Sitting of 23 July 1999

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

  Criminal Cases Review (Insanity) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  9.33 am
  Mr. Chris Mullin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I need not detain the House long. This Bill has one simple purpose, which is to plug a small gap in the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. That Act set up the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which deals with alleged miscarriages of justice. The Bill empowers the commission to deal with cases—there are likely only to be a handful—in which a person has been found guilty but insane. That verdict was available to the courts until the 1960s, when it was replaced by a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
  The Criminal Appeal Act 1995 empowers the commission to deal with verdicts of not guilty by reason of insanity, but no one, myself included, foresaw that there might still remain a handful of disputed cases that dated from the earlier era when the verdict was guilty but insane. Consequently, the 1995 Act made no provision for such cases.
  The case that brought the anomaly to light was that of Iain Hay Gordon who in 1953 was tried in Northern Ireland for the murder of a young woman. The case attracted enormous interest since the victim was the daughter of a prominent judge. There are good grounds for believing that Mr. Gordon was neither guilty nor insane, but those are not matters that need detain us—suffice it to say that Mr. Gordon, who is now frail and elderly and has long protested his innocence, applied in 1998 to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for his case to be re-examined.
  The commission, after seeking legal advice, decided to refer back to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal the issue of whether it was empowered to consider cases involving a verdict of guilty but insane. The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal ruled that it was not—hence the need for this Bill.
  Lord Ackner first attempted to introduce a Bill for this purpose in July last year, but it unfortunately failed to become law for lack of time. In March this year, he introduced the Bill before us, and as he said at the time, the omission of a verdict of guilty but insane from the 1995 Act is an error that has created a "longstanding and
  1470
  tragic absurdity" in the case of Iain Hay Gordon. Such an outcome was never intended by any of those—and I was one—who played a part in the passage of the 1995 Act. This Bill seeks to rectify that.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether there is a significant number of other likely cases in this category? Are we dealing with only one known case, or does the hon. Gentleman believe that there might be others—perhaps only a small number—to which the benefits that he is claiming for the Bill would apply?
  Mr. Mullin: I am aware only of the case of Iain Hay Gordon. Although I could not give the right hon. Gentleman details, I have heard that there is at least one other, but it is unlikely that there are more than three or four because we are talking about cases that date from before the mid-1960s.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: Even if the Gordon case is the only one which this Bill will correct, does the hon. Gentleman agree that that of itself is sufficient reason for passing it?
  Mr. Mullin: I most certainly do. If Mr. Gordon is innocent, he has had hanging over him for more than 40 years a considerable burden. He wants to see that put right before he dies. The Criminal Cases Review Commission is extremely keen to deal with the case expeditiously, but cannot do so until the Bill becomes law. I therefore hope that everyone will co-operate towards that end.
  I thank all those who have helped to address this problem, not least the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and Home Office civil servants, for the constructive part that they have played in the drafting and passage of the Bill. I acknowledge, too, the helpful approach of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and thank the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—himself a former Home Office Minister—for the constructive approach that I understand he intends to take.
  I hope that the commission will do all that it can when the Bill becomes law to expedite consideration of Mr. Gordon's case. I am aware that it has a large backlog of cases and a policy of not giving priority to those who are at liberty unless there are exceptional circumstances. As I said in response to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), there clearly are exceptional circumstances in this case: getting on for 40 years have elapsed since Mr. Gordon was convicted. Many of those who were directly involved in the case are already dead and Mr. Gordon is elderly and not in the best of health, and wishes to see the matter resolved in his lifetime.
  I also gently draw the attention of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to recommendation 7 of the recent Home Affairs Committee report on the commission's work, which expressed the hope that, in the light of extra resources made available this year, some progress would be made on the backlog of cases involving persons at liberty.
  I was glad to hear yesterday that the commission has started preliminary work on the Iain Hay Gordon case. I hope that the commission will regard the smooth

  1471
  passage that Parliament will, I hope, grant the Bill as a signal that we expect Mr. Gordon's case to be expedited. I, for one, will follow progress with interest.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  9.40 am
  Mr. Edward Garner: I am most grateful to be called to speak, not only because I wish to support the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) in ensuring the Bill's passage but because, like him, I take a great interest in miscarriage of justice cases. The hon. Gentleman knows, as other Members of the House who were Members before 1992 may know, that my predecessor as Member for Harborough, Sir John Farr—now sadly dead—took a great interest, with the hon. Gentleman, in the case of the Birmingham Six.
  I hope that I do not embarrass the hon. Member for Sunderland, South when I say that that was a most unusual marriage of minds. The hon. Gentleman is a radical journalist and a member of the Labour party and, apart from being a civilised person, has little in common with my predecessor—a farmer and a business man of the old school, who one might think would have no interest whatever in the misfortunes of the Birmingham Six. However, at least some of them ended up in Gartree prison for a while, which is in the Harborough constituency, and as a result of his going to meet and speak with some of the Birmingham Six, Sir John came to understand that there might well have been a miscarriage of justice in that case. Without the work of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, with the help of my revered predecessor, the Birmingham Six might have been in prison to this day.
  I come at this issue from a personal position of great interest in the justice system. I come at it as a practising member of the Bar—albeit I do not practise in the criminal courts except as an assistant recorder—and, I hope, as someone who generally is interested in injustice and putting right things that have gone wrong.
  If the intervention that I made on the hon. Member for Sunderland, South does anything, it shows that if one man still lives who has or may have suffered a miscarriage of justice as a result of a drafting lacuna in the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964—which changed the relevant verdict in matters such as this from "guilty but insane" to "not guilty by reason of insanity"—and has been denied a proper review of his case, it is right and proper that the House, irrespective of party differences about law and order and so on, if they exist, should give the Bill a Third Reading.
  Mr. David Maclean: Surely my hon. and learned Friend does not consider this case to be a priority for the Criminal Cases Review Commission? As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said, Mr. Iain Hay Gordon is at liberty, whereas others whose cases need to be reviewed are still in prison. In those circumstances, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that this case, although deserving, is not a priority?
  Mr. Garnier: I do not know whether our deliberations today will order the commission's priorities. However, if the Bill becomes law, it will allow the Criminal Cases
  1472
  Review Commission to consider the case. Despite the willingness of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal to consider the verdict in the case of Mr. Iain Hay Gordon, it found that, by virtue of the drafting aberration in the 1964 Act, it could not do so. It is not for me, for the House or for the Minister to tell the Criminal Cases Review Commission the order in which to consider cases.
  I have a particular interest in a case involving the M25 murders. Just as Sir John Farr, my predecessor, went to meet and had dealings with members of the Birmingham Six who were temporarily resident in Gartree prison, I have had dealings with Mr. Raphael Rowe, who is no longer imprisoned in my constituency but was for some little time during the previous Parliament. As a consequence of representations that his lawyers, he and his fellow defendants made to me and other Members of Parliament—I am thinking in particular of my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I advise the hon. and learned Gentleman that he may be going wide of the Bill before us, because he is dealing with cases that would not be affected by the Bill.
  Mr. Garnier: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was seeking to show that the Criminal Cases Review Commission may have to deal with a number of cases as a consequence of this legislation—although not many—but that it was not for us to order its priorities. I was merely illustrating that by mentioning the case with which I had to deal. I have approached the Criminal Cases Review Commission on behalf of Mr. Raphael Rowe, and I am happy to say that, at last, that case has been referred to the Court of Appeal. It is not for us to say to the commission, "Look at this case before another", and it is not for us to tell the Court of Appeal how to order the list of referred cases.
  As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South said, the Bill comes to us with a good degree of all-party and non-party agreement from the other place. It was first introduced in 1998, but fell as a result of lack of time. Fortunately, Lord Ackner was able to reintroduce it in March 1999, and the record is there in the Lords Hansard for those who wish to see how unanimous was the support for this small but important Bill. I invite my hon. Friends to join the hon. Member for Sunderland, South in supporting it.
  The Bill introduces an entirely necessary, but humane and civilised way of righting a wrong. The wrong revealed was that in the case of Iain Hay Gordon. He was caught by the drafting error or omission following the amendment of the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883 by the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, which simply changed the name of the verdict in cases such as this but had no real bearing on the stigma or status of the individual defendant.
  For all I know, Mr. Hay Gordon may have killed the lady in question in the early 1950s. I believe that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South is one of those who think that he probably did not or may not have done. In any event, it seems wholly wrong that a person should be denied access to a review procedure by reason of an obvious drafting omission or error in the 1964 legislation.

  1473
  The matter touches on the way in which we view the insanity defence. As I understand it, the vast majority of prosecuted mentally disordered offenders in this jurisdiction—England and Wales—are convicted rather than excused, and in most cases, mental disorder does not negate criminal responsibility, but instead may lead to treatment in the form of a hospital order. Moreover, the practice of punishment presupposes the very responsibility that the legally insane lack. Therefore, as none of the purposes behind punishment can be legitimately applied to the person who was judged to be insane at the time of committing the offence, exculpation should follow. Hospitalisation presupposes responsibility for the offence and brings with it the stigma of guilt.
  For the past 45 years or so Mr. Hay Gordon has, in effect, had to live with the stigma of guilt. It is a matter of evidence and a matter of judgment whether he committed the act—of killing the young Miss Curran—in the 1950s. It is also a matter of evidence and a matter of judgment whether, if he did so, he was deficient in mental capacity when he committed the offence.
  Mr. Forth: I wish to be clear in my mind, which will help me in my contribution if am able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. and learned Friend is not saying, is he, that we can or should make any presumption about the innocence or guilt of any individual? I would not expect my hon. and learned Friend to make any sort of assumption. As I understand it, any individual, including the one named, has gone through due process and regrettably—it may not be the position in the case of Mr. Iain Hay Gordon—is presumed to be guilty until due process demonstrates otherwise. Surely my hon. and learned Friend is not basing his case in any way on any presumption that there has been some sort of miscarriage of justice.
  Mr. Garnier: My right hon. Friend is partly right. He is right not to assume that I am making a presumption. Instead, I am advancing an argument. I hope that it is one that commends itself to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. It is my belief that Mr. Iain Hay Gordon is being denied access to justice. Those who post-1964 or 1965 who—I use the language loosely—committed the act but were insane at the time have access to the Court of Appeal criminal division. Now, since the passing of legislation under the Conservative Government, they have access to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. However, the defendant in the Northern Ireland case does not.
  It seems unjust and unfair that as a result of a legislative error in 1964, Mr. Iain Hay Gordon, who I understand is in his early 70s—
  Mr. Maclean: He is 66.
  Mr. Garnier: I think that he was about 21 at the time. He has had to live right through to the end of the century believing in any event that he was innocent of the crime. On top of that, he has had to bear the baggage of being publicly considered to have been insane. It is bad enough to be unfairly convicted of a criminal offence as serious as murder. To be excused for what he did because he is said by the courts to have been insane must be doubly anxious-making. On top of that, this poor man has been denied access to appeal proceedings, simply because the 1964 legislation did not contain about half a dozen words.
  1474
  In my view—my right hon. Friend may take an entirely different view for legitimate reasons that he may expound to the House—and from where I stand, I do not consider what has happened to be right, and I want to do something to correct the position.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. and learned Friend has referred to the stigma of insanity. Surely we cannot have it both ways. If we assume—I may wish to challenge this if I am given the opportunity to do so—that insanity is an exculpatory or mitigating factor, which I have always had doubt about, and in a peculiar way the accused receives the benefit of that, which in the days of capital punishment would have been a benefit, very dramatically, can we at the same time regard insanity as a stigma? After all, it has been used as a reason for not blaming somebody. Is my hon. and learned Friend in any way trying to have it both ways?
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The purpose of the Bill is to put right an unintentional fault in the law. It has nothing to do with whether my constituent, Iain Hay Gordon, was guilty of the offence or whether he has or has not been insane at any time. The Bill will put right a fault in the law, and that is what we are trying to do. I look forward to our doing it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We cannot have a general debate about insanity. However, the case of Mr. Iain Hay Gordon has been referred to in the explanatory notes and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is able to rebut or support the intervention of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
  Mr. Garnier: I can well understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). As she says, Iain Hay Gordon is one of her constituents, and I would think that the Bill is supported by the vast majority of hon. Members. It has been supported by all parties and by the retired Law Lord, Lord Ackner, in the other place. I know exactly where the hon. Lady is coming from. I entirely sympathise with the sense of frustration that I detect across the Chamber.
  Mr. Forth: On that point, will my hon. and learned Friend—
  Mr. Garnier: No. I would be most grateful to my right hon. Friend if he were a little patient. I want to deal with his point about stigma. I hope that my dealing with it will assist us in our deliberations and persuade those who are reluctant to give the Bill a fair passage that there are good grounds for taking a different view.
  I do not want to go into general emotions or whether it is a proper matter for sympathy if someone is declared to be insane in respect of a criminal act. That is not my case. There are many things in this life that bring with them no moral opprobrium.
  Let us assume that a woman is falsely accused of having been raped. Rape is a hideous crime and the woman can bear no blame. Yet if a woman is falsely accused of being the victim of rape, it is none the less defamatory. I have only to remind my right hon. Friend of the famous libel case in the 1920s of Princess Yusupov

  1475
  against MGM, in which the widow of the young Russian prince, who was falsely portrayed in a film about Rasputin as being defiled by him, recovered what in those days was a huge sum in damages.
  If a constituent of the hon. Member for Maryhill, who is the human reason for the Bill, has been falsely accused of being insane and falsely accused of being responsible for the killing of Miss Curran, that is a stigma which he is entitled to see removed. If the Bill gives him access to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and to the Court of Appeal as a consequence of a referral by the commission, that seems a good end and one that the House should applaud. Indeed, it should seek to do everything in its power to bring about that end.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, South expressed a few misgivings about the speed with which the commission has been able to deal with cases. He mentioned a backlog. I know that the commission, in its submissions to the Home Affairs Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman is the Chairman, said that it needed a great deal more resources and more caseworkers so that it might speed up the work in which it is engaged. I think that it put in a bid to the Home Secretary for an extra £1.3 million. I understand that the Home Secretary scaled that down to about a third of a million pounds. I may be wrong about that, and the Minister or the hon. Gentleman may be able to correct me.
  Mr. Mullin: After representations from a number of people, including me, the commission received a large part of what it was asking for. It is in the process of recruiting many extra caseworkers. It may not have everything that it wants but it should be able to make considerable process in reducing the backlog.
  Mr. Garnier: I am pleased to hear that. The cases that will benefit from the Bill becoming law must be very few in number. There will not, therefore, be a long queue, at least in this discrete area of cases that may or may not need to be referred. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us. I apologised to the hon. Lady privately because I may not be present when she replies, if she is to do so, because of a constituency engagement in Leicestershire—quite near Gartree prison, as it happens—at midday. I apologise to her, to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House if I am not in my place to hear the concluding remarks.
  The additional money and caseworkers of which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South has spoken will be vital, but the requirement will not be much added to by the Bill. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has so far heard only of the case of Mr. Iain Hay Gordon, and if he is complaining about these matters, he has little to worry about.
  As at the end of April 1999, as I understand it, the Criminal Cases Review Commission had 444 cases under active review, but it still had 1,176 cases awaiting review. That is a bad set of figures. I hope that, with the Minister's agreement, the money to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, referred will assist the commission in dealing with the backlog.
  I am told that at the end of December 1998, the length of time that an applicant had to wait for a detailed review of his or her case averaged two years. Mr. Hay Gordon
  1476
  has been waiting since 1952 or 1953. 1952 was the year in which I was born—forty-six and a half years ago. If I were Mr. Hay Gordon, I would be the first to approach my constituency Member of Parliament and invite him or her to press for the Bill. I am delighted that the noble Lord Ackner in the other place was quick to take up that cause.
  The House has a history of passing some legislation as a result of a knee-jerk reaction. I shall not list the Bills that the present Government or the Government whom I supported passed in response to press campaigns and single-issue pressure groups. There have been some good Bills that may seem to benefit only one individual. This is one such Bill. Whereas the other place allowed it to be properly considered, with all-party agreement, I trust that the House—
  Mr. Maclean: I hate to correct someone as distinguished as my hon. and learned Friend, but the 15 or 20 minutes discussion in the other place was not quite full consideration. It behoves us today to give the Bill more time than that, as we are dealing with a crucial issue of justice relating to a human being. That is no criticism of the other place, which came to the correct conclusion in passing the Bill to us. We need to consider it properly.
  Mr. Garnier: My right hon. Friend has his views on the matter, which he must defend if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  On the question of time, I am bearing in mind the forty-six and a half years that Mr. Hay Gordon has awaited the opportunity to go before some form of appellate jurisdiction. I am bearing in mind, too, the other cases, about which we may not know, of people who were convicted of being guilty but insane between the end of the second world war and the enactment of the mid-1960s legislation. I am bearing in mind the ease with which Parliament, which is sovereign, should be able to pass a relatively self-explanatory, humane and civilised Bill.
  I do not want to provoke my right hon. and hon. Friends into taking up more of the time of the House by intervening on me. I urge them to consider carefully what we are about, and the advice that we have received not only from the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, but from the distinguished and learned Law Lord, now retired, Lord Ackner.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends should consider also the words of our noble Friend Lord Taylor of Warwick, a barrister of some experience in the criminal courts, and of the noble Lord Thomas of Gresford, who has considerable experience both as a solicitor and as a barrister practising in the criminal courts. His remarks in the other place are particularly instructive. I trust that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who looks a little puzzled, will study them carefully. There were other speeches there from a layman, our noble Friend the Earl of Portsmouth, who has followed the issue with considerable care.
  I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who is still looking puzzled, may not be a regular reader of The Guardian. I used to work for it; I declare an interest in that respect. My right hon. Friend will find that the issue is not just a lawyers' ramp. It is not just a matter of some half-baked

  1477
  single-issue pressure group getting up and grabbing hold of parliamentary time and legislative power. This is a properly thought-out Bill which requires to be passed into law, and it commends itself to all hon. Members, regardless of their party allegiance.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for indulging me yet again. He is seeking to impress the House with a litany of very important people, and telling us that they think that this is a good Bill. If the matter is as important as my hon. and learned Friend has so eloquently argued, and if it has the support of so many eminent people, why has it taken to long to get here?
  Mr. Garnier: My right hon. Friend has been in government. He knows that every Government will have one excuse or another for not finding it convenient to introduce a particular piece of legislation. If something needs to be done, a Government will find time for it to be done. If something does not need to be done, I have found, amazingly, that Governments will find good reasons for it not to be done.
  Mr. Forth: Fox hunting.
  Mr. Garnier: My right hon. Friend should not draw me on that—especially as I am about to head off for Leicestershire—or I shall be here for a good while yet.
  It will be easy for my right hon. Friend, a man of huge Government experience in at least three Departments, to stand up in due course and explain why the Bill should not be given assistance by the Government. It is a private Member's Bill, but it has been given the assistance of Government—or at least, for once, a Government are not hindering a private Member's Bill. If that is the case, it will only add to the feelings of high esteem which I have for the Minister, my London Member of Parliament.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South gets his Bill through this afternoon, and I hope that the hon. Member for Maryhill sees her constituent going into the offices of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and to the Court of Appeal and achieving justice. Whichever way that may mean the dice roll, I want him to achieve justice, and I want the hon. Lady to see him achieve justice.
  10.8 am
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: As I mentioned earlier, Iain Hay Gordon is my constituent. His fight to clear his name has been going on for an extremely long time. That is most unfortunate, especially as he does not keep in very good health. He has been desperate to move matters forward so that he can try to clear his name, because he is afraid of going to his death without having managed to do so. That cannot be attempted until the Bill is passed.
  The Bill seems to have the support of the entire House. It passed through the other place without difficulty. We are speaking of a minor amendment which arises because of an earlier error. It is clear that for the sake of justice and right, the Bill should go through today.
  Having waited so long for Parliament to do what is right, we have a chance today to put right a grave wrong to my constituent. He will be extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and to those who have taken up the matter in another place.
  1478
  The Criminal Cases Review Commission has been in correspondence with me. I know that a large number of other cases are awaiting its attention, but I, too, appeal to the commission to get on with my constituent's case once we pass the Bill today, because of his age and the fact that he has had this hanging over his head for so many years. Today the House has a chance to unite and do the right thing. Let us get on and do it.
  10.9 am
  Mr. Peter Luff: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Bill's promoter, and to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), for the way in which she has come to this House on a Friday to defend the rights of her constituent. I have a great deal of sympathy with what has been said and I was intrigued to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), a distinguished Queen's counsel, setting out his thoughts in detail.
  Nothing that I will say this morning signals a lack of support for the Bill, and my instinct is that it should pass. However, I am nervous about the lack of scrutiny that the Bill has received. In total, the report of its scrutiny in another place covered five columns of the Official Report of the proceedings on 23 March. No amendments were made and there was no further debate on Report there. The Bill came here and went through on the nod at the end of a Friday. There was no Committee stage—it was taken at the same time on the Floor of the House.
  This morning is the first opportunity that the House has had to discuss the implications of the Bill. Therefore, my remarks on Third Reading might be longer than would normally be my practice. It is important that measures of this kind are properly tested, particularly when the House has had no opportunity to do so before. If we look at the Table, we see all the Bills lined up for consideration today. I have lost count of how many there are.
  Mr. Forth: Too many.
  Mr. Luff: My right hon. Friend may be right, although I do not have quite the antipathy towards legislation that he has.
  Mr. Forth: Nobody does.
  Mr. Luff: That is probably true. His antipathy comes from deeply held principles, which Labour Members may not understand. Those of us who have had the pleasure of sharing the Tea Room with him, will know how deep seated is his opposition to legislation. I do not have that opposition to legislation, but a Bill such as this deserves close scrutiny.
  In the previous Parliament—for reasons that I perhaps should not discuss—I was invited to reflect at length in Committee on a one-clause Bill. It was a harmless, one-clause Bill, and the Clerks had suggested that no amendment was possible to it. I spent some time studying the Bill and developed a series of amendments, as a result of which the Minister clarified the law in a number of important areas. The lawyers and interest groups that I had consulted expressed their deep gratitude to me for clarifying the law. Even the most harmless and innocuous

  1479
  Bill always gains from proper scrutiny. The House should be nervous of even the best-intentioned Bill being enacted without scrutiny.
  Mr. Maclean: Is not another obligation placed on us this morning? We are to pass a Bill that nearly everyone says deals with one specific case—although, theoretically, there could be more. In such cases, we must be careful that we are getting the measure right.
  Mr. Luff: Obviously, my right hon. Friend can read my mind. The very next point that I intended to make was that, as I read the Bill's proceedings in another place and the background information, one phrase kept recurring in my mind—hard cases make bad law. That is one of oldest saws in considering legislation.
  I have no doubt that the case of Mr. Iain Hay Gordon is a desperately hard case, but this House must not rush—in a fit of perfectly understandable moral eagerness—to put right that case without being sure that we are not doing other injustices in the process. We must be clear about the implications for the bodies affected by the Bill. The Criminal Cases Review Commission lies at the heart of the debate.
  Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend said that we must be careful that the Bill does not produce an injustice in another case. What sort of injustice does he envisage?
  Mr. Luff: My hon. and learned Friend invites me to anticipate remarks that I want to make later. In essence, I am asking whether the case that we are discussing is the only one. We have had assurances that it is. How many cases like it might there be in the system?
  Mr. Forth: I am certain that I heard the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) say that he thought there might be a few more cases. That is an important point for us all to bear in mind. I agree that if we were dealing with only one case, it would be worrying. There may be more cases, and that leads to the concern about the effect that the Bill might have on other cases—even though we do not know what they are. I hope that that is helpful to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Luff: It is genuinely helpful and that is an extremely important point. Exactly how many cases will be caught by the Bill? That is the injustice that I fear. Understandably, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South expressed the hope that the Criminal Cases Review Commission would give the case priority once the Bill had been enacted. However, the work load of the commission is increasing rapidly and to give this case priority over others—whose merit we simply cannot know—is a matter of concern to me. We are imposing a potentially heavy burden on the commission.
  Mr. Mullin: No one is trying to impose a heavy burden on the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The commission wants the power to be able to deal with the matter and will decide the priority to be given to the case—not us. It will still be up to the commission. All that we can do is urge the commission to get on with it, on the grounds that the case has been around for 46 years.
  Mr. Luff: The hon. Gentleman is right and I have no wish to argue on that point. The House has had his
  1480
  assurance that that is the case. How are we to know, however, that this case is the only one? Are there other similar inadequacies—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are on Third Reading and we should be discussing what is in the Bill. Perhaps these remarks should have been made in Committee or on Second Reading.
  Mr. Luff: With the greatest of respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there was no Second Reading and no Committee. That is precisely the problem and that is why we must look at the Bill in a little more detail on Third Reading than would normally be the case.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point that there was no Committee, but that is no fault of mine. I am guided by the rules of the House, which are clear. Third Reading is a narrow debate, based on what is in the Bill. What might crop up as a result of the Bill is another matter.
  Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Without wishing to challenge your ruling, you have the discretion to bear in mind that, through an act of good will, the House has rushed the Bill on its way to this stage. However, this is the only opportunity that the House has had to consider the Bill in any detail. Therefore, will you use your discretion and wisdom in allowing more of a debate than might otherwise be the case?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I always use my wisdom in matters relating to him. I am not saying that we cannot have a debate—far from it. However, the rules of the House tell me that the debate must be confined to what is in the Bill. If the rules of the House change, I—as the custodian of the rules—will look after them. At the moment, however, we must confine ourselves to the rules of the House.
  Mr. Luff: You are an effective guardian of the rules of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I have been too generous in giving way to colleagues, which has led me down some alleys of which you may not approve. I will now try to return to my notes, which refer directly to what is in the Bill.
  The Criminal Cases Review Commission is included in the Bill. Its task is to examine each case impartially and decide whether it would have a real possibility of succeeding if it were given a further hearing in an appeal court. On the basis of what we have heard about the case of Mr. Hay Gordon, there seems to be every chance that it would have a realistic chance of success. I have no doubt that what the hon. Member for Sunderland, South said about the wishes of the commission was accurate.
  Helpfully, the Select Committee on Home Affairs—of which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South is the Chairman—has produced a report on the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The report makes a number of recommendations, one of which refers directly to the Bill. As the Chairman of a Select Committee—I see in the Chamber the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whom we seek to hold to account—I know there is always a temptation for a Committee to have it both ways and to wish contradictory things.

  1481
  To an extent, I see that in the first report of the Select Committee on the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which discusses at length the problems of the commission in prioritising its work and the pressure on its resources. Recommendation 6 states:
  "We accept and support the basic principle that priority is generally given to applications from those in custody."
  The case from which the Bill arises involves a gentleman who is not in custody. Mercifully, if the case has been mishandled, he is at liberty, albeit with the stain on his character described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough. We have to ask whether it is right to pass the Bill, given the Select Committee's wise view that priority should go to those who are in custody and therefore still suffering the wrong of some miscarriage of justice.
  The resources available to the CCRC lie at the heart of our consideration today. I freely admit that, until the hon. Member for Sunderland, South intervened, I was not aware that its resources had been increased. It would be extremely helpful to the House in respect of how it should approach its consideration of the Bill if the Minister told us exactly what resources are available to the commission. The notes on clauses—which have been prepared by the Home Office, not by the hon. Gentleman—show how important that consideration is. They tell us:
  "Expenditure on reviewing such cases would have to be found within the planned funding of the Commission. Any expenditure elsewhere in the criminal justice system resulting from an application to the Commission under the Bill, or from a decision by the Commission to refer a verdict of guilty but insane to the Court of Appeal, would similarly have to be found within current planned provision."
  We have to satisfy ourselves that the case in question, which goes back more than 46 years, is a one-off. Typically, the cases that will be brought before the commission will date back over such a period. Re-examining them at such a late stage would be particularly labour intensive. I am always reluctant to reopen cases of such antiquity. After nearly half a century, it is difficult to go through the background and the evidence to understand the circumstances with clarity. It would clearly be a time-consuming business.
  Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only does that matter have resource implications—that important point may have to be developed—but the relevant material, witnesses, evidence and so on will necessarily be that much less reliable, given the age of the cases? Is not that a factor that we shall all have to bear in mind as we consider the efficacy of the Bill?
  Mr. Luff: Characteristically, my right hon. Friend makes a point that I was seeking to make rather better than I would have done. He is right and that is one of the central challenges for the House during its consideration of the Bill. The Minister must satisfy us that the case in question is one of only a very small group. Is her estimate of the number of cases three or four, which was the estimate made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South when he opened his remarks? If her estimate is 10, 12 or 15, the nature of our consideration would have to change and a much sharper problem would be posed for the CCRC.
  Mr. Mullin: I do not want to prolong this agony. I did not say that I knew of three or four cases; I said that I knew of one and that I had heard someone say that there might be two. It is very unlikely that there will be as many as three or four and it is perfectly possible that the case in question will be the only one. The hon. Gentleman talked about assurances that I have given. The assurances that I have given on miscarriages of justice over the years have largely proved reliable.
  Mr. Luff: With characteristic modesty, the hon. Gentleman sets out for the House his track record on these matters; I think he has a great deal about which to be modest. He has a good reputation on these issues and I congratulate him on it, but the Bill has not been scrutinised thoroughly elsewhere, so we need to know what assessment the Government have made of the likely work load on the commission that will flow from the Bill. I am told that the commission is adamant that it will not sacrifice thoroughness for the sake of speed. It is right to take that view, but I fear that achieving thoroughness in such a case could be particularly demanding.
  In November 1998, the Home Secretary rejected the bid for £1.3 million additional funding. We are told that additional money has been forthcoming, although my information was that the only money available was for information technology. It appears that, as well as capital funding, revenue funding will be available for additional caseworkers. That is good, because the commission is clearly doing important work. I would certainly want my constituents to have access to it in cases of miscarriage of justice. However, the statistics are quite alarming and it is important that the House is aware of them.
  I think that my most recent information comes from a memorandum to the Home Affairs Committee from the CCRC; if that is not the case, I apologise to the House. The backlog of more than 1,000 cases is growing at a rate of more than one a day and, by definition, the cases that the commission considers are serious. The backlog is huge and each and every case is a matter of considerable concern to the individual affected by it. Standing here in the Chamber today, I have no way of prioritising the case of Mr. Iain Hay Gordon over those other 1,000 cases.
  In its evidence to the Home Affairs Committee last December, the CCRC said:
  "The October 1997 memorandum to the Committee noted the very severe problems that had been posed by the CCRC's initial caseload, but hoped that the case completion rate might soon reach the case intake rate."
  In other words, the commission's waiting list—to use a topical term from another area of the public policy debate—is growing steadily. The CCRC went on to say that the
  "CCRC casework experience to date, and caseflow analysis, combine to demonstrate clearly that the CCRC cannot achieve casework breakeven, and minimise the case accumulation, on any reasonable timescale unless substantially increased resources are allocated to it."
  Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman has already been advised that it is not our business to offer the CCRC any order of priority for its work. We are here merely to pass a necessary amendment to the Bill arising from an error that was made at an earlier stage. It is as simple as that.
  Mr. Luff: I admire the way in which the hon. Lady is fighting for the interests of her constituent. I want to be persuaded that the Bill should be enacted because her constituent should have the justice that he is lacking and I hear what she says, but the message sent out at the end of his speech by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South was that the commission should give that case priority. The nature of the case suggests to me that he may be right—I do not know enough about the cases before the CCRC to reach that judgment—but if similar cases arose, we would logically have to support the commission giving them priority over other cases, which may be of great importance.
  Mr. Maclean: Surely there is another valid point. We are being asked to pass the Bill using a slightly expedited procedure. There has been no debate on Second Reading. The CCRC may not be able to consider the case for three years—when it has cleared its existing backlog—which is an argument for suggesting that the Bill's provisions could be part of a Government Bill next year. We would then have more time to consider such a Bill clause by clause.
  Mr. Luff: I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but I do not share that view, although I understand why he has expressed it. I want the Minister to give a clear explanation of why my fears are misplaced. The House would then be able to give the Bill speedy passage, rather than delaying it unnecessarily. I am sure that the hon. Member for Maryhill does not want her constituent to wait another year, even for the opportunity to put his case to the commission. Subject to the assurances that we receive from the Minister, I hope that we can give the Bill speedy progress, but it is important that we understand the extent of the problems that the commission faces as we do that.
  On 16 December 1998, The Guardian said:
  "MPs who fear a repeat of the Child Support Agency shambles are to summon Home Office Ministers to explain why they refused a plea for an extra £1.3 million for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to attack the mounting backlog."
  I do not know whether those words are a briefing from a member of the Home Affairs Committee or the florid prose of The Guardian, but this is clearly a matter of considerable concern to the Committee and it is right to be concerned.
  The Bill centres on the Iain Hay Gordon case. We are informed that his may be one of two, three, four, or however many cases, and we have already debated that matter. I have looked at the background to the case and I understand why the hon. Member for Maryhill is so concerned about it. I shall not weary the House with an account of it, because that would clearly be an inappropriate use of our time. I was, however, slightly amused by an article in The Herald of 27 April last year, which states:
  "A political row is brewing over the refusal of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to begin an investigation into an alleged miscarriage in the case of Glasgow man Iain Gordon, 66…Mr. Chris Mullin, the veteran campaigner against injustice and chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, has written to commission chairman Sir Frederick Crawford to demand an explanation for the commission's handling of the case…Mr. Mullin, Labour MP for Sunderland South, called for Sir Frederick's resignation when it was revealed last August that the £88,000-a-year chairman of the new body was a freemason in
  1484
  the Gordon case. Mr. Mullin has accused him of appearing to have taken 'a narrow view of your responsibilities and one that is certainly at odds with the intention of Parliament when the commission was established'."
  Mr. Mullin: I cannot be responsible for what is in The Herald, but I certainly did not call for Sir Frederick's resignation. I did, at the time of his appointment, express surprise that a Birmingham freemason had been put in charge of this particularly sensitive commission, but Sir Frederick has done a pretty good job during his two years in office and I have no complaint about him.
  Mr. Luff: I am not and have never been a freemason, but I am suspicious of the hon. Gentleman's suspicion of freemasons. I was, however, delighted to hear his tribute to Sir Frederick and I am sure that he will be pleased as well. A degree of guilt probably lingers in the hon. Gentleman's mind. It is excellent that he has sought to expunge it by presenting the Bill and recognising that the commission was not guilty of failing to do its duty, but simply did not have the statutory ability to perform that duty.
  Let me return to the fundamental point. The Iain Hay Gordon case provides us with a useful example, but we should take it only as an illustration. We should not see it as our reason for acting; we must act on principle. The question of whether Iain Hay Gordon was or was not the victim of a miscarriage of justice is not for the House to consider. It is a matter for the due process that will follow if the Bill is passed. The question that we should consider is the question of access to the powers of the commission. I believe that the House should grant such access only if it is absolutely clear that an intolerable burden will not be placed on the commission.
  Is this a single case? Single cases are regularly used to shape law in this place, but I feel that they should be used only to illustrate it. Another question—one that the Minister should answer—is this: what precedent are we setting if we pass the Bill? Are there other lacunae in the wording of the legislation that established the Criminal Cases Review Commission? Are there other issues that need to be addressed? Will passing the Bill give rise to a raft of private Members' Bills dealing with other inadequacies, or is this, as it were, a one-off case of a one-off case?
  Mr. Maclean: Nearly everyone who has spoken today has said that the failure to include the terminology "guilty but insane" was clearly due to a drafting error. I have heard no evidence so far that that is so. Perhaps the omission was a deliberate act on the part of the draftsmen or the Ministers responsible. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that it was a technical error and not a deliberate act on the part of this Parliament.
  Mr. Luff: My right hon. Friend leads me neatly to my next and—the House will be relieved to hear—final point, which concerns retrospectivity. This is retrospective legislation. Just as hard cases make bad law and the House must be suspicious of them, retrospective cases often cause difficulty, for precisely the reasons that my right hon. Friend has just given. What was in the mind of Parliament when the legislation was passed? Was what it did intentional or unintentional?

  1485
  Thornton's "Legislative Drafting" defines retrospectivity thus:
  "It is desirable that wherever possible a statute should indicate in express and unmistakable terms whether (and, if so, how far) or not it is intended to be retrospective…Retrospective laws offend against the general principle that legislation intended to regulate human conduct ought to deal with future acts and ought not to change the character of past transactions carried upon the faith of existing law".
  I know that the Home Secretary shares that view. Almost exactly 13 years ago, during a debate on the Rate Support Grant Bill, the right hon. Gentleman—then an Opposition Member—said:
  "The Government have become slap happy in the use of retrospective legislation."—[0fficial Report, 23 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 86.]
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said, it must be clear that we are simply correcting an innocent drafting error, and that there is no matter of substance behind the omission that is identified by the Iain Hay Gordon case.
  I expect the Bill to be given a Third Reading today. I suspect that the mood of the House is in favour of it, subject to the assurances that the Minister can give. Notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Sunderland, South said, however, the commission must set priorities for itself. However indignant hon. Members may feel about individual cases, it is for the commission to make the difficult judgments about how it should use its still limited resources in the face of a mounting case load.
  10.35 am
  Mr. Eric Forth: I shall continue in the spirit of the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). A number of points deserve our consideration, given the rather unusual route by which the Bill has reached this stage. If anything, it is even more incumbent on us than it might otherwise be to ensure that we are satisfied about those points before allowing it to proceed. Because it has come from the other place, this is the last opportunity for it to be scrutinised in a considered way and in detail, and for us to discharge our responsibility as one of the Houses of Parliament.
  The Bill was considered briefly in the other place. That is no criticism—far be it for me to criticise the methods adopted in another place—but I think it fair to say that the consideration was fairly brief. I think that it is also fair to say that, even at this early stage, a number of important points have emerged. It may have surprised hon. Members that what at first blush appeared to be a Bill of modest scope is already raising significant issues of principle, and I think it incumbent on us to satisfy ourselves about those before we proceed too much further.
  One of those points, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire touched on, has bothered me considerably. I refer to the vexed question of whether it is legitimate or desirable to legislate on the basis of one known case, or even a very limited number of known cases. It is an age-old question, which has confronted us as a legislature many times over a long period; but that does not diminished its importance. What we are really saying is that, if we are worried about a single case and the existing law does not cover that case adequately, we should—as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South
  1486
  (Mr. Mullin) put it, eloquently and, he thought, persuasively—move as quickly as possible to change the law in order to acknowledge the problem.
  That is, in a sense, self-evident, as far as it goes. The danger is that, in some instances, changing the law to deal with one case could put at risk the principles of justice, access to justice and the balance of justice in other cases. We must satisfy ourselves beyond reasonable doubt that that will not happen.
  Mr. Maclean: Is my right hon. Friend slightly mystified by the fact that the other place was keen for the Bill to proceed quickly, although it twice rejected a similarly retrospective measure involving only one or two individuals—the war crimes legislation? We had to pass it by means of the Parliament Act.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We should not start discussing other legislation.
  Mr. Maclean: I was not—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman was. I apologise. Let me, however, reinforce my ruling that we are not going to go into other legislation.
  Mr. Forth: And I shall not answer my right hon. Friend's retrospectivity point now, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall deal with it in a moment. Looking at my notes, I find that that formed the second of the points that I wish to cover in my brief contribution, but I want to do justice to the earlier point that I was making. I do not want to weary the House with it, but it is important. I shall answer myself, in a sense, and therefore satisfy, I hope, other Members.
  The question I pose is whether it is legitimate or desirable to make a change in the law based on a single known case. To my surprise, when the question was posed to the Library, we got back a considerable list of such cases. I shall not weary the House with the entire list; a few examples will suffice.
  The one that all colleagues will remember with affection is the Peerage Act 1963, which arose from the battle of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to ensure that he was able to renounce his peerage and take his elected place in the House. That is one obvious case. I skip through some of the others. The law was changed in the Grant v. Borg case, which involved overstaying immigrants; after the House of Lords judgment in the Regina v. Preddy case, which involved mortgage fraud and acquiring credit by deception; and in the Thai Trading Company v. Taylor, case, which involved conditional fees.
  I make that point only to dispel any doubts that colleagues may have about the respectability, if I may put it that way, of basing a change in the law on one single known case. Therefore, in that sense, I am persuaded, but there is a lingering doubt, which we should bear in mind before we finally dispose of the Bill: that there is no likely risk of the change proposed in the Bill having an adverse effect on our judicial system, access to justice or the probability of justice being done.

  1487
  Given the particular circumstances of the Bill, its thrust and content, that risk is minimal, or probably zero—of that I am fairly satisfied. Given our duty and responsibility in such cases to consider whether there is a danger or risk, I am satisfied. I mentioned only a few of the precedents because I did not want to weary the House.
  Mr. Maclean: I think that my right hon. Friend could be in danger of inadvertently misleading himself, not that he would ever mislead the House. I have studied the precedents, too. Some of the cases that he has mentioned have not resulted in specific legislation, Bills or Acts, but have merely hastened Governments to make amending clauses in other legislation that is going through the House. That happened with the Access to Justice Bill after the R. V. Khan case; it speeded up Government legislation. However, there are very few cases—I am familiar only with the Viscount Stansgate case—of an Act of Parliament being introduced for an individual.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We would extend the debate if we went into those matters.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have let me off the hook. When I am under scrutiny from my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I am always grateful for any escape route that is offered to me, which I gratefully accept. That brings me readily to the next point that I wanted to cover: retrospectivity. Again, one has to be careful, but there is a duty on us to consider how far one is entitled, or is under a duty, to seek to go back in terms of legislation.
  Throughout my studies at university, as far as I can remember them now, and even on coming to the House, I was told that we did not legislate retrospectively here. That was my firmly held view. I clung to that. I thought it an important principle until I got here. Then I found, as one does with many things—I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will share the experience—that those things that we thought were established, nay, almost sacred principles of the House of Commons and, indeed, of our unwritten constitution, were nothing of the kind, and that we live in a flexible and fluid world at Westminster.
  So even the principle of retrospectivity, which I thought was the foundation stone of our constitution, unwritten as it is, is not quite what it seems. The principle that overrides even that one is pragmatism. The other, which I think is still the case, although even that is in doubt now, is that no one Parliament can bind another.
  An interesting issue is raised by the constitutional changes that have just been made. There is a question as to whether—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman will push the boat out a bit too far if he goes into constitutional matters. It is a Third Reading debate on the Bill.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful. I was getting a bit carried away with my argument about retrospection. I had better limit it, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rightly point out, to the Bill itself.
  1488
  Again, there are precedents. At the risk of provoking my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border again, I asked for examples of retrospective legislation. I have a list, but I am now quite nervous about quoting from it in case he picks me up on it. Suffice it to say that the research that I have commissioned suggests that it is permissible, and there are precedents for a retrospective approach when it is deemed justifiable.
  The promoter of the Bill said in his admirable speech that, in a sense, that was the whole justification for the Bill. It is based on, we think, a single case. We are not sure; there may be a few others. In a sense, the whole point of the Bill is to look back, to look at the particular circumstances that prevailed at the time, to identify the lacuna, and then to say, "We will now legislate in 1999 for something that happened a very long time ago and for a glitch, or gap in the law, which has only fairly recently emerged, to the disadvantage of one known individual, although there may be others."
  Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is correct. There have been numerous examples of retrospective legislation. I had the privilege of studying the list as well, but I could not find any examples relating to individuals. The examples related to teachers' pay and conditions, vaccine-damaged children and London Regional Transport—I could not find one case of retrospective legislation dealing with a single individual.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I keep coming back to it: we must concern ourselves with the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful. That brings me neatly to the issue that was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, which I will characterise as antiquity and, therefore, efficacy. He touched on the point in a different way, admittedly.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Before my right hon. Friend moves from the point about retrospection: I have listened to his arguments with interest, as I have to the arguments of other Conservative Members, but I am not really convinced. Surely any matter of law that deals with matters of appeal is, by its very nature, retrospective. In that instance, he cannot hold it against legislation dealing with appeal matters that it is retrospective. Is it not inevitable?
  Mr. Forth: That is partly the case, but there is a problem, which I am coming on to; I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me. Surely, there is one thing that we have to consider, because we are talking about a proper judicial process, not just a quasi-judicial process. One of the factors that it is incumbent on us to consider with great seriousness is the extent to which we think it efficacious and viable to allow a review to take place, when, by definition—we are defining it in this case, or it is defined for us—the material factors will be so far in the distant past as to be possibly unreliable. That is

  1489
  beyond doubt. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South pointed out, the Bill arose from events a very long time ago.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is it not for the review to discover whether the facts are uncertain, or too long ago? It surely should not be denied the opportunity to consider that case.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I do not think it is as obvious as he suggests. I had the same problem in respect of the war crimes legislation some years ago and I would contend that when one is dealing with events in the distant past, the evidence becomes less reliable. As my hon. Friend points out, there is an element of judgment and we are making precisely that judgment today. In making this proposed change in the law and inviting a review process which inevitably will have to deal with events in the distant past, we must consider how comfortable we are with the likelihood that that will lead to a proper process of justice.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South will sum up the debate. I could almost write his speech for him now—or at least part of it. I suspect that he will say that he has been involved in a number of cases that deal with exactly this matter. That might set my mind at rest as it is an important factor.
  Another point that I wish to make in my preliminary remarks involves money. I address these comments mainly to the Minister, who I hope will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We look forward to her contribution as it will help to set in context a number of issues that have arisen in the debate, and no doubt will arise again. However, this is a particular matter for the Minister and I am alerting her and any others who may be in a position to assist.
  A key element in the debate are the additional responsibilities that the Bill places on the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It has been admitted—rightly, in my view—that the House has no influence on the priority of the work of the CCRC. That is a matter for its judgment. However, knowing a little about these matters, I suspect that the CCRC could possibly be influenced by the Minister. It might even be influenced by reading these proceedings. It is obviously the wish of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) that it should be so influenced. No doubt she has assiduously made her own representations in that regard and I wish her well with them. However, I wish to make a narrow point about money and staff.
  My information is that the commission has calculated that it needs something like 60 case review managers in order to process new cases and reduce the backlog. It has been claimed that the Government have given extra money to the CCRC. In February this year the Government announced plans to give the CCRC an extra £1.2 million to employ more caseworkers.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a debate about a limited extension of the role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It is not a general debate on the work of the commission.
  Mr. Forth: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have enabled me to move on to the substance of my remarks, having dealt with the preliminaries. I shall now turn to the Bill itself, and I am sure that you will approve of my doing that. [Interruption.]
  Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know what is amusing some Opposition Members, but I do not share their amusement, given that they are discussing the human rights of a constituent of mine. Perhaps they could be brought to order, or bring themselves to order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not, strictly speaking, a matter for the Chair, but I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will take on board what the hon. Lady has said.
  Mr. Forth: With the greatest charity, let me say that if the hon. Lady were here more often on a Friday she would realise that our proceedings are often a little more relaxed and that that often allows us to proceed on a consensual basis. I would regret that consensus and good spirit being interrupted in any way and I hope that the hon. Lady would not be party to that.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Let me put the mind of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) at rest. Many of us are here today because we share her concern for her constituent. That is why we support the Bill.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who reinforces what I said. The way in which the House works on Fridays and deals with private Members' Bills is a little different from the normal run of events, as you know better than almost any of us, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Maclean: I would merely point out that on the last occasion the Bill was before the House and those of us who are always here on Fridays expedited its passage through to this stage, I do not recall the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) being here, worried about her constituent's rights.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having difficulty in persuading hon. Members to speak to the Third Reading of the Bill. We cannot debate who was here last Friday or the previous Friday.
  Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall now get stuck into the Bill itself. I can reassure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Member for Maryhill that it will not take long.
  My references to the Bill relate to my introductory remarks. Clause 1(1) states that
  "the Criminal Cases Review Commission may at any time refer the verdict to the Court of Appeal if subsection (2) below applies."
  The Bill gives a very wide remit to the CCRC. It is important that we acknowledge that we are broadening the original remit of the commission very widely indeed.

  1491
  Another concern on which I would welcome the comments of the Minister or the promoter of the Bill—and probably both—relates to clause 1(2)(b). Subsection (2) states:
  "This subsection applies if the Commission consider that there is a real possibility that the verdict would not be upheld were the reference to be made and…it appears to the Commission that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the making of the reference."
  That is an extremely wide and permissive phrase. It crosses my mind to question whether it is wise to give that degree of latitude. As we all know, exceptional circumstances can be defined in almost any way. There is no limitation and no further reference to that provision. It simply gives the commission the power to make a judgment as to what exceptional circumstances are and links that to its ability to make a reference.
  When we give such wide powers, we must be satisfied that there is no possibility that they could be misused. I have no reason to suppose that they would be, but there is always a possibility of that when we give extraordinarily wide powers to what I would—perhaps unfairly—characterise as a bureaucracy.
  Mr. Maclean: So far this morning we have been told that on every occasion a simple error of drafting in the original legislation failed to include the terminology "guilty, but insane". This Bill, however, gives the commission powers to refer cases in "exceptional circumstances". We need to know from the Minister whether that provision is widening the existing powers of the commission to deal with other cases that were covered in the Criminal Appeal Act 1995.
  Mr. Forth: Indeed. My only regret about today's proceedings is that we have been unable to look a little more widely at the relationship between the parts of the law that deal with guilt and insanity. I should have preferred that, as I have some rather distinctive views on the issue. However, it is probably just as well for me that I am unable today to express those views at great length, as they might be regarded as somewhat eccentric—but then, I am quite used to that.
  Nevertheless—under your wise and correct guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker—we are not allowed to range that little bit more widely, which I do regret, although there will perhaps be another occasion on which we are able to do so.
  Given that the issue—the whole matter of how far insanity may be regarded as an exculpatory or mitigating factor—has always been such a contentious one in law, and given how much the Bill touches on that issue, it is, in retrospect, perhaps slightly regrettable that we did not have a full-blown Second Reading debate in which we could have ranged across the issue more widely, or detailed consideration in Committee. However, the House made a different judgment on the matter, and I do not want to rake over that.
  I can well appreciate—the hon. Member for Maryhill has left us in no doubt about it—the strength of feeling on the matter relating to her constituent and perhaps to one or two other cases. I have been able to satisfy myself
  1492
  on some of the matters that worried me about extrapolating from individual cases and about retrospection.
  I have, however, some lingering doubts about the Bill. The key—other than the introductory speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, which was rather brief—to settling those doubts will be the Minister's reply, and then the final reply to the debate. I hope that those replies will be able to persuade me that my lingering doubts could be dispelled, and that the House should give the Bill our final approval.
  Today's debate is the final stage in the Bill's passage, and that is what makes it so important. There will be no going back from our action today or further opportunities to debate the Bill—this is it. If we are to change law in this limited but important way, we must be absolutely satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. I look forward to receiving such satisfaction from the Minister and from the final reply, so that I may join other hon. Members in allowing the Bill to be passed.
  11.2 am
  Mr. Edward Leigh: The debate has been useful. Some interesting speeches have dealt with, first, the amount of parliamentary time devoted to this type of legislation; secondly, the historical precedents of single-case legislation; and thirdly, some interesting arguments on retrospective legislation and how the Bill falls into the mould of previous legislation that Parliament has hitherto thought it right and just to pass. I may well have a few more remarks on those issues, but, as they have already been dealt with extensively in the debate, I do not want the main substance of my arguments to dwell on them.
  Colleagues have referred to examples of single-case legislation—I shall not weary the House by referring again to them—but each of those examples had a wider application. Although each of those cases had been brought to the House's attention because of a single hard case, in every one in which Parliament thought it right to act not only one individual, but a wider public benefited from that action. The famous case of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is an obvious example of that. I think that the Minister really has to address that issue when replying to the debate.
  I do not claim to be any great expert on precedent in the House—but we may be embarking on a quite unusual step: passing an Act of Parliament on the basis of a single case, benefiting only that individual. I do not think that anyone speaking in the debate so far has been able to allude to other people who are disadvantaged by current law but will benefit from the Bill, if it is passed. The Bill is, therefore, very much an example of single-case legislation helping a single individual. That is an important, even constitutional, point to which Ministers, in supporting the Bill, will have to refer.
  The Bill is very clear on its central point. Clause 1 states:
  "Where a verdict was returned in England and Wales or Northern Ireland to the effect that a person was guilty of the act or omission charged against him but was insane at the time, the Criminal Cases Review Commission may at any time refer the verdict to the Court of Appeal".

  1493
  The Bill goes on, in clause 2(2), to state:
  "In their application to such a reference by virtue of subsection (1) above, sections 13 and 14 of that Act shall have effect—
  (a) as if references to the verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity were to the verdict referred under section 1(1) above".
  In passing the Bill, therefore, we shall be saying that the fact that, all those years ago, the jury in the particular case returned a verdict of guilty but insane should now be treated by the courts as if the jury had returned a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. So far, all the arguments that we have heard from the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and which were adduced in the other place, seem to suggest that there is no difference between those two concepts; they are the same—and that if a jury were considering those matters now, all these years later, it would feel that there was no difference between the two concepts. Before the House passes the Bill, we have to be absolutely convinced that those arguments are true.
  There has been much learned debate on the nature of insanity, a matter that has exercised profound legal experts. From my reading of the issues surrounding the specific case, however, there has been no fixed outcome of that learned debate, or definite conclusion on the nature of insanity as it applies to criminal cases. An article by R. D. MacKay, for example, entitled "Mental Condition Defences in the Criminal Law", states:
  "Perhaps more than any other area of the criminal law, the insanity defence generates heated discussion and debate. The literature discussing the insanity plea is immense, and reform proposals are continuously formulated. In short, there is an ongoing debate about whether the law should recognise that some crazy people ought not to be punished for behaviour which would normally be adjudged criminal. This debate, which tends to ebb and flow in the light of notorious cases, is one which deserves to be within the public domain since the underlying question of whether it is appropriate to excuse a mentally abnormal offender is a question with fundamental moral and social implications."
  That is indeed true. If we were to pass the Bill, we should perhaps be entering into a new sphere of the debate on criminal insanity.
  Those matters were considered quite fully in the report of the royal commission on capital punishment, which reported between 1949 and 1953, Cmnd. 8932. The commission found that only those who have the capacity to act rationally should be held accountable for criminal acts, and that an individual's capacity is sometimes interfered with because of mental illness, which may in turn mean that his behaviour can no longer be viewed as rational. The difficulty is in deciding at which stage such a conclusion may be reached.
  I should like, in general terms, to deal with the debate in the other place. We have been enormously helped, as we often are in debates that refer to detailed aspects of the criminal law, by the remarks of the Lords of Appeal, who bring a great deal of knowledge to these matters. Their Lordships have reminded us that the jury in the 1953 case returned a special verdict, under the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883, that the defendant was guilty but insane.
  Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, acting on behalf of Mr. Hay Gordon—without going into too much detail, this was a case before the Court of Appeal claiming that there had clearly been a drafting error and that Parliament, in enacting subsequent legislation, must have believed that
  1494
  the two states of mind were the same—said that Parliament, in enacting the words of section 10(6) of the 1995 Act,
  "was not guilty by reason of insanity"
  intended to include the phrase "guilty but insane". Sir Louis's thesis was that the two phrases were interchangeable in essence and intent, and that the change from the first to the second and back again was no more than terminological.
  Their lordships seemed to agree with that view. Lord Ackner, who opened the debate in a characteristically forthright and cogent speech, said that this was
  "a simple error of drafting, but it has created a long-standing and tragic absurdity"—[Official Report, House of Lords£ 23 March 1999; Vol. 598, c. 1255.]
  and that it was quite wrong that Mr. Hay Gordon could not have his case investigated. He therefore believed that the law should be changed. As a result, we have this Bill before us.
  All that is clear. We are being asked today to consider this matter as a minor drafting Bill. Nobody, however, has gone back to the original case and I am concerned that we are now dealing with matters that happened a long time ago. We are not sitting in a jury at that trial; we cannot see witnesses and judge their evidence. Is it right, therefore, for us to form a judgment? You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may say that we do not have to form a judgment—
  Mr. Mullin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we supposed to be making a judgment on the Iain Hay Gordon case? That is what the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) appears to be inviting us to do. Will you invite him to return to the subject of the debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already ruled that the debate should be narrow and tied to Third Reading. On the summary notes that I received, the case of Mr. Iain Hay Gordon was mentioned, so I do not mind the case being mentioned, but it should not be discussed at length.
  Mr. Leigh: I was deliberately pointing out that we are not equipped to discuss whether Mr. Hay Gordon was innocent or guilty. I was trying to draw the House's attention to a point that is central to the Bill. The jury heard all the evidence and came to the carefully considered view that the defendant was guilty of the offence, but was insane. We must convince ourselves that that is no different from finding a verdict that he was not guilty by reason of insanity.
  That raises some interesting issues. Surely the whole point of the insanity defence is that the defendant is incapable of mens rea. He is incapable of having a guilty mind. Therefore, if his counsel comes to court and pleads that he is insane, the jury does not have to consider in detail whether he was guilty of the offence, because that is irrelevant. He was incapable of having a guilty mind, and all criminal offences—not civil offences—involve the concept of a guilty mind. Once the counsel convinces the judge that the defendant is insane, that is the end of the proceedings.

  1495
  Perhaps Parliament, in its wisdom in 1883, when it devised the original concept of guilty but insane, had before it a third way: the jury could conclude that the defendant had committed the offence—in this case, he had stabbed a young woman about 37 times—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House does not have the authority to re-try a case, especially this morning. We are simply allowing the proper judicial services to do so. We cannot, therefore, concentrate on whether the person in question carried out the acts to which the hon. Gentleman refers. That is for someone else to do.
  Mr. Leigh: I was saying that by way of illustration, because I am trying to develop the concept of exactly what Parliament had in mind in 1883 when it introduced the original legislation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What Parliament had in its mind in 1883 I would not know. What I do know is that we are supposed to be discussing the Third Reading of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman probably heard me rule that we must keep to the narrow content of the Bill. We cannot extend the argument beyond that.
  Mr. Leigh: I shall stop dealing with the facts surrounding the 1953 case. I simply suggest that, given all the arguments about the dangers inherent in Parliament introducing retrospective legislation, we should not instantly conclude that we are discussing a mere drafting error. We should conclude that what happened all those years ago was—possibly, we have no idea—in accordance with the facts as the jury understood them. Now, in introducing retrospective legislation, we are reversing the finding of that jury, which had good reason for acting as it did. So long as Parliament is aware of that, that is all right. We must be aware that it is a major step.
  Some inflammatory articles have been written in The Guardian and The Scotsman. What has not been pointed out, however, is that the articles were based on the fact that Mr. Hay Gordon was innocent and that, therefore, his family and the judge must have been engaged in a cover-up. That is an appalling smear on the judge, who, presumably, is long since dead. The publicity surrounding this case has been most unfortunate. I wish that, when people promote this sort of legislation—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not like to keep intervening on the hon. Gentleman, but he is making it difficult for me. The Bill does not mention the publicity surrounding the Hay Gordon case, so the hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the matter. This is supposed to be a Third Reading debate.
  Mr. Leigh: I knew when I made that point that I was straying, but I wanted to get it off my chest because I felt so strongly about it.
  Having read very carefully this short Bill and the literature surrounding it, my clear conclusion is that it should become law, because there is a real possibility that an injustice was done all those years ago. It is clear from what their lordships said—they know more about it than we do—that there is no other way of righting the wrong.
  1496
  However, Parliament should be aware that it might be a unique piece of legislation and that there may be perfectly cogent reasons why the jury acted as it did.
  We may be introducing retrospective legislation changing the verdict in a single case. That may not matter too much, because we will not make the final decision. We will simply enact the Bill, and the Criminal Cases Review Commission will be able to range widely over all the issues in a way that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have rightly ruled out of order for us today. We must now pass the heavy burden of reopening such old questions, and we should be fully aware of the wide-ranging nature of what we are doing.
  11.21 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) for his stewardship of the Bill, and I pay tribute to Lord Ackner, who introduced it in the other place, and to Lord Portsmouth, who has long been active in promoting the change that it will accomplish.
  I am grateful, too, for the contributions that we have heard this morning. Even though it is a Friday and we have a large number of Bills to get through, we should remember that the Bill had no Second Reading debate in the House, so there are genuine concerns to be dealt with. I hope that the debate has been useful and that we can alleviate any lingering fears.
  The Trial of Lunatics Act 1883 introduced a special verdict that the accused was guilty of the act charged against him, but was insane when he did that act. That verdict is known as guilty but insane. Since 1914, the courts have held that the verdict is technically an acquittal, and thus that there is no right of appeal against it. The Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1961 replaced the special verdict with a finding of not guilty on the ground of insanity.
  For England and Wales, the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 amended the 1883 Act so that the special verdict became one of not guilty by reason of insanity. In effect, guilty but insane was merely renamed, with the important addition that a right of appeal was introduced against the new finding and verdict; but that was not applied retrospectively to verdicts of guilty but insane.
  Mr. Leigh: Is it the Minister's understanding that when a jury returns a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, it is saying that the defendant is guilty of carrying out the offence but was insane at the time, or is it refusing to come to a conclusion about whether the defendant is guilty, because it does not matter as he was insane?
  Kate Hoey: The crucial thing about the 1964 Act is that it introduced a right of appeal. The Bill is intended to ensure that people who were subject to the verdict before 1964—the one that linked insanity and guilt—can appeal.
  The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland were given a power to refer the new verdict and finding, but not the old verdict of guilty but insane, back to the Court of Appeal. Under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, enacted by the previous Government, that power was transferred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission without alteration.

  1497
  The opportunity to make the change that we are now making should really have been taken in 1995. I criticise no one for that. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) was a Home Office Minister at the time, but he was not personally responsible for the matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South was involved in setting up the commission. We did not take the opportunity simply because no one thought of it. That is why we are trying to enact the Bill now.
  Mr. Leigh: With respect, the Minister has not answered my question. I fully understand that if one is found not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty but insane one should have the right of appeal. We are all agreed on that. My question is whether it is the Government's view that the two verdicts are exactly equivalent.
  Kate Hoey: I hope that I can help the hon. Gentleman. Precisely the same facts must be found for guilty but insane as for not guilty by reason of insanity.
  Mr. Brady: If a verdict of guilty but insane is referred to appeal, could the insane element alone be struck out, leaving the guilty element, or would both parts necessarily be struck out? If an appeal is against not guilty by reason of insanity and the insanity element is struck out, the not guilty element remains. There seems to be a real difference.
  Kate Hoey: I am not a lawyer, thank goodness. The Bill is not about such technicalities. If I am advised of a definitive response to the hon. Gentleman's question, I will let him know today. Otherwise, I shall have to write to him.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said, Mr. Iain Hay Gordon was found guilty but insane in Northern Ireland in 1953 of the murder of 19-year-old Patricia Curran, the daughter of a senior High Court judge. I was a little girl at the time and that terrible murder took place only a few miles from my family home. I remember the enormous amount of publicity and talk, and there was always something unsatisfactory about the case.
  Mr. Hay Gordon was committed to a hospital, where he remained until his discharge into the care of his parents in Scotland in 1960. After the trial, a campaign to clear his name began. At the beginning of 1998, an application was made to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. In June 1998, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland ruled that the 1995 Act did not allow the commission to refer the verdict of guilty but insane. Of course, its reasoning would have led to the same conclusion in respect of a verdict returned in England or Wales.
  It is precisely because the CCRC had to do some work on the case so as to refer it to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal that the commission already knew something about it. Hon. Members are right to say that the CCRC chooses its priorities for dealing with cases, but, as Mr. Iain Hay Gordon's Member of Parliament has
  1498
  pointed out, presumably the commission will consider the case and reflect on it in the light of its history and special circumstances.
  Miss McIntosh: The point that concerns me under the Bill is that it does not clarify sufficiently what level of proof and evidence has to be brought on the particular point that the Minister has raised.
  Kate Hoey: I did not quite grasp what the hon. Lady was asking. Will she repeat it?
  Miss McIntosh: If I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to elaborate on this matter at greater length, but the Bill clearly talks about what should happen if the accused was insane at the time. Under clause 1(2)(a), the CCRC can refer a case
  "because of an argument, or evidence, not raised in the proceedings which led to the verdict".
  Has the Minister had time to consider what level of evidence and proof the commission and the Court of Appeal would consider sufficient to review the case—either this case or any other?
  Kate Hoey rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, again, we are going wide of the subject and extending the case being put before us on Third Reading. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister did talk about such matters, but sometimes the Deputy Speaker gives a Minister some leeway, in order to assist the House. Can we now return to the Third Reading debate?
  Kate Hoey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What the hon. Lady asked about is a matter for the CCRC. I suggest that she visits the commission, which will give her a full explanation of how it goes about its difficult job.
  In the previous Session of Parliament, Lord Ackner introduced a Bill intended to amend the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, to enable the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer a verdict of guilty but insane to the Court of Appeal, and to give the court powers to hear and dispose of an appeal on such a reference. That Bill was unable to complete its parliamentary passage, but on its Second Reading on 29 July last year, the Government made it clear that we fully supported its intention.
  In this Session, Lord Ackner has introduced the present Bill, which has the same aim as the earlier one. It had its Second Reading in another place on 23 March, and was welcomed on both sides of the Chamber. No amendments were tabled, and no peer wished to speak during the Committee stage, so the order of commitment was discharged on 13 April. The Bill had its Third Reading, without debate, on 22 April. Its Second Reading and Committee stage in the House of Commons went through on the nod on 14 May. That is why, as I have already said, some hon. Members wanted to say something on Third Reading.
  The Government accept that there is a gap in the law, which the Bill would fill. It is important for the maintenance of confidence in our system of justice—and important, above all, to individuals who believe that an injustice has been done to them—that there should be a means by which verdicts of the courts can be reviewed.

