when he referred to my criticism of the fact that the Government had taken so much power.
      At this late stage in the Bill's proceedings, it will be difficult—if not impossible—to persuade Ministers to renounce or limit the Bill's powers. However, it is not unreasonable to ask the Minister to consider my amendment, which would provide for the Government to make a report to Parliament about the powers that they exercise under clause 21. The Minister should be sympathetic to the amendment; he is a democrat, and he shares our concern about the plethora of legislation that emanates from Government. This is not a party political point; during the past decade or so, Governments of all persuasions have been equally guilty in passing enabling legislation, which has triggered the plethora of regulation to which we all object.
      I hope that the Minister will consider accepting the amendment. It is supported by the Food and Drink Federation—the recognised umbrella organisation for many trade associations in the food and drink industry, although not all of them belong to it. In a circular letter, which I imagine has been sent to all Members of Parliament who are interested in the Bill, the federation says that it supports the objective of the amendment in seeking an annual report on the exercise of the agency's powers under clause 21 and believes that that should be included in the annual report that the agency is required, under clause 4, to make to Parliament.
      The Minister is a reasonable man and I know that he takes great pride in the Bill. It has been his baby and he has steered it all the way through its parliamentary process. He was there at its inception and, God willing, he will be there when it reaches the statute book. Such things as reshuffles intervene, but I hope that the Minister will survive the next reshuffle in his present office where, within the constraints that the overall direction of his Government impose, he has done a very good job.

      1445
      On behalf of my industry, I compliment the Minister on taking the time and the trouble to understand the industry. We do not underestimate his achievement. The Minister represents an urban constituency and it is unlikely that he knew much about agriculture, livestock and all the processes associated with them when he assumed his present role. However, the Minister has learned about them and the industry is grateful to him for doing so.
      With that background of knowledge and understanding and as a result of the educational courses he has undertaken, the Minister must recognise that the Government are taking unlimited powers that they currently do not need. If such powers were necessary, presumably they would be spelt out in the Bill. However, the Government have not done that. As they are taking draconian powers for reasons that are not obvious, the Government should return to the House at some stage—once a year is suggested—to report what has been done under this particular clause.
      On Second Reading, I was critical of other clauses in the Bill for exactly the same reason. It is hypocritical for politicians to sympathise with our constituents about the burden, cost and nuisance of legislation when we participate in debates on legislation such as this which will open the floodgates to even more regulation. On Second Reading, I referred to my support for the Food Safety Bill in 1990.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks must be more specific and remain within the terms of his amendment. In some respects, he is making a Second Reading speech. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should remind us of the content of his amendment.
      Mr. Gill: I shall come directly to the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Members of Parliament may consider legislation such as the Food Standards Bill but we do not always examine, scrutinise and criticise it in the way that we should. That is particularly true of new Members of Parliament. I was a new Member myself once, and I have kicked myself for not being more diligent in respect of the 1990 legislation to which I referred a moment ago that led to other legislation—to much of which I and others would have objected.
      That is a most important point for the House to understand. If we pass general legislation and put enabling Bills on to the statute book, we should not be surprised and should not complain if Departments then introduce many regulations that we had not foreseen.
      In conclusion, I make a final plea to the Minister to act with his characteristic even-handedness, fairness and understanding and accept the amendment.
      The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): As the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, we had much debate in Committee about the independence of the agency as a non-ministerial Department. It might help the House if I reiterate the rules under which the agency will operate.
      In its day-to-day operation, the agency will be at arm's length from Ministers, and staff will be accountable to its chairman and members. It will have the unprecedented independence to publish the advice that it gives to Ministers. However, it would be wrong to suggest that the
      1446
      agency should be wholly independent of democratically accountable Ministers. Ministers will retain ultimate responsibility for policy and legislation, and it is right that they should do so, but they will turn to the agency for policy advice. The agency will be the Government's primary source of advice on food safety and standards.
      I am not convinced that the amendment is helpful, because Ministers will naturally explain to the agency why they are asking for advice, and the agency will have powers to publish any information in its possession, unless that is specifically prohibited by an enactment or Community obligations, or unless publication would make the agency in contempt of court. It would, therefore, be able to publish information about requests from Ministers.
      It is not, however, appropriate to place on Ministers of the Crown, Government Departments, the National Assembly for Wales, Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland Departments the extra duty to publish immediately the reason why they are asking for advice. In sensitive matters, such as negotiations or legal proceedings, publication of the reasons for requesting advice might be premature. As we reflected in Committee, it might also be socially embarrassing. A Minister might seek advice from the agency about whether to attend a particular function, and if the answer were blunt, clearly embarrassment could result.
      Although the power can be used to ensure that advice is given, there is no way in which it can be used to dictate the content of that advice. It will be left to the agency to decide how to respond to requests for advice, information and assistance from Ministers. Records of the agency's decisions and the information on which they are based will be publicly available, which means that information about Ministers' requests to the agency and how those requests were dealt with will become publicly available.
      It is very important that we do not make Ministers' dealings with the agency so constrained that they simply find alternative sources of advice within existing Departments. Clearly, that would undermine one of the important purposes for which the agency is being established.
      7.45 pm
      I turn now to amendment No. 12. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and put to rest some of his worst fears.
      I reiterate a point that was forcefully made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Minister of State—that the clause does not give the agency unusual powers. The agency has only the powers given to it by the Bill, but it is very important technically and legally that the agency has the powers that it is given by the clause so that it can, for instance, enter into contracts to have its offices cleaned and arrange for stationery supplies. Everything that the agency does will obviously be constrained by the extent of its powers, which are clearly set out in the Bill, and the very important qualifications about the exercise of its powers, especially in relation to the assessment of risk and proportionality.
      The agency will publish an annual report, which will be laid before Parliament. We have made clear the importance that we, as Ministers, attach to the annual report, but I think that if we were to publish in the annual report a list of photocopying contracts and stationery orders, it would make dull reading.

      1447
      I finish by saying that, far from being anything as exotic as the Martini clause, clause 21 is the stuff of basic departmental and agency housekeeping. I assure the hon. Member for Ludlow that the Food and Drink Federation has contributed its views freely throughout a long process of consultation, and where appropriate, the Bill has been improved as a result of its representations. However, if we were to put on the face of the Bill the terms under which the agency would order its pencils and monitor its paper supplies, it would diminish the enormous importance that we attach to its overriding task of protecting public health and improving standards of food safety. I therefore very much hope that the hon. Member for Meriden will withdraw the amendment.
      Mrs. Spelman: I have carefully listened to the right hon. Lady's explanation. She stated the circumstances in which it might not be appropriate for reasons to be published immediately when the agency was requested to exercise its powers, and I can envisage circumstances in which that would be true. It was a bit of a let-down to hear the rather benign examples of purposes for which the exotically titled clause 21 would be used but, having listened to those explanations—
      Mr. Gill: I wonder whether my hon. Friend thought, as I did, that the Minister trivialised clause 21 by referring to the unnecessary procedure of having to report matters relating to office cleaning, stationery supplies, pencil orders, paper supplies and so on. However, clause 21(2)(d) talks about the instituting of criminal proceedings. We are not talking only about trivial items such as the ordering of pencils. This is a very serious point.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech during an intervention; that is just not on.
      Mrs. Spelman: Obviously, I appreciate the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) because we approach the point from the same direction, but in Committee, we received an explanation of the circumstances in which it might be necessary for the agency to institute criminal proceedings, and I refer him to Hansard on that point. The wording of clause 21 is difficult for a reader coming to it for the first time, but we accept that, as the Minister said in Committee, it should be read in conjunction with the other clauses.
      It is interesting to note, and worth placing on the record given the likelihood that we shall not reach Government amendment No. 28, that that amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish reasons for giving directions to the Food Standards Agency in the event of a breach of duty. We welcome that amendment. It shows that the Government are sensitive to the point that there are times when it is paramount to make the reasons explicit and publish them. We accept that there may be other times when it is inappropriate—in particular, the timing may
      1448
      be inappropriate—to publish the reasons for requiring the agency to exercise its powers. For these reasons, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Gill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I, too, listened carefully to the—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Lady giving way?
      Mrs. Spelman: I have withdrawn the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 11

      POWERS OF ENTRY FOR PERSONS CARRYING OUT OBSERVATIONS
      Ms Jowell: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 5, line 3, leave out from 'out' to end of line and insert
      'any observations under section 10 specified in the authorisation.
      (1A) No authorisation under this section shall be issued except in pursuance of a decision taken by the Agency itself or by a committee, sub-committee or member of the Agency acting on behalf of the Agency.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 20 to 27.
      Ms Jowell: We had a full and detailed debate in Committee on the operation of clauses 11 and 14, to ensure specifically first, that only the agency, or one of its committees or sub-committees, or a member acting on behalf of the agency, authorised the use of powers of entry. Secondly, the Committee wished to ensure that the authorisation would be limited to a particular purpose if it was issued under clause 11—in relation to carrying out observations—which would be stated in the authorisation itself. We agreed that receipts for samples or copies of documents would be given on request.
      Clause 11 deals with powers of entry for the purposes of carrying out observations, and clause 14 deals with monitoring the performance of enforcement authorities. The amendments bring the improvements that we debated in Committee in line with the powers set out in clauses 11 and 14.
      When considering clause 11, we explained in detail the way in which we expected the powers of entry to be used. We stressed that they were not to be used for enforcement purposes, but were about information gathering to inform the agency's policy development role.
      Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister will be aware of my interest in the case of her Department v. Aldridge, involving Duckett's cheese. Can I be reassured that the evidence that has been revealed through that long saga has been taken into account in drawing up the details of clause 11? The right hon. Lady will be aware that there are real concerns in the industry about the way in which enforcement powers in previous legislation have been used. I think that most people recognise that big sledgehammers were used to crack small nuts.
      Ms Jowell: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Department of Health won the recent appeal following the

      1449
      judicial review. The judgment reflected the fact that there had been an imminent risk to health, and that the application of the powers that the Department and I took were proportionate in light of the degree of risk. Given that it was the first time that the power had been applied and that it has major consequences for businesses, we have sought to examine the effects of its operation.
      Let no one be in any doubt about the risk to health that was posed by the contamination of cheese by E. coli 0157—contamination that left a 12-year-old boy on dialysis and seriously ill in hospital. We acted, and we were right to act. The experience of operating the power informed our consideration of the way in which the agency should carry out observation as part of its surveillance function.
      I shall deal briefly with the amendments relating to clause 14. Authorisations issued under clause 14 do not need to state the purpose, because the power of entry is already clearly limited to monitoring the performance of enforcement authorities. Amendments Nos. 21 and 25 meet our commitment that receipts for samples or copies of documents should be provided on request.
      Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 to clause 11 and amendments Nos. 26 and 27 to clause 14 are minor drafting changes. I explained in Committee that we would introduce drafting changes to clarify ambiguities. On several occasions in Committee, the Opposition proposed a code of practice governing the exercise of the powers. It was agreed that there should be clear rules governing the behaviour of authorised persons exercising powers of entry.
      With these Government amendments, the Bill will provide rules, which we expect to be supplemented by general guidance. In light of that, we do not see the need for a statutory code of practice. We agree that there should be guidance, and that that should be available to members of the public.
      Mrs. Spelman: I shall be brief, as we are keen for discussion to proceed to the next set of amendments, which are a significant group.
      We welcome the Government's amendments, which respond to some of the concerns that we raised in Committee about the powers of entry. We are pleased that the ambiguities that we pointed out in the original drafting of clauses 11 and 14 will be resolved satisfactorily. The Government's amendments improve on the proposal for a code of practice. The Bill itself will make it clear how Food Standards Agency officers should conduct themselves upon entering commercial premises.
      It would be right to record the residual concern of the Food and Drink Federation about the confidentiality of information that might be collected when the officers enter premises. The fact that a receipt will be given, as we requested in one of our original amendments, should allay some of the fears about transparency. We are grateful for the Government's concessions and take some pride in having had a hand in amending the Bill to ensure that the powers being granted to the FSA are less likely to be abused in relation to commercial interests.
      Ms Jowell: May I clarify that point? It was one of the issues that we took on board following the Special Select Committee. Unofficial disclosure of commercially
      1450
      sensitive information collected in the course of observation will be an offence. That is clearly stated in the Bill.
      8 pm
      Mrs. Spelman: We perfectly understand that, and we are pleased that that requirement extends also to anybody who might now accompany the authorised FSA officer. We asked for that and we are glad to see it.
      For the sake of total transparency in all our doings, I should like to record that, in expressing our gratitude for these concessions, we pushed our luck quite far in Committee. It was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) that the Government's recognition of that might extend to inviting us to the party that traditionally follows the passage of a Bill through the House. I take this opportunity to record our gratitude for having received invitations to that party. It may be quite an historic occasion, and we record our thanks.
      Dr. Brand: I rise briefly to welcome the amendments and say that they have made worth while the many hours—occasionally not very interesting hours—that we spent in Committee.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 20, in page 5, line 7, leave out from 'out' to end of line and insert
      'the observations specified in his authorisation'.
      No. 21, in page 5, line 18, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 19 and insert 'on request—

      (a) produce his authorisation before exercising any powers under subsection (3); and

      (b) provide a document identifying any sample taken, or documents copied, under those powers.'.

      No. 22, in page 5, line 29, leave out from beginning to 'any' and insert
      'If an authorised person who enters'.
      No. 23, in page 5, line 31 leave out from 'secret' to 'guilty' in line 32 and insert
      'he is, unless the disclosure is made in the performance of his duty,'.—[Ms Jowell.]

    Clause 12

      MONITORING OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION
      8 pm
      Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 6, line 21, at end insert—
      '(6) In any case where the Agency itself or a body for which it is accountable is the enforcement authority, subsection (1) shall not have effect and the function of monitoring enforcement shall be held by the Secretary of State.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 9, in schedule 3, page 27, line 27, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 28.
      No. 18, in schedule 4, page 32, line 35, leave out from 'omitted' to end of line 37.
      Mr. Paice: The Minister of State suggested that we might not reach this group of amendments, but I am

      1451
      pleased that we have, as it enables us primarily to discuss the Meat Hygiene Service. I shall not take a long time rehearsing the arguments because we spent some time on the matter in Committee. However, I have taken the opportunity to look again at what the Minister said in reply to that debate, and I have tried to address the issue in amendments Nos. 3 and 9. I shall come to amendment No. 18 in a moment.
      Amendment No. 3 turns on its head the approach that the Opposition previously adopted. which was to prevent the FSA taking over the MHS. The reason we do not want the two to be in cahoots is quite clear. We want a clear distinction between enforcement and the monitoring of that enforcement. We recognise that there will be times, in extremis, when the FSA will have to take on enforcement measures—if, for example, another authority fails in its duties; that is in the Bill and we accept it—but to take it on in that situation for, one assumes, a temporary period, is different from its being part and parcel of the agency's usual functions.
      In Committee, the Minister clearly said:
      "The chief executive"—
      of the MHS—
      "does not create policy; he receives policy instructions from MAFF. Likewise, he will receive them from the FSA staff'.
      That clearly indicates to me that there is a problem.
      The Minister went on to refer to the idea of the FSA being
      "born out of the suspicion that the Ministry should not ride two horses and the paradox of a regulatory Ministry sponsoring the food and the farming industries."
      I accept that in the way in which he said it, but that paradox applies equally to the idea of the FSA setting some regulations, enforcing them through the MHS and then monitoring their enforcement.
      There are not many other walks of public life in which both the enforcement and the monitoring of the effectiveness of that enforcement are done by the same body.
      Mr. Rooker: There is not much time to put this on the record, but the auditing of the MHS goes beyond the FSA. The EU Commission's Food and Veterinary Office and the state veterinary service, which is not part of the FSA, will all be involved in this function.
      Mr. Paice: The Minister makes precisely my next point. In Committee, he said:
      "the MHS is accountable to EU inspectors, who can arrive with no warning. The inspections will be audited by the state veterinary service as well as by the veterinary public health unit of the joint food safety and standards group".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 13 July 1999; c. 299–300.]
      If all those bodies monitor the MHS, why on earth do we need the FSA as well?
      Mr. Rooker rose—
      Mr. Paice: I shall give the Minister time to reply; he does not need to intervene.
      I do not understand why it is necessary for the FSA to fulfil that role. The Minister worried members of the Committee when he said that the Government were still
      1452
      exploring the management arrangements between the FSA and the MHS. He spoke about Chinese walls of separation. We are not at all convinced that they will be as effective as they ought to be.
      Amendment No. 9 was effectively given to us by the Government in Committee when the Minister pointed out the implications of another amendment that I had tabled. He now has two opportunities to accept our argument in two different ways. If the Government are obsessed with pursuing the idea of putting the MHS with the FSA, they can do so as long as they leave the monitoring of enforcement with MAFF and with those other bodies to which he has referred. Amendment No. 3 would allow them to do that.
      Amendment No. 18, which relates to schedule 4, is designed to control the overweening power of the agency. The Minister for Public Health, who seems to have evaporated from the Front Bench, said that we have spent a lot of time talking about the independence of the agency. She is quite right: there is no contradiction between seeking to establish an independent agency and ensuring that it does not have excessive power. That amendment is designed to ensure that, in at least one area, the agency's power would be constrained. It would not be given the powers that Ministers have under the Food Safety Act 1990.
      Other brief contributions may be made, but I am sure that the Minister will have a moment or two to reply before we run out of time.
      Dr. Brand: The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has told us that he was riding two horses; I believe he has jumped on the wrong one.
      We have supported the Conservatives in their contention that it is not appropriate to site the Meat Hygiene Service with the Food Standards Agency because its size is disproportionate to that of the agency, but I firmly believe that the FSA ought to have a role in monitoring and policy setting for all the enforcement agencies. If the FSA had been in existence a few years ago and had done the job properly, the MHS would never have had to be set up. It would not have to be taken away from local authorities because there would have been a mechanism in place for intervention, short of the nuclear option, as described by the Minister, of direct ministerial intervention. We cannot support the amendment because it takes the wrong direction.
      In time, if not tonight, I hope that the Minister will be able to describe how he has worked through the concept of separating the policy-setting function of the agency and the semi-autonomous role of the MHS in the execution of that function.
      It is absolutely vital that the FSA sets clear criteria for what it considers to be failure by an enforcement authority. It would be quite wrong for it to have powers that could be applied quite arbitrarily to, for example, a local standards agency or other enforcement agencies that are under local authority control. The criteria on performance must be clear, and one would expect warning systems so that an agency does not suddenly come down like a ton of bricks on an unsuspecting small district council that does not realise that it is under-performing.

      1453
      We cannot support the amendment although the spirit behind it was right, separating the Meat Hygiene Service from the Food Standards Agency. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has taken the wrong horse of the two that he might have taken.
      Mr. Rooker: I should like to make a serious attempt to respond to the debate. This is one of the most important groups of amendments, which we started on, if I recall correctly, at 8 o'clock. [Interruption.] Oh, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is back. We have had the debates without him and made reasonable progress.
      There is no way I can do justice to the issue, which is important. I do not criticise the Opposition for raising their concerns, but I can make only general, rather than specific, comments.
      The prime reason for the Meat Hygiene Service and, indeed, the Dairy Hygiene Service being, effectively, an integral part of the agency is that they are 100 per cent. concerned with food safety, whereas the other agencies under MAFF, including the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Pesticides Safety Directorate, are not exclusively related to food safety. They are out. They will remain as executive agencies, but with all the links to the agency.
      Mr. Gill: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Rooker: No.
      The other thing that I want to make clear—I have lost count of how many times I said it in Committee, but it has to be said so that it is taken on board by those who look at our proceedings—is that there are no plans or agenda to create a national enforcement authority. That is the position. The Bill does not allow one to be set up. One could argue that if a local authority failed in its enforcement duties the powers are in the Bill to have that dealt with. That is not envisaged. It is not part of any hidden agenda, whatever anyone might say about how the Meat Hygiene Service was formed in the first place.
      In Committee I discovered that, in some quarters, there is an abiding hatred of the Meat Hygiene Service. As someone said a couple of days ago, there is a romantic attachment to the good old days, when 300 separate local authorities checked the abattoirs. At that time, there were 900 abattoirs. We inherited only 300—a few closed in the 18 years of Tory rule.
      As we saw in the public hearings of the Phillips inquiry, during those halcyon, romantic days of local authorities checking meat hygiene in abattoirs, there was an abject breakdown in the controls, which led to BSE infectivity going into the food chain, so it is not true that things were 100 per cent. perfect when 300 local authorities were dealing with the matter.
      With hindsight, I accept that the actions of the previous Government in setting up the Meat Hygiene Service were totally correct. There are no plans to devolve it back. Nevertheless, there is no agenda to take local authorities' role at any level—that of environmental health officers or trading standards officers. They are the front-line police throughout the food chain. We want to work in partnership with them. That is the way in which the Bill has been set up.
      1454
      We will make separate arrangements for the management reporting of the Meat Hygiene Service within the Foods Standards Agency and for the audit. I am convinced that we can do that. If it can be done in the private sector, with audit companies both carrying out internal and external audits of their clients and maintaining Chinese walls, we can do it here. If I had had more time, I could have put on the record some of the management mechanisms that we propose to introduce, but perhaps that can be done in another place.
      The genuine concerns that have been raised have been met by the content of the Bill and the way in which we intend the structures to operate in practice. There is still some work to do, but there are a few months in which to do it.
      It being six hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    Clause 14

      POWER OF ENTRY FOR MONITORING ENFORCEMENT ACTION
      Amendments made: No. 24, in page 6, line 42, at end insert—
      '(IA) No authorisation under this section shall be issued except in pursuance of a decision taken by the Agency itself or by a committee, sub-committee or member of the Agency acting on behalf of the Agency.'.
      No. 25, in page 7, line 24, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 25 and insert 'on request—

      (a) produce his authorisation before exercising any powers under subsection (3); and

      (b) provide a document identifying any sample taken, or documents copied, under those powers.'.

      No. 26, in page 7, line 26 leave out from beginning to 'any' in line 27 and insert
      'If a person who enters'.
      No. 27, in page 7, line 29 leave out from 'secret' to 'guilty' in line 30 and insert
      'he is, unless the disclosure is made in the performance of his duty,'. [Mr. Rooker.]

    Clause 24

      DIRECTIONS RELATING TO BREACH OF DUTY OR TO INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
      Amendment made: No. 28, in page 12, line 29 at end insert
      '(2A) Directions under subsection (1) must include a statement summarising the reasons for giving them.'. [Mr. Rooker.]

    Clause 39

      FINANCIAL PROVISIONS
      Amendment made: No. 29, in page 21, line 20 at end insert—
      '(6A) Schedule (Accounts and audit)(accounts and audit) has effect.'.—[Mr. Rooker.]

    Schedule 1

      CONSTITUTION ETC. OF THE AGENCY
      Amendment made: No. 31, in page 25, line 32, leave out from 'affect' to end of line 33 and insert
      'the rule of law by virtue of which functions of the Agency may be carried out through members of its staff.—[Mr. Rooker.]

    Schedule 4

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 30, in page 33, line 45, leave out '4' and insert '6'.
      No. 35, in page 36, line 5, at end insert—
      'Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38)
      . In Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 1998 there shall be inserted—
      "Food Standards Agency.
      Food Standards Agency advisory committee for Wales.".'—[Mr. Rooker.]

    New Schedule 1

      ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT
      1. For the purposes of this Schedule—
      "relevant authorities" means the Treasury, the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Finance and Personnel for Northern Ireland;
      "relevant bodies" means the House of Commons, the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly;
      "the Department" means the Department of Finance and Personnel for Northern Ireland.

      Appropriation accounts
      2.—(1) Where any appropriation accounts of the Agency or report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on such accounts are laid before the House of Commons under the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866, the Comptroller and Auditor General shall send copies to the relevant authorities for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
      (2) The Scottish Ministers shall present documents received under this paragraph to the Scottish Parliament and the Department shall present such documents to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

      Accounts of Agency relating to sums paid or appropriated under s.39(3)
      3.—(1) The Agency shall prepare separate accounts for each year of its expenditure in relation to each of the following descriptions of sums, that is to say—

      (a) the sums paid by the National Assembly for Wales under section 39(3)(a);

      (b) the sums paid out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund under section 39(3)(b); or

      (c) sums appropriated by Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly under section 39(3)(c).

      (2) Any sum received by the Agency which it applies by virtue of any relevant provision (within the meaning of section 39) shall be regarded as falling within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of sub-paragraph (1), as the case may require.
      (3) Accounts required under this paragraph relating to sums of any description mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)—

      (a) shall be prepared in such form, and

      (b) shall be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and to the relevant authority for the accounts, before such time,

      as the relevant authority for the accounts may direct after consulting the Agency and the other relevant authorities.
      (4) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine any accounts sent to him under sub-paragraph (3) on behalf of the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly (according to the description of sums to which the accounts relate).
      (5) In carrying out his examination of any such accounts the Comptroller and Auditor General shall, among other things, satisfy himself that the money expended by the Agency has been applied to the purpose or purposes for which the sums in question were intended to provide.
      (6) When the Comptroller and Auditor General has certified and reported on any accounts under this section, he shall—

      (a) send the accounts and report to the relevant authority for the accounts; and

      (b) send copies to the other relevant authorities.

      (7) The Treasury shall present documents received under sub-paragraph (6) to the House of Commons, the Scottish Ministers shall present such documents to the Scottish Parliament and the Department shall present such documents to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
      (8) In this paragraph "the relevant authority for the accounts" is—

      (a) in the case of accounts relating to sums within sub-paragraph (1)(a), the National Assembly for Wales;

      (b) in the case of accounts relating to sums within sub-paragraph (1)(b), the Scottish Ministers; and

      (c) in the case of accounts relating to sums within sub-paragraph (1)(c), the Department.

      Consolidated accounts
      4.—(1) The Agency shall prepare consolidated accounts for each financial year showing its income and expenditure and its overall state of affairs for that year.
      (2) Accounts under this paragraph shall—

      (a) be prepared in such form (and include such documents), and

      (b) be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the Treasury before such time,

      as the Treasury may direct after consulting the Agency and the other relevant authorities.
      (3) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine any accounts sent to him under sub-paragraph (2) on behalf of the House of Commons.
      (4) When any such accounts have been certified and reported on by the Comptroller and Auditor General, he shall—

      (a) send the certified accounts and the report to the Treasury who shall lay them before the House of Commons; and

      (b) send copies of those documents to the other relevant authorities.

      (5) The Scottish Ministers shall present documents received under sub-paragraph (4) to the Scottish Parliament and the Department shall present such documents to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

      Accounts under s. 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921
      5.—(1) Any functions of the Treasury under section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921 shall, subject to

      1457
      sub-paragraph (2), be exercisable in relation to the Agency with the consent of the other relevant authorities and after consulting the Agency.
      (2) The consent of a relevant authority is not required if the operations concerned do not include operations carried out in or in relation to the jurisdiction for which it is the relevant authority.
      (3) If a direction under section 5 of that Act is given in respect of the Agency, that section shall have effect as if any reference to Parliament or the House of Commons included a reference to each of the other relevant bodies, other than the relevant body for any jurisdiction referred to in sub-paragraph (2).

      Functions of Comptroller under s. 9 of the National Audit Act 1983
      6.—(1) The power of the Comptroller and Auditor General to make reports to the House of Commons under section 9 of the National Audit Act 1983 includes power, in relation to any examination of the Agency under section 6 of that Act, to make reports to any of the other relevant bodies.
      (2) If the Comptroller and Auditor General makes a report to one or more of the relevant bodies under section 9 of that Act in relation to such an examination, he shall lay a copy of the report before each of the other relevant bodies.'—[Mr. Rooker.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Order for Third reading read.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House proceeded to a Division:
      Mr. GRAHAM ALLEN and MR. KEITH HILL were appointed Tellers for the Ayes; but there being no Tellers for the Noes, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
      Question agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      Local Government Finance
      That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 48) on 1999–2000 Special Grant for developing new approaches to commissioning services for drug misusers (HC 513), which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.—[Mr. Allen.]
      Question agreed to.

  PETITIONS

    Coleridge Community College
    8.18 pm
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am proud to present a petition—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I remind hon. Members that an hon. Member is presenting a petition. They must leave the Chamber quietly.
    Mrs. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    I am proud to present a petition signed by 21,400 residents of Cambridge, opposing the closure of Coleridge community college on the grounds that its closure would mean the loss of an excellent school and a well-used community college, and increasing congestion as the children are bussed across the city.
    The petition states:
    The Petition of residents of Cambridge and elsewhere declares, that we totally oppose the closure of Coleridge Community College, Radegund Rd, Cambridge.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to do all in his power to prevent Cambridgeshire County Council from closing the College.
    And the Petitioners remain.
    To lie upon the Table.

    West Midlands Special Needs Transport Ltd.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: It is my pleasure to present a petition signed by my friend Councillor Renee Spector and more than 10,000 other users and supporters of West Midlands Special Needs Transport Ltd., otherwise known as Ring and Ride.
    The petition states:
    That the present system of rebates of fuel duty paid to Commercial Passenger Transport Companies, who operate scheduled public transport services, is not paid to "Ring and Ride" or "Dial a Ride" type services. We consider that this system unfairly discriminates against persons with mobility difficulties to whom these services are the equivalent of normal bus services, which they are physically unable to use.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Hunted Animals
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: I have pleasure in presenting a petition signed by constituents who are members of the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals.
    The petition reads:
    To the House of Commons. The petition of residents of the constituency of Maidstone and the Weald declares that we believe that hunting with dogs is cruel and unnecessary and has no place in a modern Britain. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Government to act on the overwhelming mandate it has received from MPs and the public to end hunting by making a clear commitment by the year 2000 to legislate for its abolition. And the petitioners remain etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Elderly (East Sussex)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]
    8.22 pm
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: The Government appear to be obsessed with youth. They are keen on cool Britannia, and the so-called rebranding of Britain. Yet, as a country, we are getting older—some of us faster than others. I am constantly amazed by the number of 100th-birthday parties to which I am invited in Eastbourne. I see from a newsletter issued recently by the Debate of the Age that Posh Spice can expect her new baby, improbably named Brooklyn Adams-Beckham, to live to the ripe old age of 130. It sometimes seems, however, that the Government are oblivious of those simple facts, and even that their policies, taken together, are designed to disadvantage older people. I think that I can claim to know what I am talking about: roughly 40 per cent. of my voters are over retirement age, and I am co-chairman of the all-party group for older people.
    Almost the Government's first act was to abolish tax relief for retired people who had private medical insurance. I received many letters on the subject. For many such people, who had been in corporate schemes when they were working, tax relief was what made maintaining their health cover in retirement just possible. As a result of the Government's action, many had to give it up, or reduce the extent of their cover. I even initiated a debate on the matter, but the Government were deaf to all entreaties.
    Then the Government reneged on their clear pre-election pledge to legislate against age discrimination. We all know from our experience as constituency Members how often able older people aged 50 or even younger are tossed on the scrap heap. We have a voluntary code of conduct; no doubt good employers are already following it, but bad ones will not.
    Nor has the Chancellor been kind to older people. In his first Budget, he ripped off pension funds to the tune of £5 billion. Then we had the abolition of dividend tax credits, which directly prejudices 600,000 mainly elderly non-taxpayers. The married couples allowance was removed for couples who will be under 65 in April 2000. Widows have lost their bereavement allowance, which has a particular effect on older widows. Moreover, 250,000 women will be losers under the new rules for widows benefit.
    Many older people in Eastbourne and elsewhere are very dependent on their cars, but this Chancellor is trying to tax them off the road. Now, we hear that the Government are intending to abolish concessionary television licences. What next, I wonder—especially when the BBC is seeking to raise the fee to well above £100?
    The Government are moving towards a two-tier, means-tested state pension system that will penalise those of my constituents who have been thrifty during all their working lives. The so-called minimum pension guarantee is a fraud on pensioners, as more than 1 million pensioners will simply not be eligible for it.
    Then there is the state earnings-related pension scheme scandal. As from April 2000, widows and widowers will be able to inherit only half of their late spouse's SERPS
    1460
    entitlement. Despite the fact that the change was made as long ago as 1986, until relatively recently, the Benefits Agency was misleading my constituents, and those of many other hon. Members, who have been affected by the change. In common with other hon. Members, I referred cases to the ombudsman. I am pleased that Ministers now accept that the problem must be examined, with a view to compensation being paid. I do not know whether the Minister will be able today to shed any light on the matter.
    When in opposition, Labour said that things could only get better—but surely it could not have been speaking about our national health service. After a recent debate that I initiated, the Minister ordered an urgent inquiry into nursing at Eastbourne district general hospital. Our local NHS has also had cuts—in chiropody services, for example—that cause great distress to many of my elderly constituents. In all, about 300 people were thrown off podiatry waiting lists.
    The royal commission on long-term care deliberated for 18 months, but its conclusions have now effectively been shunted into a siding by the Government. While the commission deliberated, an estimated 75,000 people had to sell their homes to pay for care. When will Ministers tackle the very real problems of funding long-term care for the elderly?
    As the Minister knows, many older people are cared for, or are carers themselves. I have had letters from constituents in their 70s and 80s who have taken on the role of carer, often for a spouse suffering from Alzheimer's or another condition. Hard-pressed health services and social services departments are struggling to help when they are able, and I know that the Minister has taken a close personal interest in carers' issues. Although some of the Government's proposals on the matter deserve a cautious welcome, the extra funding announced recently works out at an additional 15p a week—which is hardly enough to recognise the billions of pounds saved to taxpayers each year by the estimated 5.7 million voluntary carers in the United Kingdom.
    Taking all those factors together, one could be forgiven for asking: what do the Government have against the elderly?
    Mr. Charles Wardle: My hon. Friend is analysing accurately the damage that the Government are doing to elderly people. Is it not also true that people who have fought for the United Kingdom, and lived long lives here, resent the Government for putting the euro ahead of the pound sterling and for selling our gold reserves at knock-down prices?
    Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend makes a very cogent point on a view that is held by many of my elderly constituents.
    The most important and pressing issue that I should like to raise today affecting the elderly in East Sussex is the plight of independent residential care homes, which face two major problems: a Labour Government, and a Lib-Lab pact running the county council.
    I recently addressed a meeting, in Eastbourne town hall, of more than 100 worried care home operators. Some of them had already gone out of business, whereas others were under pressure from their banks. They told me that they were facing a triple whammy. East Sussex pays the lowest fees to the private sector of any county in the

    1461
    United Kingdom. The current rate is £209, which is made worse by the fact that the county council pays its own homes the equivalent of £402 per person per week—an incredible difference of almost £200. The situation is rightly perceived as unfair by the private sector.
    Furthermore, by insisting on keeping its own homes open, the county is wasting millions of pounds that could be better spent in the private sector. That is partly a matter of political dogma. I pay tribute to the dedication of staff in the county council-run homes. However, there is no less commitment in private homes, where the facilities are often more modern and more comfortable. It is therefore all the more distasteful when local Liberal Democrat politicians try to make political capital by claiming that residents of those homes would not receive treatment at least as good in the private sector.
    Indeed, it is interesting that, in principle, the ruling group seems to have accepted the wisdom of disposing of the county's homes, despite what is said in its focus leaflets from time to time. As Councillor Peter Jones pointed out in a letter to me the other day, in 1998–99, the group tried to sell three homes as going concerns—those that were most non-compliant with current minimum standards.
    The Conservatives on the council warned that the poor state of the homes meant that the group would almost certainly fail. Indeed, after some months, the group had failed to find a single credible buyer. There is a real problem here, with the county homes—despite the best efforts of staff—falling below the standards required in this modern age.
    This is nothing new. I drew attention to the problem in a debate before the last election. On 19 February 1997, in an Adjournment debate, I said that
    "even if the Government could be persuaded to give a few million extra pounds to East Sussex, there would be no guarantee that the money would find its way through the system to independent care home owners."
    I regret to say that nothing has changed. The same bunch of Liberal Democrats are, in effect, still running the county.
    I pointed out in the 1997 debate that the disparity between what the council spent on its own homes and that spent in the private sector was £150. The gap has widened in the intervening period. The then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), said that East Sussex was spending £5 million more than it needed. He went on to say:
    "When a local authority is complaining that it does not have enough money, I cannot understand how it can justify spending about £152 a person a week extra just by placing them in its own homes."—[Official Report,19 February 1997; Vol. 290, c. 890–898.]
    Does the Minister agree with his Conservative predecessor? Has he an up-to-date calculation of the money being wasted in this way by the county council? Does he agree that the council is in danger of abusing its dominant purchasing power in this instance? Will he initiate an urgent inquiry into the policy of the county council?
    The council claims, with some justification, that it does not get enough funding from the Government. We know that the Government have cut grants for areas such as East Sussex. They have also rigged the calculation of
    1462
    grants, so they no longer fully reflect the effect of large numbers in our elderly population locally. Will he try to justify the level of funding for East Sussex?
    We are dealing with Liberal Democrats, so they must look for someone else to blame. It is a bit difficult when they are, effectively, in a coalition with Labour, both locally and nationally. They are talking to Ministers about an all-party approach, but the harsh reality is that they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
    The owners of homes are threatened with over-regulation, and they have the working time directive and the minimum wage to contend with. It is a matter not just of the rules themselves, but of the extra record-keeping that is involved.
    As if that were not enough, we have the Government-sponsored report from the Centre for Policy on Ageing, which calls for some nationally required standards, including those relating to room sizes. This is all very well in an ideal world, and we should all aspire to ever-higher standards. However, the plain fact is that many existing homes would have to close if those proposals were implemented. The physical standards proposed are a major problem, but so are the proposals about staffing, sharing rooms and so on. This could be the final straw for many homes. We recently debated that worrying development—at my instigation—in the all-party ageing and older people group.
    I am pleased that Ministers confirmed to me recently that the proposals would be subject to proper consultation later this year. Will the Minister outline his plans for the consultation and confirm that he has a genuinely open mind? I am particularly indebted to Terry Fribbens of the East Sussex Independent Care Group and Carole Alford of the Registered Nursing Home Association for bringing this dreadful state of affairs to my attention.
    I have heard also from many individuals—too many to name here. Here are some examples of the authentic voice of the independent care sector in my area. A letter from a lady who runs a residential home in my constituency said:
    "The private sector providing Residential Care Homes have been persecuted for too long…What we want to know is why we the private sector are paid almost half the fees that the Councils pay themselves. This is grossly unfair."
    A lady from another home who attended a meeting that I addressed recently complained about the 1 per cent. or thereabouts increase given by the county to the private sector when it increased the fees for its own homes by 6 per cent. She talked about people in the sector being caused real difficulties by the squeeze from the county council.
    I can tell the Minister without fear of contradiction that there is a major threat hanging over the independent care sector in East Sussex. At least 24 homes have closed in East Sussex, Brighton and Hove in the past year. That is extremely worrying, because they provide more than 90 per cent. of the care home rooms in East Sussex. If they are driven out of business, where are the people in need to be looked after? Certainly not in the public sector.
    In our area, the residential care sector is a major part of the local economy, employing about 10,000 people. They are victims of the attitude of the Lib-Lab pact at county hall: a mixture of dogma and incompetence. The Government have promised that this is the year of delivering on their election promises across the board. What will they do to help?
    8.36 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on raising these important matters. He spoke about the Government's policy towards older people and how we are going to tackle hardship and poverty among them. I rebut his allegation that we are indifferent or have not developed effective policies for tackling those issues, because I strongly believe that we have.
    If we are to succeed in tackling poverty and the social exclusion that is its direct consequence, we have to take effective action right across Government. That is exactly what we are doing. Past attempts to deal with these issues—including those by the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a supporter—have principally focused on short-term alleviation and very little has been done to prevent problems occurring in the future.
    Our approach is radically different and dynamic. It is based on tackling the causes of poverty and social exclusion, not merely alleviating the symptoms. We are determined to create a fairer society in which all our citizens have opportunities to maximise their potential. Fundamentally, our strategy is about investment in individuals and communities to equip them to take control of their own lives and to get out of dependency and deprivation.
    The hon. Gentleman has understandable concerns about hardship and poverty for older people in and around his constituency. Our policies will directly benefit those people. For many people, retirement is a time of opportunity, fulfilment, and contribution to the family and society, but for too many it can still be a time of financial insecurity, isolation and poor access to services.
    Our policy priorities are to ensure that more of tomorrow's pensioners can retire on a decent income, and to tackle the problems of low income and social exclusion among today's pensioners, while improving opportunities for older people to live secure, fulfilling and active lives.
    We are reforming pensions to give people real opportunities to save for their retirement. Our Green Paper "Partnerships in Pensions" set out our proposals for a new contract for pensioners, including dramatic improvements in state second pensions for low earners, carers and disabled people, and a better deal for middle and higher earners through new low-cost stakeholder schemes.
    The hon. Gentleman failed to mention the fact that we have announced a £4 billion package, over the lifetime of this Parliament, to support our poorest pensioners. We have introduced a more generous minimum income guarantee for pensioners provided through income support and we announced in the Budget the introduction of a minimum tax guarantee to take 100,000 pensioners out of tax altogether.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: That policy has been well received, certainly in less well-heeled constituencies than that of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), such as mine. More than 10,000 of my constituents have had the benefit of the minimum pension guarantee and more than 20,000 have benefited from the winter fuel payment. That has made an
    1464
    enormous difference, particularly in view of the Government's agreement that that minimum pension will be increased in line with wages, not just inflation.
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping to correct the misleading impression that the hon. Gentleman has tried to give. The Government are clear that we intend to be fair to all our pensioners. That is precisely what our policies will do. My hon. Friend referred to winter fuel payments. We are giving every pensioner £100 to help with winter fuel heating costs. We have put in place a more generous home energy efficiency scheme and have ended VAT on domestic fuel which, I understand, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends voted for during the last Parliament—not a popular policy with pensioners.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the Government's general approach to older people. In addition to the hardships endured by older people because of their circumstances, many are not helped by the fragmentation of, or lack of access to, local services. The hon. Gentleman himself referred to some of those problems.
    The Government are fully committed to providing better services that can better meet the needs of older people. We shall do so by listening to and consulting older people themselves. This summer, as part of the international year of older persons, Ministers have been setting up and participating in a string of listening events up and down the country. They are organised by local organisations and attended by older people, who have the chance to put their views directly to Ministers. I am attending two of these events. I and other Ministers will listen very hard to what is said. At local level, the Government are supporting the better government for older people programme. This involves local agencies working together on behalf of older people, consulting with them, and ensuring that services are appropriate and convenient.
    I now want to focus on this Government's record on health and social care services for older people, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We have achieved much in the short time that we have been in office. Much of what we have set in train will benefit older people throughout the country, including those who are fortunate enough to live in East Sussex.
    The Government's polices centre on a number of key themes. Foremost is promoting the independence of individuals and listening to what they say they want from local services. We want to give older people more say in and control over the services that they receive, and we want to ensure that they have access to services when and where they need them. I shall briefly mention just some of our initiatives. The hon. Gentleman referred to the royal commission which we set up in 1997 to look into options for the funding of long-term care. That fulfilled a manifesto commitment. The report of the commission was published only in March 1999, and the Government are carefully considering their response to the proposals of both the majority and minority of commissioners, and the many comments that have been made on the report by a variety of organisations. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the report contained 24 main recommendations and a host of other minor recommendations, too. It is right, therefore, that we spend an appropriate time on developing our response.

    1465
    The hon. Gentleman expressed his concern about the existing rules which, he felt, were harsh and unfair. I hope that he will not mind my reminding him that the rules he was describing were the rules that he voted for and sustained in Government over many years.
    We also introduced free eye tests for people aged 60 and over from April this year. We have spent significant amounts of new resources developing new health action zones. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in the situation of carers. He will remember that in February this year we published, for the first time in this country, a new national strategy for carers, backed up with a new special grant of £140 million over three years to help local authorities provide a better and wider range of services to support carers. During the course of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman again failed to mention that the Government whom he supported had plenty of opportunities to introduce a similar mechanism of support for carers. Sadly, his Government never quite managed to get round to doing that.
    Earlier this summer, we published a new charter, "You and Your Services", which local authorities are certainly consulting on now. We hope to see those new local charters introduced from April 2000.
    Through a range of initiatives, we are getting health and social services authorities to work more closely and effectively together. For example, we have published new national priorities guidance with clear targets. In "Partnerships in Action", we set out a new range of operational flexibilities which will allow the NHS and social services to work more effectively together. Those proposals are now enshrined in new legislation and we expect to implement them as soon as possible.
    We are also developing this year, for implementation next year, the new national service framework for older people, which will be issued to health and local authorities in April 2000. This framework will focus on those parts of the health service that are particularly important to older people; and, again for the first time, we will set new standards to increase the quality of local and health authority services and equity of access to them.
    In summary, we are improving health and social care services by getting agencies to work more closely together and by ensuring that people receive services when and where they need them. The Government will achieve a great deal for older people, and lessen the hardships that many experience as they try to access local services.
    The hon. Member for Eastbourne referred to some of the problems in his constituency and county, so I shall now address my remarks to his concerns. He said much about local authority finance. I should remind him that within the total amount for local government in the current financial year, the Government have provided a 6.3 per cent. increase for social services departments across the country. For the first time, we have guaranteed that national resources for social services will increase in real terms for each of the following two years, enabling social services departments to plan ahead, knowing that there will be increasing funding. In fact, social services will receive almost £3 billion more in total over the next three years.
    This year, for example, East Sussex county council plans to spend £39 million of its £89 million social services budget on services for older people. East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority has £505 million at
    1466
    its disposal—3.76 per cent. more than in 1998–99. Its budget for services for older people currently exceeds £130 million.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to our manifesto promises. We have honoured our election manifesto pledge to make the distribution system for local authority funding fairer by introducing some changes to the standard spending assessment formula. It is clearly for local authorities, not the Government, to decide on the local allocation of funding to services in accordance with local circumstances and priorities. That is a particularly pertinent point in this debate, as East Sussex has latitude to use its resources as it sees fit, in line with local needs, priorities and policies. Two of the SSA changes that we made this year clearly did not benefit East Sussex. There is no point pretending otherwise, but I am absolutely certain that we were right to make those changes.
    In addition to resources delivered through SSAs, the Government have made additional resources available to local authorities. In addition to the carers' special grant, new special partnership and prevention grants are helping local authorities to work with health authorities to develop preventive and rehabilitative services for older people and other adults. These three new grants, totalling £890 million over three years, will help social services to promote independence and develop community-based services. Older people living in East Sussex will certainly benefit from the new grants, which amounted this year in East Sussex to £3.2 million, in addition to the total social services SSA.
    The hon. Member for Eastbourne referred to his concerns about the commissioning of residential care in East Sussex. We certainly want local authorities to commission social care services that deliver best value. Best value is the key element in the Government's agenda to improve the quality of local authority services and the efficiency and economy with which they are delivered. Best value will help to ensure that local authorities commission fairly and openly on the basis of a full consideration of costs, quality and outcomes. A new performance management framework will support the delivery of best value services.
    Intrinsic to our approach to the provision of services must be even-handedness. We are pragmatic, not dogmatic, over who should provide services. We have no ideological bias in favour of either independent sector or public sector providers. We want local authorities to have an even-handed approach to internal and external provision. Under best value we want decisions on services to be based on proper and transparent reviews of services and accountable decision-making, which reflects local objectives and is based on the aspirations and views of local people and their communities.
    I understand that the relationships between the local authority and independent providers in East Sussex have caused some concern in recent years. As he reminded us, the hon. Gentleman brought those matters to the attention of the House in an Adjournment debate more than two years ago. I fully understand his concerns. However, I understand that the new director of social services is keen to improve relationships and I hope that that will lead to greater co-operation in the future. Relationships between local authorities and independent providers have certainly been improving elsewhere in the country.

