Sitting of 26 July 1999

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION (AMENDMENT OF RULES) BILL
Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Sports Strategy
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: If he will make a statement on progress with the development of the Government's sports strategy. [91339]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): We are making excellent progress with the development of our sports strategy. I expect to publish it in the autumn. It will focus on three priority areas: sport in schools, lifelong participation in sport and excellence at national and international level.
    Dr. Starkey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of the success of the American women's football
    2
    team in the women's world cup can be put down to the legislation known as Title 9, which was passed in 1972 and barred schools and colleges from federal funding unless they provided equal sporting opportunities for girls and women? What will he be doing to ensure that schools and colleges in this country provide good opportunities for women and girls to participate in sport, since we clearly need to take radical action if we are to improve our sporting performance?
    Mr. Smith: One of the central themes of our report will be to ensure that everyone, regardless of age, gender, ethnic background or ability, has the chance to participate in and enjoy sport. We want to make sure, in particular, that girls have full opportunities at school to develop their sporting ability. The development of the new school sports co-ordinators with support from the national lottery will, I hope, go a long way towards achieving that.
    If I have a slight criticism of my hon. Friend, it is that she does not pay enough tribute to some of our national women's sporting teams, which are doing extremely well in a number of different sports.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State has mentioned sport in schools. Will he intervene directly with Lancashire county council, which has cut by half the amount of time in which pupils in years 5 and 6 can be taught swimming? He will appreciate not only that swimming is important as one of the best forms of exercise, but that swimming skills can save lives. The rhetoric about sport in schools is fine, but youngsters are now having only half the swimming lessons that they were receiving only 12 months ago. Will the right hon. Gentleman intervene directly with Lancashire county council to restore to youngsters the swimming lessons that they desperately need?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the importance of swimming, particularly for pupils' future life-saving abilities and as a good, healthy exercise for

    3
    young people. I shall certainly want to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
    Ms Gisela Stuart: I am the trustee of an organisation called Local Leagues, which is based in Birmingham and aims to encourage children to play sports, particularly football and cricket, outside school hours. One of the problems that we are facing is the availability of suitable fields in the city. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that his Department co-ordinates action with the Department for Education and Employment and local government to ensure that there is access to appropriate sites and to schools outside school hours?
    Mr. Smith: I will indeed. The new opportunities fund, which uses new funds from the national lottery, will assist my hon. Friend in two ways. First, the money for out of school hours clubs will mean that sporting activities can be promoted and financially supported. Secondly, the green spaces initiative, which the new opportunities fund is undertaking, will enable new green areas and playing fields to be created where they are needed.
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: What sports and initiatives for the over-50s are contained in the action plan? Will the right hon. Gentleman state what will happen to ballroom dancing, which is a major sport for the over-50s?
    Mr. Smith: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that sport for the over-50s will feature in our report, because part of the report's main thrust is lifelong participation in sport and sporting activity. On the specific question of ballroom dancing, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see.
    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: As part of the Government's wider sporting strategy, we are bidding to host the 2006 world cup, which will act as a spur to youngsters, particularly in football. My right hon. Friend will know that the issue of Manchester United and the FA cup is causing great concern. Will he tell us what the Government's latest position on that is?
    Mr. Smith: That is a matter for the Football Association and Manchester United, not the Government. However, the Minister for Sport and I have made it clear that we hope that Manchester United will be able to play in the world tournament in Brazil, because that is important for the success of our 2006 world cup bid, and if a sensible way can be found for Manchester United to participate in the FA cup as well, no one would be more pleased than us.
    I take this opportunity to pay considerable tribute to the work that my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has done in promoting our 2006 world cup bid. Indeed, if we are successful next year in securing the world cup for England, it will be in no small measure due to his efforts.
    Mr. Richard Spring: As the dear, revered leader and Alastair Campbell plan the Front-Bench reshuffle this week, may I express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will survive the experience? When Rodney Walker, David Oxley, Trevor Brooking
    4
    and Craig Reedie are forced to appeal direct to the Prime Minister, does he not recognise that, in practice, the Government are busily destroying sport in schools?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense, and such a remark comes ill from a representative of a party that sold off more than 5,000 school playing fields during its time in office.