  1499
  At present, someone against whom the verdict of guilty but insane has been returned has no avenue of appeal. That is the problem for Mr. Iain Hay Gordon. Although that verdict has been replaced, by today's standards the lack of an appeal right is an injustice—no less so for being a long-standing one. It seems particularly unjust when we remember that there is a right of appeal against the finding or verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
  It is always difficult to give exact numbers, but it seems that there is only one other such case besides that of Mr. Iain Hay Gordon, and there are not likely to be more. Moreover, there is no definite evidence that if the Bill is read for the Third time, the person concerned will use the change in the law to appeal. We are certainly not opening a floodgate.
  I understand that if the Bill becomes law, the Criminal Cases Review Commission will carefully consider where Mr. Hay Gordon's case fits into the range of cases with which it is dealing. It may decide to give that case priority, or it may not; I am sure that its staff will read carefully what has been said in the House.
  Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Lady accept that the number of cases to which the Bill may give rise is immaterial? If justice requires that a remedy be provided, even for only one case, is that not sufficient to merit the change in the law?
  Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That would be my view, and, I think, that of all hon. Members. If the law needs to be changed to prevent one case of injustice, that is worthy of a change in the law. The hon. Gentleman may have missed the fact that earlier this morning there were some discussions about the CCRC's resources. I shall not talk about that now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, apart from saying that we increased those resources by 15 per cent. this year, and there are now more workers in the commission. However, this case will not make a huge difference to the CCRC's work load or the resources that it will need.
  I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South in the Home Affairs Committee, which recommended in its March report on the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission that a fair passage should be given to this uncontroversial measure. The Government have sought to facilitate that, as have hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have had some correspondence with the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, who has been helpful throughout. My officials kept closely in touch with Lord Ackner about the present Bill, and the Government are satisfied that it is properly drafted to achieve its objective and correct the long-standing anomaly.
  I commend the Bill to the House as a useful and uncontroversial measure that has the Government's full support.
  11.38 am
  Mr. David Lidington: When the Bill was debated in another place, my noble friend Viscount Bridgeman said that the Opposition would welcome and support it, and I am pleased to repeat that welcome and that support for the Bill today. As my hon. Friend the
  1500
  Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said earlier, even if the Bill were designed simply to provide justice for one citizen of our country, that would be justification enough for it.
  However, the case of Mr. Hay Gordon has done more than reveal a potential injustice to one man; it has drawn attention to a gap in the law, and to the existence of a category of people who, through legislative oversight, are denied the right of appeal that we would consider just and necessary for any citizen convicted of a criminal offence.
  As the Minister said, the difficulties can be traced back to the interpretation placed on the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883 by the House of Lords, which in 1914 ruled that a person found guilty but insane was deemed by the courts to have been acquitted, because the person lacked the guilty mind required for him to be convicted of an offence.
  As the verdict of guilty but insane was equivalent to acquittal, it followed that there could be no right of appeal, as in law there was no guilt. That gave rise to the crazy situation in which a man could have been labelled both guilty and insane by a court of law, but have no right of appeal, whatever new evidence or legal challenge might in other circumstances have been available to him.
  In the 1960s, as the Minister said, Parliament decided to abolish the verdict of guilty but insane and to substitute the verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. At the same time, it introduced a right of appeal against such a verdict.
  Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend described the situation as crazy, but perhaps it is not so crazy. Did not the Court of Appeal determination mean that the original verdict in effect found the accused to be not guilty, as he could not possibly have had the mens rea—the guilty mind—to commit the offence? Therefore, does not my hon. Friend agree that the jury and judge involved did not come to a determination about whether the person had committed an offence? No one has addressed that point adequately so far.
  Mr. Lidington: It is not for me to inquire today into the state of mind of the House of Lords in 1914. However, it is plainly wrong and unjust in terms of common sense and natural justice for any British citizen in the position of Mr. Hay Gordon—that is, suffering the stigmas of guilt and insanity attached by the public verdict of a court—to be denied any form of redress or appeal. Dickens described the law as "a ass—a idiot", and this provision needs to be amended.
  The Criminal Appeal Act 1995, which set up the Criminal Cases Review Commission, provided that any reference by the commission to the Court of Appeal should be treated as an appeal against a verdict. Because the 1914 House of Lords decision meant that there was no right of appeal against a verdict of guilty but insane, it followed that there could be no reference of such cases by the commission to the Court of Appeal.
  That principle was felt to be sufficiently uncertain that Mr. Hay Gordon tested it in the courts. Legislation was discovered to be the only available resort when the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland held, in its judgment of 30 June 1998, that the 1995 Act did not allow the commission to make any reference to the Court of Appeal in such circumstances. I am satisfied that that finding

  1501
  demonstrated that there is a gap in the law and that justice is being denied. For those reasons the Opposition are happy to support the Bill.
  11.43 am
  Mr. Peter Brooke: I shall be extremely brief. I immediately declare an interest, in that I have a long-standing friendship with Sir Frederick Crawford, the chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, whom I have known for almost as long as Mr. Iain Hay Gordon has been seeking to have his case re-examined. I thought that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) paid Sir Frederick a very handsome compliment, given the earlier controversy that surrounded him.
  The second interest that I declare is that my father was Home Secretary at the time of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, which is where the possible drafting problem can be found.
  As is recognised throughout the House, the Bill is driven by the case of Mr. Iain Hay Gordon, who has been a constituent of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) for as long as she has represented that constituency. I wish to add a brief but poignant footnote to the case.
  My advancing years mean that my memory is becoming increasingly unreliable, but I remain convinced that I, too, had a constituent called Mr. Iain Hay Gordon. I am seeking to verify that, and it is of course possible that the man whom I recall bore the same name as the constituent of the hon. Member for Maryhill by total chance. I shall not go into the details of my former constituent's case, although I well recall it, and he is certainly no longer my constituent. However, as I know who his landlord was, I shall pursue the matter to resolve my curiosity, and the hon. Lady has kindly told me that she will send me a copy of her constituent's correspondence. The man whom I remember had pellucidly clear handwriting, which I would recognise instantly.
  I say that my footnote is poignant because the constituent about whom I have spoken never raised with me the issue underlying the Bill. If he had, it would have immediately struck a chord with me, because of my father's role in 1964. If by any chance this is not a coincidence of name, it is a sad irony that he did not raise the matter with me.
  However, whether or not I was ever the Member of Parliament representing the Iain Hay Gordon who is now the constituent of the hon. Member for Maryhill, I totally support the principle of the Bill. I hope that Mr. Iain Hay Gordon's disability can now be put right.
  11.46 am
  Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to lend my support to the Bill. Although I was charmed by the Minister's invitation to visit the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the hon. Lady ought to know that, at the end of April, there were 1,176 cases awaiting review, and 444 under active review, so I doubt whether the commission would welcome fact-finding visits from Back Benchers. Our aim today is to fill a loophole in the law and to expedite the correction of miscarriages of justice.
  1502
  It is ironic that we should be considering a case involving a Scot, now living in Scotland, who it is alleged committed an offence in Northern Ireland for which he was subsequently convicted. The provision that the Bill will correct covers Northern Ireland but not, happily, Scotland. Perhaps the moral is that we would not be here today had the offence been committed in Scotland.
  A couple of specific points are neither covered by the Bill nor clarified in the explanatory notes. The verdict commonly referred to as guilty but insane under section 3 of the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883 invites a question that I have tried to pursue with the Minister today and which I shall take up again in writing.
  The question of whether the accused was permanently insane or only temporarily so has always been left open, as has the bearing on the case of the accused's state of insanity when the offence was committed. I hope that the Minister will clarify in writing whether clause 1(2)(a) refers to evidence that was not raised in proceedings but which led to the verdict. Such clarification would be welcome, and would mean that the courts would not have to spend time considering the matter.
  The Bill enables the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer to the Court of Appeal a verdict of guilty but insane reached under the 1883 Act. I query whether the Bill should have set out the degree of proof required by the Court of Appeal in cases referred to it by the commission.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) has expressed her concerns about the case of Mr. Iain Hay Gordon. I wish to enter a note of caution. Even though the Bill will receive its Third Reading today, there will still be no quick fix for people in Mr. Hay Gordon's position. The commission faces a huge backlog of cases, as I have described. The problem that we face, even in giving the Bill a Third Reading, is that, in such circumstances, Mr. Gordon and other such constituents will not have their names cleared as rapidly as they would like.
  A press release of the Criminal Cases Review Commission of 15 December 1998 informed the Home Affairs Committee that there was at that time a two-year wait for the review of applicants' cases. It is most poignant that Iain Hay Gordon's case will not be expedited. I therefore make a plea to the Minister in that regard.
  I record my regret that Mr. Gordon will still have two important hurdles to overcome. First, the case will have to be reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Perhaps a subsequent private Member's Bill could facilitate the expedition of cases awaiting review. Secondly, if such a review is successful, Mr. Gordon's case will be referred to the Court of Appeal. None the less, I lend the Bill my support on Third Reading.
  11.50 am
  Mr. Graham Brady: I support the Bill, but will raise one or two concerns about it. I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). I record the thanks that the House should give not only to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who is the promoter of the Bill, but to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who rightly reminded the House of the inadequacy of our procedures for considering such business.

  1503
  That point was highlighted by my intervention on the Minister. I noted that the hon. Lady was passed a piece of information, and hoped to receive a substantive response to my point, but I waited in vain. She kindly offered to write to me on the matter, but to receive a letter of assurance or clarification after we have completed our consideration of the Bill would be rather inadequate. I shall therefore return to one or two points that concern me.
  I have listened to the points made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, particularly those who have some legal training. It occurs to me that this is precisely the kind of debate to which the newly elected Member for Eddisbury might turn his legally trained mind in the very near future—he cannot quite yet contribute to the debate.
  I note in passing that in Eddisbury just two days ago, I saw the wonderful spectacle of three Labour Members on one poor gentleman's doorstep, which reminded me of old jokes about psychotherapists changing light bulbs. I do not know how many Labour Members it takes to lose a by-election.
  I am entirely happy with the purpose and thrust of the Bill because it will be permissive legislation in the best possible sense. It will allow the process of justice to move forward, which must surely be a good thing. However, because we have not had an opportunity properly to debate the Bill's effects, I have some remaining concerns. The Bill may allow the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Court of Appeal to improve matters by removing the stigma of insanity, but surely that same stigma is attached to the verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
  That brings me to the point that I raised with the Minister. There are two separate elements to both verdicts and therefore two findings. One is that the person is not guilty and the other is a matter of the reason why, which implies insanity or incapacity on the part of the individual concerned. That may be an issue in the later type of verdict—not guilty by reason of insanity—following the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, but it is vital to those who have been found guilty but insane.
  If the cases of such people—there may be one or more than one, we do not know—are referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, what remains if the verdict of guilty but insane is struck down? Is it to be presumed that the person is simply not guilty, or would the court merely be saying that the verdict of guilty but insane was wrong? Despite the court taking the view that the person was not insane, the possibility that the person was guilty remains. Conversely, the court could remove the finding that a person was guilty but leave the question of insanity. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
  Kate Hoey: May I clarify the matter? As the explanatory notes state, there is no difference between the verdicts. If a case goes to the Court of Appeal in either of the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, it is up to the Court of Appeal to decide whether the person is guilty or not guilty.
  Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Minister, but my concern remains. The Court of Appeal can decide whether
  1504
  the person is guilty or not guilty, but can it decide whether the person is insane or not insane? There is no provision or clarity in the Bill about what is left following the Court of Appeal's addressing of the case. It may throw out one verdict, but does that clear the name of the individual? It may be entirely appropriate in some cases totally to exonerate an individual, but in others it may be appropriate to allow one part of the verdict to remain.
  Such a sticking point will not stand in our way in making the Bill law, but to conclude on the thought with which I began, it points to the woeful inadequacy of the ability of the House to scrutinise such matters. It is not acceptable that such an important detail—it may be just a detail—in the criminal law should be dealt with in a very brief Friday morning debate in which we have had very little opportunity properly to scrutinise the implications of what is proposed.
  11.57 am
  Mr. David Maclean: I shall take two or three minutes, if I may, to make some remarks about the Bill, as I have been kindly mentioned by several speakers, including the Minister. I had made notes for a much longer speech, but most of the comments that can be made on the law have been made by other Conservative Members and I merely wish to make a couple of quick observations.
  We had no debate on Second Reading, partly because some of my hon. Friends were persuaded that in order to deal with this urgent problem—an important issue of the human rights of another human being—we should allow the Bill to pass into Committee, after which we could discuss it here on Third Reading. That goes against all my principles of not allowing a measure to receive a Second Reading on the nod, without proper scrutiny. I apologise to my hon. Friends who rightly complained this morning that they could not participate in a Second Reading debate and that they would have liked to discuss some points in Committee, but if we had insisted on a Second Reading debate the Bill would have been killed, and would not now be before the House.
  I am grateful to the Minister and to Lord Williams of Mostyn—an elegant and sincere man. It is wonderful to think that there can be life peers with all the status, breeding and tact of the hereditary peers. Lord Williams of Mostyn was kind enough to invite me and some of my right hon. Friends to the Home Office to explain the purposes of the Bill. I have concluded that, although I may have some worries, it was best to let the Bill proceed so that we might hold this Third Reading debate.
  I appreciate that you must uphold the rules of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but some of my hon. Friends who went slightly wide of the tight restrictions on speaking on the Iain Hay Gordon Bill did so in order to cover issues that they could not have covered in debates on other matters.
  I welcome the measure, even though there are concerns that it is retrospective, going back, as it does, more than 40 years. There are precedents for retrospective legislation, but the Bill also deals with a single case. There are a few examples of legislation dealing with hard cases, but often they cover a category wider than one person. Those points were discussed in more detail by my colleagues.
  Is it appropriate for the House of Commons to pass this legislation in a minute's time, when it will not be able to go to another place for further consideration, in order to

  1505
  deal with one person who is no longer in prison, whose case was heard 40 years ago? I have concluded that in this case it is appropriate; the interests of that human being and the interests of justice suggest that. I therefore have pleasure in supporting the Bill.
  12 noon
  Mr. Mullin: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  There is no reason for me to dwell on the subject. We have had quite a good debate. The point at issue is narrow and I have not detected outright opposition to the Bill from anyone who has spoken. I thought that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) summarised the position perfectly well.
  I shall not respond to all the arguments made by hon. Members, as I suspect that some were motivated more by an interest in mink farming than by an interest in the Criminal Cases Review Commission or the Iain Hay Gordon case. [Interruption.] I do not want to wind up Conservative Members, so I shall not make anything of that point.
  The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said that the Bill was about a single case. That is not quite true. It is about a category of cases of which there are only, as far as I know, two known examples, of which by far the most prominent is that of Mr. Iain Hay Gordon.
  The Bill has hardly any implications for resources. There is no need to become bogged down in the Iain Hay Gordon case, because the commission, not Parliament, will decide whether to refer the case back, and it is for the commission to decide what priority to give it, although in my view the circumstances are so exceptional that it should be dealt with as swiftly as possible. The commission has probably also reached that view.
  Even assuming that the commission refers the case back to the Court of Appeal, Mr. Hay Gordon has another fairly high hurdle to surmount, which is to persuade the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal to quash the conviction. I shall watch carefully how the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal deals with the case. That court has a reputation for being—I put it generously—rather conservative in this area. It is perhaps under old management—unlike the British Court of Appeal, which, over the years, has suffered a few serious shocks which have caused it to look with a slightly more open mind at some of the cases coming before it. I hope that that process is now finding its way over to Northern Ireland and that Mr. Iain Hay Gordon will benefit.
  As I detect no real opposition to the Bill, it remains for me to commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
  New Clause 1

    REPORT TO MENTAL WELFARE COMMISSION
    '(1) Where the managers of a hospital exercise their powers under subsection (3A) of section 94 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, they shall submit regular reports in writing to the Mental Welfare Commission about the discharge of the powers under that section.
    (2) A report under subsection (1) shall be submitted no later than 18 months after the discharge from hospital of the patient concerned, and thereafter on an annual basis, until such time as either—

    (a) the patient is considered by the medical officer in charge of his case to be capable of adequately managing and administering his property and affairs; or

    (b) a curator bonis is appointed in respect of that person.

    (3) Any report submitted under subsection (1) above shall be made available on application to any person who, in the judgement of the Mental Welfare Commission, has a legitimate interest in its contents.'.—[Mr. Forth.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    12.3 pm
    Mr. Eric Forth: 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: New clause 4—Right of appeal—
    '( ) Any person shall have the right to appeal to the Mental Welfare Commission against—

    (a) the holding by the managers of a hospital of money and valuables on behalf of a person under section 93(3A) of the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1984; or

    (b) the expenditure of money or disposal of valuables in pursuance of section 93(3) of that Act.

    (2) Where the Commission upholds the grounds of such an appeal, it shall determine what recompense shall be payable by the hospital to the patient concerned.'.
    Amendment No. 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, after `may', insert
    ', for a period not exceeding five years following the discharge of the patient,'.
    Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
    '( ) The managers of a hospital may exercise their powers under this section until such time as either—

    (a) the patient is considered by the medical officer in charge of his case to be capable of adequately managing and administering his property and affairs; or

    (b) a curator bonis is appointed in respect of that person.

    ( ) Any person may at any time request that the patient's ability to manage and administer his property and affairs be reviewed by the medical officer in charge of the case.'.
    Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
    '(3C) For the purposes of subsections (3A) and (3B) of this section—

    (a) "money" shall include bank notes and coins and sums deposited in a bank or building society account;

    1507

    (b) "other financial assets and investments" shall include stocks, shares, Government bonds, personal equity plans, tax exempt special savings Accounts, individual savings accounts, unit trusts, corporate bonds, pension funds and life assurance;

    (c). "money", "other financial assets and investments" and "valuables" shall include sums and items inherited by the patient when resident in hospital or subsequent to discharge from hospital.'.

    Mr. Forth: We have now arrived at a crucial stage in the consideration of the Bill, which has indeed been through its process. It received a Second Reading, and the Committee, on which I had the honour of serving, considered the Bill briefly. In Committee, one or two questions arose, to which I believe that the House will want to return, so as to satisfy itself. I hope that it will be accepted that the new clauses and amendments are a genuine attempt to improve the Bill, to ensure that it takes a balanced approach to the problem that everyone accepts exists.
    By good fortune—or, more probably, good organization—I received in my mail this morning, from the Law Society of Scotland no less, a letter referring to the Bill. It says that the Law Society of Scotland supports the Bill. It then very eloquently describes the purposes of the Bill.
    The letter states:
    "This Bill seeks to amend Section 94 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, which enables managers of a hospital to receive and hold money and valuables on behalf of incapable patients who are detained in hospital or are receiving treatment there. Section 94 does not permit the managers to release the funds to the patient or anyone else when the patient ceases to receive treatment in the hospital and returns to live in the community. Where there is no curator or other person legally authorised to receive money on behalf of the patient, the funds become trapped and patients are prevented from getting access to their own resources."
    The letter continues:
    "The Bill will attempt to resolve this specific problem by allowing the managers of hospitals to continue to hold monies and valuables which they are holding at the time of the patient's discharge, and empower them to spend money or dispose of the valuables for the benefit of the patient in terms of Section 94, even though the patient is no longer detained in hospital…The Society supports the Bill and recognises that it will solve a problem which is affecting a substantial number of former hospital residents in Scotland. The Bill is of great importance to vulnerable persons in Scotland."
    The society urges me to give it my support.
    I read out the letter because I think that it states elegantly the purpose behind the Bill and the background to it, and because it lends the distinguished support of the Law Society of Scotland to the purposes of the Bill. So far, so good. The objectives behind the Bill are clear and at one level we can have little or no argument with them. However, I believe that the Bill raises a number of important questions and issues, with which the new clauses and amendments are designed to deal.
    The hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) is managing the Bill on behalf of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke). We all wish the hon. Gentleman a speedy recovery. We hope to see him back in the House very soon. We hope also that the way in which we deal with the Bill will give him even more reason to feel better and to return. I hope that the hon. Lady and the Minister have given serious consideration to the new clauses and amendments. They are designed to improve the Bill in some important ways.
    1508
    First, I seek to improve the Bill in the area of accountability. As soon as we start to talk about a vulnerable section of society—people who are by definition incapable in one way or another—and about someone else having responsibility and control over the assets of the incapable person, we are raising important issues of accountability and of possible appeal.
    I would have thought that the purpose behind new clause 1 is almost self-evident. It states:
    "Where the managers of a hospital exercise their powers…they shall submit regular reports in writing to the Mental Welfare Commission about the discharge of the powers under that section."
    Surely that is unarguable and almost self-evident. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and I want to ensure and guarantee as far as we can that there can be no possibility of mishap, malfeasance or whatever in the handling of moneys of a vulnerable person by somebody else.
    I do not suggest that that is likely or probable. The very people to whom existing legislation and the Bill would give responsibility are those who are for the most part dedicated to their task of dealing with vulnerable people. That is not to say that we should ignore our responsibility to provide as many safeguards as possible for the discharge of that important responsibility.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: At least part of the value of the new clause is that it will give a measure of reassurance to relatives who suspect that things may not have been done as well as they might have been.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an important matter that should not be treated lightly. Although I shall concentrate on the relationship between the patient and the hospital, my hon. Friend is right to point out that those close to the patient are often the most worried. We have a responsibility to them as well. They have seen their nearest and dearest in unfortunate circumstances, and they—the relatives and friends—want the maximum reassurance that all is as it should be.
    I therefore suggest in new clause 1 that the submission of regular reports in writing about the discharge of that responsibility is the least that we can expect. It is a minimum provision on which we can build, and on which I shall build as I argue for my various new clauses and amendments.
    New clause 1 goes on to state, importantly, that any report
    "shall be submitted no later than 18 months after the discharge from hospital of the patient concerned, and thereafter on an annual basis".
    In other words, we want to make sure that reports are issued not too frequently, but sufficiently frequently to give reassurance and to allow a proper basis of accountability in the discharge of an important responsibility, until the patient is considered able to manage his or her affairs, or until a curator bonis is appointed, and the responsibility passes on from the person specified under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, which we seek to amend, and moves out of the purview of this legislation.
    New clause 1 is a minimum requirement, so I shall not dwell on it. New clause 4 raises an issue of more fundamental importance, which I hope that the

    1509
    hon. Member for Paisley, North and the Minister will want to deal with appropriately—the right of any person to appeal to the Mental Welfare Commission against
    "the holding by the managers of a hospital of money and valuables"
    on behalf of the incapable person, or
    "the expenditure of money or disposal of valuables"
    in pursuance of section 93(3) of the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1984.
    That is a basic mechanism which it is essential to build in to give proper reassurance to the most vulnerable that they have a right to appeal if they or, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) suggested, their relatives or friends felt that anything being done was in any way wrong.
    I doubt whether there would ever be outright theft or misuse of the money or valuables, but let us suppose that it was considered that moneys were being unwisely invested and that a sufficient rate of return was not being obtained. I shall return to that later, in the context of later amendments.
    The right to appeal if someone feels that his assets are not being properly managed to his maximum benefit is unarguable. We are keenly sensitive to the needs of vulnerable groups and put in place all sorts of mechanisms to protect them. I am in danger now of arguing against myself, but I sometimes feel that we do too much in that direction. That is my view with regard to people who are able-bodied and in full possession of their faculties. They should largely be able to fend for themselves, but in the present case, we are dealing with a vulnerable group.
    Such people may not have friends and relatives to help them. They may be on their own, as I suspect all too many of them are, and for that reason they are doubly or trebly vulnerable.
    12.15 pm
    In that context, the right to appeal is surely important.
    Subsection (2) says that where the Mental Welfare Commission upholds the grounds of such an appeal, it shall
    "determine what recompense shall be payable by the hospital to the patient concerned."
    That is an important issue. We are saying not only that there should be accountability for the discharge of that important responsibility—and that there should be a right to appeal—but that where it is established that some damage has been done to the interests of the incapable person, there must be a provision for recompense.
    All too often, a vulnerable person entrusts—or has had entrusted to someone else—his money or assets, and when something goes wrong, is left wondering why he has no ability to recover what has been lost. There should be the ability to provide recompense on such an occasion, although I am sure that such cases will be the exception rather than the rule.
    An interesting presumption underlies the Bill—that someone in management in a hospital, whose main skill is in dealing with people's mental and physical welfare, is equally capable of dealing with financial affairs. I am not sure that that is self-evidently the case, and we may wish to air that matter again on Third Reading.
    I am prepared to accept that a hospital manager would not in every case personally discharge responsibility, and that he may delegate it to someone else. However,
    1510
    that raises other implications. If the institution is a relatively small one and does not have a large bureaucracy or a large number of people available, the manager might have to take the responsibility on personally. I do not know. However, some important questions are starting to arise on the detailed application of a simple and straightforward principle.
    The Law Society of Scotland—bless it—was kind enough to write to me to say that the Bill was splendid, much overdue and desperately wanted in Scotland. I have no doubts about that. However, I wonder whether the Law Society looked in detail at the Bill. I received the letter only this morning, just before I came into the Chamber, and I have not had the chance to discuss with the Law Society whether it feels that the new clauses and amendments add to the Bill. That might have been a valuable contribution to the debate. Perhaps there is some way in which the Law Society could let us know before the end of this short debate, and before we speed the Bill on its way—amended by my new clauses and amendments, I trust.
    Amendment No. 2 tries to impose a reasonable time limit on the processes of the Bill. I concede immediately that, in this context, there are pluses and minuses in imposing arbitrary time limits. My purpose is to try to provide a framework within which the mechanism can work so that it can be subject to periodic review. I propose a period of five years. Some might feel that to be too long, but there should be a measure to provide a time frame for the operation of the Bill.
    Mr. David Maclean: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the argument for a time frame is supported by the Scottish Association for Mental Health? Admittedly, it favours a much shorter period than that which we have specified, but it considers the absence of a time limit to be a small but significant gap.
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend's point shows that, even though the Bill was debated in the Chamber on Second Reading and in Committee, legitimately interested parties such as the one to which he refers and the Law Society of Scotland are coming forward at this stage in proceedings to make such points. Our amendments are an attempt to respond to some of them. No doubt my right hon. Friend will make his own justification of them, should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Suffice to say that the point made by my right hon. Friend, for which I am grateful, shows that people outside the House who watch the progress of Bills take the opportunity at each stage—particularly in Committee and on Report—to give Members of the House the benefit of their experience so that amendments may be drawn up. That is the essence of the legislative process and that example has certainly shown the value of it. I am grateful to him for reinforcing the argument for our modest amendment, and I hope that we will not fall out over the time scale. All I want to establish is that there is good reason for specifying a time limit rather than not having one.
    Mr. Peter Luff: My right hon. Friend says that the legislative process provides the opportunity for outside bodies to make representations. Has he received any about the time scale he suggests?

    1511
    Five years seems to be a rather arbitrary figure. I am persuaded by his argument in principle, but where has that magic figure come from?
    Mr. Forth: As ever, that is a most reasonable question and one with which we wrestle frequently in these contexts. Any time scale is, of necessity, arbitrary; it comes down to a matter of judgment. Our judgment is that five years is about right.
    I have not received the representation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has received, but I have received a letter from the Law Society of Scotland, which he has not received. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) has received such a letter.
    Mr. Luff indicated dissent.
    Mr. Forth: I make no complaint about it, but a series of representations on different points have come in to us, which has enabled us to seek to improve the Bill. That is as it should be. To finish my inadequate answer to his point, I confess that five years is an arbitrary figure. Although our judgment is that that figure is appropriate to what we were seeking to achieve, I would not say that it is the final answer. However, it provides a time context.
    Mr. Maclean: I merely wish to answer the point that my right hon. Friend has raised. I have not received such a letter—not because one has not been sent, but because I have been tardy in collecting my mail this morning—and I did not receive a letter from the Scottish Association for Mental Health. I suggest that, for the millennium, he connect his computer to the internet and then surf cyberspace; he will find all the representations there, as I did.
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend well knows that vile expressions such as "cyberspace" are alien to me. I have never yet surfed the internet and I hope to survive for some considerable time without surfing it. I know that, for him, the internet is the source of a considerable amount of information, and I wish him well in that, but I prefer my mind to remain relatively uncluttered in these matters. I also prefer to receive my information from the written word on the page. I am old-fashioned that way and I find it reassuring to hold a document in my hand, as I am now—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. None of those matters have anything to do with the new clause.
    Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am making the mistake of being led astray by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin rose—
    Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend is not about to do the same.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Can my right hon. Friend assist me? The Bill applies only to Scotland. This is the United
    1512
    Kingdom Parliament and, although these matters may now be for consideration by the Scottish Parliament, can he explain the position in respect of England? We need to know that all citizens of the United Kingdom are being treated equally.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We will worry about the amendment that is being discussed.
    Mr. Forth: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and it must be said, in fairness, that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity, within the rules of order, to explore that point later. Indeed, I hope to do so myself, but I will not be misled at this stage.
    Mr. Swayne rose—
    Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend is not going to try to mislead me.
    Mr. Swayne: No; I want to refer precisely to the amendment, and the arbitrary choice of five years. What does my right hon. Friend propose should happen at the end of that period? He should remember that the Bill is designed to remedy the weakness whereby, at present, a person must engage in an expensive process in order to obtain control of the funds. By introducing a five-year limit, my right hon. Friend may undermine the Bill's purpose.
    Mr. Forth: I hope not. I am not going to disagree violently with my hon. Friend; I merely say that our aim was to introduce a long stop, as it were, forcing the matter to be reviewed after five years. That is why we chose a longer rather than a shorter period. I accept that any measure of this kind is fraught with certain difficulties: I do not dissent from that at all. The amendment was intended to provide a beneficial long stop.
    Mr. Swayne: I have another question, which refers specifically to the amendment, but also refers generally to it and the new clauses and amendments grouped with it. My understanding is that the Bill is very much a temporary measure pending a much wider review of the law in respect of these matters.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about the Bill. We are discussing a specific amendment—or rather, several specific amendments. The hon. Gentleman cannot talk about the Bill at this stage.
    Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may well be that on Third Reading we shall be allowed just a little latitude to discuss the point raised by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Swayne: May I say something, on the question of the amendments?
    Mr. Forth: Only on the amendments, please.
    Mr. Swayne: Is not the force of the new clauses and amendments reduced by the fact that the Bill is a temporary measure? Is there any reason for introducing arbitrary limits such as the five-year limit, given the time limit that applies to the Bill as a whole?
    Mr. Forth: I do not say this very often, but I will say it to my hon. Friend now, in a spirit of friendship. I have

    1513
    been in the House for 16 years, and had the privilege of serving in government for nearly nine years. I know that very few things in this place are temporary. We are all aware that procedures relating to a measure that may well appear now to be subject to review are likely to continue for rather a long time. I do not want to rest my case on the assumption that the Bill is only a temporary measure, and that everything will be sorted out soon. As you know even better than I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is a pretty risky approach, and I do not accept what my hon. Friend has said in this instance.
    I want to press on. I want to give others a chance to explore these matters, and I do not want to jeopardise the passage of the Bill. Let me say something about amendments Nos. 1 and 5. What we are trying to do is consistent with our aim in, particularly, the new clauses. I shall skip the preamble, but amendment No. 1 provides, in essence, that
    "any person may at any time request that the patient's ability to manage and administer his property and affairs be reviewed by the medical officer in charge of the case."
    We want to build in the opportunity for a review to take place, in the interests of the patient, and to allow those who may also have the patient's interests at heart—in addition to hospital managers and others—to have an input. This is a protective mechanism, and I think that it is at one with the purposes of the new clauses.
    Let me now deal with an amendment that applies to a rather different issue, although it is grouped with the other amendments and new clauses. My amendment—I apologise; it is not my amendment, but that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), and I want to express my support for it. What I suspect my right hon. Friend had in mind—certainly, this is how I interpret the amendment—is this: we want to make absolutely certain that the terminology of the Bill covers all reasonable circumstances and eventualities in the important context of money, assets and so on.
    12.30 pm
    That is why the amendment seeks to go in a little detail into the sort of assets that would be covered. It talks not only about money in the obvious sense. We believe that it is important to bring other assets within the definition in the Bill to allow their management to the advantage of the patient. The amendment covers
    "other financial assets and investments"
    and, importantly, says that those include stocks, shares, Government bonds, personal equity plans and so on. We are not attempting to be exhaustive—not to say exhausting—but we want to try to ensure that, in the fulfilment of the purpose of the Bill, we encompass all possible assets, particularly those that are interest bearing, so that there is no danger that the proper interests of patients are neglected, or minimised by an over-restrictive Bill.
    That is the thrust of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border is getting at, but he will explain his position, I hope, in a moment. I wanted simply to lend support to what I understood to be the purpose of the Bill, and to ensure that the patient's interests are fully looked after.
    Hon. Members can see the thrust of what we are doing. The new clauses and amendments are designed to enhance the Bill, to protect the incapable person as far as possible,
    1514
    and to ensure as far as we reasonably can—without, I hope, being too bureaucratic—that, when the patient, or friends or relatives of the patient think that there is a risk of the patient's interest not being fully looked after, mechanisms are provided in the Bill to guard against that.
    That is the thrust of the new clauses and amendments. I hope that they will be looked on kindly by the hon. Member for Paisley, North, on behalf of the promoter of the Bill, and by the Minister. However, if, for some reason that I could not possibly understand, they were minded to ask the House not to accept the amendments, at the very least I would want full assurances that the concerns that lie behind the new clauses and amendments could be fully covered within the existing terms of the Bill, without any further amendment. That is the very least that we would expect.
    I am sure that the Law Society of Scotland is hovering somewhere, listening to the proceedings. I cannot speak for it, but I am sure that it would have the same worries. If the hon. Member for Paisley, North and the Minister are not going to satisfy me, they of all people will have to answer to the Law Society of Scotland if they do not get it absolutely right.
    Mr. Luff: It is in the nature of these Fridays that a Bill that first looks totally uncontroversial and unproblematic acquires a new character as we listen to the arguments that are expounded by hon. Members. I was particularly struck by the group of amendments and new clauses that we are discussing following the comments by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in Committee. He said that the Bill
    "is the model private Member's Bill. It is short, it is non-controversial, it has the Government's blessing and the hon. Gentleman introduced it in good style. I wish it God speed,"—[Official Report, Second Scottish Standing Committee, 19 May 1999; c. 3.]
    Any Bill that my right hon. Friend wishes God speed must indeed be a good Bill.
    I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) is here to take the Bill through, in the place of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), who, sadly, is unable to do so. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst in wishing him a speedy recovery.
    I genuinely believe that the amendments and new clauses deserve at least to be answered by the Government, or the hon. Member for Paisley, North, because they raise genuinely important issues. As I understand it, by the end of the year, the safeguards in the amendments and new clauses could apply to some 750 people and to assets totalling about £3 million, so it is not an inconsequential issue for the House to consider.
    I am grateful to the Library for its helpful briefing note on the Bill. I realised that the safeguards that are alluded to in the amendments and new clauses were of great importance when I read the extent of the concern in Scotland about the current position. It is not simply a matter of there being no power to move the funds from the hospital when the patient moves on; there are deeper-seated concerns. That is why it is so important to have safeguards.
    I have some reservations about one of my right hon. Friend's amendments, which has some vagueness in its drafting and I shall turn to that later. However, the Government and the promoter of the Bill would do well to take the amendments seriously.

    1515
    According to the Library, all that is required for the hospital to take over the management of a patient's funds is for a responsible medical officer to state that, in his opinion, the patient is incapable of managing and administering his property and affairs by reason of mental disorder. That is quite a simple test and there are probably clear-cut cases, nevertheless safeguards must be appropriate.
    I am aware that there have been changes in the monitoring of expenditure by hospitals and that is welcome, but if the Bill is to proceed, as I am sure it will, we need to be confident that the right safeguards are in place.
    The Scottish Law Commission's discussion paper on managing the welfare and finances of incapable adults made a number of telling criticisms of the absence of safeguards in the system: only one medical certificate is required; there is no opportunity to challenge a certificate; central management by hospitals may be regarded as remote and impersonal; no individual is appointed with specific responsibility and it is not clear how far the duty to receive money extends. It is right that the House should consider those worrying points when extending the scope of legislation.
    I am particularly concerned about section 94 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, which states:
    "managers shall have regard to the sentimental value that any article may have for the patient".
    That seems to be a difficult judgment to make, as the provision recognises when it continues,
    "or would have but for his mental disorder".
    It is tremendously difficult to judge what may be of sentimental value to an individual. My wife had the invidious task of emptying my mother's house on her death and she made judgments as to which items in the house were of sentimental value to me. On the whole, she did a remarkable job, but one or two things that I would have liked still went into the skip.
    Mr. Forth: Let me give my hon. Friend a surprising example to reinforce his point. It is even possible that company stocks and shares may be of sentimental value. When I inherited a modest share portfolio, I decided to keep one or two shares that had been very good for my mother over a period of time. Therefore, I had a peculiarly sentimental attachment to them. Even something as apparently banal or financial as a share could in some circumstances come under the definition to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Luff: Strangely, I agree with my right hon. Friend. If I were to be placed in the position covered by the Bill, there are two groups of shares that I hold that I would not want to be disposed of on my behalf by a hospital manager or anyone else. They include shares in the Severn Valley Railway, of which I am a vice-president and shares in another company which were bought by my mother on the advice of a travelling salesman. They were a disastrous investment as they collapsed in value and any manager might well consider disposing of them on my behalf, but I would be sorry if they were sold. I shall not name the company as that would be invidious, but my right hon. Friend makes a genuine point. The strangest
    1516
    items can have sentimental value. They are not limited to paintings, keepsakes, souvenirs and books; even financial instruments can have such an attachment.
    I am particularly concerned to know what rights the relatives of a patient have to disagree with any expenditure on behalf of that patient. A number of us will have had difficult constituency cases involving mentally incapacitated adults. Watching families, close relations or, in one case the fiancéof a patient shows that it is a difficult and painful process. It is crucial that when a manager spends money to benefit a patient, the family has some rights to challenge that expenditure.
    On 12 March, the Bill had a long Second Reading. A cynic might say that that had something to do with legislation that should have been considered after the Bill—such as the important Bus Fuel Duty (Exemptions) Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). Nevertheless, the Second Reading debate was a good one. However, one sentence in the Minister's reply to the debate caught my eye and worried me, which is partly why I believe that the safeguards proposed in this group of amendments are so important. The Minister said:
    "anyone who deals with a person's funds has an obligation to account for his actions. If he is negligent, that can be remedied under common law."—[Official Report, 12 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 646.]
    Mr. Forth: Oh, no.
    Mr. Luff: That is the safeguard that we are being offered by the Minister, but it is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The approach suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst offers a much better way of dealing with the problems. We are often talking about quite small sums and I am loathe to hand to lawyers the "benefit" of a dispute on issues that are often tragic and personal, involving painful and difficult decisions. We could find less painful dispute-resolution procedures than those offered by the Minister in his reply, which greatly concerned me.
    The Minister also gave some assurances on safeguards to the House. Although ministerial assurances are always welcome, I much prefer statements to be made in a Bill—which is what this group of amendments would do. Warm words uttered at the Dispatch Box are always worth having and Ministers can generally be held to account for the promises that they make, but the Minister said:
    "Several hon. Members made the point that we need to ensure that reasonable and proper safeguards are in place…The hospital manager will retain responsibility for the funds…There will need to be close co-operation between the new carer in the community and the hospital manager. I anticipate that the procedures, which will be put in place when the Bill becomes law, will enable the new carer to apply to the hospital manager for the release of funds, as the occasion arises, to be spent in the most appropriate way for the person's benefit."
    The Minister said
    "I anticipate that the procedures…will be put in place".
    We can anticipate many things, but I should much prefer clear-cut legal procedures to be in place, rather than a Minister's anticipation of procedures. We all know that, in English affairs—I cannot speak with the same authority on Scottish affairs—relationships between health services and social services are often, to say the least, tense. Often, the barrier between the two services leads to the most unwelcome disputes in how an individual's affairs are

    1517
    handled. I am, therefore, concerned to think that the Minister merely anticipates that the two bodies will be able to agree matters between them in a friendly way.
    The Minister gave a further assurance. He said:
    I undertake to ensure that further guidance is issued to those who will be required to operate the new provisions. The guidance will set out, for example, how money should be requested from hospital managers, and how hospital managers should consider such requests."—[Official Report, 12 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 650.]
    I do not know whether the Minister will be able to say, in his reply to this group of amendments, that that guidance has become available. As I said, I hope that at least some of the amendments and new clauses in this group will commend themselves, so that the existence of such guidance will not be so important. However, if the Government or the hon. Member for Paisley, North do not intend to accept any of these amendments, the guidance would become very important and it would be good to know what progress has been made in developing it since the Minister gave that assurance to the House on 12 March.
    Those are my primary arguments on this group of amendments. However, I had some reservations about amendment No. 1, which, in its final subsection, states:
    "Any person may at any time request that the patient's ability to manage and administer his property and affairs be reviewed by the medical officer in charge of the case."
    "Any person" "at any time" seems to be an extraordinarily wide-ranging provision, and I should like to know from my right hon. Friends who tabled the amendment why it proposes such a provision.
    Mr. Maclean rose—
    Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Luff: I am spoilt by this embarrassment of riches. As I have heard a great deal today from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I shall first take the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean).
    Mr. Maclean: I accept that the terminology "any person" seems wide-ranging, but to try to define the individual categories of person who may have an interest—whether relatives, friends or a curator bonis, who is mentioned in the amendment—could lead to a very long list and would inevitably, in some peculiar circumstances, exclude people who are relevant. I therefore felt it better to use the terminology "any person", trusting that those who did not enter that category would have the discipline and the sense not to interfere in the affairs of someone else and behave like a busybody. In any case, the commissioner or medical officer would have the final say on whether and how to proceed.
    12.45 pm
    Mr. Luff: Does my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst wish to add to that intervention, so that I can deal with both points at the same time?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is extraordinarily generous in giving way. I wish to take up the other point, just to show how inseparable my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and I are on
    1518
    these matters. The phrase at any time is important because the whole point of the safeguards that we seek to introduce is that those with the responsibility under the existing statute, amended by this Bill if it is enacted, must be aware that, at any time, others with the interests of the patient at heart can step in and exercise the powers to be given in the amendment. That phrase is, therefore, an important safeguard and it must not be limited.
    Mr. Luff: I understand the import of the amendment. Without wishing to appear invidious, I am no more persuaded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst than I am by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. I apologise for that. I am satisfied on the "at any time" provision, but "any person" still seems very wide ranging, given the nature of the disputes that often arise and the question of incapacitated people. That is a matter of concern to me.
    I accept that the amendment is important, as it stops a hospital being locked into administering the funds in perpetuity. That seems to be a good thing. If the Minister is comfortable with the words "any person", I hope that the amendment will be acceptable to him and to the hon. Member for Paisley, North, who is in charge of the Bill.
    Mr. Swayne: I am not persuaded by the force of the arguments in favour of the amendment. The Bill tackles a clear-cut problem in anticipation of a wider reform that will attend to difficulties that go beyond its scope. [Interruption.] I hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) tut-tutting because of my lack of experience of how long situations may persist when it was anticipated that they would be remedied rather sooner. However, the force of that argument is undermined by the fact that the remedies that he seeks to include in the Bill will affect only people whose assets continue to be administered in that way after they have left the hospital to go into community care. Those obligations, and that way of operating, are not imposed on people whose funds will continue to be administered by the hospital because they have remained in the hospital.
    Therefore, the amendment introduces two distinct categories to manage the funds available to patients: one set of rules and procedures for those who have been discharged, and another for those who remain within the hospital.
    Mr. Forth: I think that I am right in saying that one would not have been allowed to do what my hon. Friend suggests by reason of the long title of the Bill. The Bill authorises
    hospital managers to…hold…the property of persons to whom section 94(1) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 no longer applies.
    I am no expert in these matters, but I think that I am right in saying that, had we attempted to amend the law as my hon. Friend suggests—I am sympathetic to what he says—we would not have been allowed to amend this Bill as he suggests because of its long title.
    Mr. Swayne: I did not suggest for one moment that the Bill was amendable in that way. It is precisely because it is not that the force of the amendments is undermined. Precisely because of the defect in the procedure to which

    1519
    my right hon. Friend has drawn attention and our inability to remedy it here, we shall be introducing a different set of procedures for patients who remain in hospital.
    I shall be brief because I wish to speak on a different matter this morning.
    Mr. Maclean: Is my hon. Friend saying that he sees some merit in the amendment, but does not like it because it does not amend another Bill in tandem, or is he suggesting that the amendment has no merit and he would accept it only if all the relevant legislation were amended in a similar fashion?
    Mr. Swayne: I hope that the force of what I am saying will become clear as I deal with each new clause and amendment.
    New clause 1 would require hospital managers to submit regular reports. I entirely understand the motive behind the requirement and I followed the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who made proper reference to the anxieties of outsiders, friends and relatives, but I fear that a bureaucratic burden would be imposed with regard to one particular category of patients and no other. Pending the wider reform of the law governing the assets of people with a poor record of mental health, which we have been promised, it would be unwise for us to complicate the Bill by introducing that distinction.
    Mr. Maclean: I disagree profoundly. Adrian Ward, an expert in the matter, in his book "The Power to Act", said that hospital management provides
    a relatively quick and inexpensive method of administrating funds and possessions of a modest value. It avoids the cumbersomeness of accounting to, and supervision by, the…Court. It does not impair any existing legal capacity."
    Mr. Swayne: Precisely. Is there any need, in that case, to add the bureaucratic burden of regular reports from which patients who remained in the hospital would not benefit?
    I wonder whether the requirement in subsection (2)(a) of new clause 1 is a proper one to place on the medical officer. I refer to my own experience in a constituency case in which there is a profound disagreement between the parents of a mentally ill individual and his medical carers. The latter take the view that he is capable of administering his affairs, and the former that he is not. I wonder whether the medical officer is capable of taking decisions on issues that govern the protection of standing orders, assets and other items.
    To an extent, my concern about subsection (2)(a) is ameliorated by amendment No. 1. I would not want the new clause to be added without the amendment, but for larger reasons I would prefer that neither of them be added.
    New clause 4 is entirely understandable, but its force is undermined by the fact that the right of appeal would apply only to those patients who have been discharged, whereas those who remain in the hospital, who might equally have a grievance, would not benefit. There is an
    1520
    argument that says that simply because some people cannot benefit from a remedy, we ought not to allow no one to benefit from it.
    Mr. Maclean: Precisely.
    Mr. Swayne: As the relevant law is shortly to be reviewed in its entirety—quite properly, that will happen in the Scottish Parliament, not this Parliament—such matters should be left for the Scottish Parliament to deal with; it is not for us to sort them out.
    The motives that lie behind the amendments and new clauses are proper and understandable, but I fear that they would place a bureaucratic burden on hospitals, because of the administration required of them in the preparation of reports. More fundamentally, the amendments and new clauses would also introduce a different way of dealing with the property and assets of two categories of patients, and I believe that that is not currently justified.
    Mr. Maclean: I shall speak to the amendments and new clauses tabled in my name, most of which also bear the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). In view of the thrust of the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)—that we should not make the amendments now, although he seemed to say that they had some merit, merely because, by the nature of the Bill, they cannot cover everyone—I may now have to elaborate slightly more than I intended if I am to persuade him of my case.
    Many amendments have been tabled, and there is little time available to debate them, but this first group goes to the heart of the Bill; it is the most important group.
    Both new clauses mention the Mental Welfare Commission, so I must explain why I chose that. New clause 4 says
    Any person shall have the right to appeal to the Mental Welfare Commission against…the holding by the managers of a hospital of money or valuables…or…the expenditure of money or disposal of valuables"
    and so on.
    I picked the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland because it plays a major role in protecting the persons and interests of mentally incapable adults, whether they are in hospital, other institutions or the community. In financial affairs, it must inquire into any case in which it appears to it that such a person's property may be exposed to loss or damage. It must also notify any hospital or local authority when it considers that it should exercise its functions to prevent or redress loss of or damage to property. In addition, I understand that it has various duties to visit patients detained in hospital.
    In 1997, it was estimated that in our population up to 100,000 people were incapax at any one time. This number is likely to grow rather than decline, as life expectancy outstrips medical science's ability to prevent or cure the various forms of age-related mental deterioration.
    The Mental Welfare Commission plays a vital role and seems a relatively cheap and efficient mechanism for reviewing how mental patients are treated in hospital. I suggest to the Minister that that is a better mechanism. Giving people a right of appeal to the commission is far better than resorting to common law.

    1521
    My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West criticised our suggestion on the ground that it would place an awful bureaucratic burden on hospitals. That is wrong. I do not think that he understands how funds are managed now. New clause 1 states:
    "Where the managers of a hospital exercise their powers under subsection (3A)…they shall submit regular reports in writing".
    I hope that I shall be able to prove that that is not a bureaucratic burden. There is already a variety of ways in which the finances of a mentally incapable adult can be managed in Scotland. Indeed, it is probably the fragmented and archaic nature of those mechanisms, and the fact that they can fail to provide an adequate remedy in many common situations, that have prompted that widespread call for wholesale reform of the law governing them to which my hon. Friend referred. However, I shall not go down that route.
    1 pm
    The management of a mentally incapacitated person's affairs is usually separate from the management of his personal welfare. Different types of managers have powers to take care of each of those aspects, and financial managers are appointed to deal with patients' financial affairs. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West should therefore not try to state that giving people in hospital a right to appeal and requiring a report to be made not later than 18 months after their discharge from hospital would place a bureaucratic burden on hospital management, affect patients' treatment or bog down the health service.
    Under section 94 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, hospital patients liable to be detained under that Act or who are receiving treatment for their mental disorders can have their funds administered by the management of the hospital. There is no equivalent legislation authorising the managers of other care establishments to manage the finances or property of incapable residents. Recent investigations by the Mental Welfare Commission suggest that most incapable patients whose funds are managed by the hospital suffer from chronic schizophrenia, learning disability or dementia. They have usually been in hospital for a number of years, and most do not have contact with relatives.
    All that is required for the hospital to take over management of a patient's funds is for the responsible medical officer to state that, in his opinion, the patient is incapable of managing or administering his property and affairs by reason of his mental disorder. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West questioned the adequacy or ability of the responsible medical officer to make that judgment, but who else could make it? That has to be a medical decision. It cannot be taken by an accountant, a banker or by the hospital's financial managers.
    Mr. Swayne: With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, that is fatuous nonsense. Many people are inadequate at managing their financial affairs, but they do not require a medical officer's certificate saying so.
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is missing the point. He is, of course, right to say that many people who are not detained in mental hospitals under the mental health legislation make a mess of managing their finances. Many
    1522
    people's financial affairs are not as good as they should be. My wife says as much to me every month when the bank statement arrives. Perhaps I should not visit Scotland, but neither there nor in England have I been detained under the mental health legislation—much to the consternation, sometimes, of hon. Members on both sides of the House. My point is that the treatment of a person detained under the mental health legislation must be left to the judgment of doctors. I am sure that my hon. Friend accepts that.
    A doctor judges whether a person with chronic schizophrenia, dementia or some other disability is capable of leading a safe life in the community, or whether he or she must be detained in a mental hospital. Surely the doctor, therefore, is also the only one who can decide whether that person—given that he or she is unable to live an ordinary life without support from the medical services in hospital—is capable of managing his or her finances. I cannot think of anyone else able to make a judgment of the mental ability of another human being. I do not want to elaborate further on that point but, having dealt with it now, I may be able to speak more briefly about one of the other amendments.
    The powers available to hospital managers under section 94 of the 1984 Act, which the Bill would amend, are limited to receiving and holding money and valuables and expending them for the patient's benefit. As I understand it, hospital managers must have regard to any sentimental value that an article may have or would have had to the patient, but for his mental disorder which results in him no longer being able to make a judgment on such sentimental value. However, no further statutory guidance on how those powers can be exercised is given.
    There have been concerns that staff feel that to spend money on certain patients would be to waste it and that, consequently, no great effort should be made to ensure that all income available to the patient is claimed or that any money received should be preserved instead of being used to enhance the patient's quality of life. On the other hand, it appears that, in some cases, the money was being used to purchase goods or services that would normally be provided by the national health service. I will not go back to the Crosby report 1985, but that made various recommendations on how to deal with that problem. The new clauses and amendments that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst have tabled deal with such worries and concerns.
    If we grant under new clause 4 the right of "any person" to appeal to the Mental Welfare Commission against decisions, it would give the detained person such a right, as it would family, friends or other relatives. The terminology "any person" would also give concerned bodies and individuals, boards of visitors and organisations such as MIND the right to take up cases that they think appropriate. I accept the downside that, theoretically, some nosey parkers with no right whatever—they may have a caring interest in the patient but no familial or financial interest—could be given the right to interfere and appeal to the Mental Welfare Commission. I have had to make a judgment on how grave is that risk. I think that it would be very slight.
    I am not suggesting that the commission must take action in every case and is bound by the person who appeals to it to do so. It must of course consider the case, but if it concludes that the person who is appealing has no locus or ground and that the appeal is a load of

    1523
    nonsense, it is not bound to proceed. Indeed, there may be the odd occasion when, no doubt, a nosey parker with no other right raises a good point in caring about someone's mental welfare which has not been previously considered.
    When I used the terminology "any person" in new clause 4 and elsewhere, it was deliberate because I was afraid that if I tried to define who might have a specific and good reason for such an appeal, I would limit the range of those who would be able to appeal and miss some who had a perfect right to do so.
    I would be happy if the Minister said that the terminology was too wide and that there is a list or schedule already in some Act that I could not find of people who may have that right and that it covered everybody. I would accept that and amend my amendments accordingly. The right of appeal is on the expenditure of money or disposal of valuables. That would deal with the concerns of staff and others that sometimes inappropriate judgments have been made on spending patients' money or getting rid of their valuables.
    I thought that I would address new clause 4 first in order to try to reassure my hon. Friends who are hostile to its intent. In new clause 1, I suggest that hospital managers must make regular reports in writing to the Mental Welfare Commission. I do not need to explain any further why the commission is the best body to which the report should be made, suffice it to say that it already exists and clearly plays a valuable role in Scotland.
    Such a requirement would not impose a heavy burden on financial managers who would have to exercise the responsibility. They have to keep accounts and records in any case. They need not call a case study group to discuss the patient. They already have to keep records of how much is spent and on what it is spent. I am suggesting that all that be combined into a short report to the Mental Welfare Commission, showing what judgments have been made. I do not envisage that that would be a heavy burden on financial managers. It is not a burden on medical staff or doctors; they are not the ones who do it.
    New clause 1 states:
    "(2) A report under subsection (1) shall be submitted no later than 18 months after the discharge from hospital of the patient concerned, and thereafter on an annual basis, until such time as either—
    (a) the patient is considered by the medical officer in charge of his case to be capable of adequately managing and administering his property and affairs".
    That is eminently sensible. I shall not try to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West that the medical officer is the appropriate person. If he wishes to tell me of someone better, I might be persuaded.
    There is another important point that none of my hon. Friends has dealt with. New clause 1 says that reports shall be submitted until either the patient is considered to be capable of adequately administering his property and affairs or
    "(b) a curator bonis is appointed in respect of that person."
    My hon. Friends will ask why I have picked a curator bonis instead of any other system. "Curator bonis" is wonderful Scottish terminology. It is one of those examples where Scots law, based on Roman Dutch law, has something to give the United Kingdom, if only we
    1524
    were wise enough to take some parts of it and if only Scotland were wise enough not to go its own way. However, that is another route, which we shall not take today.
    A curator bonis can be appointed to manage the assets and affairs of a person over 16 who lacks the capacity to manage his own financial affairs. It is highly relevant—which is why I have put it in new clause 1—because it is the most widely used general legal procedure for managing the funds of a mentally incapacitated person. As I said in introducing my remarks, Scotland has a wealth of means of managing the affairs of people in hospital, or of people generally who may be incapacitated. I have discussed the hospital management system; the curator bonis is the most widely used alternative.
    The curatory—that is, the appointment of a curator—can often be the default mechanism. A local authority must apply to the court to appoint a curator if no one else is doing so, and a curator should then be appointed. A curator is a specific type of judicial factor, which is a general term for a person appointed by the court to do something on behalf of another person. Applications to appoint a curator bonis are to the Court of Session or the sheriff court in Scotland, and must be supported by two medical certificates saying that the person is of unsound mind. The incapacitated person or his relatives are entitled to oppose the petition. I hope that two medical certificates saying that a person is of unsound mind would be satisfactory to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West, and that he will not criticise that aspect of new clause 1.
    Curators bonis are under the supervision of the accountant of the court, to whom they must submit annual accounts for audit. Without trying to be arrogant, I believe that this is where my new clause is quite clever, in that, by picking a curator bonis and saying that managers must submit annual reports, I am trying to impose on the managers of hospitals a burden similar to that which curators bonis currently have. That is also why I put curators bonis in my new clause. Curators bonis are remunerated for their efforts and are usually professional people, such as solicitors. I shall return to that.
    On appointment, a curator automatically supersedes hospital management, any Department of Social Security appointees and most other managers under specific statutory provisions. However, a curator is, in turn, superseded by the appointment of a tutor-at-law, if that happens. It is relevant for me to explain briefly to the House about curators bonis because, even if we have the hospital management system, if a curator bonis is appointed he automatically outranks the hospital management and takes over from it.
    We now come to what some of my hon. Friends who are not lawyers may consider to be a downside. Most curators bonis are solicitors, and most of them do not work for free. Indeed, it is said that curators can be expensive. The Law Society of Scotland will no doubt justify that and write letters to colleagues and to myself, which I shall pick up and read in good time if I have got it wrong. The funds of the ward must cover the court petition to appoint the curator, his on-going remuneration—which is determined annually by the accountant of the court on a percentage basis with the aid of complex tables—the annual audit costs and the costs of any further court applications to authorise particular actions by the curator.

    1525
    1.15 pm
    It is now generally recognised that curators should not be appointed for estates of less than about £50,000. It is uneconomic to do so. I assume, without going into the details, lawyers' fees will amount to £49,000 on an estate of less than £50,000. That is the underlying message that I receive from the information that I have dug out in my studies.
    New clause 1 therefore suggests that annual reports will be submitted by the financial managers of mental hospitals. That would mirror the present requirements of curators bonis.
    Mr. Swayne: That would be the exact mirroring of what the curator bonis would achieve. My right hon. Friend has given us a taster of what curators bonis would charge for the service. Why should the burden be imposed on hospital managers, who will be expected to undertake it, out of the public purse, for nothing?
    Mr. Maclean: The costs of curators bonis are apparently quite high, but that is not purely because they are required to submit an annual report. The annual report and audit are only tiny parts of the legal bill. In any event, I think that a hospital manager, even a highly paid extortionate hospital manager charging for his time, might not charge at the same hourly rate as a solicitor who is a curator bonis. My hon. Friend has used a rather bogus argument to try to suggest that we should not have annual reports from hospital management because one day that might become as expensive as the cost of a curator bonis, bearing in mind all the other things for which the curator bonis is entitled to charge in administering the estate of somebody incapacitated.
    I suggest that an annual report should be prepared until such time as the medical officer says that the person is capable or a curator bonis is appointed. If a curator bonis is appointed, there will be an annual report in any event, and it will be costly.
    I move on briefly to deal with the other amendments. I do not intend to speak at length because my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst covered them adequately.
    Mr. Forth: Only adequately?
    Mr. Maclean: More than adequately; that is what I intended to say.
    Amendment No. 1 mirrors part of what I seek to do in new clause 4. The amendment reads:
    "The managers of a hospital may exercise their powers under this section until such time as either…the patient is considered by the medical officer…to be capable…or…a curator bonis is appointed…Any person may at any time request that the patient's ability to manage and administer his property and affairs be reviewed by the medical officer in charge of the case."
    I rather like the last part of the amendment because it would give any person the right to suggest to the medical officer that the patient's mental capability to administer his own financial affairs should be reviewed.
    There may be accidents because we know that at some of the larger mental hospitals, reviews are sometimes not carried out as expeditiously as they should be. Files may be delayed at hospitals dealing with large numbers of patients, or a patient's annual or six-monthly review may
    1526
    not take place when it should. Little hiccups of that sort occur. I am not criticising medical authorities or any particular mental hospitals; I am merely saying that hiccups occur in organisations dealing with tens of thousands of people. The new clause will give any person at any time the right, if he discovers a problem, to say to the medical officer, "Why has case X not yet been reviewed? We think that he is capable of administering his affairs." Organisations such as MIND or other hospital visitors, or visiting psychiatrists or doctors, may think that a case should be reviewed. That is sensible.
    The purpose of amendment No. 1 is to ensure that in the case of an incapax patient who has been discharged, whose money is held by hospital managers, and who is subsequently able to deal with his affairs, the amendment would automatically give him the right to assume control of his own assets. It would also guard against the hospital being locked into administering funds in perpetuity. It is a well balanced, even-handed amendment, which prevents the hospital being stuck with administering the funds for ever more, and gives a guarantee to the patient that he can regain control of his assets in the event of him being judged able to administer his own affairs.
    I shall deal briefly with amendment No. 2, which was a source of controversy among some of my hon. Friends. If it is accepted, the Bill will read:
    "The managers of a hospital may, for a period not exceeding five years following the discharge of the patient, continue to hold money…and receive interest…and expend money".
    The amendment inserts a time limit of five years. The purpose of the amendment is similar to that of new clause 3, which restricts the responsibility of the hospital managers to discharge patients who continue to live within health board boundaries. I cannot discuss that as it was not selected, but the amendment is comparable to that. It prevents managers having to assume an unacceptable administrative burden.
    The amendment would place a five-year limit on the time for which hospital managers administer the assets of discharged patients who remain incapax. Some of my hon. Friends consider five years too long. I am not certain whether it is the correct period. However, it is a long-stop provision, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said. There is nothing to stop the hospital managers concluding that the person should have his funds restored before that time. I cannot find the quote from the Scottish Association for Mental Health, which argued for a six-month review period or a six-month time limit. The association certainly argued for a long stop, and the time it suggested was considerably shorter than that proposed in the amendment.
    I urge the Minister to consider such a provision. There must be some cut-off point at which the hospital ceases to administer the funds. It cannot be right that the hospital management should continue to administer the affairs of a patient who was discharged 10 or 15 years previously.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Maclean: I must conclude.
    Mr. Brady: I shall be brief. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is true not just of funds, but particularly of valuables, which may have sentimental value to the former patient?
    Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which leads me nicely into my remarks on amendment No. 5, which deals with valuables and other items that may be of sentimental value.