    1467
    One problem in East Sussex to which the hon. Gentleman referred seems to be the large number of residential and nursing homes in that area. Although extensive use is made of the independent sector—89 per cent. of local authority residential care placements are in independent homes—the large number of homes means that fee rates for residential and nursing homes are depressed.
    When it comes to the mechanics of contracting, we believe that the details of contracting arrangements between local authorities and suppliers are primarily matters for local decision. The Government do not set the rates at which local authorities should contract. We do, however, acknowledge that local authorities' commissioning activities need to improve, and we intend to assist that process of improvement. Strategic planning needs to pursue agreed strategic objectives, which are transparent to users and providers. Market management and contract setting should involve a variety of contract types, with contract prices that reflect providers' costs and planned outcomes for users. Local authorities need to ensure that services meet people's specific needs, and that
    1468
    groups with particular needs, such as ethnic minorities, are better served. We set out that agenda in more detail in our recent White Paper.
    We are taking a number of steps to help local authorities and providers to develop those relationships, and to think through their social services agenda. For example, we have just completed a well-attended series of highly productive regional conferences, designed to improve the arrangements for commissioning and paying for those residential services. One of the conferences was held in Brighton, and was attended by officers from East Sussex social services department and representatives from some of the independent homes in the East Sussex area.
    Finally, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I, like my predecessor, meet representatives from the independent sector quarterly to share information, views and concerns. The hon. Gentleman asked me to take a close interest in—
    The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at eight minutes to Nine o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coal Authority Report
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to lay the Coal Authority's report and Accounts for 1998–99 before Parliament. [93058]

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Coal Authority's report and Accounts for 1998–99 will be laid before Parliament. [93062]

  Mr. Battle
  I have today laid a copy before each House of Parliament.

  Photovoltaic Installations
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has held with the Energy Regulator on(a) two-way net metering and (b) industry charging and remuneration policy for photovoltaic installations. [91448]

  Mr. Battle
  Both issues are important in securing our objective that renewables and other forms of embedded generation can compete, in the long term, on equal terms with other forms of generation. The consultation paper "New and Renewable Energy—Prospects for the 21st Century", which I published on 30 March, invited comments on the issues surrounding the connection of embedded renewable generators to the electricity system. I am grateful to all those who responded.

  I am currently considering the various responses to the consultation paper which have been received and will make an announcement in due course. I will continue to discuss the issues arising with the electricity companies when I meet them. Metering is an essential component of a competitive market. The Government would like to see the full value of exported electricity being offered to consumers in order to encourage the uptake of photovoltaic installations in the UK.

  BNFL
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new techniques, skills and strategies are being developed to manage more efficiently and effectively the liabilities of BNFL. [92053]

  Mr. Battle
  BNFL has established a Liabilities Management Unit to reinforce the strategic management of its liabilities. The key tasks are to provide assurance that liabilities are fully identified and quantified, and to provide value for money and continuous improvement in how the liabilities are discharged, drawing on the expertise of BNFL' s Research and Technology Group in key technologies and processes. BNFL is also involved with others in the nuclear industry in sharing best practice 574
  in this area and a number of best practice guides have been published. I have asked the company to write to the hon. Member with further information.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the average time for a substantive reply to be sent to hon. Members' correspondence; what proportion takes more than(a) four weeks, (b) six weeks and (c) eight weeks; and what is his estimate of the number of letters received in a year from hon. Members. [92442]

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

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are his plans to address the problem of the Child Support Agency's backlog of periodical reviews. [93100]

  Angela Eagle
  Until December 1998, child support legislation required the Agency to reconsider child support assessments every two years. This process meant gathering all the many pieces of information used to make an assessment afresh. In many cases, parents failed to return review forms or to provide the necessary information and the reviews have become increasingly difficult to complete as time has passed. As a result, there are now some 350,000 outstanding periodical reviews in the Child Support Agency.

  To address the backlog of periodic reviews and to release more of the Agency's resources for current work, however, I intend to bring forward legislation as soon as Parliamentary time allows retrospectively to repeal the provisions which govern this process. This will mean that there will no longer be a requirement to complete the outstanding reviews for past periods. However, the Agency will be taking forward a rolling programme over the next two years to review and update assessments from a current date. Where the parent with care is on benefit, this will happen automatically: parents who have applied voluntarily for child support will be offered the opportunity to have the assessment brought up to date. Also, any parent who wants to have the periodical review completed in their case can ask the Child Support Agency to complete this action and this will be done providing the information and evidence necessary to complete the process is supplied.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the Annual Report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate. [93101]
  575
  Mr. Timms
  I have today published the second Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Annual Report.

  We published our strategy in March 1999 for tackling fraud and improving security within the DSS and local authorities. We are determined to make sure we get it right from the start. That means delivering an improved secure system including the use of robust checks and safeguards. The BFI is a significant part of our strategy. Their role is to publish reports which support the strategy by helping to raise standards of administration and by contributing to the continuing development of the new strategy.

  In this first full year of operation, considerable progress has been made. So far, the BFI has published 23 local authority reports, BA, CSA and CA reports, with a further 46 inspections either ongoing or due to be started by November 1999.

  Working in partnership with those they inspect is leading to improvements in benefit administration and counter fraud work standards. The report includes case studies demonstrating the BFI impact on local authorities, such as the introduction of prosecution and security strategies, improved recovery of benefit overpayments and better liaison and exchange of information between BA and local authorities.

  Copies of the published BFI Annual Report are available in the Library. Further copies are available on request.

  Pensions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he will take to promote higher standards in occupational pension schemes following responses to the consultation on proposals for a Quality in Pensions accreditation scheme. [93102]

  Mr. Timms
  We have discussed with the pensions industry how best to develop improved standards in pensions. We have concluded we should develop best practice guidelines for occupational schemes that would be made widely available. I am pleased to announce the formation of a working group to take this work forward. The names of the working group members are as given. We have also published today a response to the consultation exercise which provides an analysis of the consultation responses and sets out our proposals for developing the best practice guidelines.

  Best Practice Guidelines Working Group:

  In addition to the Government Departments that are represented the external members are:

  Joanne Hindle—Association of British Insurers

  Derek Sloan—Association of Pension Lawyers

  Susan Anderson—Confederation of British Industry

  David Trevor—National Association of Pension Funds

  Rachel Low—Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority

  Ian Eggleden—Pensions Management Institute

  Peter Crutchett—Society of Pension Consultants

  Joanne Segars—Trades Union Congress.

  The group will also include a representative from the public service schemes and will be chaired and supported by DSS officials.
  576
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how he proposes to ensure that combined pension forecasts are introduced effectively and with the minimum additional burden on employers and pension providers. [93103]

  Mr. Timms
  I am pleased to announce the formation of a Pension Forecasting Advisory Group which will include representatives from employers and scheme providers. The group will consider how our proposals for introducing combined forecasts might best be implemented to achieve wide and effective adoption. It will advise on what supporting information and facilities need to be provided to ensure that individuals make the best use of the new information. In addition to the Government Departments that are represented the external members are:

  Tony Tollerton—Association of British Insurers

  Susan Anderson—Confederation of British Industry

  Ben Jupp—DEMOS

  Ralph Turner—EMAP

  Keith Matthews—Financial Services Authority

  George Russell—Government Actuary's Department

  Ray Martin—National Association of Pension Funds

  Chris Armitage—Unigate.

  There will also be a representative from the public service schemes and members from the Inland Revenue and DSS who will chair and support the group.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the circumstances in which a full-time carer aged 16 years may receive invalid care allowance, the effect on entitlement of the carer undertaking a course of education, and the role of Benefits Agency staff in assisting such carers. [91870]

  Mr. Bayley
  Carers aged 16 who care for a severely disabled person for at least 35 hours a week may receive Invalid Care Allowance (ICA), subject to satisfying the other conditions of entitlement. A carer of any age will not be entitled to ICA if they undertake a course of full-time education, which for ICA purposes is defined as 21 hours a week.

  All carers who claim ICA are advised of the outcome of their claim and their right of appeal. In addition, the Benefits Agency are preparing a Multi-benefit bulletin to remind all staff of the other bodies who can help young carers and highlight the importance of being sympathetic to a young person's needs.

  War Pensions Agency
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of the final report of the review of the decision making and appeals process of the War Pensions Agency. [92407]

  Mr. Bayley
  Copies of the War Pensions Agency "Review of Decision Making and Appeals Process" Final Report has been placed in the Library today.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time for a substantive reply to be sent to hon. Members' correspondence; what
  577
  proportion takes more than (a) four weeks, (b) six weeks and (c) eight weeks; and what is his estimate of the number of letters received in a year from hon. Members. [92450]

  Mr. Darling
  I refer my right hon. Friend to my written answer to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 12 July 1999,Official Report, column 62.

  Pensions (National Insurance)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate for (i) flat-rate compensation payments and (ii) compensation payments relating to interest forgone(a) the total number of people who have received such payments arising from delays in payment of state retirement pensions because of problems with the NIRS2 computer system, (b) the total cost to date of such payments, and (c) the total cost which he expects to have accrued when the problems with the NIRS2 system have been resolved. [92530]

  Mr. Timms
  The total number of pensioners who have received flat-rate compensation payments is 166,989 at a cost of £1,669,890. In addition, a further £31,141.84 has been paid in compensation to pensioners following payment of arrears of benefit under the Departmental Special Payments Scheme.

  Up to 30 June, no compensation payments have been made relating to interest forgone.

  The total costs accrued because of the NIRS2 problems will not be known until recovery is complete.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by (1) what date he expects all retirement pensioners to be in receipt of the full retirement pension to which they are entitled on the basis of their complete record of national insurance contributions; [92481]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress made in resolving the delays to retirement pension payments associated with the introduction of the NIRS2 computer system. [92479]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) on 21 April 1999,Official Report, column 591.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate(a) the number of persons currently in receipt of (i) the basic state retirement pension alone and (ii) the basic state retirement pension and SERPS, who are currently being underpaid because of problems with the NIRS2 computer system, (b) the average weekly amount by which such pensions fall short of the correct figure, (c) the total amount which has been underpaid since April 1998, (d) the number of pensioners so affected in the week in which that number reached its peak, (e) the number of pensioners with SERPS underpayments of (1) more than £90 per week, (2) more than £80 per week, (3) more than £70 per week, (4) more than £60 per week and (5) more than £50 per week. [92480]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.
  578
  We estimate that approximately 285,000 pensioners have been affected by the NIRS2 computer system problems. Underpayments are expected to be between 1p and, in exceptional cases, £100 per week.

  The total amount of Retirement Pension which has been underpaid between April 1998 and March 1999 is estimated to be in the region of £25 million.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates he has made of the number and proportion of children living in poverty in(a) North West Leicestershire and (b) Leicestershire with Leicester; and what the comparable figures are for (c) the East Midlands and (d) England. [92080]

  Mr. Timms
  We recognise that poverty is a many faceted concept. One indicator used is to look at the numbers and proportions of individuals in households where the equivalised household income is below proportions of the contemporary national average. The tables show the numbers of children in households with below 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. of contemporary mean income. Information is not available for geographic areas smaller than regions.

  Dependent children below various percentiles of the income distribution, including the self-employed

  Percentages of each group

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Below 0.5

  Below 0.6

  Below 0.5

  Below 0.6

  East Midlands

  Percentage

  23

  37

  29

  40

  Million

  0.2

  0.4

  0.3

  0.4

  England

  Percentage

  25

  38

  34

  43

  Million

  2.8

  4.3

  3.9

  4.9

  Dependent children below various percentiles of the income distribution, including the self-employed

  Percentages of each group

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Below 0.5

  Below 0.6

  Below 0.5

  Below 0.6

  East midlands

  Percentage

  120

  36

  28

  39

  Million

  0.2

  0.3

  0.2

  0.3

  England

  Percentage

  23

  36

  34

  43

  Million

  2.2

  3.5

  3.3

  4.2

  1 Sample sizes are small for the East Midlands. The estimate is based on a sample of less than 100 households.

  Notes:

  1. All figures are estimates and are taken from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data set which is based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS). The FRS covers Great Britain, and the national average income used in the tables is that for Great Britain. It does not include Northern Ireland. 1996–97 is the latest year for which information is available. The figures presented will be subject to sampling error.

  2. The income measure used is weekly net (disposable) equivalised household income (that is to say income that is adjusted to reflect the composition of the household). It is standard HBAI practice to give results for income both before and after housing costs, in order

  579
  to allow for the effect of variations in housing costs between households. Results are also provided including and excluding the self-employed, reflecting the inherent uncertainty of income measures for the self-employed.

  3. Numbers and percentages below half average income before housing costs are sensitive to the choice of equivalence scale.

  4. Due to the sampling method and sample sizes used in the FRS, results are not available below government office regional level.

  5. Dependent children are defined as: an individual aged under 16 or an unmarried 16 to 18 year old on a course up to and including `A' level standard.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1996–97

  An alternative indicate of child poverty is to look at numbers in families in receipt of Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance.

  Children in families of Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance (income based) claimants February 1999

  Number of children

  Percentage of all children

  North West Leicestershire Local Authority

  2,000

  13

  Leicester Local Authority

  20,000

  29

  East Midlands Government Office Region

  156,000

  18

  England

  2,132,000

  21

  Notes:

  1. Based on a 5 per cent. sample and therefore subject to a degreeof sampling error.

  2. Children are defined as aged 0 to 15 years.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  4. All children is defined as children aged 0 to 15 years in each allocated Local Authority/Government Office Region, based on Mid 1997 estimates.

  5. Local Authorities/Government Office Regions are assigned by matching postcodes against the 1999 postcode directory.

  Benefits (Wales)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of expenditure in Wales on each benefit administered by his Department. [92376]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated Social Security expenditure in Wales in 1998–99

  £ million

  Benefit

  Expenditure

  Retirement pension

  1,910

  Christmas bonus (contribution-based)

  10

  Widows benefit

  50

  Benefit

  Number of recipients (Thousand)

  Date

  Sample size (per cent.)

  Attendance allowance

  1,232

  February 1999

  5

  Child benefit

  7,060

  June 1999

  4

  Council tax benefit

  5,281

  August 1998

  1

  Death benefit

  16

  December 1998

  100

  Disability living allowance

  2,042

  February 1999

  5

  Disability working allowance

  16

  January 1999

  100

  Family credit

  788

  February 1999

  5

  Housing benefit

  4,425

  August 1998

  1

  Incapacity benefit

  2,300

  November 1998

  5

  Income support

  3,815

  February 1999

  5

  Industrial injuries benefit1

  276

  April 1998

  10

  Invalid care allowance

  374

  June 1999

  100

  Jobseeker's allowance2

  1,326

  February 1999

  5

  Maternity allowance

  13

  August 1998

  5

  580

  Estimated Social Security expenditure in Wales in 1998–99

  £ million

  Benefit

  Expenditure

  Jobseeker's allowance (contribution-based)

  30

  Statutory sick pay

  *

  Incapacity benefit

  710

  Maternity allowance

  *

  Statutory maternity pay

  30

  Guardians allowance (including child's special allowance)

  *

  Non-contributory retirement pension

  *

  Christmas bonus (not contribution-based)

  *

  War pension

  70

  Attendance allowance

  210

  Invalid care allowance

  70

  Severe disablement allowance

  70

  Disability living allowance

  450

  Disability working allowance

  *

  Industrial injuries disablement benefit

  60

  Industrial death benefit

  *

  Other industrial injuries benefits

  *

  Income support (under 60s)

  470

  Income support (over 60s)

  210

  Jobseeker's allowance (income-based)

  170

  Child benefit (including lone parent addition)

  370

  Family credit

  140

  Earnings top up payments

  *

  Vaccine damage payments and Blesma4

  *

  Independent living fund

  10

  Motability

  *

  Social fund

  10

  Winter fuel payments

  10

  Housing benefit

  510

  Council tax benefit

  100

  Total

  5,660

  Notes:

  1 Figures have been rounded to nearest £10 million

  2 Cash amounts below £10 million are indicated by '*'

  3 Figures may not appear to sum due to rounding

  4 BLESMA: British Limbless Ex-Servicemen' s Association payments

  Source:

  The figures are consistent with those published in the Departmental Report 1999.

  Benefits
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his most recent estimate of the number of people receiving each of the benefits administered by his Department. [92375]

  Mr. Timms
  The numbers of recipients of each of the benefits administered by the Department are shown in the table.
  581

  Benefit

  Number of recipients (Thousand)

  Date

  Sample size (per cent.)

  Reduced earnings allowance1

  157

  April 1998

  10

  Severe disablement allowance

  372

  November 1998

  5

  State retirement pension3

  10,867

  March 1999

  5

  War pensions4,5,6

  302

  June 1999

  100

  Widows benefit

  268

  March 1999

  5

  1 Provisional figures

  2 Jobseeker's allowance represents all those claiming unemployment-related benefits. This includes Jobseeker's allowance (contributory), Jobseeker's allowance (income based) and those with National Insurance credits only.

  3 Figures are for all pensioners resident in GB and also overseas.

  4 Figures relate to payments made to war pensioners in the United Kingdom and overseas.

  5 Figures are based on management information supplied by the War Pensions Agency.

  6 Figures include war disablement pensions, war widows pensions and child allowances.

  Note:

  Earnings top-up figures are excluded, as it is a pilot benefit.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Regional Chambers
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will designate the remaining regional chambers. [92872]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am pleased to announce that we have today issued:a direction to the South East of England Regional Development Agency designating the South East of England Regional Assembly as its regional chamber;
  a direction to the East of England Development Agency designating the East of England Regional Assembly as its regional chamber; and
  a direction to the South West of England Regional Development Agency designating the South West Regional Chamber as its regional chamber.

  Section 8 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 provides that if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that there is a body which is representative of those in the RDAs area with an interest in its work, and that body is suitable to be given the role of regional chamber for the RDA, he may designate it.

  RDAs must take full account of regional interests. Regional chambers will provide a mechanism through which RDAs can take account of regional views and account for their activities. Ministers expect that each RDA will have regard to the chamber's view in preparing its strategy, consult the chamber on its corporate plan and give an account of its performance to the chamber.

  I am currently considering an application for designation from the remaining region and hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Secondary Materials (Waste Strategy)
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the results of the work commissioned by the Government into policy instruments to correct market failures in the demand for secondary materials, referred to in the draft Waste Strategy for England and Wales, will be published. [92880]

  Mr. Meale
  The report of the research commissioned by my Department from independent work commissioned by my Department from independent consultants 582
  ECOTEC Research and Consulting into "Policy Instruments to Correct Market Failure in the Demand for Secondary Materials" was published this week.

  The Government will consider this work further and we would welcome views on the report as part of the draft waste strategy consultation by 17 September 1999. The results of this consultation exercise will help to inform the development of the final waste strategy.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Energy Efficiency
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made by Government Departments towards the target of improving energy efficiency by 20 per cent. in the nine years to 31 March 2000. [92881]

  Mr. Meale
  By 31 March 1998, energy efficiency in Government Departments had improved by just over 18 per cent. since 1990–91, as measured by the Total Cost Indicator.

  Full details are given in the tables which have been placed in the Library; the overall estate improvement is shown in Table 4. The tables give a summary.

  The tables include revisions to figures for earlier years revealing better performance than previously reported. In particular, the 1996–97 figure for the Army has been revised to take account of a large estate increase which had been inadvertently omitted, and this restores not only the Army's own steady progress but that of the whole government estate, to 17.5 per cent. instead of to 15.1 per cent. as previously reported in that year.

  Energy management in individual Departments is a matter for those Departments and their Green Minister. However, the Government aim to be at the forefront of good practice to improve energy efficiency, and progress is reviewed regularly by Green Ministers under the Chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. We have developed and are now piloting new performance indicators which will, for the first time, enable comparisons with independent standards of good practice across the economy. These are likely to form the basis of the new campaign starting in April 2000.

  The results for the former Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport have now been consolidated for all earlier years to allow a

  583
  continuous series for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. DETR's overall performance in 1997–98 has slipped relative to 1996–97 as a result of the continuing relocation and rationalisation of its accommodation in London and elsewhere, in particular,

  Summary table: Government estate: energy efficiency performance1,16

  Performance against energy and cost indicators, relative to 1990–91 (positive, figures represent percentage progress)

  Adjusted for estate and weather correction

  Adjused for weather changes only

  Fossil fuel

  Electricity

  Total kWh

  Total cost

  CO2

  Total CO2

  Civil departments, including agencies

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  MAFF—Main Estate4

  48

  48

  -12

  -11

  35

  35

  14

  14

  19

  20

  5

  24

  MAFF—Laboratories4

  16

  25

  I

  8

  12

  20

  6

  14

  17

  24

  22

  -36

  Cabinet Office

  29

  32

  -47

  -31

  10

  17

  -17

  -6

  -4

  10

  -65

  -52

  Culture, Media and Sport10

  2

  -33

  -20

  -4

  -8

  -19

  -16

  -10

  -15

  -11

  -15

  -11

  Customs and Excise

  43

  29

  3

  6

  25

  19

  11

  11

  16

  15

  -17

  -15

  Education and Employment

  28

  28

  -27

  -22

  2

  4

  -17

  -13

  -13

  -9

  -2

  7

  Employment Service

  18

  23

  -15

  -16

  9

  12

  -3

  -2

  0

  1

  -8

  -5

  Environment, Transport and Regions5

  41

  31

  8

  3

  30

  22

  18

  12

  23

  17

  38

  37

  DETR—HSE6

  15

  39

  22

  11

  18

  29

  20

  19

  24

  25

  26

  29

  DETR—QEII CC2,6

  -8

  -7

  -1

  9

  -3

  3

  -1

  7

  1

  9

  1

  9

  FCO

  16

  8

  -33

  -17

  -4

  -2

  -22

  -11

  -14

  -5

  -24

  -35

  Health7

  41

  35

  -75

  -83

  -3

  -10

  -46

  -53

  -32

  -39

  -14

  -21

  Home Office17

  5

  17

  -1

  3

  3

  13

  1

  7

  3

  11

  5

  9

  Home Office—Prisons2

  15

  10

  -20

  -19

  11

  6

  1

  -2

  13

  9

  -2

  -7

  Inland Revenue

  12

  -3

  17

  19

  14

  3

  16

  13

  17

  14

  28

  31

  International Development9

  29

  32

  38

  36

  32

  33

  35

  35

  35

  35

  68

  68

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  30

  37

  6

  11

  23

  29

  14

  20

  17

  23

  0

  -6

  National Savings

  4

  16

  28

  32

  17

  24

  24

  29

  24

  30

  28

  37

  Northern Ireland

  16

  18

  7

  12

  13

  16

  10

  14

  12

  16

  -1

  -1

  Scottish Office8

  19

  33

  -38

  -26

  4

  17

  -17

  -4

  -4

  8

  10

  25

  Scottish Court Service8

  39

  35

  36

  30

  38

  34

  37

  32

  38

  34

  14

  -2

  Scottish Prison Service

  11

  0

  -12

  -12

  9

  12

  3

  5

  5

  9

  0

  -2

  Social Security11

  18

  17

  -18

  0

  9

  12

  -5

  6

  -1

  9

  -21

  -12

  Trade and Industry

  71

  74

  27

  40

  56

  62

  40

  49

  43

  52

  65

  69

  Treasury

  17

  7

  -14

  -8

  8

  3

  -4

  -3

  0

  -1

  -13

  -14

  Welsh Office

  32

  49

  -4

  -18

  16

  19

  3

  -4

  7

  1

  24

  21

  Total

  20.8

  18.3

  -1.6

  3,2

  15.3

  14.6

  7.2

  9.1

  12.5

  14.0

  6.1

  5.6

  Summary table: Government estate: energy efficiency performance12, 13

  Percentage reduction relative to 1990–91 (positive, figures represent percentage progress)

  Adjusted for estate and weather correction

  Adjused for weather changes only

  Fossil fuel

  Electricity

  Total kWh

  Total cost

  CO2

  Total CO2

  Ministry of Defence

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Civil

  35

  59

  5

  -2

  25

  38

  14

  15

  9

  24

  0

  4

  Navy

  37

  37

  41

  40

  38

  38

  40

  39

  43

  42

  30

  30

  Army

  11

  17

  27

  26

  14

  19

  20

  22

  21

  24

  18

  20

  RAF

  26

  26

  14

  14

  23

  23

  19

  19

  20

  20

  29

  30

  Procurement Executive14

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  DERA

  -17

  -27

  -15

  8

  -16

  -11

  -15

  I

  -15

  0

  -15

  -17

  MOD Total

  20.3

  23.5

  23.6

  21.4

  21.1

  23.0

  22.2

  22.3

  24.1

  24.8

  22.8

  23.4

  Grand Total

  20.5

  21.9

  15.4

  15.5

  19.3

  20.4

  17.5

  18.1

  20.5

  17.6

  17.6

  17.9

  1 Progress is expressed as a percentage relative to the 1990–91 base year value of the performance indicator in question. Positive figures represent improvement. The standard indicator, against which the target to improve energy efficiency by 20 per cent. by 31 March 2000 is measured, is obtained by weather-correcting energy consumption and converting to costs using 'standard prices' for fuel (6p/kWh for electricity and 1.25p/kWh for all fossil fuels) then dividing by floor area. Conversation to money both reflects the relative costs of electricity and fossil fuel and their environmental impact, and the use of fixed prices eliminates the effects of tariff changes which distort the comparison of fuel bills.

  2 Although figures have been prepared on a consistent basis, caution should be exercised in comparing the energy use of different Departments and Agencies because of differences in their estate and the nature of their work. For example, the operational needs of prisons and the QEII Conference Centre mean that they have a pattern of energy use which is different from that of a Department which has predominantly office accommodation. Expenditure on energy and investment figures are included for information only. Investment figures relate to clearly identifiable energy efficiency measures undertaken by Departments. Energy efficiency is an integral part of all major construction projects, including building refurbishment and plant replacement and the figure '0' for some Departments does not necessarily mean there has been no investment, just that the investment was not clearly identifiable.

  3 The average performance figure for the civil estate cannot be derived by simply adding together the individual Departmental progress and dividing by the number of Departments because this does not allow for the large variations in consumption. The correct figure is obtained by calculating the value of the performance indicator for the year in question and the base year, for the civil estate as a whole, and calculating the reduction relative to the base year.

  4 The energy performance for MAFF's 'Main estate' and its 'Laboratories' continues to improve through ongoing investment in energy schemes, monitoring of energy at local level and taking appropriate action as well as central initiatives including continued staff awareness programmes.

  584
  the need to run a number of old and new buildings in parallel while changes took place. However, the Department's two new headquarters buildings at Eland House and Ashdown House were fully occupied by the end of March 1998 so future results should reflect this.
  585

  5 The DETR's figures have been compiled from the former Environment and Transport Departments. The Department now has a greater proportion of air-conditioned buildings than in the base year, because of estate rationalisation, relocation to new HQ buildings and inclusion of some Government Offices for the Regions. Performance in 1997–98 was adversely affected by parallel operation of both old and new buildings while staff moved from one to the other.

  6 HSE was removed from the DfEE estate on the formation of that Department. QEII Conference Centre is reported separately because of its business led demands. The initial sharp rise in consumption following the 1990–91 base year was directly attributable to increased revenue earning activity, which has continued throughout the reporting period, and the more recent decline in consumption reflects the effect of energy conservation measures undertaken at the site.

  7 Rationalisation of the estate since the base year has led to staff moving from several naturally ventilated buildings to more densely occupied air-conditioned buildings, all equipped with information technology equipment.

  8 Base year is 1991–92.

  9 Base year in 1991–92. Data for Natural Resources Institute no longer included following its transfer to the University of Greenwich.

  10 Base year is 1994–95 by which time energy efficient lighting and other improvements already installed in buildings which are already fully air-conditioned with intensive IT usage.

  11 Workload is increasing, affecting occupancy and requiring offices to be occupied for longer, increasing the use of energy. Greater use of information technology, expansion of the use of air conditioning and the upgrading of lighting levels has increased electricity consumption.

  12 The Ministry of Defence (MOD) estate is different from the rest of the Government estate, and has been undergoing more radical changes. It is therefore treated in a slightly different way. In common with the civil estate, it has greatly increased its use of information technology.

  13 In civil departments, the effect of estate changes is allowed for by dividing consumption by floor area. In MOD, floor area is sometimes not meaningful (e.g. in relation to security or runway lighting) and also not often available, so estate changes are allowed for by being explicitly excluded from the calculations, i.e. the energy consumption of new facilities is removed, and for facilities no longer part of the estate, the consumption for the last full year of operation is added back. In most cases, such changes are small compared to the total and can often approximately cancel each other out.

  14 It is almost impossible to produce any meaningful results to date for MOD's Procurement Executive (PE) since it has suffered major estate gains and losses over the past 10 years and now consists largely of one recently built large office. The standard MOD methodology produces a meaningless 'no change' result (since the present estate is almost entirely different from the original).

  15 This shows the combined results for the whole of the Government estate based on the data in tables 1,2 and 3. It is not a simple average of the data, but reflects the proportion of total consumption represented by each part of the estate (see also note 3). Some Departments have a different base year, and the individually agreed base year has been used for the purposes of this table, where appropriate.

  16 In some instances the base year is not 1990–91, but for the purposes of tables 2 and 5 the agreed base year has been used in the calculation.

  17 The figures quoted here for the Home Office have been weather-corrected in the same way as for all departments. Figures quoted elsewhere were provisional, not yet weather-corrected and therefore showed higher apparent progress.

  Ryedale District Council
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide financial assistance to Ryedale District Council under the Bellwin scheme for costs incurred following the severe flooding between 5 and 14 March. [92882]

  Mr. Meale
  I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified in the case of Ryedale District Council given the exceptional nature of the floods and the damage caused. A scheme will, therefore, be established under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Grant will be paid to the authority to cover 85 per cent. of the eligible costs above a threshold which have been incurred by the authority in dealing with the flooding.

  Building Standards
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to promote high standards of service from local authority building control departments and private sector approved inspectors. [93019]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department and the National Assembly for Wales are today publishing 'Building Control Performance Standards', on behalf of the Construction Industry Council, the Local Government Association and the Association of Corporate Approved Inspectors, whose Building Control Services Steering Group drew up the document.

  Building Control Performance Standards' sets out a series of eleven standards for the good conduct of building control, together with guidance to go with each of these standards.
  586
  The eleven standards in the new document cover:
  the need for building control bodies to draw up, and make public, a policy on the provision of their building control service in a manner that meets their legal duties and is effective in helping to achieve compliance of building work with the Building Regulations;
  the need for building control bodies to have adequate staff resources, supplemented if necessary by bought in support;
  the need for building control bodies to undertake appropriate consultations with other agencies;
  the need for clear feed back to the client following plans assessment, and for records of the plan checking process;
  the need for appropriate site inspection regimes, and prompt action on contraventions, with associated records;
  the need for appropriate certificates to be given to the direct client upon satisfactory completion of the work;
  the need for retention of records for an appropriate period;
  the need for suitable arrangements for continuous professional development and in-service training;
  the need for procedures for self review of performance; the need for adoption of quality management principles;
  the need for building control bodies to observe the normal professional standards and business ethics expected of service providers.

  Competition between local authority building control departments and approved inspectors is an important spur to efficiency, and beneficial to the builders and developers who are the immediate clients for the building control service. Building control must also be effective in helping to secure the compliance of building work with the requirements of the Building Regulations, which exist to promote the health, safety, welfare and convenience of building users, as well as energy efficiency.
  587
  Building Control Performance Standards' recognises that the building control function is the same whether it is carried out by a local authority or by an approved inspector. It sets out the ways in which all building control providers can work to achieve effective and efficient levels of service.

  My Department is writing today to local authorities in England and to approved inspectors to ask them to commit themselves to adopt and apply the performance standards and have regard to the associated guidance. The National Assembly for Wales is taking parallel action in Wales. The Local Government Association and the Construction Industry Council will be monitoring the response of local authorities and approved inspectors to this initiative.

  Officials of my Department and the National Assembly for Wales will be discussing with the Construction Industry Council, the Local Government Association, the Association of Corporate Approved Inspectors and other interested parties including the District Surveyors' Association and the Audit Commission, arrangements for a new advisory body on building control. This body will keep the performance standards and guidance under review and revise them as necessary. It will work with the bodies responsible for monitoring standards of service on the part of local authorities and approved inspectors, to maintain and raise building control standards.

  Supporting People Policy
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the Government intend to carry forward the implementation of their Supporting People policy. [93020]

  Mr. Prescott
  To ensure the most effective support for people living in our communities who need it, I am establishing a new reference group to work with the Government on implementing our 'Supporting People' policy.

  This is a cross-Government initiative, which will be co-ordinated by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). It will work closely with the Departments of Health and Social Security, the Home Office and other parts of Government.

  The reference group will comprise individuals nominated by organisations representing local authorities, other statutory agencies, service providers, and those using support services. In due course we will also be inviting a number of people with experience of day-to-day operation of the services to participate in a small Practitioners' Group. By working closely with interested parties to develop the detail of the new arrangements, my Department will ensure that our long-term objective becomes a workable and effective reality.

  The introduction of the new funding arrangements for support services were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security in March, following extensive consultation.

  We received more than 500 responses to our "Supporting People" consultation paper. They showed strong support for the principles underlying our proposals, and recognition that, for the first time, the provision of support services is being given the priority it deserves.
  588
  I am today publishing a summary of responses to the consultation. Copies are being placed in the Library of the House, and will be sent to all those who responded.

  The consultation responses will assist the ongoing work to develop and implement the new, funding arrangements. These will ensure that many thousands of people will get the cost-effective and high quality services they need, to live dignified and independent lives.

  Greater London Authority Elections
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has decided to proceed in negotiations with any of the companies which expressed interest in providing electronic equipment for use in the Greater London Authority elections. [93063]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The London Mayor and Assembly elections on 4 May 2000—subject to Parliamentary approval—provide an excellent opportunity to introduce a more up-to-date system of counting of votes, more in keeping with modern technology and systems.

  Following my announcement on 5 July 1999, Official Report, column 378; of our shortlist of potential suppliers of electronic equipment for the London Mayor and Assembly elections, we have been considering in more detail the equipment on offer from these suppliers. If the count for the London elections next year—which will comprise three ballots—is conducted in the traditional manual manner, it could take up to three days. That is why I am particularly pleased that three of the suppliers have offered electronic counting equipment. These machines have the capacity to scan many thousands of ballot papers an hour and so could reduce the count to a matter of hours. They are also more accurate than manual systems. We have therefore decided to proceed in negotiation with the three suppliers offering electronic counting equipment: Data & Research Services plc; Election Systems & Software Inc. with Unisys Ltd.; and Smurfit Ltd.

  The final decision on whether to award a contract is likely to be made in September when the proposals have been fully evaluated. We will be looking for value for money, and we will need to be absolutely confident that the chosen method is accurate and efficient. All the equipment we are considering has been tried and tested in elections elsewhere.

  River Tweed
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library the scientific advice received from English Nature concerning the notification of the River Tweed as a candidate special area of conservation under the European Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora. [88617]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: With the agreement of the Scottish Executive, I have placed in the Library of the House a paper written by the Chief Scientist of Scottish Natural Heritage (English Nature's equivalent in Scotland) in 1995 setting out a scientific analysis of the case for proposal of the River Tweed as a Special Area of Conservation. That document is the best summary of the agency's advice. The Government and the

  589
  statutory nature conservation agencies subsequently discussed the various scientific factors which had to be taken into account in making a decision about whether to propose the site to the European Commission as a candidate Special Area of Conservation.

  The Government concluded that the River Tweed should not be proposed to the European Commission as a candidate Special Area of Conservation. The Government believed that there were a number of reasons why, applying the criteria for site selection specified in the Habitats Directive, the River Tweed was not an outstanding candidate for Special Area of Conservation status for Atlantic salmon. These included the relatively poor state of the spawning salmon stock, the very substantial modification by man of the watercourse, and discharges into the river environment. The Government have proposed five other rivers to the European Commission as candidate Special Areas of Conservation for salmon, which we believe better meet the selection criteria of the Habitats Directive.

  The implementation of the Habitats Directive in Scotland is now a matter for the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive.

  London Underground
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the likely impact on(a) numbers of trains run and (b) passenger kilometres of the closure of (i) the Circle Line during summer 1999, (ii) part of the Northern Line during summer 1999, (iii) part of the Bakerloo Line during autumn 1999 and (iv) part of the Victoria Line during autumn 1999. [90850]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This is a matter for London Underground. However, I understand that the impact on the number of trains run will be as follows:

  (i) The Circle Line has been suspended for essential safety work until 16 August 1999. Additional trains are operating on the Hammersmith and City Line and two extra trains on the District Line.

  (ii) 12 fewer trains than normal are operating on the Northern Line during peak periods. There are four fewer trains than normal at the weekends. This is to allow for essential maintenance and upgrading.

  (iii) No trains will run south of Victoria and there will be a reduced peak service on the rest of the line. The off-peak service north of Victoria will be as normal.

  London Underground inform me they have not assessed the impact of these closures on passenger kilometres.
  590
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce women-only carriages on London Underground. [91494]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This Government takes the problem of crime on the underground very seriously and we are pleased to see that it has halved over the last decade.

  Introducing women-only carriages would be a matter for London Underground. I understand that they are expanding their CCTV network, upgrading the system at stations and introducing cameras to trains and other crime prevention measures.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many extra District Line trains have run since the closure of parts of the Circle Line. [91088]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 14 July 1999]: This is a matter for London Underground, but I understand that, from 5 July 1999, London Underground have been operating two additional trains throughout the day on the District Line between Putney Bridge and Mansion House.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the average daily passenger figures for the Circle Line connecting(a) Tower Hill and Aldgate and (b) Gloucester Road and High Street Kensington over the last 12 months. [91051]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 14 July 1999]: This is a matter for London Underground. However, I understand that the average number of daily passenger journeys between these stations over the last 12 months was:

  Number

  Gloucester Road to High Street Kensington

  29,000

  High Street Kensington to Gloucester Road

  24,000

  Total

  53,000

  Aldgate to Tower Hill

  23,000

  Tower Hill to Aldgate

  21,000

  Total

  44,000

  Circle Line services have been suspended to allow London Underground to complete the long overdue safety-related engineering works. Service disruption is always disappointing, but safety is, quite rightly, London Transport's top priority.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the level of provision of fire extinguishers on the London Underground. [91720]

  Mrs. Liddell
  London Underground operates under one of the toughest safety regimes of any underground metro system. Any changes to the provision of fire extinguishers on the underground are subject to the approval of Her Majesty's Rail Inspectorate.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total passenger capacity in either direction between Moorgate station and Kennington station of(a) Northern Line services between Monday 28 June and Friday 2 July and (b) Northern Line replacement bus services between Monday 5 July and Friday 9 July. [91518]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 15 July 1999]: This is an operational matter for London Underground. Figures are not available to compare alternative passenger services. However, I understand that while bus services between Moorgate and Kennington have been busy in peak periods, there is sufficient capacity available to cope with the demand. Additional buses are on standby, if necessary.
  591
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if temperature levels on tubes during Thursday 8 July exceeded Health and Safety Executive limits. [91526]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 15 July 1999]: This is a matter for London Underground. I understand that the Health and Safety Executive does not set temperature limits for the tube.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if works on the Circle Line are running according to timetable; and if full Circle Line services will resume on 16 August. [91520]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 15 July 1999]: This is a matter for London Underground, but I understand works are running to timetable and that LU anticipate resuming a full Circle Line service on 16 August, as planned.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if works on the Northern Line are running according to timetable; and if full Northern Line Bank branch services will resume on 6 September. [91521]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 15 July 1999]: This is a matter for London Underground, but I understand works on the Northern Line are on schedule and services should resume on Monday 6 September, as planned.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people travelled in either direction between Moorgate station and Kennington station or intermediate stations using(a) Northern Line underground services between Monday 28 June and Friday 2 July and (b) Northern Line replacement bus services between Monday 5 July and Friday 9 July. [91519]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 15 July 1999]: This is an operational matter for London Underground. However, I understand that many of the passengers who would normally use this section of the Northern Line have access to underground services, including the 15 per cent. extra trains on the Northern Line Charing Cross branch.

  Before the temporary closure, 75,000 journeys were made daily on the Northern Line between Moorgate and Kennington. In the first week after the closure, 10,000 people a day used the replacement and existing services along the route.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on air conditioning on London Underground trains; and if he will make a statement. [91523]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 15 July 1999]: This is a matter for London Underground, but I understand that air conditioning would not only be extremely expensive to install, but would cause severe operational constraints, particularly on the deep tube lines. However, LU are looking at various methods of cooling trains and tunnels, and this will include air conditioning where appropriate.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many complaints were received by London Underground on Thursday 8 July about excessive temperatures on tube trains; and if he will make a statement. [91525]
  592
  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 15 July 1999]: This is a matter for London Underground. I understand that they received a total of 20 complaints about the high temperatures on tube trains on Thursday 8 July.

  I appreciate passengers' frustration at the high temperatures that can occur on tube trains on very hot days and understand that London Underground are looking at ways of cooling trains and tunnels.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with London Underground regarding service(a) on the Piccadilly Line and (b) at Arnos Grove Station. [91444]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 21 July 1999]: Piccadilly Line services are an operational matter for London Underground. However, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London does meet with the managing director of LU every month, when they discuss tube services, including the Piccadilly Line.

  Neither myself nor other Ministers have specifically discussed services at Arnos Grove with LU. However, I understand that LU have developed a scheme to reduce congestion at this station and are currently considering how best to take this forward.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on experiments in the genetic modification of plants so that honey from their nectar produces medicinally valuable products. [90721]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]: I have received no applications for consent to release this type of genetically modified (GM) plant. Any such applications would be subject to a scientific assessment of risk carried out case-by-case on the basis of an environmental risk assessment. It is likely that any such experiments would be carried out in containment.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the maximum number of fields and the maximum field size that will be permitted in the farm scale trials of genetically modified oil seed rape, maize and sugar beet; and which body will determine these numbers and sizes. [91415]

  Mr. Meale
  The farm scale evaluations of the impact of the management of genetically modified (GM) herbicide tolerant oilseed rape and maize on farmland are being guided by an independent scientific steering committee. The steering committee will determine the number of fields necessary to ensure the statistical validity of the study. Preliminary analysis has indicated that 20 paired comparisons of each crop in each year will be sufficient, although more detailed analysis of the appropriate sample size was called for by the steering committee and it may be necessary to revise the number in the light of this.

  In the current research programme, the intention is to carry out ecological studies in a realistic cropping scenario, that is within fields of a size representative of UK agricultural practices. A size of about 10 ha was chosen; in the case of maize, many fields are likely to be smaller—about 6–7 ha and, in the case of oilseed rape, fields may be larger than 10 ha.

  593
  Sugar beet is not being grown as part of the programme this year.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the farm scale test sites planned for autumn 1999 and the crops to be grown; if interim test results from earlier trials will be available before their planting; and if he will make a statement. [92095]

  Mr. Meale
  The release of genetically modified autumn sown oilseed rape will be carried out under a consent granted to AgrEvo. The legislation requires that the proposed sites are advertised in a local newspaper and that my Department discloses the locations on the public register. The sites for this autumn's releases have not yet been selected.

  It is unlikely that interim results will be available before the autumn sown crops are planted. The ecological studies being carried out in the spring sown crops are still being gathered and will continue to be gathered after harvest. Analysis of the results will then be carried out and reviewed by the Scientific Steering Group at their next meeting in October. It is not considered necessary to have the results of the wildlife studies in the spring sown crops before sowing the autumn sown crops. The different sowing times influence the wildlife in a crop quite significantly and great care needs to be taken in the interpretation of the results in this respect.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to repeal United Kingdom rules on bus and coach drivers' hours and apply EU rules to all operations. [91490]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government said in the Transport White Paper that it would consult the industry on legislation to bring most of the operations subject to the UK rules on drivers' hours within the scope of the European Union rules.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he plans to extend the Working Time Directive to the road transport sector. [91491]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The road transport sector is covered by two proposals on Working Time from the European Commission. The first (taken in the Social Affairs Council) amends the existing Directive to include all transport sectors except maritime. The Council has now reached political agreement on this proposal, but it is subject to the co-decision procedure with the European Parliament and therefore subject to final approval.

  The second proposal introduces further specific provisions, aimed at the road transport sector, on the average and maximum weekly limits; rest periods; provisions on night working; and derogations. These proposals are currently under discussion in the Transport Council.

  Buses
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many new bus registrations there were in England in(a) 1994, (b), 1995, (c), 1996, (d), 1997, (e) 1998 and (f) 1999 to date; [91394]

  (2) how many bus service registrations have been rejected by the Traffic Commissioners in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [91416]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The figures for new bus registrations are as follows:

  Financial year

  Registrations in England and Wales1

  1994–95

  4,917

  1995–96

  4,493

  1996–97

  4,465

  1997–98

  4,302

  1998–99

  5,169

  1 Prior to 1 May 1999, when an all Wales Traffic Area was established, the only dat on new bus registrations readily available covers both England and Wales.

  Note:

  During the period from 1 April to 30 June 1999 there were 1,088 new registrations. In the 12 months to June 1999, three applications for new bus service registration had been rejected.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of the total bus subsidy in England supports services operating in(a) metropolitan areas, (b) non-metropolitan areas and (c) Greater London. [91407]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are two elements of bus service subsidy: the support of services by local authorities from their own resources, for socially necessary services; and Fuel Duty Rebate (FDR), which is paid by central Government directly to the bus operators for the local bus services they operate. Figures for local authority support for 1997–98 (the latest year figures are currently available for) are:

  £ million

  Percentage

  Metropolitan areas

  98

  53

  Non-metropolitan areas

  86

  47

  Total

  184

  —

  Subsidy for buses in Greater London is provided as part of the London Transport grant. In 1997–98 London Transport buses made a gross operating profit of £0.1 million.