    New Books
    Dr. Howard Stoate: What assessment he has made of the investment in new books made in each of the past three years by library authorities; and if he will make a statement. [91341]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): Data collected by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy show that library expenditure in England on books and pamphlets was £83.4 million in 1996–97, £74.5 million in 1997–98 and an estimated £77.5 million in 1998–99. The level of book expenditure will be covered in the new national library standards that we aim to introduce in 2000–01.
    Dr. Stoate: Does my hon. Friend agree that that rather unsatisfactory result has been produced by the previous Government's failure to invest properly in libraries and education in general? What do the Government intend to do to rectify the situation, and what will their proposals mean to my constituents in Dartford?
    Mr. Howarth: Sadly, my hon. Friend is right about the very destructive squeeze on libraries expenditure which we inherited. Local authorities have had their best settlement for seven years. They also have a statutory duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient service, and my right hon. Friend and I are determined that they should do so. Hitherto, a comprehensive and efficient service was never defined, but we are requiring local authorities to produce annual library plans and we are in discussion with the Library Association and the Local Government Association to develop public libraries standards, which will include a benchmark for new book purchasing.
    Mr. Christopher Fraser: Government expenditure under this Administration is less than under the previous Administration. In 1995–96 it was £171 million; in 1999–2000 it is £90 million. How can the Minister justify that?
    Mr. Howarth: I do not seek to justify the plans that we were driven to adopt from the previous Administration.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: In the 20th century, our use of leisure and workplace time has changed and many of us need access to libraries on Saturdays and Sundays. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the Library Association and the Local Government Association about achieving fuller opening on Saturday afternoons and all-day opening on Sundays?
    Mr. Howarth: The vision that my hon. Friend holds out is very attractive, and that is one of the matters we are considering in our discussions with the Library

    5
    Association about standards for libraries; but he will be well aware that opening libraries for the hours that we would both wish would be costly.

    Regional Theatres
    Mr. David Ruffley: If he will make a statement on the funding of regional theatres. [91342]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): Some 27 per cent.—more than £50 million—of grant in aid distributed by the Arts Council of England and the regional arts boards is planned to go to drama, including regional theatres, in 1999–2000. In addition, in recognition of the difficulties that many regional theatres continue to face, the Arts Council is undertaking a review of producing theatre in the regions.
    Mr. Ruffley: Can the Minister give me an assurance that Eastern Arts will not cut the funding to the Theatre Royal, Bury St. Edmunds, in the coming financial year?
    Mr. Howarth: Funding for Eastern Arts from grant in aid is up 15.4 per cent. It is for Eastern Arts to judge how to distribute that funding across theatres in its region.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend will be aware of the theatre by the lake development in my constituency—beside the lake beneath the trees. He will know that it is possibly the most innovative theatre development in western Europe. When will Ministers in his Department be coming to visit us?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend's invitation is seductive. I know about his determination in representing his constituency, and it would be difficult for us, even were we minded to do so, to decline his invitation.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement about the performance of the national lottery in relation to funds raised for (a) good causes and (b) the new opportunities fund. [91343]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): At the end of June 1999, over £7.7 billion had been raised for the good causes, including £564 million for the new opportunities fund. Earlier this month, the new opportunities fund announced its first awards, worth £1.8 million, for the out of school hours child care programme. That is creating a total of nearly 9,000 new out of school child care places. Twelve new summer holiday play schemes funded by NOF opened today.
    Mr. Swayne: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that some things ought properly to be paid for out of taxation and that, had that been the case, the original good causes would now be £3.7 billion better off?
    Mr. Smith: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic escapes him. As I said earlier, £564 million has been made available for the new opportunities fund to
    6
    date. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, during the licence period, at least £1.85 billion is available to each of the original good causes, which is more than they were originally expected to receive. Would the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench remove that funding for out of school places? Would they remove the holiday play schemes and cut the funding for child care? That is the implication of what they are asking us to do.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I express appreciation to my right hon. Friend for the initiative that he took to help the former coal mining areas? We look forward to further developments in that respect. May I make a special plea? Some of the mining villages, which had to depend on the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation for sport and recreational activities, now find that there is a tremendous shortage of such activities. Such facilities as could be provided are important for some of those villages. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that this issue is not lost and that small villages, such as Sharlstom in my constituency, can look forward to some assistance to develop their recreation and entertainment facilities?
    Mr. Smith: I can, indeed, give my hon. Friend that assurance. Part of the findings of the research that we have undertaken demonstrates that the former coalfield areas have not done as well as the national average in terms of their receipt of funds from the lottery. That applies across the board, including arts and sport. We are now undertaking urgent work with the lottery distributers to try to rectify that imbalance.