    1527
    First, however, I shall conclude my remarks on amendment No. 2. There is nothing magical about the five-year period to which the amendment refers, but some limit is necessary. I shall be happy to accept the Minister's advice whether three years is the correct term, or six months or 10 years.
    Mr. Forth: The trouble is that we cannot change the amendment now. This is the last gasp of consideration. Unfortunately, the House has put itself in a position where we must accept either the original Bill or some—or, we hope, all—of our amendments and new clauses, but nothing else. My right hon. Friend therefore has a problem. He must stick to his proposed period of five years, or he is not going to have anything at all.
    Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for pointing out that the Bill cannot go to another place for amendment. Nevertheless, I expect the Minister to say today that he is aware of the point, and that legislation is being prepared for the new Scottish Parliament. That may be the wider Bill for which my right hon. Friend has called, or a Bill to deal with this matter.
    I understand that there is a need for further mental health legislation in Scotland with which the Scottish Parliament can deal. I hope that the Minister can reassure me—whether we are talking about a period of two, five or seven years—that legislation will be proposed to deal with the problem. If he sees merit in the proposal, a measure can be introduced here—we will be happy to deal with legislation relating to the Union—or in the Scottish Parliament. I see merit in the proposal, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends.
    Essentially, amendment No. 5 is a probing amendment to ensure that the terms used in the Bill, such as "money", adequately cover all assets that an incapax patient may hold. It may be that there is an established precedent for what the terms mean. However, as the Bill extends the powers of hospital managers, it is sensible to ensure that all assets held by the patient are covered.
    The Minister can answer my point in one of two ways. He can say that he will propose legislation in either the UK Parliament or the Scottish Parliament, or he can say that the term "money" is defined somewhere else, such as the 1994 Act—although I must confess that I did not spot it—to include bank notes, coins and sums deposited in a bank or building society account. If so, I will be satisfied.
    The amendment also lists other forms of financial assets which a person might hold, or acquire via an inheritance. Again, the list is not exclusive, but it covers the most popular forms of non-bank account investments. That is very important. The Minister may tell me not to worry and that the matter is covered in existing legislation, or that the interpretation of the law will be that that is the case.
    The amendment states that money, financial assets and investments and valuables
    "shall include sums and items inherited by the patient when resident in hospital or subsequent to discharge from hospital."
    This is the key part of the amendment. For example, a patient may be left property or money in the will of a deceased relative, or he or she may receive a windfall
    1528
    payment from a building society which has converted to a bank. It is not clear from the Bill if such moneys could be administered by the hospital management. The amendment would ensure that they were covered. I shall not push the amendment to a vote if the Minister can reassure me that this crucial matter is covered.
    This morning, we have dealt with Bills concerning human beings. It is terribly important for this Parliament to deal with such measures. The first Bill that we debated today dealt with one human being who may have suffered a terrible injustice, and the House spent two and half hours dealing with it. This afternoon, we are dealing with a Bill relating to individuals who are still alive, but whom medical practitioners have ruled to be incapable and who must be detained in hospital. If they are released, the state has decided that they would be incapable of managing their affairs and that we should run their assets. That is a grave step to take, but it has been taken over the years by various Parliaments which have given powers to medical practitioners to detain people by reason of mental incapacity.
    1.30 pm
    If we are to have such legislation on the statute book, and if Parliament is to pass this amending Bill—I hope that we shall do so, and I do not intend to prevent that from happening even if the Minister rejects my amendments and new clauses—it is beholden on hon. Members to make sure that they build in all the safeguards they can.
    On the selection list, this group of amendments and new clauses has been entitled "Safeguards". I did not choose that title; perhaps it was chosen by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or your office. That is what they are—safeguards for human beings. We are dealing with important legislation this morning and it has been a privilege to discuss provisions that I think may improve it. However, I am willing to be persuaded that the amendments are not necessary or that these matters can be dealt with in the other place. This time, that other place is 300 miles up the road.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: I shall be very brief. This group of amendments and new clauses stands in the names of my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). I pay genuine tribute to their assiduity—not only today, but on previous Fridays—to the cause of private Members' legislation. They have been subjected to some criticism outside the House, which I think has been wholly misplaced. Some might say that that is a charitable view, because one of the victims of their stern and unbending approach has been a Bill of mine which commends itself to many people inside and outside my constituency and which would correct an offence that literally lingers disagreeably in the nostrils of mankind.
    My right hon. Friends' emphasis is on legislation receiving proper scrutiny. It is a truism that we pass too much legislation and that it is insufficiently scrutinised by the House. The Home Secretary had to come to the House recently to confess to a massive omission from the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. Had that omission been exposed by a major terrorist offence between the passing of the Act and the discovery

    1529
    of the omission, it might have occasioned his resignation. It would also have reflected on Parliament as a whole. If that would have been a major setback in the context of terrorism, how much more so are omissions in the context of mental health?
    I shall not dwell on the Bill that we debated earlier this morning because you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it was also occasioned by an omission from previous legislation. Relevant to that legislation were the Mental Health Act 1961 (Northern Ireland), the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. I strongly support the assiduity of my right hon. Friends, who have brought this group of new clauses and amendments to the attention of the House, discussed the cause of mental health and highlighted the interest in the proposals, which has been severally represented to them, of organisations outside the House. That is a riposte to those outside the House who have criticised them for their diligence in respect of legislation of this sort.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: It is an honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and I agree with his remarks about the need to give adequate scrutiny to such Bills, which are so important to people. I emphasise the word "people" and I am glad that we are undertaking that scrutiny. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has been so assiduous and so comprehensive in his remarks that it is not necessary for me to detain the House for long, except to highlight one or two of the points that I believe need to be made. I support the new clause because it would add to the efficacy of the Bill.
    Our debate has concerned the nature of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland and its role. No doubt we will be reassured be the fact that it must
    "enquire into any case where it appears to them that such a person's property"—
    that is, the property of someone covered by the relevant Acts of Parliament—
    "may be exposed to loss or damage. It must also notify any hospital or local authority when it considers that they should exercise their functions in order to prevent or redress loss or damage to property. In addition, the MWC has various duties to visit patients who are detained in hospital."
    I am absolutely sure that the MWC carries out its duties assiduously, but we are considering conferring extremely wide powers. I think that we should inquire carefully into the extent of those powers, and ensure that the interests of patients—albeit patients who may be very sick, and who may be incapable of running their own affairs—are properly observed.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border quoted from a report stating that hospital management provides
    "a relatively quick and inexpensive method of administering funds and possessions of a modest value. It avoids the cumbersomeness of accounting to, and supervision by, the Accountant of the Court.
    No doubt the House will agree that that is a good way of managing the interests of patients, but it must be said that the powers vested in hospital management in regard to patients' funds are extremely wide. The new clauses and amendments contain safeguards to deal with that.
    Only one medical certificate is required for a patient's funds to be controlled by hospital management, and there is no opportunity for the certificate to be challenged.
    1530
    There can be no consideration of the evidence in a hearing. Management by a hospital's central managers may be regarded as remote and impersonal. No individual is to be appointed with specific responsibility for the funds of particular patients. It is not clear whether the duty to receive money extends to withdrawing money from a patient's bank or building society account so that it can be spent on the patient's welfare. The current limit of £50,000—which seems to give considerable latitude to those controlling the funds—could appear excessive, given that curators would almost certainly be appointed for mentally incapable people with estates of that size living outside hospital.
    Although the powers vested in hospital management in regard to incapable patients are clearly very wide, there is no right of appeal. No one is suggesting that hospitals will set out to mismanage funds; all that my right hon. Friends are suggesting in the new clauses and amendments is that the Bill should allow patients some guarantee, and some right of redress against hospital managers who fail to administer their finances in their best interests. Such cases may be rare, but it should be borne in mind that we are not necessarily thinking in terms of purely financial mismanagement. Sentimental value may well attach especially to articles, but perhaps even to funds of some sort, and hospitals may take insufficient account of that.
    Section 94(3) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 allows managers to
    "expend that money or dispose of those valuables for the benefit of that person and in the exercise of the powers conferred by this subsection the managers shall have regard to the sentimental value that any article may have for the patient, or would have but for his mental disorder."
    We all know that it might be extremely difficult for hospital managers, given their wide powers, to reach a definite conclusion that was fair in terms of the sentimental value of any given article. I see no harm in providing for an annual report of the kind envisaged in new clause 1, enabling the way in which hospital management runs a patient's affairs to be laid down in print, and enabling the patient's family to be reassured about what is going on.
    There are a number of concerns about the Bill, which are made even more pertinent by the extension of the powers of hospital management for which it provides. We need a precise definition of "benefit to the patient"; no doubt the Minister will be able to help us in that regard. If a manager spends money for the benefit of the patient, what rights will the patient's family have if they disagree with the expenditure, or with any part of it? Perhaps the Minister will be able to reassure us about this. At present, hospital management and the Mental Welfare Commission can work with the family, but what rights will the family have? It seems that, under existing legislation and under the Bill as proposed, they have few rights.
    In the event of such a disagreement, what provision is there for arbitration? As an associate member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, I take an interest in arbitration. I hope, if all goes well with various exams, to become a fellow of the institute. There is no mention of arbitration in the Bill. After all, in virtually every other dispute, people can either take the matter to a court of

    1531
    law, or it is laid down in a contract, or in agreements within the business that disputes will be referred to arbitration.
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend may recall that, earlier in the debate, someone—I forget who—pointed out that the Minister had said, and I find it almost beyond belief, that people should not worry because, if anything went wrong, they could resort to the common law, to the courts, to put it right. With his obvious expertise in and commitment to the principle of arbitration, does my hon. Friend agree that the amendments are far preferable to forcing people, especially those who are perhaps vulnerable, to resort to the courts for a fair hearing?
    Mr. Leigh: I am grateful for that intervention. The whole point of arbitration is to provide an inexpensive alternative to court procedures, which are cumbersome and long-winded, and to which it is difficult for ordinary members of the public to have access. Given the cases that we are talking about, where I doubt that large sums of money will be involved, where people may be of very modest means and mentally incapable, I do not think that people will go to common law.
    I would much rather have a Bill that set out a safeguard in clear terms. What the Bill proposes is right. Of course, there should be a procedure by which the affairs of a patient who goes into the community can be managed properly, but the amendments propose that there should also be a safeguard for the family—some right of redress, some right of appeal, some written report to which they can refer. As I understand it—I may be wrong; perhaps the Minister can reassure me—there is none at present. That is not fair.
    By requiring hospital managers to submit regular reports to the Mental Welfare Commission, by allowing the relatives, or guardians of patients to have access to those reports, and by providing the right of appeal against decisions of the managers, we will put those safeguards in place. They would strengthen the Bill, not weaken it. I hope that the Minister and the promoter of the Bill will accept the amendments.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): I acknowledge the supportive nature of all the amendments to the general thrust of the Bill and the supportive nature of the comments made so far in the debate. I welcome the good wishes that have been extended to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), which I warmly endorse. I also welcome the role of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), who is acting as the promoter of the Bill.
    I appreciate the underlying sentiments of new clause 1. It deals with the welfare of the person concerned and the importance of avoiding any impropriety in handling his or her affairs.
    A number of arrangements, or checks and balances are already in place, which will help to ensure that the resources in question are used to the optimum benefit of the patient. For example, section 94(2) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 already requires hospital managers to obtain the consent of the Mental Welfare
    1532
    Commission to administer the funds of incapacitated persons where such funds are in excess of a figure agreed by the First Minister. Currently, that figure is £5,000. It follows, therefore, that in any such case the commission will be aware of the existence of those funds and could at any time in the exercise of its protective function under the 1984 Act make inquiries about the use of the resources in question. If, for example, there was a suggestion of improper use, it could bring the matter to the attention of the First Minister, the health board concerned or any other relevant body.
    1.45 pm
    Secondly, and in addition to the procedure that I have just mentioned, the commission has asked hospital managers to obtain its consent to any single or cumulative item or items of expenditure purchased from a patient's capital exceeding £500 in any one year. That figure is kept under regular review and was set at £500 on 1 April this year.
    Thirdly, such expenditure on a person's behalf will be subject to scrutiny by the auditors. Any irregularity or improper use could also be detected in that way.
    Fourthly, hospital managers already notify the commission of all cases in which they are managing the resources of patients in hospital under section 94. The commission, in turn, already examines in the course of its hospital visits whether the powers under section 94 are being properly exercised and whether the resources of the patients concerned are being managed to their satisfaction.
    By way of reassurance to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), the Scottish Executive has made it clear that it will ensure that in the administrative guidance that will follow the enactment of the Bill, hospital managers are asked to notify the commission of all cases in which they are managing the resources of persons who want to live in the community. The commission will also be invited to include those persons in the scrutiny that it already undertakes under section 94 arrangements.
    Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), the then Minister, made clear on Second Reading, the new Administration in Scotland is about to issue new guidance on managing the resources of incapacitated patients who live in the community. That will provide clear guidance to hospital managers on the how the resources that they are managing can best be used to benefit the patient concerned. A number of safeguards are already in place and I understand that they operate to everyone's satisfaction. Those safeguards will be extended to all new cases that come within the scope of the Bill.
    New clause 4 would introduce a right of appeal for persons who leave hospital to live in the community and continue to have their funds looked after by the managers of the hospital that they have left. The appeal, which could be raised by any person, could be against the continuing management of such a person's resources by the hospital or against the way in which their money and valuables have been managed. Currently, no formal right of appeal is available to patients in hospital under section 94 of the 1984 Act, but as hon. Members have acknowledged and as one might expect, hospital managers go about their task

    1533
    with diligence, thoughtfulness and care. A range of safeguards is already in place, some of which I described in my reply to new clause 1.
    If, however, there was evidence that hospital managers were continuing unnecessarily to manage the funds of a person or that they were expending his or her funds inappropriately, at common law that person could make an application for the return of those funds at any time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I ask hon. Members to contain their disappointment until I have finished this point.
    Patients can apply for the return of their funds at any time if it is apparent that they have recovered the capacity to manage their own affairs. That is an important protection and should be acknowledged as such. If hospital managers refuse to accede to such an application, they will be open to judicial review.
    Similarly, if it emerged that hospital managers were inappropriately disposing of a person's resources, redress could be sought in the courts. That facility would apply regardless of whether the person was in hospital or had left hospital to live in the community.
    Mr. Luff: The Minister is raising one of the precise issues that I raised in my speech. The remedies that he is suggesting are very expensive, but would affect only small sums. Judicial review in such cases would, frankly, be preposterous.
    Mr. Macdonald: The point that I was about to make is that there are other forms of protection. Nevertheless, it is important to note that common law protection is available—as is the possibility of judicial review, which is an important but not the only safeguard. It would also be open to the person, or to someone on his or her behalf, to ask the Mental Welfare Commission to investigate any suggestion of impropriety, or other shortcomings, in the handling of the person's property.
    I assure hon. Members that the commission has wide-ranging powers to investigate complaints, which can come from any person—including, of course, relatives. I therefore do not think that new clause 4 is necessary. There are already sufficient powers, both at common law and—in the 1984 Act—in the Mental Welfare Commission's powers, to ensure that a person's property being managed by the hospital is adequately protected. With that assurance, I hope that hon. Members will not press new clause 4 to a Division.
    We believe that amendment No. 2 is also unnecessary. As has been made clear in the Scottish Parliament—and mentioned in this debate by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)—it is proposed to introduce, in the autumn, an incapable adults Bill that will provide for a comprehensive new system for dealing with the finances of incapable adults. It is envisaged that the Bill—subject, of course, to the wishes of the Scottish Parliament—would be enacted and operational well within five years. In that case, hospital managers' responsibility for persons who leave hospital to live in the community should essentially cease—so that amendment No. 2 would have no practical effect. I therefore hope that hon. Members will also be persuaded not to press that amendment.
    As for amendment No. 1, section 94 of the 1984 Act already requires the medical officer responsible for the patient's treatment to state that that person is incapable of
    1534
    managing his affairs. The section also makes it clear that, when a curator bonis is appointed, hospital managers' responsibility ceases. In the course of the regular medical assessments that a patient in hospital will receive, the doctor will normally determine whether the patient remains incapable of managing his or her affairs. When capacity has been regained, clearly, the responsibility of the hospital manager will terminate. The same applies to patients living in the community.
    I recognise, however, the importance of regular medical reviews—which is perhaps the underlying point of the amendment. It is therefore proposed that—in a guidance circular to hospital managers and other interested parties that will follow the Bill's enactment—stress will be placed on the importance of conducting regular assessments of the person's condition, whether in hospital or the community, to determine the person's capacity or otherwise to manage his or her own affairs.
    It would also be open to any person at any time—as the amendment envisages—to request that a patient's condition be reviewed. That point will be covered in the proposed circular, to ensure that hospital managers are clear that, when an approach is made on behalf of a person in that regard, it is duly honoured in exactly the way intended by the amendment.
    In addition, good practice guidance, which the Scottish Executive plans to issue in the near future on the management of incapacitated patients' funds, will stress the importance of regular checks on patients' capacity, whether in hospital or in the community. With that assurance that the point will be incorporated in circulars and guidance, I hope that hon. Members will not press that amendment to a vote, either.
    I do not think that amendment No. 5 would be helpful. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said that it was intended as a probing amendment to discover the meaning of the terminology. One of the chief merits of the Bill is its simplicity and the neat solution that it proposes to a pressing problem: the current legal impediment that prevents hospital managers from releasing funds when a patient leaves hospital. We need to retain the general thrust of section 94 of the 1984 Act, which this Bill amends. Section 94 refers specifically to money and valuables. For the time being, there is no need to depart from that simple terminology, which allows hospital managers to adopt a flexible, common-sense approach to their responsibilities for the resources of persons in their care.
    The Bill is already designed to deal with money and valuables held by hospital managers, or interest accruing on those. It is not envisaged that, after a patient goes back into the community, new money, for example from pensions, will be managed by the hospital manager. Arrangements for the new money will be made in the normal way. For example, the new carer or a Department of Social Security appointee will manage moneys received after the patient is discharged from hospital.
    Before a patient goes back into the community, the hospital and social workers plan that discharge and make arrangements for the patient's welfare. Planning for management of the patient's income is part of that task. Arrangements are often made for pensions and similar regular payments to be paid to someone on the patient's behalf—generally a DSS appointee or some other appointed person.

    1535
    Obviously, one would expect that, where a patient had a large financial portfolio, a curator bonis would be appointed, or other arrangements made, to look after such assets. There is, however, flexibility in the provisions for hospital managers to exercise discretion on the approach to those matters. It is important that that flexibility be allowed to continue.
    If there is a case for change, we would all agree that it would be best dealt with within the larger canvas of the incapable adults Bill, which is being prepared for the Scottish Parliament. I therefore urge that the amendment be withdrawn.
    I hope that none of the amendments will be pressed to a vote. Although they contain some good points, the Scottish Executive has given assurances that they will now be incorporated in new guidance.
    Mr. Forth: May I express my gratitude and appreciation for the typically courteous manner in which the Minister has replied to the debate? He has dealt with the material seriously and has gone out of his way to deal with the matter fully and courteously, which is not always the case in Friday debates. I do not, therefore, want to be unhelpful.
    I much appreciated the detailed reply that the Minister gave on new clause 1, as it reassured us that the worries that we expressed can be dealt with in a number of different ways, and not necessarily as described in the new clause. The hon. Gentleman went out of his way to identify how that could be done, which was reassuring.
    I was worried about the Minister's response to new clause 4, until he reached his punch line. He spoke about resorting to the courts and judicial review, which most of us feel would not be of much use to the individuals in question.
    When the Minister said that the commission could always hold an investigation, that must have reassured everyone other than members of the Law Society of Scotland, who must be worrying that we are trying to steer people away from Scottish lawyers; but that is their problem.
    2 pm
    I was slightly less happy with the Minister's response to amendment No. 2. He said that everything was to be reviewed and changed, so it would all be okay. He seemed almost to be giving a commitment on behalf of a completely different institution. I do not know whether he feels that he can speak on behalf of Members of the Scottish Parliament, but as he has been so forthcoming, I am willing to accept his reassurances in good faith. He has good contacts with MSPs and I am sure that he exercises some influence over them, so on this occasion we can accept that the matter will be dealt with, as it now properly should be, north of the border.
    The Minister went even further on amendment No. 1 and said specifically that a circular of guidance would be issued that reflects the anxieties expressed today and puts in place the mechanisms that our new clauses and amendments were designed to achieve. As a result of
    1536
    what he has said, of his courtesy and of his having taken such trouble to deal with these matters, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 1

    PROPERTY OF FORMER PATIENTS
    Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert—
    '(a) hold, and receive interest accruing thereon, money, other financial assets and investments, and valuables on behalf of a person in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section, and'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
    '(3B) If the value of other financial assets and investments and valuables held by the managers of a hospital under the provisions of subsection (3A) of this section exceeds £5,000 then the administration of the patient's financial portfolio shall be passed to an independent financial adviser or professional, or curator bonis appointed by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland.'.
    Mr. Maclean: I apologise to the House, as it was remiss of me not to mention the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), the Bill's promoter, and the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), for whom I have the utmost respect. She is a very brave lady who has had a lot to put up with over the past few years. I congratulate her on piloting the Bill through today.
    I hope that the Minister will be as courteous and as kind as he was in our previous discussion. He does not have a job in the Scottish Executive, but he will always be welcome in the House on a Friday, because of his demeanour and his approach.
    Amendment No. 3 is designed to probe the definition of money that hospital managers may hold and expend on behalf of discharged patients. Following the terminology used in section 94, the Bill refers to hospital managers dealing with money or "valuables". "Valuables" would normally mean items such as a ring, watch or camera. That is what one feels the legislation means.
    The amendment would add other assets and investments, to ensure that patients with holdings, however small, in forms other than cash or bank or building society accounts, do not fall outside the scope of the legislation. Those assets might not be "valuables" in the hospital administrator's sense of the term.
    I accept that in practice there may be very few patients with such investments, but it is sensible to clarify the position. A patient could be left in a will a financial asset other than money deposited in a bank or building society. The amendment would allow such assets to be included in the property that can be administered by hospital managers. I suspect that the Minister may tell me that the definition of money would include those assets anyway, but it is better to be sure that such moneys are covered.
    Amendment No. 4 is slightly different; its purpose is to ensure that if assets held by a discharged patient exceed £5,000 in value, the administration of the assets shall be carried out by a financial adviser or other suitable professional appointed by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland.

    1537
    The amendment would guarantee that hospital managers did not become unduly burdened by having to administer assets of great value. There may be cases in which curators bonis deal with assets that are not of great monetary value, since it seems that they should be appointed to administer only those estates that are worth over £50,000. What about estates between £20,000 and £50,000?
    I suggest that hospital managers should not have to administer any estate worth more than £5,000. I hope that if the Minister does not like that idea, at least my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) will, because he cannot complain that I am trying to put an undue burden on hospital managers. My amendment suggests that some other suitably qualified professional should be appointed.
    That would also be in the best interests of patients. If assets are of considerable value, the ways in which they are invested can have a material effect on the financial returns that they earn. It is the job of a financial manager in a hospital to manage small sums and ensure that they are in a building society account earning whatever interest is available at the time. Someone with larger assets should have a more qualified professional, such as an investment manager appointed by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, to ensure that those assets are deposited in the right sort of accounts, or used to acquire the right sort of bonds, stocks and shares, and trust funds, to give the best possible return. It is not a hospital manager's job to make such decisions.
    My amendment would pass such responsibility to an independent professional appointed by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. I chose the trigger value of £5,000 because if an incapax patient in hospital has more assets than that, the managers must obtain the consent of the commission before they can administer the funds. Scottish law already recognises that if hospital managers are investing funds of more than £5,000, they have to consult the commission as an appeal or regulatory body. I suggest that such matters should be taken out of the managers' hands and given to a financial adviser appointed by the commission.
    In practice there may be very few such patients, and if the Minister tells me that the problem is already dealt with, or that there will be guidance, or that the problem will be dealt with in the new legislation now being designed in Scotland to cover mentally incapable adults, I should be happy to withdraw my amendment.
    Mr. Macdonald: I hope that I can provide some of the reassurance that the right hon. Gentleman seeks. At present, section 94 of the 1984 Act, which applies to patients in hospital, provides for hospital managers to assume the management of money and valuables where no other arrangements have been made. Money and valuables are not defined; that is a benefit, and it works adequately to allow hospital managers the flexibility to do what is in the best interests of patients. Typically, money can include a variety of resources, including income from pensions, bank accounts and so on.
    Amendment No. 4 would give the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland the responsibility of appointing an independent financial adviser, other professional or curator bonis when a person discharged from hospital into the community has financial assets and valuables exceeding £5,000 in value.
    1538
    At present, hospital managers require the consent of the Mental Welfare Commission to hold money or valuables on behalf of any person where the total value exceeds the sum determined by the First Minister. That sum currently stands at £5,000. There is already power under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 for the commission to appoint a curator bonis where no other suitable arrangements for the management of someone's resources have been made.
    Amendment No. 4 would limit the very useful flexibility that the commission currently enjoys by requiring it to appoint a financial adviser or curator bonis in cases when it would still be perfectly acceptable for hospital managers to continue to look after a person's assets. It has been pointed out that administration of a person's assets can be expensive, and that the costs must be met from that person's resources. The judgment in each person's case is best left to the commission, as the people involved benefit from the flexibility that individual judgments provide. I hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border will accept that that flexibility protects the interests of the patient, and should therefore be retained.
    Mr. Maclean: I listened carefully to the Minister. I am always worried that the Minister's fundamental courtesy will beguile me into accepting his point of view even though I profoundly disagree with him. I am grateful for his acknowledgement that the amendments are designed to improve the Bill.
    I have no intention of pressing amendments that would remove flexibility. I accept the Minister's arguments about amendment No. 4. If I had drafted it differently, to include the hospital authority among the possible appointees of the commission, it might have been more acceptable. My naive intention, having read that the curator bonis can be quite an expensive option, was that appointing another financial adviser might be cheaper. Given that bank charges are rising inexorably, a banker or stock broker might levy even higher charges than a curator bonis.
    I accept the Minister's warning that amendment No. 4 would reduce flexibility. I also accept his assurances, in connection with amendment No. 3, that the provision covering money and valuables is widely drafted and can include all sorts of valuables, over and above the few bits and bobs in people's handbags, suitcases or pockets when they go into hospital.
    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 2

    CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
    Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 19, leave out 'two' and insert 'six'.
    I hope that we can deal with this matter quickly. It is familiar territory for the House to give some consideration to a Bill's commencement period. In this case, I believe that it may be sensible to allow a somewhat longer period of time than is usual for commencement, simply to ensure that the mechanisms that the Bill introduces are firmly in place before it takes effect.
    Undue haste in implementing the Bill is the last thing that we want, given that we are dealing with such sensitive and important matters. I accept that this matter

    1539
    involves a balance of judgment, but I thought it appropriate to facilitate a brief exchange on the commencement period to establish whether the Minister was completely satisfied that all the managers on whom responsibilities will be placed will have sufficient opportunity to put the required mechanisms in place.
    That is the objective behind the amendment. It is an important detail, and one worth consideration even at this late stage in our proceedings. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that he is satisfied that those on whom the new responsibilities will fall will be ready for them within the relatively short commencement period specified in the Bill.
    Mr. Swayne: I do not see any reason for this amendment. It should be rejected. No one could accuse us of giving this Bill peremptory treatment or implementing it too speedily. It is supported by 11 Scottish Members of Parliament, two of whom are also Members of the Scottish Parliament, which is in recess. Any reservation on their part would have been quite properly expressed.
    It is quite appropriate for this House to proceed to enact the Bill without reference to any other Parliament or having to require authority from anywhere else. That is entirely within the spirit of the Scotland Act 1998. I do not believe for one moment that there is a Member of Parliament from Scotland in the House who would urge that we do anything other than reject the amendment.
    2.15 pm
    Mr. Macdonald: I hope that I can assure Members that two months is adequate time to gear up in the way that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) suggests. It is the normal amount of time, as hon. Members know. It will allow all necessary guidance to be issued to hospital managers, and allow them to make all necessary arrangements to implement the Act.
    The reason for the Bill is that the pace of the on-going move of people from hospital into community care in Scotland is picking up. So, over coming months, significant numbers of people will be affected by the anomaly that the Bill addresses. For that reason, we would not wish to delay the Act's implementation beyond two months.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister. I readily accept his balance of judgment that the urgency of dealing with the number of cases outweighs any possible reservations about the speed with which the measures in the Bill can be implemented. Given his reassurance and balance of judgment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    2.17 pm
    Mrs. Irene Adams: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    We have reached the concluding stages of this Bill in its voyage through the House. On Second Reading, the winds were all favourable and excellent progress was
    1540
    made. In Committee, there was just a hint in the comments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that there could be some squalls ahead. Indeed, on Report earlier today, the winds blew rather strongly.
    I thank the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) for their well-intentioned and well-drafted amendments and for graciously withdrawing them in the light of the comments of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I am glad to say that the Bill has emerged unscathed into what I hope can be calmer waters.
    I again pay tribute to the skilful piloting of the Bill through its earlier stages by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke). It is a great honour for me to assume the badge of temporary pilot during its remaining stages, but it is in my hon. Friend's direction that all the credit must go. We all wish him a speedy recovery.
    This is not a large Bill. However, we know that good things often come in small packages and, despite its size, it has the potential to make a big difference to the lives of some of our most unfortunate and disadvantaged fellow citizens. It addresses the gap in the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 which deprives a growing number of people of the benefits of their own funds when they leave hospital. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have warmly endorsed its passage so far. On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, I seek their further support in giving the Bill a Third Reading.
    I commend the Bill to the House.
    2.20 pm
    Mr. McLoughlin: The Opposition welcome the Bill and commend those who have introduced it. I join the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) in congratulating and wishing a speedy recovery to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke).
    The Bill is a classic example of a well thought out and sensible measure that commands support from both sides of the House, so it is properly suited to private Members' business. It has been carefully scrutinised as a result of the thoughtful amendments that have been tabled and considered this morning. The Bill, being so well drafted, survived that process exceptionally well.
    By allowing hospital managers not only to receive money and valuables for a person who is liable to be detained and who is being treated in the hospital, but to continue to hold and spend such funds on such patients after they leave hospital, the Bill will ensure that such moneys can be used for their benefit and are not trapped when the patient starts to reside in the community. As care in the community is to be encouraged where feasible, it is obviously most desirable that this change should be implemented.
    The Bill is also noteworthy because the House is legislating on a matter that became devolved to the Scottish Parliament on 1 July 1999—although the devolution rules did provide that legislation introduced before that date could complete its course through the Westminster Parliament. If there had been any resistance from the Scottish Parliament to our continuing to consider the measure, the official Opposition would have been reluctant to lend support to the Bill today. However, it is clear that MSPs of all parties, and the official bodies—

    1541
    such as the Law Society of Scotland—that supported the Bill initially, all want the Bill to complete its passage through this place and remove from the Scottish Parliament the burden of passing identical legislation later.
    The Bill therefore stands as an example of post-devolution co-operation between both Parliaments. That fact makes it doubly welcome, and we are happy to give it our support today.
    2.22 pm
    Mr. Macdonald: My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), ably assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), has done an excellent job of steering the Bill safely to this point.
    The Government have been delighted to support the Bill. It will make a welcome contribution to the welfare of a growing number of people who are unable, due to incapacity, to look after their own affairs after leaving hospital to live in the community. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian will be able to look back with no little pride on this piece of legislation, which we have come to know as the Clarke Bill, and which I hope will shortly become the Clarke Act.
    2.23 pm
    Mr. Forth: I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) when he pointed out that this, in many ways, is a model private Member's Bill. It is a brief Bill. It covers a specific point. As the Minister pointed out, it has a degree of urgency about it. It has passed through its successive stages in the House in a proper manner. It came high in the ballot. It received a Second Reading and was considered in Committee, and we have given it a thorough examination on Report.
    The hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) was kind enough to acknowledge that the amendments that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) tabled were designed either to improve the Bill or to get from the Minister the reassurances that, happily, we have got. We have now found out that one of the results of that will be the issue of a circular of guidance, which, in the Minister's view, will strengthen the Bill's provisions. I agree with him. Therefore, the net result of our deliberations, today in particular, has been to strengthen the Bill—as the Minister and the hon. Lady were kind enough to acknowledge. All in all, we can feel satisfied that the proceedings of the House have been properly conducted and have been productive and a force for good. That is as it should be.
    Most of the reservations that I had about the Bill, on which I reflected briefly in Committee, have now been put to one side. In cases such as this we always hope that any fears that we may have had will prove groundless; that the additional burdens, if I may put it that way, or obligations that are imposed by this type of legislation, however limited it may seem in scope, can be handled by those responsible; and that it will enhance and protect the well-being of the group at which the legislation is aimed. I believe that on balance that is the case. We have heard from the Law Society of Scotland and from other organisations that have been involved, and it would be appropriate to give the Bill our final approval. We should
    1542
    then keep more than half an eye on the indications that the Minister has given that matters will be carried forward in a Scottish context.
    I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State for Scotland is on the Treasury Front Bench to keep a close eye on us and to perform the bridging function that he told us recently he will be performing between what we have done in this place as perhaps a last goodbye to Scottish legislative matters, and the Scottish Parliament. All in all, I think that the Bill will represent an improvement. The House can be happy with it.
    2.26 pm
    Mr. Maclean: I am pleased to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) on his early piloting of the Bill through the House. I congratulate also the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), whom I have already commended for her courage in her constituency and for the skilful way in which she has piloted the Bill today. It is important particularly that I congratulate the Minister. He paid tribute to his hon. Friends and to my right hon. and hon. Friends and me for the quality of our amendments, which is rather flattering. He was either making that up or it was in his notes from his officials, in which case I am glad that we were able to impress Scottish Office officials with the quality of our drafting.
    Some of our amendments were designed as probing amendments, but I would genuinely have wished to see others of them inserted in the Bill. Given the Minister's assurances that matters were already in hand or that the matters we were raising were already covered somewhere in the Bill, or that he would take up our suggestions and issue guidance and codes of practice, for example, he persuaded us not to proceed with our amendments.
    I hold out the Minister as an example to be followed by some other Ministers, perhaps from south of the border, who come to the House on Fridays and become rather impatient or intolerant when they do not get their Bills through in 10 minutes flat, without Members considering them in any detail. The Bills that have come before us today have been given proper consideration.
    I hope that Labour Back-Bench Members will not get too annoyed with the rest of the Government when their precious Bills are ruthlessly destroyed by the Government in a few minutes' time. It is of great regret to me that we shall not be able to consider those matters properly, as we have considered the Bill. That is because the Government have given the poisoned chalice to those nice guys from the Government Whips Office, who have to kill off legislation that the Government find intolerable.
    My right hon. and hon. Friends and I thought that the Bill was good and that is why we supported it. We thought that it could be improved slightly but we were willing to accept the guidance not only of the Minister, but of the Scottish Association for Mental Health, which welcomed the Bill. It said that it was
    "a small improvement to an unacceptable situation."
    It spoke of the need for safeguards, and I thought that it was worth while pursuing that point. However, I was happy to back down in the light of the Minister's assurances.

    1543
    The Law Society of Scotland is also in favour of the provisions of the Bill, stating that it will
    "solve a problem that is affecting a substantial number of former hospital residents in Scotland."
    The society has urged Members to support the Bill. The Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland also welcomes the Bill.
    In these circumstances, I am happy to see the Bill pass into law. I congratulate all who have been associated with getting it this far. I hope that the measure is successful in Scotland in the coming months once it is legislation.
    2.29 pm
    Mrs. Irene Adams: We have had a short but interesting debate and there remains little to be said. However, I am grateful for the positive contributions that have been made, and it is good to see all Members on both sides of the House supporting the aims of the Bill.
    Incapacity is no respecter of persons. It behoves us all to do everything in our power to improve the circumstances of those who sadly find themselves in that situation.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

FUR FARMING (PROHIBITION) BILL
As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.
FUR FARMING (PROHIBITION) BILL
  Clause 3

    EFFECT OF FORFEITURE ORDERS
    Amendment proposed [14 May]: No. 36, in page 2, line 20, at the end to insert the words—
    '(c) in Northern Ireland, to the Crown Coure'.—(Mr. Forth.).
    Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I remind the House that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 37, in clause 5, page 3, line 42, at end insert—
    '(c) in the case of businesses or parts of businesses carried on solely or primarily in Northern Ireland, the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland.'.
    No. 38, in clause 6, page 4, line 6, at end insert—
    '(d) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State'.
    No. 35, in clause 7, page 4, line 13, leave out subsection (5).
    Mr. David Maclean: Mr. Deputy Speaker—
    It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed on Friday 5 November.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

  REFERENDUMS BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on new clause—(Commencement (No.2))—proposed [21 May] on further consideration of Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate further adjourned till Friday 5 November.

  CROWN PREROGATIVES (PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Second Reading what day? No day named.

  TRANSPORT OF FARM ANIMALS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ (PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the Queen's consent has not been obtained, this cannot be dealt with. Second Reading what day? No day named.

  SEA FISHERIES (SHELLFISH) (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  SEXUAL OFFENCES (ANONYMITY OF DEFENDANTS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  RECYCLED CONTENT OF NEWSPRINT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  COMPUTER MILLENNIUM NON-COMPLIANCE (CONTINGENCY PLANS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 November.

  CANCER CARE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 November.

  FUEL SAFETY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 November.

  RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD WASTE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 October.

  POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION (NATIONAL STRATEGY) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  CHEQUES (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [19 March].
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  MOTOR ACCIDENT INJURY COMPENSATION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 November.

  BELLS ON PEDAL CYCLES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  PREVENTION OF DELAY IN TRIALS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 November.

  DIGITAL TELEVISION BROADCASTING BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 November.

  MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Moved in the name of compassion and common sense.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 November.

  CONCESSIONARY TELEVISION LICENCES FOR PENSIONERS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. David Winnick: I beg to move, on behalf of all the pensioners in Britain.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 November.

  NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 November.

  PRESCRIPTION CHARGES (HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Clive Efford: On behalf of the Member concerned, 5 November—if you can squeeze it in, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 November.

  RESTRAINING AND PROTECTION ORDERS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  COUNTRY LANES AND VILLAGES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 October.

  BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  ENERGY CONSERVATION (HOUSING) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [30 April].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate further adjourned till Friday 5 November.

  ENERGY EFFICIENCY BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [12 March].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate further adjourned till Friday 5 November.

  PENSIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 November.

  REGULATIONS ON SMALL BUSINESSES (REDUCTION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  HARE COURSING BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  AGE LIMITS ON HEALTH CARE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 November.

  HEALTH CARE AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [23 April].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate further adjourned till Friday 5 November.

  ACCESS TO ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 November.

  PLANNING APPEALS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  BUS FUEL DUTY (EXEMPTIONS) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [12 March].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

  PUBLIC HOUSE NAMES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (GIBRALTAR) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 November.

  ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION (CYCLE PARKING) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  WAITING TIMES (NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 November.

  STREETWORKS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  ROYAL PARKS (TRADING) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 October.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL OF THE EXECUTIVE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD AND RODUCER LIABILITY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 November.

  EMPTY HOMES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  ACADEMIC AND ACADEMIC-RELATED STAFF PAY AND CONDITIONS BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 October.

  BROADCASTING (RELIGIOUS PROGRAMMING) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  CHILDREN'S RIGHTS COMMISSIONER BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading, what day? No day named.

  ROAD TRAFFIC (ENFORCEMENT POWERS) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 November.

  EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS (INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
  Mr. Clive Efford: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise the House? A number of Bills have been moved by Members whose names do not appear alongside those Bills on the Order Paper. Have they checked with the appropriate Members whether they wanted those Bills to be moved this afternoon and did they have their permission to move them? Certain Members with Bills standing in their names were not present. If they have not said that they want other Members to move their Bills on their behalf, certain Members have been wasting the House's time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the way in which we have proceeded is entirely in order.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, at the sitting on Monday 26th July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords shall have been received.—[Mr. Hill.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. David Cunliffe
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]
2.40 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon: I regret to have to raise an individual case on the Floor of the House, but, as I shall reveal, there are lessons to be learned from it.
David Alan Cunliffe, the son of one of my constituents, died of an overdose of amphetamine on Wednesday 2 October 1996 in his flat in Higher Openshaw, Manchester, aged 29. He had lived there for two years. His correct name was known to his landlord and it was on a bottle of tablets and a probation service report found in the flat by the police. He was taken to the mortuary at Manchester royal infirmary, where a pathological examination was conducted and the cause of death established.
When the police searched David's flat, they could find no evidence that would lead them into direct contact with relatives. However, the probation service report, which was dated 11 July 1995, said that he had been involved with drugs and crime for a long time and that he was from the Bolton area. Significantly, the report also referred to the fact that he had suffered from mental illness and had been treated as an in-patient at Prestwich hospital.
David had long been involved with the police, in Bolton and in Manchester, and I have provided my hon. Friend the Minister with evidence that he was very well known to them, especially in Bolton. About three years before his death, he was arrested in Bolton and held at Bolton central police station in the cells, where a balloon containing illegal substances burst in his mouth, causing an overdose that resulted in collapse and transfer to what was then Bolton district hospital. His mother, who has lived in the same house in my constituency for the past 22 years, was contacted within two hours by the police.
Following David's death in Manchester, a police officer at Collyhurst police station contacted the Greater Manchester police press office on 10 October 1996 with a request to include the fatality on its press media line. Following that, the police received no inquiries. The police officer made no attempt to contact either the Bolton Evening News or the Manchester Evening News to establish whether they had carried the story. We have established that they did not.
As a result of complaints received from David's sister—Mrs. Rita Houghton, who is also one of my constituents—Greater Manchester police have changed their procedures. Officers are now asked to follow up press media line notices if they receive no inquiries and they specifically ask local newspapers to carry news of fatalities if they have not already done so in order that every effort is made to contact relatives. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that every police force should be rigorous in that respect and I hope that she will issue instructions following this sad episode.
David Cunliffe was buried at the expense of Manchester social services department on 4 December 1996 in a common grave in Gorton cemetery, where his body still lies in section L116. His relatives want the body to be exhumed and transferred to Bolton so that they can attend a proper funeral. The problem is that they cannot afford to exhume the body and transfer it to Bolton.
1554
Even worse, a second body has been buried in the common grave on top of that of David. We obtained the permission of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to exhume both bodies and permission was obtained from the relatives of the second person to disturb the grave. Unfortunately, our exhumation certificate expired on 7 May, although we can have it renewed.
I suggested to Greater Manchester police that they had made little attempt to locate David's relatives and that they should meet the cost of exhumation and reburial as a matter of good will, but they declined. It appears that they contacted local hospitals, but I am not sure which ones. They may have contacted Bolton district hospital, given the Bolton connection. They allege, however, that the hospital, or hospitals, would not reveal the addresses of David's relatives, on grounds of confidentiality, which apparently is preserved even following death.
I took the matter up with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health, who confirmed that
"it would be in order for access to medical records to be refused where there was no consent from the next of kin".
In the same letter, however—dated 30 March this year—my right hon. Friend said:
"The Trust"—
Central Manchester Healthcare NHS trust—
"have confirmed that, where a patient dies in hospital and has no known next of kin, then the notes would be read and any names and addresses passed to the police to help them trace the next of kin".
Unfortunately, David did not die in Manchester royal infirmary.
The Greater Manchester police also claim to have contacted Bolton metropolitan borough council's housing department, the probation services and social services to make inquiries about relatives—surprisingly, without success. However, on or about 5 June 1997, an informal inquiry at Prestwich hospital revealed the address of David's mother, who was then informed by the police of his death, which had taken place nine months earlier. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that Prestwich hospital was mentioned in the probation service report of 1995, which was found in David's flat on the day of his death.
At a recent meeting attended by the deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester police, I asked whether, if David Cunliffe had been found murdered rather than overdosed, the police would have been able to gain access to the addresses of relatives. After a pause, the police admitted that they had the ways and means so to do. Does my hon. Friend agree that hospitals need to be given clear guidelines if they are to help the police in all fatality cases, not merely murder cases?
Why does my hon. Friend think that Greater Manchester police appear not to have made inquiries of K division in Bolton, where David Cunliffe's criminal activities were well known? They have made the excuse that he used aliases, but I remind the House that the probation service report and the bottle of tablets found in David's flat were in his correct name. The landlord had also been given his correct name. There seems to have been a lack of care on the part of the police, but I cannot get them to accept that.
I remind my hon. Friend also that the police have changed their procedures following complaints from the family. I cannot believe that Greater Manchester police,

1555
with all their training and resources, could not have found David Cunliffe's relatives and saved his family all that anguish if they had tried just that little bit harder.
At the meeting that I held with Great Manchester police, they claimed that the Data Protection Acts had made their inquiries more difficult in cases such as this, because they are not allowed to keep what they describe as "dangerous information" in computer files, however useful it might be to their present work or their future activities. It was suggested that a lot of useful information had been weeded out since the setting up of computer databases throughout the police force.
I have also corresponded with Councillor Stephen Murphy, the chairman of the Greater Manchester police authority, and Councillor Frank White, a former Member of Parliament who is now Bolton metropolitan borough's representative on the police committee. Both have been extremely helpful. They feel, as I do, that David's family have suffered unnecessarily and should be given as much help as possible at this stage for compassionate reasons.
Let me now turn to the role of the coroner for the Manchester city district, who dealt with the case. By the time of the inquest, relatives had been contacted. In a letter to me dated 19 May this year, the coroner admitted that he knew that a brother had been in court. In fact, David's brother and two sisters were in court on that day. The coroner also knew that Manchester's social services department had been involved with the burial, but he did not establish the reasons for that.
Manchester contains numerous people with no fixed abode, whose families are not local and who have very few belongings, which, when searched, give no information about relatives. In some cases, even when relatives can be contacted, some cannot, or will not bury their relatives' bodies. The cost then falls on the Manchester social services department.
Following my approach to the coroner about David Cunliffe's death, he has informed his staff that, when told that social services are involved in a case, they should ask the reasons why. If the answer is because relatives cannot be found, in future further questions will be asked. The fatality has caused the coroner to change his procedures, too.
The coroner has informed me that, at the time of David's death, there was a designated coroners officer who, if he had been approached in such a case, would have made appropriate investigations to trace relatives, or to ensure that the police made every effort to do so before releasing the body for burial. However, in the David Cunliffe case, the coroner does not know exactly what was done.
It is an extremely sad story. I am sure that many people like David Cunliffe die in similarly tragic circumstances without their relatives knowing. Somewhere, there are two of David Cunliffe's children from a former relationship. Surely, they have a right to know what happened to their father and where he is buried. His mother, brothers and sisters certainly have a right to know. Can it be that the lives of people who become the victims of the misuse of drugs are not regarded as quite as important as yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or mine? I hope that that is not the case.
1556
The systems have failed the Cunliffe family. If only the police had been a bit more diligent; if only they had established better communications with the coroner's office; if only the coroner had asked the police some relevant questions; if only the references to Bolton and Prestwich hospital in the probation report that was found in David's flat had been followed up immediately; if only the national health service had been given clear guidelines about helping the police with inquiries arising from all fatalities, not just murders, David Alan Cunliffe might have been reunited with his family for a proper burial. Is it too late?
I do not attempt to apportion blame in what is a sad case. I raise the issue in the hope, first, that someone will help the Cunliffe family, even at this late stage, and, secondly, that the Minister will try to ensure that authorities throughout the country will learn something from the case.
2.52 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) for clearly setting out the background to this tragic case and the lessons that he considers should be drawn from it. I welcome the consistent work that he has put into the case and his dealings with all the authorities—I would expect no less from him as a Member of Parliament.
No hon. Member can really understand the pain and distress that David Cunliffe's family felt on learning of David's death eight months after it occurred and of his burial in an unmarked grave. I share the concern that the relevant authorities should learn from the case, even though, as my hon. Friend has said, it is not necessarily possible to apportion blame for what occurred.
It is a painful but necessary task, which the police perform, to trace and notify the next of kin of the death of their loved ones. We might expect that to be a straightforward task in a modern age of instant communication and computer databases, but that underestimates the difficulties that can occur in some cases, particularly with those who have perhaps distanced themselves from family, who lived on what can be seen as the fringes of society.
As my hon. Friend has said, David Cunliffe was found dead at his home in Openshaw, where he lived alone, on 2 October 1996. As in all suspicious deaths, the Greater Manchester police conducted initial inquiries into the circumstances of his death, and reported the case to the coroner. The cause of death was established as a drugs overdose.
Greater Manchester police say that they were unable to identify Mr. Cunliffe's next of kin and extensive inquiries were, therefore, conducted to trace them. To clarify a point that was raised by my hon. Friend, those inquiries were carried out by the officer designated locally to liaise with the coroner's office on such cases.
The police say that the local health bodies were contacted for assistance, but that, in accordance with their confidentiality policy, they were unable to provide the information requested to the police. Social services and the probation service were also contacted, but they were unable to provide any information that would assist in locating the next of kin.

1557
An appeal for relatives of the deceased to come forward was included on the Greater Manchester police media line, which is an information line accessed by the local media. Unfortunately, there is no obligation on the press to carry such appeals and, as my hon Friend noted, this particular appeal was not picked up by either the Bolton Evening News or the Manchester Evening News although it might have helped to lead police to Mr. Cunliffe's family.
The unsuccessful outcome of those inquiries was reported to the coroner, who authorised the release of Mr. Cunliffe's body for burial. This was carried out on 4 December 1996, just after two months after he had been found dead. As my hon. Friend has said, he was buried in a common grave in Gorton cemetery. The cost of burial was met by Manchester social services in the absence of the next of kin.
However, it was not the end of the matter for the police. A second officer continued to make inquiries to trace David Cunliffe's next of kin. In June 1997, I understand that informal contact between the officer and a local hospital led the police to identify the address of David's mother and the police were finally able to break the news to her of her son's death the previous October. It should be noted that there had not been any inquiries to the police regarding Mr. Cunliffe's whereabouts in the intervening period.
It is clearly regrettable that it took so long to trace Mr. Cunliffe's family, but that does not necessarily mean that the police were somehow at fault in the way they carried out this task. Nor would I accept that the circumstances of Mr. Cunliffe's death meant that the police were not as rigorous as they should have been in this case. I remind my hon. Friend that police inquiries continued until Mr. Cunliffe's next of kin had been traced and informed of his death.
The actions and decisions taken by police officers in the course of their duties are an operational matter for the chief officer of the police force concerned. Following representations from the family, I understand that Greater Manchester police carried out an internal review of the case. It confirmed that the officers involved had followed normal police procedures in the attempt to trace Mr. Cunliffe's next of kin. As I have said, inquiries had been made of relevant local authorities and agencies, but without success. As part of their review, the police approached these authorities and agencies again to ask for the same details of next of kin. The review team received the same response as the original officers and concluded that there was no reason to criticise the officers involved in the initial investigation.
The review, however, did identify a lack of knowledge about the operation of the force's media line, which had been used in the unsuccessful attempt to place an appeal for information in the local press. Recommendations were made to improve awareness of the way the line operated and, as my hon. Friend indicated, police officers are now meant to follow up appeals on the media line if no response is received and, if necessary, specifically ask the local press to cover particular appeals.
The police were unable to obtain details of Mr. Cunliffe's next of kin when they initially approached local hospitals because of the confidentiality policy operated there. Decisions on disclosure are a matter for the NHS trust or other body which is being asked to
1558
disclose, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the decision taken by those bodies. However, as my hon. Friend said, there are discussions on that.
In March 1996 the Department of Health issued guidance to the national health service on the protection and use of patient information. The guidance explains that personal information is protected by common law, the Data Protection Acts and the ethical responsibilities of health professionals. In general, any information given or received in confidence for one purpose may not be used for another or passed to anyone else without the consent of the provider of the information. That is unlikely to have been a problem as, on an earlier occasion, as my hon. Friend indicated, Mr. Cunliffe was admitted to hospital after a balloon containing drugs burst in his mouth and the police were able to contact his mother within two hours.
The duty of confidence continues to apply even after a patient's death. The Department of Health guidance makes it clear, however, that the duty is not absolute and it may give way to an overriding public interest. Further, although the guidance recognises that the duty of confidence may continue after death, disclosure in the public interest should be easier to justify in such circumstances. However, the responsibility for deciding whether to allow disclosure rests with the NHS body concerned, based on the circumstances of the request.
As my hon. Friend said, the Department of Health is aware of the need to raise awareness of protocols for information sharing between NHS and non-NHS bodies, and of the need to ensure that confidentiality requirements do not become a bar to the legitimate flow of information. All NHS organisations were asked to have in place, by April 1999, "guardians" of patient confidentiality to help improve the way in which the NHS handles confidential patient information. One of the guardians' responsibilities will be to oversee the development of information-sharing protocols and ensure effective liaison with non-NHS partner organisations. Each organisation's performance will be monitored by the Department of Health, and I hope that that will lead to more effective co-operation with the police service.
My hon. Friend has also mentioned the role of the coroner in this sad case. As he will know, it is not a function of the coroner to identify the relatives of those whose deaths are reported to him for investigation. However, as part of a coroner's inquiries, it will usually be necessary to make contact with the immediate family in case they are able to shed any light on the circumstances of the death, and so that they may, if they wish, exercise their rights in relation to any post mortem examination or at the inquest.
It is also a matter for the coroner to decide when and to whom he should release the body for burial or cremation. The normal practice is to release the body at the earliest opportunity, and in advance of the substantive inquest hearing. The body will normally be released to the executors or family of the deceased.
In the great majority of cases, relatives can be located readily, but occasionally there can be difficulties, and in some cases there will be no relatives to find. It will be a matter for the coroner's judgment to decide how much effort should be devoted to such inquiries in the light of all the circumstances known to him. When there appears to be no one else to make the funeral arrangements, the coroner may release the body to the local authority. That is what happened in David Cunliffe's case.

1559
The Home Office has not issued guidance to coroners on how to proceed in those circumstances. I note, however, that the Manchester city coroner has decided that, in future, if his staff are told that the local authority is making the funeral arrangements, action should be taken to determine whether further inquiries could be made to establish the whereabouts of any relatives. I am not sure how much more effective that may be than police inquiries, but it clearly makes sense to make every reasonable effort to find the family of the deceased. We therefore propose to consider the matter with coroners generally, to determine whether there are some helpful lessons to be learned.
All hon. Members will have sympathy with the family's concern to have David's body exhumed for a family burial in Bolton. As my hon. Friend mentioned, when the problem of the location of David Cunliffe's grave was brought to my Department's attention, we explained that a Home Office licence under section 25 of the Burial Act 1857 would be needed to remove the body for reburial elsewhere, but also that, as there was another body in the grave, the agreement of that person's next of kin would be required. With the assistance of the burial authorities at Gorton cemetery, the next of kin of the other deceased person was traced and consent was duly given. On 7 May 1998, Home Office licences were issued.
Although, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the validity of those licences has now expired, I assure him that there should be no difficulty in principle in reissuing the licences for a further period, provided that there has been no material change in circumstances. However, I should say that, out of consideration for the other family involved, it might be best not to renew the application until there is some certainty that the exhumations can proceed.
My hon. Friend has suggested that Greater Manchester police should meet the costs of exhumation and reburial, presumably because of their failure to trace Mr. Cunliffe's next of kin at the time of his death. Although the force is sympathetic to the family's predicament, for the reasons I have explained, the force cannot accept that it was responsible for the delay that occurred, and therefore cannot agree to cover the costs involved in Mr. Cunliffe's
1560
exhumation and reburial. That is the decision of the chief constable, and there is no discretion for me to intervene in the matter.
The House will recognise that there are circumstances in which it is appropriate for public funds to be used to provide a proper burial. That was clearly the case when, in the absence of the next of kin, the costs of the original burial were met by Manchester social services. It may be appropriate for the family to approach the social services department again, if there is a difficulty in finding the cost of reburial.
I understand how strongly my hon. Friend feels on this matter and I thank him for raising the case in the House today. We all have immense sympathy for Mr. Cunliffe's family and are concerned that it was not possible for the police to contact his parents earlier with the sad news of their son's death.
I hope that I have shown that the police do take seriously their responsibilities in this regard and that considerable efforts were made to trace Mr. Cunliffe's next of kin, eventually with success. For that reason, the chief constable is not prepared to meet the costs of exhumation and reburial, although my Department will look favourably on any application from the family to renew the licences.
My hon. Friend has made a number of important points about the police service, the coroners and other agencies, and how they could improve their procedures for dealing with such cases. I am pleased that, as he said, certain improvements have already been made. We can always look for new ways of ensuring that the co-operation between agencies makes a real difference in particular circumstances. I encourage the police, in particular, to continue to look for ways in which to apply the lessons learned from this and similar cases to improve the service that they provide.
I hope that my hon. Friend will find some comfort from what has been said in this short debate, and that Mr. Cunliffe's family will realise that his case has been discussed at the most senior levels of Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Three o'clock.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the President of the Council what recent assessment she has made of the state of readiness of Government Departments and the wider public sector for millennium compliance. [93205]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Good progress continues to be made with work on the Government's business critical systems and in most Departments the bulk of the work is already complete.

  However, I remain concerned that a number of programmes continue to show slippage in their planned completion dates. Four departments are indicating for the first time that they will not now complete their programmes until September or later. They are the Intervention Board, the Serious Fraud Office, the Inland Revenue and the Northern Ireland Prison Service. In all these cases I have written to Cabinet colleagues asking them personally to monitor progress very carefully, and to ensure that any necessary remedial action is taken.

  The Government will continue to manage the process closely. This includes ensuring that full Business Continuity Plans are in place, and tested, by October—indicating how seriously the Government are taking this problem, and how hard we are working to resolve it. However we should remember that slippage at this stage is an inevitable part of the process. Across the private and public sectors, those working on this problem find that the more they do, the more they find there is to do.

  Although there has been good progress in the wider public sector since I last reported, organisations in many sectors have still to complete their programmes. However, all infrastructure providers reported an improved position at the National Infrastructure Forum on 13 July. This included the NHS, and police and fire services, which no longer have any organisations assessed as having "red" status (severe risk of material disruption which there may not be enough time to rectify)—and all of whom included some organisations with "blue" status (the assessment has not identified any risk of material disruption). In local government, the assessment process was started later, and this sector still shows a small percentage of red authorities—2 per cent. in England and 12 per cent. in Scotland. Government Offices in England and the Scottish Executive will continue to work with these authorities, and with the others, to meet the target of blue status by the next Forum meeting in October. The great majority of infrastructure providers are currently rated "amber", that is, there is still some risk of material disruption but plans are in place to deal with this, and the target is again "blue" by October.
  668
  In order that hon. Members can see at a glance the position in central Government and the wider public sector, I am publishing a set of tables showing progress in Government Departments up to the end of June, and a table of the Action 2000 colour codes for the wider public sector, as announced to the National Infrastructure Forum on 13 July. In addition, a full set of the returns completed by Government Departments, agencies and key bodies in the wider public sector will be placed in the Libraries of the House and published on the internet. This is in line with the Government's commitment to openness that has characterised our handling of the millennium bug issue since day one.

  I said last month that I would report to the House on a monthly basis from now on. As the next returns from Government Departments and agencies will be received during the parliamentary recess, we propose to write to all Members in late August.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Council on what date she last used a train in the course of her official duties. [92650]

  Mrs. Beckett
  On 20 July 1999.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government Annual Report
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the Government's Annual report for 1998–99 will be published. [93258]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Report will be published on 26 July. Copies will be laid before the House (Cm 4401) and placed in the Libraries of the House. Members of this House, Ministers in the House of Lords and Opposition spokesman in the Lords will each be sent a copy of the Report. In addition, I shall be placing in the Libraries of the House a summary of the comments zreceived on last year's report. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House intends to find time for the report to be debated when the House returns after the summer recess.

  Civil Service Fast Stream Report
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he expects to publish the fourth annual Civil Service Fast Stream report. [93259]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I have today placed in the Libraries of the House the Fourth Annual Civil Service Fast Stream Recruitment Report. It covers the year from 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999, and reports the results of Fast Stream competitions completed during that period and action undertaken for future competitions.

  The report shows that in most areas the Civil Service did not fill all its Fast Stream vacancies in 1998, in line with the experience of other major employers. Recruits continued to be drawn from a variety of backgrounds and the standard of entry to the Fast Stream Development Programme has remained consistently high. Despite the fall in numbers, the quality of the applicant field has continued to increase.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will estimate the average cost of providing(a) office accommodation and (b) secretarial support for (i) a departmental special adviser and (ii) one official at Grade 5 and above in the last year for which figures are available. [87964]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  There are no set rules on the level of provision of office accommodation and secretarial support for civil servants, including special advisers. Information on actual costs is not held centrally. It is therefore not possible to provide the information requested. However, in respect of the Cabinet Office, members of the Senior Civil Service with a JESP score of between 7 and 12 (equivalent to an old style Grade 5) normally have their own office and a dedicated secretary. The two special advisers appointed by my right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, share an office and a secretary.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [92652]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  In accordance with the terms of the Ministerial Code, Ministers are required always to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. Trips in and around London (Edinburgh/Cardiff/Belfast), which account for the majority of my working week, will normally be made by Government car. The last time I used a train in the course of my official duties was yesterday when visiting Lancaster in my capacity as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the expenditure on the Government Car Service in the last year for which figures are available, separately identifying the cost of ministerial cars. [92674]

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

  Letter from Nick Matheson to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 23 July 1999:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me in my capacity as the Chief Executive responsible for the Government Car Service to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the cost of the Government Car Service.
  The total cost of providing all Government Car Service services in 1997/98 (the last year for which figures are available) was £7.79 million. The estimated cost of vehicles and drivers allocated to Minsters and their private offices was £4.3 million, although they are also used for several other purposes such as the movement of documents and for use by officials as directed by the ministerial private office.
  The Government Car and Despatch Agency charges customer departments for the services provided on a basis that recovers all costs.

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) of 24 June 1999,Official Report, column 456, on consultation papers, if the statement in the Cabinet Office guide on conducting written consultation exercises, concerning using the Internet to publish and receive replies, indicates that the Government's policy is that responses to consultations should be published. [92772]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Cabinet Office guide on conducting written consultation exercises states that, where circumstances permit, a summary of views and information collected from the consultation exercise should be produced and made available. But where respondents request confidentiality for their comments, their wishes should be respected, in accordance with the existing Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Following the best practice principles contained in the guide is the responsibility of individual Departments, agencies and other relevant bodies.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on what date she last used a train in the course of her official duties. [92651]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last used a train in the course of her official duties on Thursday 22 July 1999.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will make available to the House the Annual Report and Financial Statements 1998–99 of the New Millennium Experience Company. [93263]

  Janet Anderson
  Copies of the New Millennium Experience Company's Annual Report and Financial Statements 1998–99 have today been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Millennium Dome (Refrigerants)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to ensure that commercial operators in the Millennium Dome use non-HFC refrigerants; and if he will make a statement. [89934]

  Janet Anderson
  New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has recognised the unique opportunity afforded by the project to demonstrate that an undertaking of this scale can be developed within the framework of a positive environmental policy. In the context of a single year of operation and the attendant time and budgetary constraints, the Company's aim is to improve on prevailing standards wherever possible, and to mitigate any adverse impact where such impact might occur. As a result a number of innovative environmental initiatives are integral to the project—for example a comprehensive
  671
  Environmental Plan underpinning all aspects of policy and new river bank ecology; and the transformation of a derelict jetty into a wildlife haven.