  The figure for FDR support in England in 1998–99 was £224.5 million. Statistics are not kept on the split of this total between services in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas and Greater London.

  A5 Nesscliffe Bypass
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the A5 Nesscliffe bypass, Shropshire, will be built; and if he will make a statement. [91540]
  595
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As we announced on 10 December 1998,Official Report, columns 251–53, work on the A5 Nesscliffe bypass will start in 2001–02.

  The orders fixing the line of the road have been made and will be published on 5 August. The Compulsory Purchase Order will be made early next year. Procedures to acquire the land necessary to construct the scheme can then begin. Final confirmation of the precise start date will be subject to the satisfactory completion of the necessary contract process.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) of the new bus lanes created on(a) trunk roads and (b) non-trunk roads in England since 2 May 1997, how many were additional to existing carriageway lanes; and how many reduced the number of lanes available to other vehicles; [91522]

  (2) how many new bus lanes have been created on (a) trunk roads and (b) non-trunk roads in England, since 2 May 1997. [91429]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 15 July 1999]: Since 2 May 1997, 14 new bus lanes have been created on trunk roads. Seven of these involved additional carriageway lanes and seven reduced the number of lanes available for other vehicles.

  Non-trunk roads are the responsibility of the local highway authority. Information is not kept in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Road Noise
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance his Department has issued in respect of the use of whisper concrete or asphalt for road construction and resurfacing projects in(a) rural areas and (b) urban areas; and if he will make a statement. [91913]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Peter Pike, dated 22 July 1999:
  The Transport Minister, Glenda Jackson, has asked me to reply to your recent question about guidance issued in respect of the use of whisper concrete or asphalt for road construction and resurfacing projects in either rural areas or in urban areas.
  Guidance on the use of both whisper concrete and asphalt for use in trunk road construction and maintenance is contained in two separate publications. General guidance over surfacing alternatives is given in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 7, HD 36/99. While specifications for these materials is included in the Manual of Contract Documents, Volume 1 and 2. No distinction is made between their use in rural and urban areas as the choice of surfacing is based on the particular requirements for each road. Both documents are published and available in the House of Commons library.
  If you require further information I suggest that you contact the Agency's Group Manager responsible for road surfacing, Graham Bowskill. He can be contacted on 0171 921 4746 and is familiar with both whisper concrete and asphalt road surfaces.
  596
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the impact of noise from motorways and high speed roads in(a) urban areas and (b) rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [91912]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government have been well aware of concern about the level of traffic noise arising from motorways and other high speed roads. Our proposals for dealing with the problem arising from those roads for which the Secretary of State has responsibility were explained in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England". We announced the annual budget which was being ring-fenced for this purpose on 22 March 1999,Official Report, columns 50–51, together with criteria which would target the most serious and pressing cases.

  The Highways Agency has assessed a number of locations where traffic noise had been a particular cause for concern against the sift criteria. The Agency will shortly be undertaking detailed studies of those locations meeting the criteria where there are no immediate plans to replace the existing road surface with a quieter one. The studies are necessary to discover the most appropriate means of dealing with the problem. There has been no differentiation between urban and rural areas, but the studies will take into account the proximity of housing to the road.

  The Agency has also made good progress in the use of lower noise surfaces when maintenance is due on existing roads. Approximately three quarters of maintenance contracts undertaken since last year have used these new surfaces.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the guidance(a) he and (b) his Green Minister have issued concerning the introduction of low and nil emission fuel technology into the Department's vehicle fleet. [90693]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: My Department is committed to reducing the environmental impact of its own transport activities, through the implementation of green transport plans. One important aspect of our plan for DETR headquarters is to reduce business car use and its associated emissions to a minimum. My Department is producing guidance on greener vehicles and cleaner fuels to include in our "Green Guide for Buyers", which was distributed across government in February 1998. Both DETR's green transport plan for its headquarters and the buyers' guide can be found on the Internet at www.environment.detr.gov.uk.

  Local Government Act 1988
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made with his plans to repeal section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988; and if he will make a statement. [91986]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government have made a clear commitment to repeal section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, and plan to do so as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

  Appointments (Quangos)
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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. [92043]

  Mr. MealeMr. Singh
  The Secretary of State has made the following appointments to NDPBs, nationalised industries and public corporations sponsored by the Department:

  1 June 1997 to 31 May 1999

  1 June 1998 to 31 May 1998

  NDPBs:

  Executive

  71

  207

  Advisory

  75

  110

  Tribunals

  132

  207

  Nationalised Industries

  3

  9

  Public Corporation

  3

  5

  Total

  284

  538

  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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. [92114]

  Mr. Meale
  The Secretary of State has appointed the following ethnic minority candidates to NDPBs, nationalised industries and public corporations sponsored by the Department:

  1 June 1997 31 May 1998 to

  1 June 1998 to 31 May 1999

  Asian Community

  7

  15

  Other ethnic minorities

  10

  13

  Total

  17

  28

  Full details of the Department's plan on equal opportunities are contained in "Quangos, Opening Up Public Appointments 1999–2002", published by the Government on 25 May 1999, a copy of which is deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. This sets out

  £ million

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Land and Property Programme

  79.8

  82.0

  64.0

  Total NWDA administration budget, including for the land and property programme

  12.1

  11.9

  11.9

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many non-United Kingdom passport holders have made an application to take a UK driving test in each of the last five years. [92024]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 21 July 1999]: We do not collect those data.
  598
  our goals and objectives for improving representation of women, people from ethnic minority groups and people with disabilities.

  Official Documents
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish a list of all those official 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. [92179]

  Mr. Meale
  [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.

  English Partnerships
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the budget for English Partnerships in the North West of England in each year since 1994; and what are the proposed budgets for the next three years. [91462]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 21 July 1999]: English Partnerships' budget for the North West from 1994 to 1999 was as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Administration and running costs

  Land and Property Programme

  Total

  1994–95

  n/a

  49.5

  49.5

  1995–96

  5.1

  51.1

  56.2

  1996–97

  6.1

  49.8

  55.9

  1997–98

  6.3

  78.1

  84.4

  1998–99

  6.2

  95.0

  101.2

  The proposed land and property programme for the North West for the next three years is as follows. The administration costs have been subsumed within those for the North West Development Agency (NWDA).

  Songbirds
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make representations to the French Government about its extensions to the season for shooting songbirds. [92414]

  Mr. Meale
  The measures member states should take to protect wild birds, including the extent of hunting seasons, are laid out in the EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC). It is the responsibility of the European
  599
  Commission to ensure that member states comply with the provisions of EC Directives, and my Department supports the Commission in this aim.

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the proportion of municipal waste incinerated with energy/heat recovery in each of the past 10 years; and what targets he has set for the next 10 years. [92075]

  Mr. Meale
  Reliable surveys of municipal waste arisings, and the management options selected for those wastes, have been conducted since 1995–96. The figures for the quantities of municipal waste incinerated are as follows:

  Percentage

  Waste management option

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1996–98

  Incineration with energy recovery

  5

  5

  6

  Incineration without energy recovery

  4

  3

  0.2

  The Government published their draft waste strategy for England and Wales, "A Way With Waste", on 30 June 1999. Within the draft strategy, the following targets and goals are identified:
  to recover 45 per cent. of municipal waste by 2010 (with a target of 40 per cent. recovery by 2005);
  to recycle or compost 30 per cent. of household waste by 2010 (with a target of recycling or composting 25 per cent. of household waste as soon as possible).

  A511 Bypass
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the prospects for the completion of the A511 bypass around Ashby-de-la-Zouch. [92077]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Leicestershire County Council, along with all other local highway authorities, will be submitting its Local Transport Plan (LTP) by the end of July. If the bypass is included in the Council's LTP, my Department will very carefully consider the case for it against competing bids for major new schemes and other areas of expenditure. The announcement of the local transport settlement is due to be made shortly before Christmas.

  A6 Bypass
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the prospects for an A6 bypass around Kegworth, Leicestershire. [92078]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The proposal for an A6 Kegworth bypass is to be considered as part of the Multi-Modal Study looking at North-South movements in the East Midlands which came about as part of the Roads Review. The study is due to start in the autumn and will take approximately two years to complete.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the levels of vehicle excise duty are for 40 tonne lorries in other EU countries in 1999–2000. [91117]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government do not hold this information. However, the Department has recently commissioned research on lorry VED rates for the EC member states.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the average time for a substantive reply to be sent to hon. Members' correspondence; what proportion takes more than(a) four weeks, (b) six weeks and (c) eight weeks; and what is his estimate of the number of letters received in a year from hon. Members. [92448]

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

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the average time for a substantive reply to be sent to hon. Members' correspondence; what proportion takes more than(a) four weeks, (b) six weeks and (c) eight weeks; and what is her estimate of the number of letters received in a year from hon. Members. [92447]

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

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Union Council
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for August and list the major European Union events for the next six months. [93021]
  601
  Ms Quin
  European Calendar: August 1999-January 2000
  This calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.

  August 1999

  No Council Business

  September 1999

  4–5 Saariselka Foreign Ministers (Informal)

  10–12 Turku ECOFIN (Informal)

  12–14 Tampere Agriculture Ministers (Informal)

  12–14 Brussels General Affairs Council

  13–17 Strasbourg European Parliament Plenary

  16–17 Turku Justice and Home Affairs Ministers (Informal)

  24–25 Tampere Education Ministers (Informal)

  27–28 Kuopio Ministers of Housing

  27–28 Brussels Agriculture Council

  30 September-1 October Helsinki Ministerial Conference on Equality between Women and Men

  October 1999

  Florence Trade Ministers (Informal)

  4–5 Luxembourg Justice and Home Affairs Council

  4–5 Tampere Regional Policy Ministers

  4–8 Strasbourg European Parliament Plenary

  6 Luxembourg Transport Council

  7 Luxembourg Internal Market

  8 Luxembourg ECOFIN

  11–12 Luxembourg General Affairs Council

  12 Luxembourg Environment Council

  15–16 Tampere Special European Council

  18–19 Luxembourg Agriculture Council

  22 Luxembourg Labour/Social Affairs Council

  24–25 Helsinki Energy Ministers Task Force Meeting

  25–29 Strasbourg European Parliament Plenary

  26 Luxembourg Fisheries Council

  28 Luxembourg Research Council

  29 Luxembourg Justice and Home Affairs Council

  November 1999

  3–4 Brussels European Parliament Plenary

  8 Brussels ECOFIN

  8 Brussels Consumer Affairs Council

  9 Brussels Industry Council

  11 Brussels Development Council

  12 Brussels Labour and Social Affairs Council (possible)

  11–12 Helsinki Ministerial Conference on the Northern Dimension

  15–16 Brussels Agriculture Council

  15–16 Brussels General Affairs Council

  15–19 Strasbourg European Parliament Plenary

  18 Brussels Health Council

  19 Brussels Youth Council

  22 Brussels Fisheries Council (possible)

  22–23 Brussels EU-ACP Ministerial Meeting (possible)

  602

  23 Brussels Culture/Audiovisual Council

  23 Brussels Youth Council

  25–26 Brussels Budget Council

  26 Brussels Education Council

  29 Brussels ECOFIN

  29 Brussels Labour and Social Affairs Council

  30 Brussels Telecommunications Council

  December 1999

  1–2 Brussels European Parliament Plenary

  2 Brussels Energy Council

  2 Brussels Research Council

  2–3 Brussels Justice and Home Affairs Council

  6–7 Brussels General Affairs Council

  7 Brussels Internal Market Council

  9–10 Brussels Transport Council

  10–11 Helsinki European Council

  13 Brussels ECOFIN

  13–14 Brussels Environment Council

  13–17 Strasbourg European Parliament Plenary

  14–15 Brussels Agriculture Council

  16–17 Brussels Fisheries Council

  16–17 Brussels EU-ACP Council (possible)

  January 2000

  14 Brussels Fisheries Council

  18 Brussels Budget Council

  24–25 Brussels General Affairs Council

  24–25 Brussels Agriculture Council

  28–29 Brussels Development Council (Informal)

  31 Brussels ECOFIN.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to publish the fifth of the reports to Parliament on Hong Kong and the implementation of the Joint Declaration. [93022]

  Mr. Hoon
  The fifth report in this series, covering the period January-June 1999, was published today and a copy of the report has been placed in the Library. The report includes a foreword written by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I commend the report to the House.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to publish the Annual Report on Human Rights. [93023]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The second Annual Report on Human Rights has been laid before the House as Command Paper 4404 today. Copies of the Report have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Greece (Military Agreements)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Greek Government on their military agreement with Armenia and Iran. [90433]
  603
  Ms Quin
  None. The recent tripartite talks between Greece, Iran and Armenia form part of an on-going dialogue begun in 1995, focusing on co-operation in the energy, tourism, industry and communications sectors. There is no defence co-operation agreement.

  Kosovar Albanians
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the number of Kosovar Albanians imprisoned in Serbia; and if he will make a statement. [91230]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  There have been unconfirmed reports of up to 5,000 people from Kosovo detained in Serbia. The ICRC has a list of around 2,000, and has visited over 300 prisoners in the past few days. I hope that Belgrade will co-operate fully with the ICRC and that any prisoners not legitimately held can be released immediately.

  Ocalan Trial
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment the Government have made of the conduct of the Ocalan trial, with particular reference to international standards; and if he will make a statement. [91907]

  Ms Quin
  We are aware of the observations of 21 June by members of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly that the conduct of the trial was correct and in accordance with the applicable Turkish law. We are also aware of the concerns raised by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights with regard to the treatment of Mr. Ocalan's lawyers. We understand that an appeal is now pending. It is in the first place for the Appeal Court to review the outcome of the trial. We will continue to monitor closely the appeal proceedings.

  We have made clear to the Turkish authorities the importance we attach to all proceedings being transparent and conducted in accordance with due process. We have also reiterated on numerous occasions our opposition as a matter of principle to the use of the death penalty.

  Visitor Entry Clearance
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy in considering applications for visitor entry clearance where the applicant wishes to visit the United Kingdom for a family wedding, as a guest, on a particular date; and in what percentage of such applications in the past 12 months the entry clearance officer in Islamabad has offered an interview date after the date of the wedding. [92274]

  Mr. Hoon
  Every effort is made to offer an appointment at the earliest convenient opportunity. At peak periods for travel, waiting times may extend to three or four weeks. Since most visit visa applicants plan to travel on specific dates, it is only where there are compelling compassionate circumstances that interview appointments can be brought forward ahead of others who are waiting. For this reason we encourage travellers to apply for their visas well ahead of their intended date of travel.
  604
  Separate statistics are not held on the purpose of proposed visits and the number of applicants offered an interview date after the date of a particular event cannot therefore be established.

  East Timor
  Mr. Liwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will institute a judicial inquiry into the deaths of two British newsmen on 16 October 1975 in Balibo, East Timor; and if he will make a statement. [92703]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received as to the events in Balibo, East Timor on 16 October 1975; and if he will make a statement. [92704]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have received a number of letters from Members of Parliament, NGOs and the relatives of the two British journalists killed at Balibo in 1975. We keep in regular contact with the relatives and I have recently written to them.

  Iran
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment the Government have made of the human rights situation of the BahÁ'i Community in Iran; what recent discussions he has held with the Iranian regime on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [92186]

  Mr. Hoon
  Iran is aware of our serious concern about the BahÁ'is. Persecution of individuals on religious grounds is totally unacceptable. The EU-sponsored United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution on Iran adopted on 23 April reaffirmed international concern about their situation. We regularly raise with the Iranian authorities our concerns about the BahÁ'i community. I personally did so with the Iranian Ambassador on 24 May.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average time for a substantive reply to be sent to hon. Members' correspondence; what proportion takes more than(a) four weeks, (b) six weeks and (c) eight weeks; and what is his estimate of the number of letters received in a year from hon. Members. [92455]

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

  Visas (Documentation)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason people making
  605
  visa applications on behalf of relatives living in India for entry to the United Kingdom are required to submit original documents rather than photocopies; and if he will make a statement. [92211]

  Mr. Hoon
  We prefer sponsors of visa applicants worldwide, not only from India, to submit documents in original form rather than photocopied because it is easier for entry clearance staff to establish their authenticity. It also saves the sponsor the time and expense of having photocopies made and notarised.

  Immigration Office, Islamabad
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) 14 July 1999,Official Report, column 254, if he will explain why the relatives of Mr. Chugtai, a constituent, Mrs. Nighat Yasmin and Mrs. Rehana Ghaffar, were asked to report to the post in Islamabad for an interview 25 working days after lodging the application for visit visas; and if he will make a statement. [92359]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on 13 July 1999,Official Report, column 144. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will be writing shortly about the specific case raised by the hon. Member.

CABINET OFFICE

  The Buying Agency
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if the quinquennial review of The Buying Agency has been completed; and if the completed quinquennial review report will be made public. [91256]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Quinquennial Review of The Buying Agency, which I announced on 29 October 1998, has now been completed. Cabinet Office, with the help of its consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers, has considered the performance of the Agency over the last five years and the options for the future of its function in the context of the Government's policy on civil procurement.

  TBA's main aims are to increase the volume of goods and services procured and to generate a return on capital employed through its Trading Fund. An evaluation of its performance over the five year period 1994–98 showed that over the first four years sales and income performance had been disappointing, due mainly to a substantial change in the Agency's market. Over the period as a whole, TBA met six of its thirteen financial targets, three of nine efficiency and productivity targets, six out of ten customer satisfaction targets and all nine targets for measures of internal quality and environmental management. The evaluation concluded that better measures and targets were needed to assess the efficiency and added value of the Agency's work.

  A review of prior options rejected abolition and privatisation which would deprive government of an instrument for central procurement. The consultants
  606
  considered that TBA's purchasing and energy procurement services have sufficient potential to justify retention of the whole Agency and therefore recommended that its agency status should continue subject to certain changes in business practice. The Review also concluded that the merger of TBA's functions with another department or agency was a matter for the review of civil procurement being conducted by Peter Gershon.

  Having considered the recommendations of the Review, I have decided that TBA should remain as an executive agency following the satisfactory completion of a comprehensive programme of short term business improvements aimed at developing its relationships with customers and suppliers and demonstrating the savings obtainable from its central purchasing. From 1 January 2000, it will become an executive agency of the new Office of Government Commerce on which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is making a separate statement.

  I am placing a summary of the consultants' report on prior options in the Libraries of the House.

  Departments (Public Access)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what measures he is taking to make Government Departments more accessible to schools and members of the public, with particular reference to open days. [90890]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Each Government Department is responsible for its own policy on open days. Information on all aspects of the works of the Department is accessible through the Cabinet Office website. The Cabinet Office also participates in the London "Open House" weekend each September and offers work experience placements to children in secondary education.

  Red Boxes
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the rules concerning the carriage of ministerial red boxes by public transport. [91492]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Ministerial red boxes generally contain official papers or other material which may be sensitive or valuable and due care, therefore, needs to be given to their transportation. Where it is necessary to carry red boxes by public transport, they should be effectively disguised.

  Appointments (Quangos)
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) 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; [92044]

  (2) 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. [92115]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The public bodies for which my right hon. Friend is responsible as Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are: the Advisory Committee on Advertising; the Advisory
  607
  Committee for Justice of the Peace in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside; the Better Regulation Task Force; and the Civil Service Appeal Board.

  The details of appointments made are given in the table. However, while appointments have been made from members of ethnic minority groups, I am unable to disclose the numbers, as to do so would risk identifying individuals without their consent.

  June 1997 to May 1998

  June 1998 to May 1999

  Advisory Committee on JPs

  39

  23

  Advisory Committee on Advertising

  0

  6

  Better Regulation Task Force

  16

  2

  Civil Service Appeal Board

  9

  12

  The Government have made some progress in increasing representation of women, members of ethnic minority groups and of people with disabilities. Full departmental plans on equal opportunities were published by the Government on 25 May 1999 and deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Departmental Performance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the performance of the main departments and agencies against the six service standards for central Government over the last financial year. [92879]

  Department/Agency

  Target (working days)

  Total volume

  Percentage of responses within target

  Target 1999–2000 (working days)

  Agencies included

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  15

  118,644

  91

  15

  Yes

  Cabinet Office

  15

  5,774

  99.5

  15

  Yes

  Crown Prosecution Service1

  10

  2,017

  82.6

  10

  n/a

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport18

  18

  28,861

  71

  18

  No

  HM Customs and Excise

  10

  794,746

  91

  10

  n/a

  Ministry of Defence

  20

  8,769

  78

  20

  Yes

  Department of Education and Employment

  15

  108,000

  89

  15

  No

  Employment Service2

  10

  Not measured

  94

  10

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  15

  66,273

  78

  15

  No

  Driving Standards Agency

  15

  15,248

  99

  15

  DVLA

  15

  417,028

  97

  15

  Highways Agency

  15

  32,000

  83

  15

  Maritime Coastguard Agency

  15

  13,269

  93

  15

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  15

  2,567

  93

  15

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  20

  35,971

  87

  20

  No

  Government Offices for the Regions10

  Max 15

  N/A

  Between 81 and 100

  Max 15

  n/a

  Department of Health16

  20

  52,656

  63

  20

  Yes

  NHS Pensions Agency

  20

  15,364

  100

  20

  Home Office14

  20

  150,699

  23

  20

  No

  UK Passport Agency

  10

  71,503

  97

  10

  Prison Service

  20

  34,045

  85

  20

  Inland Revenue11

  20

  86,000,000

  80

  20

  n/a

  Intervention Board

  10

  13,318

  79

  10

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  20

  5,490

  72

  20

  No

  Court Service6

  10

  4,591,004

  97

  10

  Court Service HQ

  20

  6,995

  98

  20

  Land Registry

  3

  323,513

  94

  3

  Public Trust Office

  20

  87,926

  96

  20

  NI Court Service

  20

  97

  96

  20

  Public Record Office

  10

  28,045

  99.5

  10

  Department of Social Security17

  20

  26,984

  60

  20

  No

  Benefits Agency13

  10

  11,132,631

  81–88

  10

  Contributions Agency

  20

  377,831

  97

  20

  Child Support Agency8

  10

  Not recorded

  56

  10

  War Pensions Agency9

  10

  260,000

  71.4

  10

  Department of Trade and Industry

  15

  162,000

  92

  15

  No

  608
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I have arranged for a report on the performance of the main Departments and agencies to be placed in the Libraries of the House. This is the second report on performance against the six service standards and reflects our continuing commitment to openness and to reporting transparently on our performance.

  The report shows that, in many cases, performance in responding to correspondence from the public has improved over the past year. There have been some exceptional performances, although there have also been some disappointing results. Overall, there is still room for improvement, and all Departments and agencies are striving to do better this year. The performance of the main Departments and agencies is summarised in the table.

  Against the other standards, the report shows that users with pre-arranged meetings are usually seen within 10 minutes of their appointment, that all Departments have at least one telephone inquiry point, and that all Departments now have complaints procedures in place covering all their services. The report also shows some of the innovative ways in which Departments and agencies are consulting their users and making their services more accessible.

  The Modernising Government White Paper announced some changes to the standards for this financial year, in particular the introduction on 1 October 1999 of new standards covering the length of time users should wait to be seen in public offices, the setting up of e-mail inquiry points, and how long users of telephone inquiry points should have to wait before their calls are answered.
  609

  Department/Agency

  Target (working days)

  Total volume

  Percentage of responses within target

  Target 1999–2000 (working days)

  Agencies included

  Agencies15

  10

  1,020,000

  97

  10

  HM Treasury12

  15

  24,000

  See note

  15

  No

  Valuation Office

  15

  35,000

  87

  15

  Scottish Office

  20

  200,000

  76

  20

  No

  National Archives of Scotland

  10

  4,499

  87

  10

  Student Awards Agency

  15

  7,682

  94

  15

  Scottish Courts Service

  3 (Supreme Courts)

  Not collected

  19100

  3

  2 (Sheriff Courts)

  Not collected

  1996

  2

  Scottish Prison Service

  20

  6,347

  97

  20

  Welsh Office

  15

  90,745

  90

  15

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Departments and the NIO

  Department/Agency

  Target (working days)

  Total volume

  Percentage of responses within target

  Target 1999–2000 (working days)

  Department of Agriculture

  15

  5,944

  94

  15

  Department of Economic Development

  15

  30,000

  98

  15

  Department of Education

  15

  3,826

  98

  15

  Department of Environment

  15

  26,773

  95

  15

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  15

  66,646

  99

  15

  Department of Health and Social Services

  15

  2,246

  88

  5

  Northern Ireland Office3

  15

  205,221

  89.6

  15

  Child Support Agency

  10

  1,559

  79

  10

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing

  3

  14,344

  100

  3

  Prison Service4

  15

  2,400

  100

  15

  Public Record Office

  14

  3,000

  98

  14

  Rate Collection Agency

  10

  50,442

  89

  10

  Social Security Agency

  15

  21,451

  93

  15

  Training and Employment Agency5

  5

  Not known

  67

  5

  1 This figure represents complaints only.

  2 The Employment Service measures performance by asking an independent research company to sample 4,000 letters. The Chief Executive's Office received 657 letters and replied to 96 per cent. within a 15-day target (against a target of 95 per cent.).

  3 Includes NIO Core, Forensic Science Agency, and Compensation Agency. Performance is calculated by a mixture of 100 per cent. monitoring and sampling.

  4 Performance measured in two sampling periods.

  5 Performance measured by sampling.

  6 These figures represent correspondence received in the county courts only and exclude correspondence received at the Crown Court, High Court, Tribunals and Probate Offices.

  7 All Ministerial Cases (MCs) are monitored, others are measured by sampling. Have now introduced a 15-day target for all correspondence.

  8 Sample of 2,400 used to measure performance.

  9 Chief Executive correspondence: 808 letters replied to, 97.7 per cent. within 20-days target. Private Office, PCA and Official Correspondence: 2,296 items replied to, 97.9 per cent. in 10-day target. These figures based on 100 per cent. monitoring. General correspondence monitored by monthly sample

  10 Composite figures for all regional offices.

  11 Total correspondence received is the number of items of post received by the Department's network of offices and includes internal mail. Performance is measured by monthly sampling and holding replies are not counted as having met the standard.

  12 HM Treasury introduced a system to monitor correspondence in April this year.

  13 The Benefits Agency replies to 82.5 per cent. of general correspondence in 10 days, 88.3 per cent. of letters advising them of change of circumstances within 6 days and 81 per cent. of complaints within 7 days. These figures exclude parliamentary correspondence.

  14 This figure is based on returns monitored on new tracking systems for all correspondence and is not comparable with previous annual returns that were based on sampling.

  15 This represents the volume of correspondence received by four of the DTI's agencies (Companies House, Insolvency Service, Patent Office and Radiocommunications Agency).

  16 This represents all correspondence received centrally excluding campaign mail.

  17 This represents correspondence addressed to Ministers by members of the pubic about policy matters.

  18 Correspondence addressed to DCMS Ministers.

  19 Sampled.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  R v. Doran Case
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement concerning the judge's ruling in the case of R-v-Doran and others to stay proceedings as an abuse of process; and what action he will take as a result. [93018]
  610
  The Attorney-General
  The Paymaster General and I have today agreed that an independent inquiry should be commissioned into the actions of HM Customs and Excise officials and counsel who appeared on behalf of the Prosecution at the abuse of process hearing and at the preceding first and second trials of that case. The inquiry will report to me and the Chairman of Customs and Excise and will have the following terms of reference.
  611
  "Having regard to the matters set out by The hon. Mr. Justice Turner in his ruling of 6 July 1999 to stay proceedings in the case of R v. Doran and Others as an abuse of process, to examine the actions of HM Customs and Excise officials and Counsel who appeared on behalf of the Prosecution at that hearing and at the first and second trials of that case, in particular in relation to:

  (1) technical surveillance conducted at hotels S, L and R, and in particular whether permission was granted by those hotels for that surveillance, and whether the surveillance was properly authorised;

  (2) the non-disclosure of material relating to those issues, and the related public interest immunity applications made in the course of proceedings;

  (3) the evidence given at the trials in relation to those issues;

  (4) what was said by Counsel in open court in relation to those issues;

  (5) the approach, and the circumstances leading to that approach, taken by Counsel to the abuse hearing before Mr. Justice Turner, and in particular their advice on the hotel issues and on whether additional witness statements should be taken in relation to the surveillance;

  (6) the circumstances which led to the decision to abort the first trial.

  and to make recommendations".

  His Honour Gerald Butler QC has been asked to conduct that inquiry and he will report within six months.

  A summary of the report and its recommendations will be made available to the House.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the average time for a substantive reply to be sent to hon. Members' correspondence; what proportion takes more than(a) four weeks, (b) six weeks and (c) eight weeks; and what is his estimate of the number of letters received in a year from hon. Members. [92441]

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

  Gender Impact Assessment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the subject of each gender impact assessment drawn up by his Department since June 1997, indicating in each case whether the outcome has been(a) put out to consultation and (b) published. [92001]

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her today by my noble Friend the Minister for Women.

  As part of the Government's commitment to ensuring that their policies are relevant to the lives that people live today, my Departments are working with the Women's Unit to develop good practices for carrying out gender impact assessments of their policies.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces (Under-18s)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the UK armed forces currently serving as part of the NATO peacekeeping force in Kosovo are under 18 years of age. [87702]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 22 June 1999]: As at 15 June 1999, there were eight Naval Service personnel under 18 years of age serving on ships in the Kosovo region.

  As at 1 May 1999, there were 22 Army personnel under 18 years of age deployed in the Former Yugoslavia.

  As at 15 June 1999, no RAF personnel under age 18 were deployed in the Kosovo area.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many members of the British contribution to SFOR were under 18 years of age on 23 June; and in which units; [89040]

  (2) how many members of the British contribution to KFOR were under 18 years of age on 23 June; and in which units; [89042]

  (3) how many members of (a) the Royal Navy, (b) the RAF and (c) the Army committed to operations in the South Eastern Europe theatre were under 18 years of age on 23 June. [89043]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 30 June 1999]: Information is not available in precisely the detail requested: data on Naval Service personnel show the numbers on ships in the Adriatic; data on Army personnel show the numbers in theatre "former Yugoslavia"; data on RAF personnel show the numbers by country.

  As at 15 June 1999, there were 8 Naval Service personnel under 18 years of age serving on ships in the Adriatic.

  As at 1 June 1999, there were 17 Army personnel under 18 years of age deployed in the former Yugoslavia.

  As at 14 June 1999, no RAF personnel under age 18 were deployed in the former Yugoslavia.

  Premature Voluntary Retirement
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have(a) applied for and (b) been granted (i) premature voluntary retirement and (ii) purchase of their discharge, for each of the three services by rank and by length of service in each of the last five years. [91135]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  All applications for Premature Voluntary Retirement by eligible Naval Service and RAF Officers are granted. Not all applications for Premature Voluntary Retirement by Army Officers are granted, but only figures for the number of applications granted are available centrally.

  All applications for Premature Voluntary Retirement by eligible Other Ranks in all three Services are granted.

  I am placing details of the number of Premature Voluntary Retirements from the Armed Forces over the last five years in the Library of the House. This

  613
  information is available by rank but not by length of service. Details of Premature Voluntary Retirements by Army Officers are not available for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. The figures provided do not include Gurkhas, Royal Irish (Home Service) personnel, Locally Employed Personnel, Reservists mobilised for duties associated with Bosnia, and Full Time Reserve Service personnel.

  Officers from all three Services are no longer required to purchase their discharge. Similarly, the Naval Service and the RAF no longer require Other Ranks to purchase their discharge. Only Army Other Ranks who enlisted on Notice Engagement prior to 1 January 1991 can apply to purchase their discharge, and details of those who have done so are not held centrally.

  Land Command
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Commander-in-Chief Land's paper, "Building a Career of First Choice"; and if he will make a statement; [91568]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Land Command paper on district restructuring reference number Land G3 (0 and D) 3031/12, dated 9 July. [92021]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: The paper requested is a classified document including opinion and advice about proposed establishments for Army headquarters. The document was produced to inform internal discussion and advice and so I am withholding it under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Ministry of Defence Police Agency
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the MOD Police Agency for the financial year 1999–2000. [92082]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The following Key Targets have been set for the Ministry of Defence Police Agency.To achieve 38 per cent. MDP patrol activity from those officers devoted to patrolling.
  To achieve a compliance rate 5 per cent. above the average Home Department Police Force compliance rate set for the submission of Crown Prosecution Service files.
  To achieve at least a 38 per cent. solving rate against all reported crime.
  To maintain at least a 90 per cent. satisfaction rate from victims of crime in the service provided by the MDP.
  By 31 March 2000 to develop and implement a corporate index of efficiency that will then form the baseline for year on year improvements.
  To increase to 95 per cent. the customer satisfaction rate with the service provided by Area Policing Teams.
  To monitor the scale and incidence of crime within the Defence Estate, and relate this to the pattern of MDP deployment and activity in order to develop an analysis of trends to inform the setting of targets and the matching of resources to needs in future years.
  To recruit 15 per cent. of women and 1.5 per cent. of ethnic minorities within overall MDP recruitment; and to deliver by 31 December an action plan on the Forces' response to the Macpherson Report, including the recruitment and retention of officers from ethnic minorities.

  Army Retention Study
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the terms of reference are for the Adjutant-General's Army Retention Study; and when it will be completed. [91590]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: The Army's Retention Study is a 6 month strategic review to examine the effectiveness of present policies, which will include carrying out field research, and making recommendations for any improvements. The study is being carried out by Hay Management Group and the Institute for Employment Studies. The work is scheduled to be complete by 30 November 1999.

  Defence Logistics Organisations
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the location of the permanent headquarters of the Defence Logistics Organisation. [93064]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  As I announced on 5 May, we have decided to base the headquarters of the Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) at Ensleigh in Bath, subject to consultation with the Trades Unions. We have now completed this period of formal consultation. Having fully considered the Trades Unions' representations, which included no major objections, I have decided that the collocation proposal should proceed. The permanent headquarters will therefore, be based at Ensleigh with a progressive move to be completed by 1 April 2000. The headquarters will be small and strategic and the vast majority of the DLO's staff will not be directly affected. The Trades Unions will continue to be continue to be consulted during the implementation of the transition to the new headquarters.

  The chosen location is the best site to enable the Chief of Defence Ligistics to achieve real long-term gains through the business improvements in acquisition management and logistic support which his organisation will help to drive forward.

  Departmental Education and Training
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to ensure the effectiveness of education and training for individuals in his Department. [93152]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We made clear in the Strategic Defence Review the importance that we attach to education and training for all those who work in the Ministry of Defence, in line with our policy for people and the Government's commitment to lifelong learning and education.

  Education and training must be tailored to meet operational and organisation needs and delivered to the right people, at the right time and in the most cost-effective manner.

  With this in mind, I am ordering a wide-ranging, fundamental study of education and individual training in my Department. It will commence in September 1999 and is likely to take 18 months to complete. The aim will be to consider how education and training can most

  615
  effectively meet the Department's requirements for timeliness, quality, value for money, doctrine and operational effectiveness, until at least the year 2010.

  This study will involve both the Armed Forces and civilians in the Department. It will seek opportunities for further joint Service education and training and greater synergy between education and training provided for Service and civilian personnel. It will also take into account best commercial practice.

  The first phase will be a scoping study lasting approximately 6 months. It will be headed by Mr. David Fisher. This will lead into the main study which will last for approximately 12 months and be headed by Rear Admiral Jonathan Band in the rank of Vice Admiral.

  I am placing a copy of the terms of reference for the scoping study in the Library of the House.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average time for a substantive reply to be sent to hon. Members' correspondence; what proportion takes more than(a) four weeks, (b) six weeks and (c) eight weeks; and what is his estimate of the number of letters received in a year from hon. Members. [92449]

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

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost in each of the last five years of his Department's search and rescue capability in the UK. [80713]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 April 1999, c. 371]I regret to inform the hon. Member that the answer I gave was incorrect. The net cost of Search and Rescue (SAR) to my Department in the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1995–96

  47.349

  1996–97

  49.394

  1997–98

  51.683

  1998–99

  52.444

  Figures are not readily available for financial year 1994–95, although they are not expected to differ substantially from 1995–96 (appropriately reduced to take account of inflation). The figures include the cost of spares, personnel, fuel and other support costs for all primary SAR assets, that is, RAF SAR helicopters, the RAF Mountain Rescue Service and the Aeronautical Rescue Co-ordination Centre. However, figures for assets
  616
  that perform SAR as part of their wider duties, such as RN helicopters and the RAF Nimrod, cannot be readily identified and are not included.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Market Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the title and purpose of each item of market and opinion research commissioned by or through his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997 stating in each case whether or not the results were published. [89690]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: The Government are committed to consulting and involving the public to help inform both policy formulation and the delivery of better quality public services. Responsive public services are an important part of the Modernising Government initiative.

  My Department, Agency and sponsored bodies conduct/commission market or opinion research only when it is justified by the needs of the policy or programme and do so in the most economical, efficient and effective way to achieve the purpose.

  Details of the individual pieces of market or opinion research have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  BBC Internet Service
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from the BBC regarding the provision of a free BBC internet access service; and if he will make a statement. [91432]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 15 July 1999]: I have received no representations from the BBC on the provision of a BBC internet access service. The BBC has, however, explained that BBC Worldwide has reached agreement with Scottish Power Telecommunications for the supply of services, including internet connectivity, other internet based services, and a telephone support service. The service supplied by Scottish Power Telecommunications will be provided to the public by BBC Worldwide under its own brands. I have been assured that this is a wholly commercial arrangement with no licence fee funding and that the BBC's commercial policy and fair trading guidelines will apply in full.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the non-departmental public bodies in existence on 1 May 1997 that(a) have been disbanded, indicating when they were disbanded, (b) will be disbanded in the next 12 months, (c) have had their functions transferred to (i) another non-departmental public body and (ii) a democratically elected body, (d) have been renamed but continue to perform a similar role and (e) have been unchanged; if he will indicate in (c)(ii) the relevant successor body; what new non-departmental public bodies

  617
  have been established since 1 May 1997; and how many non-departmental public bodies his Department currently is responsible for. [90672]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: The Government are committed to keeping the number of NDPBs to a minimum and to ensuring that those which remain are open, accountable and effective. Many of the new NDPBs established since 1 May 1997 are essential in helping the Government deliver their Manifesto commitments.

  As a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review, the Department announced a streamlining of the delivery mechanisms which will result in the restructuring of certain bodies my Department sponsors including in the areas of film, architecture and museums, libraries and archives. This restructuring is currently taking place, although some aspects are subject to legislation.

  The answer is as follows:

  (a) None (but see (c)(i))

  (b) Library and Information Commission

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  Royal Fine Art Commission

  Advisory Council on Libraries (subject to legislation)

  (c)(i) Royal Commission on Historical Monuments in England merged administratively with English Heritage with effect from 1 April 1999;

  The Crafts Council ceased to be directly sponsored by my Department with effect from 1 April 1999.

  The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council will be established no later than 1 April 2000 replacing the Museums and Galleries Commission and the Library and Information Commission.

  The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment will be established during 1999–2000 taking on the functions of the Royal Fine Art Commission.

  The Film Council will be established during 1999–2000 taking on some of the functions of the British Film Institute. The British Film Institute will cease to be directly sponsored by my Department with effect from 1 April 2000.

  Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites to be transferred to English Heritage (subject to legislation). (ii) None.
  (d) The Treasure Valuation Committee (formerly the Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee)1
  New Millennium Experience Company (formerly Millennium Central Ltd.)2
  English Tourism Council (formerly the English Tourist Board)
  (c) Details of all other NDPBs in existence on 1 May 1997 sponsored by this department are listed in "Public Bodies 1998".

  The following NDPBs have been established since 1 May 1997:

  (i) National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  (ii) New Opportunities Fund

  (ii) Football Taskforce (to be disbanded during 1999)

  (iii) Historic Royal Palaces (formerly the Historic Royal Palaces Agency)

  (v) National Lottery Commission (formerly the Office of the Director of the National Lottery).

  618
  My Department is responsible for 53 public bodies which includes executive and advisory NDPBs and public corporations.
  1 The Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee was reconstituted as the Treasure Valuation Committee in September as a result of the Treasure Act 1996.
  2 Millennium Central Ltd. was reconstituted as the New Millennium Experience Company following the review of the Millennium Dome Project by the Government during May and June 1997.

  Appointments (Quangos)
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [92138]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The information is noted on the following table, which includes all appointments which fall under my responsibility or where my role is to advise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and, through him, Her Majesty The Queen. Where numbers of public appointees in any category are less than five, Government policy on disclosure of the ethnic origin is not to provide this data to avoid the risk of identifying individuals without their consent.

  Total

  Asian1

  All ethnic minorities

  1 June 1997–31 May 1998

  DCMS + HMQ

  2101

  Not disclosed

  5(4.9%)

  1 June 1998–31 May 1999

  DCMS + HMQ

  3158

  5(3.1%)

  7(4.4%)

  1 Asian includes Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Chinese

  2 Includes 13 appointments where information on ethnic background is not known or where appointees have declined to disclose this information

  3 Includes 21 appointments where information on ethnic background is not known or where appointees have declined to disclose this information

  My Department has published an action plan on equal opportunities in Quangos—Opening up Public Appointments 1999–2002, which was published by the Government on 25 May 1999 and deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. The action plan sets out DCMS objectives and targets for improving representation of women, people from ethnic minority groups and from people with disabilities.

  Official Documents
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish a list of all those official 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. [92183]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [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

  619
  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.

  Football World Cup
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his latest estimate of the cost to public funds of the campaign to bring the 2006 Football World Cup to the United Kingdom. [91225]

  Mr. Banks
  The Football Association advise that, up to the end of 1998, they have spent £3,053,522 on the 2006 World Cup bid, of which £1,328,404 has been provided by Sport England's Lottery Sports Fund. The total budget for the 2006 campaign is some £9.4 million.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the average time for a substantive reply to be sent to hon. Members' correspondence; what proportion takes more than(a) four weeks, (b) six weeks and (c) eight weeks; and what is his estimate of the number of letters received in a year from hon. Members. [92444]

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

HOME DEPARTMENT

  CCTV
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 June 1999,Official Report, column 434, on CCTV, which cameras, other than CCTV ones, have been granted type approval for providing evidence in speeding cases; and what assessment he has made of their reliability. [91758]

  Mr. Boateng
  Before type approval is granted to a speed enforcement camera under section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, it is subject to testing to assess its accuracy and reliability. This involves testing by the police and by an independent laboratory against standards set by the Police Scientific Development Branch. Only equipment which meets such standards is granted type approval. All type-approved equipment for speed enforcement is calibrated annually and police procedures for dealing with evidence from cameras provide for further checks on the accuracy and reliability of the equipment.

  The speed cameras that have been granted type approval are:

  Gatsometer BV

  Serco Speed Enforcement System

  Truvelo Combi S

  Truvelo Combi S-mc

  620

  Speed Violation Detection Deterrent (SVDD)

  Traffiphot "S"

  Autovision 2

  Autovision 3

  Lastec

  LaserCam.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals his Department has recruited under the New Deal for Young People. [91887]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply 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.

  Since then, the number of people recruited to the Home Office under the New Deal for Young People has increased to five (of whom three were 18–24 years and two were 25 or over).

  Handguns Amnesty
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with members of the Association of Chief Police Officers concerning a future amnesty for owners of illegally held handguns. [91929]

  Kate Hoey
  The Home Office is in regular contact with the Association of Chief Police Officers on a range of firearms matters. The need for a national amnesty for the owners of illegally held handguns is being assessed as part of a general amnesty for all firearms. No firm decision has yet been taken regarding timing. In the meantime, the Government will respond sympathetically to any calls from the police for local amnesties where there is a high level of community and public support.

  Keith Birchall
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons it took from January 1998 to June 1999 to decide whether Keith Birchall should be granted compensation. [91826]

  Kate Hoey
  Mr. Birchall's application for compensation for a wrongful conviction was made on 20 February 1998. In October 1997, a review had begun of the interpretation of section 133(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which provides that compensation shall be paid where a conviction has been"reversed … on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice".

  This review involved obtaining legal advice, consultation with other Departments and Ministers, and internal consideration. Mr. Birchall's application was one of a number that could not be determined until the review was concluded in April 1999; I am sorry that it took so long to do so.

  Justice and Victims Unit
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are currently working in the Justice and Victims Unit; and what are their responsibilities. [91825]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are currently 28 staff in the Justice and Victims Unit of the Home Office. Their responsibilities are:

  A. Victims Issues, including compensation

  1. Court Compensation orders

  2. Review and oversight of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme

  3. Victims Charter

  4. Victims of crime policy issues

  5. Administration of grant to 'Victim Support'

  6. Witness support services in the Crown and Magistrates courts

  7. Administration of grant to 'Support After Murder and Manslaughter'

  B. Miscarriages of Justice

  1. Oversight of the Criminal Cases Review Commission

  2. Policy and case work relating to:

  a. Compensation for wrongful conviction or charge

  b. The exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy

  3. Casework relating to alleged wrongful conviction in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man

  C. Prosecution policy; reducing delay in the criminal justice system; procedure in the magistrates courts

  1. Policy issues relating to the relationship between the police, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the courts, and Home Office interest in the reform of the CPS

  2. Reducing delay in the criminal justice system:

  a. Narey measures, including new indictable-only procedures;

  b. Time limits on criminal proceedings

  3. Bail in criminal proceedings

  4. Policy on police cautioning of adult offenders

  5. Policy on criminal procedures in magistrates courts (adults)

  6. Criminal legal aid (Home Office interest)

  7. Crediting of remand time towards sentences

  8. Television links between courts and prisons

  D. Policy on criminal evidence and procedure in the Crown Court and Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

  1. Procedure in the Crown Court and Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

  2. Criminal evidence, including oaths

  3. Disclosure of prosecution material in criminal proceedings

  4. Juries, including juries in fraud trials and election for jury trial

  5. Appeals, including unduly lenient sentences

  6. Procedures for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, including implementation of 'Speaking up for Justice' and Part II of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill

  7. Child witnesses (excluding child defendants)-evidence and procedure in criminal proceedings

  E. Trials Issues Group

  1. Trials Issues Group

  2. Joint Performance Management

  3. Police Prosecution File Standards

  4. National Register of Public Service Interpreters (Home Office interest).

  Criminal Justice Act 1988
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the recent review of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. [91828]

  Kate Hoey
  This review was conducted by means of communications between Ministers and officials of various Departments, and legal advice to Ministers. The Code of Practice on Access to Government Information indicates that such internal discussion and advice is exempt from the commitment to provide information in that Code. The review did not lead to any change of policy or practice.