    Television Licence Concessions
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will report progress on the review of concessions relating to the television licence. [91344]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The BBC funding review panel, which is examining the structure of the concessionary licence scheme and whether a suitable alternative structure could be available, will report to my right hon. Friend very shortly. Copies of the report will be sent to all Members of the House. There will then be a period of public consultation on the panel's recommendations.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I recognise that six different groups of concessions prevail, but is the Minister in favour of looking again at the rather meagre £1.25 reduction for blind people and at whether the concession should be extended to deaf people? Is not this whole problem created by the fact that this is a classic case of "create an exception and anomalies abound"?
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman is right. I reassure him that the Government accept that the reduction currently available to blind people is of little help. The review panel will no doubt wish to consider this matter in the context of the concessionary arrangements as a whole, but I would not want to pre-empt its recommendations. We recognise that past attempts to address the anomalies of the concessionary scheme

    7
    individually have done nothing to improve the scheme. That is why the review panel has been asked to consider the scheme as a whole.
    Mr. David Winnick: Does not the Department receive more correspondence on this subject than on any other? Since I tried to introduce a private Member's Bill on this issue on 16 January 1987, the problem has not gone away. Why is it not possible for a scheme to be introduced giving the over-70s a reduction of a third or a half? Pensioners up and down the country are asking for a concession. They are right to do so, and it is time the House of Commons acted.
    Janet Anderson: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in this area to highlight the issue. He is right that the Department receives more correspondence on this matter than on any other subject. There has been some speculation in the press that the panel may recommend withdrawing the concession from existing beneficiaries. The panel has yet to report, and I cannot anticipate its recommendations. However, there is no question that the Government would withdraw the concession, and we hope that the review panel, when it reports, will propose different options to improve the scheme, one of which may be my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady is taking the concessions issue seriously. Does she share my surprise that an organisation that currently receives about £2.25 billion a year from a hypothecated tax seems to think that that is not enough? Should not the BBC start by redefining what the licence fee is for, before digging further into the pockets of television viewers?
    I know that the hon. Lady is not short of advice on broadcasting. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) is today making a speech which provides further unsought advice. May I offer her some pleasant holiday reading? Our submission to the BBC funding review panel, entitled "Fair Funding for the BBC", contains some helpful advice on concessions.
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman was a parliamentary private secretary in this Department under the previous Government, and I am glad that he continues to take a serious interest in the funding of the BBC. The BBC plays a central role in our aspirations for broadcasting and for the delivery of high-quality public service output into the digital age. The aim of the review is to ensure the BBC's continuing ability to meet its obligations to its viewers and its listeners, and to operate successfully in a competitive marketplace.
    The Government have, time and again, made it plain that we believe that the licence fee is sustainable at least until the run-up to the renewal of the BBC's charter in 2006. Though an imperfect funding mechanism, it is the best means of providing the BBC with sufficient security to continue to meet its obligations to its audiences, and to invest in the future of broadcasting.

    Local Commercial Radio
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What representations he has received on the regulation of local commercial radio broadcasting. [91345]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The Government frequently receive representations on the regulation of local commercial radio broadcasting from industry organisations, radio companies and other interested parties. The Government recently published the results of our consultation on the convergence Green Paper, in which we addressed the wide-ranging responses about the licensing and regulation of radio.
    Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she share my concern that local commercial radio has become less local? I am informed that GWR owns 33 local radio stations and HBA owns 27. It often seems that the same music is played on all the stations at the same time, from a national play list. Some good local musicians and the Musicians Union are frustrated that they cannot get their music played on local radio. Can my hon. Friend suggest what can be done to make local radio more local?
    Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is right. It is certainly true that the programming of the larger groups such as GWR, Capital and Emap is based on central playlists, but there will be station variations, particularly when certain music is more popular in one area than in another.
    The answer to my hon. Friend's question, essentially, is that it is for the radio stations to specify their intended formats when they apply for a licence. That could include a commitment to promote local music. It is for the Radio Authority to award a licence to the applicant that it considers offers the format that will best meet local needs. I know that that continues to be a priority for the authority, and it is precisely because of public concerns such as this that it is nervous of any further relaxation of the ownership rules.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Lady pay tribute to Tony Stoller, the chief executive of the Radio Authority, and his deputy David Vick, for the regulation of radio? Over the past five years, radio has expanded more in this country than during any other period. Does the hon. Lady accept, however, that companies such as GWR are now interested in obtaining digital licences? What assurance can she give that there will be no added levy on either radio or television digital licences?
    Janet Anderson: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the two people who look after the Radio Authority. As for his question about speculation in the press, it was a good try, but I will not pre-empt the outcome of the review panel's findings.