  As regards commercial operators in the Dome—who will primarily be caterers—NMEC is procuring the majority of the refrigeration equipment that they will use and is aiming to adopt "greenfreeze" technology wherever practical. In those instances where equipment is procured by others, NMEC is strongly encouraging them to adopt the same approach.

  Millennium Dome (Performers)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what period of rest performers of the main show in the Dome will have between performances on(a) normal days and (b) peak days for visitors; [91264]

  (2) how many different companies will be used to perform the main show in the Dome on (a) normal days and (b) peak days for visitors. [91265]

  Janet Anderson
  New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is establishing and training an ensemble company of 160 performers, forming two casts of 80 each. Each cast will comprise 60 on stage and 20 understudies. On "one session" days, one cast will be used. On "two session" days, the two casts will be used. The terms and conditions of the cast members (including rest periods) will be in accordance with an Equity approved contract and in accordance with the Working Time Directive.

  Millennium Dome (Visitor Information)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what information systems will be in place to inform visitors to the Dome of the estimated queueing times for individual zones and other attractions. [91270]

  Janet Anderson
  New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) operational strategy which covers all aspects of visitor management, safety and comfort has been developed with the aim of ensuring an exemplary visitor experience. Information about the capacity of each exhibit zone and any related queueing time (which NMEC aims to keep to a minimum) will be notified throughout the Dome via an information display system and staffed information points.

  Millennium Dome (Policing)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many police will be on duty at the Dome; how they will be paid for; and what estimate he has made of the cost of their service. [91268]

  Janet Anderson
  Police will not be on duty within the Dome site although, as with other visitor attractions and public events, they will attend as necessary in response to any situation requiring their presence. The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is in close and continuous liaison with the Metropolitan Police Service who are responsible, as normal, for the costs of their services where situations require their attendance.
  672
  Additional officers are being seconded into Greenwich Division to ensure that sufficient resources are available both on New Year's Eve and throughout the Millennium year.

  Millennium Dome (Photography)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if photography(a) with and (b) without a flash will be permitted inside the Dome. [91257]

  Janet Anderson
  Photography with and without flash will be permitted inside the Dome.

  Millennium Dome (Safety)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the designers of the zones were instructed to build a maximum evacuation time into their designs. [91263]

  Janet Anderson
  Emergency exit requirements are a fundamental aspect of the design of the Millennium Experience at Greenwich and have been the subject of expert advice prior to submission of plans for approval by the relevant licensing authority.

  Millennium Dome (Merchandising)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what royalties the New Millennium Experience Company has negotiated in respect of the entertainments and merchandise developed for the Millennium Experience; and who will receive such income after 2000. [91269]

  Janet Anderson
  Details of contractual arrangements between the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) and suppliers are commercially confidential. Arrangements for the disposal or assignment of all the company's assets after the Millennium Experience are subject to the approval of the Millennium Commission and the Government. Final decisions on the future use of the Dome will not be taken until 2000, when the Millennium Experience is up and running for all to see.

  Millennium Dome (Catering)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if visitors will be permitted to bring food and drink into the Dome. [91266]

  Janet Anderson
  Visitors to the Millennium Experience at Greenwich will be allowed to bring food and drink into the Dome.

  Gender Impact Assessment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [91676]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  As part of the Government's commitment to ensuring that their 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.
  673
  The Women's Unit guidance: "Policy appraisal for equal treatment" has been circulated to policy Divisions in the Department.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many individuals his Department has recruited under the New Deal for Young People. [91891]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  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.

  Since that time my Department has employed a further New Dealer making a total of two since 1 April 1999.

  Holocaust Remembrance Day
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his Department's involvement in the proposed Government committee on Holocaust Remembrance Day. [92158]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 19 July 1999, Official Report, column 400.

  United Christian Broadcasters
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport where the petition handed in to the Government by United Christian Broadcasters in 1990 is now kept. [92265]

  Janet Anderson
  I understand that the petition was presented to the previous Administration by UCB during the passage of the Broadcasting Act 1990. It has not been possible to locate this petition among the papers that were transferred to this Department when it was created.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [92659]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In accordance with the terms of the Ministerial Code, Ministers are required always to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. Trips in and around London, which account for the majority of my working week, will normally be made by Government car. The last time I used a train in the course of my official duties was earlier this month when visiting Leeds.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Attorney-General on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [92658]
  674
  The Attorney-General
  I travelled to the Crown Prosecution Service in Colwyn Bay by rail on 8 March this year.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when the contract to develop the Benefits Agency Customer Accounting and Payment Strategy IT system was awarded; and to which company or consortium; [92833]

  (2) what the deadline is for completion of the Benefits Agency Customer Accounting and Payment Strategy IT system; 192835]

  (3) what the estimated cost is of developing the Benefits Agency Customer Accounting and Payment Strategy system. [92834]

  Angela Eagle
  The Customer Accounting and Payments Strategy (CAPS) is a continuing programme involving new systems and processes to create a single customer account in order to improve the way in which the Benefits Agency manages customer details and benefit payment information and, until the cancellation of the Payment Card element of the Horizon project, to support the payment of benefit by Card at post offices.

  The systems to do this were built by the Department's Information Technology Services Agency including the integration of an accounting package purchased from IBM during the Spring of 1996.

  Following the cancellation of the Payment Card and the announcement of the intention to pay benefits by Automated Credit Transfer, it will be necessary to reassess what further work should be undertaken on CAPS in addition to those elements that have already been implemented. Consequently no estimate of final completion dates or future development costs is presently available.

  However, the work to create a single, consistent, source of customer details for use by all benefits is already well advanced. All the Benefits Agency major benefit systems are now linked to the CAPS systems and there are presently 17 million customer records held on the new system that is in daily and constant use by staff in the Benefits Agency. The work to complete the transfer of records is due to be completed in 2002.

  Departmental Expenditure (Wales)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the level of spending on social security in Wales in each of the last five years(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of the United Kingdom total broken down to show spending on (i) benefit payments, (ii) Wales's pro-rata share of United Kingdom administration costs and (iii) actual spending on central and local administration and the branch network for facilities in Wales. [92644]

  Mr. Timms
  DSS accounts for its administrative costs operationally (by Agency and Business Unit). It does not maintain accounting records by geographical territory and
  675
  it is therefore not possible to provide reliable expenditure information covering all Departmental operations in the format requested. An estimate of Social Security Benefit Expenditure in Wales in the past five years can be found in the table.

  Estimated Social Security benefit expenditure in Wales (and as a percentage of Great Britain expenditure)

  Expenditure (£million)

  Percentage

  1994–95

  4,910

  6.1

  1995–96

  5,160

  6.1

  1996–97

  5,540

  6.3

  1997–98

  5,490

  6.2

  1998–99

  5,660

  6.2

  Note:

  1. Expenditure excludes payments of certain benefits to people living overseas

  1998–99 Expenditure

  AD7 Wales

  Salaries

  Goods/services

  Estate costs

  Total spend

  Operational Directorate East

  18,588,724

  1,436,343

  —

  20,025,067

  Operational Directorate North

  10,928,534

  988,656

  —

  11,917,190

  Operational Directorate West

  16,136,083

  1,311,969

  —

  17,448,052

  Other

  10,485,323

  17,585,267

  9,846,196

  28,070,590

  Total

  56,138,664

  21,322,235

  9,846,196

  77,460,899

  Note:

  1. Other—This covers all expenditure on Human Resources Directorate, Fraud Investigation Services, Area Directors Support Team, Facilities Management Team, Voluntary Early Retirement and Finance and Business Development Directorate.

  2. Estate Costs are charged at Area level only and are therefore included in other.

  Benefit Forecasts
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for each state benefit, if he will forecast the number of claimants and total cost by benefit for Wales for the next three years together with forecasts for(a) Wales's pro-rata share of the United Kingdom administration costs and (b) budgeted costs for the central and local administration and the branch network for facilities in Wales. [92641]

  Mr. Timms
  Forecasts of future expenditure and number of claimants for each Social Security benefit by country are not readily available. A breakdown by country of the future costs of administering the Department and its agencies is also not readily available.

  Pensioners (Wales)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the numbers in Wales of(a) single pensioners and (b) married couple pensioners (i) in 1980 and (ii) at the latest available date. [92642]

  Mr. Timms
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  State retirement pensions are paid to individuals. Category A pension is payable on a person's own contribution record and Category B pension is paid to a married woman (or a widow) on her husband's insurance record. It is not possible to identify someone's marital status from the category of pension.
  676
  2. Expenditure figures have been rounded to nearest £10 million

  Source:

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

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the amounts his Department and its agencies spends on(a) running costs, (b) wage costs and (c) other administrative costs for those facilities and staff based in Wales, indicating the headquarters administration costs and the total costs for the branch network. [92640]

  Mr. Timms
  DSS accounts for its administrative costs operationally (by Agency and Business Unit). It does not maintain accounting records by geographical territory and it is therefore not possible to provide reliable expenditure information covering all Departmental operations in the format requested. Information for the Benefits Agency's operations in Wales is provided in the table.

  Number of people in receipt of retirement pensions in Wales November 1980 and March 1999

  November 1980

  March 1999

  Men and women

  455,000

  561,000

  Men

  160,000

  206,000

  Women

  295,000

  355,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Figures for November 1980 exclude Graduate Pension only cases.

  Source:

  November 1980—Pensions Computer System, 10 per cent. sample of 'live' cases.

  March 1999—Pensions Strategy Computer System (PSCS), 5 per cent. sample of 'live' cases.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his Department will publish a regulatory impact assessment of the burden on employers of administering stakeholder pensions. [92850]

  Mr. Timms
  A regulatory impact assessment for the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, including the estimated effects of stakeholder pension proposals, was published when that Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 10 February 1999. A revised assessment was issued when the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 21 May 1999. Copies are available in the Library.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners households were entitled to winter fuel payments in 1998–99, broken down between those in receipt of income support and others. [92854]

  Mr. Timms
  An estimated 7.6 million pensioner households were entitled to a payment in 1998–99, of which 1.4 million were receiving Income Support. The remaining eligible households were receiving one or more of the other qualifying benefits.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [92664]

  Mr. Darling
  On 7 July 1999, when I travelled to Leicester to visit the Braunstone Estate, a New Deal for Communities partnership.

  Chief Adjudication Officer
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the 15th annual report of the Chief Adjudication Officer; and if he will make a statement. [93204]

  Mr. Darling
  The report is being published today. The Chief Adjudication Officer's findings record that, in a difficult year for the Agencies, standards have in general been maintained. He is, in particular, encouraged by the fact that the Agencies continue to look for ways to effect improvements, with numerous initiatives at both the local and national level. Quite rightly the Chief Adjudication Officer has taken the opportunity to praise his own staff for their work.

  The Chief Adjudication Officer welcomes the changes to decision-making and appeals that are being introduced this year. These changes will create a simpler, clearer, more accessible system.

  Chief Executives will take on the Chief Adjudication Officer's responsibilities for guidance to decision-makers and monitoring and reporting on standards. They will be accountable for the quality of decision making in their agencies. The changes will help to get decisions right. If a mistake is made, it can be put right more easily. Notifications will be clearer and easier to understand.

  Improvements will be made to the handling of appeals. The ending of the rigid requirement for three person tribunals means that expert resources can be better focused on the issues raised in each appeal. Appeal waiting times will be cut. A new agency will be set up to handle the administration of appeals and I will set demanding targets for clearing appeals. Some improvements have already been made. People who appeal now receive the papers at an earlier stage in the process. Record numbers of appeals were cleared last year. The backlog of oldest cases is being systematically cleared.

  These changes will deliver real improvements in service to clients. Also we are preserving the essential elements of the current system. Decisions will continue to be made impartially by applying the law to the facts of each case. Clients will still have the right of appeal to an independent tribunal.
  678
  The post of Chief Adjudication Officer will disappear in November. There will be a final report for the period April 1999 to November 1999. This will be published early next year. From July to November, as the new Decision Making and Appeals system is implemented, the responsibility for monitoring and reporting on the standards of decision making within the Agencies will pass to Agency Chief Executives.

  Domestic Violence (Immigration Rules)
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will provide public funds for those eligible under the concession to immigration rules in respect of domestic violence and the one year rule; [92466]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the feasibility of reclaiming public funds from liable relatives in instances where such support may be given to those subject to the concession in the immigration rules in respect of domestic violence and the one year rule. [92469]

  Angela Eagle
  People who are awarded indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom under the concession to the immigration rules announced by the Home Secretary can claim Social Security benefits. Those people who are pursuing an application for indefinite leave under the concession will continue not to have access to the benefit system until a favourable decision has been made on their application.

  Married couples are liable to maintain one another under section 78 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The Benefits Agency aims to pursue liable relatives for spousal maintenance wherever a separated person claims an income related benefit.

  Departmental Estate (Scotland)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 2 July 1999,Official Report, columns 305–07, (1) if he will list the running costs including (a) staff costs and (b) payments to Trillium and Newcastle Estate Partnerships in relation to his Department's estate in Scotland; [91307]

  (2) if he will list the services offered at each of the properties detailed; which are involved in the processing and assessment of entitlement to benefits; what stages of the assessment are carried out at each centre; and if he will make a statement. [91308]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: During the financial year 1998–99, the salaries of staff employed in Scotland amounted to £130 million. During the same period, the costs of running the estates, including payments to Trillium, amounted to £28 million. In addition the Information Technology Services Agency has two properties in Scotland, which are sub-let to Electronic Data Services Ltd. on a full cost recovery basis which includes rent paid to Trillium. It is not possible to apportion accurately the costs of centrally administered benefits and services which relate to Scotland. The Newcastle Estate Partnership is not involved in the running of DSS buildings in Scotland.

  Through its network of local offices, the Benefits Agency provides a comprehensive and accessible service throughout Scotland for over 20 different social security

  679
  benefits. These offices also accept claims applications and notices of change of circumstances for centrally administered benefits.

  Applicants for Child Support in Scotland are administered from the Agency Centre in Falkirk.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Bills
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of bills were paid on time by Government Departments and their agencies during the financial year 1998–99. [93427]

  Mr. Byers
  There has been a further improvement in the payment performance of Central Government as a whole. The majority of Departments met the previous target of paying 95 per cent. of their suppliers' bills on time.

  There is no room for complacency and it is disappointing to see that a number of Departments and Agencies, including DTI, failed to meet this year's target of 97.5 per cent. I have taken steps to remind all Departments and Agencies, including DTI, of the importance of paying suppliers' bills on time and meeting the target.

  The target for the 1999–2000 financial year has been increased: to pay 100 per cent. of undisputed suppliers' bills on time. It is particularly important that the public sector sets an example to business and is seen to pay its bills on time.

  We are committed to improving the UK's payment culture. Late payment is a serious problem, particularly for small businesses. Not knowing when customers' bills will be paid means uncertain cashflow, increased borrowings, higher costs and reduced profits.

  Government Departments and their Agencies are required to monitor their payment performance and to publish the results in their Departmental or annual reports. The following table lists, by Department, the proportion of bills paid within 30 days, or other agreed credit period, of receipt of a valid invoice for financial year 1998–1999.

  Government Departments payment performance 1998–99

  Percentage

  Main departments

  Paid on time

  Privy Council Office

  100

  National Investment and Loans Office

  100

  Scotland Crown Office

  99.9

  Ministry of Defence

  99.8

  Government Actuary's Department

  99.4

  Radiocommunications Agency1

  99.3

  Office of the National Lottery

  99.3

  Ordnance survey

  99.1

  Office of Water Services (OFWAT)

  99

  Insolvency Service1

  99

  HM Land Registry

  98.6

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  98.4

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  98.4

  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce

  98.3

  Office of Fair Trading

  98

  OFSTED

  97.9

  Department of Culture, Media and Sport

  97.9

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  97.7

  680

  Government Departments payment performance 1998–99

  Percentage

  Main departments

  Paid on time

  Building Societies Commission

  97.5

  HM Customs and Excise

  97.5

  Office of Telecommunications

  97.3

  Welsh Office

  97.3

  Department for Education and Employment

  97.2

  Inland Revenue

  97.2

  Public Records Office

  97.1

  Scottish Office

  96.8

  Forestry Commission

  96.7

  Lord Chancellor's Department (including Public Trust Office)

  96.7

  Department for National Savings

  96.7

  Home Office

  96.6

  Department of Trade and Industry

  96.3

  Office of the Rail regulator

  96.3

  Department for International Development

  96.3

  Cabinet Office

  96.3

  Treasury Solicitors Department

  96.2

  Northern Ireland Office

  96.1

  Crown Prosecution Service

  96

  Office for National Statistics

  95.6

  Serious Fraud Office

  95.4

  Royal Mint

  95

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising

  95

  Office of Gas Supply

  94.9

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  94.4

  Charity Commission

  94.1

  Health and Safety Executive2

  94.1

  Department of Health

  94

  Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

  93.3

  Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions

  93.1

  HM Treasury

  93

  Department of Social Security

  91.7

  Total

  96.8

  1 Insolvency Service and Radiocommunications Agency are Executive Agencies of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  2 Health and Safety Executive is an Executive Agency of the Department of Environment Transport and the Regions.

  Weights and Measures
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about weights and measures. [93428]

  Dr. Howells
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a report by my Department on the adoption of the International System of Units—the modern version of the metric system. Copies of the report are available from the Vote Office.

  Since 1965, successive Administrations have promoted the use of metric weights and measures in order to assist industry to compete in an increasingly metric global market. The debate since 1965 has been about the pace and timing of the change from imperial to metric units for specific purposes.

  Metrication is now under way in the United States. Other Commonwealth countries have gone metric. The metric system has been taught in our schools since 1974. Metric units are now used by the public sector for most purposes.

  The retail sector has adopted metric weights and measures gradually, for an ever-increasing range of goods. Today, more than 90 per cent. of consumer goods sold by weight or measure are sold in metric units. Under

  681
  legislation made in 1994, goods sold loose by weight—mainly fresh food—must be priced and weighed in grams and kilograms after 31 December 1999.

  I am pleased to be able to announce that in response to representations from the Government and others, the European Commission has proposed that non-metric units may be used alongside metric units until 31 December 2009, pending completion of the US metrication programme. This will enable UK manufacturers and retailers, who wish to do so, to dual mark quantity and price in metric and imperial units over the next ten years. Retailers can continue to display the price per imperial unit alongside the price per metric unit. Consumers can continue to express in ounces and pounds the quantity they wish to buy. Retailers will weigh out the equivalent quantity in grams and kilograms.

  The supermarket chains, which account for 80 per cent. of sales of loose goods, have started selling loose goods in metric weights. To assist small retailers and their customers with the change, DTI is publishing an information package. Further information and advice is also available from DTI's metric helpline and website.

  Company Auditors
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received the 1998 annual reports of the recognised supervisory bodies for company auditors under Part II of the Companies Act 1989; and if he will make a statement. [93426]

  Mr. Byers
  I have received the 1998 annual reports of all the recognised supervisory bodies for company auditors, and have placed copies in the Library of the House. My Department will be discussing the contents of the reports with the bodies as necessary.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [92657]

  Mr. Byers
  On 6 July 1999.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the ECGD payments rescheduled with Indonesia since 1 May 1997; what was the size of such rescheduling; and whether any payments rescheduled related to exports of defence and security equipment and services. [92231]

  Mr. Wilson
  Indonesia's official creditors agreed in September 1998 to reschedule certain sovereign debt payments falling due between 6 August 1998 and 31 March 2000. The debt to be rescheduled relates to principal payments in respect of contracts entered into prior to 1 July 1997. Indonesia continues to maintain interest payments on this debt. ECGD expects to reschedule over 200 separate payments totalling around £260 million over the period, 75 per cent. of which is in respect of defence business.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received 682
  calling for the inclusion of Peterston Super Ely, Dinas Powys and Wemvoe Wards with the Vale of Glamorgan in the Tier 2 (Article 87(3)c) areas in the Government's proposals for new assisted areas. [92793]

  Mr. Wills
  Representations from the Vale of Glamorgan Council did not call for the inclusion of these wards.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what potential development land exists in the Peterston Super Ely, Dinas Powys and Wemvoe Cyr Wards in the Vale of Glamorgan which might benefit from regional selective assistance. [92795]

  Mr. Wills
  This is a matter for the Vale of Glamorgan Council to consider in the context of its Development Plan.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he received from the Vale of Glamorgan, Cardiff and Newport county councils on the Government's proposals for new assisted areas. [92794]

  Mr. Wills
  My Department received two representations; one from Newport County Borough Council, the other jointly from the City and County of Cardiff Council, Newport County Borough Council and the Vale of Glamorgan Council.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria he used to designate the Peterston Super Ely, Dinas Powys and Wemvoe Wards in the Vale of Glamorgan as Tier 2 (Article 87(3)c) areas in the Government's proposals for new assisted areas. [92792]

  Mr. Wills
  The criteria are set out in the document, "The Government's proposals for new Assisted Areas". Some wards were included to provide compact contiguous connections to other proposed areas.

  "Driving Productivity and Growth in the UK Economy"
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the report, "Driving Productivity and Growth in the UK Economy", has been brought to his attention. [92034]

  Mr. Byers
  The report, "Driving Productivity and Growth in the UK Economy", by the McKinsey Global Institute, was discussed at a set of joint DTI/HM Treasury productivity seminars in the summer and autumn of 1998. Its findings were taken into account in the framing of both the Competitiveness White Paper, "Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge Driven Economy", and the 1998 Pre-Budget Report.

  Appointments (Quangos)
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [92141]
  683
  Mr. Byers
  Data on public appointments are not recorded centrally in the form requested. From the information we do hold centrally the details I can give in response to the request are as follows:1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998
  The total number of appointments made was 121 of which 4 (3.3 per cent.) were members of ethnic minority communities.
  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999
  The total number of appointments made was 214 of which 10 (4.67 per cent.) were members of ethnic minority communities.

  Full details of all the appointments made, including the identity of those appointed and the positions which they hold, are published in the Government's expenditure plans for DTI for both 1997 and 1998. Given the data that are publicly available about appointments it is not possible to disclose information that further breaks down the categories of ethnic minority appointees as to do so risks identifying individuals without their consent. Data on ethnic origin are gathered for monitoring purposes, not for disclosure leading to possible individual identification.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the Department's equal opportunities goals as published, following an announcement by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 25 May 1999, Official Report, columns 116–17, in "Quangos: Opening up Public Appointments 1999–2002". This sets out the DTI goals of achieving a year on year increase in the number of people of ethnic minority origin appointed to public bodies rising to 6 per cent. by 2002 (currently 4.4 per cent.) and an increase for the number of women appointees rising to 33 per cent. by 2002 (currently 27 per cent.).

  Date

  Ministers

  Venue

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  25 February 1998

  Mary Harney Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Employment

  London

  Minister for Trade

  11 January 1999

  Tom Kitt Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Trade

  Dublin

  Minister for Industry and Energy

  21 May 1999

  Joe Jacobs Minister of State for Public Enterprise

  Dublin

  Irish officials attended as required by their Ministers.

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many kilometres have been travelled on his Department's business in each of the last three years broken down by(a) foot, (b) bike, (c) bus, (d) train, (e) tram, (f) light-rail, (g) plane, (h) motorbike, (i) car, (j) taxi, (k) river-taxi and (l) other modes of transport; what plans and targets his Department has to reduce the kilometres travelled by private transport by his Department's employees; and if he will make a statement. [91026]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]: The information on business travel is not collected in the form requested and therefore cannot be provided.

  Electronic Commerce
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government have to promote electronic commerce. [93429]

  National Assembly for Wales
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish, before the summer adjournment, the most recent draft of the concordats between his Department and the National Assembly for Wales. [92325]

  Mr. Byers
  Work on the concordats is proceeding well. We hope to be in a position to put the concordats to the Assembly Cabinet shortly. It is not our intention to publish the concordats in advance of that.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many individuals his Department has recruited under the New Deal for Young People. [91884]

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

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times Ministers in his Department have held meetings with Ministers and officials of the Irish Government since 1 January 1998, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved and the names of the Irish Ministers and officials at each meeting. [90408]

  Mr. Byers
  Since 1 January 1998 DTI Ministers have held meetings with Irish Ministers on the following occasions:

  Mr. Wills
  The Government have set the ambitious goal of making the UK the best place in the world for electronic trading by 2002. The Government have been translating this vision into a reality, through a range of measures, culminating in today's publication of the draft Electronic Communications Bill. On 6 May 1999,Official Report, columns 446–47, I announced the terms for introducing third generation mobile phones, allowing high speed mobile access to the Internet, among other things. On 5 July I launched a consultation on licensing new radio spectrum to allow broadband wireless services to be offered across the country. On 6 July Oftel announced the opening up of BT's local network to enable broadband services to be available across the country. These measures will give us world-beating broadband access.

  On 22 July 1999, Official Report, columns 1342–55, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced the White Paper "Modern Markets, Confident Consumers". It offers a new deal for

  685
  consumers, including core principles for e-commerce codes of conduct to promote consumer confidence in on-line shopping.

  I am launching a consultation on the draft Electronic Communications Bill today. The draft Bill and the Government's response to the Trade and Industry Committee's recent report are published in a Command Paper—"Promoting Electronic Commerce". I have also published a summary of responses to our previous consultation. Copies of these documents have been placed in the Vote Office and are available on the DTI website at http://www/dti.gov.uk/cii/elec/ecbill.html. I am asking for comments on the draft Bill by 8 October and the Government will then introduce a Bill to Parliament in the next session.

  The Bill will put in place a light-touch legal framework to allow electronic commerce to flourish. The Bill establishes conclusively that all electronic signatures, however produced and of whatever form, are admissible in Court. The Bill also provides for the modernising of the statute book, to remove legal barriers to using electronic means, as an alternative to pen and paper. The power will help modernise dealings with Government and allow the electronic option for other transactions constrained by statute. The Bill will do this by giving the relevant Minister the power to amend existing legislation by Statutory Instrument.

  I am pleased to announce that the DTI intends to use this power to amend the Companies Act 1985 to enable companies to use electronic means to deliver company communications, including sending annual reports to shareholders, to receive shareholder proxy and voting instructions and to incorporate. Savings on the printing and distribution of Annual Reports and accounts alone could amount up to £10 for every shareholder who participates.

  The Bill will promote confidence in electronic signature and other cryptography services. Such services allow people to ensure that their credit card details and other personal information cannot be read by others when they shop on-line. They allow businesses to protect their intellectual property and stop sensitive information being read by competitors. They will also, by allowing the verification of who is at the other end of an electronic communications, give confidence to those conducting business with companies they have not dealt with before. An approval scheme, for those delivering these services, would build trust, both in the technology and the bodies offering it, by ensuring that minimum standards of quality and service are met.

  The Government have been working closely with the Alliance for Electronic Business who are leading the development of a non-statutory, self-regulatory scheme. Such a scheme bringing together providers and users, including consumers, should offer a more flexible and effective way of meeting the Government's objectives than a statutory scheme. The Alliance's scheme is still in its infancy, so the draft Bill proposes to take powers to set up a statutory voluntary scheme by secondary legislation. The Government will only use these powers should the industry fail to work out a suitable model for self-regulation consistent with our e-commerce and law enforcement interests.
  686
  In seeking to promote electronic commerce, it is also vital that the Government ensure that the ability of the agencies tasked with combating crime and threats to national security is not critically undermined by criminal use of the very technologies, such as encryption, which are needed to make the electronic commerce revolution happen, and which the Bill seeks to promote. By way of addressing this threat, the proposed Bill establishes new powers to enable the agencies to require the surrender of decryption keys or specified data in an intelligible form in response to the service of a properly authorised written notice. The powers will operate on a case by case basis and will only apply to material which itself has been, or is being, lawfully obtained. The procedures contain strong safeguards. The Bill also establishes oversight and complaints mechanisms covering use of the new powers.

  The Bill will also introduce a more flexible process for amending existing Telecommunication Act 1984 licences, a deregulatory measure which will reduce the need for costly references to the Competition Commission.

  The Bill will be a light-touch framework for facilitating electronic commerce, building on the UK's traditional strengths including our history as a trading nation, our dynamic IT industries, the City, the English language, our framework of commercial law, our inventiveness and our competitive telecommunications environment.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what date(a) he and (b) the Lord Chancellor last used a train in the course of their official duties. [92662]

  Mr. Vaz
  In accordance with the terms of the Ministerial Code, Ministers are required always to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. Trips in and around London, which account for the majority of my working week, will normally be made by Government Car. Since being appointed Parliamentary Secretary on 17 May I have not had reason to travel by train in the course of my official duties. The Lord Chancellor last used a train on Friday 16 July when he travelled to Cambridge to speak at the Canadian Institute for Advanced Legal Studies Annual Conference.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Government intend to publish the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of the Magistrates Courts Service; and if he will make a statement on the modernisation of magistrates courts. [93262]

  Mr. Vaz
  Copies of the Chief Inspector's Annual Report have today been placed in the Library of both Houses. The Annual Report records the significant achievements of the local Magistrates Courts Committees in rising to the challenges of this Government's modernisation agenda.

  The programme of amalgamating local Courts Committees to align their boundaries with others in the criminal justice system is on tract, leading to better

  687
  planning and communication between agencies; and local Courts Committees are becoming more accountable and more business like in their approach to performance management and improving the efficiency of their administration of the courts.

  The Chief Inspector highlights areas for improvements in the future. The Lord Chancellor's Department is providing the national framework to support Committees in their administration of local justice into the next millennium. Local Committees have, for the first time, been set performance targets in a Public Service Agreement for 1999–2000. The Lord Chancellor has increased their accountability to their local community by requiring Committees to produce an Annual Report covering key areas of performance.

  The Access to Justice Bill provides new powers for the Lord Chancellor to introduce a Code of Conduct for Committee members, maintaining the highest standards in public life. The Lord Chancellor has also taken powers to ensure that specific recommendations made by the Inspectorate are implemented, intervening where the service provided in an area is falling short.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Maths Examinations (Special Needs)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what special arrangements will be made for those required to sit a maths paper for which the use of calculators is forbidden at GCSE who suffer from dyslexia or other specific difficulties. [92728]

  Mr. Mudie
  Special arrangements are operated by the examining boards with special needs. The special arrangements provide for additional examination time to be made available to candidates with dyslexia and other learning difficulties giving them more time to read the paper and to plan and correct their answers.

  University Engineering Courses
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students are currently taking engineering courses at universities in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [92289]

  Mr. Mudie
  Figures for 1998–99 show there are approximately 120,000 people studying engineering and technology subjects in UN universities.

  The Government recognise the importance of engineering and technology to the UK economy, place high value on education in these disciplines and are seeking to encourage more people to study in these areas.

  Bolton Schools (Damage)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools in the Bolton area were damaged by(a) vandalism and (b) arson during each of the last five years; what was the cost to the education authority of this damage; and if he will make a statement. [92287]
  688
  Ms Estelle Morris
  Most schools in Bolton have been subject to some form of vandalism such as broken windows and guttering over the last three years. Some 50 arson attacks have been reported over the last five years with some schools being subjected to more than one incident.

  Bolton LEA have provided the available information on the cost to the Authority of vandalism and arson attacks:

  £

  Year

  Vandalism

  Arson

  1998–99

  32,518

  275,000

  1997–98

  46,748

  239,000

  1996–97

  45,820

  829,000

  1995–96

  1—

  74,000

  1994–95

  1—

  53,000

  1 not available

  Since 1997–98 the Government has made funding available to support measures to improve security in schools, including measures to reduce the incidence of crime against schools. In the last three years Bolton LEA has had over £370,000 of support from Government grant and the LEA's own contributions for expenditure on school security measures. This is in addition to the continuing revenue and capital spending by the LEA and school on school security. The decisions about detailed arrangements for the distribution of the grant and for assessing needs in individual schools will be for the LEA, on the basis of risk assessments undertaken in individual schools. This should reflect priorities in school and LEA security strategies.

  Teachers (State Schools)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people aged 40 years and over have trained since 1994 to become teachers and are now employed in state schools; and if he will make a statement. [92290]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table shows teachers who qualified in 1994, 1995 and 1996, when aged 40 or above, and those in service in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special sector in England and Wales at 31 March 1997.

  Year qualified

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Total qualifiers1,2

  1,850

  2,190

  1,970

  In service in the maintained schools sector2

  Full-time

  920

  1,000

  850

  Part-time

  130

  190

  160

  Full-time and part-time

  1,050

  1,190

  1,010

  1 Includes those for whom service details are not recorded; entrants to the 'old' university sector; entrants to the independent sector; entrants to part-time service outside the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector who are not in the TPS.

  2 Data are provisional. The numbers shown as in service will increase as a result of late receipt of annual service returns.

  Concordat (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish, before the
  689
  summer adjournment, the most recent draft concordat between his Department and the National Assembly for Wales. [92332]

  Mr. Mudie
  Work on the concordat is proceeding well. We hope to be in a position to put a draft concordat to the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales shortly. We do not intend to publish the concordat in advance of that.

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Nursery, primary and secondary

  Financial year

  Premature

  Ill-health

  Premature

  Ill-health

  Premature

  Ill-health

  1992–93

  3,370

  2,110

  4,120

  1,760

  7,480

  3,870

  1993–94

  3,490

  2,350

  4,800

  2,270

  8,290

  4,610

  1994–95

  3,450

  2,670

  3,870

  2,290

  7,320

  4,960

  1995–96

  3,800

  2,600

  4,910

  2,270

  8,710

  4,870

  1996–97

  4,900

  2,810

  5,360

  2,350

  10,260

  5,160

  1997–98

  5,730

  1.830

  6,370

  1,560

  12,100

  3,390

  1998–991

  1,040

  1,160

  1,370

  1,010

  2,410

  2,170

  1 1998–99 data are provisional

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) primary and (b) secondary school pupils have been (i) temporarily and (ii) permanently excluded from school; and what proportion of each were from ethnic minorities in each London borough over the last five years. [91784]

  Number of permanent exclusions, maintained primary and secondary schools in the London Boroughs 1995/96–1997/98

  1995–96

  Primary

  Secondary

  Borough

  Total exclusions

  Percentage Ethnic minorities1

  Total exclusions

  Percentage Ethnic minorities1

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  6

  83

  41

  46

  Greenwich

  17

  35

  71

  45

  Hackney

  11

  91

  25

  84

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  9

  56

  55

  64

  Islington

  13

  46

  58

  52

  Kensington and Chelsea

  8

  88

  19

  53

  Lambeth

  11

  91

  45

  69

  Lewisham

  16

  63

  59

  64

  Southwark

  13

  54

  71

  73

  Tower Hamlets

  8

  38

  44

  61

  Wandsworth

  9

  89

  85

  71

  Westminster

  5

  60

  66

  73

  Barking

  17

  24

  50

  16

  Barnet

  10

  40

  67

  43

  Bexley

  8

  0

  52

  8

  Brent

  5

  80

  103

  84

  Bromley

  8

  0

  101

  26

  Croydon

  12

  17

  101

  51

  Ealing

  14

  57

  80

  69

  Enfield

  3

  67

  89

  39

  Haringey

  7

  86

  41

  95

  Harrow

  5

  0

  59

  47

  Havering

  3

  0

  69

  3

  Hillingdon

  9

  22

  58

  14

  Hounslow

  11

  27

  74

  45

  Kingston upon Thames

  4

  0

  34

  9

  Merton

  8

  63

  39

  31

  Newham

  4

  50

  38

  45

  Redbridge

  3

  67

  29

  41

  Richmond upon Thames

  3

  0

  47

  19

  Sutton

  7

  0

  23

  9

  Waltham Forest

  11

  55

  101

  55

  Teachers (Retirement)
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) primary and (b) secondary school teachers took early retirement in each year since 1993. [91931]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows early retirement from the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector, England and Wales, in financial years 1992–93 to 1998–99.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on fixed period exclusions is not held centrally. However, in the autumn, my Department will begin collecting this information for the current school year, 1998–99. Information available on permanent exclusions is shown in the table.
  691

  1996–97

  Primary

  Secondary

  Borough

  Total exclusions

  Percentage Ethnic minorities1

  Total exclusions

  Percentage Ethnic minorities1

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  9

  44

  55

  44

  Greenwich

  17

  41

  61

  51

  Hackney

  14

  71

  26

  85

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  17

  71

  50

  64

  Islington

  12

  58

  33

  70

  Kensington and Chelsea

  6

  50

  18

  61

  Lambeth

  7

  57

  54

  83

  Lewisham

  10

  60

  43

  65

  Southwark

  18

  72

  71

  69

  Tower Hamlets

  8

  38

  52

  75

  Wandsworth

  11

  73

  66

  64

  Westminster

  6

  50

  49

  65

  Barking

  18

  22

  71

  14

  Barnet

  9

  22

  81

  41

  Bexley

  11

  9

  48

  10

  Brent

  8

  88

  89

  87

  Bromley

  6

  67

  91

  15

  Croydon

  21

  38

  110

  55

  Ealing

  6

  50

  83

  58

  Enfield

  6

  67

  94

  39

  Haringey

  5

  80

  41

  66

  Harrow

  5

  0

  54

  48

  Havering

  6

  0

  50

  10

  Hillingdon

  3

  0

  57

  7

  Hounslow

  13

  38

  84

  42

  Kingston upon Thames

  3

  67

  29

  14

  Merton

  5

  20

  16

  44

  Newham

  7

  43

  32

  44

  Redbridge

  3

  33

  29

  55

  Richmond upon Thames

  5

  0

  53

  19

  Sutton

  3

  67

  32

  13

  Waltham Forest

  8

  38

  92

  61

  1997–98

  Primary

  Secondary

  Borough

  Total exclusions

  Percentage Ethnic minorities1

  Total exclusions

  Percentage Ethnic minorities1

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  11

  36

  34

  56

  Greenwich

  8

  38

  48

  38

  Hackney

  22

  77

  21

  76

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  12

  83

  39

  59

  Islington

  8

  38

  38

  55

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5

  80

  33

  48

  Lambeth

  15

  73

  40

  85

  Lewisham

  22

  86

  50

  66

  Southwark

  15

  67

  76

  78

  Tower Hamlets

  5

  40

  39

  67

  Wandsworth

  10

  60

  59

  64

  Westminster

  3

  33

  60

  68

  Barking

  9

  22

  38

  16

  Barnet

  8

  38

  65

  48

  Bexley

  11

  9

  59

  10

  Brent

  7

  100

  90

  82

  Bromley

  10

  30

  83

  17

  Croydon

  17

  41

  85

  42

  Ealing

  11

  73

  71

  61

  Enfield

  10

  40

  74

  47

  Haringey

  5

  0

  38

  84

  Harrow

  5

  20

  50

  64

  Havering

  4

  25

  66

  8

  Hillingdon

  3

  0

  52

  25

  Hounslow

  8

  13

  61

  31

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  0

  27

  15

  Merton

  4

  0

  32

  47

  Newham

  12

  50

  42

  52

  Redbridge

  5

  40

  29

  62

  692 693

  1997–98

  Primary

  Secondary

  Borough

  Total exclusions

  Percentage Ethnic minorities1

  Total exclusions

  Percentage Ethnic minorities1

  Richmond upon Thames

  1

  0

  53

  21

  Sutton

  6

  17

  37

  14

  Waltham Forest

  10

  50

  76

  54

  1 Ethnic minorities include black Caribbean, black African, black other, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese and any other ethnic group.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many individuals his Department has recruited under the New Deal for Young People. [91890]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  As at 1 July 1999 the Department for Education and Employment had recruited 13, and the Employment Service 362, young people through the New Deal for Young People.

  I would also 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.

  Education Initiatives
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 28 June 1999,Official Report, columns 56–58, on

  Amounts spent on external consultants and advisers

  £

  DfEE Specific Grant

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Total

  School Effectiveness/Improvement

  —

  —

  0

  Induction for Newly-Qualified Teachers

  —

  —

  0

  Baseline Assessment

  —

  Part of School Improvement Grant

  0

  National Curriculum Assessment

  —

  Part of School Improvement Grant

  0

  Effective use of National Curriculum Results

  —

  Part of School Improvement Grant

  0

  School Leadership

  1,953,363

  2,913,770

  4,867,133

  Advanced Skills Teachers

  —

  —

  0

  Local Recruitment Measures

  —

  —

  0

  Early Years Training and Development 4 year olds

  —

  —

  0

  Early Years Training & Development 3 year olds

  —

  —

  0

  Early Excellence Centres

  —

  5,000

  5,000

  National Literacy Strategy—Primary

  —

  —

  0

  National Numeracy Strategy—Primary

  —

  —

  0

  National Numeracy Strategy—Key Stage 3

  —

  —

  0

  Summer Numeracy Schools

  —

  —

  0

  Total literacy and numeracy strategies

  841,000

  1,321,000

  2,162,000

  Summer Literacy Schools and Key Stage 3 Literacy

  10,000

  —

  10,000

  Playing for Success

  —

  —

  0

  Family Literacy

  —

  —

  0

  Family Numeracy

  —

  —

  0

  Local Authority Lifelong Learning Development Plans

  —

  —

  0

  Qualifications

  —

  —

  0

  Work Related Learning

  —

  —

  0

  Special Educational Needs

  64,528

  127,204

  191,732

  Social Inclusion: Pupil Support

  —

  100,000

  100,000

  Drug Prevention

  —

  —

  0

  Youth Service

  —

  —

  0

  National Grid for Learning

  55,000

  154,000

  209,000

  School Security

  —

  —

  0

  Beacon Schools

  —

  80,000

  80,000

  Specialist Schools

  —

  —

  0

  Education of Traveller & Displaced Persons

  —

  —

  0

  Expanding Central Music Services

  —

  —

  0

  694
  education initiatives, if he will list for each initiative, the amount spent by his Department on external consultants and advisers. [91820]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 21 July 1999]: The amounts spent by the Department of Education and Employment on external consultants and advisers for the initiatives listed in columns 56–58, are given in the following table. The amounts spent on School Leadership include the cost of consultants previously contracted by the Teacher Training Agency to design the model for the delivery of the Leadership Programme for Serving Headteachers (LPSH), provide trainers to run the pilot programme, and to train over 170 trainers for the full LPSH programme. The figures for the literacy and numeracy strategies include the services of two National Directors, to provide advice on the strategic policy development of the two strategies, and the cost of Regional Directors to aid in the support, monitoring and implementation of the strategies by local education authorities, including the professional development of local education authority staff and teachers.
  695

  Amounts spent on external consultants and advisers

  £

  DfEE Specific Grant

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Total

  Protecting Central Music Services

  —

  —

  0

  Ethnic Minority Pupil Achievement

  —

  —

  0

  Access Fund for pupils aged 16–19 in schools

  —

  —

  0

  Year 6 Booster Classes

  —

  —

  0

  Asset Management Plans

  —

  —

  0

  Health Education Partnerships: Pilot projects

  6,382

  54,476

  60,858

  Numeracy Consultants & Leading Maths Teachers

  —

  —

  0

  Portable CD Rom Systems for SEN Coordinators

  —

  —

  0

  Books for Schools

  —

  —

  0

  Childrens Parliament

  —

  —

  0

  Reduction of Infant Class Sizes (Revenue)

  —

  —

  0

  Removal of Outside Toilets

  —

  —

  0

  Energy Management

  —

  —

  0

  New Deal for Schools

  —

  —

  0

  Reduction of Infant Class Sizes (Capital)

  —

  —

  0

  Education Action Zones

  —

  219,000

  219,000

  Nursery Education Grant

  —

  —

  0

  Total

  2,930,273

  4,974,450

  7,904,723

  Notes:

  1. Spending on the literacy and numeracy strategies cannot be separated

  2. Figures for School Leadership include significant amounts for training and coaching rather than general advisory work

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 13 July 1999,Official Report, column 167, on school playing fields, what was the research carried out by the Central Council of Physical Recreation which was used by his Department. [92128]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The research referred to in my Answer of 13 July consisted of two national surveys carried out by the Central Council of Physical Recreation and reported in their September 1984 publication, "Sports Fields at Risk." This research found that 3,630 acres of recreational land were subject to disposal. This is equivalent to approximately 5,000 playing fields.

  The research also noted that the actual number of school playing fields which have been lost to sport and recreation over the years is likely to be higher than this figure.

DEFENCE

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which TA recruitment centre has the lowest level of recruitment in Wales; [82269]

  (2) which TA centres in Wales have the highest levels of (a) recruitment and (b) retention. [82270]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 27 June 1999]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to 696
  his Department for written answer on a named day since 15 April; and what percentage of them received a substantive response on that day. [87321]

  Mr. Spellar
  According to our records 129 written Parliamentary Questions were tabled to my Department for answer on a named day between 15 April and 15 June. Of these, 50 per cent. received a substantive response on that day.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions Ministers in his Department have held meetings with Ministers and officials of the Irish Government since 1 January 1998 indicating the dates and locations, the Ministers involved and the names of the Irish Ministers and officials in each case. [87429]

  Mr. George Robertson
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State received a farewell call from Lt Gen Gerald McMahon, Chief of Staff, Irish Defence Force, on 10 August 1998.

  Disabled People (Employment)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on his policy on the employment of disabled people in the armed forces; [88368]

  (2) how many registered disabled people work in (a) civilian and (b) uniformed posts in the Ministry of Defence; and if he will make a statement. [88367]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: My Department and its agencies employ some 3,780 civilian staff who have declared a disability or a long-term health condition in response to disability monitoring surveys. This represents some 3.7 per cent. of the total civilian workforce.

  Data about registered disabled people are no longer requested in surveys because the register of disabled persons ceased to have effect with the introduction of the

  697
  Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We fully recognise the valuable contribution disabled people can make towards the achievement of defence objectives and, as part of our efforts to increase their representation in our civilian workforce, we have a three-year programme of action in place aimed at improving our performance as an employer of people with disabilities.

  Members of the Armed Forces are exempt from the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. Disability or a history of disability is not compatible with the need for a combat effective fighting force, able to undertake a full range of military operations anywhere in the world. Service personnel disabled during the course of duty are, depending on circumstances, allowed to continue to serve as long as such service will not undermine overall combat effectiveness. This approach reflects the Services' duty of care to the individual and allows them to benefit from the individual's experience and ensure a return on their training investment.

  Army (Medical Refusals)
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the medical grounds on the basis of which admission to the Army may be refused; and if he will give the reasons in each case. [90420]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Army, in common with the Naval Service and the Royal Air Force, applies medical standards that entrants must meet. I am placing a copy of the medical standards in the Library of the House.

  Medical selection criteria are imposed to ensure, as far as possible, the ability of recruits to undertake military training and to operate in all Service environments, many of which may be hostile. Furthermore, the armed forces have a duty of care to avoid causing deleterious effects on any pre-existing condition which would be detrimental to the long term health and welfare of the individual. The bar on certain medical conditions also exists to minimise any liabilities which could arise from allowing individuals with known medical conditions into environments which have a high risk of adverse outcome for them.

  Service Personnel (Council Tax)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the regulations for payment of council tax by service personnel; and if he will make a statement. [91569]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Service personnel living in private accommodation pay council tax under the same arrangements as civilians.

  When occupying service accommodation service personnel pay my Department a Contribution in Lieu of Council Tax (CILOCT) as part of their accommodation charge. My Department then pays the relevant local authority an annual sum equivalent to the council tax for properties of the type occupied.

  These arrangements have been put in place to minimise administration for local authorities and individuals, that would otherwise be necessary in view of the fact that service personnel and their families are often necessarily obliged to move house to meet service obligations.

  Leave Entitlement
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new regulations he has introduced about leave entitlement following postings outside the UK; and if he will make a statement. [91567]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  On 19 July we announced the rationalisation of our forces in Kosovo, and are also introducing a number of welfare enhancements for personnel serving on operations in the Balkans and elsewhere. Among these is a guaranteed period of leave when personnel return from operational detachment. In the case of the Army, for instance, personnel who have completed a six month detachment will receive 20 working days post operational tour leave over and above their normal leave allowance.

  Personnel in the other services will also be given extra time off, the period being governed by the time spent on detachment and the conditions under which they have worked. This will ensure that personnel returning from operations can spend time with their families and be fully rested before undertaking further duties.

  Gender Impact Assessment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [91686]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women, on 14 July 1999,Official Report, House of Lords, column 636.

  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.

  We have no historical records of gender impact assessments undertaken to date.

  Future Large Aircraft
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors he will take into account in his decision on the procurement of a future large aircraft capability; and if he will make a statement. [92083]

  Mr. George Robertson
  As with all defence procurement projects, we will be taking a range of factors into account when making a decision on our future strategic airlift capability. These include performance, long-term cost effectiveness and industrial implications.

  Nuclear Materials (Transport)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements the Government have made to monitor the transport of nuclear materials(a) in the European Union and (b) internationally. [91694]
  699
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: My Department monitors all movements of defence nuclear materials, for which it is responsible. All movements of such materials are carried out by fully trained and equipped personnel in accordance with the highest standards of safety and security.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Ministry of Defence sites that were surveyed by English Nature in the 1994 national Sites of

  SSSI name

  Site name

  Condition assessment

  West Lizard, Cornwall

  Predannack

  Favourable

  Ham Common, Dorset

  Hamworthy (Poole)

  Unfavourable: no change

  Hum Common, Dorset

  Hum (St. Leonards)

  Unfavourable: declining

  Eelmoor Marsh, Hampshire

  Farnborough

  Unfavourable: no change1

  Sutton and Hollesley Heaths, Suffolk

  Woodbridge

  Unfavourable: no change

  Grimes Graves, Norfolk

  Stanford

  Unfavourable: declining

  Kelling Heath, Norfolk—2 locations

  Stanford

  i. Unfavourable: recovering

  ii. Unfavourable: recovering

  1 In 1998, the Defence Evaluation Research Agency Farnborough Conservation Group received an English Nature SSSI award for commitment to the positive management of the Eelmoor Marsh SSSI.

  RAF Scampton
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans for the future of RAF Scampton. [92468]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Name

  Length (metres)

  Weight/Displacement (tons)

  Type

  Portsmouth Naval Base/Dockyard1

  USS Iowa

  270

  57,000

  Battleship

  Devonport Naval Base2

  RFA Brambleleaf

  170

  40,870

  RFA (Royal Fleet Auxiliary)

  Devonport Dockyard

  HMS Invincible

  209.1

  20,600

  Aircraft Carrier

  HMS Illustrious

  209.1

  20,600

  Aircraft Carrier

  RFA Bayleaf

  170.7

  37,747

  RFA

  RFA Orangeleaf

  170.7

  37,747

  RFA

  Rosyth Dockyard

  HMS Ark Royal

  209.1

  20,600

  Aircraft Carrier

  RFA Brambleleaf

  170

  40,870

  RFA

  1 Portsmouth Dockyard ceased to be a fully fledged dockyard in 1984. The Fleet Maintenance Repair Organisation (FMRO) became its successor organisation. FMRO Portsmouth transferred to commercial management on 28 February 1998.

  2 Information for Devonport Naval Base has been included for completeness.

  Royal Tournament
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 July 1999,Official Report, column 426, on the Royal Tournament, when the first Military Festival to be performed in Colchester is planned to take place; and how many performances there will be. [92630]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The first military festival will be based on the Royal Navy's Festival of the Sea to be held in 2001 at Portsmouth. No decision has yet been taken as to where it will be held thereafter.
  700
  Special Scientific Interest sample survey of lowland heathland, indicating in each case the condition and area of the site. [92212]

  Mr. Spellar
  The national Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) sample survey of lowland heathland was one of several pilot surveys undertaken by English Nature to develop a methodology for determining the condition of habitats on SSSIs, based on a sample of sites. The sample survey undertaken in 1994 and 1995 covered 93 lowland heathland SSSIs out of a possible 385 sites.

  A number of sites owned or used by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) were included in this survey.

  Naval Dockyards
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the (i) name, (ii) length, (iii) weight, (iv) type, and (v) displacement of the largest ship to have docked at the(a) Portsmouth Naval Base and Dockyards, (b) Rosyth Dockyard and (c) Devonport Dockyard; and if he will make statement. [92372]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The information requested is in the table. Accurate records are available only for the last 15 years.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 July 1999,Official Report, column 426, on the Royal Tournament, what will be the principal differences between the Military Tattoo to be staged at Horse Guards Parade and the Military Festival to be held outside London. [92628]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The new military tattoo will be an evening event on Horse Guards Parade in London. It will build on the traditions of the Royal Tournaments, involving ceremonial, massed bands and pageantry. The new military festival will be an all-day experience, enabling spectators to see a wide range of military
  701
  activities, view the latest military equipment, meet personnel and participate in interactive displays. It will be held at varying locations outside London, starting in 2001 at Portsmouth.

TREASURY

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue his Department has received from the landfill tax in each of the last five years. [92025]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested can be found in the Office for National Statistics publication "Financial Statistics". Table 2.1D "Customs and Excise taxes" shows figures for receipts from landfill tax.

  Landfill tax was introduced on 1 October 1996.

  Social Security Contributions
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the forecast levels of social security contributions for(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Wales, for each of the next three years. [92643]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Budget forecast for social security contributions in 1999–2000 in the United Kingdom is £55.7 billion. The figure is shown in Table B10 of the Budget 1999 Financial Statement and Budget Report. Forecasts of social security contributions as a percentage of GDP for subsequent years up to 2003–04 are shown in Table B9 of the same publication. The corresponding forecasts of money GDP are shown in Table B4. Separate figures for Scotland and Wales are not available.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount which has been paid by his Department since April 1998 in compensation for delays to payment of age-related rebates of national insurance contributions arising from problems with the NIRS2 computer system. [92482]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: Responsibility for the NIRS computer system transferred from the Department of Social Security to the Inland Revenue on 1 April 1999.

  The estimate for the amount of additional payments, since April 1998, for delays to payment of age-related rebates of national insurance contributions arising from problems with the NIRS2 computer system is £32.7 million.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the final total cost to the Exchequer of the problems associated with the N1RS2 computer system. [92483]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: Responsibility for the NIRS2 computer system transferred from the Department of Social Security to the Inland Revenue on 1 April 1999.
  702
  The estimated cost of additional payments to 1 July 1999 is £34.686 million. This includes additional payments to Pension Providers for the delay in the payment of age related rebates (£32.7 million).

  Other additional payments (£76,000) have been made to individuals and corporate customers in relation to minor difficulties they have encountered with NIRS2.

  Compensation paid to benefit recipients by the Department of Social Security amounted to £1.85 million at 1 July 1999.

  Costs associated with contingency processing plans, contingency arrangements and the provision of information have been met from the existing administration budgets of both the DSS and IR.

  The present programme of work, to deal with backlogs, is intended to avoid the need for such payments or keep them to a minimum.

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff at the Contributions Agency aged 60 years or over have been required to retire since April. [92200]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Between 1 April and 31 July 1999, 126 former Contributions Agency staff are due to retire, 18 at 60 and 108 after service beyond 60.

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes have been made to the terms and conditions affecting Contributions Agency staff aged 60 years or over since April. [92201]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The normal retirement age for Contributions Agency (CA) staff was 60, and staff of the Inland Revenue also have a normal retirement age of 60. During negotiations on the terms and conditions of service on which agency staff would join the Revenue, the Revenue promised to honour the transitional arrangements the CA had agreed when it changed its retirement policy. Accordingly, the Revenue agreed to honour all extensions of service to 31 July 1999. This was part of the whole terms and conditions package published to CA staff in February 1999 and accepted by a majority vote in the subsequent ballot.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) weekly and (b) monthly paid people in the United Kingdom, are estimated to earn in excess of (a) £20,000 (b) £25,000 and (c) £50,000 per annum. [92286]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Crausby, dated 23 July 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on earnings in the United Kingdom.
  The New Earnings Survey (NES) is based on a one per cent sample of employees in the PAYE system and is therefore likely to under-represent relatively low paid staff earning below the tax

  703
  threshold and in particular those who work part-time. However, this limitation is unlikely to affect those earning above £20,000 per annum.
  The attached table gives estimates of the percentage of weekly and monthly paid employees in the UK with earnings above the specified thresholds.

  Employees on adult rates, who have been in the same job for at least twelve months

  Gross annual pay (£)

  Percentage earning over

  £20,000

  £25,000

  £50,000

  Full-time

  Weekly paid

  16.6

  5.9

  0.1

  Monthly paid

  43.4

  25.4

  3.6

  Part-time

  Weekly paid

  1.5

  0.8

  0.0

  Monthly paid

  4.3

  2.3

  0.3

  All

  Weekly paid

  12.6

  4.5

  0.1

  Monthly paid

  35.3

  20.6

  2.9

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey, April 1998 (UK)

  Limb Deficiency
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what statistics his Department collects on the number of children born with limb deficiency; and if he will list the figures for the last three years. [92306]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Mark Oaten, dated 23 July 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on limb deficiency.
  The ONS collects information through the National Congenital Anomaly System. This system, which is voluntary at all stages, has been monitoring congenital anomalies in England and Wales since 1964. The primary purpose of this system is to detect changes in the frequency of reporting of any particular anomaly rather than trying to estimate the prevalence at birth.
  The following table shows babies notified with limb reduction defects*, numbers and rates per 10,000 live and stillbirths. England and Wales 1995–1997.

  Number

  Rate

  1995

  191

  2.9

  1996

  195

  3.0

  1997

  135

  2.1

  * International Classification of Diseases 10th revision Q71-Q73.

  Note:

  Data as at 20 July 1999

  Source:

  National Congenital Anomaly System

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the population in each parliamentary constituency live in settlements of less than 10,000 people. [92725]
  704
  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Tim Yeo, dated 23 July 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your question asking what percentage of the population in each parliamentary constituency live in settlements of less than 10,000 people.
  Mid-year population estimates are not compiled for areas such as parliamentary constituencies or smaller settlements. The lowest level at which these are available is the local authority level.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  M6 (Markings)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the purpose of the new markings set out in the manner of a Vernier scale on the M6 motorway. [92502]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Bernard Jenkin, dated 23 July 1999:
  The Transport Minister, Glenda Jackson, has asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Lawrie Haynes, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about markings on the M6 motorway. I am replying on Lawrie's behalf in his absence.
  The markings are put down on the carriageway when speed cameras are used on major maintenance schemes to help enforce a temporary 50mph speed limit. They enable the police to calculate traffic speeds that can then be used to back up recorded radar measurements.
  Although the markings in themselves do not represent a hazard and the police do not object to their remaining on the carriageway, we do try to remove them once the work has been completed. However, where the new type of low noise thin surfacing is used, it is difficult to remove the markings without damaging the surface. For future projects we are trying a new type of removable paint which when applied to the marking allows them to be washed away.
  If you need any further information, please contact the Agency's Route Manager, Howard Woolley at Sunley Tower, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester M1 4BE—Tel: 0161 930 5680.

  House Builders
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions the NHBC has taken court action against(a) Redrow and (b) other house builders over the past five years. [92496]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The NHBC is an independent private sector company and, with the exception of certain housing statistical returns provided by its subsidiary, NHBC Building Control Services Ltd., it does not report to my right hon. Friend on its day-to-day operations.

  Conservation Areas
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government have taken to ensure the favourable conservation status of special areas of conservation. [92797]
  705
  Mr. Meale
  The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 transpose the requirements of the EC Habitats Directive in England, Scotland and Wales. The Directive requires that member states should nominate Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) which are the best areas to represent the range and variety of the habitats and species identified by the Directive.

  The Government have recently announced that a virtually complete list of 340 wildlife sites nominated for special protection as candidate SACs under the Habitats Directive has been submitted to the European Commission.

  It is a matter of Government policy that the Regulations should be applied to candidate sites as if the sites were already designated, and they are given the full protection of the Regulations to ensure their favourable condition. These sites are given the highest priority for conservation action by the nature conservation agencies.

  Limestone Pavement
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the extent of trade within the UK of limestone pavement; what amount is traded with other European Union countries; and if the Government will ban trade in limestone pavements. [92798]

  Mr. Meale
  The Limestone Pavement Biodiversity Action Plan Working Group, chaired by the Countryside Agency, has commissioned research into the extent and nature of trade in waterworn limestone. In the light of the report the Group will be advising Ministers whether a ban on trade is feasible.

  In the meantime the Department fully supports the activities of the Limestone Pavement Action Group in seeking to discourage the sale and purchase of waterworn limestone.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made towards completing the Limestone Pavement Order process under section 34 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for England, Scotland and Wales; and when the process is expected to be completed. [92796]

  Mr. Meale
  The Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority recently made seven further Limestone Pavement Orders (LPO), bringing the total in England to 92, and proposes to make a further seven in 1999. It is, therefore expected that all pavements in England will be protected under section 34 by the end of this year.

  Scottish Natural Heritage will be considering making use of this provision. Information about important localities in Wales is being passed to local authorities. Several local authorities are considering making LPOs under section 34.

  The making of LPOs in Scotland and Wales is a matter for the authorities there.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the GM crops being tested in pre-commercial farm-scale 706
  trials, which contain antibiotic resistant marker genes, giving details of the marker genes concerned in each case. [92723]

  Mr. Meale
  None of the genetically modified (GM) crops being grown under the joint Government/SCIMAC farm-scale evaluations contain functional antibiotic resistant marker genes.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is the Government's policy to seek an amendment of EC Directive 90/220/EEC so that companies with marketing consents for genetically modified crops must inform the relevant local authority of their intention to plant genetically modified crops in their area. [82261]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government strongly support the revision of Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on which political agreement was reached at the recent EU Environment Council. The political agreement did not include provision that companies with marketing consents for genetically modified (GM) crops must inform the relevant local authority of their intention to plant GM crops in their area. However, the agreement does provide for mandatory consultation of the public on all releases. Provisions require the Commission to make all summary notifications for applications to place GMOs on the market and assessment reports available to the public, which has the right to comment within 30 days. Assessment reports and the opinions of the Scientific Committees for all consents issued and rejected must also be made available to the public.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has commissioned or evaluated on the effects of herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant genetically-modified crops on the environment; and if he will make a statement. [92712]

  Mr. Meale
  DETR carries out extensive research on the environmental impact of genetically modified (GM) crops. Two important recent reports are, "The Commercial use of Genetically Modified Crops in the United Kingdom: the Potential Wider Impact on Farmland Wildlife", that includes consideration of the environmental effects of both herbicide tolerant and insect resistant GM crops and "Environmental Risks of Herbicide Tolerant Oilseed Rape". Copies of both reports are in the Library.

  The farm-scale evaluations—announced in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on 15 April 1999, Official Report, columns 301–02— are investigating whether there are any differences in the diversity and abundance of wildlife associated with the management of genetically modified (GM) herbicide tolerant oil seed rape and maize compared with the management of equivalent conventional crops.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has received about the effect of genetically-modified pollen on butterfly survival rates. [92632]
  707
  Mr. Meale
  My Department is aware of the potential risks of genetically modified (GM) insect resistant crops to non-target and beneficial organisms, and we are funding research to investigate these. This research will underpin future regulatory decision making.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Environment reported in his reply to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 24 May 1999, Official Report, column 8, that the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) had been asked to give consideration to the report in Nature about the possible adverse effects of pollen from genetically modified insect resistant maize on the Monarch Butterfly in America. ACRE concluded that the laboratory studies presented in the article are preliminary and that more work needs to be done, particularly to study the effects under field conditions. Despite the questions remaining about the study, the results do suggest that Bt pollen from the genetically modified maize is harmful to Monarch butterfly larvae under the laboratory conditions tested, although this may not necessarily reflect what actually happens in the natural environment.