  Miscarriages of Justice (Compensation)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many wrongfully convicted people, excluding motoring or summary offences, have been granted compensation since 1990; and what is the average time taken to process a claim. [91827]

  Kate Hoey
  There have been 154 successful applications for compensation for wrongful conviction or charge, under the statutory or the ex-gratia schemes, since 1990. (This figure excludes a large group of successful applications stemming from the quashing of a high number of convictions for drink-driving in Greater Manchester, between 1987 and 1989, but not any other motoring or summary offences.) The average time from the date of these applications to the decision to pay compensation is 210 days. Once such a decision has been taken, the time taken to make the final payment of compensation depends primarily on how quickly the successful applicant submits the full details of the claim (to allow the independent assessor to determine quantum) and accepts the subsequent award. The average time from the date of those successful applications since 1990 in respect of which a final payment has been made, to the final payment, is 895 days.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department following the Bentley case, what assessment he has made of the benefits of granting compensation where miscarriage of justice has been caused by judicial error. [91797]

  Kate Hoey
  It is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's policy to pay compensation for a wrongful conviction caused by judicial error, under the ex-gratia arrangements announced by the then Home Secretary (Mr. Hurd) in his reply to Mr. Tim Smith on 29 November 1985,Official Report, columns 689–90, in cases where the judicial error is of an exceptional nature. The Divisional Court in the case of R v. Home Secretary ex parte Garner & Others held that it would be "a very rare case indeed" where the judicial misconduct is of the exceptional nature required to justify an ex-gratia payment.

  Special Services (Costs)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes are proposed in the charging policy for the policing of football matches for the 1999–2000 season; how those charges are assessed; and if he will make a statement. [91915]
  623
  Kate Hoey
  It is for chief constables to decide when to charge for special services such as the policing of football matches. The scale of charges is determined by the police authority. Under Home Office guidelines, the level of charges should represent the full economic cost of providing the special service.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes are proposed in policing costs for road closures for sporting and public events; and if he will make a statement. [91916]

  Kate Hoey
  I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has issued guidance that the current practice by police forces of using their powers to achieve road closures during sporting events, such as football matches and other public events, is inappropriate. The ACPO advice is that, for planned events, it would be more appropriate for the organisers to apply to the relevant local authority for a road closure order. The fees and charges involved would be a matter for the local authority to determine.

  Trial by Jury
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the percentage of cases where election is made for trial by jury and the defendant changes the plea to guilty prior to the start of the trial. [91914]

  Mr. Boateng
  Crown Prosecution Service statistics for 1998 show that 18,500 defendants elected trial in 1998 in addition to 47,185 either-way cases directed to the Crown Court by magistrates. During the same period, 76 per cent. of defendants in either-way cases pleaded guilty before the commencement of the Crown Court trial.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial savings are projected as a result of the proposed changes in the right to trial by jury. [92130]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not currently available. Detailed estimates of the costs and savings of the proposed procedure are still under consideration.

  Forum on Animal Experiments
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is proposing as a follow-up to the Forum on Animal Experiments held on 11 July(a) to reduce the number of animals used in experimentation and (b) to co-ordinate research on alternatives to animal experimentation. [91918]

  Mr. George Howarth
  For the reasons I outlined in my reply to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 11 May 1998,Official Report, column 51, the total number of scientific procedures involving animals is not a true measure of the effectiveness of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The total number of procedures is dependent on a number of factors, including the implications of scientific breakthroughs and the buoyancy of United Kingdom industry.

  We will, however, continue to work to minimise the amount of suffering caused and the number of animals used by ensuring that alternatives (which replace animal
  624
  use, reduce the number of animals needed for a particular purpose and refine protocols to lessen suffering—the 3Rs) are used wherever possible.

  Following the Forum I hosted on 9 July, I am keen to see whether it might be possible to co-ordinate more effectively the various programmes of work aimed at developing, testing or validating alternatives. I have already written to a number of colleagues in other Departments to obtain information on their funding of such work and have asked officials to write over the summer to other bodies that sponsor, commission or undertake such work, including charities, animal welfare bodies and industry. I will also be asking the Animal Procedures Committee for advice on this matter.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further meetings he is planning with animal welfare organisations, research organisations and others with an interest in animal experimentation as a follow-up to the Forum on Animal Experiments held on 11 July. [91917]

  Mr. George Howarth
  In the last 12 months, I have met with a number of such organisations and I have visited a number of establishments designated under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. I expect to continue to do so. I do, as far as possible, maintain an "open door" policy and generally find meetings with all those with an interest in the use of animals in scientific procedures to be very useful and constructive.

  1 am currently giving consideration to the possibility of holding further events, similar to the Forum, but have no firm plans at this stage.

  Police Officers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to prevent early retirement by police officers under investigation by the Police Complaints Authority. [91836]

  Kate Hoey
  Retirement cannot take place where a police officer is suspended. Under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999, a chief police officer has the power to suspend an officer where there has been a complaint which indicates that the officer's conduct does not meet the standards set out in the regulations, whether or not the matter has been investigated. In the case of early retirement on ill health grounds, police authorities have discretion to delay retirement until misconduct proceedings have been concluded.

  Juvenile Secure Accommodation
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 March 1999,Official Report, columns 28–29, concerning juvenile secure accommodation, what progress there has been on reform of juvenile secure accommodation; and if he will make a statement. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, [92120]

  Mr. Straw
  I set out our programme of reform of juvenile secure accommodation in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), on 29 July 1998,Official Report, columns 255–56 and to my hon. Friend, the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), on 8 March 1999, Official

  625
  Report, columns 28–29. We had decided in principle that the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales should, from April 2000, become the commissioning and purchasing body for secure accommodation for children and young people on remand or under sentence. This should help to achieve the appropriate volume, type and spread of accommodation in the longer term, so that individual needs can be met more effectively.

  The Board has provided advice on how to operate this. I have placed a copy in the Library. We endorse its approach as the basis for implementing, commissioning and purchasing next April. The Board will now consult local authorities and other relevant bodies on its proposals.

  UN Conventions
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Her Majesty's Government have ratified(a) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and (b) the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women on behalf of (1) Gibraltar, (2) Jersey, (3) Guernsey and (4) the Isle of Man; and if he will make a statement. [92100]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Her Majesty's Government has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) or the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) on behalf of Gibraltar, Jersey or Guernsey. The UNCRC and CEDAW were extended to the Isle of Man on 7 September 1994 and 7 May 1986 respectively.

  Appointments (Quangos)
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [92139]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There were a total of 126 appointments made to Home Office non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) between 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998. Six of the appointees were Asian and six were from other ethnic minority backgrounds.

  195 appointments were made to NDPBs between 1 June 1998 and 31 May 1999. Twenty-one of the appointees were Asian and 27 were from other ethnic minority communities.

  The Home Office Public Appointments Equal Opportunities Plan for 1999–2002, which was published on 25 May 1999, sets the Department the objectives of achieving 9 per cent. membership of ethnic minorities across its major public bodies (excluding the Commission for Racial Equality) and 9 per cent. for all its public appointments. On the latest available information, the figures achieved are respectively 10 per cent. and 14 per cent.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to respond to correspondence about Mr. and Mrs. Janneh. [92029]
  626
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have now written to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time for a substantive reply to be sent to hon. Members' correspondence; what proportion takes more than(a) four weeks, (b) six weeks and (c) eight weeks; and what is his estimate of the number of letters received in a year from hon. Members. [92454]

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

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportation orders are outstanding against asylum seekers whose applications have been refused; and if he will list(a) how long they have been outstanding and (b) his Department's estimated timetable for when they will be carried out. [92103]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information relates to persons recorded on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's central immigration enforcement database (HOMIES) who have an unenforced deportation order outstanding against them and who have also had an asylum application initially refused. Some 1,575 such persons were recorded on HOMIES on 4 January 1999, the latest reliable snapshot figure. The breakdown by length of time since signing of the deportation order is given in the table.

  In addition to those cases where further representations are being considered or where the decision to remove is subject to legal challenge, in many of these cases the subject of the deportation order has absconded and his or her present whereabouts are unknown. In some instances, it is even possible that the individual concerned has left the country of his or her own accord without the knowledge of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. In these circumstances, a timetable for completing the removal of the outstanding cases would have little meaning.

  Persons recorded as having a deportation order outstanding against them and having had an asylum application initially refused, by length of time since the deportation order was signed, as at 4 January 1999

  Time elapsed since deportation order signed1

  2Number of persons

  0 to 1 year

  235

  1 to 2 years

  310

  2 to 3 years

  465

  3 to 4 years

  255

  4 to 5 years

  175

  Over 5 years

  135

  Total

  1,575

  1 Time elapsed between the date the deportation order was signed and 4 January 1999, the date of the database snapshot

  2 Figures are rounded to 5

  627
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers who are waiting for their applications to be processed are currently held in one of Her Majesty's prisons; and if he will list(a) in which prisons they are located and (b) how long they have been in their current accommodation. [92101]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information relates to the snapshot of all asylum seekers detained solely under Immigration Acts powers, at any location in the United Kingdom, as at 29 June for port applicants and 30 June for in-country applicants. 351 such persons were recorded as awaiting an initial decision on their asylum application; the lengths of time they had been continuously detained solely under Immigration Acts powers are given in the table. Regrettably, information relating specifically to asylum seekers detained in prisons is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Number of people recorded as being detained1.2 on 29 June 19993 and 30 June 19933 who were awaiting an initial asylum decision4 by length of detention5

  Length

  Number of persons

  0 to I month

  72

  1 to 2 months

  60

  2 to 6 months

  105

  6 to 12 months

  92

  Over 12 months

  22

  Total

  351

  1 Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.

  2 These figures are approximate because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period.

  3 Port figures obtained at 29 June 1999. After entry figures obtained at 30 June 1999.

  4 Principal asylum applicants only.

  5 In some cases the date a person enters detention may be understated due to the method of recording

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many asylum seekers who are waiting for their applications to be processed are currently being housed by local authorities in temporary accommodation in London; and if he will list the numbers in each of the boroughs; [92104]

  (2) how many children of asylum seekers who are waiting for their applications to be processed are currently in the care of local authorities. [92102]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This information is not available to the Home Office. Currently, asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute may receive support in one of two ways. Those who apply at their port of entry are eligible for social security benefits and can find their own accommodation. Those who apply in-country may be supported by local authority social services departments under the terms of the National Assistance Act 1948 or the Children Act 1989. Asylum seekers make applications for support by local authorities direct to an individual local authority. The Home Office does not co-ordinate this information centrally.

  Corruption
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to publish the Government's628
  proposals for consolidation and amendment of the law on corruption; and what length of consultation he proposes prior to introducing legislation. [92124]

  Mr. George Howarth
  An interdepartmental Working Group is currently considering the reform of the criminal law of corruption. We expect to receive their conclusions shortly. The Government hope to publish a discussion paper towards the end of the year, and will ensure that adequate time is allowed for responses.

  First Offences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who appeared before magistrates courts in England and Wales were convicted on their first offence and sent to prison in 1998. [91987]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Estimates from the criminal histories of offenders in 1997 showed that there were around 3,700 people who appeared before magistrates courts in England and Wales who were given an immediate custodial sentence on their first court appearance for a standard list offence.

  Compulsory Voting
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list and publish the research he has commissioned into the practice of compulsory voting in other countries; and if he will make a statement; [92132]

  (2) what plans he has to increase public awareness of the issues raised by compulsory voting; and if he will make a statement. [92131]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government are aware of academic research which has been published on voting practices in other jurisdictions, including compulsory voting, but has not commissioned any direct research on the subject. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has welcomed the recommendation by the Home Affairs Select Committee in its report on Electoral Administration and Law, published last year, that there should be a public debate on this subject, but we have no present plans to mount any public awareness campaigns on the issue.

  Prisons (Health Care)
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the(a) Joint Prison Health Policy Unit and (b) Joint Prison Health Care Task Force was established; [92198]

  (2) if he will list the members of (a) the Joint Prison Health Policy Unit and (b) the Joint Prison Health Care Task Force. [92209]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Following the review on the future organisation of prisoners' health care, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) on 29 March 1999,Official Report, columns 556–58, that a Joint Prison Health Policy Unit and a Joint Prison Health Care Task Force would be established in the course of 1999.

  To enable an early start to be made with prison health reform, acting appointments to the positions of head of the Prison Health Care Task Force and Prison Health

  629
  Policy Unit were made on 14 July 1999. Mr. Peter Coe is leading the Task Force, and Dr. Michael Longfield the Policy Unit, pending substantive appointments to be made following an open competition. Both posts are being advertised in the course of July 1999. Other staff appointments are expected to be made in the course of this autumn.

  Official Documents
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a list of all those official 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. [92175]

  Mr. Straw
  [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.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on changes in the membership of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate Complaints Audit Committee. [92878]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Ms Mercy Jeyasingham has been appointed as a new Member of the Complaints Audit Commission to replace Blair Greaves, whose five-year appointment has come to an end. Ms Jeyasingham is the Chief Executive of the Association for All Speech Impaired Children. She was formerly the Director of Education and Information at the National Eczema Society and the Head of Care Standards at Hammersmith and Fulham Social Services.

  Forensic Science Service
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to lay before Parliament the Annual Report for the Forensic Science Service. [92877]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today laid before Parliament copies of the Forensic Science Service's (FSS) Annual Report and Accounts for 1998–99.

  The FSS met its financial target to recover its full costs and widened its accreditation through external bodies. However, it did fail to achieve the efficiency gain target and service delivery target. This was a challenging year for the FSS—expanding its work force by 400 and absorbing the associated recruitment and training costs. This is part of a two-year strategy to increase the capacity of the FSS to meet demand and eliminate backlogs of certain types of scientific work. The targets and plans agreed for 1998–99 were ambitious, and while the FSS failed to achieve two key targets mentioned above, it has already demonstrated a rapid improvement in quality of service during the latter part of 1998–99 and early
  630
  1999–2000. I am confident that this, and the move to Trading Fund from 1 April 1999, should be the springboard for further successes.

  The targets for 1999–2000, the agency's first year of trading fund, are:

  FSS Agency targets 1999–2000

  Targets

  1. Financial indicators

  Return on capital employed

  Minimum 3 per cent.

  Efficiency gain (three year rolling target)

  Minimum 10 per cent.

  2. Quality of Service indicators

  Turnaround time

  24 days

  Achieve 90 per cent, agreed delivery dates

  3. Milestone targets

  Put in place service level agreements with

  Put in place routine and robust customer police forces satisfaction measurement processes

  4. Quality indicators

  Maintain external quality accreditation

  Tote
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the amount to be received by the Exchequer from the sale of the Tote. [R] [91095]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No estimate of this kind has yet been made. Further work is currently being undertaken to determine the best method for a sale of the Tote. Until that is completed, we shall not be in a position to indicate how the sale proceeds will be allocated.

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foxes he estimates have been killed as a result of hunting with dogs in each of the last 10 calendar years by hunts based in(a) the county of Leicestershire, (b) the East Midlands and (c) England. [91822]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

TREASURY

  Structural Funds
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the Departmental Expenditure Limit for the Welsh Office for 2000–01 to take into account recent decisions on structural funds. [91107]

  Mr. Milburn
  No. The National Assembly for Wales Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01 was fixed in last year's CSR and is not open to review.

  Married Couples Allowance
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans for the married couples allowance. [91108]
  631
  Dawn Primarolo
  The recent Budget contained a generous package of tax and benefit reforms designed to target more help to families with children. As part of this package, the married couples allowance and related reliefs—which were not fulfilling their purpose—will be replaced by a new children's tax credit worth up to £416.

  Low-income Families
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he has put in place to help working families on low incomes. [91109]

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he plans to increase the net income of people in low-paid work. [91116]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress with his plans to help working families on low incomes. [91128]

  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to help working families on low incomes. [91098]

  Mrs. Roche
  In October, we are introducing the Working Families Tax Credit with the new, generous child care tax credit. It will benefit nearly 1.5 million families on low incomes, almost twice as many as under the old system, and around 3 million children. It will provide a Minimum Guaranteed Income for a family with someone in full time work of £200 a week—£80 more than they would receive on Income Support. On average, families will gain £24 per week.

  Together with the National Minimum Wage, the largest ever increase in Child Benefit, and tax and NICs reform, the WFTC will help lift around 800,000 children out of poverty.

  The WFTC is a central part of a programme of extra support for families being delivered by the Government: by the end of this Parliament we will be spending an extra £6 billion a year on Britain's 13.8 million children.

  Pollution
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ascribe an economic value to pollution. [91110]

  Ms Hewitt
  Government guidance on appraisal and evaluation encourages the valuation of all costs and benefits where possible, and qualitative assessment of those costs and benefits where monetary valuation is not practicable.

  Windfall Tax
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the use made of the funds raised by the Windfall Tax; and what further plans he has for their use. [91111]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Windfall Tax has enabled the Government to embark on the New Deal—the biggest ever programme to get unemployed and economically inactive people into work. The Windfall Tax has also enabled the Government to inject much-needed capital 632
  into over 10,000 schools across the country, enhancing our drive to raise pupil standards so that children begin to acquire the skills they will need to succeed later in life.

  Early findings on the New Deal for Young People are largely positive, but we will need to wait for further evaluation in the Autumn to provide more accurate figures. The latest figures for young people show that 105,000 young people have secured jobs through the New Deal and a further 89,000 are gaining valuable training experience through one of the other options.

  The Government have constantly extended and developed programmes under the New Deal since taking office. Its purpose is to give people new hope and new chances, and a route out of poverty and benefit dependency. This principle will guide future policy development, as resources allow.

  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further plans he has for the use of the proceeds of the windfall tax. [91105]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The Windfall Tax, which raised £5.2 billion, has enabled the Government to embark upon the New Deal—the biggest ever programme to get the unemployed into work. Over 284,000 have now entered the New Deal on the young persons scheme, and there are nearly 100,000 of the long-term unemployed. The Windfall Tax has also enabled the Government to put much-needed capital investment into over 10,000 schools. We will launch the New Deal for the over-50s in the autumn. Therefore, we are continuing to expand the New Deal over the next few months.

  Travel (Low Income Groups)
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the proportion of income spent on travel by low income groups in(a) urban and (b) rural areas; and if he will estimate the percentage of that expenditure which was accounted for by the fuel duty escalator since its introduction. [91113]

  Ms Hewitt
  The latest available data on household spending patterns by gross income decile group are published in tables 1.1 to 1.3 of Family Spending 1997–98. For those households in the lowest gross income decile, approximately 12 per cent. of gross income was spent on motoring, fares and other travel costs. Approximately 0.5 of a per cent. of gross income was spent on the amount of fuel duty attributable to the fuel duty escalator. Separate estimates for urban and rural areas are not available.

  Hypothecation
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on introducing hypothecation into the tax system. [91115]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In general, the Government determines their expenditure according to need, not according to the sources of their revenue. However, we will continue to look at each case on its merits.

  Budget Statement
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received over the proposals in his Budget statement of 9 March relating to work; and if he will make a statement. [91120]
  633
  Mrs. Roche
  Treasury Ministers have received a number of representations. Measures announced in the Budget will provide a better deal for working people. From October, every family with children and with full-time earnings will have a minimum income guarantee of £200 per week under the Working Families Tax Credit. People in work will have seen the gains from the new 10p rate of Income Tax in their May pay packets, and, from next April, the basic rate will be cut to 22p to reward work and ensure working families are better off. Over 450,000 people have already benefited from the New Deal and over 130,000 have found jobs.

  Bank of England
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his policy of independence for the Bank of England. [91121]

  Ms Hewitt
  Many groups have commented and made representations to the Government on the monetary policy framework, of which the great majority have welcomed the Chancellor's decision to grant the Bank of England more independence. Because we have given the Bank of England operational responsibility to set interest rates to pursue the Government's inflation target, the public can be confident that low inflation will be delivered in practice. Inflation is currently close to target and expected to remain so.

  Community Initiatives
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax incentives he has proposed to encourage businesses to support community initiatives. [91122]

  Mrs. Roche
  There is already a wide range of tax incentives to encourage businesses to support community initiatives, and many businesses make use of them.

  This Government are considering as part of the Review of Charity Taxation how the tax system can best encourage businesses to support charitable causes. As part of this review, we issued a consultation document on Budget day which set our various proposals for further discussion, inviting responses by 31 August 1999.

  EU Anti-fraud Office
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the role of the EU Anti-fraud Office. [91123]

  Ms Hewitt
  The ECOFIN Council adopted a Regulation on 25 May regarding a new European Anti-fraud Office which will be operationally independent within the Commission. The Office was established on 1 June. The final form of Office is in line with the Chancellor's initiative at the January ECOFIN Council.

  The Office will be responsible for investigating fraud in the Community institutions and recommending follow-up action to be taken as a result of its investigations. It will also assist member states to co-ordinate anti-fraud work in respect of the EU budget and contribute to the design and development of methods of fighting fraud and other illegal activity.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he is making with the implementation of the Working Families Tax Credit. [91124]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Working Families Tax Credit will be introduced from October 5 this year, providing much needed assistance to an additional 500,000 low and middle-income families. The Tax Credits Act 1999, which will bring WFTC into existence, received Royal Assent on 30 June.

  Growth Forecast
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about his latest forecast for growth. [91125]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer receives numerous representations on all aspects of UK economic developments, including growth prospects.

  Employment Growth
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next plans to meet EU Finance Ministers to discuss prospects for growth in employment in Europe. [91127]

  Ms Hewitt
  To help promote best practice and job creation throughout Europe, the Chancellor will be discussing with other EU Finance Ministers Employment Guidelines for 2000 at ECOFIN on 8 November.

  Health Insurance
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce an ombudsman for individuals denied payments by permanent health insurers under the powers invested in him by the Insurance Companies Act 1982; and if he will make a statement. [91129]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are currently (i) a non-statutory Insurance Ombudsman, (ii) a Personal Insurance Arbitration Service and (iii) a Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman. To simplify redress for consumers, the Financial Services and Markets Bill provides for the establishment of a single Ombudsman Scheme. In establishing that scheme, the Financial Services Authority will be able to specify the types of activities, carried on by authorised persons, which fall within its remit. We envisage that will include complaints relating to Permanent Health Insurers.

  EU (Payments)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the(a) gross and (b) net amount paid to the EU in the most recent calendar year for which figures are available. [91130]

  Mr. Milburn
  Details of the United Kingdom's gross and net contributions to the EC Budget for the 1998 calendar year are set out in Table 3 of the White Paper "European Community Finances" (Cm 4382).

  Resource Accounting
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications of moving to Resource Accounting for public borrowing for investment. [91112]

  Mr. Milburn
  Our plans for public borrowing for investment are defined by the fiscal rules that will continue to be adhered to. Forecasts for net investment and net borrowing are as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report. The move to Resource Accounting and Budgeting will ensure that the full economic costs of capital are properly measured and provide the correct incentives to manage capital properly once purchased.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to consult Regional Development Agencies in the preparation of his economic targets. [91126]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Regional Development Agencies will be producing their first Regional Economic Strategies by the autumn, and these will be updated over time. The Government have asked that the strategies include a clear analysis of the regional economy. This will provide the Treasury with information which will contribute to the development of Government economic policy.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will respond to the reviews undertaken by Sir Malcolm Bates and Peter Gershon, examining, respectively, the conduct of the Private Finance Initiative and Civil Procurement; and if he will make a statement. [93099]

  Mr. Milburn
  I am today placing in the Library of the House copies of Sir Malcolm Bates' Report and Peter Gershon's Report. We have accepted in full all the recommendations and our plans for taking forward these are set out in a document "Modern Government, Modern Procurement" which has also been placed in the Library.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress towards Gibraltar becoming passported to provide banking services. [88848]

  Ms Hewitt
  HMG intend to approve shortly the passporting of banking services into the UK by Gibraltar-based credit institutions.

  Appointments (Quangos)
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) 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; [92116]

  (2) 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. [92045]
  636
  Ms Hewitt
  The Government announced in their publication "Quangos: Opening up Public Appointment 1999–2002" (copies deposited in the Libraries of both Houses) their commitment to the equal representation of women and men in public appointments and a pro rata representation of members of ethnic minority groups. In moving towards achieving these commitments, the Chancellor's departments have set an ambitious overall goal that each of the Chancellor's departments' public bodies should include at least one appointment from a member of the ethnic minorities by 2003, and that ethnic minorities should account for a minimum of 4 per cent. of appointments to larger bodies. In 1998, about 5.4 per cent. of all appointments by the Chancellor's departments and agencies were held by members of the ethnic minorities.

  The table gives details of those appointments made to NDPB's of the Chancellor's departments and agencies over the periods requested. Information on the number of appointments by ethnic origin cannot be provided since the number of new appointees in each category is less than five:

  Appointments

  NDPB

  1 June 1997 to 31 May 1998

  1 June 1999 to 31 May 1999

  Policyholders Protection Board

  4

  1

  Royal Mint Advisory Committee

  3

  2

  Statistics Advisory Committee

  2

  0

  Official Documents
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a list of all those official 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. [92169]

  Ms Hewitt
  [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, HM Treasury has been guided by the convention governing access to the papers of a previous Administration, as set out in the Prime Minister's reply to a written question on 24 January 1980, Official Report, columns 305–07.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average time for a substantive reply to be sent to hon. Members' correspondence; what proportion takes more than(a) four weeks, (b) six weeks and (c) eight weeks; and what is his estimate of the number of letters received in a year from hon. Members. [92457]

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

  637
  information about the percentage of correspondence replied to within the time scales specified could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Monetary Policy
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the conduct of monetary policy since May 1997. [91118]

  Mr. Milburn
  The new monetary policy framework has enhanced the credibility and transparency of monetary policy and is delivering results: inflation is low and close to target, inflation expectations have fallen and long-term interest rates and mortgage rates are at their lowest for over 30 years.

  Inland Revenue (Bournemouth)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the Bournemouth office of the Inland Revenue is described as Inland Revenue South East. [92411]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The two Inland Revenue offices in Bournemouth are called Bournemouth 1 & 2 and are within the area of responsibility of the Director of the Inland Revenue South East Regional Executive Office.

  Financial Services
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to ensure access to financial services in poorer communities. [91119]

  Ms Hewitt
  We are studying the reports of the two Treasury-led Policy Action teams, established following the September 1998 report of the Social Exclusion Unit, "Bringing Britain together".

  Organic Farming
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were employed in the organic farming and foods sector in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; and how many are forecast to be employed in 1999–2000. [92094]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is not available in the form requested. However, our records show that in 1997–98, 292 farmers in the UK had land registered as organic or in conversion to organic farming. The equivalent figures for 1998–99 and to date for 1999–2000 are 733 and 1,165.

HEALTH

  Prescription Costs
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average total cost per item, net of VAT, dispensed during the most recent year for which figures are available for(a) prescriptions issued by dispensing doctors and (b) prescriptions issued by prescribing doctors. [87967]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Support Services
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the terms of reference for the current review of market testing of support services for NHS support services; when the review will be completed; if he will publish the results and conclusions of the review; and if he will make a statement. [89818]

  Mr. Denham
  The key results and conclusions of the National Health Service Executive internal review of market testing will be included within new guidance on NHS support services which will be published later this year.

  Consultant Charges
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if consultant surgeons and other consultants working in the private sector are obliged to publish their charging arrangements; and what assessment he has made of the extent of differential pricing for operations and consultations charged to insurance compared with charges made directly to patients. [91275]

  Mr. Denham
  Consultants working in private sector healthcare are not obliged to publish their charges and are free to charge whatever they wish and to offer preferential rates if they see fit to do so. The Department has no powers to intervene in contracts outside the National Health Service.

  Gender Impact Assessment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the subject of each gender impact assessment drawn up by his Department since June 1997, stating in each case whether the outcome has been(a) put out to consultation and (b) published. [91680]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government are committed to ensuring their policies are fair and inclusive and responsive to this issue. This aim is contained in guidance (published 1998) which helps Departments consider the impact of their policies on women and other groups, and is a cornerstone of the Modernising Government White Paper.

  The Women's Unit undertook to supplement this general guidance by developing more specific guidelines for policy makers on how to consider the needs and requirements of women.

  A cross-departmental project led by the Women's Unit will produce these guidelines by drawing together principles of good practice and will illustrate their application through a series of case studies.

  Final guidelines on gender impact appraisal together with a project report and the progress being made by Departments to assess the impact of their policies on women will be circulated to Government Departments and placed in the Library when complete.

  Progress will also be reflected in future Modernising Government milestone reports.

  Invoice Payments
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the performance of NHS trusts in complying with Government targets on payment of invoices. [91723]
  639
  Mr. Denham
  The Public Sector Payments Policy (PSPP) target is for 95 per cent. of bills to be paid within contract terms or 30 days where no terms have been agreed.

  National Health Service performance in paying bills promptly has improved significantly over the last few years. Currently the NHS pays 83 per cent. of its bills within 30 days—85 per cent. if the value of bills is taken into account. This is a significant improvement on the 79 per cent. performance reported in 1997–98.

  NHS Executive regional offices monitor closely the PSPP performance of individual NHS trusts and work with poor performing NHS Trusts to improve compliance with the policy.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what records are kept of the drugs administered to children in care; and if he will make a statement; [91714]

  (2) in what circumstances a parent of a child in care may refuse prescribed medical treatment for the child; and if he will make a statement; [91715]

  (3) what safeguards are in place to ensure that children in care are protected from receiving (a) inappropriate medical treatment and (b) incorrect prescribing of drug treatment; and if he will make a statement. [91716]

  Mr. Hutton
  Whenever possible, children placed in local authority care should be given a medical examination and a written health assessment before they are placed. A child should then be medically examined every six months up to the age of two, and at least every twelve months thereafter. Once assessed, the medical needs of children in local authority care should be set out in the general care plan for each child. Children would be registered with a general practitioner and any necessary medical treatment and drug prescribing would be carried out under the supervision and guidance of the child's general practitioner or, if a child is in a hospital, under the supervision and guidance of the appropriate hospital medical staff.

  Details have to be kept of all medicinal products administered to children placed in a residential home, and by whom they are administered. This must be recorded in writing on each occasion in a central record and on the child's individual record. Where a medicinal product may not be safely self-administered by a child it should be undertaken only by a member of staff of the home or by a doctor or nurse. Children aged 16 and over are in general entrusted with the retention and administration of their own medication, and should be provided with a secure place to keep medication.

  Children of 16 and 17 are entitled to consent on their own behalf to medical treatment, as are those under 16 who have sufficient understanding of what is proposed. Where a child is subject to a care order, the local authority acquires parental responsibility for the child and may consent to treatment on behalf of the child, including in circumstances where the child's parent has refused to consent.

  Nurse Consultants
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his target for the recruitment of nurse consultants; what estimate he has made of the impact on NHS employment costs of this initiative; and if he will make a statement. [91543]

  Mr. Denham
  It will be for National Heath Service bodies to determine the number of nurse, midwife and health visitor consultants they wish to employ. Terms and conditions of employment are being negotiated and we will issue guidance to the NHS about establishment of such posts when these have been completed.

  Student Nurses (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many student nurses are working at NHS hospitals within the Greater London area. [91773]

  Mr. Denham
  There are currently 9,972 whole time equivalent nurses and midwifes studying for degrees or diplomas within London. During their period of training, a student nurse or midwife would either be on a clinical placement or in a university carrying out academic work.

  Cancer Care
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned on the impact on cancer services(a) in Greater London and (b) the South East of the decision to designate St. Bartholomew's as a cancer centre; when the research will be published; and if he will make a statement. [91780]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service Executive's London Regional Office is undertaking a review of the planned commissioning of cancer services in North East and North Central London. The review forms part of the assessment of the current development programmes at Bartholomew's and The London NHS Trust, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust and Havering Hospitals NHS Trust. Ministers will receive a report upon the review's completion.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the Government bodies involved in formulating cancer care policies and strategies, with a brief outline of each organisation's work; and if he will make a statement. [92036]

  Mr. Hutton
  We recognise the importance of seeking expert advice to assist in the development of policy for cancer detection and care. The National Cancer Forum has been established to advise on the on-going implementation of the Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services. It includes leading cancer clinicians, specialist nurses, representatives from cancer research, voluntary and patient organisations, and regional National Health Service representation. The National Cancer Forum is chaired by the Chief Medical Officer.

  The Cancer Care Action Group is a forum which brings together a larger group of voluntary organisations with the NHS Executive regional structure. It is chaired by the Chief Nursing Officer and its role is to advise, and make recommendations to the National Cancer Forum, on key issues on developments in cancer and palliative care

  641
  policy at a national level and the implications for voluntary sector organisations, and to represent those with cancer and their carers in so doing.

  The United Kingdom National Screening Committee, chaired by Dr. Henrietta Campbell, Chief Medical Officer for Northern Ireland, advises UK Health Ministers about the introduction, modification or withdrawal of national screening programmes. The Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer Screening and the Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening are both currently chaired by Professor Martin Vessey. Their role is to advise on the development of the breast and cervical screening programmes. The Advisory Committee on Cancer registration advises on the strategy and development of the national cancer registration scheme.

  Acute Care
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is set by the NHS as the minimum acceptable(a) distance between hospital beds in acute care wards and (b) accommodation space per patient in acute care wards. [91934]

  Mr. Denham
  Health Building Note (HBN) No. 4 "Adult Acute Wards" (1990) stipulates a minimum requirement for bed space (in multi-bedded wards) as 2900 mm x 2500 mm. More recent guidance published in 1995 in HBN 40 volume 2 indicates that this should be increased to 2900 mm x 2700 mm to reflect the increasing use of hoists, extra space around the bed for access and movement and in recognition of the space needs for those who depend on walking frames and wheelchairs to assist mobility.

  Accommodation space per patient in an acute ward will vary depending on several factors, eg the mix of single rooms with en-suite facilities and multi-bedded bays, the extent of support area provided, the physical layout of the ward and the total number of beds.

  HBN 4 provides a notional figure of 23.96 square metres per bed.

  HBN 4 and HBN 40 are available in the Library.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is(a) the minimum acceptable provision of bath facilities in an acute care hospital ward and (b) the maximum acceptable number of patients per bath and per toilet facility. [91933]

  Mr. Denham
  Health Building Note (HBN) 4, "Adult Acute Wards" (1990), recommends one bathroom and one assisted bathroom for 24 or 28 bedded wards.

  HBN 4 also includes a schedule of accommodation that indicates two bathrooms to 28 patients, one being an assisted bath, but that basic ratio would need to be considered by planners in the light of the specific medical requirements of the ward.

  More single bedrooms with en-suite facilities are being provided in new ward accommodation and this will affect the general level of toilet provision. HBN 4 schedule of accommodation indicates a ratio of one toilet to 3.5 patients in a 24 bedded ward which has 3 single rooms with en-suite facilities.

  Copies of HBN 4 are available in the Library

  Ambulance Travel Times
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the population has a blue light ambulance travel time greater than 40 minutes from home to the nearest accident and emergency department. [91976]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are recorded as having been prescribed beta interferon through the NHS for the latest period for which data is available. [91876]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available. Beta interferon is mainly prescribed and dispensed within hospitals. Hospital dispensing data, and the number of patients for whom drugs are prescribed, are not held centrally.

  Patient Survey
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if patient groups were consulted on the development of the NHS survey of patients; and if he will make a statement. [92050]

  Mr. Denham
  A reference group, including representatives from the National Consumer Council, community health councils and the College of Health has advised on the general population and coronary heart disease surveys. A separate working group, including a number of cancer patient bodies, is currently working with the National Health Service Executive on the best approach to surveying patients with cancer. Qualitative research to establish the views of patients has also been undertaken in designing each of the surveys.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps were taken to ensure that a fair representation of minority groups, with particular reference to(a) ethnic minorities, (b) those with sight and hearing difficulties and (c) those with learning difficulties, were included in the NHS survey of patients. [92049]

  Mr. Denham
  The patient survey questionnaire was issued to respondents drawn from the electoral roll. A comparison with independent data sources on a range of variables—such as ethnicity, social class, economic activity, and household composition—confirmed that the sample was nationally representative. A helpline was set up by the consortium administering the survey specifically to assist people who may have had difficulty in completing the questionnaire.

  Code of Practice on Openness
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Code of Practice on Openness in the NHS is distributed and made accessible to the general public; and if he will make a statement. [92037]

  Mr. Denham
  A leaflet for the public which summarises the Code of Practice on Openness in the National Health Service is widely available on NHS premises and in general practitioners' surgeries.
  643
  Copies of the Code of Practice on Openness itself are available to any member of the public, on request from the Department or any NHS trust or health authority.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the NHS Direct service will be available to the public in Shropshire; and if he will make a statement. [92040]

  Mr. Denham
  The roll-out of NHS Direct in the West Midlands Region is proceeding according to plan and NHS Direct will be available in the whole of the region by the end of the year 2000. Shropshire Health Authority, working closely with local stakeholders including general practitioners, is contributing to the planning of the provision of NHS Direct in the area, and this work is currently progressing well.

  Patient Information
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the new guidance from the General Medical Council on patient information; and if he will make a statement. [91982]

  Mr. Denham
  The General Medical Council (GMC) consulted the Department in the course of developing new guidance on "Confidentiality: Providing and Protecting Information". The guidance, which updates previous guidance issued by the GMC, provides helpful clarity on a number of issues that are of concern to the medical profession.

  Antibiotics
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment of risk to human health he has made of the use of antibiotics used as growth promoters in farm animal food products; and if he will make a statement. [92038]

  Ms Jowell
  The Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food's (ACMSF) report on microbial antibiotic resistance in relation to food safety will be published shortly. The use of antibiotics as growth promoters is one of the topics covered in the report. Both the Veterinary Products Committee and the ACMSF have taken public health concerns into account when advising the Government on the use of antibiotics as growth promoters.

  National Electronic Library for Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how patients and members of the public will be consulted on the development of the National Electronic Library for Health; and if he will make a statement. [91985]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Electronic Library for Health is one of the major initiatives highlighted in the new National Health Service Information Strategy "Information for Health", which places great importance on information for the public. The National Electronic Library for Health project team is working closely with the NHS Direct initiative and the Centre for Health Information Quality to ensure that the Library properly addresses patient information needs. The project team 644
  receives feedback from the public and patient interest groups through those initiatives, and from clinicians and information specialists who work directly with the public.

  In addition, a colloquium on the interests of patients, carers, service users and the public was held on 21 April 1999. This was attended by representatives of Community Health Councils, voluntary groups and patient self help groups. There is also a public website on the internet at http://www.nelh.nhs.uk which describes the proposed strategy for the Library in detail.

  Appointments (Quangos)
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) 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; [92117]

  (2) 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. [92046]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is given in the tables. The Department's most recently set goals and objectives for ensuring recruitment from all sections of society were published by the Government on 25 May in "Quangos: Opening Up Public Appointments 1999–2002" copies of which are available in the Library.

  Appointments to NHS Boards and NDPBs

  Appointments made during the period 1 June 1997 to 31 May 1998 Ethnic

  White

  minority2

  Asian3

  Total

  NHS Boards1

  968

  114

  53

  1,082

  NDPBs

  137

  24

  11

  161

  Total

  1,105

  138

  64

  1,243

  Appointments made during the period 1 June 1998 to 31 May 1999 Ethnic

  White

  minority2

  Asian3

  Total

  NHS Boards3

  1,243

  179

  78

  1,422

  NDPBs

  117

  15

  6

  132

  Total

  1,360

  194

  84

  1,554

  1 Does not include three month health authority re-appointments made on 1 April 1998.

  2 Includes those from the Asian community.

  3 Made up of the ethnic categories of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Chinese.

  Pontefract and Pinderfields Hospitals
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide guidance to Wakefield Health Authority in relation to their next strategic outline case for capital finance for Pontefract and Pinderfields Hospitals. [92065]

  Mr. Denham
  On 16 July 1999 senior officers of the National Health Service Executive met the chief executives of the Wakefield Health Authority and the Pinderfields and Pontefract Hospitals National Health Service Trust. Items discussed included how the Wakefield Health Authority might progress its case for new capital finance.

  Health Authority Finance
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's timetable for the next round of health authority bids for capital finance. [92097]

  Mr. Denham
  An announcement will be made in due course on the timing of future waves of capital prioritisation.

  Clinical Negligence
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 July 1999,Official Report, columns 399–400, on clinical negligence, what was the nature of the comparison made by the NHS Executive between the costs of commercial versus public sector insurance for clinical negligence risks; when it was carried out; what was the indicative margin between NHS-provided clinical negligence insurance premiums and comparable commercial cover; and if he will list the features of NHS-provided clinical negligence cover that cannot be provided by commercial insurers. [92108]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: The decision to establish the clinical negligence scheme for NHS trusts as a voluntary risk pooling scheme took account of the fact that no established commercial insurance arrangements were available for clinical negligence. As I said in my answer of 2 July 1999, Official Report, columns 399–400, the NHS Executive has consistently discouraged trusts from using commercial insurance for clinical negligence risks on value for money grounds.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the NHS of clinical negligence claims, indicating separately the cost of legal fees, for 1997–98; and what is the estimated cost for 1998–99. [92112]

  Mr. Denham
  Clinical negligence costs charged to expenditure in the 1997–98 summarised accounts for the National Health Service in England amounted to £144 million. Information on the cost of legal fees is not available. Accounts for 1998–99 are not yet available.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was paid by NHS trusts in premiums for clinical negligence cover through the clinical negligence scheme for trusts for the latest year for which data is available. [92305]

  Mr. Denham
  The amount charged to National Health Service trusts in 1998–99 was approximately £15.2 million.

  Official Documents
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a list of all those official 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. [92176]

  Mr. Denham
  [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 continued to be guided by the
  646
  convention governing access to the papers of the 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.

  Operating Department Practitioners
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish a statutory scheme for registration of operating department practitioners; and if he will make a statement. [92440]

  Mr. Denham
  We expect the employment of operating department practitioners to be confined to qualified and competent practitioners and propose to consult on guidance to health authorities and National Health Service trusts about the practical steps required to implement this effectively. We will keep the matter of statutory regulation under review for the longer term.

  Medical Devices Agency
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the 1998–99 Annual Report and Accounts of the Medical Devices Agency. [92873]

  Ms Jowell
  We have received the Report and Accounts of the Medical Devices Agency and copies have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of Sections 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  NHS Estates Executive Agency
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the Annual report and Accounts 1998–99 for the NHS Estates Executive Agency. [92874]

  Mr. Denham
  We have received the report and copies have today been laid in accordance with the requirements of Section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the Corporate Plan 1999–2000 to 2001–02, Key Tasks and Targets for 1999–2000 and Business Plan 1999–2000 for the NHS Estates Executive Agency. [92876]

  Mr. Denham
  We have agreed the Agency's Corporate Plan 1999–2000 to 2001–02, Key Tasks and Targets for 1999–2000 and Business Plan 1999–2000 and have placed copies in the Library.

  NHS Pensions Agency
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the Annual Report and Accounts of the NHS Pensions Agency. [92875]

  Mr. Denham
  We have approved the Report and Accounts which has today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of Sections 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  Adverse Incidents
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many investigations into adverse incidents have been carried out by each NHS regional office in each of the last 10 years. [92111]

  Mr. Denham
  Inquiries into adverse incidents are usually carried out by or on behalf of National Health Service trusts and health authorities rather than by NHS Executive regional offices. Regional offices may be involved in making sure such inquiries take place where there are statutory or other requirements for them to do so.

  Accident and Emergency (Leicestershire)
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the adequacy of the current emergency and accident services for North West Leicestershire; and what changes are planned thereto. [92079]

  Mr. Denham
  The provision of accident and emergency services for Leicestershire is an integral part of Leicestershire Health Authority Health Improvement Programme which is reviewed annually by the National Health Service Executive and agreed with local primary care groups.

  As part of the national accident and emergency modernisation programme Leicester Royal Infirmary has been made an award of £3.7 million to modernise accident and emergency services to meet likely future demand.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average time for a substantive reply to be sent to hon. Members' correspondence; what proportion takes more than(a) four weeks, (b) six weeks and (c) eight weeks; and what is his estimate of the number of letters received in a year from hon. Members. [92451]

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

SCOTLAND

  Data Series
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new data series separated by gender, race, disability and age have been commissioned by his Department since June 1997. [90537]

  Dr. Reid
  None.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many parliamentary questions were tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day 648
  between May 1997 and 14 April 1999; and what percentage of them received a substantive response on that named day. [91058]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my predecessor my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar) on 15 April 1999,Official Report, column 309, which covered the period May 1997 to 31 March 1999. Ten parliamentary questions were tabled to my Department for written answer on a named day in the remaining period 31 March 1999 to 14 April 1999. Of these, 70 per cent. received a substantive reply on the named day.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many individuals his Department has recruited under the New Deal for Young People. [91883]

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

  Crown Estate
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his responsibilities with regard to the Crown Estate. [92206]

  Dr. Reid
  Although the functions of the Crown Estate Commissioners in managing the Crown Estate are reserved, properties and interests which form the Crown Estate in Scotland are subject to the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. However, the power of direction over the Crown Estate Commissioners will remain with the United Kingdom Government and is exercised jointly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average time for a substantive reply to be sent to hon. Members' correspondence; what proportion takes more than(a) four weeks, (b) six weeks and (c) eight weeks; and what is his estimate of the number of letters received in a year from hon. Members. [92453]

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

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Gender Impact Assessment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the subject of each gender impact assessment drawn up by his
  649
  Department since June 1997, indicating in each case whether the outcome has been (a) put out to consultation and (b) published. [92000]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her today by my noble Friend the Minister for Women. As part of the Government's commitment to ensuring that its policies are relevant to the lives that people live today, my Department is working closely with the Women's Unit to develop good practices for carrying out gender impact appraisal. When developing policies, we have considered how they would affect different parts of the community, although since new guidance on Equal Treatment was promulgated in November 1998, we have not had occasion to carry out any formal Gender Impact assessments.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what responses he has received from the public on his reforms of the legal aid system. [92014]

  Mr. Vaz
  Since the publication of the White Paper "Modernising Justice" on 2 December 1998, and the introduction of the Access to Justice Bill in the other place on 3 December 1998, my predecessor and I have received 337 letters about the reforms of the legal aid system from members of the public, directly and through their MPs.

  Appointments (Quangos)
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. [92144]

  Mr. Vaz
  Of the non-judicial public appointments to the Lord Chancellor's non-departmental public bodies, 303 were made in the first period, of which five were Asians and none were other ethnic minorities, and 199 were made in the second period, of which six were Asians and five other ethnic minorities.

  My Department's plan on equal opportunities was included in the plan published by the Government on 25 May 1999 and deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average time for a substantive reply to be sent to hon. Members' correspondence; what proportion takes more than(a) four weeks, (b) six weeks and (c) eight weeks; and what is his estimate of the number of letters received in a year from hon. Members. [92445]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln 650
  (Gillian Merron) on 11 June 1999, Official Report, columns 403–06, which sets out performance against departmental targets for answering correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members in the 1998 calendar year. More detailed information about the percentage of correspondence replied to within the time scales specified could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Orders in Council
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Council how many orders in council have been made since 1 January 1998. [92244]

  Mrs. Beckett
  927, up to and including the Council held on 21 July 1999. The Orders are broken down as follows:

  Orders relating to the appointment and swearing in of Privy Councillors: 531(5.7 per cent.)