  This study alone does not justify any immediate action in the UK. There are currently no Bt crops being grown here and none will be for the next three years. The issues raised in the Nature article will be kept under review by ACRE and no GM crops will be given approval if there is reason to believe the pollen would harm the environment.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has commissioned or evaluated on the impact of gene escape from genetically modified crops on wild plants; and if he will make a statement. [92708]

  Mr. Meale
  DETR carries out extensive research on the environmental impact of genetically modified (GM) crops. Two important recent reports dealing with gene transfer from GM crops to wild relatives are "The Commercial use of Genetically Modified Crops in the United Kingdom: the Potential Wider Impact on Farmland Wildlife", and "Environmental Risks of Herbicide Tolerant Oilseed Rape". Copies of both reports are in the Library. Ongoing research commissioned by MAFF on pollen transfer will be published when the work is complete.

  Local Transport Plans
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to give statutory force to local transport plans. [91529]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We believe that there would be advantages in making local transport plans statutory and propose to legislate in due course.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what policy the UK Government are adopting with respect to the revision of EC Directive 90/220/EEC on the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment; and if he will make a statement. [88723]
  708
  Mr. Meacher
  The Government strongly support the revision of Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on which political agreement was reached at the recent EU Environment Council. Details of the political agreement are given in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on 6 July 1999,Official Report, columns 438–40.

  GM Farms (Health and Safety Inspections)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many HSE visits to GM farm scale trial sites were unannounced as a proportion of the total number of visits for each year since the trials started; and if he will make a statement. [87863]

  Mr. Meale
  No unannounced HSE visits have been undertaken. The first GM farm scale trials were planted in the spring of 1999 and are not yet at the stage when appropriate inspection could be undertaken.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what checks HSE inspectors undertake when they visit GM farm scale trial sites; and if he will make a statement. [87861]

  Mr. Meale
  Under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1997 (as amended) HSE inspectors review each release site visited in the light of the specific requirements imposed in the relevant consent.

  Some of the important areas against which compliances are assessed include:
  Location of the site against the notified grid references;
  Isolation of the crop from other specified species and protected habitats;
  Size and format of the trial;
  Accuracy and currency of location specific information supplied at approval stage in support of the environmental risk assessment.

  All specific consent details are available on the Public Register, held by Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions at Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6DE.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date(a) he and (b) the Minister for Transport last used a train in the course of their official duties. [92660]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Ministers travel by public transport on a regular basis on official visits and journeys to their offices.

  Ministers are required under the Ministerial Code to always make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when is the next EC Council of Transport Ministers' meeting; and what will be on the agenda. [92506]
  709
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The next EC Transport Council will take place on 6 October in Luxembourg. The agenda will not be confirmed until shortly before the Council, but it is expected that the agenda will include the following topics:Strategy for integration of environmental considerations into transport policy (Report to Helsinki European Council)
  Galileo satellite navigation project
  Roadside inspection of roadworthiness of commercial vehicles
  Package of proposals on railways
  Harmonised rules for driving restrictions on heavy goods vehicles
  Registration and use of certain recertificated jet aircraft.

  M4 Bus Lane
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the M4 bus lane will move from pilot to full operational phase. [91483]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 15 July 1999]: The bus lane is fully operational. It is making journeys for all vehicles quicker. Buses and taxis are making savings of over three minutes (30 per cent.) during the morning and evening peak periods. In a period of severe congestion caused by an accident elsewhere buses using the bus lane were sixteen minutes quicker than other vehicles. On average cars are achieving savings of one minute (10 per cent.) during the morning peak period and two and a half minutes (25 per cent.) during the evening peak.

  Overall the bus lane and its associated speed limits have increased the maximum capacity of the M4 in this location by up to 10 per cent. at peak times. This benefits all vehicles.

  Wembley
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when the shadow Wembley Task Force will be formally constituted; [91702]

  (2) what consultation the Wembley Task Force has had with (a) local community stakeholders, (b) Brent Council and (c) local community and business organisations. [91700]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No Task Force has been constituted for Wembley. As I said in response to my hon. Friend on 24 June 1999,Official Report, columns 443–45, the Wembley Park Regeneration Partnership has secured Single Regeneration Budget funding of £15,255,000 towards a seven year programme for the Business Park there. Other work aimed at ensuring maximum impact and benefits flow from the redevelopment of Wembley Stadium is currently underway although, being essentially a sporting-related venture, the Department of Culture Media and Sport is taking lead responsibility. Proposals covering the wider regeneration interests involving a range of bodies and interests, including Government Office London, English Partnerships as facilitator, Brent Council and local community and business interests are under development. The Government hope to be able to announce further details soon.

  Void Council Properties
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of council-owned properties in(a) Salisbury district, (b) North Dorset district, (c) New Forest district, (d) Kennet district and (e) Test Valley district were declared void in 1998. [91795]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As reported by them on their respective Housing Investment Programme (HIP) Operational Information returns, 2.7 per cent. of council-owned properties were vacant within Salisbury District Council area on 1 April 1998, 0.6 per cent. in New Forest and 0.5 per cent. in Test Valley. There is likely to be some variation in the proportion of dwellings that are vacant in a local authority from one date to another during the year.

  North Dorset and Kennet District Councils no longer own residential properties, having transferred their housing stock to the private sector in 1994 and 1995 respectively.

  Rents
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for the latest year available the (i) average market rent for a(a) one, (b) two and (c) three bed property in the private rented sector, (ii) local reference rent and (iii) single room rent in each London borough. [91779]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Statistics of average market rents for all private rented stock are not available for individual London boroughs.

  Average weekly local reference rents and single room rents in 1998 for housing benefit referrals of private rented stock in each London borough are as set out in the tables.

  Average weekly local reference rent (LRR), London boroughs 1998

  £/Week

  Rent Office Area

  1 bed

  2 bed

  3 bed

  Barking and Dagenham

  76.87

  109.37

  132.70

  Bamet

  102.48

  159.66

  218.76

  Bexley

  80.44

  104.83

  124.45

  Brent

  103.50

  150.95

  194.16

  Bromley

  109.84

  138.95

  179.53

  City

  87.69

  n/a

  n/a

  Camden

  153.39

  218.88

  325.00

  Croydon

  84.56

  110.60

  141.41

  Ealing

  96.70

  161.93

  188.62

  Enfield

  87.95

  123.92

  152.64

  Greenwich

  84.51

  112.68

  132.24

  Hackney

  93.17

  137.53

  197.53

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  132.68

  206.63

  291.86

  Haringey

  88.53

  144.10

  189.85

  Harrow

  86.87

  134.08

  166.02

  Havering

  77.54

  109.30

  130.10

  Hillingdon

  80.25

  125.57

  150.74

  Hounslow

  85.64

  134.23

  152.81

  Islington

  116.84

  217.04

  326.36

  Kensington and Chelsea

  171.01

  249.58

  297.22

  Lambeth

  101.65

  161.59

  225.79

  Lewisham

  84.21

  115.32

  155.79

  Merton

  90.82

  156.57

  190.27

  Newham

  80.94

  117.00

  143.23

  Redbridge

  87.55

  120.05

  142.11

  Richmond upon Thames1

  116.26

  166.49

  202.93

  Southwark

  91.76

  142.99

  197.64

  Sutton

  94.51

  126.34

  159.25

  711

  Average weekly local reference rent (LRR), London boroughs 1998

  £/week

  Rent Office Area

  1 bed

  2 bed

  3 bed

  Tower Hamlets

  95.93

  155.06

  222.45

  Waltham Forest

  83.12

  112.56

  139.53

  Wandsworth

  105.18

  180.24

  236.62

  Westminster

  185.10

  258.69

  327.94

  Average weekly single room rent (SRR), London boroughs 1998

  £/week

  Rent Office Area

  1 bed

  2 bed

  3 bed

  Barking and Dagenham

  47.27

  47.50

  2—

  Barnet

  50.00

  49.82

  50.00

  Bexley

  46.65

  45.00

  2—

  Brent

  50.35

  48.34

  45.25

  Bromley

  56.33

  56.37

  2—

  City

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Camden

  69.21

  65.86

  85.00

  Croydon

  49.32

  49.56

  49.72

  Ealing

  53.63

  55.17

  53.02

  Enfield

  45.47

  45.60

  45.45

  Greenwich

  49.72

  50.05

  49.85

  Hackney

  52.58

  52.04

  51.32

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  64.82

  66.14

  64.74

  Haringey

  51.18

  52.97

  52.12

  Harrow

  47.24

  47.50

  47.50

  Havering

  47.50

  47.58

  2—

  Hillingdon

  47.84

  48.30

  2—

  Hounslow

  46.04

  47.83

  46.67

  Islington

  63.68

  62.53

  62.50

  Kensington and Chelsea

  77.23

  75.08

  2—

  Lambeth

  64.58

  64.40

  63.46

  Lewisham

  51.58

  51.76

  51.15

  Merton

  54.86

  56.18

  56.68

  Newham

  45.11

  45.11

  45.19

  Redbridge

  45.00

  45.00

  45.00

  Richmond upon Thames1

  61.91

  62.49

  2—

  Southwark

  55.86

  57.66

  55.00

  Sutton

  50.65

  54.61

  2—

  Tower Hamlets

  54.36

  54.47

  55.38

  Waltham Forest

  46.07

  46.22

  46.33

  Wandsworth

  61.42

  61.25

  60.24

  Westminster

  84.65

  84.14

  2—

  1 Includes Kingston upon Thames

  2 Insufficient data

  Notes:

  1. 1 bed is assumed to be equivalent to 2 habitable rooms; 2 beds, 3 or 4 habitable rooms; 3 beds, 5 habitable rooms

  2. Figures exclude cases where Rent Officers set a rent for over-large accommodation.

  Source:

  Rent Officer housing benefit determinations

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many tenants exercised the right-to-buy their property in(a) Enfield, (b) Greater London and (c) Great Britain in each of the last five years; and in each case what was the cost to public funds of the discounts. [92018]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The table presents the latest information on the number of sales of council dwellings reported by local authorities in England. Not all authorities have provided full returns so the figures for Greater London and England are estimates to take account of missing returns.
  712

  Sales of council dwellings

  Enfield

  Greater London

  England

  1994–95

  176

  6,363

  43,336

  1995–96

  110

  4,641

  31,512

  1996–97

  118

  5,220

  33,206

  1997–98

  172

  7,123

  41,329

  1998–99

  163

  n/a

  n/a

  A typical right-to-buy sale results in a net loss of around £10,000 in "net present value" terms. This includes the loss of rent and the need to eventually replace rented housing sold under the scheme. The net loss is largely due to the discount to which a tenant is entitled. Our consultation paper "Secure tenants' right to buy" published on 28 July 1998 (in particular paragraphs 8–10) set this out in detail, together with our proposals to reduce the cost by changing the discount rules. These proposals were implemented on 11 February. A copy of the paper is in the Library of the House.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the amount of Government capital investment in public transport in(a) the West Midlands and (b) London in each year since 1992; and what forecast he has made of investment levels for each year of the planning period. [92133]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' Departmental Investment Strategy, published in April 1999, set out the major elements of public sector investment anticipated as a result of the resources allocated to the Department following the comprehensive spending review. The following table illustrates expected capital investment generated through and related to DETR programmes and policies for railways and local transport in all areas, and London Transport. Investment prior to 1998–99 is given as an average figure.

  £ million cash

  Railways1

  Local transport2

  Local transport3

  Average 1993–94 to 1997–98

  n/a

  894

  1,041

  1998–99

  1,900

  623

  794

  1999–2000

  2,894

  641

  844

  2000–01

  2,612

  724

  775

  2001–02

  2,555

  1,016

  243

  1 Includes PPP/PFI generated investment.

  2 Total figures for England: not allocated to particular regions.

  3 Includes PFI investment. Does not include investment by the private sector in London Underground as part of the PPP.

  Transport Plan Appraisals
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if major schemes in local transport plans will require appraisal of alternatives using the New Approach to Appraisal. [92213]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Our guidance on provisional local transport plans requires the appraisal of the whole provisional plan using a simplified Appraisal Summary Table (AST). The simplified AST is derived from the
  713
  New Approach to Appraisal. Where the provisional local transport plan includes a major road or public transport scheme simplified ASTs are also required for an alternative strategy without the major scheme. This process identifies the contribution of the major scheme to the overall plan.

  Simplified ASTs will also be required to show the impact on the plan of any additional alternative strategies that are tested.

  In addition to the appraisal of the impact on the provisional plan, the major transport scheme itself will also be subject to scrutiny. For provisional plans, major road schemes will be assessed using the existing New Approach to Appraisal. Major public transport schemes will be appraised using current Section 56 requirements. We intend to have a multi-modal version of the New Approach to Appraisal in place in time for the assessment of full local transport plans next year.

  A1
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase the capacity of the Al Newcastle Western bypass from the Gateshead Metrocentre Interchange to the Ponteland Road Interchange. [92226]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 23 July 1999:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Lawrie Haynes, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question. You asked "What plans he has to increase the capacity of the A1 Newcastle Western Bypass from the Gateshead Metrocentre Interchange to the Ponteland Road Interchange." I am replying in Lawrie's absence from the office.
  In advance of any recommendations from the Tyneside Area Study announced in 'A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England', the Highways Agency is looking at a variety of measures aimed at improving safety and reducing congestion on Gateshead and Newcastle Western Bypasses. These could include, variable message signs to warn drivers of problems ahead, closed circuit television cameras to monitor conditions, variable speed limits to improve the flow of traffic at busy times and rapid response breakdown vehicles to prevent, as far as possible, congestion from building up following an incident. We are pursuing the banning of certain slow moving vehicles at peak times.
  We will be developing a rolling programme of worthwhile measures to be carried out in the next few years.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to dispose of land held for the widening of the A1 between Scotch Corner and the junction with the A1/M1 Link; when such land disposal was approved; and if he will state the total area of land involved. [92227]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Highways Agency currently owns 10 pieces of land or property bought in connection with the proposed widening of the A1 between Scotch Corner and the junction with the A1/M1 Link.

  It is currently seeking to sell five of these plots, bought for the A1(M) Dishforth to Leeming and the A1(M) Bramham to Wetherby schemes. These schemes were
  714
  withdrawn from the trunk road programme in 1996; and the decision to sell was taken shortly after that, when route protection was withdrawn.

  The Highways Agency is also selling one plot that was bought in connection with the A1(M) Walshford to Dishforth improvement but was not required for the scheme. The decision to sell was taken in 1997 following completion of the road works in that area.

  The other four plots, bought in connection with the A1(M) Leeming to Scotch Corner scheme, are being retained because they are directly affected by the extant Orders for that scheme.

  The total area of land involved is about 52 acres, of which around 49 acres are being sold.

  Northern Development Area
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the Highways Agency has agreed to support the plans for the Northern Development Area at the Inquiry called by the Secretary of State; and if he will estimate the Agency's costs of taking part in the Inquiry. [92229]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 23 July 1999:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Lawrie Haynes, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question. You asked "For what reasons the Highway Agency has agreed to support the plans for the Northern Development Area at the Inquiry called by the Secretary of State; and if he will estimate the Agency's costs of taking part in the Inquiry." I am replying in Lawrie's absence from the office.
  I must make it clear that the Highways Agency will not be appearing at the Public Inquiry in order to advance a case in support of the grant of permission for the Northern Development Area. We have been called to appear before the Public Inquiry to address just one issue—the implications of the traffic generation from the proposed development, with particular reference to the effects of the A1 trunk road and the local highway network.
  The Highways Agency's position is that the Northern Development Area will have a significant impact on the operation of the trunk road. However, prior to the Public Inquiry being arranged, the Highways Agency discussed with the developer what improvements to the trunk road would be needed to mitigate the effects of the development. Provided those agreed works are carried out, the Highways Agency has no reason to argue for the withholding of planning permission for the development.
  On the subject of costs, the Agency has so far spent £26,750 on legal and consultants' fees. We anticipate spending a further £25,000 on such fees by the time the Inquiry is complete.
  I hope this information is sufficient for your purposes.

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will respond to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee Sixth report of Session 1998–99 on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (HC. 31). [92205]

  Mr. Prescott
  We will respond once consultation within Government has finished.

  English Partnerships
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list English Partnerships property portfolio in Cumbria; [91461]

  (2) if the ownership of the freehold of the Cockermouth offices of English Partnerships will be vested in the North West Regional Development Agency. [91456]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 21 July 1999]: Details of the properties transferred from English Partnerships to the North West Regional Development Agency are contained in a transfer scheme made under section 36 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. A copy of the relevant pars of the scheme has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, (1) pursuant to his answer of 6 July 1999,Official Report, column 449, what estimate has been made of the additional costs of relocating English Partnerships offices from Cockermouth to Penrith in (a) this and (b) the next financial year; [91466]

  (2) if he will publish (a) the information concerning the transfer of staff from the Cockermouth offices of English Partnerships offices to Penrith which was taken into account when the value for money aspects of the move were considered by the North West Regional Development Agency and (b) the report into the value for money aspects of the move which was considered by the Agency prior to the decision being taken; [91467]

  (3) if the report into the value for money aspects of the move from Cockermouth to Penrith by English Partnerships was made available to the two members of the Regional Development Agency from Cumbria prior to the decision being (a) taken and (b) announced. [91468]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 21 July 1999]: Decisions concerning location are a matter for the North West Regional Development Agency. I understand that it was the objective of the Board of the Agency to find a location for its Cumbria office which was accessible both within Cumbria and from the rest of the North West region. The Board took the view that Penrith meets these criteria, whereas Cockermouth does not, and other locations do so less well.

  I understand that the Board took into account the implications for staff travel costs set out in my answer to my hon. Friend on 6 July 1999, Official Report, column 449.

  I understand that the Board Members from Cumbria were present during the discussion of the location of the Cumbria office and concurred both with the criteria to be applied and the choice of Penrith.

  I understand that the additional cost of relocating from English Partnerships offices in Cockermouth to Penrith cannot be determined until negotiations are complete, but that in the Board's view the additional cost will be offset by increased public accessibility and operational efficiency.

  Trains and Monorail Systems (London)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the use of(a) trains and (b) monorail systems in London. [92475]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We receive extensive correspondence on the use of trains in London, as elsewhere, but we receive representations on monorail systems only occasionally.

  Emission Tests (London Boroughs)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many London borough councils run emission tests of motor vehicles travelling within their borough. [92242]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Seven councils around Great Britain are currently helping us to determine how local authorities might be able to help in the enforcement of vehicle exhaust emissions standards at the roadside. Westminster City Council is the only authority in London formally involved in this work, although some others are checking vehicle emissions for motorists on a voluntary basis in car parks and similar locations.

  Secure Stations Scheme
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of his Safer Stations Policy in London. [92402]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department's Secure Stations Scheme was launched in April 1998. The Scheme encourages rail operators to improve security for both passengers and staff at all overground and underground stations policed by the British Transport Police.

  There are currently eight stations in London which have been accredited under the Scheme. We are continuing to work with station operators to make further progress with the Scheme.

  Railway Agencies
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what new railway agencies were introduced in London during(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [92401]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Numerous new companies arose from railway privatisation, but with the possible exception of the Docklands Light Railway resulting from changes in company status, no new railway agencies were introduced in London over the period in question. The Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR) and the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising (OPRAF) were established following enactment of the Railways Act 1993. On 1 April 1999, we launched the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority (SSRA), which is essentially the British Railways Board (BRB) and OPRAF working together. OPRAF and the BRB continue to exist as separate statutory entities with their own functions and responsibilities. The remits of ORR and the SSRA include London. The legislation required to establish the Strategic Rail Authority proper was introduced into the House of
  717
  Commons earlier this month and received its Second Reading on 19 July 1999, Official Report, columns 789–894.

  The Docklands Light Railway Ltd. was created in 1986 as a company limited by guarantee to manage light rail services in east London. On 6 April 1997, operation and maintenance of the whole of DLR services was franchised for seven years to Docklands Railway Management Ltd., and the DLR assumed a new role as a holding company, ownership of which was transferred from London Docklands Development Corporation to the Secretary of State on 31 March 1998.

  Bus Travel (London)
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of people who travelled by bus in London in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [92427]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The estimated numbers of annual passenger journeys on London Transport bus services from 1995–96 onwards are as follows:

  Year

  Million

  1995–96

  1,198

  1996–97

  1,234

  1997–98

  1,277

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of passenger miles undertaken by London Transport bus services in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [92426]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The estimated numbers of annual passenger miles on London Transport bus services from 1995–96 onwards are as follows:

  Year

  Million

  1995–96

  2,497

  1996–97

  2,584

  1997–98

  2,703

  1998–99

  2,681

  Millennium Pier
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Millennium Pier at the Dome site will be ready for river boat services. [92403]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  River services are planned to commence operation to and from the Millennium Pier when the Dome opens on 1 January 2000.

  Councillors (London)
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many councillors were elected in 1998 for each London borough, broken down by gender and ethnicity. [92397]
  718
  Mr. Meale
  The Local Government Management Board's 1997 census of councillors indicated that 230 out of 2,018 London Borough councillors who responded to this question were non-white. We do not have a breakdown for each London Borough for these figures.

  The following table gives a breakdown of the gender ratios for the London Boroughs obtained by the Women's Unit last year:

  Name of London borough

  Number of women councillors

  Percentage

  Barking and Dagenham

  17

  33

  Barnet

  25

  42

  Bexleyheath

  20

  32

  Brent

  15

  23

  Bromley

  16

  27

  Camden

  22

  37

  City of London

  20

  15

  Croydon

  19

  27

  Ealing

  19

  27

  Enfield

  13

  20

  Greenwich

  14

  23

  Hackney

  18

  30

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  14

  28

  Haringey

  23

  39

  Harrow

  20

  32

  Havering

  17

  27

  Hillingdon

  17

  25

  Hounslow

  15

  25

  Islington

  26

  50

  Kensington and Chelsea

  13

  24

  Kingston

  13

  31

  Lambeth

  18

  28

  Lewisham

  21

  31

  Merton

  17

  30

  Newham

  13

  22

  Redbridge

  12

  19

  Richmond

  20

  38

  Southwark

  20

  31

  Sutton

  21

  38

  Tower Hamlets

  12

  24

  Waltham Forest

  13

  22

  Wandsworth

  16

  26

  Westminster

  19

  32

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will not accept digitally produced photographs; and whether the unacceptability of such photographs will be made clear on DVLA application forms for photographic driving licences. [92406]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: Digitally produced photographs are acceptable, provided they conform to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's requirements for photographs as prescribed on the appropriate application form.

  Home Insulation
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many solid-walled properties have received publicly-funded assistance towards external wall insulation in each of the last five years. [92535]
  719
  Mr. Meale
  Local authorities' programmes for maintaining and improving their social housing stock include external wall insulation. Local authorities also have powers to grant aid thermal insulation works under the house renovation grant system. Detailed figures are not available.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many cavity-walled houses have received(a) Government and (b) local government assistance to have their walls insulated with cavity-wall insulation in each of the last five years. [92534]

  Mr. Meale
  The number of cavity-walled houses which have received Government assistance to have their walls insulated with cavity wall insulation since schemes began in 1996 are as follows:

  Number of installations

  1996–1997

  41,940

  1997–1998

  87,712

  1998–991

  120,595

  1 The figure for 1998–1999 is not yet finalised.

  Work by local authorities using Energy Saving Trust funds is included in the figures. Local authorities programmes for maintaining and improving their social housing stock include cavity wall insulation. Local authorities also have powers to grant aid thermal insulation works under the house renovation grant system. Detailed figures are not available.

  Cycling (Leicestershire)
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress in the construction of cycle routes in(a) North West Leicestershire, (b) Leicestershire and (c) the United Kingdom; and what measures he is taking to encourage cycling. [91821]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: The responsibility for providing cycling facilities rests with individual local highway authorities. Statistics on cycle routes are not available centrally.

  We expect all local authorities to develop local cycling strategies as part of their local transport plans. Good progress is being made in implementing the National Cycling Strategy, although it will take time for better provision for cyclists to feed through fully.

  In addition, the first 3,500 miles of the National Cycle Network, being co-ordinated by the cycle charity, Sustrans, will be completed by mid-summer 2000.

  Homelessness (Leicestershire)
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of homeless people in(a) North West Leicestershire, (b) Leicestershire with Leicester and (c) the East Midlands; and if he will make a statement on his strategy to combat homelessness. [92187]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: Local authorities in England report in their quarterly P1(E) returns the number of households accepted as
  720
  unintentionally homeless and in priority need under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1986 Housing Acts.

  The latest available estimates are for the quarter ending March 1999, as follows1

  Number

  Number per thousand households

  North West Leicestershire1

  59

  1.7

  Other Leicestershire districts, including Leicester and Rutland unitary authorities2

  331

  1.0

  East Midlands region2

  2,030

  1.2

  1 Figure as reported

  2 Figures include estimates for non-responding authorities

  My right hon. Friend, the Minister for Local Government and Housing, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) on 19 May 1999, Official Report, columns 355–61, stated that at June 1998 there were 1,850 people sleeping rough in England on any single night. The answer included details from all local authority districts which had counted the number of rough sleepers in their district or estimated more than 10 people sleeping rough on any one night.

  The central aim of our housing policy is to offer everyone the opportunity of a decent home and so promote social cohesion, well-being and self-dependence. The Government are committed to reducing all aspects of homelessness. Then making an additional £5 billion of resources available for investment in housing in England over the lifetime of this Parliament. The Government have a manifesto pledge to increase the protection for unintentionally homeless people in priority need. We are considering what further steps should be taken to achieve this.

  The Government have also set a tough new target to reduce the numbers of rough sleepers by two thirds by 2002. The Rough Sleepers Unit headed by Louise Casey has an integrated budget of £145 million to tackle and prevent rough sleeping and a £34 million Homelessness Action Programme has also been established to tackle rough sleeping outside London.

  National estimates for acceptances in each quarter, which include estimates for non-responding local authorities, appear in a quarterly Information Bulletin which is available in the Library. The latest figures, for the first quarter of 1999, were released on 16 June 1999. An associated Supplementary Table, showing the figures as reported by individual local authorities, is released with the Information Bulletin.

  1 Source of data—information on English local authorities' activities under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1996 is collected on Part E of the quarterly P1(E) returns from local authorities. The information is collected on homeless households rather than homeless people and relates to households which were eligible, unintentionally homeless, and in priority need.

  Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people have received jail sentences under the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974. [92698]
  721
  Mr. Meale
  Four people have been sent to jail for health and safety at work offences, all since January 1996. The jail sentences related to unlicensed asbestos removal or failure to comply with prohibition notices. I welcome the message the courts have sent in these cases to anyone else who is tempted to flout health and safety law and put employees and members of the public at risk.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [92446]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: 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 only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Intervention Board will publish the 1998–99 Annual report and Accounts. [93494]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I am pleased to announce that the Intervention Board's 1998–99 Annual Report and Accounts 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.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 19 and 20 July; and if he will make a statement. [93044]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the European Union Agriculture Council in Brussels on 19 July.

  The Council received a report from Commissioner Fischler on the Commission's plans to reform Community feedingstuffs legislation following the dioxin contamination in Belgium. I welcomed this report and indicated my preparedness to support measures that were effective, proportionate and enforceable in dealing with potential health problems.

  A Decision to update the rules on the processing of animal waste to protect against transmissible spongiform encephalopathies was agreed by qualified majority. An extension of certain deadlines under the Zoonoses Directive was agreed by qualified majority.
  722
  The Council held a preliminary discussion on a proposal to promote and provide information on EU agricultural products in third countries. The Council agreed to decide on the proposal once further technical work had been completed.

WALES

  National Assembly for Wales
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish, before the summer adjournment, the most recent draft concordat between his Department and the National Assembly for Wales. [92328]

  Mr. Michael
  Work on the concordat is proceeding well. I hope to be in a position to put a draft concordat to the Assembly Cabinet shortly. I do not intend to publish the concordat in advance of that. The Assembly will have full opportunity to consider the concordat in due course.

  Police (Gas Sprays)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his responsibilities are in relation to Government policy on the use by police of(a) MIBK and (b) CS gas spray. [92639]

  Mr. Michael
  None. These are matters for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [92665]

  Mr. Michael
  In undertaking my official duties, it has been my practice to use both road and rail travel, whichever is the most expedient and efficient. I last travelled by train on 16 March 1999 from Port Talbot to London.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many kilometres have been travelled on his Department's business in each of the last three years broken down by(a) foot, (b) bike, (c) bus, (d) train, (e) tram, (f) light-rail, (g) plane, (h) motorbike, (i) car, (j) taxi, (k) river-taxi and (l) other modes of transport; what plans and targets his Department has to reduce the kilometres travelled by private transport by his Department's employees; and if he will make a statement. [91021]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]: The information on business travel is not collected in the form requested and therefore cannot be provided. As published in the Integrated Transport White Paper in July 1998, the Government have set a target that all Government Department headquarters buildings and main buildings occupied by Executive Agencies and Government Offices for the Regions should have green transport plans by March 1999 and all other key buildings by March 2000.
  723
  It has been agreed with the Government Office for London that an office of our size is not required to produce a specific plan.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the number, grade and previous experience of his staff in(a) London and (b) Edinburgh; [91321]

  (2) how many staff he plans to employ during the next 12 months in (a) his London Office and (b) Scotland; and what will be the grade of those staff. [91400]

  Dr. Reid
  The staffing of my office is currently the subject of review following the establishment of the Scottish Executive and I will make a statement on any proposed changes when necessary.

  At present the number and grades of staff in post in (a) London and (b) Scotland are as follows:

  (a) London

  (b) Scotland

  Senior Civil Service

  3

  —

  Special Advisers

  1

  1

  C2

  1

  —

  C1

  1

  1

  B3

  2

  —

  B2

  1(1)

  (1)

  B1

  2(1)

  —

  A3

  12(1)

  1(2)

  A1

  4

  —

  Total

  27(3)

  3(3)

  The figures are actual staff in post to which need to be added the figures in brackets which are vacancies.

  The staff concerned have previously worked in either The Scottish Office or the Lord Advocate's Department and have been assigned to my office on loan from the Scottish Executive.

  Ministerial Residence
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has an official residence in Scotland. [91649]

  Dr. Reid
  No.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [92663]

  Dr. Reid
  On Monday 21 July.

HEALTH

  Ashworth Hospital
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish his response to the Committee of Inquiry into the Personality Disorder Unit, Ashworth Special Hospital. [92647]
  724
  Mr. Dobson
  I am today publishing my response to the Inquiry Report. Copies have been placed in the Library. We have accepted the broad substance of the Inquiry Report and are taking appropriate action to ensure that their concerns are properly addressed.

  Single Currency
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much expenditure his Department(a) has incurred to date and (b) has forecast that it will incur in the future, on preparations for possible United Kingdom entry into the European single currency; and if he will make a statement. [91554]

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

  Category D Drugs
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what category D drugs are currently not readily available in the United Kingdom; and what assessment he has made of the consequent impact on the percentage of generic drugs in the total prescribing mix. [92135]

  Mr. Denham
  For every drug which has been placed in category D of part VIII of the Drug Tariff it has been established that, at a particular point in time, community pharmacies in England and Wales may not be able to buy stock at the Drug Tariff price. However, we have no evidence at present of supplies being unavailable from any source, or of patients being unable to obtain the medicines that they need.

  The pattern of drugs dispensed should not affect the proportion of prescriptions written generically.

  Cancer Care
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total spent by each NHS Regional Executive on funding cancer care advisers in the two most recent years; and if he will make a statement. [91981]

  Mr. Hutton
  Each of the National Health Service Executive regional offices has an appointed cancer coordinator to provide a focus for maintaining cancer policy implementation. In addition, regional offices have their own arrangements for supporting this work, drawing on relevant experience both within the regional office and from the NHS more widely, including buying in expertise as and when necessary. This means that the total expenditure on cancer co-ordination and its support cannot readily be identified separately on a consistent basis across regional offices.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when NHS Direct will be made available to people living in Hendon. [92363]

  Mr. Denham
  NHS Direct is currently available to 2.7 million people in London and will be extended to cover a further 1.9 million people in London by
  725
  December of this year. NHS Direct will cover the whole of the capital, including residents in Hendon, by the end of the year 2000.

  "Waiting to Hear"
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he has made to the Royal National Institute for Deaf People's paper "Waiting to Hear". [92334]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: The National Health Service Executive established a working group to take a closer look at hearing aid services and the part they play in a modern NHS. Innovative ways of developing services in this area are currently being considered.

  National Health Service Act 1977
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many public inquiries have been established under section 84 of the National Health Service Act 1977 in each of the last 10 years. [92110]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: Since 1989, two public inquiries have been established under Section 84 of the National Health Service Act 1977.

  They are the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry, established October 1998, and the Inquiry into The Personality Disorder Unit, Ashworth Special Hospital, established February 1997.

  Disability Equipment
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the current budget is for research and development work on equipment for disabled people, under section 22 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. [92304]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: The Department has no specific budget for this work, which is currently funded under the National Health Service research and development strategy and programmes including MedLINK and the Teaching Company Scheme. Details of these funding sources are listed in the annual report laid under section 22 of the Act.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals his Department has to promote research and development into disability equipment. [92303]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: The Department promotes research and development work on equipment for disabled people through the annual report laid under section 22 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Copies are sent to research groups, charities, funding bodies, journal publishers, trade associations and other organisations. A range of programmes and schemes fund work in this field. Calls for proposals are announced on the Department's website and in relevant newsletters and journals.

  Wheelchair Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the York Economic Consortium Review of the wheelchair voucher scheme will be published. [92307]
  726
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: The York Health Economics Consortium has concluded its evaluation of the powered wheelchair and voucher scheme initiatives. The Consortium's report has now been received by the Department. It will be made available after it has been considered by Ministers.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on Government policy towards the use of genetically engineered pigs as sources of organs for transplant into humans. [92666]

  Mr. Hutton
  The use of genetically modified animals, as with all aspects of xenotransplantation, needs to be monitored closely. The United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority (UKXIRA) acts as the focal point for consideration of all xenotransplantation issues as well as advising the Government on the acceptability of specific applications to undertake xenotransplantation procedures.

  The transplantation of animal tissue into humans, offers a potential solution to the current shortage of human organs and tissue for transplantation. It also offers the possibility of new treatments for conditions such as Parkinson's disease. Clearly, there are many difficulties yet to be overcome with this new technology, not least the problem of rejection of tissue transplanted between different species. The genetic modification of animals, most notably pigs, may provide a solution to this problem.

  The view of the UKXIRA and of the Government is that, while recognising that the problems in this field are not to be underestimated, the potential of xenotransplantation should continue to be explored.

  Community Hospitals (Oxfordshire)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to make an announcement on(a) the future arrangements for community hospitals in Oxfordshire and (b) the future of Bicester Community hospital. [92646]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fully recognises the concerns of the local community on this issue.

  He has instructed officials at the National Health Service Executive South East Regional Office to explore further the feasibility of variations put forward by Oxfordshire Health Authority and Oxfordshire Community Health NHS Trust.

  The matter has now been referred to my right hon. Friend who will be carefully considering all options before reaching a final decision on the future arrangements for community hospitals in Oxfordshire and the future of Bicester Community Hospital.

  Health Checks
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it his policy to encourage general practitioners to offer regular medical checks of their patients who are over the age of 75 years; and if he will make a statement. [92908]

  Mr. Hutton
  Under their terms of service, general practitioners are required to invite all patients who have reached the age of 75 for an annual health check in the
  727
  patient's home, or in the surgery if the patient prefers. General practitioners make arrangements with health authorities to provide services and regional offices of the National Health Service Executive hold health authorities to account for the services provided in their area.

  Dialysis
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reciprocal arrangements are in place for dialysis between the NHS and the island of Jersey. [92670]

  Mr. Denham
  There are no reciprocal arrangements for dialysis as part of regular, planned treatment though emergency care is available for conditions arising unexpectedly during a temporary visit.

  Donor Cards
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the budgeted expenditure has been for the promotion of the donor card scheme over the last three years. [92673]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is:

  £

  1996–97

  1,225,231

  1997–98

  457,960

  1998–99

  1,527,692

  Referral
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the specific circumstances are where a general practitioner must obtain prior approval for an out-of-area treatment referral; [92671]

  (2) what the specific circumstances are where a general practitioner must obtain prior approval for referral (a) to a specialised service, (b) to a specialist mental health service for deaf people and (c) for a cochlear implant. [92672]

  Mr. Denham
  The out of area treatment arrangements are used where pre-arranged service agreements are impractical, primarily for emergency situations. As made clear in Health Service Circular 1999–117 "The New NHS: Guidance on Out of Area Treatment", there is no formal prior approval mechanism for referrals under the out of area treatment arrangements.

  In some cases, there may be local accountability arrangements in place setting out clinical protocols for making referrals for highly specialised services.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Falkland Islands
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the Lan Chile flights to the Falklands to re-commence. [92504]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I understand that Lan Chile are in touch with the Falkland Islands Development Corporation with a view to resuming flights to the Falklands during August if not sooner.
  728
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evaluation he has made of the effect on the economy of the Falkland Islands of the Chilean legislation passed on 9 July banning all flights to the Falklands before January 2000. [92503]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government of Chile have informed our Embassy at Santiago of their decision, in response to the joint statement issued by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Minister of the Argentine Republic on 14 July, to reverse their decree banning flights to the Falklands. We have made no formal assessment of the economic impact of the 9 July extension of the decree banning flights. The resumption of flights will bring social and economic benefits to the Falkland Islands and to southern Chile.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the documentation provided by the Chilean Government concerning the restoration of flights to the Falkland Islands contingent upon allowing Argentinian citizens to visit the islands. [92505]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Chilean Government have not provided us with any documentation concerning the restoration of flights to the Falkland Islands.

  Kosovo
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) Kosovar Serbs and (b) members of other ethnic groups have left Kosovo since the KFOR Occupation. [92721]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  UNHCR estimate that about 170,000 Kosovar Serbs have left Kosovo. An unspecified number of Roma gypsies have also left Kosovo. There is no further breakdown of figures available. KFOR are committed to the protection of everyone in Kosovo whatever their ethnicity.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's Operation Horseshoe in Kosovo. [91762]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  In summer 1998, Belgrade's security forces drove at least 250,000 Kosovar Albanians from their homes and destroyed villages and crops. During the winter of 1998–99, we had information that the Serbs planned to destroy all those who they regarded as the KLA. The Racak massacre of 15 January (over 40 killed) was a reminder of Serb brutality.

  Before NATO started bombing on 24 March, the Serbs had already destroyed villages and expelled the inhabitants. There were strong grounds for expecting that Milosevic was embarking on a renewed campaign of civilian casualties, with the destruction of villages and displacement of inhabitants on a scale at least as great as in 1998.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the criteria used by his Department for issuing public interest immunity certificates; and what plans he has to amend these criteria. [92731]
  729
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Government policy on the use of public interest immunity certificates was set out in a statement by my right hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General on 11 July 1997,Official Report, columns 616–17. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 28 June 1999, Official Report, columns 18–19. All certificates signed by FCO Ministers since 1 May 1997 have been issued in full accordance with the policy set out in those statements. I have no plans to seek amendment to it.

  Entry Refusals
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to place in the Library the report for 1998 by Dame Elizabeth Anson, relating to refusal of entry clearance where there is no right of appeal. [93260]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have arranged for copies of Dame Elizabeth's 1998 Report to be placed in the Library. I welcome the Report and note Dame Elizabeth's recommendations, which will receive careful consideration.

  Irian Jaya
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set up an inquiry into events at Irian Jaya in May 1996 during the rescue of four British citizens; what British forces were involved in the rescue; and what transport bearing what markings was used. [92301]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: We have no plans to hold an inquiry. British hostages were successfully freed but sadly during the rescue two Indonesian hostages and some Indonesian troops were killed. We do not comment on the operational aspects of kidnap cases.

  Gough Island
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and UNESCO World Heritage Centre about the adequacy of the monitoring of fishing grounds around the Gough Island Wildlife Reserve. [87490]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: In order to ensure that all relevant papers on this subject were located it was necessary to consult The Administrator of Tristan Da Cunha, the British Embassy and UK Delegation to UNESCO in Paris, the Department for International Development and various FCO Departments. I am now confident that we have located all relevant correspondence and will be placing copies in the Libraries of the House.

  Data Series
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new data series separated by gender, race, disability and age have been commissioned by his Department since June 1997. [90830]
  730
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  No new data series separated by gender, race, disability and age have been commissioned by the FCO since June 1997, although a number of existing data series are routinely analysed in this way.

  Recruitment, resignation and appraisal figures are routinely analysed by race, gender and disability. The number of staff in each grade is also broken down annually by gender, race and disability. A number of other data series separated by gender, race, disability and age continue to be analysed on an ad hoc basis.

  EU Council Meetings
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to publicise in advance the agendas of all meetings of the European Council and Councils of Ministers and their working groups; and what plans the current Presidency of the Union has on this issue. [90972]

  Ms Quin
  There are no formal agendas for European Councils. But it is normal for the Foreign Secretary to give oral evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on the topics most likely to be discussed. Regular European Councils are also preceded by a debate on the floor of the House.

  As regards Council of Ministers meetings, we regularly inform Parliament about details of EU business. The European Scrutiny Committee is also informed of relevant agenda items before each Council of Ministers meeting, and a copy of the information routinely placed in the Library of the House.

  We understand that the Finnish Presidency intends to post the agendas of both Council of Ministers and Coreper meetings on the Internet and that Council working group agendas will be available on request from the Finnish Permanent Representation to the EU in Brussels.

  Appointments (Quangos)
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [92127]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and his Ministers made(a) 21 appointments between 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998 and (b) 40 between 1 June 1998 and 31 May 1999.

  In (a) one appointee was a member of Britain's Asian community.

  In (b) six appointees were members of ethnic minority groups, not all were Asian.
  731
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is committed to increasing the percentage of women, and members of minority ethnic groups appointed to FCO sponsored NDPBs. The FCO departmental action plan for NDPB's sets objectives and targets for improving representation in these groups. Full details can be found in "Opening up Public Appointments" pages 18 and 19. This was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 25 May 1999.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the costs of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, including the costs arising from the publication by the Inquiry of the names of the witnesses in Appendix 11 of the Inquiry's report; and if he will make a statement. [93265]

  Mr. Straw
  The final costs of the Inquiry have yet to be determined as there are outstanding bills for settlement in terms of legal fees. However, the costs incurred to date are:

  £

  Pay and allowances, inquiry team, advisors and civil servants

  667,000

  Accommodation and associated costs

  710,000

  Legal representation and treasury solicitors costs

  2,045,000

  Miscellaneous running costs

  777,000

  Total

  4,199,000

  This provides a total cost to date of £4.199 million. I have accepted the recommendation of Sir William Macpherson, chairman of the Inquiry, that the Metropolitan Police Service should, in accordance with section 49(5) of the Police Act 1996, meet the full costs of setting up and establishing the Inquiry, together with all costs which directly accrued from Part 1 of the Inquiry relating to the police investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. These costs amount to £3.170 million to date of the total costs and these have been met by the Metropolitan Police.

  I have also accepted Sir William's recommendation that the costs of Part 2 of the Inquiry, on the future handling of racially motivated crime, should be met by the Home Office as the findings were of more general application.

  I have always made clear that we would take steps to remedy the serious problems caused to a number of people by the Inquiry's error in publishing Appendix 11 of the Inquiry's report in full. Arrangements have, therefore, been made to reimburse the costs arising from the need of 18 families and individuals to be moved by Greenwich Council or to sell their houses. The final amount spent for this purpose, including staff costs incurred by the Council, is not yet known but is likely to be about £650,000.

  Mr. Louis Farrakhan
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a decision on whether the exclusion from the United Kingdom of Mr. Louis Farrakhan is to be maintained. [93266]

  Mr. Straw
  Last year, I informed Mr. Farrakhan that I was minded to maintain his exclusion from the United Kingdom on the grounds that his presence here would not be conducive to the public good for reasons of race relations and the maintenance of public order. Mr. Farrakhan was offered the opportunity to make further representations before I made my final decision.

  I have carefully reviewed the case for his continued exclusion in the light of Mr. Farrakhan's representations and other relevant material. I have concluded that it remains the case that the exclusion of Mr. Farrakhan from the United Kingdom is conducive to the public good. Mr. Farrakhan's representatives have been informed of my decision today.

  Passport Agency
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the United Kingdom Passport Agency Business Plan 1998–99 and annual report will be published. [93264]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Proof copies of the Passport Agency's Annual Report were today placed in the Library. The report will be printed and issued by September.

  The Agency's Business Plan has, exceptionally, been deferred to later in the year in order that it will more accurately reflect the Agency's position in light of the difficulties experienced earlier this year.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's most recent quarterly analysis of the UK Passport Agency's customer service. [92555]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Regular postal surveys of customer opinion take place on a two-monthly basis. In addition, surveys of personal callers are carried out by individual passport offices on a quarterly basis. Copies of the analyses of the most recent surveys have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the difference to the Passport Agency's running costs from relocating the London Passport Office and the UK Passport Agency headquarters to Eccleston Square. [92499]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This was assessed when the relocation business case was prepared in December 1997, and will be looked at again as part of the Agency's re-assessment of the business case which is now taking place.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the backlog of unprocessed passport applications(a) at each office of the United

  733
  Kingdom Passport Agency and (b) in total for the last week for which the information is available. [92776]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of unprocessed applications at week ending 18 July 1999 was:

  Number

  London

  8,144

  Liverpool

  153,065

  Peterborough

  57,090

  Newport

  94,310

  Glasgow

  98,772

  Belfast

  6,981

  Total

  418,362

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the cost to public funds of refurbishing 89 Eccleston Square and of relocating the UK Passport Agency headquarters and the London Passport Office to that address. [92498]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A full business case and cost-benefit analysis covering a number of options for the relocation of the United Kingdom Passport Agency headquarters and the London Passport Office was carried out in December 1997. A further assessment took place when Bridge Place, 89 Eccleston Square—an existing Government leasehold property was identified. This found that Bridge Place offered best value for money of all the options considered by the Passport Agency. The business case is now being re-examined in the light of the Agency's operational difficulties this year, and other relevant factors.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the nature and duration of the disruption to services to members of the public which would be caused by the re-location of the London Passport Office and the Passport Agency headquarters to Eccleston Square. [92501]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member on 19 July 1999,Official Report, column 402, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, has yet to approve the Passport Agency's proposals for relocation from Clive House. Clearly an important element in the project planning will be measures to ensure that services to members of the public are not disrupted.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average processing time, for the last week for which the information is available, for correctly completed, straightforward applications submitted(a) in person and (b) by post at each office of the United Kingdom Passport Agency. [92779]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Agency does not collect the information in the form requested. It does collect weekly information on the maximum processing time for each office for correctly completed non-urgent applications.
  734
  The last week for which information is available is 18 July and figures are:

  Number

  Belfast

  7

  London

  5

  Newport

  35

  Liverpool

  43

  Peterborough

  28

  Glasgow

  51

  These figures need to be treated with caution because the Agency prioritises travel dates. Those who are travelling in July and August will get priority. New applications with urgent travel dates are not placed at the back of the queue, but are dealt with promptly. Currently, all July travel dates are cleared except for any new applications coming in on each day. Offices are now processing August dates of travel. Some work from Glasgow is being transferred to Belfast and London to expedite processing.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many expired passports have been renewed for 10 years since the beginning of 1999. [92775]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This information is not available as the United Kingdom Passport Agency does not keep records on Passport renewals that differentiate between the previous passport being expired or still valid.

  European Court of Human Rights
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what approach he is making to the European Court of Human Rights over the cases of Euan Sutherland and Christopher Morris. [93261]

  Mr. Straw
  We have today, with the agreement of the applicants, sought a further extension from the European Court of Human Rights in the stayed cases of Sutherland and Morris versus the United Kingdom.

  We have informed the Court, in the context of this request, that the Government intend to re-introduce the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill next Session and if necessary, the Parliament Acts will be used to secure its passage.

  Prison Service (Performance Indicators)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the results achieved by the Prison Service on each of its key performance indicators in each prison during 1998–99. [91900]

  Mr. Straw
  The final key performance indicator (KPI) results achieved by the Prison Service and by each prison are given in the tables. The overcrowding KPI is formulated in terms of overall Prison Service capacity and population levels and is not applicable to individual prisons. Cost per place data are provisional pending final audit of the appropriation account for the Prison Service annual voted expenditure.

  I am pleased to report that today I have placed before Parliament, the Prison Service Agency's Annual Report and Accounts, copies of which have been placed in the Library.
  735

  Performance against key performance indicators by prison, 1998–99

  Prison name

  Category A escapes

  Escapes

  Assault rate

  Positive random drug testing rate %

  Purposeful hours per prisoner

  Are standard/enhanced regime prisoners unlocked >=10 hours on weekdays

  Offending behaviour programmes completions

  Sex offender treatment programmes completions

  Cost per place2 £

  Training

  Acklington

  0

  0

  2.9

  27.2

  23.8

  Yes

  54

  14

  14,657

  12.6

  Albany

  0

  0

  1.9

  1.3

  23.8

  Yes

  110

  47

  19,818

  7.6

  Aldington

  0

  1

  0.7

  22.3

  28.1

  Yes

  0

  0

  16,084

  7.3

  Altcourse

  0

  1

  18.4

  19.0

  20.5

  Yes

  0

  0

  1—

  4—

  Ashwell

  0

  0

  1.6

  38.1

  33.3

  Yes

  0

  0

  15,040

  10.3

  Askham Grange

  0

  0

  0.0

  10.6

  42.0

  Yes

  0

  0

  18,070

  6.1

  Aylesbury

  0

  0

  42.3

  13.9

  20.9

  No

  55

  0

  23,021

  10.2

  Bedford

  0

  0

  6.7

  24.4

  22.7

  No

  39

  0

  20,368

  9.3

  Belmarsh

  0

  0

  11.3

  12.0

  13.2

  No

  0

  0

  31,220

  9.3

  Birmingham

  0

  1

  6.6

  30.2

  13.3

  No

  0

  0

  20,334

  6.2

  Blakenhurst

  0

  0

  18.8

  38.6

  21.8

  Yes

  20

  0

  22,001

  4—

  Blantyre House

  0

  0

  0.0

  0.7

  39.6

  Yes

  30

  0

  17,807

  6.1

  Blundeston

  0

  0

  6.1

  14.1

  25.8

  Yes

  0

  0

  20,225

  7.3

  Brinsford

  0

  0

  35.2

  20.9

  16.3

  No

  0

  0

  18,847

  7.5

  Bristol

  0

  0

  9.2

  23.0

  21.3

  Yes

  38

  0

  13,843

  7.2

  Brixton

  0

  0

  11.8

  11.3

  15.7

  Yes

  62

  17

  22,767

  7.8

  Brockhill

  0

  0

  21.5

  14.8

  21.1

  Yes

  0

  0

  29,868

  5.1

  Buckley Hall

  0

  0

  2.9

  37.4

  26.6

  Yes

  0

  0

  19,972

  4—

  Bullingdon

  0

  0

  6.9

  26.5

  21.2

  Yes

  51

  0

  16,485

  12.7

  Bullwood Hall

  0

  0

  19.2

  13.0

  19.1

  Yes

  0

  0

  29,281

  8.1

  Camp Hill

  0

  0

  5.3

  27.2

  19.3

  No

  0

  0

  18,575

  3.7

  Canterbury

  0

  0

  2.5

  13.4

  18.5

  Yes

  0

  0

  33,983

  6.7

  Cardiff

  0

  0

  6.1

  25.4

  21.3

  Yes

  25

  0

  21,783

  6.8

  Castington

  0

  2

  29.1

  17.8

  20.7

  No

  14

  14

  19,288

  13.5

  Channings Wood

  0

  0

  1.9

  16.1

  30.5

  Yes

  72

  38

  16,543

  7.8

  Chelmsford

  0

  0

  12.3

  23.1

  15.8

  No

  0

  0

  19,728

  6.6

  Coldingley

  0

  0

  0.3

  14.2

  40.7

  Yes

  82

  0

  22,015

  10.3

  Cookham Wood

  0

  1

  7.7

  5.9

  22.3

  Yes

  14

  0

  26,511

  7.6

  Dartmoor

  0

  0

  5.9

  5.7

  18.9

  No

  115

  19

  19,423

  7.2

  Deerbolt

  0

  2

  19.1

  8.8

  19.9

  Yes

  0

  0

  17,941

  8.2

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  19.7

  12.8

  17.0

  Yes

  0

  0

  22,531

  4—

  Dorchester

  0

  0

  5.9

  33.7

  14.4

  No

  0

  0

  30,116

  7.4

  Dover

  0

  1

  21.9

  12.4

  21.2

  No

  0

  0

  18,332

  8.0

  Downview

  0

  0

  0.3

  3.8

  30.8

  Yes

  0

  0

  19,152

  7.6

  Drake Hall

  0

  0

  0.4

  17.7

  34.9

  Yes

  0

  0

  14,289

  6.3

  Durham

  0

  0

  8.1

  15.8

  20.2

  Yes

  0

  0

  29,450

  6.9

  East Sutton Park

  0

  0

  0.0

  4.2

  40.1

  Yes

  0

  0

  18,625

  7.1

  Eastwood Park

  0

  1

  15.5

  15.3

  21.6

  Yes

  0

  0

  22,648

  11.8

  Elmley

  0

  0

  5.8

  11.9

  20.2

  No

  0

  0

  18,459

  10.1

  Erlestoke

  0

  0

  0.7

  25.7

  27.2

  Yes

  0

  0

  17,711

  8.6

  Everthorpe

  0

  1

  3.5

  29.8

  27.0

  Yes

  0

  0

  17,882

  5.7

  Exeter

  0

  0

  12.5

  27.6

  13.6

  No

  0

  0

  29,405

  6.4

  Featherstone

  0

  4

  2.0

  41.9

  24.7

  Yes

  91

  0

  18,449

  4.2

  Feltham

  0

  1

  25.7

  21.5

  15.5

  No

  21

  13

  18,820

  8.4

  Ford

  0

  0

  0.0

  10.8

  35.6

  Yes

  0

  0

  11,253

  6.3

  Foston Hall

  0

  0

  11.8

  7.8

  23.4

  Yes

  15

  0

  27,047

  12.0

  Frankland

  0

  0

  5.1

  17.7

  18.4

  Yes

  43

  7

  36,467

  11.5

  Full Sutton

  0

  0

  4.3

  6.9

  17.6

  No

  85

  21

  35,605

  8.9

  Garth

  0

  0

  1.9

  11.7

  21.3

  Yes

  0

  0

  18,611

  8.1

  Gartree

  0

  0

  3.0

  25.7

  27.0

  Yes

  39

  0

  22,734

  7.3

  Glen Parva

  0

  2

  35.9

  14.9

  16.7

  No

  39

  0

  16,646

  7.8

  Gloucester

  0

  0

  26.6

  29.8

  26.4

  No

  0

  0

  26,197

  5.6

  Grendon

  0

  0

  1.3

  12.0

  34.2

  No

  44

  0

  19,320

  7.3

  Guys Marsh

  0

  2

  5.9

  33.9

  22.8

  Yes

  19

  0

  15,286

  5.9

  Haslar

  0

  0

  2.0

  2.4

  18.8

  Yes

  0

  0

  15,726

  7.3

  Hatfield

  0

  0

  7.9

  15.7

  32.5

  Yes

  0

  0

  17,473

  5.8

  Haverigg

  0

  1

  1.8

  18.0

  33.9

  Yes

  0

  0

  18,207

  7.1

  Hewell Grange

  0

  0

  0.5

  10.3

  42.7

  Yes

  0

  0

  12,617

  3.3

  Highdown

  0

  0

  13.6

  20.6

  13.9

  No

  67

  14

  24,928

  9.5

  Highpoint

  0

  0

  4.2

  20.1

  23.2

  Yes

  0

  0

  18,469

  9.2

  Hindley

  0

  0

  31.3

  24.3

  23.8

  No

  0

  0

  20,376

  7.4

  Hollesley Bay

  0

  0

  14.2

  25.6

  28.1

  No

  0

  0

  20,618

  4.8

  Holloway

  0

  2

  26.7

  10.2

  17.6

  Yes

  22

  0

  34,689

  6.5

  Holme House

  0

  0

  4.6

  11.2

  15.8

  No

  24

  0

  15,179

  6.4

  Hull

  0

  0

  11.5

  15.4

  20.0

  No

  0

  0

  21,063

  8.5

  Huntercombe

  0

  0

  16.1

  17.6

  23.8

  Yes

  0

  0

  19,712

  9.2

  Kingston

  0

  0

  0.6

  19.1

  23.9

  Yes

  0

  0

  21,326

  6.8

  Kirkham

  0

  0

  0.5

  23.6

  43.5

  Yes

  0

  0

  13,870

  5.7

  Kirklevington

  0

  0

  0.0

  7.3

  50.1

  Yes

  0

  0

  14,057

  6.7

  Lancaster

  0

  0

  1.4

  36.5

  20.7

  Yes

  0

  0

  21,794

  8.7

  Lancaster Farms

  0

  0

  15.0

  5.9

  20.5

  No

  46

  0

  19,749

  5.1

  Latchmere House

  0

  0

  0.0

  14.6

  70.2

  Yes

  0

  0

  11,985

  9.8

  Leeds

  0

  0

  8.6

  19.0

  14.8

  No

  27

  0

  18,914

  7.5

  Leicester

  0

  0

  6.6

  27.4

  20.5

  Yes

  0

  0

  35,718

  6.0

  736 737

  Performance against key performance indicators by prison, 1998–99

  Prison name

  Category A escapes

  Escapes

  Assault rate

  Positive random drug testing rate %

  Purposeful hours per prisoner

  Are standard/enhanced regime prisoners unlocked >=10 hours on weekdays

  Offending behaviour programmes completions

  Sex offender treatment programmes completions

  Cost per place2 £

  Training

  Lewes

  0

  0

  8.5

  33.3

  18.5

  No

  0

  0

  18,929

  5.4

  Leyhill

  0

  0

  0.0

  13.4

  39.0

  Yes

  26

  26

  18,348

  7.6

  Lincoln

  0

  1

  3.0

  26.3

  22.9

  Yes

  27

  0

  24,720

  4.9

  Lindholme

  0

  1

  1.0

  29.9

  24.2

  Yes

  31

  0

  19,897

  6.6

  Littlehey

  0

  1

  3.3

  14.3

  26.0

  Yes

  0

  0

  14,204

  10.1

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  4.8

  17.6

  19.0

  No

  0

  0

  19,617

  5.7

  Long Lartin

  0

  0

  6.0

  14.2

  17.0

  Yes

  42

  0

  36,943

  15.4

  Low Newton

  0

  0

  40.5

  38.9

  20.2

  No

  0

  0

  28,283

  15.2

  Lowdham Grange

  0

  0

  4.8

  30.7

  3—

  Yes

  0

  0

  1—

  4—

  Maidstone

  0

  0

  2.5

  13.0

  21.3

  Yes

  0

  0

  18,932

  9.2

  Manchester

  0

  0

  7.1

  15.5

  26.7

  Yes

  0

  0

  27,050

  6.6

  Moorland

  0

  0

  13.1

  5.6

  24.0

  Yes

  92

  0

  17,743

  6.5

  Morton Hall

  0

  0

  0.5

  8.2

  37.9

  Yes

  0

  0

  12,288

  5.7

  Mount

  0

  0

  3.7

  20.3

  18.0

  No

  0

  0

  14,635

  10.5

  New Hall

  0

  0

  13.6

  4.8

  23.7

  Yes

  10

  0

  22,501

  5.5

  North Sea Camp

  0

  0

  0.0

  23.8

  45.0

  Yes

  0

  0

  14,581

  4.7

  Northallerton

  0

  0

  15.8

  14.9

  14.5

  Yes

  0

  0

  30,967

  7.1

  Norwich

  0

  0

  9.1

  23.0

  18.0

  No

  0

  0

  21,149

  6.0

  Nottingham

  0

  0

  6.9

  25.6

  15.3

  No

  19

  0

  19,634

  7.6

  Onley

  0

  0

  35.7

  3.9

  18.4

  Yes

  71

  0

  16,105

  9.3

  Pare

  0

  0

  7.4

  44.6

  30.0

  Yes

  0

  0

  1—

  4—

  Parkhurst

  0

  0

  6.4

  3.2

  19.5

  No

  74

  0

  22,467

  8.1

  Pentonville

  0

  1

  11.0

  31.6

  20.3

  No

  77

  0

  21,329

  7.8

  Portland

  0

  0

  13.9

  9.3

  23.1

  No

  0

  0

  17,735

  6.7

  Preston

  0

  0

  9.6

  23.0

  17.1

  No

  0

  0

  28,086

  5.4

  Ranby

  0

  0

  3.2

  8.6

  26.4

  Yes

  33

  0

  16,155

  7.8

  Reading

  0

  0

  18.6

  29.3

  23.8

  No

  0

  0

  26,791

  6.7

  Risley

  0

  0

  10.4

  21.7

  21.9

  No

  28

  28

  18,360

  4.6

  Rochester

  0

  0

  14.9

  4.2

  19.1

  Yes

  34

  15

  18,555

  6.1

  Send

  0

  0

  1.2

  19.6

  40.7

  Yes

  0

  0

  32,894

  23.2

  Shepton Mallet

  0

  0

  3.8

  31.9

  22.7

  Yes

  17

  0

  25,249

  7.2

  Shrewsbury

  0

  0

  5.1

  17.0

  22.7

  Yes

  0

  0

  32,140

  6.2

  Stafford

  0

  0

  6.6

  17.2

  22.4

  No

  0

  0

  16,493

  5.0

  Standford Hill

  0

  0

  0.0

  11.3

  44.1

  Yes

  13

  0

  16,078

  6.6

  Stocken

  0

  0

  2.8

  30.9

  23.2

  Yes

  0

  0

  16,177

  9.4

  Stoke Heath

  0

  0

  37.3

  9.9

  21.6

  Yes

  7

  0

  15,098

  7.5

  Styal

  0

  1

  5.7

  13.3

  28.7

  Yes

  0

  0

  24,097

  13.5

  Sudbury

  0

  0

  0.4

  11.2

  44.5

  Yes

  27

  0

  13,410

  7.9

  Swaleside

  0

  0

  7.0

  17.9

  22.3

  Yes

  63

  0

  17,384

  9.1

  Swansea

  0

  0

  11.0

  37.0

  20.0

  No

  0

  0

  26,295

  4.9

  Swifen Hall

  0

  0

  15.0

  5.8

  28.9

  Yes

  104

  15

  20,870

  8.7

  Thorn Cross

  0

  0

  11.5

  23.1

  50.3

  Yes

  78

  0

  19,827

  7.5

  Usk

  0

  0

  0.0

  5.6

  34.9

  Yes

  104

  44

  21,520

  8.2

  Verne

  0

  0

  1.2

  17.9

  27.2

  Yes

  0

  0

  15,079

  6.0

  Wakefield

  0

  0

  4.3

  1.2

  18.2

  No

  144

  57

  24,547

  9.0

  Wandsworth

  0

  1

  7.2

  7.6

  18.9

  No

  88

  21

  17,817

  11.7

  Wayland

  0

  0

  2.2

  36.4

  24.0

  Yes

  96

  50

  14,416

  9.8

  Wealstun

  0

  0

  1.8

  24.7

  30.6

  Yes

  16

  0

  15,127

  6.6

  Weare

  0

  0

  0.9

  28.1

  20.8

  Yes

  0

  0

  17,463

  5.1

  Wellingborough

  0

  0

  2.1

  23.0

  24.9

  Yes

  0

  0

  17,772

  10.5

  Werrington

  0

  5

  45.9

  4.7

  24.0

  Yes

  0

  0

  26,113

  8.8

  Wetherby

  0

  0

  30.0

  5.2

  28.3

  Yes

  8

  0

  18,745

  4.4

  Whatton

  0

  0

  1.2

  4.3

  28.8

  Yes

  124

  80

  15,851

  6.8

  Whitemoor

  0

  0

  12.1

  7.7

  19.6

  Yes

  33

  6

  38,355

  7.2

  Winchester

  0

  0

  6.5

  31.2

  15.7

  No

  0

  0

  23,518

  6.4

  Wolds

  0

  0

  11.0

  17.6

  29.1

  Yes

  26

  0

  25,008

  4—

  Woodhill

  0

  0

  14.1

  16.6

  19.8

  No

  56

  22

  27,806

  8.4

  Wormwood Scrubs

  0

  1

  5.0

  22.9

  14.2

  No

  48

  0

  17,379

  6.8

  Wymott

  0

  0

  2.1

  16.3

  28.7

  Yes

  134

  22

  16,374

  6.3

  1 Cost per place performance figures for HMP Parc, HMP Altcourse and HMP Lowdham Grange cannot be provided on a comparable basis because available data include an element for capital repayment.

  2 Cost per place data are provisional pending finalisation of accounts.

  3 Purposeful activity performance figures for HMP Lowdham Grange are not available for the financial year 1998–99.

  4 Private prison contractors are not required to supply training figures.

  Jill Dando
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the police investigation of the murder of Jill Dando. [92030]
  738
  Kate Hoey
  This investigation is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. He tells me that the investigation is being pursued as expeditiously as possible.

  Bargoed Fire Station
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will review the decision to close the Bargoed Fire Station; [92243]

  (2) what evidence he received about the possible time it would take for a fire appliance to reach New Tredegar from the Cefn Forest Fire Station, during his consideration of the proposed closure of the Bargoed Fire Station. [92245]

  Mr. George Howarth
  On 23 June 1998, my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, approved the application by the South Wales Fire Authority, under section 19 (4) of the Fire Services Act 1947, to remove a pumping appliance and associated firefighting posts from Bargoed fire station. My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary's decision was taken in the light of advice from Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate that the national standards of fire cover would continue to be maintained if the application was approved. That advice included confirmation that a timed run undertaken by the fire brigade suggested a pumping appliance from Cefn Forest should in normal circumstances be able to reach New Tredegar within the recommended attendance time for the substantive fire risk category for that area.

  Following my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary's decision, implementation of the proposals is now a matter for the Fire Authority. Closure of Bargoed fire station was not at issue and a further section 19 application would be required if the Authority was to make such a proposal.

  Immigration Rules
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the concession to immigration rules in respect of the one year rule and domestic violence. [92467]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I plan to review the concession after it has been in operation for at least one year.

  Merseyside Police
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the crime reduction and community involvement programme, Operation Arrow, in the South Sefton district of the Merseyside Police Authority; and if he will make a statement. [92261]

  Kate Hoey
  If we are to make a lasting impact upon crime levels, we must engage the support of local communities. Operation Arrow seeks to achieve this by engaging all sectors of the community in South Sefton, understanding their concerns and needs, and then providing a swift and effective response. Early results are encouraging; Merseyside Police and their partners in the initiative are to be congratulated on this innovative approach to improving community safety.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the Merseyside Police Authority revenue budget was spent on civilian support staff in the last year for which figures are available. [92260]

  Kate Hoey
  The Merseyside Police Authority's financial estimates for 1999–2000, as recorded by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountancy (CIPFA), show 740
  that the force will commit around 12 per cent. of its net revenue expenditure of £249.5 million to salary costs for civilian support staff.

  Ministerial Meetings (US)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many meetings he held with(a) officials in the United States Department of Justice and (b) the Baltimore police department during his visit to the United States of America between 4 and 6 February 1998; and if he will list the date of each meeting, the location of each meeting and the names of the United States officials who took part in each meeting. [92282]

  Mr. Straw
  When I visited the United States of America in February last year I attended four meetings with officials in the United States Department of Justice and one meeting with the Baltimore police department.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Magistrates' Association about implementation of the proposed Draft Tobacco (Prohibition of Advertising and Promotion) Regulations 1999. [R] [92247]

  Mr. Straw
  To date, I have had no meetings to discuss the proposed Draft Tobacco (Prohibition of Advertising) Regulations 1999, although I have met with the Magistrates Association previously on other matters.

  Mrs. Christine Soyal
  Mr. Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Mrs. Christine Soyal, a constituent of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, may expect the return of her passport and driving licence, submitted in support of her husband's application to remain in the country on 19 July 1998. [92300]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: Mrs. Soyal' s passport and driving licence were returned to her on Tuesday 20 July 1999.

  Schengen Acquis
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those items of the Schengen Acquis listed in the Official Journal of 10 July, which (a) had not been deposited in the Library and (b) had not been seen by his officials (i) prior to the decision being made for the UK to join elements of Schengen and (ii) to date; and if he will make a statement. [92832]

  Kate Hoey
  At the time of the decision to make a formal application for the United Kingdom to participate in certain elements of the Schengen acquis, which was submitted by letter on 20 May 1999, all the Decisions and Declarations of the Schengen acquis listed in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 10 July 1999 had been seen by officials of the Home Office and had been sent to the Scrutiny Committees of both Houses.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to lay before the House subordinate legislation under the Data Protection Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [92702]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on 12 July,Official Report, column 73.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that the code of practice on the welfare of xenotransplantation source animals strictly limits the early removal of piglets from their mothers. [92668]

  Mr. George Howarth
  It is likely that, in some circumstances, the early removal of piglets from their mothers will be essential in order to establish colonies of animals with the health status (i.e. the absence of particular pathogens) that will be necessary to minimise the risk of infection to the recipient. This will, however, require suitable project licence authority and will be allowed only where there is a demonstrable need to eliminate particular micro-organisms. All practicable safeguards will be put in place to protect the welfare of piglets.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 5 July 1999,Official Report, column 333, what progress has been made with the investigation into Harlan UK Ltd; if he has received the advice on whether there is a need to suspend the establishment's certificate of designation for which he asked; and if he will make a statement. [92718]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on 14 July 1999,Official Report, columns 206–07, and to the reply 1 gave my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on 21 July 1999, Official Report, columns 527–28.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will require Imutron's programme of breeding genetically engineered pigs to be suspended pending the finalisation of the code of practice on the welfare of xenotransplantation source animals. [92667]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Licences and certificates can be suspended under the terms of section 13 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 only if it appears that this is urgently necessary for the welfare of any protected animal. There are no such grounds for suspending the relevant licences.

  The existing "Codes of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Used in Scientific Procedures" apply to these animals, as do the terms and conditions of the licences under which they are held.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the advantages of(a) legally binding regulations and (b) a non-binding code of practice to protect genetically engineered pigs. [92669]
  742
  Mr. George Howarth
  The codes of practice issued under section 21(2) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 are legally enforceable. Section 21(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 allows any failure to comply with such a code of practice to be taken into account in any criminal or civil proceedings.

  In addition, we have recently amended the standard conditions that apply to all designated establishments to require that approved areas be maintained to the standards set out in the codes of practice, unless otherwise authorised. Under section 10(7) of the Act, failure to comply with such a condition is a ground for the variation or revocation of the certificate. If pigs are not maintained to the standards set out in the new code of practice, authority to maintain these animals can be withdrawn.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present cost of a weighted unit of output for asylum, after-entry, enforcement and nationality casework. [92785]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  For the purposes of monitoring the performance of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate under the terms of the Casework Programme contract with Siemens Business Services, the unit cost of a basic casework decision is determined each month. The costs of more complex decisions may be estimated by combining the cost of the basic decision with the weighting attached to a unit output. The unit cost of a basic decision in May was £34.73. The costs of more complex decisions may, therefore, be expressed as is given in the table:

  £

  Type of output

  Cost

  After Entry Casework

  44.10

  Asylum Casework

  314.65

  Nationality Casework

  52.85

  Deportation Casework

  1,241.45

  Illegal Entry Casework

  572.60

  These costs exclude any productivity-related payments that may subsequently be due to Siemens.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is towards the proposed conveyance of(a) residence conditions and (b) financial support payments for asylum seekers and refugees in member states of the European Union. [92782]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government provide information on British immigration and asylum matters to member states of the European Union through the normal channels associated with the European Union at both ministerial and official level.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers were removed from the United Kingdom between(a) 1 January and 30 June 1997, (b) 1 January and 30 June 1998 and (c) 1 January and 30 June 1999. [92789]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Data on removals and voluntary departures of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, are given in the table.
  743

  Removals and voluntary departures1 of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, First Half 1997, First Half 1998, First Half 19992

  Dates

  Number of persons

  1 January to 30 June 1997

  3,370

  1 January to 30 June 1998

  3,105

  1 January to 30 June 19992

  3,650

  1 For port applicants, the data include any voluntary departure up to and including notification of the decision on the asylum application but excludes any subsequent departure. For in-country applicants the data include 'voluntary' departures following enforcement action but exclude voluntary departures where enforcement action had not been initiated. Some persons may leave voluntarily without the knowledge of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate

  2 1999 data are provisional

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the backlog in dealing with failed asylum seekers liable for removal at the latest date for which information is available. [92781]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As at November 1998, the latest date for which a figure is available, the estimated backlog of failed asylum seekers liable for removal was 24,000. That figure represents a snapshot, taken from Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) port and enforcement databases, of failed asylum seekers, excluding dependants, who have exhausted their rights of appeal (including any who did not submit an appeal against the refusal of asylum) and who are liable for removal. The figure does not include any failed in-country asylum applicants against whom enforcement action has not commenced. Some persons included in the backlog figure may have actually departed from the United Kingdom without IND' s knowledge.

  The backlog includes a large number of cases where there are one or more barriers to removal such as absconding, judicial review, representations from hon. Members, or lack of necessary documentation.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers departed voluntarily in each month since January 1997. [92780]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is given in the table. The data do not include voluntary departures of in-country asylum applicants against whom enforcement action had not been initiated; the number of such departures cannot be quantified directly from Immigration and Nationality Directorate databases. Some persons may leave voluntarily without the knowledge of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and, by definition, we have no record of the number of such departures.

  Voluntary departures1 of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, 1 January 1997 to 31 December 19982

  Number of persons

  1997

  1998

  January

  170

  150

  February

  150

  140

  March

  180

  140

  April

  160

  140

  May

  150

  120

  June

  150

  120

  July

  140

  2120

  August

  130

  2150

  744

  Voluntary departures1 of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, 1 January 1997 to 31 December 19982

  Number of persons

  1997

  1998

  September

  130

  2130

  October

  180

  2190

  November

  150

  2200

  December

  120

  2200

  1 For port applicants the data cover voluntary departures up to and including notification of the decision on the asylum application but exclude any subsequent departure. For in-country applicants the data cover 'voluntary' departures following enforcement action but exclude voluntary departures where enforcement action has not been initiated. Some persons may leave voluntarily without the knowledge of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.

  2 Data for July to December 1998 are provisional estimates.

  Prison Industries
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many pairs of slippers were commissioned from prison industries for use in Her Majesty's prisons in the financial years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 estimated. [92551]

  Mr. George Howarth
  All slippers manufactured by the Prison Service were for use in Her Majesty's Prisons. The numbers of pairs made were:

  1997–98: 100,000 pairs

  1998–99: 101,000 pairs

  1999–2000: 54,000–60,000 (estimated).

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many pairs of socks were commissioned from prison industries for use in Her Majesty's prisons in the financial years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 estimated. [92552]

  Mr. George Howarth
  All socks manufactured by the Prison Service were for use in Her Majesty's Prisons. The numbers of pairs made were:

  Year

  Number

  1997–98

  400,000

  1998–99

  400,000

  1999–2000

  1600,000

  1 Estimated

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many files the Case Allocation Unit in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate(a) received and (b) despatched in each week from the week ended 16 April. [92844]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The figures are:

  Date

  Files received

  Files despatched

  17 April

  4,115

  2,931

  24 April

  1,766

  2,202

  8 May1

  10,936

  6,202

  15 May

  6,565

  1,592

  22 May

  4,396

  2,078

  29 May

  5,129

  2,556

  5 June

  1,980

  2,221

  12 June

  2,939

  1,735

  19 June

  3,737

  1,778

  745

  Date

  Files received

  Files despatched

  26 June

  3,076

  1,812

  3 July

  4,220

  1,908

  10 July

  3,570

  1,828

  17 July

  3,224

  1,937

  1 Includes figures for week ended 1 May.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average number of staff manning the Telephone Caller Unit in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [92840]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The current daily average number of staff logged in to the telephone system available to take calls in the Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau (INEB) is 27.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the forecast outturn is for the budget of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate for 1999–2000. [92852]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The latest forecast outturn for 1999–2000 for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is estimated as £679 million. This includes the estimated costs of providing support to asylum seekers. These costs are sensitive to a range of factors including the number of asylum applications, speed of processing and take-up rates. It is, therefore, difficult to predict with certainty the eventual cost for 1999–2000.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of cases awaiting action in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate which contain passports. [92838]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Of the applications awaiting decision in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, approximately 34,000 contain passports. These are general cases, for example, cases where spouse, student or other issues are being considered.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints of maladministration concerning the Immigration and Nationality Directorate have been notified to his Department by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration since the beginning of 1999. [92849]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has made nine formal and two informal inquiries about complaints about the Immigration and Nationality Directorate between 1 January and 21 July 1999.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money he has paid in the current year to members of the public as compensation or as ex-gratia payments following loss or inconvenience which was due to delays in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [92837]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Approximately £13,600 has been paid in ex-gratia payments of compensation so far this year by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Compensation is generally paid for financial loss arising from lost or misplaced passports.
  746
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of unopened letters at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [92848]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are currently no unopened letters in the Mail Handling Section. All generally addressed post is opened by this section on the day received, and all specifically addressed post is forwarded on the day of receipt to its appropriate destination. An earlier backlog of 18,000 unopened post in the Mail Handling Section was cleared in March. For special reasons, there is a separate procedure for dealing with applications and accompanying fees in the Travel Documents Case Management Unit. The letters are normally unopened until they are processed and a cashier registers the fees and issues a receipt. As at 22 July, there were 1,200 of these items.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his current estimate of trends in processing casework at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [92839]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The output of the Integrated Casework Directorate (ICD) is recovering. Radical measures are being explored to speed up the decision making process with a view to exceeding previous output.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many files from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's Case Allocation Unit are currently stored in Acton. [92845]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No files from the Case Allocation Unit are stored in Acton.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average unit cost of caseworking in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in each month since January 1998. [92842]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 17 May 1999,Official Report, column 261.

  The direct cost of caseworking is routinely monitored under the terms of the Casework Programme contract between the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and Siemens Business Services. The latest estimates of those costs, which exclude some overheads, are given in the table:

  £

  Month

  Unit Cost

  January 1998

  39.62

  February 1998

  39.12

  March 1998

  37.93

  April 1998

  38.90

  May 1998

  47.59

  June 1998

  37.34

  July 1998

  35.45

  August 1998

  43.45

  September 1998

  37.14

  October 1998

  33.54

  November 1998

  40.36

  December 1998

  78.64

  January 1999

  71.84

  February 1999

  58.90

  March 1999

  48.18

  April 1999

  43.27

  May 1999

  34.73

  747
  It should be noted that unit costs are subject to revisions and final agreement with Siemens Business Services.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average daily number of callers who attended(a) the Public Caller Unit and (b) the Asylum Screening Unit at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in each month since the beginning of 1999. [92847]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The figures represent the number of callers coming into the Public Caller Unit who were issued with tickets ie the main applicants or persons with an inquiry. The figures do not include family and friends. With regard to the Asylum Screening Unit, the figures do not include family, friends, representatives and their interpreters. The average daily number of callers coming into the Public Caller Unit and the Asylum Screening Unit since the beginning of 1999 were:

  Month

  Public caller unit

  Asylum screening unit

  June

  862

  239

  May

  663

  202

  April

  661

  226

  March

  723

  175

  February

  627

  297

  January

  723

  325

  Non-asylum Arrivals
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present unit cost of examining non-asylum passengers arriving at ports. [92786]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Public Service Agreement contains a commitment to establish a baseline and target for this measure in 1999.

  The management information systems in place do not currently enable us to separately identify the costs of dealing with non-asylum passengers, and we are currently considering how best to develop a comprehensive efficiency measure for the port operation.

  The Home Office Business Plan includes a target of reducing the unit cost of Immigration port checks to £5.43. This covers both asylum and non-asylum passengers. The Immigration Service expects to meet this target for this financial year.

  Leave to Remain
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average time taken by him to determine an application excluding asylum-related cases by a person with limited leave under the Immigration Act 1971 to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for further leave. [92846]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The time taken to determine an application for variation of leave to remain will depend on the complexity of individual cases. It is not possible, therefore, to give an average time to deal with such cases. Applications which can be dealt with as fast track cases 748
  (currently about 40 per cent.) are at present being determined within about four weeks of the date of application. More complex applications may require lengthy examination including further inquiries and it is not possible to estimate how long it would take to determine such applications.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Working Party on Electoral Procedures has proposed in its interim report that political parties should not have access to the full electoral register for membership and fund-raising purposes. [92727]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Working Party has recommended that the full register should continue to be available to electoral users as at present. The final report of the Working Party, which will be put forward later this summer, will describe in more detail the electoral purposes for which it will be made available.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place on the internet a complete list of the business and charitable organisations which responded to his consultation on the commercial sale of the electoral register. [92726]

  Mr. George Howarth
  In the absence of permission from all the organisations concerned, we do not intend to do so.

  Airline Liaison Officers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many airline liaison officers were stationed abroad on(a) 31 May 1997, (b) 31 May 1998 and (c) 31 May 1999. [92788]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of Airline Liaison Officers in post on both 31 May 1997 and 31 May 1998 was five and the number on 31 May 1999 was 11.

  Visa (Jamaican Nationals)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to require visas from Jamaican nationals travelling to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [92500]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have no immediate plans to introduce a visa regime for nationals of Jamaica, but the Government keep the need for visa regimes throughout the world under constant review.

  After-entry Applications
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many after-entry applications were decided in each month from January 1997 to the most recent month for which information is available. [92836]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Data for January 1997 to May 1999 are given in the table.
  749

  Decisions1 on application for an extension of leave to remain in the United Kingdom and settlement, excluding European Economic Area nationals

  Year of decision

  Month of decision

  1997

  1998

  19922

  January

  14,000

  12,900

  7,200

  February

  13,000

  13,800

  8,100

  March

  12,100

  13,500

  11,800

  April

  12,200

  11,200

  11,900

  May

  11,500

  10,500

  13,600

  June

  14,700

  14,100

  —

  July

  16,100

  14,900

  —

  August

  13,500

  14,300

  —

  September

  16,500

  15,300

  —

  October

  17,400

  17,000

  —

  November

  14,200

  13,400

  —

  December

  11,400

  9,200

  —

  1 Excluding dependants of principal applicants, asylum-related decisions (except settlement), the outcome of appeals and withdrawn applications

  2 All 1999 data are provisional

  Victims (Criminal Proceedings)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress made with his Department's pilot project to assess how victims' views might be taken into account in criminal proceedings. [92549]

  Kate Hoey
  The pilot project was completed earlier this year. An evaluation of the project has been carried out by researchers from Bristol University and a final report will be published in early September. Later that month, a special conference will be held at which criminal justice practitioners can discuss the findings and other matters relating to the role of the victim in criminal proceedings, and make recommendations.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the evaluation by Bristol University of his pilot project to assess how victims' views might be taken into account in criminal proceedings. [92550]

  Kate Hoey
  The evaluation report will be published in early September. A copy will be placed in the Library at the earliest opportunity.

  As at 31 March 1997

  As at 31 March 1998

  As at 31 March 1999

  Police force

  Civilian strength

  Constable strength

  Total police officer strength

  Civilian strength

  Constable strength

  Total police officer strength

  Civilian strength

  Constable strength

  Total police officer strength

  Avon and Somerset

  1,438

  2,315

  2,989

  1,393

  2,308

  2,976

  1,424

  2,329

  2,999

  Bedfordshire

  484

  846

  1,094

  523

  843

  1,079

  483

  817

  1,041

  Cambridgeshire

  607

  1,001

  1,302

  574

  1,014

  1,291

  586

  994

  1,274

  Cheshire

  735

  1,590

  2,046

  781

  1,601

  2,042

  785

  1,607

  2,071

  City of London

  347

  656

  859

  334

  634

  825

  314

  603

  778

  Cleveland

  609

  1,121

  1,459

  586

  1,146

  1,483

  552

  1,116

  1,416

  Cumbria

  451

  882

  1,144

  451

  911

  1,164

  442

  873

  1,126

  Derbyshire

  723

  1,376

  1,791

  787

  1,363

  1,772

  818

  1,336

  1,759

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,159

  2,234

  2,865

  1,186

  2,323

  2,962

  1,215

  2,248

  2,887

  Dorset

  615

  969

  1,284

  651

  1,003

  1,310

  702

  973

  1,279

  Durham

  583

  1,130

  1,461

  557

  1,184

  1,515

  559

  1,233

  1,568

  Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizenship applications were determined in each month from January 1997 to the latest month for which information is available. [92787]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of citizenship applications concluded each month from January 1997 to June 1999 are shown in the table:

  Month

  Amount

  January 1997

  4,898

  February 1997

  4,562

  March 1997

  3,796

  April 1997

  3,935

  May 1997

  3,665

  June 1997

  3,894

  July 1997

  3,906

  August 1997

  2,777

  September 1997

  2,911

  October 1997

  2,747

  November 1997

  2,749

  December 1997

  1,860

  January 1998

  2,787

  February 1998

  4,801

  March 1998

  7,371

  April 1998

  5,539

  May 1998

  4,398

  June 1998

  4,551

  July 1998

  5,739

  August 1998

  5,051

  September 1998

  5,384

  October 1998

  4,839

  November 1998

  4,854

  December 1998

  3,231

  January 1999

  3,772

  February 1999

  5,042

  March 1999

  6,219

  April 1999

  4,860

  May 1999

  5,084

  June 1999

  5,427

  Police
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police force in England and Wales the figures for(a) constable strength, (b) total police strength and (c) police civilian strength, full-time equivalent on 31 March (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [92548]

  Kate Hoey
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  751

  As at 31 March 1997

  As at 31 March 1998

  As at 31 March 1999

  Police force

  Civilian strength

  Constable strength

  Total police officer strength

  Civilian strength

  Constable strength

  Total police officer strength

  Civilian strength

  Constable strength

  Total police officer strength

  Dyfed Powys

  322

  756

  1,005

  341

  749

  1,002

  341

  769

  1,026

  Essex

  1,199

  2,269

  2,961

  1,252

  2,264

  2,928

  1,273

  2,215

  2,891

  Gloucestershire

  435

  872

  1,133

  423

  861

  1,104

  504

  859

  1,104

  Greater Manchester

  2,612

  5,342

  6,922

  2,661

  5,415

  6,949

  2,623

  5,307

  6,810

  Gwent

  452

  964

  1,243

  477

  951

  1,233

  487

  964

  1,247

  Hampshire

  1,316

  2,698

  3,452

  1,331

  2,737

  3,490

  1,381

  2,702

  3,473

  Hertfordshire

  818

  1,365

  1,759

  831

  1,328

  1,740

  835

  1,322

  1,724

  Humberside

  718

  1,582

  2,045

  789

  1,565

  2,021

  840

  1,520

  1,974

  Kent

  1,384

  2,554

  3,260

  1,470

  2,548

  3,251

  1,582

  2,505

  3,201

  Lancashire

  1,126

  2,492

  3,247

  1,143

  2,504

  3,257

  1,198

  2,468

  3,245

  Leicestershire

  755

  1,556

  1,949

  774

  1,587

  1,983

  802

  1,589

  1,993

  Lincolnshire

  521

  921

  1,196

  541

  905

  1,191

  517

  850

  1,140

  Merseyside

  1,343

  3,272

  4,230

  1,502

  3,293

  4,216

  1,356

  3,294

  4,211

  Metropolitan Police

  13,493

  20,671

  26,677

  12,432

  20,156

  26,094

  11,257

  20,093

  26,073

  Norfolk

  603

  1,133

  1,432

  646

  1,115

  1,430

  648

  1,060

  1,381

  Northamptonshire

  554

  931

  1,177

  577

  925

  1,169

  587

  895

  1,137

  Northumbria

  1,365

  2,885

  3,677

  1,362

  2,961

  3,769

  1,443

  3,019

  3,840

  North Wales

  476

  1,024

  1,369

  479

  1,055

  1,396

  508

  1,048

  1,391

  North Yorkshire

  519

  1,018

  1,338

  543

  1,053

  1,367

  541

  1,031

  1,337

  Nottinghamshire

  1,003

  1,822

  2,323

  987

  1,831

  2,323

  1,039

  1,733

  2,225

  South Wales

  1,206

  2,260

  2,976

  1,132

  2,309

  2,986

  1,223

  2,321

  2,981

  South Yorkshire

  1,291

  2,436

  3,159

  1,243

  2,459

  3,182

  1,273

  2,431

  3,168

  Staffordshire

  763

  1,684

  2,211

  866

  1,782

  2,292

  1,004

  1,723

  2,238

  Suffolk

  522

  922

  1,180

  583

  927

  1,186

  594

  935

  1,190

  Surrey

  727

  1,240

  1,620

  743

  1,237

  1,608

  733

  1,283

  1,662

  Sussex

  1,149

  2,374

  3,085

  1,185

  2,321

  2,996

  1,393

  2,183

  2,847

  Thames Valley

  1,825

  2,858

  3,695

  1,827

  2,937

  3,776

  1,799

  2,904

  3,748

  Warwickshire

  376

  708

  926

  398

  724

  924

  406

  714

  908

  West Mercia

  942

  1,563

  2,040

  975

  1,553

  2,010

  975

  1,562

  2,025

  West Midlands

  2,739

  5,636

  7,113

  2,817

  5,731

  7,156

  2,652

  5,908

  7,321

  West Yorkshire

  2,234

  4,106

  5,209

  2,304

  4,069

  5,155

  2,216

  3,931

  4,982

  Wiltshire

  475

  881

  1,154

  519

  888

  1,156

  555

  880

  1,151

  Total all forces

  53,011

  96,914

  125,051

  52,975

  97,072

  124,756

  52,465

  96,150

  123,841

  Note:

  Full-time equivalents
  752

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

Business of the House: Debates, 27th July
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday next to allow the Motions standing in the name of the Lord Mayhew of Twysden and the Lord Gray to be taken before the Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Finance Bill
11.7 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Traditionally in this House, the passage of the Finance Bill is an opportunity to debate not only the Budget and the Bill, but also the economy generally. I am happy to accept that challenge and I look forward to hearing from the distinguished noble Lords whose names appear on the speakers' list.
In May 1997 the Government inherited an economy in which growth was running at an unsustainable rate, the public finances were in substantial deficit, and the threat of rapidly rising inflation loomed large. On coming to power, we took tough and decisive action to get the economy back on track for sustainable growth. We 'were determined not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
To do this, we have given the Bank of England independence, we have cut public borrowing, and we have managed to get inflation under control. Because of our tough and decisive action, we are better placed to steer a course of stability, avoiding the boom-bust instability of the past.
Look at what we have achieved: employment is up by more than 400,000 since the election; there are now more people in work than ever before; long-term unemployment is down by more than 50 per cent and youth unemployment is down by more than 60 per cent. Inflation is under control, being at or close to its 2.5 per cent target over the past year. Interest rates peaked at half their early 1990s level and have since been reduced to their lowest level for 22 years. Mortgage rates are at their lowest for 33 years. The
1204
public finances have been brought under control. Borrowing has been cut by £32 billion in the Government's first two years and it is firmly on track to meet our tough fiscal rules while guaranteeing to deliver an extra £40 billion for health and education over the next three years.
The Finance Bill builds on this platform of stability to deliver higher levels of productivity in the longer term. The Government is introducing a new 10p rate of corporation tax that halves the tax rate for the smallest companies and benefits 270,000 small and growing businesses. This is on top of last year's cuts in corporate tax rates to 30 per cent for the main rate and 20 per cent for the small companies' rate from April this year. To help to bridge our investment gap, we are making first year capital allowances for small and medium enterprises available for another year. We have proposed a research and development tax credit that will further encourage small businesses to invest for the future.
The Government recognise that work is the best way out of poverty and that for far too many people financial uncertainty has acted as a real barrier to work for far too long. In our previous two Budgets, we developed new measures to help people to move from welfare to work. The Government are now delivering on their Welfare-to-Work programme. More than 280,000 people have joined the New Deal for young people and 105,000 of them have moved into jobs. More than 128,000 people are already benefiting from the New Deal for the long-term unemployed.
Now we are taking that fundamental reform a step further by ensuring that work pays. This Finance Bill, taken with the minimum wage and the working families' tax credit, aims to encourage independence by allowing working families to keep more of their income rather than paying it out in taxes. As a result of this Bill, we will have the lowest starting rate of income tax the country has seen for 35 years. The new 10p rate on the first £1,500 of income halves the tax rate for almost 2 million people. Our reforms to national insurance will lift almost 1 million people out of paying contributions at all without taking away their entitlement to contributory benefits.
This builds on the working families' tax credit, which will provide a minimum income guarantee for families with a full-time earner of £200 a week; that is, more than £10,000 a year. No such family with children will pay net income tax until its earnings exceed £12,000 a year. Finally, the national minimum wage will improve the earnings of almost 2 million people.
These reforms will make working families better off. From next April, every basic rate and top rate taxpayer will benefit from our 1p reduction in the basic rate of income tax. The average household will be £380 a year better off, and the tax burden on the average family will fall to below 20 per cent for the first time in more than 20 years.
The Bill is part of a package of measures which will give a better deal to families with children. This year has seen the largest ever increase in child benefit. Next year, it will be increased by a further 3 per cent in real terms, to be worth at least 15 per cent for the first child.

1205
The new children's tax credit provides most help to those who need it most when they need it most—families when they are bringing up children. It will put up to an extra £416 a year into the pay packets of families with children. That is on top of increases to the child premiums in working families' tax credit and income support. The new Sure Start maternity grant will lead to a doubling of payments to £200. By the end of this Parliament, we shall be spending £6 billion more on children than we were at the beginning. In total, 800,000 children will be taken out of poverty by the measures that we are taking.
We are also offering fairness to pensioners. The winter allowance will increase five-fold, to £100 for every pensioner household in the country. Furthermore, this April we are introducing the minimum income guarantee which, from next year, will be uprated in line with earnings. Our cuts in tax rates, taken together with the mimimum tax guarantee, will take an extra 200,000 pensioners out of income tax altogether.
The 1999 Budget contains the biggest ever package of environmental tax reforms and will make a substantial contribution to our aim of protecting the environment, now and for future generations. It includes measures to help to tackle climate change through reducing emissions of greenhouse gases; to improve local air quality; and to limit the environmental impact of land use and water pollution.
The climate change levy is an important part of the Government's strategy for tackling global climate change. It will make a significant contribution to meeting the Government's legally binding target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions set under the Kyoto protocol and our domestic goal of a 20 per cent cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. We are ensuring no increase in the overall tax burden on business by recycling the revenue via an offsetting cut in employer national insurance contributions, special treatment for energy intensive industries, and direct support for energy efficiency and renewables.
The Budget also includes measures to help to tackle environmental problems associated with transport, and measures to support integrated transport. Major reform in the company car tax regime aims to benefit the environment by removing the perverse incentive to drive extra miles, and by giving drivers an incentive to choose cars that are more fuel efficient.
Vehicle excise duty was cut on 1st June for owners of vehicles with engines up to 1,100cc and, from autumn 2000, we will introduce graduated vehicle excise duty for new cars based primarily on emission rates of carbon dioxide. That is good news for drivers of smaller cars and for the environment.
The duty on road fuels has been increased by at least 6 per cent in real terms, in line with the Government's commitment. That is playing a key role in reducing carbon dioxide emissions and in meeting our legally binding Kyoto commitment.
The Budget package also includes measures to limit the impact of land use. Landfill tax has a long-term role in reducing waste going to landfill. Tax increases send
1206
a message to waste producers. The staged increases announced allow waste producers and local authorities to consider alternative waste disposal and minimisation methods.
The Bill also introduces seven new tax measures to encourage the take-up of works buses and provisions for bicycles for commuting and business use.
It would not be right for me to conclude this statement without saying a word about Europe. Government policy is as set out by the Chancellor in October 1997. It remains unchanged. The Government are in favour in principle of UK entry to a successful single currency if the economic benefits are clear and unambiguous. The Prime Minister restated that policy when he launched the outline national changeover plan earlier this year. He said:
"our intention is clear. Britain should join a successful single currency, provided the economic conditions are met.
It is conditional. It is real. Both intention and conditions are genuine".
So we need to prepare during this Parliament to have a genuine option to join early in the next Parliament, should that be in the national economic interest, and if that is what Parliament and the people decide. Through Clause 131 of the Bill we seek to ensure proper propriety for future spending on euro preparations in the revenue departments in advance of a referendum.
There are three reasons for the spend. First, computer systems in the revenue departments are among the largest in Europe. Clearly, we need to make advance preparations if the United Kingdom is to have a real option to join. If the UK were to join, revenue departments would come under pressure from UK business to allow taxes to be assessed, reported and paid in euros—as happened in the first-wave countries. By supporting a well-targeted spend now, we can save substantial sums if the UK were to join. That is no more than effective public sector planning to deliver best value for money.
If we fail to prepare, the UK will not have an option to join. It would be a nonsense for us to say at a referendum that the Government had concluded that it was in the best interests of this country, that Parliament had agreed, but that, by the way, it was not possible for us to go in because we had not made the necessary preparations. That is the justification for Clause 131 of the Bill.
This Finance Bill needs to be judged against the background of the wider changes that the Government have made since they came into office. Already, our reforms have begun to deliver a stronger economic future for the country, the right incentives for people to work and for people to invest, and a better deal for families and pensioners. There is still much to do, and we shall continue our programme of reforms through this and future Finance Bills. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
11.18 a.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, as this House can neither amend nor vary the Bill, I intend to restrict my comments to what the Bill reveals about the Government's general economic strategy.
The Bill is a metaphor for the new Labour Government—hope deferred. Many people I know felt a frisson of anticipation on 1st May 1997. They thought that perhaps the new, dynamic, young Prime Minister, full of hopes and dreams and at the height of his powers, actually could change things for the better. But now I find the same people beginning to feel a sense of disillusionment, even perhaps of sadness, at their misplaced confidence in the new Government.
It is perhaps not unfair to place the burden of blame for that sense of loss firmly on the shoulders of this Bill. Let us consider what was said about these measures at the time of the Budget Statement. The Times said on 11th March:
"When people discover they have been deceived, they are apt to become angry".
The Evening Standard on 23rd March spoke of "its arrogance and deceit". On 24th March, the Daily Mail said that it was, "bending the truth" and was,
"unlikely to impress voters who were persuaded to believe that New Labour was the champion of openness and honesty".
By 12th July, Labour's favourite newspaper, the Daily Mail had concluded,
"The wheels are coming off this 25-month old Government".
"O, what a fall was there," and so soon. How did it happen? It is worth remembering exactly how much in politics follows economics. By 1997 New Labour had persuaded the British public that the economy was safe in its hands and that income tax rates would not be increased. Time and again the Labour leadership made a promise not to raise tax.
"Our proposals do not involve raising taxes. If we have any such proposals. we will make them clear before the next election".
That was Mr Blair on a phone-in programme on 2nd August 1996. On 16th September that year, he told his audience at the Guildhall,
"We want people to pay lower taxes".
On 21st September, Mr Blair told the Financial Times,
"We have no plans to increase tax at all".
What could be clearer than those three statements? It was because they were so clear that many people voted Labour for the first time in 1997, as a party which they thought had learned from its past mistakes and undergone a sincere conversion.
But with this Bill the mechanism that won Labour that election began to break down. The wires were pulled out because, as I will explain, this Bill both raises taxes and—not unconnected—it further complicates the system by which taxes are calculated. That is why this Bill is a turning point for the Government.
The truth is contained in an analysis by the House of Commons Library. It shows that while it is true that there has been a £30 billion cut in taxes over the life of this Parliament, the Government have also quietly raised taxes by £75 billion. So taxes have gone up overall by
1208
more than £40 billion. That is £1,500 for every taxpayer in Britain. The official figures show that the burden of tax in this country will rise from 35.4 per cent to 37.6 per cent during the lifetime of this Parliament.
With this Bill the Government have taken full advantage of the present complicated tax structure. In 1997–98 the unrelieved taxable potential of this structure amounted to £434 billion, 53 per cent of GDP, but an astonishing £134 billion is given back through a complex web of allowances, exemptions, reliefs, deductions, disregards and indexations which brings the net tax take to £300 billion.
The charm of such a large gross tax system from the Government's point of view is the scope it allows for hidden tax increases, which the shadow Chancellor Francis Maude famously dubbed "stealth taxes". For example, in the Treasury document on this budget, changes to income tax rates (the 10p starting rate and the new 22p band) are dealt with in two lines, whereas another 62 lines are required to describe changes to allowances, reliefs and exemptions. Oh what a tangled web!
Thus, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to increase tax without ever announcing a tax increase; and given Labour the means to implement what it no doubt thought was the brilliant strategy of cutting visible taxes on voters while raising invisible taxes elsewhere.
It was precisely that practice in this Bill which led the Treasury Select Committee to ask the Government to display greater transparency in their tax policies; for more disclosure so that the Government could not hide from the political consequences of their tax actions.
Four examples from the Bill illustrate the point that the Select Committee was getting at. First, the Government abolished the married couples' allowance—an immediate tax rise of £1.6 billion next year and £2.1 billion the year after. In return, families were offered a children's tax credit. In his Budget speech the Chancellor described the measure in the following words:
"This children's tax credit will give more—not less—help to families at the time when they need it most, when they have their children and when their children are growing up".
Yet if one strips away the rhetoric, a much more meagre truth emerges. The children's tax credit will not even begin to be paid until the last year of this Parliament, and even then it only repays £1.4 billion of the £2.1 billion tax increase from the abolition of the married couples' allowance in the first place.
Secondly, it was left to many people to find out for themselves that the loudly trumpeted 10 pence starting rate of income tax did not apply to their savings. Apart from discriminating against savers in general, this obviously removed the entire benefits of the lower starting rate from pensioners who rely on earnings from savings to supplement their pension.
Thirdly, when he introduced the 1999 Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it offered "tax cuts for business". But while it is true that the cut in the headline corporation tax rates gives business a tax saving worth £1.9 billion up to the end of this Parliament, other corporation tax changes, including the

1209
new quarterly payment system, give the Government an extra £5.2 billion over the same period, a net cost to the taxpayer of £3.3 billion.
Some people think—perish the thought in your Lordships' House—that the Government were actually taking advantage of ignorance of the tax system to achieve their ends. The Director General of the CBI described:
"the corporation tax changes which were very carefully [portrayed] as a reduction in tax rates but were actually a tax increase, exploiting the fact that the number of people in the world who understand dividend tax credits is remarkably few, which allows the Chancellor to increase taxes whilst appearing to cut them".
One final example: the climate change levy mooted in this Bill was supposed to be a revenue neutral swap between a new energy tax and a new national insurance credit. The Minister described it just now as an "offsetting cut". The Prime Minister was crystal clear on that point on 9th June last year when he said:
"any money raised by the climate change levy is given back to industry through cuts in national insurance costs".
But the emerging reality is that the Government are only offering the national insurance credit for one year; that the biggest beneficiary of the NIC cut is the Government themselves via the public services; and that according to one estimate 12 major industries will pay £742 million more in tax and only save £64 million in national insurance contributions.
No wonder the trade and industry Select Committee concluded that this energy tax could do,
"considerable damage to sectors of the British economy".
This Bill has woven such a tangled web that the Government have even got caught up in it themselves. As some of your Lordships may be aware, on 18th May I drew the Minister's attention to the merry-go-round between taxes and benefits, in which the Government collect £30 billion in taxes from the same people to whom they pay £30 billion in benefits. I asked him whether he thought it bizarre that the Government first tax people on low incomes, then means-test their income to satisfy themselves that they are in need; and then offer them benefits to restore their income back to where it was before they paid the tax. His answer was that it,
"would be quite impossible to have a streamlined system which brought the two together".
But two weeks later on 27th May 1999, in a speech to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, the Chancellor described his "new mission" for the Treasury which was, lo and behold, a,
"step by step integration of tax and in-work benefits".
I wonder whether the noble Lord will tell us whether it is he whom the Chancellor has tasked with this "mission impossible".
The Finance Bill marks the beginning of the end of this Labour Government. The reaction to the Bill is the reason Labour's core supporters preferred not to go to the polls to support the Government in either the local or the European elections. They are all good students of the Bible and they know from their Proverbs 13:12 that,
"hope deferred maketh the heart sick".
11.29 a.m.
Lord Burns: My Lords, last year the equivalent debate on the Finance Bill took place on the same day as my introduction to your Lordships' House. I noticed that the debate was in very general terms, and on that basis I am pleased to take part in this debate today. However, this is the first Budget for about 20 years in which I have not been heavily involved, and I am conscious of the danger of treading too hard on the toes of some of my former colleagues.
Typically, in the preparation of Budgets there are three big issues: first, the assessment of the economy; secondly, the overall budget judgment; and, thirdly, the whole question of the individual detailed tax measures. I should like to say a word about each. As to the economic background, I agree with the Minister that it has been a good year for the British economy, despite some severe disruption in the world economy. Not only did we have capital market dislocation in south-east Asia and Russia for much of the year, but Japan has continued to be in considerable trouble and has faced the unusual problem of how to create a little more inflation to get economic activity moving.
On the other hand, the United States has been going through what many regard as a miracle. We have witnessed an active debate about how much longer this can continue. Most economists believe that it cannot. Perhaps economists are not at their strongest when it comes to issues of timing, but that does not mean that reality will not eventually catch up. That in itself may well pose problems in future. We have also seen some hesitant signs of growth in Europe. Therefore, in general it has been a year of quite fragile confidence.
Looking back at some of the worries, this time last year many of us would have been quite reassured to believe that we would get through this year as successfully as we have. I agree that as far as concerns the UK everything has held together reasonably well. Output has been relatively flat for much of the year, but unemployment has come down and inflation has been close to target. We now see clear signs of a resumption of growth at a quicker pace.
I have argued previously that the Monetary Policy Committee has got off to a very good start, and some of the credit for this outcome should go to it. Inflation is close to target. I have also argued that it has been helped considerably by weak world prices and the strong exchange rate. We now see the economy running quite close to trend, and the present cycle promises to be a much more benign experience than some of its predecessors in the 1970s and 1980s. I believe that those involved in that deserve some credit.
We must also be aware that plenty of challenges remain. I have already mentioned the potential problems of the United States. There remain difficulties elsewhere in the world. When some of the effects of the strong exchange rate and weak commodity prices begin to unwind the job of controlling inflation will, I suspect, be a good deal tougher than it has been over the past year or two. On that front, so far so good.

1211
The Budget judgment is the second and most important part of the whole question of financial stability, and the fiscal framework has been set out in quite clear terms. The Government now have two rules to help deliver the objective of sustainable public finances, as the Minister has pointed out. Although it is a tough regime, it provides a good deal of flexibility. There is considerable dispute in the economics profession about how well based these rules are. Some ask why the Government should balance the Budget on current account; others ask why the debt ceiling should be set at 40 per cent rather than some other figures. Over the past year many have argued that if public finances had been a bit tougher it might have eased the burden on exporters by taking some of the pressure off interest rates.
Based on my experience of fiscal policy, I concluded that it was more important to do the simple things well rather than have complicated ambitions that could often go wrong. Sophisticated rules in this areas can often lead one into serious difficulty. The challenge is to do what has been announced, and to do it well. So far the Government have delivered on public finances. Some may argue that a certain amount of good luck has been involved with buoyant taxation, but one should also accept that there has been a degree of good management. The public finance figures are impressive and the projections for the future are equally welcome. We have a sound position in terms of both the current Budget and bringing down the debt ratio.
The key Budget judgment—how far the overall balance of taxes and spending should differ—was an important one. The conclusion was that there was very little scope for change. That was a conclusion with which I agree. I believe that it was right for the Budget to be much more about re-balancing existing taxes and spending rather than making any big change to the fiscal picture. But that is not the end of the story. Public finances must be kept under close scrutiny. We have been through a period when taxation has been surprisingly buoyant. There was a period in the mid-1990s when taxation was surprisingly weak. It is important not to assume that that good fortune will go on indefinitely.
Therefore, on the macro side of the Budget we are in pretty good shape. We have a clear set of principles which is being implemented. I am not as convinced when it comes to the details of tax and spending, where it is more difficult to see the principles or the coherence at work. We would all sign up to the general view that tax measures should be designed to raise revenue in a way that does least damage to the economy. We want taxes to contribute where possible to the objectives of growth and employment.
There is a natural tendency in budget-making, from which we all suffer from time to time, to believe that the way to do it is to make a list of all the matters of which we approve, such as employment, investment, small business and new technology, and decide what tax changes can be made to help them. We then make a list of those items of which we disapprove, such as alcohol, tobacco, pollution and expensive property, and think of the tax changes that can be made to make people less
1212
likely to indulge in those activities. What happens is that all kinds of distortions appear. One finds that similar activities end up being taxed at different rates, or that people in similar situations have to pay different amounts of tax. Sometimes rates in this country are very different from those in another and there are distortions through imports and exports; sometimes there is avoidance; and sometimes it ends up as no more than a bonus for the accountants and lawyers rather than the Exchequer. Once those distortions appear it is very natural to meet them with further distortions One then finds that temporary tax advantages have a nasty habit of becoming permanent, and someone else has the difficult job of trying to remove them. My instinct is to avoid going too far down that route and to favour general tax-raising measures rather than too many interventions.
We all agree that the measures in the Budget to help make work pay, to improve the chances of getting more people into the labour market, to do something about poverty in families with children and to use the tax system to help protect the environment are all important. There are some useful measures. But Ft was with some dismay that when I looked at the opening table in the Red Book I saw 61 measures listed, 37 of which had full year effects of £100 million or less. This is not to say that size is a decisive factor in this area, but it is a continuing sign of the tendency of governments of all persuasions to pack Budget Statements with eye-catching measures which contribute to it being a memorable day. Often they are matters that we regret later.
I said at the beginning that this was the first Budget for a long time in which I had not been heavily involved. It was also the first Budget for a long time that I watched on television without knowing what was in it. The striking feature was how difficult it was to understand what was going on in the Budget simply by listening to it. It is only when one has access to the publications, in particular what used to be known as the Red Book, that one has any idea of what is happening. Often tax changes are announced in such a way that it is difficult to determine the bases against which they are measured. One sees figures rolled up into three-year totals, even though it is an annual process. Some significant measures are mentioned only in passing. Moves to change classifications are not at all clear as one listens to it.
Given the emphasis of the Government on transparency—with which I wholly agree—for an insider who has become an outsider it is a lesson to discover the extent to which it is difficult to understand the Budget. A good deal more can be gained by greater transparency in the presentation, rather than seeing it as predominantly a political event. In macro terms the position is very sound; and in micro terms there is a great deal in the Budget with which most of us agree. However, there are dangers in trying to pack too many measures into Budgets of this type. The end result is often less transparency rather than more.
11.40 a.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, as the Finance Bill cannot be rejected or amended in this House, I shall confine myself to a few of the trends which arise from it. My noble friend Lord Saatchi highlighted one or two of the tangled webs woven in the Budget which, in our view, are designed to confuse the public. Be that as it may, I shall deal with only a few of the trends.
The Minister referred to the Monetary Policy Committee, as did the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Speaking in the debate last year, I was critical, but so far I have been proved wrong. The system has worked well. But I still have reservations. The same policy of dividing monetary control from fiscal and political control operates satisfactorily at present in this country. When we see what is happening in Europe, it raises doubts. There, the operations are giving rise to problems which may well increase. I hope that our system continues to work smoothly and well, as at present.
Last night I read through the Budget speech. I was impressed by what I thought was a great achievement: to produce a speech which appeared to show that the Budget carried out all the wishes the Prime Minister had expressed about reducing taxation, and never to increase tax during the Labour administration. There were some 20 references to cuts in taxation but not a single reference, in the whole of the Budget speech, to any increase. I felt that the spin doctors must have been delighted with how consistently that policy was presented. It was only when one analysed what had followed from that presentation that one realised the massive amount of stealth taxes which have been imposed. In his opening speech, my noble friend said that over £7 billion would result from the Labour Budget this year.
One of the methods used in the Budget was to put forward a number of taxes which will not take effect until April of next year. That has the advantage that this year the taxpayer does not have to pay any of those taxes; and next year the proposal will not appear in the Budget because it is in this year's Budget. It is a way of causing a certain amount of confusion. It is not unique, but it is done to extreme in this case. Those tax increases which were to take effect straight away have proved to be somewhat painful. Off the cuff I cite the increase in diesel tax and vehicle excise duty, from the imposition of which lorry drivers in this country are suffering severely.
My noble friend referred to the figure produced by the Library of the House of Commons of £7.1 billion extra tax due this year as a result of the Labour Budget. I find this use of "billions" in taxation somewhat confusion and misleading. To the average member of the public, a billion is rather more than a million, but not a thousand times more. I prefer to talk about £7,100 million of extra taxation. Then one realises that is quite a large figure. One knows that it is rather more than a million, even if one does not realise that it is a thousand times more.
1214
My noble friend referred to the married couple's tax allowance. Although we mind the tax implications of the change, the recognition of marriage as no longer of any significance was unfortunate. The abolition of the 20p rate was completely overlooked in order to play up the 10p rate. As the Minister will know, many suffer from that change.
In turning to the business world, I declare an interest. I was at one time president of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. It is said that the cost of this year's Budget to business over the next three years is £3,200 million (£3.2 billion). As a one time Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I know that one has to look not only at how the money is raised, but at how it is spent. Reductions in class sizes have been stressed as one advantage flowing from the Budget. As we know from debates in another place, it does not seem to be an entirely unanimous view that class sizes have benefited in that way: the reverse would seem to be the case. As regards health, there is reference to waiting lists although it is clear that waiting lists have been altered so that the figures presented and the true figures somewhat differ.
Transport is said to be one of the main areas to benefit from the raising of all this additional taxation. I do not know whether one goes by what is said by the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister in judging how well it has done, but it does not seem to be effective.
Earlier this week, one issue—it is relatively small in Budget terms—struck me forcefully. A Parliamentary Question was raised from the other side of the Chamber about ex gratia payments to former British prisoners of war of the Japanese. It was said that Canada was making ex gratia payments to Canadians who had suffered the terrible fate of being prisoners of war of the Japanese. In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, estimated that it would cost this country between £100 million and £150 million to adopt the Canadian scale of compensation to prisoners of war of the Japanese. He continued:
"Unfortunately that is not the policy of this Government, nor of any previous government".—[Official Report, 20/7/99; col. 808.]
I do not seek to defend previous governments, although there was somewhat different pressure on them often to get the Japanese to pay more themselves. This proposal is for the British Government to make compensation. Many of those poor prisoners of the Japanese have died. Many are suffering desperately and are ill. Having raised these vast sums in additional taxation, for the Government then to say that it is not their policy to pay £100 million or £150 million in compensation indicates that our priorities for expending these vast sums are unfortunate.
11.48 a.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, some years ago I was lucky enough to introduce a debate on the Budget Statement in your Lordships' House on the day after the Budget had been read in another place. I believe that we should revive that practice so that your Lordships' House has an opportunity to debate the generalities of the Budget rather than the details of taxation. We should restore the practice of having a general debate on the day after the

1215
Budget. If we have that debate several months later, one has to try to remember the various hoo-ha that was caused on the day. It is astonishing that people make such a fuss about the Budget every year and then forget about it two or three days later.
We have had a good debate so far. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, to his Front Bench role. He made a valiant attempt to stir up trouble—or perhaps apathy—trying to make it look as though there were problems. His speech reminded me of the famous Saatchi poster featuring actors pretending to be the unemployed, which was very successful. However, the economy is doing so well that it is not news. That is the great achievement of my right honourable friend the Chancellor.
Two-and-a-half years into a Labour Government we normally expect the economy to be in dire trouble, with sterling under attack and the Chancellor rushing here, there and everywhere clutching his head and trying to introduce extra Budgets. Yet here we are in mid-term and there is not a problem with the economy. The economy is a very dull thing—it does not even make headlines in the Financial Times.
I am the first to admit that more or less since our exit from the exchange rate mechanism the economy has been going well. Having made a fantastic mess, the previous government partly cured a lot of it. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, had to introduce severe increases in taxation. I praise him for that, because high taxation was necessary at the time to cure the debt to GDP ratio, which was going out of control. Sometimes one has to have taxation. One cannot have something for nothing.
When we came to power the economy was in a sense doing dangerously too well. Two years on the economy is in good shape. We did not have the recession that everybody predicted or the great Budget deficit disaster that the shadow Chancellor was going on about last September. Although some people complain about a £7 billion tax increase, we have to remember that this is a £900 billion economy. A £7 billion tax increase is less than 1 per cent of that—not something that a proper businessman would get out of bed for.
The reason that the economy is doing well is that rules were set down and followed on the proper conduct of fiscal and monetary policy. I am tempted to say that discretion is better than rules, but only if I am the Chancellor, not if anybody else is. Rules are very good for all other Chancellors. We have created a successful economy by abiding by the rules.
The prognosis for the next two or three years is good. I can see no reason why the economy should not do extremely well. We shall emerge with the debt to GDP ratio under control and unemployment not very high. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, will no doubt go on complaining about the tax burden, but if a government want to spend 40 per cent of GDP on public expenditure, sooner or later taxation has to be somewhere near that level or the country will be ruined.
Taxation is not a great burden. It is a way of redistributing the burden of meeting expenditure. That is why aggregates are always wrong. It is no good complaining that the tax burden has gone up from X per cent to X plus 2 per cent. We have to look at where the
1216
burden falls. That is where the analysis of the married couple's allowance is at fault. My right honourable friend the Chancellor is distributing money from all married couples—some of whom may be childless or whose children may have grown up—to couples who are married with small children. He is redistributing the money within the class of married couples. That is desirable distribution. One should not throw money away irresponsibly. The Government are rightly directing their attention to the need for children to be properly provided for. Not all the money goes back, because not all married couples have children. It is right to direct money towards couples with children and away from those who do not have children. I have no problem with that.
I have two or three very important considerations. I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, about the prospect of inflation. I am much more worried about deflation and having to deal with prices falling all the time. Over the past 50 years economists have forgotten how to manage a deflationary economy. We have lived so long with inflation that it has coloured all our thinking about indexing and real interest rates. It will be difficult to construct policies to deal with deflation. For example, we shall not be able to carry on with a target of 2.5 per cent inflation, which looked rather tough when the Chancellor set it. We shall have to start worrying about how the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee will deal with a world in which inflation is practically zero, if not negative. That will give cash a different importance from the situation in an inflationary economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, is an interesting case of not quite a gamekeeper turned poacher, but a man who used to weave the tangled web or the spider who has become a fly. He is now caught in a web that other people weave and he cannot find his way around it. I welcome him to the club of the ignorant, lo which I have belonged for a long time. I agree with his remarks about the robustness of the US economy. I hope that the correction in the US economy comes sooner rather than later, because if it comes during election time, the protectionist pressures in the US are likely to be inflamed. There is a genuine danger of the United States receding from its commitment to free trade and the World Trade Organisation and indulging in all sorts of silly games about trade and protectionism.
Lastly, I should mention the euro, because no doubt the subject will crop up frequently. After thinking about the issue for a long time I have come to the conclusion that there is no strong argument on either side. It is not a matter of life and death; it is a currency. As long as it keeps inflation low and ensures good purchasing power within its area and the market treats it as reasonably stable against other currencies it will be all right. Currencies are very useful, but they are instrumental and not of great importance. The Government are right to see how the euro does and decide whether the British economy will gain from joining it and if so at what time. The current timetable is perfectly all right. I welcome the one dollar euro. With a one dollar euro and the

1217
pound remaining stable against the dollar, we may yet get a world of stable exchange rates. That would be of immense benefit to future Chancellors.
11.59 a.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall leave discussion of the economy and the Budget to the great guns of the Front Benches, and to the occasional smart bomb from above. I wish to concentrate on one aspect of taxation; namely, how it can be used to encourage finance for new ventures and young companies.
A great deal of finance is provided by institutions. Over the past few years we have seen how those institutions have become steadily more risk averse, due largely to the legislation and regulation that we have imposed on them, but also to concentration and competition within the industry which have made it expensive for institutions to deviate from one another in performance terms.
I have been hankering for the opportunity to tackle this through the taxation system. For example, it is clear that concentrating the tax reliefs that the institutions receive on behalf of the rest of us on investments which have been held for, say, more than 10 years would produce extremely desirable results in terms of how institutions manage their investments, their attitude to corporate governance and the quality of people and expertise they employ. However, I have not been able even to get close to a practical way of imposing that kind of taxation system. Until someone else better and brighter than I produces a scheme, I shall leave it be.
I shall concentrate instead on the personal aspect; that is, the contribution that personal investment makes to financing young companies with venture capital. That is especially important in the early stages. Personal investment offers elements that institutional investors cannot. Often such investments are made by people who themselves have expertise in the area, and who may well have the time to help the young companies. Generally they are people who are making decisions for their own assets, which means that they can be quick and decisive, based on their personal judgment of the people involved, rather than needing to go through long and expensive committee processes. Therefore it is a relatively cheap process for the investor. Furthermore, they are interested in much smaller levels of investment than is the average institution.
However, for the purposes of this debate, personal investors are remarkably tax sensitive. A lot of people can be guided into making the kind of investment that the Government consider desirable by using the tax system. There is a long history of governments trying to use the tax system in this way. I recall being involved in the early stages of the business expansion scheme, under which I ran a fund. There have been many variations since then, and many are currently in use. However, they have all suffered from two major disadvantages: they are founded on essentially legislative and rule-based systems.
People are remarkably adept at finding ways of cheating. From the earliest days, schemes have been produced which fit within the rules but do nothing to
1218
advance the future of the economy. Such schemes operate by taking 60 per cent now and turning it into 100 per cent in five years' time, using purely tax relief and generating no actual money in the mean time. That is a pretty good rate of return. All risk is removed from the process and it becomes a wonderful investment. Many schemes have been put together successfully and have achieved tax relief on that basis.
The Treasury's not unreasonable response has been to try to draw the rules ever tighter and make them ever more complicated, to the point where those rules impinge on the management of a company, which should be the eventual beneficiary of the tax relief. Eventually, one cannot make perfectly reasonable and sensible business decisions under those schemes without risking the tax relief. One has to go through long, uncertain and incredibly detailed processes even to get the tax relief in the first place. The procedure is especially difficult for a young technology company which may be seeking markets throughout the world. For instance, it may need to license products to get into the American market quickly enough, or it may wish to set up a joint venture in the Far East to secure its position quickly in the world market. Such activity is likely to lead to the loss of tax relief under present schemes, and that is because those schemes need to be designed to stop people cheating.
I have been greatly inspired by the Government's private-public partnership schemes. They have made great advances in the ways in which the Government can work together with private institutions in areas originally thought of as purely governmental activities. I believe that that can combine with the long-running success of the City code on takeovers and mergers, which is not rule-based but is rather a principle-based system. It may be worth testing ways to learn how tax relief might be apportioned to companies looking to grow.
I ask noble Lords to imagine the following test. A decent firm of accountants is given an allocation of £20 million of tax relief by the Treasury; that is, when the accountants present a company to the Revenue saying that the company comes under the allocation, the Revenue will offer tax relief to the investors in that company. However, the accountants will be honour-bound to follow certain principles when choosing which companies to bring forward. The companies will have to be those whose investors are facing a much greater risk than from stock market investment. It has to be a real business, and it has to be new money rather than funds being recirculated to proprietors and others. It has to be something which is clearly of benefit to this country, to UK plc.
A list of real principles could be drawn up. Those principles would not be absolute, but they would need to be followed largely in the round. For example, a company may have been brought to its current development at enormous cost to the proprietor who has overgeared himself and made his own life impossible. A small return of capital would be a sensible way of allowing that proprietor to sleep easy and function better.

1219
When the firm of accountants had run through its £20 million allocation, it would go back to the Revenue, which would judge what it had done against the criteria set down. If the firm of accountants had not done well, it would not get any more tax allocation and the privilege of unquestioned access to tax relief would he granted to another firm. Those who failed the test would have their access to tax relief restricted or confined to the current rather tedious system. Such a test would not in any way be likely to disadvantage the Inland Revenue. No sensible firm of accountants working in the limelight, on its best behaviour and trying to do something better than is being done at present, would be likely to produce anything worse than we have now. Plenty of cheating is going on, even under the current rules.
There may be scope to try out several different schemes at once, without becoming too exotic. If this kind of scheme worked, it would have enormous benefits. The system would work very simply as regards the Treasury. A better quality of investment would be made. Companies which have the capacity to grow fast and to grow internationally would be much better served by this kind of system. Any company receiving tax relief in this way would naturally have a proper firm of accountants behind it, and in many cases it would be a great benefit. The accountants themselves would be extremely reluctant to abuse the system because none of the major firms could afford to be without access to it.
I give, as an example, the good behaviour of investment banks in the City. Investment banks are naturally badly behaved and are always looking for ways to get round the system. But by and large they behave under the code because they know that on those occasions when the code has been broken, they have been severely punished, and they risk losing their access to the London market. It almost always works and it is a good example of how a principle-based system can work. For businesses, such a scheme would provide simplicity of use, ease of access and, above all, systems that could be adapted to their individual business planning needs without having to jump through hoops designed purely to deal with people who want to cheat.
I hope that the Treasury will accept testing, which has been so well pioneered by, for example, its colleagues in social security. This aspect of the tax system has resisted the attempts of many governments and officials to produce a rule-based system that works. The test might fail, but inevitably such a test could be no worse than the current system.
12.10 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, my intervention in this debate demands a preface of apology, because it is 40 years since I was concerned with public finance. There are one or two specific matters I should like to raise in the expectation that the Minister will clear my confusion. I have given him notice of what I intend to raise, but that was probably unnecessary because he seemed to have the whole scope of Treasury concerns at the end of his tongue.
The first issue is the public debt—borrowing. Your Lordships will remember that in Disraeli's great critique of Whig government he specified Venetian oligarchy
1220
and Dutch finance. The Dutch finance may be the raising of a large public debt in order to finance current expenditure.
I raise the question because it was not quite clear how the previous government regarded the public debt. It was said that there was a very large borrowing requirement, as a previous speaker said. That borrowing requirement was very large and was growing, but it was said that it would be brought into balance in the medium term. It was not clear whether that meant that in the medium term—whatever that was—there would be no net borrowing, or whether the retrenchment of debt would balance the borrowing that had occurred during the cycle. What it should mean, in my respectful submission—I hope that the Minister will confirm the point—is that over the trade cycle such borrowing a s may be called for when the cycle was in its trough would be repaid when the cycle was at its height, as it is at the moment. Over the whole cycle, therefore, borrowing would not increase.
Over and above that, one must, in my respectful submission, consider what the borrowing is for. A bridge over the Humber was fortuitously and belatedly proposed to coincide happily with a by-election in Hull. Nevertheless, it is something that can be used by subsequent generations. It seems to me that that is something for which borrowing is permissible, because it is subsequent generations who must pay the interest, and indeed repay the capital, on what is borrowed. On the other hand, matters such as health and legal aid are different. Mostly, those two items do not justify putting a burden on subsequent generations. Merely because we are in danger of becoming a nation of litigious hypochondriacs does not justify borrowing. Borrowing may be permissible for education, because that benefits subsequent generations, but it is largely inadmissible for health and legal aid in litigation.
The second matter on which I hope that the Minister may be able to clear my mind is the hypothecation of revenue. As your Lordships know, before the Consolidated Fund was established, any proposal for public expenditure had attached to it an appropriate levy by way of taxation to finance it. The greatest reform in our history of public finance was the establishment of the Consolidated Fund. Every source of income, even capital, coming into the Exchequer would be paid into the Consolidated Fund and paid out according to priorities established by government. That has been accepted now for 200 years, but there are signs that it is being questioned.
I venture to ask the Minister, in so far as hypothecation has been accepted, whether, how far, and on what principles that is justified. I shall give two recent examples. The windfall tax was hypothecated to pay for the return to work. Even more questionably, the recent transport White Paper, A New Deal for Transport, stated:
"We will therefore introduce legislation to allow local authorities to charge road users so as to reduce congestion".