  Orders relating to Royal Charters: 65 (7 per cent.)

  Statutory Orders relating to domestic business: 171 (18.4 per cent.)

  Statutory Orders relating to overseas business: 42 (4.5 per cent.)

  Orders relating to the Channel Islands: 85 (9.2 per cent.)

  Orders relating to University Statutes: 31 (3.3 per cent.)

  Orders relating to appointments: 34 (3.7 per cent.)

  Orders under the Burial Act 1853: 25 (2.7 per cent.)

  Orders approving schemes of the Church Commissioners: 274 (29.6 per cent.)

  Orders giving consent to Royal Marriages: 5 (0.5 per cent.)

  Civil Service Orders: 4 (0.4 per cent.)

  Orders approving Judicial Committee reports: 129 (13.9 per cent.)

  Sealing Orders for Proclamations: 6 (0.6 per cent.)

  Prorogation of Parliament: 1 (0.1 per cent.)

  Orders on ecclesiastical matters: 1 (0.1 per cent.)

  Orders relating to the Royal Navy: 1 (0.1 per cent.)

  1 This does not equate to the number of new Privy Councillors, since some Councillors are appointed by Order and sworn in at a subsequent Council. In such cases there will be two Orders.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the number and proportion of young people who on leaving the New Deal employment option then move on to unsubsidised employment. [90317]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In the period January 1998 to April 1999, of the 5,800 young people who have left the New Deal employer option for known destinations, 50 per cent. moved into unsubsidised employment. In addition, 2,500 left for unknown destinations. A recent independent and reliable survey showed that 43 per cent. of leavers into unknown destinations had, in fact, left the New Deal for paid employment.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans the Government have to increase the clarity of information made available to firms wanting to join the New Deal. [90192]
  651
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]: The main vehicle for providing information to employers wanting to join New Deal is the "New Deal for Employers" booklet. This was produced in consultation with employers in order that the information contained in it is useful and relevant and presented in a clear, user-friendly way. A telephone survey of employers showed that 95 per cent. of employers were positive about its presentation. 83 per cent. said that they found the content relevant or very relevant.

  In addition to this main item of literature, the Employment Service staff, including Business Managers, pro-actively communicate with both large and small employers. This includes meetings with large groups and one-to-one discussions to explain the New Deal and provide a contact within the Employment Service to whom the employer can address any questions.

  The New Deal Task Force is stimulating wider engagement in the New Deal through employer coalitions in major cities, and through contact groups of Human Resource Directors, small and medium employers, and intermediary bodies with employer customers.

  The Task Force and Employment Service are working with key employers and employer organisations in major growth sectors such as hospitality, construction and retail to improve the information and enhance the engagement of employers in the New Deal in these sectors.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what help will be given to widows, widowers and carers by the recently announced New Deal 50-plus; and if he will make a statement. [93059]

  Number of entries at GCE A level in mathematics, physics and chemistry and, as a percentage of all entries in each year shown in England and Wales

  Mathematics

  Physics

  Chemistry

  All entries

  19701

  Number of entries (000s)

  64.4

  41.5

  30.8

  441.9

  Percentage of all entries

  14.6

  9.4

  7.0

  —

  19801

  Number of entries (000s)

  86.2

  52.3

  45.1

  589.3

  Percentage of all entries

  14.6

  8.9

  7.6

  —

  19922

  Number of entries (000s)

  69.8

  38.9

  39.8

  704.5

  Percentage of all entries

  9.9

  5.5

  5.6

  —

  1998

  Number of entries (000s)

  67.4

  32.7

  40.4

  760.7

  Percentage of all entries

  8.9

  4.3

  5.3

  —

  1 Data are not directly comparable with figures for 1992 and 1998 due to changes in data sources.

  2 Figures for 1986 to 1991 were not published in this format, so are unavailable. 1992 data are therefore provided as they are comparable to 1998 data.

  Source:

  Department for Education and Employment; National Assembly for Wales; Welsh and English Examining Boards.

  Maintained-school Places (Costs)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average cost of(a) a place in a maintained school in the secondary sector and (b) a place in a maintained school in the secondary sector to age 13 years according to the most recent figures. [91672]
  652
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We will be giving extra help to carers receiving Invalid Care Allowance and widows and widowers receiving the proposed new Bereavement Allowance and Widowed Parent's Allowance by opening up access to the New Deal 50-plus. I expect this to be in place from the autumn of this year.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the work done to date by the Training Standards Council to establish a system for evaluation of local partnerships for New Deal. [92311]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Training Standards Council published in June "Partners for Quality", a framework developed specifically for the inspection of education and training provision within the New Deal for Young People Options. The inspection programme starts in October 1999.

  A-levels
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students were submitted for examination at A level in(a) mathematics, (b) physics and (c) chemistry in England and Wales in (i) 1970, (ii) 1980, (iii) 1990 and (iv) the latest year available; and in each case what was that figure as a percentage of the total A-level entries in all subjects in that year. [91146]

  Mr. Mudie
  The information available for GCE A-level examinations by selected subject in England and Wales is shown in the table.

  Ms Estelle Morris
  It is not possible to differentiate by age the average cost of pupils. However, the average cost per secondary school pupil in England based on 1998–99 budget figures was £2,930.

  Right to Study Initiative
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many 16 and 17 year
  653
  olds will qualify over the next year for the Right to Study Initiative in (a) England and Wales, (b) the North-East of England and (c) the Tynemouth constituency. [91941]

  Mr. Mudie
  The latest estimate, at the end of 1997, was that 110,000 employees in England were aged 16 or 17, not qualified to level 2, and not working towards a level 2 qualification. Comparable figures for Wales and particular regions of England are not available.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students enrolled in full-time higher education courses to study(a) physics and (b) mathematics in England and Wales in each of the years from 1993 to 1998. [91943]

  Mr. Mudie
  The information is given in the following table.

  Full-time entrants to higher education courses1 England and Wales2

  Year of entry

  19933

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Subject of study4

  Physics

  4,684

  4,205

  3,957

  3,650

  3,801

  3,650

  Mathematics

  5,633

  4,955

  4,842

  5,313

  5,268

  4,822

  1 Postgraduate and undergraduate courses

  2 Excluding a small number of HE students in Further Education Colleges

  3 Excluding a small number of HE students in HEIs in Wales. Figures for 1993–94 were collected on a different basis to those in later years

  4 Excluding combined courses which contain mathematics or physics in combination with other subjects

  Appointments (Quangos)
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [92136]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a total of 96 appointments and re-appointments to non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) between 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998. Of these, one was of Asian origin, from a total of two who were of ethnic minority origin.

  From 1 June 1998 to 31 May 1999, my right hon. Friend made a total of 119 appointments and re-appointments to NDPB s. Of these, nine were of Asian origin, from a total of 19 who were of ethnic minority origin.

  Child Labour
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the Government will(a) ratify the ILO Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour and (b) encourage other Governments to ratify the Convention. [92125]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I hope to be in a position to make an announcement on ratification of Convention 138 in the near future.

  Official Documents
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish a list of all those official 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. [92180]

  Mr. Mudie
  [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 Prime Minister's reply to a written question on 24 January 1980, Official Report, columns 305–07.

  Long-term Unemployed
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what new measures he is taking to help the adult long-term unemployed. [93160]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We consulted widely on new Employment Zones with personal job accounts (PJAs) earlier in the year. I am today launching our invitation to tender to run the new Zones at a conference in London. A copy of the bidding procedures will be placed in the Library. There will be 12 Zones in England, two in Wales and one in Scotland, which will help 48,000 long-term unemployed people in areas where the problem still exists despite the improvement in the economy. The new Zones will offer both those who run them and those who benefit from them real flexibility in the way existing funds are used to move from benefits to employment. After a first step lasting no more than three months, those who have not left the register will move on to a personal job account with a fully costed action plan agreed between participants and their personal advisers. Personal job accounts will enable unemployed people to take more responsibility for their path back to employment. We intend to run Employment Zones in the following areas from April 2000: Brighton and Hove; Birmingham; Brent; Caerphilly, Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil; Doncaster; Glasgow; Haringey; Liverpool and Sefton; Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland; Newham; North West Wales; Nottingham City; Plymouth; Southwark and Tower Hamlets.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the revised Employment Service Framework Document; and when the five-year review of the Employment Service is to take place. [93061]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  A revised Framework Document for the Employment Service (ES) will be published on 30 July and copies will be placed in the Library. The document includes the ES' s current Aim and Objectives, new financial arrangements, and arrangements for liaison with Scotland and Wales following devolution.

  The next five-year review of the Employment Service will be completed not later than 31 December 2000.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many student loans are now overdue; if he will provide a breakdown of the amounts by bands; and what steps are being taken by his Department and the Student Loans Company to recover them. [92309]

  Mr. Mudie
  At 31 March 1999, 125,000 accounts were overdue out of a total of 999,400 due to repay. These figures are provisional and include loans sold to the private sector. The breakdown of amounts overdue by banding is not available, but the Company had collected 90 per cent. of moneys due by 31 March 1999.

  The Student Loans Company follows rigorous collection procedures. Its procedures currently are comparable with industry standards and will increasingly reflect the influence of the private sector owners of sold loans in improving collections practice.

  British Sign Language
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what information he has collected on the number of persons currently qualified in British Sign Language and to what levels; and what action he is taking to encourage the attainment of these qualifications. [92312]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Department does not have information on those holding qualifications in Sign Language. A number of qualifications in Sign Language and aiding communication for deaf people are included in Schedule 2(a) of the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act and are therefore eligible for funding by the Further Education Funding Council. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has supported the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People in developing individual units in Sign Language which are designed to aid take-up of qualifications.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what reply he has sent to recent representations from the Commission for Racial Equality on ethnicity and employment in higher education. [92379]

  Mr. Mudie
  Ministerial colleagues and I have received copies of the Commission for Racial Equality's summary report on ethnicity and employment in higher education. Most of the recommendations are for higher education institutions and their representative bodies. We have agreed to meet the Commission once the full report is published.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average time for a substantive reply to be sent to hon. Members' correspondence; what proportion takes more than(a) four weeks, (b) six weeks and (c) eight weeks; and what is his estimate of the number of letters received in a year from hon. Members. [92443]
  656
  Mr. Mudie
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on 11 June 1999,Official Report, columns 403–06, which sets out performance against departmental targets for answering correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members in the 1998 calendar year. More detailed information about the percentage of correspondence replied to within the time scales specified could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Executive Agencies
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the 1998–99 Annual Report and Accounts for the Pesticides Safety Directorate. [93153]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I am pleased to announce that the 1998–99 Annual Report and Accounts for the Pesticides Safety Directorate were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  I should like to congratulate all staff on their achievements during the year.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the 1998–99 Annual Report and Accounts for the Central Science Laboratory. [93154]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I am pleased to announce that the 1998–99 Annual Report and Accounts for the Central Science Laboratory were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  I should like to congratulate all staff on their achievements during the year.

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the 1998–99 Annual Report and Accounts for the Meat Hygiene Service. [93155]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I am pleased to announce that the 1998–99 Annual Report and Accounts for the Meat Hygiene Service were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  I should like to congratulate all staff on their achievements during the year.

  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the 1998–99 Annual Report and Accounts for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. [93156]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I am pleased to announce that the 1998–99 Annual Report and Accounts for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  I should like to congratulate all staff on their achievements during the year.
  657
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the 1998–99 Annual Report and Accounts for the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency. [93157]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I am pleased to announce that the 1998–99 Annual Report and Accounts for the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency were laid before Parliament today. Copies are being placed in the Library of the House.

  I should like to congratulate all staff on their achievements during the year.

  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the 1998–99 Annual Report and Accounts for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. [93158]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I am pleased to announce that the 1998–99 Annual Report and Accounts for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  I should like to congratulate all staff on their achievements during the year.

  Cattle Movement Service
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out the standards of service for the British Cattle Movement Service. [93159]

  Mr. Rooker
  The British Cattle Movement Service is making available its standards of service to organisations in the cattle industry and other groups with an interest. I am putting a copy of the BCMS Citizen's Charter in the Library of the House today.

  BCMS is committed to issuing all cattle passports within 10 working days of receipt of a valid and complete passport application, and also to updating its database of cattle movements in all cases within 10 working days of receiving a valid and complete notification that an animal has moved. These are demanding standards, which I am confident BCMS will meet.

  Copies of the BCMS Citizen's Charter will be sent to all cattle farmers in Great Britain later in the year.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has given to Meat Hygiene Service personnel on their future roles under the Food Standards Agency. [88291]

  Mr. Rooker
  MHS personnel have been provided with a detailed question and answer briefing outlining their future roles under the Food Standards Agency (FSA). As the date for the launch of the Agency gets closer, further information will be provided.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will instruct all operational staff of the Meat Hygiene Service to record in writing complaints made to them by staff or management of slaughterhouses, meat cutting plants and poultry processing plants concerning the conduct or performance of Meat Hygiene Service staff and to forward those records to the Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service for response within 658
  a reasonable time, and require that those records be available for inspection by auditing staff of the Joint Food Safety and Standards Group. [88292]

  Mr. Rooker
  No; this is not necessary. The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) has already established modern customer complaints procedures which provide arrangements for dealing with complaints quickly at the point of service delivery, and those needing to be raised formally and escalated for senior management attention.

  A simple guide was issued to all MHS customers in March 1999 outlining how customers can make complaints or comment about MHS services. These procedures meet the latest best practice principles promoted by the "Service First" unit of the Cabinet Office and are part of the MHS Quality Management System, which was registered by the British Standards Institution to the international standard BS EN ISO 9002:1994 in June 1998. The MHS is committed to continual improvement in delivering quality services, and it will continue to keep under review the effectiveness of its complaints mechanisms.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has received on research conducted in the People's Republic of China about(a) the yields of genetically modified crops and (b) the quantities of chemical treatments used for such crops as opposed to non-genetically modified crops. [91731]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have received no such reports about research conducted in the People's Republic of China.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of reports from the industry that genetically modified crops grown in the United States and in China produce higher yields and are treated with lower levels of chemicals than the equivalent non-genetically modified crops grown in the same countries. [92098]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have received no such reports from either the United States or the People's Republic of China.

  However, a summary of a US Department of Agriculture Report comparing GM and non-GM crops appears on the internet and indicates that there was no difference in yield and pesticide use in some areas; a significant increase in yield in six out of 18 areas; and a decrease in pesticide use in some regions. UK farming conditions are different to those in the US and it is difficult to tell how relevant the results may be to this country.

  OTMS
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken towards ending the over-30-month scheme; and if he will make a statement. [91899]

  Mr. Rooker
  The over-30-month scheme (OTMS) is an EU scheme, the rules of which are set by the European Commission. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee have identified criteria against which the controls on beef over-30-months of age can be reviewed in the future and began addressing this at its meeting in March. However, the Committee recognise that this will
  659
  require careful study and will almost certainly need to be considered at several meetings. In the light of the Committee's conclusions, and after consultation with all interested parties, the Government will consider what changes to the OTMS (if any) could be made consistent with the continued protection of public health and which they might then recommend to the Commission for their consideration.

  Antibiotics
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what safety assessments he has made of the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in farm animals; and if he will make a statement. [92039]

  Mr. Rooker
  The use of additives in animal feedingstuffs, including antibiotic growth promoters, is controlled in the EU by Council Directive 70/524/EEC as amended. No feed additive is permitted unless it satisfies criteria of safety and efficacy. Recent concerns about the development of microbial resistance to antibiotics has led to a ban on the use of four antibiotic growth promoters in the EU, which took effect on 1 July 1999. The Government are advised on the use of antibiotics as growth promoters by the independent scientific Veterinary Products Committee, which is keeping the matter under close review.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 24 June 1999,Official Report, column 449, to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons), if he will suspend badger culling while alternatives are considered in response to recommendation 69 of the Standing Committee to the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. [92032]

  Mr. Rooker
  No. The Government believe that their present strategy and actions in controlling bovine TB, including the badger culling trial, represent the best means of finding a scientifically sound and sustainable policy for the long term. The Agriculture Select Committee report "Badgers and Bovine Tuberculosis" (HC 233) endorses this view. The Government have responded to the Bern Convention recommendation explaining why the action they are pursuing is fully consistent with the provisions of the Convention.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take to counter the rise in TB in dairy herds. [92432]

  Mr. Rooker
  In August 1998, the Government announced a five-point strategy of research and controls to deal with bovine tuberculosis, taking forward the recommendations of Professors Krebs and Bourne. This strategy was recently endorsed by the House of Commons Agriculture Select Committee as representing the best way forward. The Government's response to the Committee's report was published on 5 July (HC612) and sets out the steps being taken to control this disease.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the conclusions of the MAFF programme on the link between badgers and the spread of bovine TB at East Offaly in the Irish Republic. [92221]
  660
  Mr. Rooker
  Professor Krebs reviewed the data from previous large-scale badger clearances, including in the area of East Offaly in the Irish Republic. His conclusion was that the sum of evidence"strongly supports the view that badgers are a cause of herd breakdowns".
  Krebs noted, however, that the absence of adequate experimental controls in previous badger clearances, including the East Offaly clearance, made it impossible to eliminate alternative explanations for the observed fall in herd breakdown rates or to quantify the contribution that badgers made to bovine TB. He recommended a controlled experiment to test rigorously the effectiveness of different strategies in Great Britain and to provide a sound basis for future policy.

  The Government accepted the Krebs' recommendations, and established the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, chaired by Professor John Bourne, to oversee their implementation and advise on other relevant scientific work. The work now in hand, including a randomised badger culling trial and new epidemiological and disease control research, aims to provide the information needed to secure a sustainable future policy to control TB in cattle.

  Official Documents
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a list of all those official 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. [92185]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [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.

  Farm Medicines
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the cost of farm medicines; and if he will make a statement. [91993]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 21 July 19991: We have received representations about comparatively high prices of veterinary medicinal products in the UK and we are carefully considering the issues and whether further action is called for. However, the pricing of veterinary medicinal products is not controlled by either UK or European Community legislation. Decisions on the wholesale costs of veterinary medicines are matters for the companies manufacturing the products, taking into account commercial factors such as development and production costs and anticipated volume of sales in the member state concerned.
  661
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the relative prices for farm medicines in the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic; and if will make a statement. [91994]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 21 July 1999]: There are no price controls on veterinary medicines in the EU. Prices generally reflect the market conditions and distribution practices in each member state. A comparison of wholesale prices in the UK and the Republic of Ireland shows that some products are cheaper in Ireland and others are cheaper in the UK.

  BSE (USA)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what dates his Department asked the United States Government to comment on the recent reports of the presence of BSE in the USA; to which United States department these requests were addressed; and on what dates the United States Government replied. [92250]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 12 July 1999,Official Report, column 88.

  Farming (Financial Support)
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the level of Government financial support allocated for the year 1998–99 for(a) organic farming and (b) conventional farming; how much has been spent to date; and how much is expected to be so allocated in 1999–2000. [92405]

  Mr. Rooker
  The forecast for the UK for programmes on agriculture for 1998–99 is £762.2 million, and £660.0 million for 1999–2000, of which £1.9 million and £4 million respectively is for aid for conversion to organic farming. These figures are for national expenditure and do not include contributions from the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF. With EAGGF contributions, the figures for aid for conversion to organic farming are £3.8 million for 1998–99 and £8 million for 1999–2000.

  In addition, organic farmers are entitled to receive all support payments available generally to farmers.

  Labelling
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what UK regulations govern the labelling of produce deriving from(a) other European states, (b) applicant countries to the European Union and (c) elsewhere. [92223]

  Mr. Rooker
  General labelling rules for food sold within the European Union are set out in Directive 79/112/EEC. They apply no matter where the food has come from, and are implemented here by the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 (as amended).

  Cattle Identification
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the charges in each EU member state for passport and tagging of calves. [92219]
  662
  Mr. Rooker
  Most member states charge their farmers for cattle identification, although often on bases which cannot be compared with the proposed charges for passports here. For member states for which we have information, the position in early 1999 was:

  Austria: Farmers pay for ear tags: no charge otherwise.

  Belgium: Charge of about £0.85 per animal per year.

  Denmark: Charge of £1.50 per animal per year, plus £2 per passport (issued for exported cattle).

  Finland: Tagging and registration fee of around £2.50 per animal

  France: £2.30 per animal.

  Germany: Around £1.60 per animal but some additional costs recovered from levies paid by farmers.

  Luxembourg: No charge.

  Netherlands: £1.70 per animal per year.

  Sweden: Charge for registering animals:

  up to £0.90 for registration by phone or letter;

  £5.40 for passports (issued for exported cattle).

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will assess the advantages of putting out the Cattle Moving Database to private tender. [92220]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Cattle Tracing System (CTS) is currently administered by the British Cattle Movement (BCMS), which is part of MAFF. The CTS has been in operation for less than a year. Any assessment of the current arrangements for administering it, and alternatives, would be premature.

  Pesticide Tax
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what other European countries are subject to a pesticide tax; and at what levels. [92222]

  Mr. Rooker
  I understand that, currently, Denmark, Sweden and Norway tax all pesticides, while Belgium applies a tax to non-agricultural uses of the herbicides atrazine, diuron, isoproturon, simazine and pentachlorophenol. The latest rate of tax in each country is understood to be as follows:

  Denmark

  ad valorum tax on highest retail value:

  insecticide: 54 per cent.

  herbicide: 33 per cent.

  Non-agricultural use: 3 per cent.

  Sweden

  20 Swedish hone (about £1.50) per kg active ingredient

  Norway
  basic rate = 15 Norwegian hone (about £1.20) per ha—varied according to banding:
  Seed treatment pesticides and biological products—basic rate x 0.5
  Products constituting low risk to health and environment—basic rate x 1.0
  Products constituting high risk to health/low risk to environment or, low risk to health and high risk to environment—basic rate x 4.0
  Products of high risk to health and to environment—basic rate x 8.0
  There are higher rates pro-rata for household use.
  663
  Belgium 1999

  10,000 Belgian francs (about £160) per kg of active ingredient.

  I am not aware of specific pesticide taxes in other European countries.

  Beef (Export)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when abattoirs other than St. Merryn's in Cornwall will be approved for the processing of beef for export; and what estimate he has made of the number of abattoirs which will be approved for the processing of beef for export in the year following 1 August. [92336]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  It is up to abattoirs to apply for approval. If they do so we will deal with their application as quickly as possible.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he expects the remaining restrictions on the export of beef to be lifted; [92373]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his policy pressing for the export of beef-on-the-bone and of live cattle to be resumed. [92374]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  In my statement to the House on 14 July 1999,Official Report, column 405, I made it clear that I am working for the day when we are able to trade in beef on equal terms with other member states. I will put proposals to the European Commission for further relaxations of the export ban when I judge that we have a strong case which can be justified by science. In particular, the resumption of trade in beef on the bone, and beef from cattle more than 30 months old, will need to be informed by the views of the Government's scientific advisers.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the final inspection and approval by his Department needed before an abattoir can export beef will involve; and for what reason these inspections had not been carried out in preparation for the lifting of the beef export ban. [92344]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  To gain approval, a slaughterhouse must demonstrate that it has the facilities and control procedures to meet the requirements of the DBES. The assessment of premises seeking approval, which will include an inspection visit, will be made by a specially trained officer of the State Veterinary Service.

  It was not possible to carry out these inspections or to grant approval until we had received and considered the recommendations in the Commission Inspectors' final report.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if cattle over 30 months old can be exported. [92342]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  No live cattle can be exported. Beef exported under the Date-based Export Scheme must be from cattle aged under 30 months at the time of slaughter.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the impact on animal welfare of the only abattoir licensed to process beef for export being located in Cornwall. [92345]
  664
  Mr. Nick Brown
  Statutory rules are in place concerning the welfare of livestock during transport and at slaughter. They apply irrespective of where in the country the animals are transported or where the slaughter is taking place.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what help the Government plan to give to beef exporters in Great Britain. [92337]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  My Department has sent detailed advice about the Scheme to all abattoirs that may be eligible to participate in the Scheme and set up a helpline to give advice. Abattoirs can, free of charge, make test applications to determine the proportion of their animals which might be DBES eligible. This is designed to help them make their commercial decisions, and my officials are prepared to offer any further advice necessary to help abattoirs and other meat processing establishments in their consideration of how they might benefit from the Scheme. The Department has established a Beef Export Liaison Group to exchange views of those involved in beef exports which will monitor progress of the DBES and identify key markets. In addition, I and my colleagues will be taking every opportunity to promote the Date-based Export Scheme (DBES) to industry here and customers abroad.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when European Commission inspectors were invited to Britain to examine the facilities through which beef exports would be channelled. [92335]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The inspection arrangements were the outcome of discussions and correspondence between my officials and Commission officials during January and February, which covered points of detail on the proposed operation of the scheme and the scope of and timetable for the inspection. We agreed with the inspectors that they would come at the end of March or during April. The date was subsequently confirmed for the week commencing 12 April.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what help the Government will provide with the running costs of the export scheme for slaughterhouses during the initial period of export build up after 1 August. [92338]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Government's policy is to recover the costs of operating the Date-based Export Scheme (DBES) from those who choose to benefit from it. The Government have, however, spent more than £1 million on developing the scheme, including the IT systems which are necessary to support it, which will not be recovered through charges.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects British beef supplies to be resumed to British service men serving abroad. [92339]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The provisioning of the armed forces is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The worldwide ban will be lifted from 1 August, so it will be legally possible to export beef for the use of British service men serving in the European Union and, subject to the rules of the Governments of the countries concerned, to service men serving in third countries.

  Beef (School Meals)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will write to local authorities to encourage them to put British Beef back on their school menus; and if he will place a copy of his letter in the Library. [92340]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Ultimately it is for Local Authorities themselves to decide whether or not to have beef, or indeed any other food products, on school menus. Nevertheless, I am currently preparing a letter to Local Authorities setting out the case for British Beef, following my earlier representation on this matter. Once this has been issued, I will place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

WALES

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many individuals his Department has recruited under the New Deal for Young People. [91881]

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

  An additional three people were recruited by the Welsh Office between 25 May and 30 June. Of the eight people. six were recruited under the New Deal for 18–24s and two under the New Deal for 25-plus.

  On 1 July, all staff working for the Welsh Office in Wales transferred to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Waterhouse Report
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish the Waterhouse report; if the report will be published bilingually; and if he will make a statement. [87795]

  Mr. Michael
  As soon as the Tribunal of Inquiry submits its report, it will be presented to Parliament and published as quickly as possible.
  666
  The degree of bilingual publication will be considered in the light of the desirability of early publication in the public interest and of the Welsh language scheme.

  National Assembly for Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the Government plan to issue the concordats for the National Assembly for Wales; and if he will make a statement. [90897]

  Mr. Michael
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhynmey (Mr. Rowlands) on 7 July 1999,Official Report, column 1019.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average time for a substantive reply to be sent to hon. Members' correspondence; what proportion takes more than(a) four weeks, (b) six weeks and (c) eight weeks; and what is his estimate of the number of letters received in a year from hon. Members. [92452]

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

  Objective 1 Status
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information has to be supplied to the EU Commission before 1 November relating to the West Wales Objective One status application; and if he will make a statement. [92377]

  Mr. Michael
  By 1 November, the National Assembly will need to submit a full single programming document for objective 1 to the European Commission. This will need to meet the Commission's requirements as laid out in the Vade Mecum.

  Objective 1 status has already been secured. Release of the funds depends on the acceptance by the Commission of the submitted plan.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by The Lord Bishop of Hereford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Laird
John Dunn Laird, Esquire, having been created Baron Laird, of Artigarvan in the County of Tyrone, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Cooke of Islandreagh and the Lord Molyneaux of Killead.

Lord Rogan
Dennis Robert David Rogan, Esquire, having been created Baron Rogan, of Lower Iveagh in the County of Down, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Cooke of Islandreagh and the Lord Molyneaux of Killead.
Lord Marks of Broughton Lord Marks of Broughton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Lord Killanin Lord Killanin—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Listed Building Repairs: VAT
3.14 p.m.
Viscount Gage Viscount Gage asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider lowering the rate of VAT on repairs to listed buildings.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. European agreements mean that we cannot introduce a reduced VAT rate for repairs to listed buildings as such. It is Government policy to offer financial assistance to the heritage through targeted conservation grants and capital taxation relief.
Viscount Gage: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the charging of the full rate of VAT on the repair of listed buildings which do not generate profit is an anomaly compared to the zero rating on improvements where there is a potential for gain? Does he further agree that this anomaly is responsible for the lack of viability of the built heritage? Does he think that that may have some bearing on the development of brownfield sites?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord suggested that it is an anomaly for VAT to be charged on repairs where there is no opportunity for gain and for no VAT to be charged on improvements where there is an opportunity for gain. It could be argued that it is an anomaly to charge VAT on repairs where there is no opportunity for gain or on improvements where there is an opportunity for gain.
1126
The distinction is not between greenfield or brownfield sites, or whether or not there is an opportunity for gain, but between repair and improvement. That distinction goes back to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby, in 1984.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the VAT burden on repairs to church buildings is currently running at approximately £18 million a year, which is almost as much as the £20 million a year which the Churches are receiving in state aid? It makes very little sense in a partnership between Church and state for the state to take away with the one hand almost as much as it is giving with the other. Is the Minister able and willing to further qualify his Answer about European directives? Will he commit the Government to supporting the proposal, when it comes to the Council of Ministers, which has been adopted by the European Parliament of adding repairs to church buildings to the list of labour-intensive services covered by Annexe H to the Sixth Directive, which entitles lower rates of VAT to be charged? Is the Minister further aware that the present heavy burden of VAT on church repairs is encouraging the replacement of ancient fabric, rather than the much more to be preferred policy of conservation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for drawing attention to the £20 million which has been offered to churches by English Heritage and by the Heritage Lottery Fund in the current financial year. He could have added to that amount—as he did not, I will—the £2.4 million which has been offered to the Churches Conservation Trust by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. From a heritage point of view, we do not see any reason why there should be a distinction between listed churches and other listed buildings; all are valuable. Annexe H to the Sixth Directive cannot be applied retrospectively; in other words, it is not possible for us to add to the list of exemptions which existed before 1992, when Annexe H was adopted. The exemptions which existed at that time were exempted on a transitional basis.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, does the Minister's reluctance on this issue stem from his statement earlier this week that:
"The Government do not like abolishing taxes if they can possibly avoid it".
Does not this highlight people's anxieties about tax harmonisation? Whenever a tax increase is proposed the Government accept it and blame it on Brussels; whenever a tax cut is proposed the Government reject it on the same grounds. Is not the charm of this procedure from the Government's point of view that it enables them to accept or reject any legislation from Europe—on tax, unions, working practices or whatever—while shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Not me, Guv"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, what I actually said was that the Treasury does not like it. That is what is being corrected in Hansard. It will teach me not to make jokes.

1127
On the second point, there is a limited number of European provisions, notably in VAT legislation, which we are obliged to adopt. Where we are not obliged to adopt tax or any other legislative provisions, we consider them carefully on their merits before making a decision in the best interests of this country.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, this matter has now rumbled on for more than 30 years. Is my noble friend aware that I have recently received a letter from his colleague, a Treasury Minister in the House of Commons, not praying in evidence that we cannot change the position because of Commission rules, but saying that we do not want to change it because there is no obvious gain in productivity if we do. Does my noble friend agree with that judgment? Will he accept that the main purpose of such a change would be to benefit the heritage and therefore—to be grasping about it—to bring in more tourists and more money from them?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot comment on a letter that I have not seen, particularly when I have not seen the letter from my noble friend to which it is a response. It sounds from what he is saying as if it refers to the proposal for an experimental reduced rate for building work. But that has not been agreed. If it were agreed, it could exist for only three years. As I made clear, we believe that targeted conservation grants and capital taxation reliefs are a more appropriate method. We do not believe that there will be a significant employment benefit from the proposal to which my noble friend refers.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I hear what the Minister says about VAT and older buildings. However, does he agree that it is urgent that we examine the discrepancy of nil VAT on new build, but VAT on the refurbishment of all types of older buildings? If we are serious about urban renaissance and protecting our countryside, we need to examine this issue. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the recommendation in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, Towards an Urban Renaissance, that VAT should be harmonised across the two sectors and that some of the money raised should be put into urban renaissance projects. Will the Minister reassure the House that the Government will examine the matter urgently?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, indeed I am aware of my noble friend's Urban Task Force report and of the recommendations contained in it. The Government's response to the report will have to take account of the realities of European VAT legislation. I repeat what I said to the noble Viscount, Lord Gage. The distinction between repairs and improvements, although it may be anomalous, is not a distinction between greenfield and brownfield sites. It is not an urban/rural issue. It is an issue that arose because the then Chancellor, after 10 years' experience of the tax,
1128
came to the conclusion that it was not possible to make a realistic and firm distinction between repairs and improvements which was enforceable in law.

Hong Kong: Political and Judicial Developments
3.22 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further plans they have for monitoring political and judicial developments in Hong Kong.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, as co-signatory to the Joint Declaration, we take seriously our political and moral responsibilities towards the people of Hong Kong. Our assessment of events in Hong Kong during the first half of 1999 will be published in the fifth six-monthly report to Parliament today. We will continue to follow closely developments in Hong Kong by maintaining a dedicated staff in both London and Hong Kong to follow the situation there.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I appreciate that Hong Kong is now part of the sovereign territory of China. However, the Minister will recall that, at the time of the hand-over, a promise went out from the two Houses of this Parliament that the people of Hong Kong would not be forgotten. Given the rather difficult times through which Hong Kong has been going—for example, there has been the question of the interpretation of the Basic Law in regard to the issue of immigration from other parts of China, and difficulties over the currency, which have been extremely skilfully managed by the Hong Kong government—does the Minister accept that there is a case for expressing, in the way she described and in every other way, our concern and sympathy, and for gaining a balanced view of what is going on in Hong Kong? Will she support the idea that the task of keeping a close watch on our friends in Hong Kong, still one of the greatest cities on earth, should be remitted to one of the committees of this House—although I appreciate that that is more a matter for this House than for the Government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, it is more a matter for this House. However, I re-emphasise words of the Prime Minister on Hong Kong last October. He reiterated that we retain a political and moral commitment towards Hong Kong, and that we are committed to upholding the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which is an international treaty, until the year 2047. The noble Lord raises the particular issue of the currency. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has responded robustly and with a high degree of autonomy to defend the Hong Kong dollar ong Honagainst attacks by speculators and to defend the fixed exchange rate with the United States dollar. There is also the question of the Court of Final Appeal and the

1129
Basic Law, as the noble Lord indicated. There have been expressions of anxiety about the independence of the judicial system. It is very important that those key principles are upheld in the future. We have noted the clear expressions and commitment to the rule of law from the SAR government.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, will my noble friend indicate what conditions are required of the Hong Kong authorities as to political and democratic freedoms and judicial independence if UK judges, some of whom are Members of this House, are to assist and continue to assist in the judicial work of Hong Kong?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, these are complex and difficult questions. There has been an interchange between the CFA in Hong Kong and the standing committee of the National People's Congress on the complex issues surrounding immigration, which I believe is what the noble Lord has in mind, between Hong Kong and mainland China. There are a number of different interpretations of these issues. It is clearly important that the key principles are upheld; namely, the authority and standing of the CFA, the independence of the judicial system in Hong Kong and the robustness of the rule of law there.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister agree that, by and large, the Basic Law has been recognised and accepted by the Republic of China to an extent that beggared expectations? But having said that, and given the statement by Martin Lee, who is perhaps the leading figure in the democracy movement in Hong Kong, that he thought the decision of the NPC to override the Court of Final Appeal constituted, to use his phrase, the beginning of the end of the rule of law in Hong Kong, will the Government, do everything possible to encourage links between Commonwealth judges and the Court of Final Appeal in order to strengthen the standing of that body?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I, like many in this House, have the highest possible regard for Mr Martin Lee, who is very courageous in a number of the things that he says. It is the case that he has on previous occasions been rather more apocalyptic in his thoughts about what would happen next in Hong Kong, than has been the case when we have seen how matters have worked out. If the noble Baroness looks at the report, which is now in the Library of the House, she will see that there are many positive signs of the freedoms that the people of Hong Kong enjoy, and that, as she rightly notes, the Basic Law has been upheld to a remarkable degree. There are undoubtedly questions of interpretation which are difficult to resolve. However, we must hang on to what the SAR government have said about the importance of the rule of law.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, given the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the transfer of Hong Kong, which guaranteed the territory of 6.7 million people its capitalist freedoms and quasi-autonomy under the auspices of English common law, and given that the
1130
Minister in the other place expressed the highest regard for the integrity of Hong Kong's legal institutions, do Her Majesty's Government support China's challenge of a decision made by the former British colony' s highest court to dismiss common law ruling over residency rights by Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I have already said to the House, it is an enormously' complex and difficult area. There are a number of different interpretations. Today, when I asked exactly the same point as the noble Baroness raised just now, I was told that there were four lawyers and five opinions on the subject. That does not necessarily distinguish it from a wide range of different legal issues.
I wish to bring the noble Baroness back to the basic point: the principles on which the CFA operates in Hong Kong. They have recently been upheld by the SAR government, they have re-committed themselves to it and we welcome the SAR's assurances that their request for interpretation was based on what they termed "exceptional and unprecedented circumstances".
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what is the—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the clock has now reached 16 minutes. As the time limit is 30 minutes, perhaps it is time we moved on.

Troop Commitments
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth Baroness Park of Monmouth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have sufficient trained troops available to meet their commitments in Kosovo, Bosnia and Northern Ireland in view of their commitment to provide 8,000 troops for a United Nations force anywhere in the world in the future.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, we are able to meet our current obligations. The Memorandum of Understanding agreed with the United Nations last month is not an open commitment to provide troops. The decision to commit UK troops to UN operations remains a national one arid will be considered case by case.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that distinctly "un-full" reply. This morning the Secretary of State agreed that there is serious overstretch and undermanning and an unprecedented level of commitment. He said that people should not be asked to do too much. Does the Minister agree that overstretch is hitting the families harder than ever? Does

1131
he agree that we will not retain our trained troops and comply with the SDR unless the Government reduce their commitments and start thinking about people?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, we have been thinking about people right from the beginning—since this Government took office. It is one of the essential elements of the Strategic Defence Review, as I am sure the noble Baroness knows. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made several suggestions and we are now starting a review to see where we can reduce commitments.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that while there is enormous strain in the services—partly because of the high quality of the services—the Government have introduced ameliorative arrangements to ease the difficulties? Can my noble friend tell the House how the number of troops and personnel in training compares with the number two or three years ago?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I confess that I have not come to the House today armed with the number of troops in training. I shall happily give my noble friend such statistics as I can raise when I return to the department. There is no question but that the Army is suffering a considerable overstretch at the moment. However, we hope considerably to reduce the numbers of our forces in KFOR over the next few months. My right honourable friend announced his intentions only yesterday in the other place. By the end of October, all being well, we shall be down to a total of the order of 5,000 or 6,000 as against a peak figure of around 14,000.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how recruitment figures are going? Part of the problem is the difficulty of filling the recruitment target. In particular, since one of the problems of recruitment has been the failure to attract adequate numbers of people from the ethnic minorities, can he tell us how the new efforts to attract more ethnic minority groups are proceeding?
Lord Gilbert: The recruitment figures are extremely healthy. They do not convey the whole picture and we have a problem with retentions. I am glad to say that for the last month for which figures are available there is a net increase in recruitment over people leaving. It may be a blip, and I would not want to put too much weight upon it. But it is encouraging that recruitment has increased substantially since the beginning of operations in Kosovo.
As to ethnic recruiting, we are doing extremely well against, I have to say, fairly modest targets. In the Household Division we have been commended for our efforts. Two special campaigns were waged in Sandwell and Newham to penetrate the ethnic communities. Both
1132
exercises are going forward and have many months to run but at the moment everything is looking extremely promising.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House, first, what the average tour interval is now in the emergency tour plot? Secondly, can he tell us how many infantry battalions are less than 70 per cent up to establishment?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, again I have not come armed with either of those figures. The tour plot is going down, I can tell the noble Viscount that beyond contravention.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister say whether British forces are being withdrawn from Kosovo before KFOR has reached its agreed and planned strength? If that is the case, it seems unsatisfactory in view of the tensions that exist.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the total KFOR is currently around 39,000. There have been planning figures as high as 50,000 but it is not essential that we reach that. Our forces are being taken out of theatre as our allies' contributions come through, and I am glad to say that they are coming through smoothly.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the figures given by the Secretary of State with regard to retentions. However, he admitted to the Commons Defence Committee that premature voluntary retirement was running ahead of recruitment. What positive steps are the Government taking to improve retention? It is much more important to have trained men than new recruits.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I thoroughly subscribe to the noble Lord's final proposition. It is much more important to have trained men than recruits. We have been wrestling with the problem of retentions which has been with the Armed Forces for many years. Some recent actions of my right honourable friend have been to introduce a fairer pay structure, to increase leave for people who have just come from active service abroad, and to increase the free travel arrangements for servicemen abroad. On a longer term basis, he has introduced an increase in learning arrangements, higher education arrangements, for members of the forces to facilitate, among other things, their acquisition of civilian qualifications, so putting them in a better position and, we hope, encouraging them to stay in the forces.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House how many Territorial Army personnel are serving alongside their regular counterparts in the three operational areas mentioned in the noble Baroness's Question? Will he consider, as a way of alleviating overstretch, calling up more Territorial Army

1133
personnel? That will in turn mean that we can put on hold some of the cuts that his department has decided to inflict on the Territorial Army.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, as the noble Lord and the rest of the House are well aware, it is the Government's policy to modernise the Territorial Army and convert it increasingly into a specialist body of men and women. There are only a handful of Territorials in Kosovo. I shall certainly consider the noble Lord's other suggestion.

Mental Health Policy: Announcement
3.28 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they did not announce their consultation paper, Managing Dangerous People with Severe Personality Disorder: Proposals for Policy Development, first to Parliament.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the publication of the consultation paper, Managing Dangerous People with Severe Personality Disorder: Proposals for Policy Development, was announced to Parliament on Thursday 12th July in response to a parliamentary Question from Graham Stringer, MP.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but does he agree that there were dangers in the PR exercise mounted by the Home Office on Monday in which Ministers were available from early morning until night to announce what appeared to be a solution to a very complex problem? Will Ministers take warning from the reaction to those statements by psychiatrists and organisations concerned with mental health that the Government are in danger of misrepresenting the problem and going for flip solutions which put at risk one of the most fundamental rights; namely, the right not to be imprisoned without due process? Does the Minister accept that this is not just a matter for psychiatrists but that there should be a judicial process if the Government insist on going down this road?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the publication of the paper was announced in the Commons on 12th July, and Jack Straw rightly made himself available for questioning on the 19th, one week later. That is part of his duty. If people get the wrong end of the stick, they may well be advised to read the document in question. That document is extremely thoughtful and addresses civil rights issues in particular; not least, it directs the attention of the reader to the European Convention on Human Rights. I give one citation from Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of SANE:
"There are a small number of people who for their own protection and the protection of others should have specialised management and help which is neither punitive nor uses stretched mental health resources".
I believe that to be absolutely consistent with our policy.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the statement in the consultation paper that most of these people have a lifelong history or profound difficulties from an early age, that many are the children of violent, abusive or inadequate parents, and that some may have been removed into care? Can he assure the House that all is being done to meet the needs of such people?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is precisely the purpose of the consultation document. There are a small number of people in the general community—we believe the figure to be between 300 and 600—who suffer from severe personality disorder. Sometimes I read their case files. I find them extremely worrying. Some of those people are quite likely to kill or injure innocents among our fellow citizens. I do not believe that we are entitled to do nothing about it.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, to give us a flying start in considering the consultation document, can the Minister provide, as he has, not only an estimate of the number of unconvicted people who are likely to be locked up for life but also an estimate of the number of people in recent years who have been murdered or seriously injured by those who are known to have severe personality disorders?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I need to correct the noble Lord's misapprehension. I did not say that between 300 and 600 people were likely to be locked up for life, but that that number of people suffered from this particular disorder. It is notoriously well known and documented that people with this disorder have a disproportionately larger representation among those who kill. We have to think only of the recent example of the murder of Mrs Zito's husband. He was a completely innocent man who was murdered by somebody who needed treatment but did not receive it.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, we may well be in danger of arguing about what constitutes a Statement to the House. We on these Benches view this as an opportunity to question the Minister and to raise issues about the consultation paper. In the light of the fact that in this House we have not had the opportunity to ask questions about the document, will the Minister, through the Government Chief Whip, make arrangements for a debate on the subject before the end of the consultation period? Will he also undertake to ensure that when the report of the review of the Mental Health Act emerges a full Statement will be made to this House which gives us the opportunity to raise issues on that Statement?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course these are serious issues; but the Question did not address itself to a Statement to the House. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked when this matter was announced and why it was not announced in Parliament first. I repeat that it was. Debates on this consultative document, or any other matter of importance, are matters for the usual channels in the normal way.
Lord McNally: My Lords, in some of his replies today the Minister has fallen into the trap of suggesting

1135
that those who question this course of action are somehow willing to leave dangerous criminals loose on our streets. That is the danger of such a populist approach. As the Minister quotes one authority, perhaps I may quote Jeremy Coid of the St. Bartholomew's and the Royal London School of Medicine, who warns that the public should have no illusions about the "inexact science" of risk assessment of people with mental disorder. It is misleading for Ministers to pretend that they are doing something dramatic to make our streets safer when they are going down a very dangerous road in terms of civil liberties.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is wiser to read the document which concentrates on civil rights issues, in particular in the context of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It refers to a process of appeal and to authority to detain being subject to regular independent review. That has nothing to do with populism. If the noble Lord levels that reproach against me for having a degree of responsibility in this matter, I wonder how I am expected to answer the relatives of those who may be murdered. That is a perfectly legitimate, and serious, question.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Third Report
3.46 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move that the Third Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 81) be agreed to. The Third Report of the Procedure Committee makes proposals for two new Standing Orders to give effect to what we have come to know as the Weatherill amendment. The first proposed new Standing Order relates to the election of 90 hereditary Peers who are to stay on in the House. Two other hereditary Peers are also to stay on in the House; namely, the two great officeholders of state: the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain. But those two Peers are to be Members of the House ex officio, as it were, and are not to be elected.
The Third Report of the Procedure Committee also proposes a new Standing Order to provide for by-elections. The purpose of this Standing Order is to ensure that in the House there are never fewer than 90 elected hereditary Peers. The Government will move an amendment at Third Reading of the House of Lords Bill in this House to write into the Bill the statutory basis for the new Standing Order. The Third Report of the Procedure Committee also sets out proposals drawn up by the Clerk of the Parliaments relating to what one might call the mechanics for the election of the 90 hereditary Peers. I believe that the detailed proposed arrangements for the elections are clear. I shall do my best to answer any questions that your Lordships may have about them.
As to the election arrangements, Peers are expected to vote in person unless a doctor has certified that they are unable to travel to Westminster, in which case they
1136
will be allowed a postal vote. It has been agreed by the usual channels that Peers who are absent on Select Committee business should also be entitled to a postal vote. The Clerk of the Parliaments has been busy working on numerous details of the election arrangements. A notice will be circulated before the Summer Recess setting out the timetable for the elections and other information.
If the House this afternoon approves the Third Report of the Procedure Committee, with or without the amendments proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, the Leader of the House will table a Motion early next week so that the House can give its express approval to the new Standing Orders. This is necessary because what we are approving this afternoon, with or without amendments—if we do so—is the Third Report of the Procedure Committee and, therefore, only indirectly the new Standing Orders.
It is the custom to approve the Standing Orders expressly in a separate and later Motion. I anticipate that any such Motion next week will be purely formal. The decision on the substance of the matter is to be taken by the House this afternoon. I invite your Lordships to raise any matters arising from the Third Report of the Procedure Committee in the debate that we are about to have. The debate need not be confined to the noble Viscount's amendments. I believe and hope that that will be for the convenience of the whole House.
Moved, That the Third Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 81) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
Page 1
ELECTION OF HEREDITARY PEERS
The Committee considered new standing orders and other proposals to give effect to the "Weatherill amendment" to the House of Lords Bill. Under this amendment, which is now in the bill as clause 2, 92 hereditary peers will retain their rights to sit and vote in the House of Lords after the end of the present session of Parliament. The government will be tabling for the third reading of the Bill amendments to provide for by-elections to fill vacancies among 90 of the 92 peers excepted from clause I of the bill (the two others being excepted by virtue of holding the office of Earl Marshal or Lord Great Chamberlain).1 The Committee agreed to the following standing orders to give effect to these amendments.
New standing orders

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Third Report

  HEREDITARY PEERS
  (1) In implementation of section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999, this Standing Order makes provision for hereditary peers who are excepted from section 1,
  (2) The excepted hereditary peers shall consist of the following categories:

  (i)

  (a) 2 peers elected by the Labour hereditary peers;

  (b) 42 peers elected by the Conservative hereditary peers;

  (c) 3 peers elected by the Liberal Democrat hereditary peers;

  (d) 28 peers elected by the Cross-bench hereditary peers;

  (ii) 15 peers, elected by the whole House, from among those ready to serve as Deputy Speakers or in any other office as the House may require; and

  (iii) any peer holding the office of Earl Marshal or performing the office of Lord Great Chamberlain.

  (3) Elections shall be conducted in accordance with arrangements made by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
  (4) In order to stand for election or qualify as an elector under paragraph (2)(i), a peer must register with the Clerk of the Parliaments, identifying the party or Cross-bench group to which he belongs. In order to stand for election under paragraph (2)(ii), a peer must register separately with the Clerk of the Parliaments. A peer may not stand for election nor vote if he has not taken the Oath or is on Leave of Absence.
  (5) In the event of a tie between two or more candidates standing in any of the elections held in accordance with paragraph (2), the matter (if not resolved by the electoral arrangements adopted by the House) shall be decided by the drawing of lots.
  (6) The Clerk of the Parliaments may refer any question concerning the propriety of the electoral process to the Committee for Privileges,
  (7) In the event of a vacancy occurring at any time up to the end of the initial period through death among the peers elected in category (2)(i) or (2)(ii), the vacancy shall be filled by the nearest runner-up in the relevant election under paragraph (2) who both wishes to fill the vacancy and is otherwise available. The provisions of paragraph (5) are applicable for
  1 The amendments are as follows:

  1. Page 1, line 9, leave out ("no more than")

  2. Page 1, line 14, at end insert—

  ("() Standing Orders shall make provision for filling vacancies among the people excepted from section 1; and in any case where—

  (a) the vacancy arises on a death occurring after the end of the first Session of the next Parliament after that in which this Act is passed, and

  (b) the deceased person was excepted in consequence of an election, that provision shall require the holding of a by-election.")

  Page 2
  this purpose. If no such runner-up is available, the House shall decide how the vacancy shall be filled.
  (8) In this Standing Order and in Standing Order (Hereditary Peers: By-elections) the end of the "initial period" is the end of the first session of the next Parliament after that in which the House of Lords Act 1999 is passed."

  HEREDITARY PEERS: BY-ELECTIONS
  (1) In implementation of subsection (4) of section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999, this Standing Order makes provision for by-elections to fill vacancies occurring by death among excepted hereditary peers after the end of the initial period.
  (2) In the event of the death of a hereditary peer excepted under Standing Order (Hereditary Peers)(2)(i) only the excepted hereditary peers in the group in which the vacancy has occurred shall be entitled to vote.
  (3) In the event of the death of a hereditary peer excepted under Standing Order (Hereditary Peers)(2)(ii) the whole House shall be entitled to vote.
  (4) The provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3) shall apply also in the case of any subsequent by-elections.
  (5) The Clerk of the Parliaments shall maintain, and publish annually, a register of hereditary peers (other than peers of Ireland) who wish to stand in any by-election.
  (6) By-elections shall be conducted in accordance with arrangements made by the Clerk of 20 the Parliaments and shall take place within three months of a vacancy occurring.
  (7) Paragraphs (5) and (6) of Standing Order (Hereditary Peers) shall apply to by-elections under this Standing Order."
  Electoral arrangements
  The Committee also agreed the following arrangements for elections and by-elections.

  (a) The Clerk of the Parliaments will be the Returning Officer.

  (b) Hereditary peers will be required to register, if they wish to vote for the hereditary peers in the party groups. The officers of each group will be entitled to examine the registers to ensure that they are correct. If any peer who wishes to vote is not on any party or Cross bench list, the Clerk of the Parliaments will consult the relevant group to ensure that no hereditary peer is disenfranchised. The registers will be up-dated before by-elections are held.

  (c) Hereditary peers who wish to stand for election in a particular group must register as candidates for that group. Hereditary peers wishing to stand in the election for Deputy Speakers and other offices must also register for such election. Any hereditary peer may stand in either, or both, elections.

  (d) Peers who have not taken the Oath or who are on Leave of Absence shall not be qualified to stand or vote in any of the initial elections. All peers, including those on Leave of Absence and those who have not taken the Oath, will receive a House of Lords notice about arrangements for the elections not less than 6 weeks before the intended date of the elections. This will make clear to those who wish to vote, or stand for election, that they must, if necessary, terminate their Leave of Absence and take the Oath. This requirement will not apply in the case of candidates in by elections.

  (e) The election for Deputy Speakers and other office holders will be held before the party elections. So far as by-elections are concerned, paragraph (3) of the by-election Standing Order provides that voting for a candidate to take the place of any hereditary peer elected as a Deputy Speaker will be by the whole House. Any peer elected at a by-election will, however, not be expected to serve as a Deputy Speaker.

  (f) The initial elections will take place in the forthcoming "spill-over".

  (g) Peers will be invited to register in person or by post or fax during a period of two weeks, one of which may be the last week of the summer recess and the other the first week of the "spill-over". Telephone registration will not be allowed because it could result in error or omission. Registration by e-mail will not he allowed because of the problem of authentication.

  Page 3
  (h) On the Monday of the week following the period of registration a list of candidates will be issued for the elections for the Deputy Speakers and other office holders. In view of the large numbers likely to vote and in order to ensure that as many who wish to vote can do so, the election will be held over two days (probably Wednesday and Thursday) and between such hours as will best suit the convenience of peers. Ample notice will be given of the dates and times. Peers will vote in person in a Committee Room designated for this purpose. The result of this election will be reported in accordance with sub-paragraph (0) below on the next sitting day.
  (i) A list of candidates will then immediately be issued for the party elections, eliminating the to names of any peers who were successful in the earlier election. Voting will take place in a Committee Room designated for this purpose, possibly over two days, but the numbers voting will be smaller since only hereditary peers will be voting. Again, the date and times will be announced well in advance.
  (j) No candidate will be allowed to indicate on the ballot paper (including the ballot paper for Deputy Speakers and other office holders) any qualification or reason why he or she should be elected. The Clerk of the Parliaments will however facilitate the publication, in a form yet to be decided, of a separate paper giving electors information about each candidate.
  (k) Postal voting will be allowed only where the Clerk of Parliaments receives a doctor's note to say that a peer is unable, for medical or incapacity reasons, to travel. Since voting in these elections will he parliamentary business, peers will be entitled to claim reimbursement of their travel and subsistence expenses.
  (l) The electoral system will be as follows. The ballot papers for the party elections will he printed with the names of all the candidates for the relevant party/group, and voters will be required to vote for the total number of vacancies for that party/group in order of preference, marking against each name the figure 1, 2, 3, 4 etc The figure 1 will indicate a first preference, the figure 2 a second preference and so on. It must be stressed that a voter will he required to vote for exactly the number of vacancies in the relevant party or group; failure to do so will result in the ballot paper being spoilt and not taken into account when the votes are totalled. So if there are 28 vacancies, voters must place the figures 1, 2, 3 up to 28 against 28 names and not more or less than 28 names.
  In the initial count, every vote will have equal weight and the candidates who receive the largest number of votes will be elected to the relevant vacancies. In the event of a tie, the number of first preferences received by a candidate will be taken into account, so that the candidate with the higher number of first preferences would be elected. If this does not resolve the tie, second preferences will be taken into account, and, if necessary, third preferences and so on. In the unlikely event that this did not resolve the tie, lots could be drawn.
  (m) The ballot papers for the Deputy Speakers' etc election will be printed with the names of all registered candidates, and voters will be asked to number the candidates of their choice as above.
  (n) The count will he undertaken by staff of the Parliament Office under the supervision of nominees from each of the parties (including the Cross-Benches). The voting papers will not be made public.
  (o) The results of the elections will be reported to the House by the Clerk of the Parliaments. The number of votes cast for the various candidates, including the votes for unsuccessful candidates, will be published in this report. The names of the successful candidates will also be recorded in the Minutes of the House and in the Clerk of the Parliaments' certificate to the Clerk of the Crown.
  (p) The Clerk of the Parliaments will, after consulting the party Leaders and whips and the Convenor of the Cross-benchers, issue a code of conduct for candidates and voters in the elections.
  Page 4
  If the Clerk of the Parliaments suspects, on reasonable grounds, that some material irregularity or improper conduct may have occurred in the electoral process, he may refer the matter to the Committee for Privileges for investigation.
  (q) The ballot papers and overall votes recorded for each hereditary peer will be retained by the Clerk of the Parliaments for the purpose of deciding how subsequent vacancies occurring in the 90 hereditary peers are filled. When subsection (by elections) of Clause 2 of the House of Lords Bill becomes effective this provision will become redundant.
  To help the House to understand more fully the arguments used in the Committee to reach these conclusions, a transcript of the Committee's proceedings is appended to this report.
  Viscount Bledisloe Viscount Bledisloe moved, as an amendment to the Chairman of Committees' Motion, at end insert ("with the following amendments:
  Page 1, line 5, leave out ("hereditary") and insert ("qualified")
  Page 1, line 6, leave out ("hereditary") and insert ("qualified")
  Page 1, line 7, leave out ("hereditary") and insert ("qualified")
  Page 1, line 8, leave out ("hereditary") and insert ("qualified")
  Page 1, line 12, at end insert-
  ("(2A) Each of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties and the Cross Bench peers may decide whether the qualified peers for the party or group referred to in paragraph 2 above are to consist of

  (i) all hereditary and life peers of that party or group, or

  (ii) only the hereditary peers of that party or group.

  Such decision shall be notified at least one month before the date of the elections to the Clerk of the Parliaments by the leader of each party and the Convenor of the Cross Benchers. If no such notification is given by any party or group, the qualified peers of that party or group shall be deemed to he only the hereditary peers.")
  Page 2, line 11, leave out ("excepted hereditary peers") and insert ("qualified peers who are members of the House")
  Page 2, line 21, after ("Paragraphs") insert ("(2A,)")
  Page 2, line 26, leave out first ("hereditary")
  Page 3, line 11, leave out ("but the numbers voting will be smaller since only hereditary peers will be voting")").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as your Lordships will see, the Motion proposes certain amendments to the Standing Orders and to the consequential directions to which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has referred. As set out on the Order Paper I accept that these amendments appear somewhat complicated, but they all relate to one topic only; namely, who among your Lordships should form the electorate which will select the 90 hereditary Weatherill Peers who are to remain in this House pending stage two of the reform.
  As noble Lords will by now be well aware, these 90 Peers fall into two classes. First, there are the 15 who are to be chosen because of the services it is expected they will render to the House, either as Deputy Speakers or as chairmen of various committees. Those 15 are to be elected by the Whole House; that is, by all Members of the House, whether hereditary or life Peers, and all such Members will have an equal vote for those 15. The second class is the 75 Peers who are to be selected by each party or group according to the number set out in the report of the Procedure Committee. These Peers will, of course, be selected only by the Members in their party or group. Thus the 42 Conservatives will be chosen by the votes of Conservatives; the 28 Cross-Benchers by votes of Cross-Benchers, and so on. So far so good.
  However, as the report now stands, those 75 Peers are to be elected solely by the votes of the hereditary Peers in that group and the life Peers are to have no say whatsoever in this process of selection. No explanation has been forthcoming as to why it is appropriate for the life Peers to have a voice in deciding who shall chair committees, or who shall sit on the Woolsack, yet it is wholly inappropriate for those same life Peers to be allowed any say in who shall be their continuing colleagues in their own party or group.
  I suggest to your Lordships that this exclusion of the life Peers is wholly illogical and wholly unjustified. Ideally I would have wished that the electorate for all parties and groups should include the life Peers as well as the hereditaries. However, the Conservative Party, or, to be somewhat more accurate, the majority of the Front Bench Members of the Conservative Party, have set

  1141
  their face resolutely against it. So far it has been impossible to determine the logic of their attitude, but what is beyond doubt is that the attitude exists.
  In the light of this stance by the Front Bench, I recognise that we might have some difficulty in persuading the House to determine that every party and group shall be required to include the life Peers in their electorate. The amendment before the House, therefore, proposes that each party or group shall be entitled to make its own choice as to whether it wishes its Weatherill Peers to be elected by all its Members or only by the hereditaries.
  One of the Government's recurrent themes on Lords reform has been their recognition of the need for a strong, independent Cross-Bench element. It seems at the lowest to be somewhat inconsistent with that to deny to that independent element the right to select its Members in its own independent way. Since one of the main arguments for this Motion is that it would be utterly wrong for the Cross Benches to be compelled by the two main Front Benches to have the wrong electorate, so likewise we recognise that it might be wrong for us to seek to compel the Conservative Party to follow what is undoubtedly the best and most sensible course if, even after reflection, that party remains determined to have a solely hereditary electorate.
  Thus this Motion is—I make no bones about this—a compromise between the ideal and what should be practically achievable. Indeed, as a compromise it departs from the view which I have previously expressed: that it would have been preferable to have a uniform system. But it seems that an acceptable uniform system is not achievable and therefore my Motion allows everyone to follow his or her own conscience without in any way interfering with the desires of other parties.
  Why, then, do I feel so strongly that all Members of the House should be entitled to vote for their group? It has been decided that 75 hereditary Peers are to remain in this House until stage two; and it is surely very important, first, that those who remain are the people who can make the most useful contributions to the ongoing work of the House; and, secondly—I venture to suggest that this is important—that they are seen by the outside world to have been chosen by the method best suited to achieve that result.
  If one wishes to select the most appropriate and useful people it would seem obvious that the persons best suited to make that selection are those who attend the House with some regularity and who have therefore experienced the contribution which can be made by the various candidates either on the Floor of the House or in the committees upstairs. The importance of the work on those committees was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, at a previous stage. I had hoped that we should hear from him on the same topic. As he pointed out, only those who sit on those committees can know which person makes a valuable contribution.
  In each party or group a very considerable proportion of the people who attend regularly, and who sit on committees and therefore have the necessary
  1142
  knowledge, are the life Peers. Further, since by definition the life Peers cannot themselves be candidates for election they will not only be well informed but also wholly dispassionate in the casting of their vote.
  On the other hand, if only the hereditaries are allowed to vote, many of those who attend regularly will themselves be candidates. Thus the dispassionate voters will comprise the relatively few hereditary Peers who, although regular attenders, have decided not to stand, and other hereditaries who attend only seldom and have little knowledge of the candidates.
  In this connection it is important to bear in mind—it is a point which may not have fully caught the attention of some of your Lordships—that anyone who wishes to vote in the election of their group out of the 75 is obliged to cast as many votes as there are places in his group. Thus every Conservative voter has to vote for 42 people; and every Cross-Bench voter has to vote for 28, and if he does not exercise every one of those votes his entire ballot paper is void. Those hereditaries who attend only rarely may well know five, 10 or perhaps even 15 candidates whom they regard as well suited to remain in the House. But I suggest that they are likely to find it virtually impossible to fill up the remainder of their list from their own knowledge. In those circumstances, they will either have to make a very random selection to fill the list, or they may have to seek and follow the guidance of the Whips. When one reaches that point, if one were a cynical observer, one might feel that one had detected the true reason for the Front Bench enthusiasm for excluding the knowledgeable life Peer in favour of those who will be driven to seek the Whips' guidance on the exercise of their vote.
  From time to time the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has said that,
  "hereditary peers can well be trusted to make their own decisions."
  My Motion does not suggest that the hereditaries are not capable of making a decision or that any decision they make will be bad. What it says is that a decision which is made with the participation of the life Peers as well is almost certain to be better informed and therefore to produce an even better result. More importantly, it is a method which will be seen by the outside world as much more justified. I suggest that there is a real risk that if only the hereditaries elect their colleagues, the press and the public will regard this as an exercise of the old boy net merely to provide a consolation prize for some of the poor old hereditaries.
  The need to include the life Peers among the electorate is emphasised by the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, referred on the replacement of those among the 75 who die. It will provide that after a short time vacancies occurring among the 90 hereditaries should be filled by means of by-elections, not simply by a topping-up process. The voters in those by-elections shall be only those who remain as Members of the House. As was pointed out on Report, that model of by-elections to fill vacancies among the Labour or Liberal Democrat hereditaries solely by the votes of those parties' hereditaries makes no sense. If one of the two Labour Weatherill Peers dies,

  1143
  there will be a by-election involving one voter only. If both of them die together or in quick succession or if the remaining Peer is unfortunately incapable, there will be no voters. If one of the three Liberals dies, there will be only two voters, who may well be deadlocked.
  Even in the rottenest of rotten boroughs, matters never degenerated to quite that level of absurdity. It seems somewhat strange to find the new Labour Government seeking to reintroduce the constituency of Old Sarum into our parliamentary system. That prospect was described by The Times today as "nonsensical and farcical." I hope that the Front Benches on both sides will be duly grateful to me for producing a proposal that extracts them from that unfortunate position.
  What is the argument against my suggestion? When the matter was discussed on the recommittal of the Bill on 25th May, the principal proponent of the argument that the electorate should be restricted to hereditaries was the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. His argument was that the 75 Peers were to be in the House,
  "to represent the hereditary peerage".—[Official Report, 25/5/99; col. 802.]
  He and many others in his party have repeatedly emphasised that the 75 Peers were to be representative of the hereditary peerage and therefore must be elected by the hereditary peerage.
  I accepted then, and I still accept, that if that is their real role, the noble Viscount's argument is justified. His argument was bolstered by reference to a supposed analogy with the representative Scottish Peers elected under the Act of Union. That argument is demolished by what is now Clause 4 of the Bill which provides that all the hereditaries who do not remain in this House are entitled to vote and stand in elections to the House of Commons. That is in direct contrast to the position of the Scottish Peers under the Act of Union. No Scottish Peer—not even one who was not elected to sit in this House—had any right to vote or stand in any election to the Commons. That was a direct application of the well established principle that no one can vote for representation to both Houses of Parliament.
  4 p.m.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, Irish Peers had the right to elect Members to this House on a life-long basis and they were also allowed to stand for the House of Commons. The rules for the Irish Peers were different from those for the Scottish Peers.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Earl is half right. The Irish Peers who were not elected had the right to stand for the House of Commons and, if elected, had the right to vote in another constituency. But they had no other right to vote.
  Faced with that constitutional anomaly, the Conservative Front Bench has entirely abandoned the suggestion that the 75 Peers are to be in any way representative. At the meeting of the Procedure Committee they fell over themselves to disclaim any suggestion that the 75 were to be in any way representative of their hereditary colleagues, abandoning
  1144
  the only argument advanced by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. Having abandoned that point, they advanced no logical argument as to why the electorate should be restricted to the hereditary Peers. It is merely ordained as the will of the party leaders, not as a logical position.
  The decision of the Procedure Committee was plainly based solely on the stated fact that election by hereditaries forms part of the Cranborne agreement. Very honourably, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor feels that while the Conservative Front Bench continues to insist that election should be by the hereditaries alone, he and his Front Bench colleagues are bound to follow their lead. I venture to suggest that one cannot feel that the Labour Party has any doctrinaire enthusiasm for the concept that the hereditaries have the sole right to elect. Indeed, I doubt whether the Government Front Bench has any view on the appropriate machinery other than a very understandable desire to ensure that some method of election is finally determined so that we can get on.
  Others far better qualified than I will deal more fully with the agreement. Your Lordships have to decide whether the Conservative Front Bench should be entitled to impose on all parts of the House the system that appealed to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, at the time of the negotiations, even though other parties might regard it as much more appropriate to allow their life Peers a say in the selection process.
  The amendment would allow each party or group to decide for itself whether the Peers who are qualified to vote in its group election should consist of all the hereditaries and life Peers or only the hereditary Peers. That decision will be notified to the Clerk of the Parliaments by the leader of each party or the convenor. The Clerk of the Parliaments will not in any way be concerned with the mechanism by which each group reaches its decision. Once a party or group has decided on the composition of its qualified Peers, that decision will apply to the initial elections and to all subsequent by-elections.
  If passed, the amendment would pay proper regard to the rights of independent groups to decide for themselves. In no way can it merit a party line or a party Whip. It is a matter solely for the views and conscience of each individual in the House.
  One of the unfortunate consequences of the debates on the House of Lords Bill is that, for the first time, Members of the House have been distinguished from each other by virtue of the fact that they are hereditary or life Peers. That division is a great pity and every effort should be made to ensure that it disappears as quickly as possible after the Bill is passed. The process would be greatly assisted if the House recognised that all its Members are of equal value and have a right to an equal say in the election. I beg to move.
  Moved, as an amendment to the Chairman of Committees' Motion, at end insert ("with the following amendments:
  Page 1, line 5, leave out ("hereditary") and insert ("qualified")
  Page 1, line 6, leave out ("hereditary") and insert ("qualified")
  Page 1, line 7, leave out ("hereditary") and insert ("qualified")
  Page 1, line 8, leave out ("hereditary") and insert ("qualified")
  Page 1, line 12, at end insert-
  ("(2A) Each of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties and the Cross Bench peers may decide whether the qualified peers for the party or group referred to in paragraph 2 above are to consist of

  (i) all hereditary and life peers of that party or group, or

  (ii) only the hereditary peers of that party or group.

  Such decision shall be notified at least one month before the date of the elections to the Clerk of the Parliaments by the leader of each party and the Convenor of the Cross Benchers. If no such notification is given by any party or group, the qualified peers of that party or group shall be deemed to be only the hereditary peers.")
  Page 2, line 11, leave out ("excepted hereditary peers") and insert ("qualified peers who are members of the House")
  Page 2, line 21, after ("Paragraphs") insert ("(2A,)")
  Page 2, line 26, leave out first ("hereditary")
  Page 3, line 11, leave out ("hut the numbers voting will be smaller since only hereditary peers will be voting")").—(Viscount Bledisloe.)
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am not summing up the debate at this point. That is not my role today and we have had only a brief series of contributions so far. The Labour Peers have no great numerical interest in the results of the elections that we are discussing. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that we do not have a doctrinaire enthusiasm for the procedures. We expect in the main to be able to watch the process in a splendidly disinterested way.
  However, the process is important. The Government support the Standing Orders and the electoral arrangements agreed by the Procedure Committee. I am afraid that we cannot support the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.
  The draft of the first Standing Order on hereditary Peers was the outcome of detailed discussion by the so-called "O" group of officials and party and Cross-Bench representatives. The group's remit was to give effect to the agreement between my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. The draft, which was immediately placed in the Library—some time ago now—represented the best judgment of a consensus that it was thought could command general support. I believe that events have proved that judgment to be correct. The deliberations of the Procedure Committee, which approved the draft in its entirety and made only a few amendments to the draft electoral arrangements, certainly suggested that the scheme was likely to be acceptable to all sides of your Lordships' House.
  The second Standing Order before the House today is new. It gives effect to the amendment which the Government intend to table at Third Reading, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor promised during discussions on the Bill at Report stage. The order makes provision for by-elections to fill Vacancies arising among the Weatherill Peers in the unlikely event that the transitional House lasts beyond the First Session of the next Parliament. Your Lordships know from our debates on the subject that the Government were content to rely on the fastest loser system for the entire duration of the transitional House. We are confident that that system will work perfectly well for what we fully expect
  1146
  to be a matter of only a very few years. If, for whatever reason, that system failed to produce a replacement, we preferred to leave it to the discretion of the House to decide at the time how to fill a vacancy. To deal with the matter in Standing Orders would allow the flexibility that we thought, and still think, would be simplest and best.
  However, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition craves certainty in the matter; and we have agreed to propose a statutory provision. This of course rests on the hypothetical assumption that the transitional House lasts longer than any on this side of the House would like or, indeed, intend. As the by-elections Standing Order makes clear, only the relevant excepted hereditary Peers will be entitled to vote. Excluded hereditary Peers, who will no longer be Members of the House, will have no vote in that process.
  In support of his argument, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, made an important part of his case the assumption that Peers of ability and, indeed, of independence should be among the chosen few who will remain for the temporary period. I am sure we all subscribe to that view. Of course, we all want to see the most able individuals staying on in the transitional House. I see no reason to suppose that the hereditary Peers cannot be trusted to elect their colleagues on that basis.
  However, regardless of whether or not we accept that thesis, the most important reason why we cannot accept this amendment is that, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has had occasion to explain many times during the course of our debates on this subject, the hereditary composition of the electorate for the 75 was an inherent part of the agreement he reached with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. The agreement was reached on the basis that the elections within the party and other groups would be of hereditaries, by hereditaries, for hereditaries. I appreciate that there were Cross-Bench reservations about that at an earlier point, but indisputably it was one of the cornerstones of the "O" group, and that is why it is so clearly reflected in paragraph 2(i) of the first Standing Order, which faithfully gives effect to the agreement.
  Finally, perhaps I may touch briefly on one of the arguments of the noble Viscount about the by-election procedure. He has expressed concern that limiting the electorate to hereditary Peers in the relevant party could make a mockery of the proposed by-election system for the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. I shall make two points in response to that particular concern. First, as I have already said and I am happy to repeat, we have no expectation that by-elections will be necessary, because we expect to press ahead with stage two of reform before the relevant provision kicks in. Secondly, in the unlikely event that a by-election to replace a Labour or Liberal Democrat excepted Peer was required, it would of course be open to your Lordships' House to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee for it to take another look at an alternative option. For our part, therefore, we have no fears about what is likely to be a hypothetical scenario which, if it did materialise, could in any event be practically addressed at the time.

  1147
  I am sure that nothing I have said in my short intervention will come as a surprise to the House. The Government have argued consistently their position on these questions as they have arisen in the course of our extended debate. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, will sum up the debate later.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps it would be helpful if I were to follow the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and say a few words on behalf of these Benches. What we have before us today is essentially a technical decision. The House has already voted by a substantial majority for what have come to be known as the Weatherill arrangements. Perhaps I may again pay tribute to the role played by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and indeed my noble friend Lord Cranborne in securing the agreement.
  At the time, the noble and learned Lord described it as an act of statesmanship. He was right to do so, because it is not easy for a government committed to a particular plan to look at it again, to see its weaknesses and to agree to change. The noble and learned Lord, after his initial volley of sulphur and brimstone in warning against any changes to the text of the House of Lords Bill, came to recognise that a wholly nominated House, as proposed in the Labour Party manifesto, was not an attractive or desirable prospect to the country. He recognised the value of the work carried out by hereditary Peers in this House. He agreed to keep a number of independent hereditary Peers, and we very much welcomed that change of heart, as I believe did the majority of the House. We should like to believe that the statesmanlike stance of the noble and learned Lord was shared by all his colleagues.
  The principle of the Weatherill arrangement is not at issue today. The House has voted on that issue of principle. What is at issue are the practical details. We may not like all of the details; indeed, some of us may not like any of the details at all. However, the House has resolved that it wishes to retain some 92 hereditary Peers, and we must agree the means by which those Peers are elected. In that context, I pay tribute to the Clerk of the Parliaments, who has done a great service to the House in preparing for the Procedure Committee the paper which lies behind the proposal before your Lordships today.
  The Procedure Committee examined the ideas with great care. The report before the House is acceptable to the Government, and it is acceptable to me. I must tell my noble friends that I shall support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, and I support the adoption of the Procedure Committee report unamended. In any Division, I shall urge my noble friends to do the same.
  However, that is not to say that I regard the necessity for this system with anything other than distaste. It is still my view that the House of Lords Bill is a thoroughly bad Bill. It is a Bill that will weaken Parliament and further strengthen the hand of the
  1148
  executive, which is already too powerful in this country, whatever the colour of the party rosette it wears. But the Weatherill amendment makes a bad Bill somewhat less bad, and for that reason, we support it. I have no affection for these arrangements.
  Equally, I have difficulties with some of the details of the voting system. I should perhaps have preferred all 90 Peers to be elected in one common system, and I should certainly have preferred a representative system on the Scottish or Irish model, with hereditary Peers outside the House electing replacements in any by-election. However, what we have here is a package. It may not be perfect, but it is one on which all parties in the Procedure Committee—except for the Liberal Democrats—were able to agree. I advise the House that a counsel of perfection may be a self-defeating course.
  In another act of statesmanship, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has agreed, on behalf of the Government, that hereditary Peers will be replaced in by-elections. As he knows, I do not instinctively favour this model of by-elections, but I believe that securing the principle of by-elections is more important than indefinite wrangling over the small print. I therefore advise the House to go along with what is proposed.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in his amendments to the Motion on the Procedure Committee report, has proposed that each party should be allowed to choose its own electoral college. He envisages that in some cases both life Peers and hereditary Peers should choose members of the 75. I cannot support the amendment. Indeed, I firmly oppose the amendment. I cannot agree that each party should determine its own election system. I oppose it for a number of reasons. First, the Clerk of the Parliaments has rightly reminded us that these are elections to a House of Parliament; more particularly, to a House of Peers. We are all equal, and that has always been the principle of the House—at least, until the Government introduced the divisive poison enshrined in this Bill.
  Parties should not be given a decisive hand in deciding how Peers are chosen for this place. There should be a common system. Then, all those who come to this place as members of the 75 can say, "We came here by the same means and for the same purpose. No one of us has any election system that is more valid than another's".
  I am sure that a common system would be right for this House. Even if I did not think that, I could not favour the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, because it envisages that some elections for the 75 would be by both life Peers and hereditary Peers. I oppose that because I believe that the 75 Weatherill Peers are representative hereditary Peers. The system is logical and well precedented. The House has accepted such a system before and it is one that is likely to endure in the event that the Government, of whatever party, fail to come forward with a second stage of reform in the next Parliament.
  It would be odd for life Peers to be able to vote in elections in which they could not stand. I fear that some of those who want an election by all Peers somehow do not trust hereditary Peers to make sensible choices. I do

  1149
  trust them. It will be a well informed election and, if by some chance it is not, it will be the electorate who are to blame. That hereditary Peers outside the House should elect representatives, I see as no odder than the people of this country sending representatives, whom they may not know at all, through elections to the other place.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, mentioned the potential problem that might arise for the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party with by-elections, but he ignored the possibility of hereditary Peers from those parties being elected to the 15, thus increasing the electorate for any potential by-elections of the 75. If, for whatever reason, the by-election system proposed becomes unworkable, it will be a simple matter for the House to change the Standing Orders to take account of that.
  I believe that we should trust our fellow hereditary Peers in any election. I therefore believe that we should reject the amendment and stand by the Procedure Committee's report. I hope that my noble friends will agree.
  Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, it is all of five weary months ago and many hours of debate since from these Benches we described the Weatherill amendment as it was then called—it is now Clause 2—as a dog's breakfast. For some noble Lords, that was relatively strong language and unjustified hyperbole, and for others it constituted unfair ridicule. However, a dog's breakfast is what Clause 2 has proved to be and, if we needed further evidence, it is contained in the report of the Procedure Committee that we are discussing today.
  I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when he said that this was basically a technical matter, a question of practical details. There are very important political and constitutional ideas behind the decisions that we are being called upon to make. I agree that the House has agreed, although the other place has yet to pronounce, that despite the purpose of the Bill—and it has no other—being to remove the hereditary Peers from Parliament, 92 will stay on. That has been decided and is part of the Bill that we are discussing. In the view of many of us, there was a better way of keeping on the most talented and most hard-working hereditary Peers, but the matter has been decided.
  It has also been decided that the selection of 90 out of the 92 should be a matter for our Standing Orders. I still view it as an extraordinary presumption without precedent or justification that the House of Lords through its Standing Orders should decide who should sit here and that the House of Commons should have no say in that matter.
  If there was any doubt about the difficulties that we have let ourselves in for, they are illustrated by the report of the Procedure Committee and, indeed, by the minutes of the committee. It is an example of parliamentary decision-making at its worst and it would be laughable, if the issue were not so serious.
  In these elections, no one will need to be nominated. Every candidate will simply register his wish to stand. I can think of no election in my life, parliamentary or
  1150
  other, in which someone has not needed to nominate me. Standing in these elections will be by self-nomination and that is unique in the experience of most of us. Furthermore, if someone stands for the post of Deputy Speaker or other office, he or she will have no obligation to fulfil that role once elected. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, those elected would be expected to serve and they will be honourable men. However, there is no provision in the Standing Orders or the legislation before us to require those who have stood for election to a particular office to carry out its duties once they have been elected.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, also drew attention to the unique system of voting. Noble Lords will have to number candidates in order of preference to fill the exact number of vacancies—not one more or less, but precisely the right number. They will do so on the assumption that they are expressing preferences, but the votes will not be preferences at all, except in the case of a tie. We can forget the problems with the European elections because this election will be a perfect formula for spoilt ballot papers.
  In this election, according to the proposals before us, a candidate may send all his voters a jeraboam of champagne, whereas buying a pint of beer for an honest vote in parliamentary elections was banned by the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act 1854. I shall he told, although I know already, that there is to be a code of conduct. It will be discussed through the usual channels and will not come before your Lordships' House. The code of conduct will suggest restraint, but the only restraint I can see will be on sending a jeraboam of champagne to a prospective voter after registration, which will begin on 11th October. My advice to noble Lords who intend to stand in the elections is, "Get your champagne sent quickly by Berry Bros. and do not leave it too late".
  Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords passing champagne around would not be fair. However, in the other place—I know that the noble Lord spent some time there—it is established practice to have networking in voting. In this case, for example, four or five Peers would come together and agree that each of their supporters would vote for the other four and, eureka, all five would get in. The noble Lord's proposal appears to be eminently sensible. In order to ensure that such behaviour does not have a deleterious effect, it is best to have as big an electorate as possible, thus making the case for life Peers voting alongside hereditary Peers.
  Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for anticipating my destination. For the moment, I make no proposal of my own. Today I am only listening to others and supporting what they propose to do. The noble Lord's comments will have been heard by those responsible for our code of conduct. I believe that the code of conduct would be ridiculed if it were not part of the extraordinary arrangements that we are making in this House.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said—and it was clear from our discussions in the Procedure Committee—that we are in a most extraordinary

  1151
  situation. An excepted hereditary Peer, if he is the only one from a party, will be in a position to nominate someone to take the place beside him. It is very odd, and I see no precedent, that one Member of Parliament, which is what we all are, will be free to choose to nominate and to elect one other person to sit on the Benches beside him. How much money has been paid over very many years, including to Lloyd George, to get into this House? On this occasion, you only have to be nice to one Member of your Lordships' House to be able to sit here free of charge.
  The best argument, and it is not a good one, which we hear from the Leader of the House, the Government Front Bench, is that the arrangements, muddled, confused, unsatisfactory though they are, will last only for a short time. Well, we all have our views on that. Most of us believe that they will last at least five years. Some of us believe that they will last at least 10. But the Leader of the House has come up with an interesting suggestion; if they look like lasting longer, we can change the rules. We do not have to be committed to what we are deciding today; we will return to it again. Why not decide something sensible today which will endure for five or 10 years, rather than have the nonsense included in the proposals before us?
  In the light of these anomalies and contradictions, the outright nonsense in some cases, it is tempting to suggest that your Lordships' House should reject the Procedure Committee report and ask it to try again. But I have conceded, and I concede again, that the root of the problem lies in the agreement reached between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, last December, which is incorporated in Clause 2.
  Out of that flawed deal much trouble has come, but there is little we can do about it now. However, we have the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and at least we can support that. I know that the House will share my view that it was moved with brilliance and panache by the noble Viscount. I hope that the House will share my view that his arguments were wholly convincing.
  We on these Benches would have preferred the House to agree that if there are to be 92 excepted Peers, all Peers should choose the 90 who are open to election, life and hereditary alike. After all, we are arguing about the principle that hereditary Peers should choose hereditary Peers. That was spelt out clearly by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. She said as much today. Some of us do not like that principle, but it is not the principle in the legislation. It is a principle breached. Fifteen of the hereditary Peers are to be elected by all of us, so where is the principle that some noble Lords seem so anxious to hold on to? If 15 can be elected by all Members of the House, hereditary and life Peers, why not elect the remaining 75? There is no rational justification for this proposal.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has settled for choice. That is what he is offering the House. He is not dictating to any party or any group; he is simply saying that each party, Cross-Benchers, too, should be able to choose whether they prefer an electoral college of all
  1152
  Peers or an electoral college of hereditaries. It is a compromise. It is a fair-minded solution. I join in commending it to your Lordships' House.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I must begin by correcting the report of the Select Committee. Noble Lords who have read the report will have noticed that my comments on page 11 do not make sense because the words "short term" have been left out in lines 15 and 24. Perhaps those of your Lordships who have the report would be kind enough to put them in.
  When we negotiated the arrangement, it was envisaged to be a short-term one. What has muddied the waters has been the acceptance of the by-election procedure. If the arrangement was intended to be short-term, surely the replacement of the 90 plus two hereditary Peers by a system of fastest losers would have been both simple and adequate for the two to three years envisaged when Clause 2 was incorporated into the Bill.
  I imagine that many of your Lordships will know the story of Bismarck negotiating with the Austrians towards the end of the last century. In the course of those negotiations, the Austrian Ambassador died and Bismarck's immediate reaction was, "I wonder what he meant by that".
  Lord Acton: My Lords, I am sorry, but it was Talleyrand.
  Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I thought that it might have been Metternich, but the story stands. I wondered what was meant by the by-election procedure which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, pointed out, has serious flaws and difficulties for the replacement of hereditary Peers on the Liberal Democrat and Labour Benches if the electorate consists only of the hereditary Peers.
  When we were negotiating the details of Clause 2, it was clearly understood that the 75 hereditary Peers would be representative hereditary Peers. I was under the impression that that had been discounted. In previous debates, we were informed that they would be elected to carry on the work of the House not as hereditary Peers but as those best qualified so to do.
  The reason we negotiated in that way was to ensure that the Government would move rapidly to stage two, because as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and others pointed out, the Government would not wish to have a body of representative hereditary Peers in this House for longer than absolutely necessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, pointed out and as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said so well, there is no logical reason why after the election of the 15 Chairmen of Committees—those who will sit on the Woolsack and will serve the whole House—the 75 additional hereditary Peers, who will also serve the whole House, should be elected by a different method.
  When I moved my amendment, which is now Clause 2 of the Bill, I made it plain that I was speaking as an individual and not as the Convenor of the

  1153
  Cross-Bench Peers. Today, I do speak as Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, and I do so in order strongly to express their views. Many of them would have liked to speak today, but will not do so for reasons of time. I therefore support the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and I hope that the House will weigh its arguments and do likewise.
  In saying that, I must pay a tribute to the noble and learned the Lord the Lord Chancellor, who I know takes a different view. He has consistently and honourably said that he struck the arrangement, the deal, with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and that he must stick to it.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Will he explain a crucial point? It is accepted that a private arrangement was made between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Cranborne. This was long after the deal brokered by my noble friend Lord Cranborne. There is no doubt—it is accepted—that the private arrangement was hereditaries for hereditaries. None of us knew what happened, so I am asking the noble Lord whether he could be kind enough to say that it was no part of the deal brokered by my noble friend, which ended up in the Weatherill amendment, that hereditaries should support hereditaries.
  Lord Weatherill: My Lords, the noble Viscount must speak for himself on that. I was present at some of the negotiations with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but not at all of them. It was always my understanding that the hereditary peerage would select the representative Peers, for the reasons that I have already stated; namely, that the Government would not wish to have a body of representative hereditary Peers in this House for longer than was absolutely necessary. I think that in a previous debate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that it was sand in their shoes. I would rather use the expression "ginger under the tail". But the intention was to ensure that they got on with the second stage.
  Perhaps I may return to paying a tribute to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It is quite remarkable that the Government have a manifesto commitment, regularly repeated in your Lordships' House, that no political party should seek a majority in the reformed House of Lords. I doubt whether there is any other government in the world who would contemplate subscribing to such an arrangement. In effect, it means that the balance of influence will always be with the independent Peers on these Cross Benches.
  If that commitment is to be put into practice, it must surely mean that the independent Peers should not be pressurised into voting one way or another by any deal that may have been arrived at through the usual channels, of which we are not normally part. So, in a sense, the vote on the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, is a test of that commitment.
  The debate on the report of the Select Committee is not about a matter of government policy. It has already been described as a technical matter, and it was arrived
  1154
  at by members of the Select Committee on Procedure, of whom there are 27, only three of whom are Cross-Benchers, one of them a Law Lord. That is despite the numbers; we are inadequately represented on that committee.
  Despite the committee's recommendation, I hope that in a matter of this kind—a matter of procedure, not of government policy—there will be a genuine free vote. If the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, is carried, it will not bind any other party to follow suit. If the Conservative Opposition prefer that the election of the 42 hereditary Peers should be by hereditaries alone, so be it; it is a matter entirely for them. Similarly, that would be true of the government party and of the Liberal Democrats, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, has already said.
  All that the Bledisloe amendment seeks to achieve is the freedom of the independent Cross-Benchers to exercise their judgment as they think best. It is their majority view that the choice of the hereditary Peers best qualified to carry on the work of the House in the interim period before the second stage of reform of your Lordships' House would best be made by life Peers as well as by hereditary Peers.
  Therefore, despite the fact that this arrangement was made between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, to which I have already said that I subscribed at the time, for reasons stated, I wholeheartedly support the amendment so well and so eloquently moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. I do so because I so strongly applaud the commitment of Her Majesty's Government that the balance of influence in your Lordships' House should be with the Cross-Benchers, and because the amendment is a test of that commitment.
  4.45 p.m.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, because that enables me once again to congratulate him on his wisdom in advising your Lordships' House to put the minimum amount of detail on the face of the House of Lords Bill, thereby ensuring that your Lordships can control your own procedures, a matter to which the noble Lord rightly gave considerable weight, particularly because, as he has reminded us, as if we really needed reminding, that, as in all things, it is for your Lordships to decide on your own procedures. I seek merely to persuade your Lordships. I am under no illusions that I have any prior claim on your Lordships' support beyond the power of the arguments that are laid before the House this afternoon.
  Before coming to the matter of the electorate for the 75 hereditary Peers—the most contentious issue before us this afternoon—I should like to reiterate two points which I seemed to make repeatedly during the Bill's Committee and Report stages.
  First, I personally would much have preferred it if the electorate, when and if by-elections are held, consisted of all hereditary Peers. As I never tire of saying, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has behaved

  1155
  more than honourably over the past few months. I know that the basis of our agreement was that the election of hereditary Peers should be by hereditary Peers for the 75. We were less certain about the basis of election for the 15, a matter to which I should like to come in a minute.
  There are perhaps sensible reasons for suggesting that it is unwise for the House, certainly for the 75, to elect its own Members. It has been suggested—most notably by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and others during previous debates and today—that it would be unwise to allow a large number of hereditary Peers, many of whom do not come to your Lordships' House regularly, to make a judgment on who would be most appropriate to serve in your Lordships' House from among the hereditaries. It has been said that the life Peers together with the hereditaries would be far better qualified to perform that task because, by implication, life Peers are more likely to see more of the active hereditaries than the hereditaries themselves.
  I may have misread the figures, but I do not necessarily find from my reading of them that the overwhelming majority even of life Peers are here all the time. Of course, very many life Peers are; but it seems not entirely sustainable to assume that the life Peers are more likely to be able to judge who is a sensible Member of your Lordships' House.
  I also wonder how sensible it is for us to assume that we should trust the experts. I am always doubtful about the wisdom of trusting experts. That is a principle to which we should do well to adhere in parliamentary institutions. Experts have often misled us in the past. The whole basis of election to another place is that it is the inexpert electorate that we trust beyond the specialists who, in some other polities, perhaps might be chosen as more reliable. It seems to me that the whole basis of election in this country is that it is the non-expert, the broad outside electorate, on which we rely. I suspect that no one in this House would oppose that fundamental principle.
  Let us take the example of another place. We trust the electorate, who see no more of the work of Members of the other place carried out in Parliament—as opposed to work in their constituencies—than the media allows them to. We are clear that we encourage the electorate, even though they have limited exposure to proceedings—unless they are complete groupies and watch Parliament all the time on television or sit in the Gallery—to elect Members of another place. I fail to see why we cannot trust a wider electorate of hereditary Peers, which is no more or less deficient in judgment—I make no assessment between the two—to elect the representatives of the hereditary peerage in the interim House.
  For that reason alone, the broad franchise which applies to the initial electorate could have been applied to the question of by-elections with great advantage. Such a franchise would have avoided the remote possibility of the absurdities to which a number of noble Lords, notably the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, have alluded. Equally, I agree in principle with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that large electorates are better than
  1156
  small ones. However, I make one proviso. It seems to me that large electorates are advisable as a general principle of the need to avoid the Old Sarum difficulty so long as those electorates—
  Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will forgive me, I believe that what my noble friend is suggesting is that we make the electorate even wider.
  Viscount Cranborne: Yes, my Lords, he is. I was coming to that point. I was entering a proviso just as the noble Earl rose to intervene. The proviso is so long as those electorates are rooted outside the institutions to which they are electing representatives.
  It seems to me unwise for any House of Parliament, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, to elect its own membership. That is why I have been nervous during the course of previous debates, as I believe I made clear both in Committee and at Report Stage, about the whole House electing the 15. That is for similar reasons to the ones I have just tried to explain. Nevertheless, there is a stronger case for the whole House electing the 15 than the 75. The reason is quite simply due to the nature of the tasks for which the 15 are making themselves available. After all, the other place would not expect the electorate to make a judgment of those who were to serve as Chairmen of Committees there.
  Similarly, it seems to me arguable that if noble Lords are to choose who is to serve as a Deputy Chairman or Deputy Speaker, then there is a case for this House to exercise its expert judgment in a way which perhaps does not apply to the broader electorate of the 75. Nevertheless, I am the first to admit that one could argue, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Rogers has, that it is inconsistent. I merely suggest that it is marginally less inconsistent for the whole House to elect the 15 than for the whole House to elect the 75.
  My noble friend Lord Strathclyde was clear that we must look at the matter as a package. I should have preferred a broader electorate of hereditaries to elect candidates in by-elections, if we should come to that. However, the Government have refused to do that. In the interests of compromise—a point which the noble and learned Lord and I addressed briefly, but on which we did not come to any conclusion—I find that I am willing to accept that.
  I should like to make one further point. The compromise before us, recommended by the Procedure Committee, preserves the nature of the understanding which I reached with the noble and learned Lord and with the Government; that is, that in the transitional House the hereditaries should elect themselves. If they are to do that, it seems to me consistent that they should elect themselves and continue to do so in by-elections, should they occur. It would be odd and inconsistent to change the system for the sake of by-elections when we already had a system for electing the original incumbents.
  I regard that point as important, given the purpose of the original agreement as I saw it. As the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, said, the good reasons for maintaining

  1157
  a representative group of hereditary Peers in the transitional House are, first, as an incentive for the Government to proceed to stage two, which is something I believe we all want.
  I make my next suggestion with some diffidence because I do not want it to be felt that I am singling out my hereditary colleagues. I believe, however, that I must try to make the point. As the embodiment of a wish which many hereditary noble Lords have often expressed in the House, I believe that we hereditaries should retire gracefully on completion of a full and satisfactory reform. It is, I believe, an honourable aspiration of hereditary Peers that we should hand on the baton, perhaps with some relief, but certainly with some sense of honour.
  For non-hereditaries to choose which of us should become the residual element of that wish would perhaps dilute our purpose. With the greatest respect to my life Peer colleagues, it seems to me slightly odd that they should be the ones to choose which of us should discharge that obligation. For those reasons, I find myself strongly opposed to the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, if only because I find it peculiar to suggest that a Member of this House should be elected on the same basis and from the same category, but nevertheless by a different system, simply by virtue of the accident of the Whip he takes. It would be a curious principle if that part of the noble Viscount's amendment were to apply.
  For the reasons I have tried to explain, I strongly oppose the noble Viscount's amendment. I hope that before considering whether to support it, the House will consider carefully whether the adoption of the amendment would not in fact introduce more difficulties than those it attempts to solve.
  5 p.m.
  The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the reflections of the noble Viscount. I recall that his great grandfather left Disraeli's Cabinet because Disraeli was introducing the vote for the working class. I shall not pursue the issue of representation today.
  I remember Sir Winston Churchill was once asked which side he supported in the Spanish civil war. He replied, "Both sides". It is very easy, as an honest person, to be on both sides of the argument in relation to the amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.
  On the one hand, if we are to retain some hereditary Peers, as I want to, there is a powerful argument that they should be allowed to choose their own representatives. On the other hand, it seems that some of the best opinions on the Cross Benches take a different view.
  As someone who inherited a hereditary peerage—but I am glad to say I now have a life peerage—I feel profound sympathy for the devoted hereditary Peers, who have performed great work in the House, as they are being sacked. They do not like speaking up for themselves as that is not quite the gentlemanly thing to do, but I feel great sympathy for them.
  1158
  I feel like someone in a hospital suddenly being told that half the patients have cancer and it is not clear what will happen to them. It is pretty certain that they will not last long. By the same token, news comes through of a wonderful operation that costs a fortune but which only a few people will be selected to undergo. Everyone, including the cancer patients, has to decide who will be the lucky people who will survive. One has to feel enormous sympathy for the hereditary Peers. I suppose I admire them dying gracefully, as I suppose the French aristocrats died gracefully when they went to the guillotine. I am not sure that is ideal.
  I agree that I voted for the Second Reading of the Bill. The Chief Whip kindly helped me to vote at 3 o'clock in the morning. I voted for it and I suppose I shall have to do the same again if the facilities are still available. Nevertheless, my colleagues are disappearing; they are being sacked. It is a terrible situation.
  I turn to the immediate situation. What do we do now? I had thought of mentioning a few hereditary Cross-Benchers by name, but I shall get into trouble with those I do not mention, so I had better not. The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, is well qualified to advise us on this. I have talked to him. There are many who work in the House, including some younger people, who I am sure will do great work in years to come. The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, takes the view that the hereditary Peers on the Cross Benches who do the most work and show the most promise will benefit from the change suggested. What is good enough for the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, is likely to be good enough for me.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I oppose the Motion and support the amendment of the noble Viscount. One does not have to do so strongly or weakly. It is a question of objective argument. Whichever system of election may commend itself to your Lordships, it is in implementation of the Weatherill agreement, now Clause 2. It cannot delay the Bill and the Bill as a whole will stand, subject to consideration of certain matters on Tuesday. The great cross-party contrivance that masterminded the massive support of the Weatherill amendment, and that has ever since fretted over engaging in any activity that could engender its removal in another place, has no cause whatever 10 dominate these proceedings.
  It is all but inconceivable that discussion on a procedural matter such as this could trigger implementation of the threat to remove Clause 2 in another place. Notwithstanding what has been said by my own Front Bench and by my noble friend Lord Cranborne, in principle it is a procedural matter on which there should be a free vote on the merits of the argument. Which system should be adopted is of no interest or concern to the Government, although the choice between the two is a matter of very serious concern to many noble Lords on all sides of the House, not only to some noble Lords on this side of the House.
  The patrician system, somewhat akin to that adopted by the Doges, was agreed. It was agreed between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Cranborne in a private agreement, hereditaries for hereditaries. That agreement was made.