1221
Even more questionable was the glee with which that announcement was received by the spin doctors, especially those working for the transport department. It was claimed as a great departmental victory over the Treasury and I fear that that is just what it was.
I ask the Minister how far such hypothecation of revenue will be carried and how can that can be justified. In some circumstances, hypothecation is acceptable. We have all been content with the way national insurance operates. National insurance contributions are hypothecated to pay for benefits. Certain non-taxation income, such as fines, is hypothecated without being taken in to the Consolidated Fund. The question has been asked: on what principle will there be an exception allowing hypothecation of revenue? The Chief Secretary to the Treasury stated that each case will be decided on its merits. That means that each case will be determined by its political advantage. But we can rely on the noble Lord to do rather better than that and to provide us with an explanation.
The penultimate matter I want to raise is the general anti-avoidance rule. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, justly mentioned the extreme complication of our fiscal code. That is most noticeable in anti-avoidance provisions. What happens is that some extremely clever accountant works out an extremely recondite way of getting around a tax charge. It must be very complicated. When the Revenue has belatedly caught up with it, it becomes even more complicated because the Revenue has to chase through the extremely complicated evasion and provide a counter measure.
I had had several experiences where the result was incomprehensible and that is not justifiable. After all, in a democratic society legislation is the framing of rules by the citizens which will bind them. If the rules are incomprehensible, the legislative process has failed lamentably.
A general anti-evasion rule was proposed, and an investigation was set up to consider it. In reply to the question on the consultation paper, I suggested the following formula: any transaction, the predominant purpose of which, as a whole or of any step of which, is the avoidance of tax, shall be void for that purpose although otherwise valid. That is by no means original because both America and Australia have general anti-avoidance rules.
A unit was set up in the Inland Revenue to consider that, but in a recent Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave notice that it would be wound up, as it has been, and it is said that he went boldly and gleefully into a great number of specific anti-avoidance measures which are no clearer than were their predecessors. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord why that unit has been wound up. The letter to me stated that for the time being the Inland Revenue would not be proceeding any further with the development of a GAAR or with the consultative process. Why not?
The final issue I want to raise relates to the arts. One of the greatest contributions to general civilisation has been the English country house and its estate. Anyone who a few years ago attended the exhibition at the
1222
Victoria & Albert Museum of the destruction of the country house—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, did—will realise how much we have been damaged by the introduction of death duties in the 1890s by Harcourt who said, perhaps truly in that respect, "We are all socialists now". We now have inheritance tax. It could be greatly modified to be less damaging to our cultural heritage and I ask the noble Lord, although I did not give him notice, whether he could deal with that point.
I turn lastly to the fiscal treatment of works of art. The Americans benefit greatly from their system. If, when someone buys a Van Gogh picture, he undertakes to donate it to the public on his death, that, say, £5 million could be set against his taxable income. Not only that, but as works of art become more expensive, the annual increment can also be set against the taxable income. But it does not even end there, because the Van Gogh on the wall increases in value according to inflation and that, too, is allowed against taxable income.
When I was concerned with this, I thought that was a fiscal racket. I still think it is a fiscal racket, but I think it is a fiscal racket we ought now to be prepared to face. We need not go so far as the Americans with their annual increment, but there is much to be said for a capital element. With that, I leave the problems to the noble Lord.
12.27 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for introducing the debate today and for giving the House the opportunity to discuss the Finance Bill which implements the Government's third Budget. It is a great honour to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale; I find myself in full agreement with what he said. He asked several pertinent questions and I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will be looking forward to the Minister's replies.
I should declare my interest as a director of Robert Fleming International. As your Lordships are well aware, the City's prosperity depends on the continued application of sound and stable monetary and fiscal policies. I enjoyed the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, whose enlightened leadership of the Treasury over many years has done so much to ensure this continued financial stability.
As always, it was interesting to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I regret that I could not find myself in full agreement with the whole of his speech, but I wholeheartedly endorse his suggestion that your Lordships should be permitted to debate a Budget speech immediately after the Budget has taken place rather than several months later.
On the face of it, this year's Budget seemed fairly benign. The Government even attempted to portray it as a tax-cutting Budget by the use of headline-grabbing gimmicks, such as the introduction of a 10p in the pound starting rate for income tax, which sounds wonderful until one reads on and discovers that this rate applies only across a £1,500 band. That is worth around a mere

1223
£1 a week to the relatively small number of people whose earnings are between £5,000 and £6,000 a year or so.
Of course, as your Lordships are; well aware, all governments naturally try to present their Budgets in the most favourable light possible, but this Government take the prize for their ability to disguise the effect of their actions. The Chancellor's three Budgets have so far increased the tax burden by £40.7 billion over the course of this Parliament; and yet the Prime Minister claimed in another place on 10th March, in respect of the current financial year,
"a net tax cut of £4.5 billion".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/3/99; col. 358.]
It beggars belief that he can say that when the Government's own Budget Statement shows clearly that taxes have risen in the last two years and continue to rise by a further £7.1 billion in the current year.
Perhaps the most harmful and underhand move the Government have made since they came to power was their unexpected decision, on which they did not consult, to abolish advance corporation tax credits in the hands of pension funds and charities. Millions of those who supported the Government at the last general election are now suffering a diminution of income as a result of the imposition of the tax on pension funds which costs them £5 billion a year. This amount does not include the loss of income to charities, which starts to lake effect this year and will be progressively introduced over the next four years. What is still not widely understood is that the effect of this change is that tax-exempt institutions are now paying tax on the income they earn from their investments in UK equities.
I must declare another interest, as a trustee of the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund. We estimate that at current dividend levels the measure will diminish our income by some £600,000 a year by 2004, when it becomes fully effective. The Government have missed an opportunity to ameliorate the effects of this unwarranted burden, which impairs our ability to help those in need who did so much to secure our freedom.
My noble friend Lord Saatchi has already identified many of the areas where this long and unnecessarily complicated Finance Bill fails to achieve its declared purpose or increases the tax burden by stealth. I will not delay your Lordships by addressing all the same points, but I would like briefly to address just a few areas affected by the Bill.
The motorist is bearing a disproportionately large part of the tax burden. Around £8.50 of every £10 spent on petrol is now tax. Excise duty on petrol has risen by 12p a litre since the Government took office and is now higher than in any other EU country. It is one-third higher than the level applied in Germany. It is nearly eight times the level applied in the United States.
The situation is even worse in the case of the road haulage industry. Diesel duty has been increased by 12 per cent, and at the same time some lorries have incurred a virtual doubling of road tax. Our road haulage industry is the most heavily taxed in Europe, and unless
1224
the Government provide some relief there is a growing risk that it will move to Holland or some other continental country.
As for the Government's proposal to levy a lower rate of vehicle excise duty on cars whose engine capacity does not exceed 1,100cc, the CBI and others have expressed doubts about its effectiveness as a measure to reduce the environmental costs of motoring, and I have to say that I am not convinced either. Vehicle excise duty is a small proportion of overall motoring costs, and engine size is in any case not necessarily related to the level of carbon dioxide emission. I acknowledge that the Minister has said that the Government intend to introduce measures specifically related to carbon dioxide emission levels; in which case, why have they not introduced them now?
The reduced rate of vehicle excise duty falls into the same category of gimmick as the 10 per cent income tax band. I do not know how many of your Lordships were able to avail yourselves of that offer of a sweetener by the Chancellor before taking the bitter pill that was the increased petrol duty, because the DVLC made the sweetener rather difficult to enjoy. Registered owners of cars with an engine capacity less than 1,100cc received complicated, indeed, almost incomprehensible, forms inviting them to apply for a refund in respect of the unexpired portion of their tax disc purchased at the previous higher rate. The form could be used only during the month of June and had to be submitted together with an additional separate form applying for a new tax disc to run from 1st June for six or 12 months.
The effect from the Government's point of view was therefore to increase their tax take, because in the short term the vehicle owner took out a new licence earlier than the expiry date of the old licence, and in the majority of cases the refund will have been less than the amount paid for the new licence. Since the DVLC knew who owned cars with an engine capacity less than 1,100cc and the date of expiry of their tax discs anyway, I do not understand why it did not send every such car owner a cash refund voucher which could be used either as a credit against the vehicle owner's next licence or encashed against production of the registration certificate to prove ownership.
Can the Minister tell the House in respect of what proportion of cars with small engines the complicated procedures necessary to obtain a refund were completed? To announce to the world that one is giving small car owners a benefit and then make it so difficult and complicated for them to obtain the benefit is rather like asking all one's friends to a party so late: that the likelihood is that only a small number will accept but the others will all feel grateful and will regret only that they could not come.
I do not think it is good manners to say, "I told you so". However, I cannot help but remember what several noble Lords and I said in the debate on the Finance Bill on 31st July 1997. It was already clear then that the Government's first Budget would encourage consumers to spend rather than save for their retirement. Unfortunately, events have proved that to be the case even more so than I feared at the time.

1225
Even before the effects of this year's Budget are taken into account, the latest figures show that the savings rate as a proportion of household income has fallen by 30 per cent, from 10.5 per cent to 7.4 per cent, since the second quarter of 1997. I expect that this year's anti-savings Budget will make matters worse. Why did not the Chancellor apply his new 10 per cent income tax band to savings as well as earned income? Retired people living on their pensions supplemented by income from their savings thus face a double whammy, given the raid on their pension funds.
Why on earth did the Chancellor do away with the very successful TESSA and PEP saving schemes with which savers had become familiar and comfortable? I fear the Government's motives were partly a dislike of the savings culture and partly to bring about change for the sake of change. The Government's new savings schemes, called ISAs, are unnecessarily complicated in structure, and the amount that can be invested tax-free in equities or cash-related investments each year has been reduced by around a half.
According to a report in today's edition of The Times, Mr David Prosser, chief executive of Legal & General, has claimed that the complexity of ISAs is discouraging investment. He has apparently called for the Government to scrap the distinction between "mini" and "maxi" ISAs and abolish the separate investment limits for cash, stocks and shares. In the three months since the introduction of ISAs Legal & General's sales of investments have fallen from £324 million in the second quarter of 1998 to £195 million in the corresponding period this year.
In order to restore confidence in the savings market and encourage people to save more, the Government should acknowledge the failure of ISAs and resurrect the highly popular PEP and TESSA schemes. Will the Minister encourage his right honourable friend to do just that? If his right honourable friend did, I believe the Government's decision would be warmly welcomed both by the City and by savers, large and small alike.
What the Government do and what they say are vastly different things. The Chancellor talked a great deal about reforming and cutting national insurance contributions. However, people on middle incomes and the self-employed will actually pay far more. As your Lordships are well aware, changes to national insurance are implemented not through the Finance Bill before us but through secondary legislation and regulation.
I do not wish to give the impression that everything in the Finance Bill is bad. The provisions of Clause 44 repealing the income tax charge on mobile telephones and those of Clause 45 providing limited exemption for computer equipment are to be welcomed. I ask the Minister to confirm that season ticket loans to employees will continue to be exempt and will not be aggregated with house purchase loans.
While the intention of the provisions with regard to bus services is to be welcomed, like so much else in the Bill they are unfortunately far too complicated and subject to too many conditions. For example, why is relief confined to buses with more than 17 seats?
1226
The reduction in the basic rate of income tax to 22 per cent from next year is to be welcomed. But what the Government give with one hand they take away with the other. The abolition of the 20 per cent tax band means that this year taxpayers will start to pay tax at 23 per cent when their earnings reach £5,835, whereas last year they could earn almost £3,000 more than that before hitting the threshold.
The Minister referred to Clause 131, which entitles the Government to incur expenditure in advance of a decision being taken by the people in a referendum as to whether we should participate in European monetary union and adopt the euro as our currency. He said that people would find it odd if they were to vote in favour of joining, only to be told that we could not because we had not made preparations. I believe that the Minister's attempt to put forward such an illogical explanation would surprise the House. The reverse is the case: people would rightly be angry if, in advance of a decision not to join, substantial expenditure had been wasted on unnecessary preparations.
Of course we must always keep our options open, as indeed must businesses, large and small. But I assure the Minister that in my limited experience, no successful business wastes money on pursuing courses that have not been adopted as its firm's strategy. I fear that in his opening speech the Minister portrayed the benefits introduced by the Budget in rather too glowing terms. I hope that he will give the House an assurance that unless ISA subscriptions increase substantially in the near future, he will at least consider reintroducing TESSAs and PEPs.
I am grateful for having had the opportunity to participate in the debate and look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords and the Minister's reply.
12.42 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I shall concentrate on one particular matter in the Finance Bill. In introducing the Second Reading debate, my noble friend mentioned tax allowances and small businesses.
I shall not deal with the generality of tax allowances and small businesses, but one aspect of profound importance which, in terms of constitutional significance, goes way beyond the content of the clause itself. To help noble Lords to concentrate their thoughts, I am discussing Clause 78. In its present form, Clause 78 was amended on 5th July in a late Committee stage in the other place. In its present form, it amends the Capital Allowances Act 1990 and reduces certain capital allowances—that is, 100 per cent allowances—in favour of small and medium firms in Northern Ireland.
That measure of particular benefit to Northern Ireland was introduced in 1998 as part of the effort to assist that hard-pressed Province, its employment situation and other problems. It was an extremely welcome measure. We now find that the scope of that clause in the Finance Act 1998, and as re-enacted in the first draft of the Finance Bill 1999, has been struck down. It has been amended, not by the other place, but by the European Commission. If anyone here does not recognise the

1227
profound importance of that fact, frankly, he has not seriously been following politics and our affairs in recent years.
Why do I believe it so tremendously important to get that: matter right? First, since the commencement of the German presidency at the beginning of the year we have faced a new drive towards tax harmonisation in Europe. We know all about that. We know also that a worrying and uncertain code of conduct study is taking place in which over 100 items relating to taxation are being considered under the chairmanship of the present Paymaster General in the other place, with European participants.
That study is looking for unfair tax provisions. Of course, we were told that we had nothing to worry about. But I must make the point crystal clear. I remind the House that we debated tax harmonisation on 28th January. I was worried about the word "harmful", as distinct from "non-harmful". My noble friend Lord Mclntosh assured me then that:
"It can be well explained and properly discussed, and if we do not like the results of the discussions we shall not allow them to go ahead".
He went on to say most unambiguously:
"The Government can deliver those promises. Questions of tax require unanimous agreement, so there is no question of tax changes that we do not support being imposed upon us by Brussels".
It is quite clear about what we were talking. In the following column, my noble friend listed the number and identity of the particular British tax allowances which were being considered by the code of conduct committee. Among them was 100 per cent first-year capital allowances for small and medium enterprises in Northern Ireland. My noble friend concluded that part of his speech by saying:
"The view of the UK is that none of these measures"
which obviously includes the Northern Ireland tax allowance,
"is harmful within the meaning of the code and the UK will submit a robust defence of the measures".—[Official Report, 28/1/99; cols. 1207–1208.]
There is no doubt at all about my noble friend's commitment. Indeed, as recently as 22nd June, when the Paymaster General gave evidence to the Select Committee, she said that there were eight UK measures in the long list of tax measures being examined for being "potentially harmful". She went on to say that the Government were confident that those items were not harmful and that they would be successful in that argument. There is no doubt at all about what we are discussing; nor about the pledges and promises which we were given.
I turn to the extraordinary state of affairs which was then revealed by the debate in the other place which took place on 5th July at the late Committee stage of the Finance Bill. When the press release of the Northern Ireland tax allowance was first promulgated, there was a minor statement at the back to the effect that it had to be cleared with the Brussels Commission. To be fair, I believe that the Ministers assumed that that was merely a formality; otherwise they could not possibly have
1228
given those guarantees about the integrity of our tax system in the robust and unequivocal terms which I quoted.
We now find the unhappy Financial Secretary, Barbara Roche, having to introduce this amendment. She made a marvellous statement:
"I want to make it clear to all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken that, although the Northern Ireland measures were notified to the code of conduct group that is chaired by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General, we do not believe that they represent harmful tax competition".
Mrs Roche is quite clear about that. She is equally clear that we cannot have it imposed upon us as we have been assured and guaranteed. She went on to say something truly astounding to me:
"We are considering not that group"—
tax code of conduct measures—
"but state aids. I point out to the right hon. Member … The state aid rules were in place when we joined the EU. Any aid, including fiscal aid, can be found to be a state aid".—[Official Report. Commons, 5/7/99; col. 696.]
Because the commission found that benefit to Northern Ireland to be a state aid, a coach and horses is extraordinarily driven through our national defences. We were struck down and the Bill had to be amended accordingly.
I do not think I have ever come across such an outrageous matter. The House and the country have been deceived. I am not accusing my noble friend of deception. I am sure he has not deceived us. He is an honourable man and he would not dream of doing so However, these two matters cannot be squared: the guarantee of the integrity of our tax systems falling within national competence and, at the end of the day, when challenged saying slyly that it comes under the category of state aids.
If that is so, how much of our indirect tax system is not to be considered as state aid and an unfair advantage? We are seriously at risk. We do not need clarification; we need action. To add to the incredible polygraphy of the situation, I looked at the state aid provisions in the treaty. In general terms, they say very worrying things. Paragraph 87 of the Consolidated European Communities Treaty states:
"Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, any aid grunted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market".
My goodness, that is a paragraph. It also sensibly states:
"The following shall be compatible with the common market",
and it mentions regional aids which are approved. Under paragraph 2(b) it states:
"aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences".
I should have thought that the case of Northern Ireland, even excepting this clause, could have been argued strongly to be that. Paragraph 3(a) states an exception:
"aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment".

1229
I should have thought that that would have fitted Northern Ireland like a glove. But what do the Government do? They do not challenge it and take it, if need be, to the European Court. They tamely submit and smuggle it through at a late stage in the proceedings of the Finance Bill. I think that is shameful and it must be stopped, halted, exposed and reversed. I hope that I can receive strong assurances from my noble friend, not least because the whole of our indirect tax system is now at risk.
12.54 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, before coming to power the Labour Party sought to portray itself as a low tax, business-friendly party. It knew that that was an important way in which to convince the electorate that it was safe to vote Labour. One of the pledges made by the Prime Minister before he was elected was not to increase tax rates above what they were when the Conservatives were in power. While on the one hand the Chancellor has kept those rates unchanged, and in some cases cut them, which we on these Benches welcome, on the other hand he has raised taxes overall by attacking pension fund tax credits, increasing national insurance contributions, raising indirect taxes and cutting back tax allowances.
In Labour's first Budget, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard stated, pension funds were deprived of their advance corporation tax credits, a move that few of the public understood. I shall repeat the figure that that produces an extra £5 billion of revenue for the Government. In the longer term, it will also force companies to put extra money into their pension schemes.
With regard to national insurance, while rates have been reduced for the lowest paid, any employee who earns more than £27,000 a year will be worse off due to the raising of the upper earnings limit. Other indirect taxes have been raised consistently. Petrol tax is now the highest in the EU, as has been stated. Diesel duty hikes have caused severe difficulty and protest from the haulage industry, as has the increased vehicle excise duty. Insurance premium tax has been increased in this Budget alone by a quarter. Tobacco duty is up again, although the Government's figures show that overall revenue from that tax is falling due to smuggling. Company car tax is also up.
Turning to tax allowances, the married couples' allowance has been abolished, which is a strange move for a government who profess to support the family. They have abolished the MIRAS tax relief which has hit home-buyers. The change to the allowances for couples with children—the new children's tax credit—which is tapered away for higher rate taxpayers, will affect hardworking families on middle incomes.
Even on the direct tax side, the Budget is not quite as good as it appears. First, the new 10p rate of income tax does not apply to savers' income. Secondly, because the 10p starting rate of tax is being funded by the abolition of the 20p rate, many people who were facing a marginal rate of tax of 20 per cent will now pay
1230
23 per cent. Overall, as has already been stated, people earning between £5,835 and £8,635 will pay a higher marginal rate of income tax as a result of these measures. According to the House of Commons Library, that will affect over 4 million people.
Long-term savers also face higher taxes under this Government. The abolition of the advance corporation tax credits means that, for instance, a pensioner who receives £3,000 a year from a state pension and has £10,000 in income from shares will be penalised in the 1999–2000 tax year, as opposed to the previous year, to the extent of nearly £600 because he is unable to reclaim any tax credit on his dividends. That is in spite of the lower 10 per cent tax band on the first £1,500 of taxable income. Why should that type of saver be especially penalised as against someone who holds government stock or has building society or bank deposits?
Even for companies, the headline news, which looked so good when first announced, looks rather less impressive when examined in detail. I welcome the new 10 per cent corporation tax rate for smaller companies. However, when one looks at the measure in detail, one sees that the full 10 per cent relief applies in full only to companies with profits below £10,000 and is worth a maximum of £1,000. However, companies are better served than sole traders, for whom the combined Class II and Class IV changes increase national insurance contributions by £500 or so a year.
Companies as a whole face a much stiffer tax collection regime by now having to pay corporation tax on a quarterly basis. It is to be noted that the quarterly payment regime was introduced in a document which referred to a "modern" system of corporation tax, not a simpler one.
I welcome the Government's moves to simplify the capital gains tax rates for individuals although, as I said last year, the continued mixture of the indexation and tapering regime is most unwelcome. I point out the anomaly that lower and basic rate taxpayers who invest in life company products will be at a disadvantage as life company share gains are still charged at 23 per cent. With regard to companies' capital gains tax, I welcome the decision to continue with the indexation system.
The Government have been skilful at raising extra tax revenue by non-headline measures. We on these Benches believe in fewer taxes and an honest, open and transparent taxation system—in general the opposite to what the Government have been doing over the past two years.
1 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, perhaps I may take up a moment of your Lordships' time to draw attention to a point which I first raised three years ago in a debate initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. The noble and learned Lord called attention to the case for simpler and more user-friendly tax legislation (Hansard, 27th March 1996). I intervened in that debate to address one point only; namely, the pressing need to simplify the structure of the capital gains tax legislation. I do not find myself in complete agreement with the view that that legislation has been

1231
simplified to any great extent. I hope that in addressing this issue I am not breaching the traditions of this House in debating Finance Bills to which the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh of Haringey, referred when he opened this debate.
I have nothing against a tax on capital gains. In essence, the tax is simple. If the sale price of, for example, a stock exchange investment exceeds the purchase price, we deduct one from the other and that is the taxable gain. It is, however, recognised that it would be unfair to tax a gain which is attributable only to inflation and not to any real increase in the value of the investment. There is, therefore, built into the legislation what is called an "indexation allowance", which reduces the amount of the taxable gain according to the rise in the retail prices index over the period of ownership falling between March 1982 and March 1998.
A new tapering relief is to take the place of the indexation allowance, but most unfortunately the old system still applies to the period between March 1982 and 1998. The tax works in this way. The taxpayer obtains from the Revenue a table of monthly indexation factors, as they are called, from March 1982 to March 1998. That is no problem. His first task is to establish the net gain. He does this by deducting the value of the investment on 31st March 1982, if then held, or the purchase price if acquired at a later date, from the sale price. He must then ascertain the so-called "indexation factor", which he does by consulting the table of monthly indexation factors, running his finger vertically down the left hand column to pick out the year of acquisition and the horizontal column to pick out the month. Having established the indexation factor to three places of decimals, he must then establish the indexation allowance. He does this by multiplying the March 1982 value, or the subsequent purchase price, by the indexation factor—again going to three decimal places. Finally, he deducts the indexation allowance from the net gain in order to establish the taxable gain.
That exercise is not at all difficult for those of us with a mathematical turn of mind and a pocket calculator. But think of the problem if, over perhaps 16 years, there have been rights issues that have been taken up. A new calculation has to be made in respect of every rights issue because the date of acquisition, and therefore the indexation factor, and therefore the indexation allowance, will have changed in respect of the new acquisition. Think further of the magnitude of the problem if the investment consists of accumulation units of a unit trust. Unless there is a special Revenue concession of which I am unaware, an additional calculation would have to be made for every distribution which has been accumulated. If the unit trust in question makes half-yearly distributions and the investment has been held since March 1982, no fewer than 32 separate calculations would have been made. The mind boggles.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, in a debate on the Finance Bill in 1997, described the system as,
"a Byzantine procedure which is clearly too complex for most who assess themselves and attempt to complete their tax return without professional advice".—[Official Report, 31/7/97; col. 359.]
1232
In 1996, I ventured to describe the present system as producing,
"a very great deal of wholly unproductive work for tax experts which adds nothing whatever to the prosperity of this country".— [Official Report, 27/3/96; col. 1725.]
Or, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which does nothing for the future of the economy.
The remedy is simple. Bring forward the base date of 31st March 1982 to something more realistic; thus, for example, exempting an investment which has been held for, say, five years. That would largely solve the problem. I do not know whether there is any country in the world which taxes a capital gains made on an investment held, as of now, for 17 years, soon to be 18 years.
1.7 p.m.
Lord Mackintosh of Halifax: My Lords, I am by profession a chartered accountant and when I am not sitting in your Lordships' House I spend my time advising my clients on matters of taxation in my position as a tax partner of Price Waterhouse Coopers. On the basis of that experience I am addressing my comments to whether the Bill is good for business.
As far as I can ascertain from comments made by members of the Government, the Finance Bill has three main aims: to promote fairness, to put forward measures to promote employment and encourage entrepreneurs, and to promote savings. All those aims are laudable and I am certainly in agreement with them. If this Bill succeeded in achieving those aims it would indeed be a good Bill for business. A number of measures in the Finance Bill achieve those aims and we on these Benches would wish to support them. But unfortunately the Bill does not achieve those objectives in all areas.
There is little doubt that, if asked what he or she would like from a tax system, one of the first things a business man would say would be a low tax burden and a constant tax environment. I question therefore whether producing a Finance Bill like this each year is the right way to approach reform of the tax system. This Bill has 140 clauses plus 20 schedules and runs to 193 pages. It cannot be good for business to continue to generate changes in tax legislation of this magnitude on an annual basis. What we need is a clear, consistent approach to tax legislation. I believe that this can be achieved only if the Government implement a complete review of our current tax legislation. The tax rewriting project is a step in the right direction, but all this is doing is rewriting existing legislation and putting it into English without changing the law. It will do nothing to achieve what is really needed, which is a complete overhaul of the system. It is rather like painting a railway bridge after abolishing the railways. It will look nice and does not do anybody any harm but has no practical benefit.
What business wants is a low and consistent tax burden so that it can plan and invest with certainty. The Government have reduced the headline rate of corporation tax, which must be applauded, but as they know full well, the headline rate is not everything. One needs to look underneath to see what the burden of tax on business really is. Although the headline rate of

1233
corporation tax in the UK is just about the lowest in Europe, 4 per cent of UK GDP is collected in corporate tax, whereas in France and Germany, where the headline rate of corporation tax is much higher, only 1.8 per cent of GDP is collected by corporate tax. The Government have gone some way towards helping business by reducing the headline rate, but it is important that they look further at the significant corporate tax burden which is left.
Some good ideas are being talked about—taxation of research and development where there is consideration of moving to a tax credit system, which would be of enormous help to those businesses starting up. They could then receive a tax refund for expenditure incurred, rather than simply having a loss which they can carry forward against profits in future years. There is also review of the taxation of intellectual property and, in particular, looking at whether when going into the 21st century the system of withholding taxes is really appropriate. In a modern society we need to make it easier for business to trade and not burden it with 19th century ideas like withholding tax. There is also talk of revamping the capital allowances system. All of these are good ideas but, as yet, those ideas are not reflected in this Finance Bill. I hope that the Government will take those ideas forward and, in doing so, make sure that they listen to what business really wants.
One of the main areas where the tax burden on business has significantly increased in recent years—and this Finance Bill continues the trend in contributing to this increase—is payroll. This includes the introduction of a new travel and subsistence regime, of the minimum wage legislation, of a new construction industry scheme, of a working families' tax credit tax regime and of student loan repayments. In addition, there has been the introduction of the quarterly payment system for corporation tax, where companies paying the full rate of tax have to estimate their current year's profits in order to make their interim payments.
It seems to me that these changes are being made, some of which make much sense and I fully support, without much thinking behind the additional burden on business. The introduction of self-assessment for individuals and self-assessment for companies is moving the burden of administering the tax system from the Government to the taxpayers. Maybe this is right and it would be better to have an Inland Revenue service which just sets the policy and polices the tax system rather than administering it. But if we are moving this way, the Government have a duty to ensure that the tax system is as simple as possible. There is a huge burden on the payroll departments of business and one has to ask whether this is consistent with the desired objective of increasing employment.
It would be helpful if the Government were to indicate that they recognise the extra burden that they are placing on business and could be seen to be doing what they can to simplify it. If legislative changes are made, the announcement could be accompanied by a compliance cost assessment which quantifies the
1234
additional burden imposed by the changes. The additional burdens placed on business should be in proportion to the benefit of such changes.
In this Finance Bill there are a number of good measures in relation to employee benefits, but the way in which they are implemented by this Bill does not help business as much as it could. Let us take, for example, the mobile phone, to which my noble friend Lord Trenchard referred. Removing the benefit in kind from the use of a mobile phone for private purposes was widely welcomed because of the burden of accounting for this benefit. However, rather than completely removing the benefit from a mobile phone, what we have left is a situation where, if mobile phones are provided to employees with a pre-paid ticket, which is frequently the case, this ticket is regarded as a voucher and thus there is still a benefit in kind. There is also still a benefit in kind if you provide an employee with a land line and a few private calls are made. Thus there is still an administrative burden on business to sort out benefits with regard to telephones.
A similar problem applies to computer equipment at home. Again, removing the benefit from the home use of computer equipment was widely welcomed, but as the limit has been set at such a low level—£2,500—and many laptop computers, which are generally the computer equipment used at home, cost more than this, the Bill still leaves in to charge a significant amount of computer equipment.
A green issue to allow employers to provide a bus service for employees without there being a benefit in kind was again met with approval. But initially the Bill defined a bus as being a vehicle with 17 or more seats, which meant that most minibuses used by employers would not qualify as a bus and, therefore, the benefit in kind would remain. Fortunately, in this case the Government have listened to business and the definition was changed by way of an amendment in the other place. The definition of a bus is now down to 12 or more people, which is helpful.
One cannot look at this Bill without commenting on the income tax position. Far from simplifying the tax system, this Bill continues the trend that was started by the last Finance Act of increasing the number of income tax rates. Income tax is now charged at a plethora of different rates for 1999–2000, depending on the nature of income. Non-savings income is taxed at 10 per cent, 23 per cent and 40 per cent. Non-dividend savings income is taxed at 20 per cent and 40 per cent, dividend income is taxed at 10 per cent and 32.5 per cent, and trust income is taxed at 34 per cent. Is it really sensible to have a tax system with so many different rates on differing forms of income?
The introduction of the 10 per cent rate of income tax in this Bill was heralded by the Government as a great breakthrough. I am very pleased with the introduction of a 10 per cent rate of income tax, but this is another example of where the idea is good but the underlying execution is not. Who really benefits from the 10 per cent rate? If you are a pensioner on a state pension with a bit of savings income, then the personal allowance will cover the pension but the same savings

1235
income will still be taxed at 20 per cent. Surely if anybody should benefit from the introduction of a 10 per cent rate of tax it should be somebody like a pensioner with a small amount of investment income.
To illustrate the complexity of the new system we could look at what this Bill does for cases of three single pensioners under the age of 75 with the state pension of, say, £4,000. Let us suppose that they all have additional gross taxable income of £2,000, that pensioner A's additional income is dividend income, pensioner B's is bank interest and pensioner C's is retirement annuity income. Although they all have the same gross taxable income, they will all have different net disposable income after tax. Pensioner A will have £5,800, pensioner B will have £5,940 and pensioner C will have £5,972.
The tax system for such taxpayers needs to be easily understood, as they are unlikely to be able to afford professional help in preparing their tax returns. The introduction of a new tax band fails completely with respect to the simplification of the tax. system and does not target many of those who ought to benefit from the introduction of a tax band of 10 per cent.
The complexity of the income tax system will have its effect on business. The self-employed business man will have to work out the different rates applicable to himself but, for employees, it will again be the payroll department which has to spend time sorting out what should or should not be applied.
There is much in this Bill about stamp duty. For many years stamp duty has not received much attention and was perhaps seen as a levy that was going to wither away. However, by increasing the rates in this Bill, the Government have signalled that they regard stamp duty as a serious levy. The Bill also contains much anti-avoidance legislation to tighten up on the enforcement. If stamp duty is to remain a serious levy, is it not time to rewrite and consolidate the stamp duty legislation, rather than tinker with it as the Government do in this Bill?
The 1891 Stamp Act is still one of the principal pieces of legislation in this area. As we enter the 21st century, it cannot be right still to be relying on this legislation. Surely a complete rewrite and consolidation are required. However, before doing so I think that the Government should decide whether stamp duty is the right form of levy for a modern economy. Stamp duty was started in the 17th century Netherlands where a competition was set up to see who could come up with the best idea for a new tax. Stamp duty won. Stamp duty is effectively a dead weight on business dealings as it applies to shares, property and other formal agreements, and I think that there should be due consideration as to whether stamp duty is the right tax for the 21st century.
This Bill does not do a great deal to encourage savings. From looking at the contents of the Bill I am not sure whether the Government are intending to promote savings. We have the new ISA, and whether this will succeed in promoting savings is too early to tell. However, the biggest area in which the Government would want people to save is pensions. The message has certainly not been helpful here. As my noble friend has
1236
already said, blocking pension funds from reclaiming the ACT credit has effectively increased the tax burden on savings for pensions by £4 billion to £5 billion a year. In order to encourage people to save more for their pensions it would be helpful to have assertions from the Government that they will not increase the lax further on pension funds and that they will not reduce the tax relief available on payments into a pension fund.
The Government seem to acknowledge the link between giving a tax break to individuals and the encouragement for them to take a risk in investing in a business venture. This clearly works and there is significant investment in new business that would not be made if tax incentives were not available. The Bill seeks to close some of the perceived loopholes created by these breaks. As my noble friend Lord Lucas has said, if the Government try to eliminate all the potential loopholes, the reliefs become so complex that they discourage the investment they are trying to promote in the first place. My noble friend Lord Lucas made some interesting points in this area. I hope that the Government will look further at some of the points made by my noble friend in the form of tax reliefs for investment planning.
In conclusion, this Bill contains some good ideas, but not all of them have been put into practice as effectively as they might have been. Headline reductions in tax have been more than offset by the stealth tax underneath. It is a Bill which could have been of much more help to business and still be consistent with the Government's aim of fairness, encouraging employment and enterprise and encouraging savings. It was a missed opportunity and could have been so much better if the Government had really listened to what business had wanted.
1.22 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, in the equivalent debate on the Finance Bill last year I identified two substantial macro-economic risks, as I saw them. The first was an inflationary risk. In June last year inflation stood al: 3.7 per cent, having just come down from 4.2 per cent. At that point it was by no means clear which way inflation was going to move. Inflation now, on the headline RPI level, stands at 1.3 per cent and at 2.2 per cent on the RPIX figure, which is possibly more reliable. Inflation has fallen on the harmonised index of consumer prices, which is used across the EU, to 1.4 per cent compared with a Euroland average of 0.9 per cent.
Therefore my fears in terms of inflation were completely and utterly misplaced. Another area where I expressed some considerable scepticism about the Government's predictions related to growth. It seemed to me then that for the Chancellor to be making relatively bullish noises about growth at a time when all the evidence indicated that we were entering a downturn, was unrealistically optimistic. Again, I have been proved wrong. However, I think that it is worth looking, as we look to the future, to see what has happened within the economy in terms of growth.

1237
Some parts even of manufacturing industry have done extremely well over the past couple of years. For example, engineering output has risen consistently by 3 per cent over the past few years. I suspect that that is one of those little known facts which is concealed by the more general complaints of the manufacturing sector about the pressures under which it has been operating. The two sectors within manufacturing which have suffered consistently have been textiles, which face long-term decline, and the metal and metal processing industry—this has been hit particularly severely over the past year—particularly the steel industry which has been hit hard by the high pound.
Further, I believe that there are signs of a pretty unequal geographic spread of growth with considerable tightness in the labour markets in the South East, East Anglia and the M4 corridor, and much weaker markets further north. Looking further ahead, I have a suspicion that the traditional methods of attracting investment to the regions with lower levels of economic activity will be less successful in future because increasingly investment and growth take place around software, however measured, rather than hardware which is more susceptible to high levels of intervention and grant levels from government.
Having failed spectacularly last year to predict what was going to happen, what are the "Newby predictions" for this year? As regards inflation, I disagree, I think, with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that we are entering a period where we shall face, as it were, a deflationary risk. I think that to the extent that there are signs of future inflation, they are upward rather than downward. I refer to pressure on service sector wages, rising house prices, rising commodity prices and probably a falling pound against at least one of our two major trading partners. The risks in terms of inflation are upwards rather than downwards. However, I suspect that, as happened last year when inflation was rising relatively quickly, the MPC will act strongly to "cap off any signs of increasing inflation. Therefore although there is, as I say, something of an inflationary risk, I suspect that we shall not see a significant increase in inflation over the year ahead.
The other area where one can be almost certain that there is uncertainty is the exchange rate. Here I again disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, as regards his golden scenario of stable exchange rates. I suspect that will not happen. The "Newby tip" on this is that the pound is likely to rise against the dollar. I believe that at some point the American boom will stutter to an end. I suspect also that it will fall against the euro because I suspect that the euro will rise. If one looks at the way the euro has been commented upon, one can see the difficulties of the prediction game. Only last week most leading commentators were saying that it was only a matter of days or a matter of timing before the euro reached parity with the dollar. As soon as the euro started to rise this week the same people predicted that it would only be a matter of time before the euro is at 1.10 dollars.
1238
That demonstrates the fickleness of the commentators but also the fickleness of currencies. It also demonstrates the fancy footwork that will be needed by the Eurosceptics to explain why the rate of exchange with the euro is bad for the pound. Up to now we have been told that a weak euro was bad because that made it more difficult to sell our goods to Europe. I suspect that it is only a matter of time before we are told that a strong euro is bad for industry within the eurozone. I confidently predict that we shall shortly hear those arguments.
I turn to the Bill and the Budget. I agree with two general points made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble Viscount, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax. The first relates to transparency. In the far-off days when I was responsible for all of about five paragraphs of the drafting of the Budget speech and for all of about three tables in the Red Book, the Budget speech and the Red Book were extremely boring, but at least they were relatively straightforward. One knew from both what was going on. We now have an extremely interesting series of publications and a much more flamboyant style of speech, but it is much harder to know what is happening. Often days, weeks and months pass before the impact of the Budget becomes clear. Therefore I strongly support the demands for greater transparency and also the demands to reduce the temptation to tinker. As noble Lords have pointed out, Finance Bills are lengthy year after year. Therefore it is difficult for anyone other than a tax lawyer to understand the tax system. As the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said, half of these minor tinkering measures have not had the effect they are supposed to. A number of them have created yet more anomalies, which will require long and detailed further legislation to remedy.
I turn now to the measures themselves. We welcome the Government's priority for reducing the tax burden on those with lower incomes. However, we are not convinced that the 10p rate is the best way of doing so; we would prefer to raise the personal allowance. We have put forward suggestions which would, given the combination of our proposal to raise the personal allowance to £5,600 and our proposal for a 50p maximum tax rate on incomes over £100,000 a year, take 2.5 million people out of tax altogether. We think that is the best way to deal with taxation at the bottom end.
As to the cut in income tax, this seems to us to be one of the worst examples of a macho posturing on taxation. What is the justification for a further 1p cut in income tax other than for the Chancellor to be able to say that, just like the Tories, he knows how to cut income tax? It seems to have no economic justification whatever, particularly when one considers the strains imposed by current expenditure levels on health and education services. This seems to us to be a mistake.
Perhaps I may take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. I do not believe it is the failure of the Budget or the Finance Bill as a whole which is causing disillusionment with the Government but a failure to deliver in the key areas of the welfare state where most people who voted Labour expected progress.

1239
Whilst I am critical of the Government in this area, for the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, to say that it is the beginning of the end of the Government—that the wheels have fallen off—is slightly extravagant in the light of yesterday's by-election result. I was sorry that when he was making that point about the Government he did not have a similar extravagant description of what is happening to his own party's standing in the polls.
Let me return briefly to financial matters. There is one issue upon which I would like to test the Government— it was raised at some length by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard—namely, the failure of ISAs to achieve the purposes for which they were introduced. I do not agree with the noble Viscount that they were a malign way of attacking savers; I believe that ISAs were introduced with the best intentions. However, the truth is that they have not achieved their goals. Cash ISAs are selling relatively well but sales of equity ISAs are extremely low, much lower than the Government expected. The reasons are fairly clear. The rules are so complicated that both individual savers and financial advisers are saying to people, "Get a cash ISA— that is straightforward—and you can look at a share ISA later on". The truth is, of course, once one has got a cash ISA one cannot get a share ISA later on.
There is now a suggestion in the industry that there may have been some mis-selling arising from the inflexibility within the rules. It would be sensible and highly desirable if the Government were to look at the questions of both take-up and potential mis-selling. They should clarify and simplify the options available under the ISA umbrella and ensure that there is clarity in terms of the regulatory framework.
The Government are fortunate in having a robust economy, which should continue to do well in the year ahead. In our view, their key challenge is how to use the benefits of this economic strength to improve public services and to reduce the debilitating and destructive social divisions which were the legacy of the previous administration. I am confident about the future of the economy, but I am less confident about the Government's ability and determination to achieve these wider social objectives.
1.34 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, having heard a debate of extremely high quality, I rise to wind up on behalf of the Opposition with a due sense of humility. The fact that I am a mere lawyer exacerbates that sentiment. The quality of the debate has been uniform throughout the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, if I may say so, delivered a speech of characteristic perspicacity and charm. I take issue with him on one point only: his remark about the speech made—I thought most brilliantly—by my noble friend Lord Saatchi.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, drew our attention, amusingly, to one of my noble friend's most successful advertisements. However, if I may most humbly suggest to the noble Lord, in doing so he missed the point that my noble friend sought to make about Government policy: that Ministers are saying one thing about
1240
taxation and doing another. That is hypocrisy and is not acceptable in a democratic system. Moreover, if the real burden of taxation is increasing and not diminishing—as I think my noble friend so admirably proved—that in the long run will be bad for both employment and for saving in the economy.
We heard also a most interesting and forceful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I sense that, in delivering it, he was caught somewhere between the desire to be loyal to his former colleagues in the Treasury, on the one hand and, on the other, his desire to exhibit to your Lordships' House an appropriate degree of independence. I was particularly struck by his tentative approval of the need for greater transparency. I hope that when the noble Lord delivers his speech next year, he will evangelise transparency.
I think the House will agree that we heard a quite outstanding speech from the noble Lord, Lord Shore— a real barnstormer. A little later I hope to make one or two observations about the most important points he raised.
As usual, the contributions of the two very distinguished former Law Lords—the noble and learned Lords, Lord Brightman and Lord Simon of Glisdale—were of the highest quality. They brought out points about the Bill that I for one—and perhaps, dare I say it, your Lordships also—would not have spotted but for their acute observations.
Among my colleagues on this side of the House, I was particularly struck that four of my noble friends—Lord Northbrook, Lord Mackintosh, Lord Lucas and Lord Trenchard—all of whom have great experience of financial matters in the City, drew to the Government's attention important matters about the legislation which should be addressed.
Such has been the standard of debate that it is a great shame—as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and my noble friend Lord Trenchard have said—that it did not take place several months ago. I do not think that another place is so sure of its ground in economic matters that it can afford not to have the benefit of what your Lordships have said. The quality of the debate; on the Finance Bill in another place would have been much better had it had the advantage of hearing this debate in March or April rather than now.
A point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in the course of his remarks, leads me to one of the two main things that I want to say on behalf of the Opposition. It relates to the noble Lord's reference to the way in which tax policy is established. He said that, normally, one sets levels of taxation and decides on types of taxes which meet the revenue raising requirements of the Government which do the minimum necessary amount of damage to the economy.
So my question is: are the Government confident that they have correctly applied that formula to taxes on commercial road vehicles? That is an absolutely central issue for our economy. Yet, if your Lordships glance at what is in the Budget about increases in diesel taxes this year, as was brought out well by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, and if your Lordships look at the level of vehicle taxes that have to be paid on commercial

1241
vehicles in relation to levels paid by our main continental competitors, I suggest that your Lordships are bound to come to the conclusion that these taxes are seriously inhibiting our competitive position. And it is a critical area for the economy.
Indeed, it seems to me that such a policy is counter-productive. If our competitiveness is adversely affected, our wealth creation in those adversely affected areas will diminish; accordingly, the income generated by them will diminish and, therefore, the tax yield will diminish. So in the end, the interests of the Treasury and those of competitive industry march hand in hand. So why is it that the Government are so out of kilter with the levels of those taxes in the countries of our main competitors?
The other matter that I wish to address is that so ably dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Shore. I refer to the issue of tax harmonisation. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh of Haringey, will look to the stars as I mention this topic. I recall that on at least two occasions this year he has had to address it from the Government Front Bench. We owe a great debt to the noble Lord, Lord Shore, for bringing the issue out in this debate.
The noble Lord concentrated on the 100 per cent SME allowance in Northern Ireland, but there were other measures, as he suggested—special measures for the film industry; certain aspects concerning the enterprise zones; and matters concerning the sale of certain categories of ships. The noble Lord is right: all those matters were drawn to the attention of the Code of Conduct Committee by other member states early in the year. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh, addressed those issues in a debate in your Lordships' House in January.
What used to be—I suspect that they have now changed as a result of the Treaty of Amsterdam— Articles 92 to 94 of the old Treaty of Rome dealt with state aids. At the beginning, the European Court of Justice defined them rather narrowly. But over the past 20 years its jurisprudence has developed in such a way that the definition has become so wide that it can encompass certain forms of taxes as well as subsidies. That is a fact with which we shall have to live as long as we remain members of the European Community.
The noble Lord, Lord Shore, is right to say that if the Government really wished to stand up for their initial position on the matters I have mentioned, they could have dared either one or other of the other member states or the European Commission to take the United Kingdom to the European Court. The noble Lord legitimately asks: why did the Government not do that? He asks it the more so when we know that the Government have complete protection in the Council of Ministers. As the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh of Haringey, said in the debate in January and in a later debate in June, all decisions on tax policy in the European Community are still taken by unanimity. So the Government, from what seemed to be, if not an impregnable, at least an entrenched, position, somehow, between the beginning and the middle of the year, gave way on this issue. Why did they do it?
1242
The constitutional position that we face in the United Kingdom with respect to parliamentary control over this class of EU activity is such that we do not know. All the negotiations that took place in the committee of civil servants in Brussels that considered this matter were in secret. Not only did they take place behind closed doors; we do not know what the agendas of the meetings contained; we have never seen the minutes; and we do not know what the individual submissions of the members states which criticised us were. That is secret government—which is wholly unacceptable in an absolutely critical area of economic activity.
Perhaps I may put it this way. There can be legitimate differences about the extent to which a central bank ought to be subject to political control. During the period of the Gold Standard, very little control was exercised, either by another place or your Lordships' House, over the economic policy of the Bank of England. At the beginning of the Government's term in office, in 1997, they decided to delegate much decision-making power over monetary policy to the Bank of England. Even in my own party there are legitimate differences of opinion about the extent to which that was wise.
But there has never been any doubt that the only place to determine tax policy has been in Parliament. The reality of the matter is that, because all these tax measures are being discussed in secret, Parliament has lost control, and the Government have been able to take a decision that is detrimental to the United Kingdom's interests without any public debate on the matter at all.
Many of your Lordships, in criticising the institutions of the European Community, have offered intergovernmentalism as an alternative way of controlling European Community affairs. Your Lordships have done so because you believe that, where intergovernmental arrangements were made between civil servants, there would always be the opportunity of the national Parliament to maintain control of its own civil servants. But intergovernmentalism in the Community will never work unless national control by Parliament of government Ministers and civil servants operating in committees in Brussels is made a reality. That is the central challenge that the Government must face on this issue.
There is one other, more general issue on tax harmonisation to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention, and it is this. The Minister made the House aware of the arrangements that are being made, in preparatory mode, for the run-up to the referendum on the single currency, whenever it comes. But the Minister was strangely silent on how he sees the relationship between the single currency and tax harmonisation. It is said by many commentators that any country that has a single currency must, ineluctably, engage in a process of tax harmonisation thereafter.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh, whether he believes that. It has always seemed to me that, if a country—and of course 11 countries in the Community are now members of the single currency— is a member of a single currency, a fortiori, the last thing it wants to do is harmonise taxes. Once you have

1243
joined a single currency, you remove your independence of manoeuvre over one of the two crucial economic instruments in the economy; namely, monetary policy. If you also give up your control of fiscal policy, you essentially give away all your economic independence.
It is crucial for the country to know, from a government who, at some stage when the economic conditions are right, contemplate entry into a single currency, what they think about this issue.
1.49 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I introduced it by saying that these occasions are traditionally an opportunity for Members of the House of Lords to talk about both tax issues as they arise in the Budget and the general economy. That is what I call the "Hound of the Baskervilles", the dog that did not bark in the night. Last year and the year before, was there not huge criticism of the way in which this dreadful Government were taking us to hell in a handcart? Was it not said that this dreadful Government were going to ruin the economy? The predictions of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, were all about how inflation would rise, manufacturing would be destroyed, and our exchange rates would all be in terrible trouble. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, did a little of that, too. Many other noble Lords spoke about how we were mismanaging the economy.
Where is that today? What have we heard about the mismanagement of the economy? That is what the debate is supposed, at least partly, to be about. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, may be a prejudiced witness because of his past form, but he said that it had been a very good year for the British economy. You could have fooled me if, last year and the year before, anyone had said that that would happen. If I had given the reply that we were not mismanaging the economy, I would have been met with howls of derision from the Benches opposite. I am satisfied with the response which noble Lords have given. I shall deal with the points about the Budget, but I am satisfied that what we have done, not only in this Budget but also in the past two-and-a-quarter years, has been well justified by the record.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made a valiant attempt to be pessimistic. I was a little puzzled when he said that it is almost certain that there is uncertainty in economic forecasting. After his fears of last year, he ought not to be making forecasts this year. Could he not put them in a sealed envelope and bring them out again in a year's time? Then we can pay attention to them, as they deserve.
While I am still on the economy, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, talked about a good year for the British economy at a time when the global economy was much more at risk. Indeed, the economy of some parts of the world is failing. I consider it to be quite a compliment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I have at no stage needed to pray in aid instability in the global economy as a defence against instability in our economy. It is quite clear that the claim which the Chancellor makes that economic stability is at the centre
1244
of our economic policy has been well justified, even at a time when there has been considerable instability in the global economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, was worried about the fragility of the economy to some extent and about public finances in particular. He recognised that the oilier fundamental principle of our approach to our own economy is the principle of making work pay.
We were reminded by my noble friend Lord Desai of the claim by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that unemployment was a price not just worth paying but—let us get the words right—well worth paying. The noble Lord, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, was not only wrong in moral and social terms—he underestimated the huge damage done to the fabric of our society by unemployment—he was also profoundly wrong in terms of the economy and public finance. Our success, to which I referred at the beginning of my speech, in increasing employment by 400,000 in two years is the key to the proper management of the economy. I heard no reference to that by noble Lords opposite.
Instead, we had, legitimately, a number of detailed criticisms, some complimentary, some uncomplimentary. I start with the elegant speech of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. He refrained from saying that tax is too high; he said that the tax burden has increased, with a great deal of Shakespearean and Biblical quotations in between. He was supported in that by the noble Lords, Lord Boardman and Lord Northbrook, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. The briefing has gone out about the tax burden from the Opposition's offices at the other end of the building.
Frankly, I regard most of this as being theological rather than of great economic significance. The difference between 37.2 per cent of GDP and 36.6 of GDP is not of economic significance. The fact that those claims about the economy and tax are wrong is neither here nor there. We are talking about percentage of GDP as a difference between two large figures. A slight change not in tax policy but in GDP will make all the difference which has been given such prominence in this debate.
As a result of the Budget, the tax: GDP ratio in 1999–2000 is lower than last year. The tax ratio in the following two years will also be lower than last year. Under the previous government's plans, those rates would have been higher than the latest projections in each of the next three years, even with tax credits scored as public expenditure. Even if the claims were true— and they are not—there is no need for us to spend any more time on the issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, spoke about the abolition of the married couples' allowance and claimed that families were worse off. He was well answered by my noble friend Lord Desai. All families with children benefit from above-inflation increases in child benefit. It was increased in April and will increase next year to at least £15 a week. Together with the children's tax credit, it means that help for families is concentrated

1245
where it is needed, for those with children growing up, rather than being given to lone parents and childless couples.
In a wise speech, my noble friend Lord Desai said that what matters is exchange rate stability. Exchange rate stability is desirable, but it must be the result of other economic policies rather than of taxation policy in itself. We aim to achieve sustained growth, sound public finances and low inflation. That, in turn, ought to promote exchange rate stability consistent with the Government's objective of a stable and competitive pound over the medium term.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in an interesting speech, talked about finance for new ventures and young companies. He quite effectively criticised the business expansion scheme, and I was grateful for what he said about PPP. I am not sure that he has a solution with his decent firm of accountants and lack of absolute principles. I rather think that when we talk of tax relief, it is no good pushing it off to someone else to make the decisions and hoping that it will work out. I do not believe that he has fully recognised what we are doing with the £20 million for venture capital, our support for enterprise investment scheme investors and schemes to encourage corporate venturing where big companies support new growing companies.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, made a number of interesting points. His first was about the golden rule, which is the code for fiscal stability; in other words, our attitude to the public debt. Our approach to this has been consistent from the very beginning. We take the view that borrowing for revenue purposes should be neutral over the period of the economic cycle, as opposed to investment which should follow different sustainable investment rules. One admits that there is a problem about knowing where one is in the trade cycle. But the principle that we shall borrow only to invest over the period of the cycle has been explicit ever since the Government came into office. I hope that the noble and learned Lord agrees that here there has not been any change of policy in the Budget. He tempts me to enter into resource accounting—I bore for England on this subject—but I shall resist the temptation.
As to hypothecation of revenue, the noble and learned Lord need have no fear that we are reverting to the situation before the establishment of the Consolidated Fund. We do not determine our spending priorities by the way in which revenue is raised, but, as he rightly said, by looking at each case on its merits.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain what is meant by "looking at each case on its merits"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are funds other than the Consolidated Fund; for example,
1246
the National Insurance Fund, but the general principle must be that, unless it is proven to the contrary, there is no hypothecation of the public finances.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I myself mentioned national insurance. What about the crucial question announced in the transport White Paper? That is much more tricky.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought that in his speech the noble and learned Lord was referring to congestion charges. If that is what he is referring to now, it is perfectly possible to have hypothecation of local authority charges; indeed, it is the norm. A local authority raises a charge in whatever way it chooses, and it uses it for its own purposes. That does not affect the principle of hypothecation in relation to central government. The case to which he refers does not affect the general issue.
The noble and learned Lord was also concerned about the general anti-avoidance rule. We consulted business on it to see whether it could be introduced without creating uncertainty. We have decided instead to introduce a series of specifically targeted anti-avoidance measures rather than a general rule. But the noble and learned Lord's expertise in this matter is well appreciated, and I am sure that his words will be taken seriously. He spoke also about the need for relief for works of art by inheritance tax and capital allowances. He referred to that as a "fiscal racket", and I believe that he is right. We provide inheritance tax relief for works of art which are of exceptional quality when they are available for public viewing. That seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable alternative to the American system that the noble and learned Lord described.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, made many detailed points, and I shall try to deal with them. As to the effect of the 20p rate, the marginal rate goes up for about 4 million people with taxable incomes of between £1,500 and £4,500, but they are the ones who also gain most from the l0p rate; namely, between £1.15 and £2.88 a week. As to VED refunds for small cars, I believe that we are doing what the noble Viscount seeks, in that we are changing to a CO2 basis. It takes a bit longer, but that will apply to new cars from the autumn of next year.
As to the whole issue of the haulage industry, which was referred to also by the noble Lords, Lord Northbrook and Lord Kingsland, we must remember that vehicle excise duty rates have been frozen for six to eight years, and that they have been frozen in this Budget for far more than 90 per cent of lorries. The only large increase is for those few new heavy lorry types with 11.5-tonne axles. That is for a specific reason: those vehicles cause more than a third more damage to the roads. I do not apologise for discriminating against those vehicles in that way when we have to pay so much to put right the damage that they cause. As for fuel duty, we have continued the escalator introduced by the previous government.
I do not have time to go into the detail of payable tax credits, which I always regard as double relief. The fact of the matter is that when they were debated two years

1247
ago it was quite clear that that relief was being provided for costs which were not incurred. We had to get rid of it. Once we get rid of it, it will not be heard of again.
My noble clansman (if I may so describe him) Lord Mackintosh referred to works buses. It has been pointed out that the qualifying figure was amended to 12, not 17 seats. Reference was made to Clause 3(1) and expenditure on preparations for joining the euro before a referendum. I do not believe that I can add to what I said. It would be ludicrous if, having reached the stage of a referendum and having achieved agreement in government and Parliament, we were not in a position to provide a realistic choice. Most of the expenditure so far has not related to preparations for British entry into the single currency but has been in recognition of the fact that the single currency already exists in the other 11 countries.
I understand why my noble friend Lord Shore has had to leave: he has a hospital appointment. He has apologised to me for that. But it is necessary that I place on record my response. Clause 78 is there because the Commission has taken a view, not on tax harmonisation, but on the quite different issue of state aid. The control of state aid has been an objective not just of the Commission but of this Government and governments of all persuasions since the very beginning. Conservative governments have been most keen to clamp down on state aid in other member states. That is exactly the situation in which we find ourselves. Last year we introduced the enabling legislation to signal our support for investment in Northern Ireland. We knew that we had to clear it with the Commission before it could be brought into effect. There was no point in restricting the scope first. We bid high knowing that we might have to compromise and settle for less at the end of the day; and that is what happened.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, will forgive me if I do not deal with the issue of smokers. It is a long-running issue.
I sympathise with all noble Lords who have talked about the need for simplifying tax. I do not think that it can be said that the Budget is outstanding in terms of tax simplification, but neither can it be said to make things worse. We have retained the straightforward three-rate income tax structure for most incomes: the 10, 23 and 40 per cent levels this year, which will be 10, 22 and 40 per cent from April 2000. There has been no change in rates of tax on savings income; and the reason the new low rate does not apply to savings income is that we intend taxation to be an incentive to work.
On the issue of whether it is more difficult for people to do their tax returns themselves, I can say only that anyone who submits his tax return by 30th September will have it calculated, as before, by the Revenue and will not have necessarily to have professional advice.
As regards stamp duty, I thought that we had done rather well in the provisions in the Budget. In principle, we are sympathetic to bringing the stamp duty appeal system into line with the appeal system for other taxes, but we should have to take into account any likely changes to the tax appeal system which the Lord Chancellor has in mind.
1248
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, referred again to the capital gains tax problem which he raised in 1996. We have made a major change. We have moved from the complicated inflation-based index system which existed previously to a system based simply on the length of time between acquisition and disposal. It is true that indexation will remain a feature of capital gains computations for some taxpayers for a while, but it will gradually work its way out of the system. In the meantime, we have replaced one very complex calculation with two rather simpler ones. Frozen indexation up to April 1998 requires a single calculation, fixed for all time, rather than the changing calculation; and the second method applies a straightforward taper based on how many years the asset is held.
It is only fair if I write to noble Lords on points that I have not covered. I have spoken for rather longer than I would have wished to burden your Lordships with. I am proud of the Budget. I am proud of the way in which government economic policy over more than two years has resulted in a successful economy. I believe that the absence of criticism of that fundamental point is evidence of the fundamental rightness of our economic policies. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 20th July), Bill read a third time and passed.