  1159
  It is totally correct that the noble Lords, as men of honour, should stand by their agreement. That is fully understood. But the agreement was made without authority; it was made subject to the ratification not of the Procedure Committee, but of your Lordships' House. It has to be ratified on the merits of the argument. This debate is all about that.
  Let us start at the beginning. If I may say so, there are two Cranborne deals. The first deal was brokered by my noble friend. The second deal, if it was a deal, was a private arrangement made with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Under the first deal, the Weatherill amendment has been ratified. That is all well and good. That is the end of it. If that arrangement of hereditaries for hereditaries was part of the deal that was ratified, what is the object of making it all over again with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor? My noble friend said it was, but it could not have been. The deal with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was made months after the deal was brokered by my noble friend Lord Cranborne. I see signs being made across the House.
  The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, will the noble Lord accept from me, as I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, will confirm, that there were not two deals, but one integral deal only. I have no notion at all from where the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has obtained the idea that there were two separate deals. There was one deal and one alone.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord says so. What on earth could have been the object of the meeting and the second private arrangement, which was never ratified and which was not known about by the other parties? I have asked some of them whether they knew. They did not know. I said that it was made without authority and the short answer to that is that whether or not it was made without authority it still has to be ratified by this House on its merits. That is the point. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord because he will realise that we do not understand and do not know what on earth has been going on. It is all done between Privy Counsellors on Privy Council terms. We do not know what is going on. Now we are asked to ratify it. We are entitled to look into it. If I have made a mistake, it is not a mistake that goes to the essence of the problem of whether or not, when one examines this matter on its merits, one is going to ratify it. We have to ratify it. It does not bind us until we do.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I beg to move that the Question be now put.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I want to speak to the point raised by the noble Lord who just put the Question. One is entitled to debate this Motion. Two or three noble Lords have spoken. There is more than one view. It is perfectly reasonable for the House to debate this.
  1160
  I do not agree with absolutely everything that has been done. I do not agree with a lot being said by my noble friend Lord Campbell. But it is surely his right to say it without our shutting him up. Nobody should ever attempt to shut up my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway; that would be a major mistake.
  I hope that we do not put the Question yet, but that we continue with the debate for a reasonable and civilised time. This is an important constitutional issue and we ought, first, to get it off our chests; and, secondly, to be intelligent about it. Cutting short the debate does not help in that.
  The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Serota): My Lords, I am instructed by Order of the House to say that the Motion that the Question be now put is considered to be a most exceptional procedure and the House will not accept it save in circumstances where it is felt to be the only means of ensuring the proper conduct of business of the House. Further, if the noble Lord who seeks to move it persists in his intention, the practice of the House is that the Question on the Motion is put without further delay.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I beg to move that the Question be now put.
  Noble Lords: No!
  The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Question is, That the Question be now put. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". The "Not-Contents" have it.
  Question negatived.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I do not speak in my defence. I am grateful to your Lordships for having heard me so far. If I am allowed to speak further, I shall bear that tolerance in mind.
  Lord Chalfont: My Lords—
  Lord Peston: My Lords, I think it is the turn of this side now. The Cross-Benchers have been speaking continuously.
  Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was just making clear that many noble Lords may feel that we have had quite a long debate on this issue but, like the noble Earl, I feel that it is a matter of such profound importance that we should debate it to the full and as long as constructive contributions are being made. I hope therefore that I may be allowed to rise to support the Motion tabled by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe. I must say at once, as others have said, that—for me at any rate—it is not the ideal solution.
  Like the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I go back to the beginning of this matter and say that it is a bad Bill, a deplorable Bill. But that is all history. Since then we have had the Weatherill amendment arising from the arrangements made on Privy Council terms. I have

  1161
  always strongly believed that the voting arrangements for what are now called the "Weatherill Peers" should be uniform throughout the House, as my noble friend Lord Bledisloe said, and that the electorate should consist of Peers, both life and hereditary.
  After all, we are all Members of the same House and of the same Parliament. Although we may have different allegiances, different ideologies, different social backgrounds, we are all Members of the same House of Parliament. It might be worth reminding this House that the word "Peer" means equal in standing and in rank. It was to underline that fact that as long ago as the 15th century those who had previously been Lords Temporal had their names changed to Peers; meaning that all were equal. The only distinction was between the ranks within the peerage. That remained the case even after the Life Peerages Act 1958; we were all equal Members of this House.
  5.15 p.m.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, not true.
  Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the noble Viscount say, "Not true"?
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I was not asking the noble Lord to give way but as he has so kindly and so suddenly sat down, perhaps I may take advantage of his good nature to say that I am sure that he is exactly right and that it is perfectly true; but they did not choose themselves.
  Lord Chalfont: No, my Lords, and I never suggested that they did. Evidently my quick sit-down was to no great effect.
  It is only in the passage of this reform Bill that an attempt is now being made to make an important distinction—a discrimination—between life and hereditary Peers. However, those are statements of principle and your Lordships will know better than many that principles sometimes have to be compromised in order to achieve proper and desirable ends.
  I remain convinced that the electorate for the Weatherill Peers should consist of both life and hereditary Peers. In the first place, as others have said but it bears repeating, there is no logic in the present proposal that 15 Peers—the Deputy Chairmen and others—should be chosen by the whole House, while the remaining 75 are to be elected by hereditary Peers only. I have never heard a persuasive argument for that and to me it is an illogical arrangement.
  A good deal has been said—the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to it again during this debate—about it being in some way offensive to hereditary Peers to suggest that they cannot manage their own affairs without the participation and help of the life Peers. The answer to that somewhat insubstantial debating point might be that this is not merely a matter of the "own affairs" of hereditary Peers; it is a matter of the composition of this House, affecting everyone in it. It is equally offensive to life Peers to suggest that they should have no role whatever in electing those who are
  1162
  to be their colleagues in the interim House. So, the less we hear about the way in which we cause offence to the hereditary peerage, the better.
  It became clear to me when I was privileged to attend and address a recent meeting of the Procedure Committee that the possibility of ensuring that the electorate for the Weatherill Peers would be an electorate of both life and hereditary Peers was remote. I discovered that the Procedure Committee consisted substantially of heavily whipped Front-Bench representation from the major parties. It may be worth while in this context pointing out that in that fairly large committee there are only three Cross-Bench Peers. The committee was clearly bent on a system in which only hereditary Peers would elect the Weatherill Peers. That is what appeared in its report. It seemed to me from the discussion that took place in the Procedure Committee that that determination was based largely, if not entirely, on the now famous deal negotiated between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne.
  Perhaps at this stage I should say a few words about the agreement. The first point I should like to make is that the agreement cannot be binding on anyone who was not a party to it. That certainly applies to us on the Cross-Benches, where each Member is independent and obviously will not be bound by an agreement between the Labour and Conservative Front Benches, even if a small number of Cross-Bench Peers were involved in the negotiations which led up to it.
  Those in favour of the present form of the legislation have made much of the point that it is important to have an independent element in your Lordships' House. We on the Cross Benches regard ourselves—with some justification—as that independent element. My noble friend's Motion this evening, as he implied, seeks to remove from the realm of rhetoric the need for an independent element and to place it in the realm of reality.
  In any case, I turn back to the agreement—the famous deal—for a moment. I may be wrong and no doubt, if I am, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or the noble Viscount will correct me. However, I do not believe that this business of the hereditary Peers being the only voters for the excepted hereditary peerage was a fundamental, important and integral part of the deal. Indeed, I do not believe that the deal would have stood or fallen on that one element alone. It is, of course, entirely right and honourable that those who were party to the deal should consider themselves to be fully bound by it. However, in my opinion, it is extremely doubtful that such an agreement should be the sole basis, or even the main basis, for a fundamental procedural decision of this kind.
  I return to the recommendations of the committee. I was present during the proceedings of the Procedure Committee. No strong arguments were advanced at that time in favour of this system of hereditary Peers electing hereditary Peers. Although my noble friend Lord Bledisloe and I took the time to advance very strong arguments against it, I never heard any of those arguments refuted. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Bledisloe has

  1163
  said, the only argument that was ever seriously advanced in favour of the "hereditary-only" electorate seemed to have disappeared. I refer, as he did, to the argument that the Weatherill Peers were to be representative. If the proceedings of the Procedure Committee are to be taken as a guide, apart from anything else, the Conservative Party now seems to have abandoned any pretence, or any claims, that the Weatherill Peers are to be representative.
  In my view, the recommendation of the Procedure Committee as it stands is, therefore, based entirely on assertion, not on argument. Indeed, a friend of mine, for whose legal expertise I have great respect, has suggested to me that if the proceedings of the committee were subject to judicial review, they would almost certainly be quashed. Despite the significant change on the subject of the representative nature of the Weatherill Peers, from the soundings that I have taken since the meetings of the Procedure Committee it seems to me to be clear that the possibility of ensuring that the electorate consists of a universal system and that all Peers—not simply hereditary Peers—should form the electorate is, to say the very least, in the balance.
  As this is my major preoccupation and as I very passionately want to see adopted the principle that the Weatherill Peers should be elected by a mixture of life and hereditary Peers—a substantial number of my noble friends on the Cross Benches believe the same thing—it seems that the only way in which we, the independent element in the House and in any future House, can avoid being bulldozed by the major parties and bring about the system that we want to see, is to support the Motion tabled by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe.
  As a result of this debate, if for no other reason—it has, in my view, been a good, constructive and informative debate so far—I trust that there will be support from a sufficient number of Peers of all groups and parties to ensure that my noble friend's Motion is carried.
  Lord Peston: My Lords, I have been looking forward for a very long time to debating the minutiae of this remarkable document containing the new Standing Orders. It is equalled in its remarkable nature only by the verbatim account of the proceedings of the Procedure Committee. If various amateur dramatic societies wish regularly to perform that as a playlet in due course, I hope that Her Majesty's Government, or whoever owns the copyright, will not make any effort to stop them.
  Unlike one or two noble Lords on the Cross Benches, I did not regard this as a matter of "profound importance". It is a matter of importance, but the idea of using the word "profound" for a technical matter of this kind is really quite absurd. As I have been looking forward to a long debate, I hope that nothing I say will shorten it. I start from exactly the opposite position to that of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, but I come to exactly the same conclusion. He starts from the position that it is a bad Bill which is made better; and I start from the position that it is a very good Bill which has been made slightly worse by the Weatherill amendment.
  1164
  However, having said that, I begin from the position set out by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on page 9 of the Third Report of the Procedure Committee's proceedings. He said that,
  "it was expressly agreed between myself and Lord Cranborne that the electoral range should be confined to the hereditaries of the relevant grouping and exclude the life peers".
  I emphasise the words "expressly agreed". He continued:
  "I am aware of the press release to which he refers"—
  that is, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—
  "To the extent it gives a different impression, it was erroneous. There may have been a failure of communication but what was agreed between myself and Lord Cranborne is precisely as I have said".
  I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has said much the same now.
  I was completely bemused, although perhaps my hearing is not so good, by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. I say that because, on page 11 of the report, he says:
  "I am bound to say that it was my understanding that the arrangement was that the hereditary peers would elect hereditary peers".
  I do not know whether the noble Lord was trying to say that that is no longer his understanding, but he certainly said that it was his "understanding". Therefore, I have no idea why this debate is proceeding or why anyone on the Cross Benches is supporting the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe—
  Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I was making the point that my words were not correctly reported.
  Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not understand that either. Obviously, I am in a rather "thick" mood this afternoon.
  In connection with the interpretation of all this, perhaps I may say that, for once, I am able to say how much I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I am afraid that he said nothing during the whole of the debates on this Bill with which I have been able to agree; and that has brought me enormous disappointment. However, apropos something that his noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said, I believe that he said that the 75 might be elected by hereditary Peers but that that did not mean that they would represent them. Once they were elected, they would be here as Members of the House the same as everybody else; they would not be representative of anybody. That is of the essence.
  Therefore, when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor debates with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne—who, I believe, was then Leader of the Opposition—and comes to an agreement, are we to say that this somehow has no significance for your Lordships and that we should all start from scratch, despite the fact that two of the major figures in this House have, in all honesty, done what a great many Peers have done?
  I repeat my point: I do not like the Weatherill amendment. Indeed, I have said that consistently. I should like the hereditary Peers not to sit and vote in

  1165
  your Lordships' House. However, to suggest that we regard what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, the former Leader of the Opposition and colleagues—I use that word to refer to the whole House—said as just another few words, when they have negotiated in all honesty, and to suggest that we can now debate the matter as if none of this had happened, does not seem to me to be remotely a way in which your Lordships should proceed.
  I do not want to stop all the other Cross-Benchers who are ready to speak from doing so. I certainly have no wish for them not to vote. However, if this House is to stick to its great traditions, it is time that we stopped making remarks which imply that, somehow or other, leading figures in this place are not to be trusted and carry no great weight. Of course, the agreement is not binding, in the sense that it cannot be binding for Liberal Democrats who were not party to the deal. However, the fact that it has weight seems to me to be of enormous importance. It certainly has weight for me, and I speak as someone who does not agree with keeping any of the hereditaries. Therefore, if it has weight with me, it ought to have weight with a great many other noble Lords.
  5.30 p.m.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords. I think it is reasonable to say that I support wholeheartedly the 75 plus 15. I see grave difficulties, however, with the by-election system.
  The by-election system has to come about because obviously things go wrong and we have to plan for things going wrong. Let us assume for the sake of argument that of the 15, there are three Liberal Democrats who are chairmen or deputy speakers and three Labour Party members as well. Under those circumstances in a Labour by-election there will be an electorate of four and in a Liberal Democrat by-election there will be an electorate of five. I am sorry but I do not think that that is good enough: 42 is "iffy", 28 is "iffyish", five is not on, and four is awful.
  I therefore think that we ought to do one of two things. Either we say—and I think it is a perfectly reasonable proposal—that all hereditary Peers elect at by-elections; that is, all those who are still in the House. In those circumstances, if the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi—who I sincerely hope is elected under one ticket or another—were, unfortunately, to fall under a bus, or die of a surfeit of lampreys or whatever, I would be quite happy to vote for a Labour successor of his, be he inside the House or—as he obviously then will be—outside the House. I think that most of us would have no difficulty with that and the electorate would then be 90, which is a respectable number. Equally, I suspect that if one of us, who were or were not elected, were to die, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, could be trusted to vote for an appropriate Conservative replacement. Either we do that, or we say that the whole of the Labour peerage elects its hereditary successor and that the same applies to the Liberal Democrats. I believe that the
  1166
  by-election system is in danger of bringing us into serious disrepute.
  I happen to think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Cranborne, by a mixture of bluff and ignorance—all the things that make England work—have come up with an extremely good compromise which I hope will result in a proper reformed House in due course. We must not allow one small bit—the mote and the beam in someone's eye—to ruin what is either a good enough compromise which will stand on its own or the sand in the oyster which will ensure that we have a properly reformed House of Lords, which I certainly want, able to kick governments where it hurts most. The by-election system is not good enough.
  Lord Barnett: My Lords, I disagree, unusually, with my noble friend Lord Peston. I agree that this is not a profound matter, as he said; it is a technical matter. I trust my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, but that does not mean to say that I feel bound by what they did in a "deal": I do not. I do not feel bound by that at all. As the House will know, I would prefer the simple solution; namely, to have elected life Peers and not to have a Weatherill clause. I say that with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, who is really the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. The plain fact is that if we are dealing with the kind of technicality described by my noble friend Lord Peston, there is absolutely no reason why we should be bound by a deal done by two noble Lords for whom I have the greatest regard and respect, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and my noble and learned friend know.
  As I say, we are dealing here not with a profound matter but with technicalities. We are all entitled to a view. My view—I at least agree with my noble friend Lord Peston on this—is that the document before us, and some of the stuff in it, is quite hilarious. I thought that Peter Riddell was quite modest in his comments in The Times this morning. It is the greatest load of nonsense I have seen in my life. I say that with the greatest respect to those who compiled it. We are dealing here with a technicality. I would prefer not to deal with it, but we are. I trust my noble and learned friend, as I do my noble friend Lord Peston, although on this matter I do not agree with him. As he said, we are dealing with a technicality. On a technicality we are all entitled to a view. My view is that I shall support the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I feel sorry for the poor noble Lord, Lord Peston, who no longer has the confidence of his noble friend, at least in this debate. Meanwhile I am deeply indebted to the noble Lord because if I have been able to give him any pleasure at all, I am glad. He said I had because he was able to agree with something that I had said even though I have not yet said anything.
  I am singularly excited at the fact—which I thought would never happen—that I should be on the side of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I always reckoned I was on the side of the angels in the matter,

  1167
  and to find myself not on the other side but perhaps the same side as the noble and learned Lord is a gratitude I had not expected to come about.
  The matter is, I believe, relatively simple. I do not agree with the amendment but with the Motion. I say with the greatest of respect that I do not think it matters what the "deal" was or whether we are supposed to agree with it. We have to agree with the Motion or the amendment. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, made a persuasive speech, along with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. That surprised me a great deal. They said that they could not understand why life Peers should be excluded from voting for hereditary Peers. It seems to me there is a perfectly obvious reason; namely, that the life Peers are here and the hereditary Peers are being—to use the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—thrown out. Therefore the hereditary Peers are quite right to vote for those people whom they would like to see remain as hereditary Peers.
  The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that he could not understand why, if life Peers were excluded from voting for hereditary Peers, they should vote for the 15. The answer is perfectly simple; namely, because the 15 hereditary Peers are being voted for as servants of the House, or rather Members of the House who occupy positions which facilitate the running of the House, such as deputy chairmen. There is a perfectly logical argument for two forms of votes. However, what is illogical—here I agree with my noble friend Lord Strathclyde—is that the Labour Party could use one form of voting, either hereditary Peers, or hereditary and life; the Cross-Benchers could use another; and the Conservative Party another. We must have a similar thread running through the whole lot.
  Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. If he says that the 15 are being voted upon and elected to be of service to the House, what are the other 75 going to do?
  Earl Ferrers: Dear, oh dear. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has not been following all this very well. The 15 are supposed to be deputy chairmen of committees and chairmen of other committees, whereas the other people are what you might call the PBI in old-fashioned language. I do not propose to translate what that means because it might be unparliamentary language.
  However, I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, when he said that he hated the whole Bill. He is absolutely right about that; I hate it too. The trouble with the Bill is that it is rather like going to a tenpin bowling alley. Every time a new ball gets thrown, about six perfectly good upstanding skittles get knocked over. That is what is happening here. Now we are all getting into a muddle as to how people should be elected and who should vote for them. This situation has never arisen before. It has arisen because of this jolly old Bill which is perfectly awful.
  1168
  I believe that we should stick with the Motion and vote with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It will be fun seeing each other in the same Lobby. It will no doubt be a day he remembers for as long as he lives. I believe that we should vote against the amendment so ably put by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.
  I was concerned about one or two things in the report. Reference was made to people producing CVs—curriculum vitae. We must be very careful that this does not turn into people giving election addresses. Can one imagine a noble Earl, with his coat of arms and wearing a nice Earl's coronet—on the front of which is a message? As one goes down the scale, a Viscount might have a less glamorous coronet; and when one comes to the Barons, they are like all the rest except that their papers and coats of arms are usually more flamboyant than anyone else's. That would be pretty disagreeable.
  What will be put in this election statement? "I will be a regular attender; vote for me"; "I will be a loyal party member"; or "I will use my nous and I will vote not for the party when I want to but in my own way"; or "I will guarantee not to speak too long and so keep your Lordships from dinner". I know your Lordships cannot be that hungry. It really is pretty awful. I bet that, if we are not careful, some noble character will start producing an election statement. I hope that will not happen.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, spoke about jeroboams of champagne. I agree with him. What will happen if a Peer seeking election is seen giving a drink to a Peer who might be a voter, or taking him out to dinner? What will happen if he takes him to the ballet? Where does sleaze start and common sense end? Or has it already ended? It is a frightful thought.
  I had a great deal of sympathy for the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, when he said that he did not like the idea of voting for all 42 Peers. I was told that all one had to do was vote for oneself and then get off; that one had more likelihood of getting in that way. But of course the powers that be have seen through that trick and they now say that we have to vote for 42. I do not know whether we all know 42 Members for whom we would like to vote. What happens if a noble Lord does not know 42 Members? That is a pretty curious thing.
  I am thankful that the replacement for what somebody described rather grotesquely as the "dead Weatherill Peers" is to be established by a vote and not by going back to the old system of who will be the 12th man. It is obviously much better that it should be done in that way. I hope that we vote for the Motion and not for the amendment.
  5.45 p.m.
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to make something of a summing up before the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, winds up on his amendment.

  1169
  After the speech we have just heard from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I find myself in very great difficulty; I cannot possibly match that at all. He has not only pleased the noble Lord, Lord Peston, but he certainly pleased me with the exuberance and humour of his speech and, I suspect, the whole House.
  That brings me to another relevant point in connection with the noble Earl. I would not dream of entering into any question of—or indeed revealing—whom I might support among those who will stand for election; I have my own personal thoughts. After the noble Earl has brought me such great pleasure, I am not sure that I can bring him excessive pleasure because if your Lordships reject the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and accept, as the noble Earl has suggested, my Motion, I will not be in a position to vote for him anyway. I shall reveal no more.
  After a debate such as this—which has been very thorough even though a comparatively limited number of your Lordships contributed to it—I think the House will forgive me if I do not refer to all the points that have been made. Your Lordships will forgive me even further if I do not refer to all those who have taken part in the debate. It is right to make clear that I do not feel it would be for me anyway, doing the job that I try to do for your Lordships, to enter into the substantive arguments of either one side of today's debate. The arguments emerge from policy matters and they are not matters in which, traditionally, a Chairman of Committees gets involved. So I will not deal with those points.
  However, there are one or two subsidiary matters which it might be thought I am required to answer. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, mentioned that those who stand for election for the Deputy Speaker and chairmanship posts will not be required to undertake to carry out the duties of a Deputy Speaker. I paraphrase his words, I hope without inaccuracy. We grappled with that difficulty in the Select Committee. It would be very difficult to compel anyone to undertake any particular work. In accepting the services of those people who serve us so well as voluntary Deputy Speakers and as chairmen of committees and sub-committees of your Lordships' House, we must rely on good faith, as we always have. That is all we can do. I hope that reliance will be sufficient.
  Perhaps I may comment on the speech and the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. He clearly put in a tremendous amount of work on the paper that he submitted to the Procedure Committee. He and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, put forward their proposals—as they have today—with great clarity, cogency and moderation. I know that those attributes are always acceptable to your Lordships' House.
  I can say, without going into the substantive matters which it discussed and which have been discussed this afternoon, that the Procedure Committee came forward to your Lordships' House with a very clear recommendation. It came forward with that recommendation on the basis of a substantial majority within the committee in favour: 18 to 4. However, in
  1170
  fairness, I should point out that that majority probably needs to be regarded as 17 to 4 because the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, in the customary honourable way in which he approaches the House, has indicated the different view he has expressed this afternoon.
  This matter was discussed very thoroughly and at considerable length within the Procedure Committee, as I hope your Lordships will have seen from the transcript of the proceedings. At the end, there was a substantial majority within the committee for the recommendation which is before the House. On behalf of the Procedure Committee, I ask that your Lordships bear that very much in mind.
  That is all that I propose to deal with. On behalf of the Procedure Committee, I ask your Lordships to decline to accept the noble Viscount's amendment and to accept the Motion before the House.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I am under instructions from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to close the debate at this stage. On such matters I am, as ever, the soul of obedience. I think that is a pity. I know that there are many Back-Benchers on all sides of the House who still wish to contribute. We have heard at some length from the heavy guns on the Front Benches; we have heard rather less from the Back-Benchers.
  The noble Lord, Lord Boston, has prayed in aid the recommendation of the Procedure Committee. A decision like that is not surprising in a matter which is Whipped and when, almost in its entirety, the committee is composed of Members of one Front Bench or another. With respect to—
  Lord Carter: My Lords, will the noble Viscount give way? Half the members of the Procedure Committee are Front-Benchers, the rest are Back-Benchers.
  Viscount Bledisloe: And, my Lords, the Back-Benchers of both parties were Whipped. I gather that that is not the case today.
  The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, says that the matter was fully debated by the Procedure: Committee. With respect to the noble Lord, I confess., having been present, that I do not believe that it was. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—and I to some extent—put forward reasoned arguments. The}' were met solely with the response: "Well, it's in the agreement, ain't it?". If that is what is meant by being "debated cogently and thoroughly", it is not what those words normally mean to me.
  I want to make three points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has today returned to the concept of, "Oh well, they are representative". That is remarkable. At a very early stage in the Procedure Committee, the Chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, said,
  "I would venture to suggest that neither those who would support the original proposal"—
  that is, the draft orders—
  "nor those would support Lord Bledisloe's proposal is going for … what has been called been called representation".

  1171
  So the noble Lord said plainly that no one was arguing for representation. That was the way in which the Procedure Committee was conducted.
  Secondly, I deprecate the argument that the "O" group or the Clerk of the Parliaments has examined the matter carefully. It is absolutely plain that that admirable body and that even more admirable person have skilfully put down on paper what they were told to put. They have in no way given thought to whether this is the right way of doing things. They acted as draftsmen, and they have said so.
  Thirdly, at the end of the day, the question is: does the House do what is sensible, or does it merely say, 'Two people have made an agreement. We have to follow that"? This House has a unique reputation among the parliaments of the world for actually listening to the arguments and deciding matters on that basis. I hope that on this occasion the argument will prevail over the wishes of the Front Benches. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
  5.52 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 146; Not-Contents, 229.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Ackner, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Addington, L.

  Downshire, M.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Drogheda, E.

  Alderdice, L.

  Dunleath, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Dunrossil, V.

  Ampthill, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Arlington, B.

  Exmouth, V.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Ashburton, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Avebury, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

  Freyberg, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Geraint, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Gibson, L.

  Blaker, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Bledisloe, V. [Teller.]

  Gladwyn, L.

  Blyth, L.

  Glasgow, E.

  Bridge of Harwich, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Brightman, L.

  Gray, L.

  Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

  Greenway, L.

  Butler of Brockwell, L.

  Grey, E.

  Calverley, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Carew, L.

  Hankey, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Harding of Petherton, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Carrick, E.

  Harrowby, E.

  Chalfont, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Hereford, Bp.

  Clancarty, E.

  Holme of Cheltenham, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Hooson, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Iddesleigh, E.

  Desai, L.

  Iveagh, E.

  Devonport, V.

  Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

  1172

  Killanin, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Roll of Ipsden, L.

  Kintore, E.

  Runciman of Doxford, V.

  Laming, L.

  Russell, E.

  Lauderdale, E.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Sandford, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Sandwich, E.

  Longford, E.

  Shannon, E.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  McNair, L.

  Slim, V.

  McNally, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Strafford, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Strange, B.

  Marlesford, L.

  Swinfen, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Tenby, V. [Teller.]

  Methuen, L.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Monson, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Montgomery of Alamein, V.

  Thurso, V.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Tope, L.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Nathan, L.

  Trenchard, V.

  Newall, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Newby, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Norton, L.

  Walton of Detchant, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Waverley, V.

  Pym, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Rathcavan, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Wharton, B.

  Redesdale, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Rennell, L.

  Wilberforce, L.

  Renton, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Rochester, L.

  Wright of Richmond, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller.]

  Addison, V.

  Castle of Blackburn, B.

  Ahmed, L.

  Chadlington, L.

  Ailsa, M.

  Chandos, V.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Alli, L.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Amos, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Anelay of St. Johns, B.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe. L.

  Bach, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Courtown, E.

  Berkeley, L.

  Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

  Berners, B.

  Cox, B.

  Biddulph, L.

  Cranborne, V.

  Biffen, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Blackstone, B.

  Cross, V.

  Blackwell, L.

  David, B.

  Boardman, L.

  Davidson, V.

  Borrie, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Bowness, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Bragg, L.

  Denham, L.

  Brentford, V.

  Diamond, L.

  Brett, L.

  Dinevor, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Dixon, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Dulverton, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Burlison, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Burnham, L.

  Elder, L.

  Buscombe, B.

  Erne, E.

  Byford, B.

  Erroll, E.

  Cadman, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  1173

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Montrose, D.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Morris, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Fisher, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Gainford, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Munster, E.

  Geddes, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Newton of Braintree, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Noel-Buxton, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Norfolk, D.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Northbrook, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Grenfell, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Nunburnholme, L.

  Hanningfield, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Hanworth, V.

  Onslow, E.

  Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Peston, L.

  Harlech, L.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Harmsworth, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Henley, L. [Teller.]

  Puttnam, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Hogg, B.

  Rawlings, B.

  Holderness, L.

  Reay, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Hooper, B.

  Richard, L.

  Hothfield, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Howe, E.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Romney, E.

  Hughes, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Rowallan, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Saatchi, L.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Hurd of Westwell, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

  Sawyer, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Seccombe, B.

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

  Selborne, E.

  Serota, B.

  Jeffreys, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Shepherd, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Shore of Stepney, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Kingsland, L.

  Simon, V.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  Lea, B.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Levy, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Stewartby, L.

  tollhouse of Pontefract, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Long, V.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Luke, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Lyell, L.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Teviot, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Thatcher, B.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Torrington, V.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Merrivale, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Wallace of Coslany, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Watson of Invergowrie, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Montague of Oxford, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  1174

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Young, B.

  Windlesham, L.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Winston, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Fourth Report
6.4 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I was tempted to say that we now move to calmer waters, but one can never make that kind of rash judgment about matters before your Lordships' House.
The main item in the Procedure Committee's Fourth Report concerns the format of the statute law. A working group of officials, chaired by the Clerk Assistant of the House, has made recommendations for a new look for Bills and Acts of Parliament. I am pleased to say that your Lordships' Procedure Committee and the Modernisation Committee in another place have now put forward agreed recommendations on the basis of the working group's report.
The proposals from the working group are set out in two reports from the Select Committee, the Second and Fourth Reports. The most conspicuous changes are a new format for clauses, with bold clause titles instead of side notes and an increase in the type size of schedules to make them the same as clauses. It is also proposed that the typeface should be larger than the traditional typeface used in the past.
The case for change arises out of two separate factors. First, there is the development of electronic publishing and the Internet on which all Bills and Acts are now published. This new technology made a re-think of the format desirable. Secondly, the Inland Revenue tax law re-write project, to which the House has already agreed in principle, has set about making tax law easier to understand. The steering committee—to which we are all grateful for its hard work—chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, has been at the forefront of proposals to improve not only the language of the tax law but also its appearance and readability.
If your Lordships agree to this report, it is intended that Bills and Acts should take on their new appearance from the beginning of the Session 2000 to 2001. A two-page spread of this year's Finance Bill in the new format is annexed to the Procedure Committee's report by way of an example.
I should also mention the second item in the Procedure Committee's report which concerns long Answers to Written Questions. It is proposed that practice in this House should be the same as that in another place and that a limit of two columns of print should be placed on Answers to Written Questions. Lengthy Answers would be placed in the Library of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Fourth Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 84) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. FORMAT OF THE STATUTE LAW
At its meeting on 13 April the Procedure Committee approved recommendations from a working group of officials for changes in the format of bills and Acts of Parliament. A sample of the new format was appended to the Committee's second report (1998–99 HL Paper 52).
The Commons Modernisation Committee also considered the proposed changes and agreed to all but one of them, namely the typeface. Whereas the Procedure Committee endorsed the working group's recommendation of Times New Roman, the Modernisation Committee preferred Palatino, which is a larger typeface. Accordingly, the Procedure Committee reconsidered its earlier decision and now recommends a typeface similar to Palatino but one which is more generally available on Windows-based personal computers, namely Book Antiqua. This typeface has also been agreed by the Modernisation Committee.
A sample of the new format in the revised typeface is appended to this report.
It is proposed that the new format should take effect from the beginning of session 2000–01.
2. LONG WRITTEN ANSWERS
The Committee recommends that extremely long answers to written questions, usually in the form of lists or tables, should not be printed in Hansard. There should be a limit of two columns of print for answers to written questions. Answers to questions requiring more than two columns in Hansard should use the formula "The information has been placed in the Library of the House".
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not happy with the second recommendation of the Procedure Committee. It is to stop printing in Hansard what is described as,
"extremely long answers to written questions".
I would probably be happy if the Answer were extremely long, but the report goes on to say:
"There should be a limit of two columns of print for answers to written questions. Answers to questions requiring more than two columns in Hansard should use the formula 'The information has been placed in the Library of the House'".
I am not happy about it because Written Questions are a most important part of the parliamentary process for eliciting information, often new information, often in a numerical form. It is information which not only becomes available to the Member of Parliament who has asked for it but also to the press and, through the press, a much wider audience.
I have been looking at Hansard and it is rare that the proposal which is in the Select Committee's report would have to be enforced. But on many of the occasions when it would be enforced, if the Procedure Committee's report is accepted, it would be most undesirable. Often it is possible to obtain useful statistical information as an authoritative ex cathedra source that has not previously been published or put together in that way. Having looked through Hansard on a random basis in recent months, I have found a number of such Written Answers. I shall not weary your Lordships with them. Suffice it to say, those Answers cover economic, social, educational and health matters, law and order, aid, relations with foreign powers and so on.
1176
Many Answers are extremely useful pieces of information that should be in the public domain. The Library is not open to the public. Although a Written Answer may be available somewhere on a piece of paper, it is not the same as printing it in Hansard. I believe that the value of Written Answers would be considerably reduced if we agreed to censor them in this arbitrary way. I ask the Chairman of Committees to rethink this particular recommendation.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I am a little surprised to hear the Chairman of Committees say that this is now the practice in another place. I did not know that. If so, the practice has changed a great deal since those of us who are now Members of this House were Members of the other place. The noble Lord is absolutely right in his description of the use of Hansard. It is a method of disseminating important information with the imprimatur of the government machine behind it. Therefore, it deserves the kind of publicity that Hansard gives it rather than merely being placed in the Library.
I also see the other side of the argument. It is costly to enumerate matters at great length in Hansard. I would not object to an indicative limit that in normal circumstances Written Answers should not exceed two columns, but to have a blanket prohibition, as the report recommends, that no Written Answer should exceed two columns in Hansard goes a little too far. I hope that the Procedure Committee will look at it again and consider a persuasive rather than mandatory approach.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and my noble friend Lord Richard. I have great difficulty in understanding how, on general grounds, such a proposal could have emerged. The matter that I find terribly unconvincing—whether or not it is true—is the practice in the other place. I have never regarded that as guidance in deciding anything in your Lordships' House.
I believe that this proposal will lead to inefficiency. If I discovered that I could not have a Written Answer in the form of economic data in Hansard, I would put a different Question. Instead of asking for data for 1979 to the present, I would ask for data from 1979 to 1989. I would follow it with a second Question asking for data from 1989 to 1999. I am most unimpressed with the proposal.
I tend to ask Questions precisely to put the data in the public domain. I cannot recall whether that part of Hansard is on the Internet. If it is, a fortiori this information should be published in Hansard. It follows that the Chairman of Committees should take this away, not press this particular part of the recommendations and ask one or two of us who are interested parties—this is what we do on occasions, some more and some less— what we think. No one has asked me about it. I do not

1177
know whether the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, or anyone else has been asked. I am very unhappy about the recommendation.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly also in support of my noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Peston. I start with the confession that I am a member of the Procedure Committee and was at the meeting which discussed this matter. It slipped through at the end of the meeting without my noticing it. Together with other noble Lords, I have concerns similar to those already expressed. I suspect that the best that the Chairman of Committees can offer is a promise that at the next meeting of the Procedure Committee the matter should be discussed again. It is obvious that there are considerable concerns which we overlooked at the time; and I suspect that further concerns will be voiced behind me. Perhaps the Chairman of Committees can respond in that way.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Marlesford raises a very important point. Hansard is distributed throughout the English-speaking world, whereas documents deposited in the Library do not go very far. If a problem is created by long Written Answers, the solution is that Ministers should instruct their departments not to produce long Answers. Many Answers are too long. Nevertheless, their contents are important and they should be published in Hansard so that they can have the widest possible publicity, which they will not get in the Library.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I add a word of support to my noble friend Lord Marlesford and others who have spoken. In your Lordships' House there are former Ministers who will have encountered this issue from the other end. I recall many occasions when there was discussion in the Treasury and other departments about how best to put a substantial piece of information on the public record. To place a copy of the document in the Library is not the best way to do it. I accept that there may be a tendency to abuse the Written Answer procedure; it is perhaps that which has led the Procedure Committee to make this recommendation. As another place has implemented this arrangement—like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I was unaware of that fact until I heard the Chairman of Committees say so this afternoon—it is all the more important that we should not take the final step of removing it from our Official Report without further thought.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, made the valid point that if a limit is imposed on the space that a Written Answer can occupy before it is sidelined into the Library, all one needs to do is to fragment it. One asks several Questions which may not necessarily be printed together and therefore will be much less useful for purposes of references. They will be scattered throughout a number of editions of the Official Report. Hansard is very much easier to consult than is the Library, not simply because it has a wide geographical spread. Even if one wants to consult the Library, it is far easier to refer to a particular issue of the
1178
Official Report than to ask an overworked clerical assistant to dig around in various boxes, perhaps tucked away in different places, to find the document in question. Although the assistants are very assiduous, it takes a great deal longer than consulting the index of the Official Report. I hope that this matter will be given further thought.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I also support my noble friend. In particular, in the field of defence it is important that facts should be placed on the record where they can be clearly seen. In many ways that dispels misunderstanding. It is vital that those truths should be available. The more transparent the Government seek to become under freedom of information legislation, the more they need to ensure that something as matter-of-fact, well known and respected by everybody as Hansard, continues to be available to provide the kind of information that people want, which very often cannot be compressed into two columns.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I too am extremely concerned by the recommendation. We may face the ludicrous situation where, if there is a limit of two columns and the matter is slightly controversial, a Minister makes the Answer so long that it does not come into the public domain. That should be viewed with great concern. Cost has been cited as a reason. Surely, democracy should not be decided on cost but on public service and accountability. I do not see how it costs any more to print something in Hansard than to print the same information and place it in the Library. I understand that on average 1,850 copies of Hansard are sent out on a daily basis. Therefore, there are extra bits of paper involved. Apart from the cost of the paper, I should not have thought that the cost is much greater.
We must ensure that the workings of your Lordships' House are totally visible on a daily basis rather than hidden away in the Library to which the general public has little or no access. I believe that the proposal would be a retrograde step.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I invite your Lordships to go to less controversial territory in the form of paragraph 1 of the report.
The Commons Modernisation Committee and the Procedure Committee are, in my opinion, to be congratulated on the admirable new format proposed for Bills. That said, with your Lordships' leave, perhaps I may take the opportunity to invite noble Lords' attention to a curious anomaly which exists in this field. I refer to the absence of any Minister with whom one can discuss the general policy applicable to the drafting and formulation of Bills.
Bills are mostly drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. The Minister to whom that office is responsible is no less than the Prime Minister. To be certain of that crucial fact, I checked it by two Questions for Written Answer in Hansard of 16th November 1998, col. WA 127, and 8th December 1998, col. WA 81. It would of course be the height of absurdity to suppose that one could seek to discuss the drafting

1179
policy of Bills with the Prime Minister. In the result there is simply no Minister with whom drafting policy can be discussed.
There is much which needs to be examined. For example, no guidelines exist in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel applicable to the drafting of Bills, such as apply to the drafting of Community legislation—or at least that was the situation when I inquired last October. The Community has admirable rules which I am sure some of your Lordships will envy. For example, Rule 1 states:
"Legislation should be drafted clearly, simply, precisely and unambiguously".
Rule 3 states:
"Long sentences, convoluted wording and excessive use of abbreviations should be avoided".
Rule 17 states:
"Amendments should take the form of a text to be inserted in the Act to be amended".
That is to say, what I call jigsaw amendments—where the reader has to put together bits and pieces in order to read the section as a whole in its amended form—should be avoided. The most extreme example of a jigsaw amendment that I have ever encountered was contained in Clause 5 of the Trustee Delegation Bill of this Session. The clause was intended to amend Section 25 of the Trustee Act 1925. Instead of printing Section 25 in its amended form, the draftsman presented the reader with no less than eight separate amendments to two Acts of Parliament, which the reader had to put together himself in order to read Section 25 in its amended form. I can tell noble Lords that it took me 15 minutes to get the whole section cobbled together in its proper form so that I could read it as it stood. Luckily, wiser counsels prevailed and the Bill left this House containing Section 25 set out as a whole in its amended form. If your Lordships desire a reference to this epic, I refer to Hansard of 9th March 1999, col. 125.
Clause 1(6) of the National Health Service (Private Finance) Bill, as it reached this House, was described by one highly experienced Peer as "incomprehensible". I refer to Hansard of 26th June 1997 at col. 1648. Fortunately, at Third Reading, the Minister accepted an amendment which had precisely the same intended effect and was as clear as daylight. The reference is Hansard of 3rd July 1997 at col. 306.
In my opinion it would be of immense benefit to this House as a revising Chamber, and to the public to whom Parliament is responsible, if the Office of Parliamentary Counsel could be made accountable to, for example, the Lord Chancellor. There would then be a Minister with whom drafting policy could be discussed when his workload permitted that course to be taken.
In paragraph 1 of the report, the Procedure Committee has taken on board consideration of the format of Bills. I should like to ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees whether the Procedure Committee could perhaps go one short step further and consider whether it is completely satisfied with the manner in which Bills are drafted. It is, after all, only a short step from format to formulation. If the answer is that the committee is
1180
not completely satisfied, appropriate quarters might be willing to consider whether the Lord Chancellor, or some other Minister, might take the place of the Prime Minister as the Minister to whom the Office of Parliamentary Counsel is responsible; and perhaps guidelines for the drafting of Bills might emerge.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may remind him that there is an exception to what he says about responsibility for the parliamentary draftsman. For many years in Scotland the draftsman has been responsible not to the Prime Minister but to the Lord Advocate; and that is a valuable precedent.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for pointing that out. It is a helpful example.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I do not wish to follow the issue raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, because he knows far more on that subject than I do. However, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Marlesford. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, wondered whether Hansard is on the Net. I believe that it is.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am aware that Hansard is on the Net. I sought to recall whether Written Answers were on the Net. I hoped for reassurance on that.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I believe that as Hansard is on the Net, Written Answers will also be on the Net. The noble Lord is right. Anything placed in your Lordships' Library will not be for public consumption. We are not allowed to take guests into the Library, even when the House is not sitting.
The Government pride themselves on open government. It is essential that everything should be published in Hansard no matter how long the answer may be. Some speeches are remarkably long—my speech is getting too long—and they are faithfully reported in Hansard. So should Questions.
6.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. I am grateful to him for letting me know well in advance that he proposed to raise the matter. On behalf of the Procedure Committee, I thank him for his kind words.
The noble and learned Lord asked whether the Procedure Committee might be invited to consider drafting policy for Bills. I believe that his main concern was to seek to transfer responsibility for the Office of Parliamentary Counsel from the Prime Minister to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It is a matter of ministerial responsibility and the machinery of government. I cannot be of any further help on the matter today other than to say that I am sure that Ministers will have heard what my noble and learned friend has said and taken note of it. They will see that his comments are considered by the proper quarter.