Food Standards Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Films (Modification of the Definition of "British Film") Order 1999
2.12 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to amend the criteria in Schedule 1 to the Films Act 1985 in order to make them fairer and more user friendly. The criteria are linked to eligibility for tax incentives and public support for production. The proposals in the order have been agreed with the Treasury, the European Union and industry representatives.
The key change is a move to criteria based on production expenditure rather than the playing time of the film. Currently films made almost entirely in the United Kingdom can be disqualified because, for example, a small amount of the playing time consists of music recorded abroad. The film "Little Voice", which is clearly intrinsically British, was recently barred from qualifying because of that. The industry has long objected to the constraints imposed by the playing time criteria.
Against that background, it is all the more anomalous that the current criteria allow films made largely outside the UK to qualify as British if they were prepared and processed here, thus providing little benefit to our economy. The Government believe that it is necessary to modify aspects of the current criteria that are anomalous, unfair and out of touch with modern film-making methods.
The main new criterion is that 70 per cent of the production costs must be spent on film-making carried out in the UK. That strikes the right balance between allowing much greater flexibility for films such as "Little Voice" and ensuring that films benefiting from tax breaks or public funding are substantially made in the UK. British producers wishing to film abroad have the option of making their films under one of the UK's co-production treaties, which also confer eligibility for tax benefits and production funding.
The new system will still require film makers to spend the majority of their labour costs on European and Commonwealth citizens. We are proposing a figure of 70 per cent rather than the current 75 per cent, which is in line with the production cost figure and allows a little more flexibility.
The proposed redefinition stems from a recommendation by the joint industry-government Film Policy Review Group. We consulted very widely on the recommendation and received overwhelming support for the proposals. Every detail of the redefinition has been checked with industry experts. We have looked carefully at the compliance costs and concluded that they will be the same as under the current definition, so the benefits of greater flexibility and user-friendliness will be genuinely additional. We are also proposing a transitional period of 12 months during which film makers can opt to apply under either the existing or the new criteria.
The redefinition is in line with the key objective of the Government's film policy, which is to help create a commercially viable film industry that contributes fully to the national economy as well as our national culture. The soundings that we have taken suggest that the new film tax incentive introduced by the Government in 1997 has attracted substantial new investment in UK films. It is vital that the qualifying criteria for the tax relief are fair to film makers and effective in generating benefits for the UK economy.
The UK film industry has been going from strength to strength in recent years thanks to our wonderful array of acting and technical talent. We want to make it even more attractive to film in Britain. Our economy will undoubtedly benefit as a result. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order so clearly. As he said, the British film industry has a long-standing and demonstrable record of producing talented professionals
1250
in front of and behind the camera. I pay tribute to the high quality of our actors, our studios and our technical staff. The industry has a cultural, historic and economic impact on the country.
We support the order. Indeed, I welcome it. It seems to be a sensible revision, relating the test to production expenditure rather than playing time. The Minister was commendably brief. I shall try to be brief, but perhaps not quite so brief. In trying to assist him I shall not simply repeat the questions asked in another place by my honourable friend Richard Spring. My honourable friend invited the Minister there to write to him and did not require answers on the day. I await the results of that invitation with interest. If the answers need to be probed further, we shall do so by written Questions or debate.
I have some questions about the order for the Minister on three issues: why it was so long delayed; why it appears to be different in some respects from the model recommended by the film policy review group; and what its impact will be.
As the Minister has pointed out, the proposed redefinition was recommended by the Film Policy Review Group in May 1998. It is not unusual for recommendations to take some time to be implemented. However, interestingly, on 25th November last year the Department for Culture, Media and Sport made a commitment in a press release to lay the order in December 1998. The Government did not employ the usual formula of promising to act soon, shortly or when time permitted, which we are accustomed to. They gave a definite date. However, they did not stick to it. Some concerns were expressed, because we were hoping that the order would have a beneficial effect on the industry.
In early March, news of the order surfaced in the press and a rumour went round that it was being held up because of the need to obtain the European Commission's permission for aspects of it. To solve the mystery of the phantom of the order, I tabled a written Question in April. The Minister's Answer gave the July deadline that we now face for bringing the order into operation. He referred in that Answer to the need to get clearance from Brussels.
My questions are as follows. What were the issues that needed to be resolved at EU level? Were there any objections to any part of the order, and were any changes made as a result? Secondly, why did the Government reject the Film Policy Review Group's own recommendation as regards the percentage of expenditure that acts as a qualifier with respect to the order? The Minister has of course mentioned that the percentage is to be reduced from 75 to 70 per cent, but the Film Policy Review Group recommended 60 per cent. Will the Minister tell the House why the different percentage was adopted?
Article 4 of the order states:
"For the purposes of this Schedule the production of a film is completed when the film is first in a form in which it can reasonably be regarded as ready for copies of it to be made and distributed for presentation to the general public".
At first sight that seems a perfectly sensible thing to do. However, the film industry has pointed out to me that it feels that that makes it look as though the Government

1251
rather lack confidence that British films which obtain tax concessions under this new scheme will not then be distributed. What estimate have the Government made of the risk that the changes introduced by the definition in this SI will encourage investment in films which then do not have much chance of securing distribution? I am sure there is no danger like that of the old quota quickies of the 1930s. But certainly worry was expressed that this might be presented as a sop to the British industry, which of course I am sure it would never need.
Article 5 of the order amends former paragraph 1 (4) of Schedule 1 to the 1985 Act to allow for up to 26 parts running for up to 26 hours to be considered as a single film if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the series constitutes a self-contained work or that it is a series of documentaries with a common theme. At present there is a maximum of 16 parts, with a maximum playing time of eight hours. The Secretary of State had to be of the opinion that the film constituted a self-contained work when shown in the intended sequence. I am aware that in this country we have a liking for long-running series on geographical and touring subjects, but even so this seems rather a lengthy period for films to run.
What representations were received from the industry to persuade the Government that this change was both helpful and necessary? Were the Government given any examples of projects that would be adversely affected if the change were not to take place? The public may find it difficult to envisage film-making that would fall into the category of 26 hours on a related subject.
The references to "member state" in paragraphs 4 and 7 of Schedule 1 are expanded to include states party to association agreements with the European Community in cases where those agreements require film makers in those states to be treated in the same manner as film makers in member states for the purposes of the schedule. I have one simple question on this. Which states is it estimated will be covered by this that were not previously covered?
I have one question concerning transitional provisions. I welcome transitional provisions and I am delighted to see them included in the order. However, I feel that even the existence of them means that the Government recognise that there will be losers as well as gainers by this order. What are the Government's assessments of who will be the losers after the transitional protection expires?
With that in mind, my final question relates to the overall impact of this order. What assessment have the Government made of the net increase in investment which should be achieved in years one, two and three of the operation of the order, taking into account the losers and gainers in the transitional period, and beyond?
I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify the issues I have raised. However, as I said earlier, we welcome the making of this order.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I have a special interest in the order, which I welcome I thank the Minister for explaining it so succinctly. When I entered
1252
your Lordships' House some 15 years ago, the Films Bill was the first measure into which I had some input. I see that the Minister also remembers that. At that time I took part in discussions on the definition of film. As we all know, the definition of what constitutes a British film is an intractable problem. The Government have made a good effort in the order to tidy up what we did then. Since that time, the climate for films has undergone extraordinary changes. It may have been my relative youth and optimism, but I said at the time that cinema admissions, which were almost at an all-time low, would recover. My reason for thinking that was that cinemas were so dirty and disgusting, and badly run that if they improved, there would be an improvement in admissions. That is indeed what happened.
Although I agree with the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, that the great recovery in British film-making is thanks to the talent of British artists, the environment in which people see films is also important. The purpose of making films, apart from cultural considerations, is to bring people into cinemas and achieve turnover at the box office. That is something that we have not always succeeded in doing, for various reasons.
We are now on the threshold of closer liaison with Europe and the order makes much mention of Europe and member states. National cinema is still rather more important in Europe than any concept of European cinema, although there have been attempts to create one. The area of co-productions is important.
I still believe that the looser the definition of a British film the better, because we must acknowledge that much of the film activity here is in the form of inward investment. Many foreign productions are based here, which provides much employment for British technicians. They are valued throughout the world for their expertise and enthusiasm, and long may that continue. We need to ensure good training for those technicians so that that happy situation continues generation after generation.
When considering the definition of a British film, we should not only look at recent films, such as "The Full Monty" and "Four Weddings and a Funeral", but further back at films such as "The Third Man". If your Lordships have the time, I recommend the new print of the most accomplished and thought-provoking British film that I can think of. It is always acclaimed as one of the greatest British films of all time but, although it had a British director, it had an American star, American money, an Italian leading lady and a British scriptwriter who was an emigré. Was it a British film? We claim it as a British film, because it had a British flavour and it fitted in with the cultural traditions of our cinema.
Deciding on a definition is a difficult business but it is not necessary to treat cinema in the same way as football teams or tennis players. Cinema is a global cultural activity in which we play an important part. Long may we continue to do so.
I have nothing to criticise in the order. It excludes various items that are now unnecessary and it makes certain adjustments that accord with the needs of the present time. It is a sensible idea to have a transition

1253
period of a year, in which film-makers can choose to use the current definition or the new provisions. The great need at the moment is to encourage the financing of British films. It has always been a problem—as it has in other areas of activity, both cultural and economic—that we often devise products of great ingenuity, skill and creativity but find it difficult to finance, sell and market them. I hope that the order will help us to attract more investment to British films and build on the good progress that has been made in the past 15 years.
2.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their welcome of the order. No one has any criticism of it, only questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked why it was so much delayed. As she indicated, the reason was that objections were raised by the EU Commission at a late stage and the proposal had to be resubmitted. The Commission said that the original proposal was too "culture-sectorally specific" to justify a cultural exemption under the Treaty of Rome. The treaty was drawn up a long time before some of our competition rules, so we had to simplify from two to one the single production expenditure test and make it 70 per cent.
The noble Baroness pointed out that the film policy review group suggested a 60 per cent cut off. In fact, it suggested two; one of 60 per cent and one of 75 per cent. Naturally, it will go for the widest definition. But we are dealing with public expenditure—we are talking about tax exemption—and we had to reach a conclusion which benefited the film industry, yet protected taxpayers.
I turn to transitional arrangements, which are failsafe. Anyone can choose either the old or the new definition for a 12-month period. That is not to suggest that there will be losers after that period because they will choose the old method probably because they have budgeted for it, rather than budgeted for the new system, and do not want to change immediately.
As regards the production completion date in Article 4, there has to be an end point for the calculation of total production expenditure. It does not imply that there will not be distribution. Indeed, no one in his right mind would engage any expenditure, tax exempt or not, unless he was doing his best to secure distribution for what he was producing.
The noble Baroness asked about the countries concerned in co-production. We have co-production treaties with France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. We have signed the European Convention on Co-production with many member states.
I have dealt with the change in the film policy review group and I turn to the definition of "series". There are long series because current industry format has changed, reflecting the way in which films and series of films are being produced. It is a reflection of what the industry wants.
Finally, the noble Baroness asked about an assessment of the benefits of the order. Provided that we have made it clear that there are no additional
1254
compliance costs, the view of the industry that these will provide additional benefits for both the film industry and the UK economy must be taken seriously. We shall keep the benefits under review and shall continue to monitor and evaluate the effects of the order. However, it would be premature to make that assessment now when we do not know how many film producers will take advantage of the order.
I am also grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who did not ask so many specific questions. However, I want to respond to his final point; that the sale, marketing and distribution, in addition to the production of films, is critical to the film industry and its benefit to the UK economy. I assure him that we are still working on that and propose to make further announcements by the end of July or August. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1999
2.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move, That the draft rules laid before the House on 5th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the draft rules before your Lordships today is to set out the procedural arrangements for appeals to the tribunal to be established under Sections 90 to 92 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That tribunal is to provide an avenue of appeal where a certificate has been issued for reasons of national security, public safety or public order in connection with proceedings before the courts or a fair employment tribunal in Northern Ireland.
Your Lordships will no doubt recall that the tribunal provisions in the Northern Ireland Act were first added to the Bill at its Lords Committee stage. The tribunal was needed following the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the Tinnelly and McElduff cases, in which the United Kingdom was found to be in breach of Article 6 of the convention, as no right of appeal existed against the issue of a national security certificate. In establishing the new tribunal, the Government's intention was to ensure that where a certificate was necessary in court and fair employment proceedings the individual concerned would have an opportunity to challenge it.
The tribunal provisions were generally supported by your Lordships, perhaps most notably by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who made the very helpful comment in supporting the tribunal provisions that, although he would much prefer an entirely open adversarial system, he did not think that it was realistic to go that far in the context of national security claims of this kind. I think the noble Lord's comments reflected precisely the dilemma which exists in attempting to secure as far as possible the rights of the individual when judged in the national security context. The Government continue to believe that the tribunal

1255
provisions strike the right balance between underpinning the rights of the individual and national security considerations.
I should also add that national security certificates are a very rare event. In the history of the certification provision in Northern Ireland, some 44 certificates have been issued since 1976 and none has been issued since 1994. The tribunal might therefore be seen as a two-way safety net: to protect national security considerations where Ministers find it essential to do so through the certification procedures and as a safeguard for the individual where a certificate is indeed necessary.
I should also just like to say a few words to remind your Lordships of the function of the tribunal. It will consider whether the act certified was indeed undertaken for reasons of national security, public safety or public order. But it will also consider whether the doing of the act was justified by the purpose stated in the certificate.
Before turning to the rules, I should explain briefly the various ways in which an appeal to the tribunal could arise. Section 90 of the Act, which establishes the tribunal and gives it its function, provides that it will hear appeals against certificates issued in proceedings where a person claims that an act discriminated against him in contravention of Section 24 or Section 76 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It is also the Government's intention that where it is necessary to issue a certificate in proceedings before a fair employment tribunal or an industrial tribunal the individual concerned will have a right of appeal to the Northern Ireland Act Tribunal in exactly the same way. This will be achieved through Articles 80, 96 and 97 of the Fair Employment and Treatment Order 1998, which will add to the tribunal's remit certificates issued in accordance with that order, the Sex Discrimination Order and the Race Relations Order. The commencement order to bring the tribunal into force, once the rules are passed, will make transitional arrangements to establish the tribunal, given the apparent likelihood that it will come into force before Sections 24 and 76 are commenced.
The tribunal is modelled closely on the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, and we have therefore attempted in these rules to provide similar procedural arrangements. There is, however, one key difference: the Secretary of State will not necessarily be the party who carried out the act complained of. The other party might, for example, be a private sector employer. The rules therefore give the Secretary of State some access to the proceedings, given that it is her certificate which is under appeal.
I turn now to the key provisions of the rules. The first key measure is that the tribunal will be placed under a general duty to secure that information is not disclosed contrary to the interests of national security, public safety or public order or in any circumstances where disclosure is likely to harm a public interest. That is an essential feature as one limb of the Government's aim is to ensure that sensitive intelligence material remains protected.
The second key provision is the Attorney-General's ability to appoint a special advocate to represent the interests of the individual where—for reasons of
1256
national security, public safety or public order—it is essential to withhold from him sensitive material, or to exclude him and his usual representative from the proceedings. Your Lordships will want me to say a few words on this key principle given the concerns raised about it when the Northern Ireland Act was before another place last year.
The special advocate arrangements have precedent in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. They have a statutory basis both in respect of that commission and this tribunal and the arrangements are essential to balancing the interest of the individual and national security interests. They go as far as the Government believe it is possible to do without compromising national security and they provide an individual with a form of representation in the proceedings. That is the second limb of the Government's aim.
Concerns were raised in another place about these arrangements as a matter of principle. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, pointed out, our starting point for any proceedings where the interest of an individual are at stake should be a fully open adversarial system. But it is simply not possible to provide such a system in this instance without compromising national security. And the ECHR judgment in the Tinnelly and McElduff cases did not require such a system to be adopted. In finding a breach of Article 6(1) of the Convention, the court pointed out that:
"in other contexts it has been found possible to modify judicial procedures in such a way as to safeguard national security concerns about the nature and sources of intelligence and information and yet afford the individual a substantive degree of procedural justice".
The special advocate arrangements are central to achieving precisely that position. The Government are of course aware that the special advocate arrangements have been called into question by the Bar Council of Northern Ireland. They believe that because a special advocate is not responsible to the individual he represents, that to accept instructions on this basis may be contrary to its code of conduct. However, the Bar Council recognises that that is a matter on which individual barristers will need to take a view.
The Government are respectful of the Bar's position but continue to believe that no other arrangement would afford an individual the opportunity of representation in proceedings when national security interests are at stake. The special advocate arrangements have a statutory basis. I am also aware that barristers who accept instructions to appear as special advocates in England and Wales fearlessly represent the interests of individuals before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. I have no doubt that barristers who accept instructions to appear before this tribunal will do likewise. The current position is that the special advocate arrangements remain under consideration by the Bar in Northern Ireland and the Government look forward to hearing its position in due course.
The rules make further provision for the role of the special advocate and the format of the appellant's notice of appeal; the format of the reply by the other party and the Secretary of State. The rules also provide a mechanism for the tribunal to consider objections to disclosure and other procedural matters necessary to

1257
ensure that the tribunal is able to reach its own view on the matters before it. Where it is possible to do so, the tribunal will publish the reasons for its determination, albeit without disclosing information contrary to the public interest. Ultimately, it is open to the tribunal to uphold or strike-down the certificate. Finally, the rules provide for appeals to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland on a question of law arising from a determination by the tribunal. I invite your Lordships to approve the rules. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft rules laid before the House on 5th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Dubs.)
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I rise to express these Benches' support for the making of the rules. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining them with such care and for the particular attention he paid to the representations made by the Bar Council of Northern Ireland regarding the special advocate arrangements. I have listened carefully to the way in which he dealt with those matters.
Can the Minister tell us whether the Government have any plans to meet the Bar Council of Northern Ireland in the future, so that it will be possible to review the operation of the system once the order is in place? We support the order.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. No formal meetings are planned with the Bar Council, but we shall consider whether the rules can be improved if experience shows that changes should be made. I am grateful for the support of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Contracting Out (Jury Summoning Functions) Order 1999
2.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Section 69 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 enables a Minister, by making an order, to permit himself to authorise functions conferred on him to be carried out by another person or by the other person's employees.
The purpose of the order is to enable the Lord Chancellor to authorise another person, or that person's employees, to perform the functions of the Lord Chancellor under Section 2 of the Juries Act 1974 in so far as those functions involve the production and posting of jury summonses and the signing of certificates of posting under Section 2(6) of the Juries Act 1974.
The Act requires that jurors shall be summoned by notice in writing sent by post or delivered by hand. A certificate of posting must be signed by an "appropriate
1258
officer". The court manager or, more usually, one of his or her staff, is currently designated as the "appropriate officer" for those purposes.
Jury service is an important civic duty. Every year over half a million people are summoned to serve. Currently each Crown Court uses old-fashioned and resource-intensive systems to summon juries. The Lord Chancellor intends to modernise that important part of the criminal justice system by introducing new systems and modern technology to support the process. One of the changes will be to establish a central summoning bureau for England and Wales. That will introduce a more consistent approach to summoning jurors, reduce costs and offer higher levels of customer service to those who undertake this important duty.
The civil servants who work in the Court Service, an executive agency of the department of the Lord Chancellor, will continue to be responsible for nearly all the procedures involved in summoning jurors and will staff and run the new central bureau. However, it will maximise the efficiency of the new procedures if the Lord Chancellor contracts out the functions of printing and posting the summonses and signing the certificate of posting.
Therefore, I am seeking a contracting out order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to enable a private sector organisation to post the summons and to sign the certificate of posting in future. The intention of the Lord Chancellor is to authorise the Court Service's private finance initiative suppliers, currently EDS, to carry out those functions.
I stress to the House that no other aspect of the Juries Act will be affected by the changes that are introduced and that the selection of jurors from the electoral register and the administration of juror responses will remain with the Court Service staff.
The draft order seeks only to contract out the posting and printing of summonses and the certification of posting. I commend the draft order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Casinos) Order 1999
2.50 p.m.
Lord Burlison Lord Burlison rose to move, That the draft deregulation order laid before the House on 5th July be approved [24th Report from the Deregulation Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order contains modest relaxations of the law governing casinos in Great Britain. Casinos in this country will still be the most strictly regulated in the world. Most people have never visited a casino here and have a completely erroneous impression that they are like those in Las Vegas or Monte Carlo. In fact, British casinos are very discreet places, offering mainly blackjack and roulette in secure

1259
and well ordered surroundings. They are run as members' clubs and are strictly regulated by the Gaming Board.
The order seeks to relax slightly the strict controls on membership, advertising and machines. It will make it a little easier to visit casinos while maintaining the controls which have maintained a respectable and well regulated industry.
The order amends the Gaming Act 1968 as follows: it removes the requirement that people must apply in person at a casino for membership, thus allowing postal applications; it allows limited casino advertising in written publications; and it increases the maximum number of jackpot machines permitted in casinos from six to 10.
There has been extensive public consultation on these proposals and scrutiny by the parliamentary deregulation committees. The committee in another place and the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee examined the proposals carefully. Neither committee had any concerns to raise about the order. The order was approved in another place on 20th July.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the Minister kindly give way? It is reassuring to hear what was said about the Deregulation Committee. But the Order Paper says that this was the subject of the 24th report of the Deregulation Committee. I have that report in my hand, but this matter does not appear in it. Perhaps the Minister could tell us in which report of the Deregulation Committee it appears. Of course, if it does not require us to draw attention to it anyway, it is a matter of small importance. On the other hand, if it does, it is a matter of large importance.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I understood that it was the 24th report, but I shall check that and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend on the Front Bench handed me the 20th report. There is obviously a misprint on the Order Paper. Perhaps we can put that on the record.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention and that correction. The order was approved in another place on 20th July. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee recommended approval by this House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft deregulation order laid before the House on 5th July be approved [24th Report from the Deregulation Committee].—(Lord Burlison.)
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the purpose behind this order and echo his remarks on the way in which casinos and the way they operate are often misunderstood in this country. I was able to attend the annual trade fair for casino operators earlier this year. It was a fascinating visit. No gambling was taking place, but if there had been, I am sure I would have lost, as is my wont—not that I do more than take part in the National Lottery on a modest basis each week.
1260
I have taken note of the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. The committee reported that it was satisfied that each of the proposed changes in the law would reduce a burden on the businesses which run casinos. That in itself would not cause us on these Benches to support the order without further reassurance about the level of protection afforded to the public being maintained.
Paragraphs 8 to 16 of the report deal with the question of what is "necessary protection" and I read them carefully. In particular there are reassurances regarding the anxieties raised by GamCare with regard to the under-18s—something about which this House is always concerned. I note that the committee considers that the necessary protection would be maintained under this proposal and consequently I am able to support the making of the order.
I want to make one further remark with regard to what the committee refers to as the "salami slicing approach" to the deregulation of proposals affecting casinos. The statement by the Home Office which accompanies this order refers somewhat opaquely to paragraphs 17 to 22, and to paragraph 7 as follows:
"The Home Office has noted the Committee's comments on the future use of the deregulation power to amend the gaming laws and the need for a review of the legislation".
In fact, the committee raises some serious questions about how and when future reform should take place. At paragraph 19 of the report, the committee asks whether this will be the last in a series of deregulation proposals affecting casinos and observes that there is every indication from the Government that it will not be the last. The committee points out that the response of London Clubs International, which was submitted to the latest consultation paper, urged the Government,
"to move quickly to allowing the introduction of at least 20 machines and a proper casino slot machine regime".
Can the Minister say whether this change could be made in the future under existing law?
The committee concludes its consideration of the problems of salami slicing by pointing out that one consequence of such an approach is,
"that it becomes unclear as to when the principles governing the legislation are being fundamentally undermined".
The committee continues to say that it does not believe that that point has yet been reached, but concludes that the piecemeal relaxation of the gaming laws by way of deregulation is clearly unsatisfactory and that it is its strong view that the legislation is now due for review.
In the past, I have sat as a magistrate on a local betting and gaming committee. Like other noble Lords, I am perfectly well aware that reforming such a body of legislation is no easy matter; indeed, it would be a very complex task. However, if the Government are not able to undertake such a review in the short term, can the Minister say whether they have any plans in the medium term to carry out such work? In the meantime, I support the making of the order.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I rise to ask the Minister two very brief questions. Basically, if we are relaxing the requirement that someone has to be there in person

1261
and making it possible for people to be able to do it by post, why do we have to give 24 hours' notice? I really cannot see any reason for that. Being a card-carrying member of a casino group, I find it very peculiar that I have to give notice to go to a casino of the same group of which I am a member within the same town, let alone anywhere else, before I go into it.
I do not see that we are making it any easier for people to get in or that we are improving the situation at all by just saying that you can do this by post as opposed to going there personally. They are actually extremely good places to go and have a very cheap meal of an evening with anybody, apart from the gambling side of it. I just think that we are making it incredibly difficult. I question why we are so much against the ability to be able to get in as and when we really want—providing, of course, that we are of age.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my eyes were drawn to this order because I was a member of the Select Committee on delegated powers when the first of these orders came in and the first slice of the salami was taken off the sausage. It seems to me to be a rather regrettable way of treating statute law to lower it gently, gently, gently until the toes touch the water, as it were. I do not think that this is how we should proceed. When responding to my noble friend on the Front Bench, it would be very helpful if the Minister could give an undertaking that the Government will review this piece of legislation and either bring it up to date or keep it in its present state. It should not come to us for a fourth time by way of another slice; indeed, at some time, someone holding the sausage will get his fingers cut off.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I can understand the concern about the salami approach to the issue. I am sure that this is not the first occasion that the issue has been raised in relation to gambling as a whole. The Government do not accept that the changes here would encourage excessive gambling. These are comparatively modest changes, which remove some of the irksome restrictions that are no longer necessary in this day and age. They have been the subject of very public consultation and have been very carefully considered by the deregulation committees. It should be borne in mind that casinos are very strictly regulated in this country. The noble Baroness mentioned the age limit of 18 and that is something that I should certainly wish to be maintained.
The House of Lords committee commented in its report that it was concerned that amendments to the gambling legislation were being made on a piecemeal basis by deregulation order and that the gambling law should be reviewed. Although this is the first under this administration, in the past there have been seven others. The committee was, however, content with this order. Proposals would be laid only if they had been fully consulted on and were consistent with the general principles of gambling regulation. There are a number of concerns in this area; namely, keeping gambling crime free; ensuring that gaming is honest and fairly conducted; that players know what to expect and that the vulnerable are protected.
1262
Changes could not be made under the existing law to the extent that the industry would like, but we are considering this issue. A review would be a large task involving three major Acts of Parliament on betting, gaming and lotteries. The legislation still achieves its primary objective of keeping gambling crime free. As regards further use of the power, we do not want to rule out judicious use of appropriate changes which are in the public interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, asked about the need to apply for membership 24 hours in advance. I understand his point but we need to maintain strict controls on membership. At present we do not seek any means of obtaining membership other than on a bona fide basis. Although I am not fully aware of the facts behind the 24-hour period, I shall write to the noble Lord on that issue and, if necessary, discuss it with him further at a later date.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Millennium Licensing) Order 1999
3.2 p.m.
Lord Burlison Lord Burlison rose to move, That the draft deregulation order laid before the House on 9th July be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order is designed to reduce burdens on pubs and clubs who wish to extend their licensing hours for the forthcoming millennium holiday. The order automatically extends licensing hours for the night of the Millennium Eve. These millennium licensing hours fill the gap from the end of licensing hours on 31st December, taking account of any existing extensions, up until opening time on 1st January 2000.
The order will not apply to off-licence premises. Although this means pubs will be free to open from 11 a.m. on Millennium Eve until 11 p.m. on New Year's Day—a total of 36 hours—the Government believe it unlikely that many will choose to do so. They are unlikely to have the staff or the customers to operate so long without a break. This order provides them with the opportunity to choose the opening times that are most convenient to them and their customers within the overall period allowed. To protect local residents from disorder or undue disturbance the order produces a system of restriction orders which will allow courts to curtail the new hours in premises where there is a real risk that problems could arise.
One point I draw to your Lordships' attention is that unlike routine extensions of hours for special events where any entertainment licence is automatically extended to run with the extra liquor licensing hours, this order will not automatically extend the duration of entertainment licences. Events that require entertainment licences can present a greater risk to the public from noise and large crowds than extended drinking hours only. Local councils already have a discretion in respect of the duration of entertainment licences. The Government believe that they should continue to exercise that discretion on the Millennium Eve.
The background to the order now before the House is that a public consultation exercise on the proposed legislation took place between November 1998 and February 1999; the proposal for a draft order was laid before Parliament in April; and that was duly considered by the respective Committees of the House and in another place. At that stage the Government were proposing that the longer hours should apply to every New Year's Eve. However, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee was concerned that possible disturbance and disorder might result from longer hours. It recommended that the proposal should be amended to apply to this year only and that deregulation for future New Years should be considered in the light of that experience.
The Government believe that their original proposals would have maintained the necessary protection against disturbance and disorder; however, they recognise the committee's concerns, which were shared also by the police and the courts. The proposal has therefore been amended in accordance with the committee's recommendation and the new arrangements will apply to the coming New Year's Eve only. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has considered the amended order and has recommended approval by the House. The draft order was approved in another place on 20th July. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft deregulation order laid before the House on 5th July be approved [24th Report from the Deregulation Committee].—(Lord Burlison).
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the making of the order. We on these Benches welcome the fact that the Government have amended the original order in response to the recommendation of the Eighteenth Report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. After all, the millennium celebrations will be special. I believe that this country is leading the world in making them special. No one wants to be a kill-joy, but all on these Benches wish to be sure that public safety will not be put at extra risk by all-night opening hours.
It is right that the order should apply to Millennium New Year's Eve only and not to future end-of-year licensing in general—unless and until, of course, Parliament has sufficient evidence to agree to deregulation for each New Year to come. As the report of the committee stated, we do not have access to that evidence at this stage.
I have read carefully the statements made by the Home Office, the Secretary of State for Home Affairs and the Secretary of State for Health. They provide reassurances that the emergency services and the A & E departments of hospitals should be able to cope with, if I can put it this way, the ill-effects of the millennium celebrations which will be suffered by some of us—I hope not too many.
The Home Office statement refers to the representation made by the Magistrates' Association. I wish to draw attention to that statement. The Magistrates' Association had suggested that there should be a September deadline for restriction order
1264
applications in order to allow the courts to arrange any necessary extra hearings to hear the New Year applications. The Government rejected that plea on the basis that people might not be well enough organised in time to make the application before September. I wonder whether that is true. I believe that the millennium celebrations are special. It is so well known that there will be difficulty getting staff to be on duty that night that people have been making bookings exceptionally early—indeed, as early as 1st January this year in some places. I believe that the September deadline could have been met.
Have the Government had any further discussions with the Magistrates' Association about such a deadline and the implications that any late applications may have upon the smooth running of the courts service and upon residents who might wish to object to such applications?
My final point relates to concerns that have been expressed that residents' associations may not be fully aware that they are permitted to object to the extra opening hours over the millennium just as they might at other times. Representations were made by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea concerning the possibility that residents' associations might not, simply as a result of Home Office publicity regarding the order, have cottoned on to the fact that they can make such objections. I have in front of me a copy of the Home Office press release dated 14th April. It is headlined:
"Pubs and clubs to open around the clock on New 'Year's Eve".
It states:
"The new arrangements would come into effect in time for this year's Millennium celebrations".
There is, of course, nothing in the press release that is inaccurate. In fact, once the order has gone through the House, what it says is true. The difficulty raised by Kensington and Chelsea in particular is that the press release appears to indicate that the law will be as stated, and that no one can change it. Do the Government have any plans to publicise the fact that it is open to residents' associations to make objections, if they so wish, to the 36-hour run of opening time that is available? We on these Benches support the making of the order.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments, and in particular for her support for the changes that are being made.
I recognise the concerns of the Magistrates' Association that the suggestions it made at the time were not totally accepted by the Government. Having said that, I am sure that indications have been given to the Magistrates' Association and similar bodies that the Government are prepared to carry on consultations with them.
With regard to residents' objections, we expect longer opening hours to allow for more relaxed and civilised drinking—and therefore, we hope, to lead to fewer problems. However, the order gives the courts powers to limit the opening of individual premises where there is a real risk of problems arising. Applications to limit hours can be made by residents and by local police authorities. I also take the noble Baroness's point regarding the ability of residents to object under these circumstances.

1265
With regard to the statement on the changes to the law, the view is shared by the police. The whole point of scrutinising the process is to enable the Government to listen to any views that might be put forward and to take on board any serious concerns. That is what we are doing, and I hope that each of those areas has been considered. If I have missed any points raised by the noble Baroness, I am prepared to write to her. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill
3.13 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords,
I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects,
I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Time Zones and Summer Time (Devolution) Bill [H.L.]
3.14 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Some form of the Bill has come before the House on several occasions. It has been championed by my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein. There is a slight difference on this occasion; namely, that since it last came up, Scotland now has its own Parliament. That is something the Scots have wanted for many years and I was delighted that that Parliament has opened with such success. But now that the Scots have their own Parliament, I cannot understand why it is not possible for them to make a decision such as this.
I shall try to refute arguments as well as to put my case. The first one, which will come up again and again, is that it would stupid and silly to have a different time in Scotland from that in England. If England chose a particular time or decided to stay on European time or summer time, whether or not to do the same would be Scotland's choice. My belief is that it would follow suit.
Perhaps I may point out that in 1888 there were different times in Scotland from in England. It was only the rail timetable that brought the times together. So this is not a precedent—I do not suggest that—but it is of immense common sense, not least because of the time zones in the rest of Europe.
My second reason is a populist one. I do not apologise for that because I realise that in this House a populist is a rare animal. I am not ashamed of it, I am by nature more of a commoner than a Peer. I fear that I shall go
1266
to my grave that way. But opinion polls in London, in which I have a slight interest, show that 88 per cent of Londoners do not want to put the clock forward.
I come now to those who would support my cause, were they Members of this House. They have made their position clear, either in their annual general reports or in public statements. First, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has made it clear that it would like an extra hour's sunlight—that is, daylight in the evening—so that the number of accidents would come down. On what figures did it rely? It relied on statistics from the Transport Research Laboratory and the Government, suggesting that 120 lives would be saved if we allowed this. I should have thought I could sit down now and that the whole House would leap in the air and say, "Let's do it". I should have thought that that reason alone was enough to see the Bill go through.
But added to that, not satisfied with the Government's figures from the Transport Research Laboratory, the Child Accident Prevention Trust came out and said that it backed the idea as well. It did so because schoolchildren going home in the dark at 3.30 p.m. and 4 p.m. are more likely to be hit by a vehicle than if they were able to go home in the daylight.
Who else supported the idea? The Sports Council. Why? Because it wanted young people and even some of those who are not so young to be able to participate in games in the early afternoon and not have to pack up at 3 o'clock and blow a whistle because they can no longer see the ball. Not every school or club can afford great lights on their pitch so that they can go on until 5 or 6 o'clock. One would have thought that on that basis alone those noble Lords still capable of leaping would have leapt up to support the Bill.
We come to crime prevention. As one chief superintendent said to me, there are not as many muggings first thing in the morning as at night, and those who do it cannot wait for it to be dark at 3.30 p.m. Figures were produced to show that crime would drop if we had an extra hour of light. Once again, one would have thought that, on that basis alone, people would be happy to support the Bill.
I return to the Government's figures. The Bill would result in financial savings, and produce the value for money about which we know the Government feel so strongly. The estimate is that £250 million would be saved. I hope that now the Front Bench will leap up to support the Bill. Perhaps I undermine the position of the Minister and at any moment he will leap to the Dispatch Box to say that the Government believe that the Bill is wonderful, that he will not bother to add any argument but will merely send the Bill on its way to Report as quickly as possible.
The British Tourist Authority has said that it wants the extra hour of daylight. On that alone, I should have thought that the Minister would leap up to support the Bill.
The next supporter of the Bill—perhaps bigger still—is the Confederation of British Industry. The CBI, which is responsible for all business associations and business representatives throughout the land, has begged for this

1267
change. Why? It wants business to be able to deal and compete with the major European markets according to the same hours.
I have paid the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, the compliment of reading his most recent speech on this subject. I ask noble Lords to hold their breath while I produce my ace to trump the day. To my surprise, I am supported by the Scottish National Chamber of Commerce. Obviously, it felt that the Government's figures and its own were so compelling that it would back this Bill.
I do not stand here to demand something for England, as only a small-minded person would do so. Scotland has its devolution and a form of independence. Let Scotland make that choice. But why should we have to go along with so much discomfort simply to placate the Scots? Is there a possibility that because the Cabinet has in it a Scottish Foreign Secretary., Chancellor of the Exchequer, Defence Secretary, Financial Secretary and, despite devolution, a Scottish Secretary of State—whereas we in London have only two Cabinet Ministers—my Bill will be stamped firmly upon in a back room in No. 10 Downing Street, even though 88 per cent of the British people want it?
I look forward to hearing the Minister, not least because last week he kindly leapt to the Dispatch Box and supported me 100 per cent, for which I am grateful. With his support, the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill shot forward. I stand here today hoping for the same backing, because I believe that not only is this Bill needed by the country, but that it is welcomed by the entire nation.
If the Minister says from the Dispatch Box that Her Majesty's Government cannot support the Bill, I do not want him to think that it will end there. I intend to join the legion of my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein and to bring the issue back again and again. As long as such a vast majority of the British population want this provision, I shall not let the matter slip away. Were I to have the privilege not only of being a noble Lord but of representing the people of London, I should bring into the Chamber the backing of 88 per cent of 7 million people, and ask that the change be made. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare.)
3.26 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, when I saw the Bill on the Order Paper I shuddered with dread. After the noble Lord's remarkable performance, I tremble with fear at the threat of this issue returning over and over again for as long as time stretches out before us.
As the noble Lord hinted, we have been over this ground once or twice before. Just as the sun rises every morning and sets every evening, a debate of this kind turns up in ever faster cycles. And the noble Lord promises us more in the future. Fairly recently, in January 1994, we had an Unstarred Question advocating central European time. In January 1995 a Central European Time Bill was presented by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, which suggested central
1268
European time for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, excluding Scotland, much as the noble Lord, Lord Archer, wishes. In November 1995 the Western European Time Bill, ably presented by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, changed Central European Time to Western European Time. That was more exact. The Bill was wrong, but the noble Viscount was right in that respect. The noble Viscount and I were on opposite sides then. I have a strong feeling that we shall be on the same side today.
More recently, last July and November amendments were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, to the Scotland Bill, the Bill which brought devolution into legislative form, which would have had the effect that the noble Lord, Lord Archer, wishes. They gave the Scottish Parliament the power to deal with time zones.
The Bill presents us with a little difficulty. Although it is set against the general argument about time zones, it is really about devolution. I recall describing the Bill of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, which excluded Scotland, as bizarre. I have to confess that in a later debate I described it as idiotic. I shall not be so impolite today. I merely say that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Archer, is misconceived.
The noble Lord mentioned the coming to Britain of unified time in the last century. As he rightly said, it was a matter of railway timetables. But it was not then a matter of bringing Scotland and England but the whole country into conformity. In those days one had different times in London, Reading, Bristol, Manchester and Newcastle, as well as in Scotland, and so on. That was a step forward. The Bill would be a step back.
I have four reasons why we should not proceed with the Bill. First, this is a national problem that should he dealt with by a government. It is wholly unsuitable for a Private Member's Bill. I would go so far as to say that it is vainglorious to bring in such a measure as a private Member. It is quite reasonable to try to persuade the Government to introduce such a measure, but it should be for the Government, not a private Member, to introduce it.
My second reason for opposing the Bill is that having a time change at the border would be rather silly. Even after devolution, we are still geographically one island. From my experience of travelling north from time to time, I think that Virgin Trains has enough problems without trying to cope with a time change just after Carlisle, or at Berwick on the way south.
Thirdly, I am not sure what the effect on Northern Ireland would be. We could conceivably have a European time zone in England, while Scotland and possibly even Wales remained on Greenwich Mean Time. What about Northern Ireland? Would it be coerced into the English arrangement, leaving an hour's difference between the time in Belfast or Londonderry and that in Glasgow, which is on approximately the same latitude? Sligo in the Irish Republic is also on almost the same latitude, but there would be another hour's difference there. That compounds confusion.

1269
Lastly, the issue was fully debated when we discussed the Scotland Bill in July and November last year. The noble Lord, Lord Archer, announced then that he was going to produce a Bill on the subject. The issue was made a reserved power. The Bill is not about time, although the underlying reason for it is time. The Bill is an attempt to achieve English independence in time. The noble Lord is following the flag that was waved so raucously by his leader William Hague just the other day. I am all in favour of English nationalists and I do not mind them waving St George's flag, but there are places where it is appropriate and places where it is not. This is one where it is not.
There is no need for me to go over the old ground of the arguments. They are all in Hansard. I was happy to hear the noble Lord refer to one of my speeches, although I did not hear him refer to anything that was in it, which was a pity because it would have helped him a bit. We know the arguments about Scotland and about time. We also know the arguments about road safety, although they are more confused than the noble Lord suggests. Part of the difference in the statistics is due to breathalysers and similar matters rather than daylight.
The experiment in the late 1960s and early 1970s—which lasted for three years at first and was then extended by a further two—came to a sudden and dramatic end when a number of children on their way to school in the dark of the morning in Stornoway were hit by a bus. That is exactly what one would expect.
London is a long way from Stornoway, as is Glasgow. I remember being a student in Glasgow while we had the double summer time during the war. That was a miserable and daunting experience. In those days Glasgow was not delightful even in the daylight, and it was a sight worse in the dark. The Scottish dimension does matter. I have mentioned before that the construction industry is a dangerous business with workers on scaffolding constructing buildings on icy mornings. Postmen do not like it; farmers do not like it; anyone with any sense does not like it.
In so far as this measure has a hidden agenda to make England move to continental time under another name, either Western European Time or Central European Time or whatever, I remind the House that this is one of the few occasions when Britain is in step rather than out of step with her neighbours. It is our neighbours who are out of step with us. The Greenwich time zone passes through Britain, but a good deal more of it passes through France, Spain and Portugal. In fact, it is the French, the Spaniards and the Portuguese who are out of step, and they should join us rather than we join them.
Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that Portugal did experiment with a move to Central European Time for a couple of years. They found they disliked it intensely and are now back on the same time as us.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I was about to make that very point, and I am glad that the noble Lord,
1270
Lord Monson, who has shown great interest in the subject over the years, agrees with me. The Portuguese tried the experiment and abandoned it as soon as they reasonably could.
I wish to refer to the CBI. I have nothing whatever to say about the Scottish Chamber of Commerce, of whom I know nothing. The CBI argued that British businessmen were at a disadvantage compared to their continental competitors. That was partly because of the time lapse, but also because the continentals started work earlier in the morning. Therefore British businessmen lost two hours of business time. That can be remedied. Our businessmen could start work at eight instead of nine o'clock. They would then catch up one hour without meddling with the clock and inconveniencing the rest of us.
I have nothing more to say at this point, except to ask why the Bill has appeared now. We are in the last two weeks of this part of the Session. There is little likelihood of progress being made before we go into Recess next Friday. There is not much more chance of the Bill thriving in the spillover period in October. The Bill seems not to be a serious attempt at legislation. This is gesture politics, of a kind which hints at electioneering. I am not against electioneering in its proper place, but I do not think it is seemly to electioneer in this Chamber.
We do not vote against the Second Reading of such Bills. However, I sincerely hope that if we give it a Second Reading the Bill will then vanish into the sand in exactly the same way as previous attempts to make such changes have done and that we shall hear no more about it, despite the threats of the noble Lord to bring it up again, again and again.
3.39 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howie, mentioned that he and I have been here before. He is quite right. The noble Lord and I are what might be called part of the original cast, going back some years, having participated in several debates and in the proceedings on several Bills. I started by agreeing with what he said, but as he progressed I found that he got up to his old tricks and had failed to understand some of the nuances of the aims of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare has introduced a Bill that tries to reverse a matter that has already been reserved. It is a valiant attempt to do so, although it does not have much chance of succeeding at this stage. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, made an important point when he said that we are one island and, therefore, we should have one time. The problem with the Bill is that it might create two time zones. As my noble friend Lord Archer said, there was once a different time in Scotland, but that was before the advances in communications, such as railways, roads, telephones and faxes. We are very much one, quite small island.
To devolve this power might be very difficult. My noble friend Lord Archer produced some good reasons, which have been rehearsed before, why we should move to unify time with our continental neighbours—a much

1271
more important objective. In other words, we should have GMT plus one in the winter and GMT plus two in the summer. I have no objection, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said, to my noble friend using the Bill to introduce that measure, because at this stage in our proceedings it is almost impossible to have an Unstarred Question or any other type of debate. The introduction of a Bill on a Friday is an interesting vehicle for what I think should be the main object of today's discussion—consideration of measures that could be taken to unify our time with that of Western Europe.
In his catalogue of previous debates on the subject, the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, omitted to mention a debate in which we both participated in February last year. That was a small debate, which I initiated to try to press the Government to conduct a new study of the issue. I did that some six months after we had a new, reforming government. At the time, the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn—had said that the Government would try harder and satisfaction would be guaranteed. In subsequent correspondence, when I drew this matter to his attention, I have not received much satisfaction.
The arguments in favour of moving to GMT plus one in winter and GMT plus two in summer are overwhelming. We need not go over them again, because they were well rehearsed by my noble friend Lord Archer. They include a reduction in traffic accidents, the saving of life, and an increase in time available for tourism, leisure and business. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is not in his place, but he has been vociferous on the subject of the reduction of accidents that the change would achieve. Many more accidents happen in the early evening dark hours than in the later dark hours of the morning, because people wake up fresher in the morning than they are in the evening.
The main thrust of the argument should be to get us on the same time as Western Europe. I use the term Western European Time instead of the general usage—Central European Time—because it is more meaningful. Whatever we may think on this island, we are part of Western Europe and that would seem to be a more sensible nomenclature. The powerhouse countries of Europe, such as Germany, France, Italy and the Benelux countries, are all on the same time and we should be, too.
Unfortunately, the Bill presents a considerable dilemma. If the matter were devolved to Scotland, then England, Wales and Scotland could be on different times. In a small island, that would be absurd. That is an obstacle. On the other hand, if the matter were devolved to Scotland, England would be able to move forward to more sensible arrangements. There is a clear dilemma which the Government need to address.
I return to a proposal which I have made on previous occasions; that the time has come for the matter to be studied again. There are overwhelming arguments in favour of moving to the process which I proposed, but the Government must take action. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, is right that we must have Government
1272
action, but so far there has been Government inaction. The matter should not need reviewing in detail because we have had so many reviews already, but it needs action. Surely, that is the main thrust.
If the noble Lord, Lord Archer, returns to the subject again and again, I hope that he will eventually succeed because we need to be one island united with the continent of Europe. If the noble Lord does bring the matter back, in view of other legislation I shall not be here to pursue it. However, I am sure that there will be many opportunities when I shall be able to pursue it outside the Chamber, as I have done with the noble Lord, Lord Howie, in more convivial surroundings. No doubt, there will be other occasions when we shall continue to disagree. In the meantime, I look forward to hearing from the Government that there is to be action to move the whole of the United Kingdom into unison with our European neighbours.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, in my view, the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, has done us a service in introducing this Bill and thus publicising a problem which is both chronological and chronic, much to the reiterated dismay of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. It is a problem which will not go away and which directly affects the daily lives of the entire population.
The problem is that the majority of people in Britain would prefer to pass winters in GMT plus one, but in the North, and in Scotland especially, that majority becomes progressively reduced. Many people in Scotland would privately prefer darker mornings and lighter afternoons, but the issue has become so politicised that such a change would be regarded as yet another Sassenach intrusion, to be resisted for patriotic reasons.
The noble Lord, Lord Archer, may have Londoners very much in mind in framing his Bill. Some unkind critics have suggested that it may be described as an electoral ploy. But it is evident from the passage of the Scotland Bill that others have the same idea, too. In the long list of matters reserved to Westminster, six are described as "miscellaneous". They range from major subjects, such as equal opportunities and the control of weapons, to relatively minor subjects, such as judicial remuneration and the Ordnance Survey. The six also include matters relating to space and time.
Of those six, only the issue of time exercised the Conservative Opposition during the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, tabled a probing amendment seeking to extract all aspects of time from the matters reserved to Westminster and to devolve them to Edinburgh. After a short debate, the Committee divided and the amendment was rejected by 37 votes to 15. Then on Report, my noble friend Lady Saltoun of Abernethy tabled an amendment to devolve only that part of the regulation of time which applied to time zones; in fact, the identical proposal before us today.
After debate the noble Lady withdrew her amendment. However, a week later she came back with a vengeance and moved a new clause by which,

1273
although time zones would still be a reserved subject, the Scottish Parliament could have a unique right of veto. That shocking proposal, supported by the Conservative Front Bench, was rightly defeated by 103 votes to 42.
The noble Lady's final fling reveals the essential difference between the movers of the earlier amendments and the provisions in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Archer. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, as well as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, wanted time zones to be devolved to Edinburgh because they believed that the Scottish Parliament could thereby, if it so wished, prevent any change proposed by Westminster. They assumed that Westminster could not possibly alter the time for England unless Scotland's time altered identically; so if Scotland refused to budge, England could not move.
The noble Lord, Lord Archer, on the contrary, wants this devolution because he assumes that if England decided to change, Scotland would be obliged to follow or face the consequences of split time zones in Britain. Here we are in the realm of high politics, a game of poker played for high stakes. Would Westminster dare to change England's time? On the one side is the spectre of Scottish nationalism. What British government would gratuitously feed that monster by provoking such an issue? On the other side is the lazy lion of England, which might turn nasty and force the issue the other way.
Hitherto England has bowed to Scottish susceptibility in this matter. The pattern was set in 1971, when the three-year experiment of year-round GMT plus one was overwhelmingly defeated on a free vote in another place. It is true that many northern English Members helped to secure that defeat, but it was clinched by the tragedy of the Scottish children killed by a bus in the morning darkness, which blotted out any reflective consideration of the lives that had been saved by the afternoon light.
Anyway, all that was a generation ago, and social habits have changed a great deal in the past 30 years. Most recently, in 1995, a Private Member's Bill to advance standard time by an hour was introduced in another place. The then Scottish Secretary, Michael Forsyth, ensured its defeat by arranging that all government Ministers should abstain, save only those of the Scottish Office, who voted against it.
In debating the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Archer, it is worth considering whether it would be possible to have two time zones in Britain. No country in the European Union has more than one time zone, except that the Canary Islands are retarded by one hour from mainland Spain. No autonomous region within those countries has authority over its own time.
However, Britain is not bound by any European treaty in respect of its standard time. We can do what we want. We are bound only by the summer/winter change dates, which are common throughout the EU. Undoubtedly, a zonal frontier would cause great anguish in Berwick-upon-Tweed. It would be very awkward for the schedules of airlines, trains and road transport. Generally, there would be an economic disbenefit, mainly for the
1274
Scots. Being the smaller community, they would be much more exposed, and being one hour behind England, they would always be running to catch up.
I deduce from that that the Scottish Parliament would be most unlikely to opt for a separate time zone, but there is no reason why it should not do so if it wished, and accept some economic loss for the benefit of perceived quality of life. The same, incidentally, would be true of Ireland. I do not mention Wales, because I cannot accept that there is any geographical necessity for devolving time to the Welsh Assembly or any future English regional governments.
The controversy about standard time is largely confined to what happens in the winter and the use of precious, limited daylight. As regards the summer, the argument for change is not so much social as economic; namely that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, said, we should be on the same time as our continental neighbours. But given that for England, as for Scotland, the issues are not solely economic, I do not see why England should not revert to the 1968–71 experiment of GMT plus one, year-round. If Scotland's time remained unchanged from now, it would produce the happy solution that for seven months of the summer there would be a single British time, and only in the five months of winter would there be a divergence.
As a hereditary Peer, this is my swan song in your Lordships' House. My summertime has run out. But I look forward to reading on the website the future debates on this timeless subject, with the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, forever bemoaning their repetitive futility and the cunning Clan Mackay weaving their way between tribal loyalty and political expediency, as I expect they have done for many centuries past.
3.55 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am a novice on this subject, but it seems to me that the question of time zones for the United Kingdom has, as a subject, taken the place of the British Empire, on which—as your Lordships will be well aware—the sun never set. It does not exactly now never set, but it continues to insist on setting at different times.
This is the first time that this ever-recurrent debate has taken place since devolution. It is as well to remind ourselves that the setting of time zones in the United Kingdom is a reserve power of the Westminster Parliament. Primary legislation, such as the Bill presently before the House, is required to alter that status.
As your Lordships are continually reminded, the problem is that the further west one goes, the later in relative terms are the hours of daylight, and the difference in hours of daylight as between winter and summer increases the further north one goes. Since Edinburgh is west of Bristol, the majority of Scotland lies not only to the north of England but to the west. Therefore, the real concern, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, pointed out, is the incidence of dawn in the winter. The extension of summer time is therefore unpopular with northern farmers—as we know—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Howie, reminded us, with the construction industry. It is also unpopular with other industries with a practice

1275
of starting early, but popular with such bodies as RoSPA, already referred to by my noble friend Lord Archer, because motorists, tired at the end of the day, are more likely to be involved in road accidents in poor light at the end of a day than at the beginning.
Many of the arguments advanced have similar pros and cons. It would be a waste of your Lordships' time to rehearse them here. The argument that anyone transacting financial business must have continental business hours ever before him can be countered by the argument that a shift to continental time would result in less of an overlap with North American office hours.
The narrow, nationalistic two-nations argument has been mercifully absent from this debate. However, I leave your Lordships with one thought. Time zones may be described as either "tall and thin"—like Chile—or "squat"—like continental Europe. The United Kingdom falls into the tall and thin category. The taller and thinner, the greater the argument for a unified time zone within that area.
I have looked at various places in the Central European Time zone. The difference between Stockholm and Madrid is 19 degrees in latitude and 21 degrees in longitude. The difference between London and Ullapool is eight degrees in latitude and five degrees in longitude. On both counts, that is markedly less than the Central European Time zone. If the disparate nations within the Central European Time zone can manage on a single time, it is surely ridiculous that two component parts of the United Kingdom with far less maximum distance between extremities should seek to have separate ones. After all, the problem is one with which communities in other countries have learned to live. I make it clear that I am not arguing against our joining the Central European Time zone but against having a split between two time zones in the United Kingdom, as proposed by the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Archer.
There is a more basic reason for not supporting the Bill. Although I speak on this occasion for myself, I am aware that—as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has reminded us—on these Benches we proposed that the question of time zones should he devolved to Scotland. That argument was lost. Now that devolution is with us, the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition is to make it work effectively. That means not only do we wish all success and effectiveness to the Scottish Parliament but also we want to preserve the delicate balance of the precious relationship between the four countries that make up the United Kingdom.
Under the Scotland Act, the powers to fix time zones in the United Kingdom were, as I have said, expressly reserved to Westminster for good reasons, some of which I have alluded to. To tinker with the balance between the two Parliaments and the Welsh Assembly so soon after devolution—less than one month—I suggest would cast doubt on the serious intentions of the Government's commitment to the devolution process. It would also send the wrong message not only to Scotland and Wales, but to the whole of the United Kingdom.
On the matter of whether the United Kingdom as a whole joins the Western European Time zone, I am broadly in sympathy. As a first stage, I suggest that it is
1276
necessary to win over Scottish opinion to the idea. In that respect, I am interested in the reference by my noble friend Lord Archer to the Scottish chambers of commerce. I am not sure how the statistics work, but if 88 per cent of the country wants this change there must be a considerable majority in Scotland also in favour of it.
If Scottish opinion can be won over, there may be a chance of an all-party consensus on the matter in Westminster. I hear that the intention of my noble friend Lord Archer is to continue this fight. I hope that he will continue it on the basis of a unified time zone in the United Kingdom falling in with that of Europe.
I cannot support the Bill, but in accordance with the custom in your Lordships' House, I shall not vote against it.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Archer, on his success in introducing this Bill. It deals, if only indirectly, with a subject which I know is close to his heart. The noble Lord promoted the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill, with which I agreed. He knows that is a matter close to my heart.
The House has debated the question of time zones, arid whether the UK should adopt Central European Time, on numerous occasions. The noble Lord's Bill has introduced a new element to these now familiar arguments, for which the House is grateful.
The noble Lord has made it clear that he is a keen advocate of Central European Time, at least for England. As the House will know, this is a subject on which the Government traditionally take a neutral position. However, the introduction of Central European Time is not the purpose of the Bill. The noble Lord proposes that the three nations of Great Britain—England, Scotland and Wales—should be able to choose their own time zone, and set their own summertime arrangements. On that essential purpose of the Bill, I part company with the noble Lord.
Before I turn to the substantive arguments, I shall deal first with some basic points. Under the Scotland Act 1998 and the Summertime Act 1972, time zones are reserved to the Westminster Parliament. The Bill seeks to remove those matters from the list of reservations. However, I remind the House that amendments to do just that were defeated during the passage of that legislation, only a few months ago.
Furthermore, we believe that the Bill is defectively drafted in its application to Wales. It purports to rely on the powers in Section 25 of the Government of Wales Act. However, that deals with transfer of property to the Assembly, not transfer of functions. But, in any event, there are no ministerial functions, as regards time zones or summertime, which could be transferred to the Assembly under existing mechanisms.
Devolving the subject matter of the Summertime Act 1972 would also cause difficulty. As your Lordships will know, the 1972 Act provides a mechanism for setting the period of summertime. For several years that period has been agreed by EU partners and is the subject of EC directives. There has been complete harmonisation of both start and end dates of summertime since 1996. The

1277
Westminster Government are responsible for negotiating those directives on a nation-wide basis and will continue to be responsible for their implementation. As it stands, the Bill is at odds with that.
But we see other problems with this Bill, in both principle and practicality. If enacted, it would enable Scotland and Wales to set their own time zones. The United Kingdom is a small island which does not span the sort of area where there is natural movement from one time zone to another. Countries like the USA and Australia are so vast that they can comfortably accommodate different time zones. None of our EU partners has more than one time zone, even those significantly larger than us, such as France and Sweden. Separate time zones within Great Britain would be an artificial construct, and could cause unnecessary fragmentation. In fact, I fear that this proposal would do nothing to support or strengthen the Union—rather the reverse.
This is not to deny that there are geographical differences within the United Kingdom which can affect people's lives. It is clear that with his Bill the noble Lord is seeking to deal with the objections that are sometimes raised in Scotland to the possible adoption of Central European Time. This is not, as far as I am aware, an issue of controversy in Wales. The adoption of CET would mean that we all experienced an hour less of daylight on winter mornings but an hour more in the late afternoons and evenings.
I understand that even under GMT there are areas in Scotland where in winter the sun does not rise until after 9 a.m. Concern about the potential effect of CET on various aspects of Scottish life is therefore understandable. But the amounts of daylight available in the morning also vary from one part of England to another. Indeed, some areas of England, particularly those near the Border, may have winter mornings as dark as some in Scotland. We also have to remember that time zones are a consequence of longitude rather than latitude. Simply drawing lines around the constituent countries of Great Britain and enabling them to operate their own time zones would not, in my view, be a sensible way to proceed. It is a fact of life that whatever the time zone in a given area, people will be affected differently depending on their specific geographical position.
With regard to the points made by my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon, I agree that this is a national issue and that it should remain that way. In relation to the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, it is my view that the issue of Scotland has been resolved; and that is the way, at this point in time, it should remain.
The adoption of CET would constitute a significant change. We do not consider that there is evidence of sufficient consensus to justify that change; but the Government remain willing to listen to all sides of the argument, which I have no doubt will continue to be made.
As I have made clear, we have difficulties with the noble Lord's Bill. Some of these are technical, but there are also real matters of substance here. We do not believe
1278
that this measure would be in the best interests of Great Britain or its people. For the reasons I have outlined, the Government therefore feel that they would be unable to lend their support to this Bill.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords for taking part in this debate and the Minister for his reply. If he will forgive me, I shall turn to his reply at the end and begin with the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, who, in a moment of breathtaking disbelief, told us that this was not a House in which to have a political debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, has been a feisty fighter for causes his whole life. Has he suddenly arrived on the Red Benches as some wimpish pawn who no longer wishes to fight for a cause? No. For he then gets up and fights for his cause with all the energy we have grown to expect from him, so we must dismiss that thought. I have every right to bring a political debate to this House and I have every right to fight for a cause in this House in a rough and ready, and indeed populist way.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I have no objection to the noble Lord referring to me in those vigorous terms, but I do wish that he would refer to what I said as opposed to what he would prefer me to have said. I did not say that we should not have political fights in this Chamber; indeed, we have had them for a very long time. I said that this was not the place for electioneering, especially of a blatant sort.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I can only say to the noble Lord that he should start roaming around the Corridors of this building because he will see the most blatant electioneering for which Members will remain here in a few weeks' or a year's time than I have seen in the back streets of any constituency.
The noble Lord also said that this Bill had come up again and again in different forms, as if that was some excuse for it not being considered. However, we all remember that having seat-belts in cars came up in the Commons again and again until, finally, the government thought that it was right to bring it in and make it law. I have never met anyone who has suggested that having seat-belts in cars was wrong and that we should now reverse it. I suggest to the noble Lord that bringing up a matter again and again is not a bad thing—except, perhaps, that it takes a little time. Indeed, it may take me the rest of my life to convert the noble Lord to my cause.
Then, in stentorian tones, the noble Lord added that it was vainglorious for a Back-Bencher to bring forward such a Bill. I should remind him that I brought forward a Bill earlier this week which went straight through because the Government wanted it to do so. Perhaps I may also remind him that I brought forward the primogenitor Bill in this House and the Front Bench liked it so much that they asked me to withdraw it so that they could introduce

1279
it. Surely Back-Benchers have the right to bring forward anything. I was simply hoping that the Minister would say, "We don't totally agree with this Bill, but we will bring our own version to the House". Again, I would have left the House this evening a very happy man.
Then the noble Lord asked, "Do you really expect people to be able to travel from Carlisle into Scotland and master—handle—how to move the clock forward one hour or back one hour"? They are doing it every day in the Channel Tunnel—the same intelligent people. Is he suggesting that there are no Scots travelling through that tunnel managing this magnificent piece of science?
However, I must apologise to the noble Lord because he did ask, while looking at me with a smile, whether remembered Glasgow during the war. I must confess to him that I do not. Although this has nothing to do with the Bill, I am bound to say that I find Glasgow a most attractive city; indeed, I was not surprised that it was the European cultural city of the year. Over the years that I have seen it, it has become one of Britain's most attractive cities. Therefore, I am unable to agree with him on that matter. Nevertheless, I look forward to debating this subject with the noble Lord.
I turn now to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Montgomery, who has studied this subject in depth. I was delighted to hear him go over the arguments. Of course, I should like one time zone for the whole of Britain. It was an excuse to bring the Bill before the House. I think it no more than common sense; indeed, I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench and the Minister that I give way to that completely. It has to be one time zone. I believe that the Minister referred to some unbelievable part of Scotland, which is almost off the map, where there are probably three sheep, a dog and one shepherd. However, this has to influence 8 million people in London. I think that the Minister is pushing his luck.
I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, how sorry I am that he feels that this is his last speech in the House. I am sure that all of us are glad to be here to hear him and to thank him for his support. I hope that I may make one political point to him. He rightly says that we must not allow this to become—the Minister also mentioned this—a division between the four nations. He rightly said that we cannot afford to have that kind of division when we have only just had devolution. I am bound to say to him that if in his lifetime he sees the Scottish Nationalists take over the Scottish Parliament, people will ask why we should do exactly what Scotland wants when the Scots have made it clear that they want their own country and independence. Noble Lords will see me back here fighting twice as hard for this Bill if the Scots demand independence. Frankly, if they get independence, the argument that we should all be in line will not have the same strength and the same validity.
1280
I must apologise to my noble friend on the Front Bench for misleading him or being inarticulate. The figure that 88 per cent of people support this change emerged from a poll that was taken in London, not in the whole of Great Britain.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am most grateful.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I felt sure that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, would give us the figures relating to Scotland, but he did not. I have kept them up my sleeve. Some 57 per cent of people in Scotland are against this Bill and this concept; 43 per cent are in favour.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, before my noble friend continues, I am sure he will realise that on all occasions that we have tried to move this cause forward to achieve a unified European time; it has only been the small Scots lobby that has caused it to fall.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I am left in no doubt of the power of the small Scots lobby. I pointed out the domination of Scots in the highest levels of the Cabinet. I realise that the chance of this measure being accepted while the Scots hold so many positions in the Cabinet is small. However many people thought that I had won the argument, by the time the measure reached the Cabinet that fact would become insignificant.
I turn finally to the Minister's speech. I thank him for his courteous and kind remarks. He paid me the compliment of saying that I take this Bill and this concept extremely seriously. I recall the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, about the dreadful accident in Scotland in which children were killed. However, I have to weigh against that other accidents that have occurred at other times. These terrible things happen but at the end of the day you have to weigh up what may save the most lives. I take that point seriously.
I was disappointed that the Minister was not able to tell my noble friend Lord Montgomery that an inquiry into this matter would be carried out and that he would consider returning to this issue. He failed to answer my noble friend's point on that. I would have gone home a happier man tonight if he had said either that the Government intended to bring forward their own Bill—which was obviously asking for too much—or that the Government take this matter so seriously they will conduct an inquiry and present the results to the House. I say to my noble friend that I back his idea 100 per cent.
I thank the Minister for his comments. I hear his arguments and I understand his political position. I even accept that the excuse with which I brought the Bill forward has its weaknesses. However, I do not believe that the argument is any less convincing for that. It is for that reason that I shall not disappear into the mist and forget that this debate ever took place. I shall return to fight another day. I invite the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past four o'clock.

  Entry Clearance: Independent Monitor's Report
  Entry Clearance: Independent Monitor's Report
  New Millennium Experience Company: Annual Report and Accounts
  New Millennium Experience Company: Annual Report and Accounts
  Magistrates' Court Service: Chief Inspector's Annual Report
  Magistrates' Court Service: Chief Inspector's Annual Report
  Ashworth Special Hospital, Personality Disorder Unit: Inquiry Report Response
  Ashworth Special Hospital, Personality Disorder Unit: Inquiry Report Response
  Assisted Area Populations
  Assisted Area Populations
  Assisted Area Proposals
  Assisted Area Proposals
  GM Crops: US Research Data
  GM Crops: US Research Data
  A.2, Kender Street, SE14: Traffic Lights
  A.2, Kender Street, SE14: Traffic Lights
  UK European Union Presidency Events: Sponsorship
  UK European Union Presidency Events: Sponsorship
  Payment of Bills by Government Departments
  Payment of Bills by Government Departments