1181
I cannot accept his suggestion to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee, because it does not fall within that committee's remit. However, I hope that what I have said is of some help and I am sure that his comments will have been heard in the appropriate quarters.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, about long Written Answers was supported by all the other noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate apart from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having told me this morning that he proposed to raise the subject. In case it should be thought that I am not fulfilling one of the duties that your Lordships impose upon me—to be one of the guardians of your Lordships' procedures—I ought to point out that the correct course for dealing with the issue would have been to give notice and table an amendment not later than last night to achieve the aim that the noble Lord sought.
I hope that I may be able to bring a little comfort to your Lordships, but in view of the fact that a number of noble Lords seemed to think that there was no thought-out policy behind the proposal, 1 ought to spend a moment explaining the arguments. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. It is true that another place follows the same practice, arising as a result of a ruling by Madam Speaker. That ruling came long after I served in another place and it might have come after the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was there, so it is understandable if he was unaware of it. The practice has been followed by the Editor of Debates in your Lordships' House, although without any guidelines hitherto. The Procedure Committee has suggested some guidelines.
I ought to mention the arguments lying behind the proposal to limit the length of material incorporated into Written Answers, particularly in the form of tables. It arose from a recent experience in which a question that received an Answer covering 31 A4 pages of typescript was answered on the basis that the information requested had been placed in the Library. I understand that today an answer covering 28 pages has been given.
I appreciate what has been said about costs but, with great respect, it would not be right for your Lordships' House to go on record as believing that matters of economy and public expenditure ought to be ignored. Considerations of accountability are important, but we should not ignore the need for economy and issues relating to costs.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way in the middle of his very interesting reply. He gave an example of a very long Answer. Would it not be feasible for every Answer to be no longer than two columns and for any amplification that was needed to go into the Library or to be sent to the noble Lord who had tabled the Question?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for that helpful suggestion. That might be feasible. The noble Lord,
1182
Lord Peston, asked whether Written Answers were on the Net. I can confirm that they are. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for having said to me sotto voce while I was listening to your Lordships contributions that that could be a way of dealing with long Answers.
Reverting for a moment to the example that I gave at the outset that had led to the proposal, that 31-page Answer prompted an investigation into previous practice with Written Answers of comparable length. It was discovered that the formula had been applied on previous occasions, although not always consistently, it has to be admitted. It is only right to mention that to your Lordships.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, does not the preparation of a Written Answer of 31 pages involve considerable public cost? Is it not therefore desirable that the fruits of such labour should be on the public record? Will the noble Lord deal with the point made by my noble friend Lord Swinfen that an Answer deposited in the Library may well not be considered part of the public record unless, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has suggested, it might be put on the Internet—if that was his suggestion? That might be a less expensive solution in some respects. Is it not a waste of effort if the Answer is concealed in the Library and not part of the public record?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that is a valid point. I do not wish to go further than that this afternoon.
Long tables are often involved in such Answers. Printing them requires a large amount of time and manpower, with consequent staffing costs to add to the other costs to which I have referred. The noble Lord who asked the Question would in any case receive the full tables and information with the signed Answer provided to him or her, a copy of which would be placed in the Library.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before the noble Lord comes to his conclusion, when noble Lords from both sides of the House have gone to some trouble to speak at length and cogently it is traditional in your Lordships' House that a brush-off, which is what the noble Lord seems to be giving us, is not appropriate. It is too late now, because we do not tend to reject such Motions, but the least that I expected was that he would promise to go away and think about the matter again. I hope that those words will pass his lips before he finishes.
En passant, I should also like to know who decided that the value of such tables was less than their cost. I should like to see that analysis and know who carried it out. The fact that a table is long is irrelevant. What matters is whether it contains worthwhile material that justifies the cost of producing it. The intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, was decisive. If the cost of collating the information has already been incurred, the marginal cost of publishing it is trivial. Before he finishes, I hope that the noble Lord will reflect on who has spoken today, at what length and why and will at

1183
least say that he will think again. I do not require any promises, but I would like to be treated slightly better than we have been so far.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Lord Chairman replies, will he tell the House what publicity is given to Answers placed in the Library, bearing in mind that not everyone is on the Internet?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, as regards the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, if he had felt able to contain himself for a moment or two longer, he might have found it unnecessary to impose his second speech on your Lordships' House. However, I take no more exception to what he said than that. It is open to noble Lords to say whatever they please.
I do not know the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I shall inquire into it. However, as I have already indicated, it is the case that these Answers are on the Internet and therefore, to that extent, there is publicity. However, I shall at a later stage give the noble Lord a specific answer to his question on publicity.
It is clear that your Lordships are very concerned about this matter. As I have already indicated, all noble Lords who have spoken on this part of the Procedure Committee's report have supported the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. In those circumstances, I am prepared to ask the Procedure Committee to take another look at the matter. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that I am not able to give a definitive answer as to the result of any deliberations, because that is a matter for the committee. However, if it is acceptable to your Lordships, I am prepared to ask the Procedure Committee to take another look at it.
I also ask your Lordships to accept that I should prefer not to tie either myself or the committee to a specific time. I believe that the next meeting of the Procedure Committee has been suggested. Your Lordships have found that in recent times the intervention of urgent and weighty matters has replaced the Procedure Committee's normal agenda. Such contingencies must be provided for. However, if your Lordships would like me to do so, I am happy to follow up my suggestion on the matter of principle and to ask the committee to look at this again to see what might be possible.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [H.L.]
6.43 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [H.L.]
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The page and line refer to Bill 60 as first printed for the Commons]
  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  1 After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—

  TAX
  (" . Schedule (Tax) shall have effect.")
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. In moving this Motion, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2.
  Amendment No. 1 is a paving clause for the new schedule in Clause 9 which, for the convenience of the House, I should point out that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, wishes to have debated separately. Amendment No. 2 removes the amendment on taxation purposes added to the Bill at Third Reading by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I understand that they agree that the need for the amendment has been dealt with by the insertion of Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2. It is with considerable relief that we see this amendment, which seeks to include on the face of the Bill a reference to a schedule laying down the CDC tax arrangements. I should like to thank the Minister for his clear description of this unusual arrangement, and for the briefing notes provided by his department. We should also like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the achievement of the Secretary of State in finding a solution to this difficult question with the Inland Revenue and the Treasury.
  Our relief, however, is mixed with a persistent sense of disquiet. We shall have the opportunity to discuss the detail of the tax provision when considering a later amendment. Now, we should like to raise only a few more general points. As the Minister will recall, during the first passage of the CDC Bill through the House, both opposition parties felt very strongly that the tax status had to be resolved at the outset; otherwise, the PPP design would be half-baked and its chances of success dramatically reduced.
  We shall not detain the House rehearsing the arguments yet again. Nevertheless, I wish to record that I remain sceptical about the PPP concept. We remain convinced that three elements are crucial to the CDC public/private partnership if it is to have a chance to succeed: that it has a strong balance sheet; that its sale is not rushed; and that its tax status is clarified. On the first two elements, the Minister gave us assurances at Report stage. On the third, the Government have introduced in the other place two very important amendments settling the issue. It is a step in the right direction.

  1185
  Of course, we cannot legislate for success, but we can try to create the right framework. In the Bill the Government have applied considerable ingenuity in creating a framework for a third way—between public and private—which we on these Benches doubt exists.
  When passing the Bill, my honourable friend the Shadow Secretary of State said,
  "we are taking a step of faith".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/99; col. 529.]
  It is in the nature of faith never to be disjointed from hope. For the sake of the third-world beneficiaries of the CDC's work, we therefore hope that the Bill does not just embody a clever abstract construct, which in practice will fail to live up to its expectations. Notwithstanding those anxieties, we agree to Amendment No. 1.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 2. Subsection (3), which we are now being asked to take out, was inserted in this House at Third Reading, after grappling with considerable drafting difficulties. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his support in this matter. Our intention was to put pressure on the Government to settle the tax status of the new CDC at the outset. We felt that achieving tax efficiency was of paramount importance and that it would be wrong to postpone it.
  I appreciate that both CDC and DfID wanted the tax issue settled as well, but it has ostensibly been a long and difficult struggle with the Treasury, not least because of its difficulty in terms of delivering the Government's vision of PPP. I feel that our amendment contributed in nudging it in the right direction. I am therefore glad that we were able to do something, however small, to put pressure on the Inland Revenue and the Treasury to assist in the negotiations. We agree that the subsection is now redundant.
  Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I shall speak only to Amendment No. 2. I start by thanking the noble Baroness for her kind words. It was indeed a hard and lengthy process to put our amendment on the face of the Bill, but I am happy to remove it. I feel that there is almost an air of satisfaction about the Minister that it is now being removed. However, we shall be discussing the tax schedule later.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise to express my gratitude to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for agreeing to the removal of their amendment. I trust that their faith in the Government's solution to the problem will be justified when they hear our arguments.
  On Question. Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  2 Clause 27, page 11, line 28, leave out subsection (3).
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  3 Clause 27, page 11, line 33, leave out subsection (4).
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3, which is the privilege amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  4 Schedule 2, page 14, line 36, at end insert—
  ("Status as investment company
  11A.—(1) Section 266 of the Companies Act 1985 (investment company) shall have effect with the omission of subsection (2)(d) in relation to any accounting reference period which—

  (a) falls within the exempt period, or

  (b) begins before and ends within the exempt period.

  (2) Section 842(1A)(a) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (holdings in groups) shall not apply for the purposes of determining whether the Corporation complies with the requirement in section 266(2)(b) of the Companies Act 1985 at any time during the exempt period.
  (3) Paragraph 73(a) of Schedule 4 to the Companies Act 1985 (company accounts: investment company) shall he taken to be satisfied in relation to the financial year of the Corporation during which it first becomes an investment company.
  (4) If at any time which falls within the exempt period and within the first period during which the Corporation is an investment company—

  (a) the Corporation is prohibited under section 265(4) of that Act from making a distribution by virtue of that section, and

  (b) the prohibition arises by reason only that the condition in section 265(4)(a) is not satisfied,

  the prohibition shall be ignored for the purposes of paragraph 73(b) of Schedule 4 to that Act.
  (5) In this paragraph—
  "the exempt period" means the exempt period for the purposes of Schedule (Tax) to this Act, and
  "investment company" has the meaning assigned by section 266(1) of that Act.").
  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT 4
  That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
  Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. I thank the Minister for his helpful explanation of this highly technical clause and I believe it is of significant importance. We wish, however, to look at this provision more closely as we feel that the Government whisked their amendment through at the very end of the Committee proceedings in the other place.
  Our somewhat ham-fisted amendment is intended to provide the opportunity to scrutinise more carefully the consequences of the clause. The effect of our amendment would be that the CDC would be barred from being regarded as an investment company.

  1187
  Why has the change been brought in so late? Is it again because of difficulties in negotiations with other departments? What were the objections to allowing this sort of modification to the Companies Act? Can a PPP only be cobbled together by making exceptions—by tailor-making both tax provisions and company law? Is it not the case that good will is not sufficient to set up a partnership, and a whole raft of exceptions are necessary to get the PPP to take off? What sort of precedent does the arrangement set for future PPPs? Are the Government as enthusiastic about PPPs now as they were before encountering the difficulties of constructing the first one? I should be grateful for the Minister's reply to those questions.
  We are told that the purpose of the amendment is to place the CDC on such a footing as to make it comparable with other investors in emerging markets, which are usually investment companies. Given the nature of those markets, an investor buying into CDC will not be like Sid, who picks up a few shares in any old public utility because his mate told him so over a pint of beer. The investors we are talking about are far more sophisticated and they can clearly see that the CDC is a peculiar investment company. Does the Minister not think that will not affect their decisions negatively?
  Even if my suspicions are only partly correct, I wonder whether we are dealing with a device to improve presentation. To what extent do these provisions amount to a mere gimmick to make the CDC look more attractive? If I understand the mechanisms correctly, an investment company can reflect unrealised gains both on its balance sheet and on its profit and loss account. That means that unrealised gains would be fed into the equation for calculating the return. If the investments are good, those unrealised gains will help to push up the CDC return from its exceptionally poor 1998 level of minus 3.4 per cent. The increase in return that we are likely to witness between this year and next will not be directly comparable if in the meantime the CDC has become an investment company. Is this measure just a sweetener for investors? I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Baroness Rawlings.)
  Lord Redesdale: I am grateful for the interpretation of the amendment given by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. I was slightly surprised when I saw it on the Marshalled List, considering that it is precisely the issue for which we have been fighting. On reading Amendment No. 4, I note that it fully meets the expectations I had and fulfils the criteria that the Liberal Democrats wished it to fulfil.
  I have one question on the amendment. At every stage of the Bill we were told that at the next stage this tax exemption would be put forward as part of the Bill. At what point were the Government able to finalise the agreements? I got the impression from reading the Hansard report of the other place that it was only at the last minute there—let alone at Committee, Report or
  1188
  Third Reading stage in your Lordships' House—that the exemption was added. I believe that certain reasons were given, not the least of which was the European dimension of the nature of the tax exemption.
  I realise that this is an exceptional Bill and it is unlikely that such problems will arise again, but I would be grateful if the Minister in his reply could give us a chronology of the development of this amendment.
  Viscount Eccles: My Lords, for some two and a half years I was on the board of the CDC and for some nine years I was its chief executive. We always sought a degree of tax exemption and we did not get it, so it would be difficult for me now to argue against the CDC becoming in some form tax exempt. However, I wish to make a couple of points.
  The way in which the information has arrived that CDC would become tax exempt has been somewhat hurried. It is difficult on first reading of the amendment to understand exactly how far the tax exemption would stretch. There was a previous argument about whether the CDC should go offshore, and it was decided that it should not. Because all its investments are offshore, if it went offshore itself it would not be taxable in the UK anyway. That argument has already been fought out and I do not wish to go over it again.
  Within the conversations about tax exemption there was some implication that it would not apply to the CDC if it earned fee income. It would only apply to tax on its investment status, and corporation tax would apply normally. There is a longer term issue about what might or might not happen when or if the golden share is no longer held by the Government, but that is probably better discussed on another amendment. I would be grateful for a little more information on how we got to this position and whether it is water-tight.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is an anomaly of the procedure of your Lordships' House on consideration of Commons amendments that we move straight to a speech on disagreement before I have had the opportunity of explaining what the amendment does. That is contrary to the way in which we normally deal with such matters. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, was entirely in order when she did what she was invited to do, but it seems to me to be the wrong way around.
  The purpose of this amendment is to permit CDC to have the status of an investment company for the purposes of the Companies Act. The CDC's business is in substance that of an investment company. It will seek funds from investors by offering active management of its investments and the spreading of risk. Although it does still have holdings of senior debt, its investments in recent years have increasingly taken the form of equity and risk capital. As noble Lords who took part in earlier proceedings will know, it is our intention to intensify that trend. However, because of the nature of the countries in which it operates, it does not meet all the technical requirements of the Companies Act definition of an investment company. This amendment allows it nevertheless to have the status of an investment

  1189
  company by not applying to the CDC—and to the CDC alone—the requirement to meet these specific Companies Act criteria.
  That has two practical effects. The first is that CDC would be permitted to prepare its accounts in the way that investment companies do, which is different from other companies. In particular, it allows investment companies to reflect unrealised gains on investments in its accounts. We are advised that potential investors will see and value CDC as an investment company, and will expect it to account in this way.
  The second point concerns distribution of profits. Companies other than investment companies can, broadly, only pay dividends from accumulated realised profits less accumulated realised losses, without distinction between revenue and capital. Thus, for example, if a company made revenue profits but capital losses it may not be able to make a distribution. Investment companies on the other hand can in addition pay dividends from accumulated realised revenue profits minus accumulated realised revenue losses, and so may he able to pay dividends even if they make capital losses. That reflects the fact that an investment company's business is subject to fluctuations in the value of its investments which are classed as capital assets, and can be affected by provisions, for example, against transient restrictions on remittability of funds from abroad, which do not reflect on the underlying soundness of the investment. It would not be possible to list the CDC as an investment entity without the secure prospect of regular dividends, and it is therefore important that, like other investment entities, CDC is able to make distributions in this way.
  There are three reasons why the CDC will not be able to meet the Companies Act requirements. First, it will need to retain more than the permitted 15 per cent of its income from securities. Secondly, it holds more than the permitted 15 per cent by value of its investments in subsidiaries. Thirdly, initially, it will not be listed. Those are set out in the amendment and unless your Lordships wish to press me on the point I shall not describe in detail how it works.
  The reason for the first of these is that in countries where the CDC invests, where sophisticated stock markets often do not exist, it is necessary to look for gains through higher income returns rather than through crystallisation of gains on exit from a transaction, as tends to be the case in western venture capital transactions. Since a high proportion of the CDC's returns will therefore come from income, a requirement to retain not more than 15 per cent would significantly affect its ability to reinvest.
  The reason for the second is that because of shortages of management capacity as well as capital in developing countries, the CDC sometimes needs to exert management control or is unavoidably the largest equity participant, so it has a higher proportion of majority owned subsidiaries than would be allowed. It would not be able to fit either of these criteria without changing the whole nature of its business. The listing point, on the other hand, is essentially a transitional issue.
  1190
  Noble Lords asked about the timing of Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. I shall try to deal with them together. I acknowledge that it will be later than we would have wished. When we first introduced the Bill here we wanted to have the taxation and investment company provisions on the face of the Bill. It is not a matter of power struggles; it is a matter of trying to get it right. We have come up with a solution which is particular to the CDC. The investment company provisions in Amendment No. 4 are tailor-made only for the CDC. They are not applicable to anyone else. They do not provide a precedent for future public private partnerships. They do not indicate a change in the Government's views about public private partnerships in general. They are serious exceptions. They have been made because this is a different case. I hope that noble Lords will feel that this amendment and Amendment No. 5, because they are so carefully thought out for the purposes of the CDC, are worthy of approval.
  7 p.m.
  Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed answers to our questions. We hope that the CDC, which has been such a successful company for so many years, will be able to continue in its dedicated wonderful work after all the dramatic changes have been made.
  I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his contribution to the debate and for the wise intervention from my noble friend Lord Eccles who has had great experience with the CDC. I do not believe that at this stage there is any benefit in dividing the House arid I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  5 After Schedule 2, insert the following, new schedule—

  SCHEDULE TAX
  The exempt period
  1.—(1) The exempt period for the purposes of this Schedule shall begin with a day appointed by the Secretary of State by order math by statutory instrument.
  (2) If—

  (a) an order is made under section 18(5) as a result of which section 18(1)(b) ceases to have effect, and

  (b) the Crown ceases on any day to hold any special share provided for under the Corporation's articles of association,

  the exempt period for the purposes of this Schedule shall end with that day.
  Exemption from tax
  2.—(1) The Corporation shall not be chargeable to corporation tax on profits arising during the exempt period.
  (2) The Corporation shall not have a liability to tax by virtue of section 747(4)(a) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (controlled foreign companies) in respect of profits arising during the exempt period.
  Residence for tax purposes
  3.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) shall apply if—

  (a) the exempt period ends, and

  (b) at that time the Corporation would be regarded for the purposes of the Taxes Acts as resident in the United Kingdom by virtue only of section 66 of the Finance Act 1988 (company incorporated in UK).

  (2) That section shall not apply in relation to the Corporation at any time during the period beginning with the end of the exempt period and ending in accordance with sub-paragraph (3).
  (3) The period shall end—

  (a) with the seventh anniversary of the final day of the exempt period, or

  (b) if earlier, at any time when the Corporation comes to be regarded for the purposes of the Taxes Acts as resident in the United Kingdom (otherwise than by virtue of section 66).

  (4) The following provisions shall not apply where the Corporation ceases to be resident in the United Kingdom by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)—

  (a) section 179 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (company ceasing to be member of group);

  (b) section 185 of that Act (deemed disposal of assets when company ceases to be resident in UK).

  (5) In this paragraph "the Taxes Acts" has the same meaning as in the Taxes Management Act 1970.
  Groups of companies, &c.
  4.—(1) The Corporation cannot be a member of a group of companies for the purposes of Chapter I of Part VI of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (groups of companies) at any time during the exempt period.
  (2) Where a company ceases to be a member of a group of companies by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), section 179 of that Act shall not apply.
  5.—(1) The Corporation cannot be a member of a group of companies for the purposes of Chapter IV of Part X of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (group relief) at any time during the exempt period.
  (2) The Corporation cannot be a surrendering company for the purposes of a consortium claim within the meaning of section 402(3) of that Act.
  Distributions
  6.—(1) This paragraph applies where the Corporation makes a distribution during the exempt period.
  (2) The following provisions shall not apply in relation to the distribution—

  (a) section 208 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (exemption from corporation tax);

  (b) section 231 of that Act (tax credits).

  (3) The distribution shall be treated for the purposes of corporation tax and income tax as income falling within Case V of Schedule D as set out in section 18(3) of that Act.
  (4) The distribution shall be treated as equivalent foreign income for the purposes of section 1A of that Act (rate of tax for income from savings and distributions).
  (5) In this paragraph "distribution" has the same meaning as it has in the Corporation Taxes Acts by virtue of Chapter II of Part VI of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (company distributions).")
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their
  1192
  Amendment No. 5. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to that before the noble Baroness speaks to her amendments, Amendments Nos. 5A and 5B.
  We said at the Report stage on 2nd March that we had agreed the principles of a tax solution which would provide the CDC PPP with the required tax efficiency and that we intended to introduce necessary amendments to the CDC Bill at the appropriate time in the House of Commons. I have acknowledged that the appropriate time was late in parliamentary terms and I have apologised for that. Amendment No. 5 was paved by Amendment No. 1.
  The overall policy aim of the proposal is to provide the CDC with a level playing field in relation to competitors located outside the UK so it can achieve its goal of investing in developing countries using private capital raised in the context of a competitive private investment market. It does not seek to give the CDC anything more than that.
  The key element of the new schedule is that (unless the partnership were to end) the CDC's (and only the CDC's) income and chargeable gains would not be chargeable to UK corporation tax, capital gains tax or income tax. The CDC would remain liable to applicable local taxes as at present and investors in the CDC would be liable to tax on their income and gains according to their own circumstances. It is also intended that where the CDC undertakes activities other than investment (such as investment management) this would be undertaken through a separate subsidiary, subject to tax in the normal way. That is the answer to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, about fee income.
  The provisions of the new schedule and reasons for them are reasonably straightforward. The exempt period in paragraph 1 provides for the exemption from tax to begin on a day appointed by the Secretary of State by order. Our intention is that the exemption should take effect at the same time as the CDC's new capital structure is implemented so that the CDC can start to develop a financial track record on the same basis as it will go to market.
  There is always a potential state aids angle in any government sale. We have discussed this informally with the European Commission and we do not consider that either the tax, or balance sheet proposals more generally, will distort intra-Community trade. However, we intend to notify the European Commission of the tax proposals along with the capital restructuring, and any other relevant details, to provide investors with certainty.
  The exemption, like the partnership, is intended to be an indefinite arrangement which will remain in place for the foreseeable future. But paragraph 1 also provides a necessary protection in that if Parliament were to decide, under the provisions of Clause 18, that the special share could be redeemed, and it then was redeemed, the exemption would come to an end with the partnership.
  Paragraph 2 covers the main substance of the tax treatment. It provides that the CDC's income and chargeable gains will not be chargeable to corporation tax in the UK. The CDC will also be exempt from capital gains tax and income tax (under existing

  1193
  provisions of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988) but will be liable to other taxes such as VAT and stamp duty.
  Sub-paragraph (2) is a technical provision, necessary because the language used in legislation dealing with controlled foreign companies refers to a charge arising which is equal to corporation tax rather than it being actual corporation tax, so the CDC's exemption would not necessarily cover this.
  Paragraph 3 is about residence for tax purposes and would apply only if the partnership had been brought to an end following the redemption of the special share. Although it is not our intention that this should happen, it is not possible to bind future governments. Therefore, it is necessary to make clear now what will happen if the exemption were to end. Investors will require comfort as to what will happen to them in these circumstances since any decision under Clause 18 would he for Parliament alone and not for them.
  The paragraph therefore provides for the CDC to have the option to restructure and possibly go offshore without liability to UK tax provided that its central management and control had moved offshore by the expiry of the exempt period and not thereafter. This aims to maintain the level playing field which we are seeking to create for the CDC. The mechanism set out would provide for an orderly transfer without providing scope for tax avoidance.
  Paragraph 4 deals with groups of companies. It is designed to prevent tax avoidance by preventing other members of CDC's shifting assets into CDC to avoid tax.
  Paragraph 6 on distributions provides that dividends should be treated as if they were coming from an overseas company. This is to prevent investors benefiting from provisions designed to prevent double taxation of company profits, first, in the hands of the company and, secondly, as distributions from those profits in the hands of the shareholders. That would not be appropriate because CDC's profits are exempt in the company's hands.
  I understand that the noble Baroness wishes me to comment on her Amendments Nos. 5A and 5B before she speaks to them. Amendment No. 5A would have the effect that CDC's tax exemption would be dependent on the special shareholder being satisfied that the investment policy and business principles had been adhered to. I agree entirely with the thinking behind the amendment. We want them both to be firmly entrenched and adhered to, but we do not think that it is appropriate that this should be done by an amendment to the provisions on tax exemption.
  All the advice we have received is that the partnership should be designed in such a way that there is no possibility, and no appearance of any possibility, of ad hoc government interference in the day-to-day functioning of CDC, and that all our requirements should be set out in the partnership documents so that investors have clear knowledge of what they are investing in. We would not wish to allow political discretion, or the appearance of it, over CDC's tax liability, which would
  1194
  be the effect of Amendment No. 5A. The special share is the right instrument for protecting and enforcing the investment policy and business principles.
  The articles of association contain provisions for the investment policy in Article 51, and for the business principles in Article 52. These are entrenched in the articles of association and can be changed only with the consent of the special shareholder, the Secretary of State. That in turn requires the approval of Parliament. The content of the investment policy and the business principles is also protected. For investment policy, no change could be made without the approval of the majority of the ordinary shareholders and the consent of the special shareholder.
  The mechanism for changing the business principles is different. Changes to the business principles could be made only by a majority of CDC's board, that majority to include at least three of the four members of the business principles committee, which is set up to monitor operation of the business principles and review their content and make recommendations to the board. The two directors appointed by the Secretary of State will sit on this committee, which means that at least one of them would have to have voted in favour of the change before it could be agreed.
  I hope it will be accepted, therefore, that both the investment policy and the business principles, to which the amendment refers, are already enshrined in the articles of association under the Bill, and that it is better for them to be protected in that way than through an amendment to the tax exemption provisions.
  Amendment No. 5B would change "seventh" to "tenth" in the period in which Section 66 of the Finance Act 1988 is disapplied so that CDC could shift its assets offshore. In order to go offshore, a company incorporated in the United Kingdom would normally set up a company outside the UK, in a country with a suitable tax regime, transfer its assets to it and then effect a merger into that offshore company. Because of the nature of CDC's assets, held in a large number of overseas jurisdictions, it could take CDC several years to do that. I imagine that that is what is behind the amendment. But it would not be appropriate to encourage it to be doing so during the partnership, and if it waited to commence the process until after any redemption of the special share there could be a period in which it was exposed to UK tax. So far, I think, we have everything in common.
  The proposal is that a rule which says that a company incorporated in the UK is UK resident for tax purposes, under Section 66 of the Finance Act 1988, should be disapplied to CDC for a period of seven years after the end of the exempt period. This means in practice that CDC could initially go offshore by moving its central management and control offshore. It could then shift its assets in the seven year period during which Section 66 was disapplied. CDC estimates that it would take about three or four months to shift its central management and control. This should happen in the notice period fits redemption of the special share. The seven year period which we proposed fits in with the average life of

  1195
  CDC's investments. CDC is confident that the seven year period would be sufficient to allow for an orderly transfer.
  I hope that that gives the noble Baroness the reassurance that she seeks about the detail of this admittedly complex amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  7.15 p.m.

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 5
  5A Line 20, at end of paragraph 2(2) insert ("provided that the special shareholder is satisfied that the investment policy and statement of business principles have been adhered to").
  Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 5. I should also like to discuss, in speaking to Commons Amendment No. 5, my Amendment No. 5B.
  I wish to thank the Minister for his helpful explanation of the complex and crucial amendment that Commons Amendment No. 5 is, and for his co-operation at this stage and throughout the passage of the Bill. The main effect of the amendment, at least, is clear: as long as the Government hold the golden share, CDC is exempt from corporation tax, capital gains tax and income tax, but not from other taxes such as VAT and stamp duty, and from PAYE obligations.
  I have laboured sufficiently the reasons why a tax-efficient status is essential to the CDC PPP, and I shall not detain the House on the matter further. However, I should still like to ask the Minister one question.
  Although helpful to CDC, this tax arrangement is also very unusual, in that the exemption is given to an individual company rather than a category of entities. Is there a danger that this exemption represents the thin edge of the wedge? Is it not sufficient to say that CDC is unique? I am sure that other companies will attempt to argue that they are unique. If I am allowed to strike a provocative note, the National Lottery, for instance, is unique, serves good causes and would save substantial sums of money were it to be tax exempt. Will the noble Lord, the Minister, give assurances that the CDC exemption will not be treated as a precedent? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could answer my questions afterwards.
  Amendment No. 5A would make tax exemption conditional on the Secretary of State's being satisfied that the CDC had followed its investment policy and the statement of business principles. The intention of the amendment is not to wreck the tax arrangement, but to entrench the CDC development purpose more securely. In another place the shadow Secretary of State argued forcefully that the development purpose was not satisfactorily entrenched. Furthermore, he argued convincingly that the investment policy and the statement of business principles do not embody the
  1196
  development purpose adequately. As they stand, nothing would prevent CDC from investing, albeit in the prescribed countries and geographical areas, in high-performance, high-yield companies, rather than in labour-intensive ones benefiting the poorer groups in those countries. CDC would be under pressure to follow this course in order to achieve higher returns which would attract private sector investors.
  In the future CDC will be unlikely to invest in hardwood forest plantations, as it did in the Câte d'Ivoire, or in setting up an avocado pear farm which will not produce any fruit in the initial seven years and will therefore earn no money, as Mr Bowen Wells clearly explained in another place. Over the last two years we can already detect the beginning of this trend in the composition of the CDC portfolio. Whereas the share of agribusiness is decreasing significantly, that of manufacture and commerce is increasing.
  That trend will be particularly strong and its effects detrimental to the poor in large and diverse countries like India. There, CDC has invested in the first private sector Internet access provider. That will no doubt contribute to the development of the communications infrastructure that business needs to be efficient. However, what will it do for the rural population of Rajasthan, who do not even have electricity? When will the benefit of that investment reach them? It will never do so because they live in a different economy. Instead, that particularly poor region, which is well known for its stone and marble quarries, would probably benefit from investments in companies cutting and polishing stone, like Jaswal Granite, a South Indian company of which CDC owns 9 per cent. I believe that we shall see less and less of such investment in the future. How is that potential investment vacuum to be filled?
  The Government argue that the focus of their development policies is poverty. They maintain also that CDC is one of their policy instruments. Therefore, CDC should have the same focus. However, that focus cannot be achieved by an investment policy and a statement of business principles enjoining CDC to look across countries alone. If the development focus is to be maintained, the assessment policy must encourage the poorer groups within particular countries. Will the Minister give assurances that the Government will undertake a review of the investment policy? In short, we are asking the Government to get the investment policy right and then incorporate it into the Bill.
  The effect of Amendment No. 5B is to lengthen from seven to 10 years the transition period after the Government relinquish the golden share. This is a probing amendment. Aspects of the CDC's tax arrangement are particularly unusual and complex and we feel that the arrangement has not been sufficiently scrutinised in another place. What is the fundamental reason for the amendment? Once the exempt period expires, what do the Government envisage that CDC would do to maintain the effect of its unique tax status? The helpful briefing notes provided by the department suggest that provision exists to ensure that CDC,
  "would have the option to restructure and possibly go offshore without liability to UK tax".

  1197
  But the Secretary of State finds that to be politically unacceptable. Has government policy changed? If that is the case, is the position that existing investments will remain in CDC onshore but the latter would be treated for tax purposes as though it were offshore while new investments would be made by a pew CDC entity offshore and therefore outside the UK's tax net? Will existing investments remain onshore until they are realised or until those assets are transferred offshore? In what respect does that arrangement differ from granting CDC a grace period after expiry as the exempt period in which to transfer assets? Would that complicated arrangement be necessary if CDC were allowed to go offshore as a PPP? Would the residence status during the transition period amount to state aid under EU competition law? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could clarify those points.
  I come now to the substantive aspect of the amendment. We are told that the period of seven years was chosen because it fits the average length of CDC's investments. Unfortunately, in practice, there are no averages. Is Inland Revenue trying to fit CDC's investments into a procrustean bed? How will the existing longer term investments, or those which are particular difficult to transfer, be treated after seven years? Is seven years not an arbitrary period of time?
  We understand that that period of seven years was the outcome of negotiations. The Inland Revenue was looking for a figure of zero years but CDC was looking for a period of 12 to 15 years to accommodate its longer term investments. On these Benches, we believe that the transition period should be longer.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 5A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 5, be agreed to.— (Baroness Rawlings.)
  Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we wish to speak to these amendments because it was not possible to do so at the last stage of the Bill. However, the Minister gave a comprehensive statement and he has already answered many of the questions which I wished to asked. Therefore, I shall not take up the time of the House.
  On these Benches, we are glad that the CDC will not be going offshore as that goes against the fundamental principles of the nature of the CDC. I admit the idea that the CDC could somehow avoid PAYE would gladden the hearts of those working for it but I do not believe that it would receive a great deal of support from the Treasury.
  The Minister set out quite clearly how he believes the CDC will operate and under what development criteria it will be bound. As the noble Baroness pointed out, there is a danger that the CDC will move away from investments in some of the poorer areas of the world. That would he extremely unfortunate.
  However, as the Minister has set out his views quite clearly for Hansard, which are now on the record. Therefore. I do not believe that we need to press for a strengthening of the statement of business principles or the investment policy.
  1198
  Many of the issues which we have raised are in relation to the unlikely event that the Secretary of State cashes in the golden share. I believe and hope that that will never be the case, even under a change of government. The amendments provide a belt-and-braces approach which was spoken to at great length in another place. But the assurances which the Minister has given this evening have helped to ease some of our fears.
  Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that CDC can have a wholly-owned subsidiary overseas even if it cannot be overseas itself. In its history, it has had a number of wholly-owned subsidiaries overseas.
  I believe that I am finding some sort of a middle position here. As I see it, this Bill is an enabling Bill. I want to say briefly why that is so. A welcome aspect of the matter is the transformation of CDC from being a statutory corporation to being a plc, although one must shed a tear for what is almost the last of the statutory corporations.
  The reason for this being a welcome measure is that the Act of 1948, which was implemented in 1947, has been tinkered with in respect of the way in which CDC could invest. It has never been radically altered and, of course, the world and its economy has moved on. The provisions of those original CDC Acts are extremely restrictive as to the way in which CDC can invest. Under the Companies Act, as a plc, it will he able to invest in a much more modern and effective way, even in the 70 per cent of the poorest countries and the 50 per cent which are in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.
  Many of the questions which the Minister has been asked arise from the fact that, as my noble friend Lady Rawlings said, the CDC is a sui generis. It is not like anything else and never has been quite like anything else. It has had to pick up gleams of opportunity and common sense from other organisations. It has picked up a lot of good tips from 3i, the IFC, from its European comparators, finance institutions and even from companies such as Unilever. Of course, its present chief executive comes from Shell and there is no doubt plenty of overseas experience from which it has benefited.
  In essence, CDC is self-taught. It did not leant its trade from anywhere else. I am confident that, with the provisions in this enabling Bill, CDC will find a way through the next few years. I hope that it has another 50 years ahead of it. Its path as a plc is bound to be tortuous, as its chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Cairns, said in the House at Second Reading when he did not minimise the difficulties of operating effectively as a plc.
  I believe that these amendments are relevant in that we need CDC to settle down to a consistent policy as a plc and to have plenty of time in which to do that in order to demonstrate its effectiveness. The Government have been ingenious, but they have also been experimental. The public/private partnership has yet to be proven. I believe it is doubly difficult to prove it in the case of CDC.
  Immediately, there is the problem of restructuring the balance sheet. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how that is progressing because, without that, no further progress

  1199
  can be made. Can he also tell us when a prospectus will be issued for the intended 75 per cent external shareholders? I should certainly have had nightmares if I had had to write such a prospectus. In my opinion, by virtue of the fact that CDC is so generous, it will not immediately be attractive to any class of conventional investor as they do not like to have to think out things de novo.
  I am pleased that CDC will be converted from a statutory corporation into a plc, although the same results could have been achieved by amending the existing Acts. I am much more doubtful about whether the public/private partnership experiment, ingenious as it is, will succeed. Anything that gives CDC an opportunity of proving continuity of purpose and policy and of having longer in which to do it is welcome.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Birdwood: In the closing minutes of the CDC's process of transition and in speaking to the amendment, I want to say that I have been lucky enough over the years to count CDC employees among the circle of my closest friends. I make a plea that the culture that has always pertained in CDC is not destroyed by the transition process. The men and women of CDC collectively have always put the welfare of the nations in which they work before their own welfare and before the concept of profit. When an organisation changes so profoundly its cultural foundations, as is the prospect today, those influences become fragile to those who work in it. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that that fragile culture can be reinforced by the process, rather than destroyed.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. When the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, first intervened I neglected to welcome him to our deliberations. He was not in the House when we considered the matter before. The only hesitation I have in expressing my pleasure in seeing him here today is remembering the sad death of his father.
  I anticipated a number of the questions which have been posed, but I shall respond to the additional points raised. The noble Baroness seems to think that this is the thin edge of the wedge and that because we have made special provisions for CDC, it will be easier for other people—she named the National Lottery—to take advantage of the same procedures. The fact that it has been so difficult, that it has required primary legislation, and months of negotiation and consideration during the passage of that primary legislation, in my view makes it clear that this is not a precedent that is likely to be followed. If anyone attempted to follow it in regard to the National Lottery, it would be over my dead body. I believe it would be over the dead body of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as well. We have taken care to get the procedures right because we recognise
  1200
  CDC's unique quality and the marvellous work that it has done over a period of more than 50 years.
  The noble Baroness commented on the investment policy and the development purpose—
  Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I am reminded that a number of years ago—I believe in 1994—when we debated the National Lottery, the Minister, when speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, opposed the 12½ per cent tax on the National Lottery. I put that forward for information.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had nothing to do with the National Lottery. There are those of us who think that in the next negotiations for the National Lottery we should consider the possibility of a not-for-profit National Lottery. We said that at the time. That will be possible in the consideration of the re-awarding of the contract. That is not the same as a tax exemption, and it certainly is not the same as going off-shore, as appeared to be suggested.
  The amendment concerns where we enshrine the investment policy and the development purpose of CDC. I hope that I made it clear in my opening speech that it is well entrenched in the memorandum and articles of the CDC and in the procedures that make it clear that it cannot be changed without the agreement of the Secretary of State and without the agreement of Parliament. I believe that that is the right place for that entrenchment, rather than in the provisions on tax exemption, which is where Amendment No. 5A would place it.
  The concerns of the noble Baroness go much wider than how the investment policy is protected. She queries the investment policy and says that her honourable friends in the Commons suggest that we are already departing from what ought to be the investment policy and development purpose of the CDC. She gave some examples.
  It is difficult to judge individual investment decisions in that way as the work of CDC in any country is complementary to other investment activities, whether venture capital activities or the investment activities of the state itself. It is difficult to say in Pakistan, Uganda or anywhere else what the role of CDC may be because it will vary from country to country. If your Lordships will forgive me, I do not want to open up the question of the adequacy of the purposes of CDC. They were fully debated when the Bill went through the House. Those issues are not raised by the Commons amendment before us or the amendment to it.
  On Amendment No. 5B, which concerns the exempt period, I do not believe that CDC wanted a longer period than that which is provided. As I said in my opening speech, my understanding is that it is content that that will meet its needs. If we have an average investment cycle of seven years, the investments will be falling in over that seven-year period and all but perhaps a tiny number of them will have fallen in by the time the seven-year period is reached.
  However, I acknowledge—indeed, I welcome—what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said. We are talking here about an exit strategy which we had to include—

  1201
  an exit strategy has to be included in any change of this kind—but one which we do not intend to use. We do not intend to dispose of the golden share, but we have to be sure that if there were some seismic change in policy in the future (to use the Prime Minister's phrase) it would be possible to make changes without further primary legislation. That is what we have done. It appears to us, and it appears to CDC, that seven years is the right period.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, asked about the restructuring of the balance sheet. It is the important next step. We aim to have it in place for inclusion in the 1999 report, which will be produced for April 2000. It will take the results of 1999 into account after the abnormal results of 1998. As for the timing of the prospectus and the sale, it is far too early to say. That will depend on market conditions and the CDC track record. We have always made it clear that we expect that to be a considerable way off.
  1202
  The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, asked about the culture of CDC and whether that will be preserved. I very much hope so. I believe that we have set in place a process and a framework which will enable those who have valiantly served CDC over the years to continue to serve and to achieve even better results than they have in the past.
  Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 5A.
  Amendment No. 5A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 5, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 5B not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

United Reformed Church Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eight o'clock.

  Human Cloning: Expert Advisory Group
  Human Cloning: Expert Advisory Group
  Oral Health: Policy
  Oral Health: Policy
  Fluoridation of Water
  Fluoridation of Water
  Medical Devices Agency: Annual Report and Accounts
  Medical Devices Agency: Annual Report and Accounts
  NHS Estates Agency: Corporate Plan
  NHS Estates Agency: Corporate Plan
  NHS Estates Executive Agency: Annual Report and Accounts
  NHS Estates Executive Agency: Annual Report and Accounts
  NHS Pensions Agency: Annual Report and Accounts
  NHS Pensions Agency: Annual Report and Accounts
  Anti-smoking Measures
  Anti-smoking Measures
  Smoking-related Illnesses: Cost
  Smoking-related Illnesses: Cost
  South African Driving Licences
  South African Driving Licences
  A.2, Blackheath: Traffic Island Lighting
  A.2, Blackheath: Traffic Island Lighting
  M.4 Bus Lane: Journey Times
  M.4 Bus Lane: Journey Times
  Wild Mallard
  Wild Mallard
  Benefit Take-up
  Benefit Take-up
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Diplomatic Immunity
  East Timor
  East Timor
  British Council: Chairmanship Terms and Conditions
  British Council: Chairmanship Terms and Conditions
  Uganda
  Uganda
  Balkan Stability Pact
  Balkan Stability Pact
  Human Rights: Second Annual Report
  Human Rights: Second Annual Report
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  Hong Kong: Fifth Report
  Hong Kong: Fifth Report
  Syrian President's Meeting with Lord Levy
  Syrian President's Meeting with Lord Levy
  Lord Levy's Visit to Jordan
  Lord Levy's Visit to Jordan
  Cabinet Members' Scottish Responsibilities
  Cabinet Members' Scottish Responsibilities
  Ageism in Politics
  Ageism in Politics
  Baltic States: Chief of Defence Staff's Visit
  Baltic States: Chief of Defence Staff's Visit
  Kosovo
  Kosovo
  School-related Revenue Grants to LEAs
  School-related Revenue Grants to LEAs
  School-related Capital Grants to LEAs
  School-related Capital Grants to LEAs
  School-related Borrowing Limits for LEAs
  School-related Borrowing Limits for LEAs
  Forensic Science Service: Annual Report
  Forensic Science Service: Annual Report
  Immigration and Nationality Complaints Audit Committee
  Immigration and Nationality Complaints Audit Committee
  Juvenile Secure Accommodation
  Juvenile Secure Accommodation
  National Museums and Galleries: Readmission to Temporary Exhibitions
  National Museums and Galleries: Readmission to Temporary Exhibitions
  Television Soap Operas
  Television Soap Operas
  Manchester United: Fixtures
  Manchester United: Fixtures
  Parliamentary Cost Comparisons
  Parliamentary Cost Comparisons