    Youth Sports
    Ms Linda Perham: What support his Department provides for youth sports. [91346]
    Mr. John Bercow: What plans he has to increase the opportunities for young people to play sports. [91347]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): The Government fund Sport England to develop programmes for young people. They do that through their active schools programme, which aims to provide every young person with the opportunity to learn foundation skills and participate in the sport or physical activity of his or her choice. Current initiatives include top play, BT top sport, coaching for teachers, sportsmark and the sporting ambassadors scheme. New developments will include the appointment of up to 600 active schools co-ordinators and the launch of the active primary schools award. In addition, Sport England will be introducing its active sports programme in the year 2000, with the aim of helping children and young people to achieve more from their chosen sport.
    Ms Perham: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Will he join me in congratulating the young people of the London borough of Redbridge, who in each of the past 10 years have finished first or second in the London Heathrow youth games—the biggest sporting event for young people in Europe?
    The millennium youth games will take place next year. What can my hon. Friend's Department do to ensure that the impetus of that event, which will involve 250,000 young people in the United Kingdom, will not be lost, at a time when local councils' sports development budgets are being cut?
    Mr. Banks: I know of my hon. Friend's close association with the London Heathrow youth games. It goes back some years, as does my own. Indeed, mine goes back somewhat longer, to the days of the Greater London council and the establishment of the games. [Interruption.] It has all been said before, Madam Speaker.
    Redbridge has done particularly well, and I congratulate it on its active promotion of school sports. I hope that my borough of Newham will achieve a similar distinction at next year's games. The London Heathrow youth games have produced some of our best athletes: Steve Backley, whom I saw at the AAA championships in Birmingham on Saturday, is one of its products, as is John Regis. It is great to see that the games can be used as a way of encouraging our young talent. We in the Department will do all that we can to ensure their further development, and to extend them throughout the country—as they will be extended in the millennium youth games.
    Mr. Bercow: Many schools in my Buckingham constituency complain that there is now less time for sport than ever before, and despite the admirable efforts of the Lawn Tennis Association, only 10 per cent. of schools in Britain are currently members of the British Schools Tennis Association. What evidence can the hon. Gentleman offer the House that state schools—of which
    10
    he and I are both products—now offer children more opportunities to play and learn tennis than before he took office?
    Mr. Banks: It is at times like that—when I hear that the hon. Gentleman and I have had a shared experience—that I wish I had come from Eton, but I did not. There has been a marked falling off in competitive sport in schools. Between 1987 and 1994, it declined by about 75 per cent. That is not unconnected, I might add, with the disputes that the Conservative party had with teachers when it was in government. We are doing what we can to encourage competitive sport between schools and in school.
    With regard to tennis, the LTA is putting a considerable amount of money—about £30 million a year—into the development of tennis at the grass roots. We have had much discussion about that. The LTA is specifically aiming at encouraging tennis in state schools and in inner-city areas, where enormous talent, we believe, is waiting to be identified and developed. I share with the hon. Gentleman a great desire for us to recapture, one day, the men's singles title at Wimbledon, which remains our most highly valued but elusive sports triumph—not excluding the world cup.
    Ms Bridget Prentice: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the reason why competitive sport in schools has failed so miserably in recent years is the fact that the Conservative Government presided over the sale of 5,000 school playing fields, as well as a drop of some 70 per cent. in competitive fixtures between state schools? Does he think that active school co-ordinators may have a role in trying to rectify that?
    Mr. Banks: At this sensitive time in the political cycle, perhaps cross-party recriminations can be put on one side, although, of course, I agree with my hon. Friend: we are doing our best to clear up the mess that we inherited. The whole idea of the 600 active school co-ordinators is to bring back to our schools that degree of inter-school competitive sport that is so missing and which causes many problems in a number of team sports at national and international level. That is the co-ordinators' aim. It is also to create greater links between schools and local sports clubs.
    I hope that, over the years, these policies will come to fruition, which will mean, we hope, more medals and championships, and higher quality sport at national and international level.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Minister for Sport convey to his beloved Chelsea football club our appreciation that it has decided to come to Northern Ireland to play a match against Omagh, and to provide a training camp for young people in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that visits by top-class sporting representatives of all sports to the regions of the United Kingdom give real incentive and encouragement to young people to acquire skills and to develop their sporting interest? Will he give us assistance in Northern Ireland to ensure that the Sports Council for Northern Ireland can provide even better facilities for all our young people there?
    Mr. Banks: I am delighted to be able to pass on to my friends at Chelsea football club the thanks of the hon. Gentleman. Of course, I will have to speak in tongues in order to communicate with them, but I am more than happy to do so. I look forward to going to see that match because, as he knows, I was born in Belfast. It is nice to see the way in which the two can come together.
    I am not the Northern Ireland Minister for Sport. For the life of me, I do not know who is, but I am sure that someone will refresh my memory in due course. [HON. MEMBERS: "It's you."] Perhaps it is me, but no one told me.
    For many years, I have thought that a national stadium for the Northern Irish football team, for example, is desperately needed. I will do everything I can to support any calls or moves to construct one in that part of the country.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: May I wish the Minister well in whatever changes this week may bring? Our Monday gatherings would not be the same without him. Does he agree that, when considering how to encourage younger people into sport, the professional bodies in sport should set a good example? We have heard from the Secretary of State earlier, but I should like the Minister's views on the decision to allow Manchester United to opt out of next season's FA cup, and to shut the door on compromise solutions—which his own Secretary of State has supported—suggested by the Football Association and others. What type of example does such a decision set for young people, and what message does it send to fans?
    Mr. Banks: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his concern. All I can say is that I am sure that he will keep his job a lot longer than I shall keep mine, if only because I intend to retire at 65.
    My right hon. Friend has already made the point that it would have been very good—it will still be very good, if it is at all possible—to have Manchester United playing in both competitions. However, I should also tell the hon. Gentleman that considerable effort was made to try to find a way of helping Manchester United out of its fixture congestion in January, when the world club championship is due to be played, so that it could remain in both competitions. So far, although great efforts have been made in the past, and undoubtedly efforts will be made in future, it has not proven possible to do that.
    Nevertheless, the idea that I could personally order Manchester United out of the FA cup—or that I could instruct the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the Football Association, the premier league and the board of Manchester United—would necessarily mean that my power is awesome. I am afraid that, as much as I should like it to be, it is not. Therefore, good offices will continue to be used, and I shall, as ever, keep the hon. Gentleman closely informed.

  MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE

    Fire Precautions
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on fire precautions and procedures in the millennium dome. [91369]
    Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will list the fire precautions at the millennium dome; and if he will make a statement. [91371]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): Fire safety engineering has been at the heart of the designs for the millennium experience from the outset. Comprehensive strategies have been developed and employed in partnership with the New Millennium Experience Company's own fire consultants and with the local authority. The NMEC has aimed to ensure that the risk of fire occurring is minimised and that, should a fire occur, occupants are able to move to safety quickly and in a controlled manner.
    Mr. Robathan: Last week, I visited the dome. Before the reshuffle, would the Secretary of State pass on my thanks, and those of hon. Members on both sides of the House, to Lord Falconer for his role in that visit?
    Very many—possibly the majority—of visitors to the dome will be children, and great effort is being made to encourage disabled people to visit it. The reassuring response that the Minster has just given notwithstanding, on that visit it seemed to me and to other hon. Members that in such an enclosed space—which will contain many children and disabled people—there was the possibility of some real safety problems. Will the Minister further reassure the House and say what specific action she has taken to look after the needs of disabled people should there be a fire or any other emergency at the dome?
    Janet Anderson: I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman enjoyed his visit to the dome—140 hon. Members made the visit, and were very impressed with what they saw. It is important that the public should be reassured about public safety, and I make it clear that, in planning the event, safety—including that of the disabled and of children—has been our prime concern. I should also like to repeat the remarks of Ian Johnston, assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, at this morning's launch of "Big Time", which will be the new year's eve party. He said:
    "We have great confidence that we can provide a safe and secure environment where the public can enjoy themselves at this exciting event."
    Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister estimate how long it would take to evacuate the dome in the event of an emergency, and how long it would take for the emergency services to enter the dome in such circumstances? Do she and the Department have any plans to co-ordinate emergency procedures for the many tourists whom we hope will come from other European countries?

    13
    Perhaps they could give some guidance to those who, in the event of a fire, might be evacuated from the new ghastly European Parliament building in Strasbourg.
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Lady never misses a trick—I am not sure that the building to which she refers is our responsibility.
    The fire precaution strategies at the dome have ranged from careful sizing and positioning of protected corridors and exits to the selection of construction materials which themselves have a low fire load. Active measures have been adopted, with large smoke extract fans incorporated into the dome roof and sprinklers included, where appropriate, in enclosed spaces.
    Mr. Christopher Fraser: How long would it take?
    Janet Anderson: Hang on a minute. The New Millennium Experience Company has carried out a number of computer simulations including, for example, the time taken for occupants to move to safety. We recognise that the timing is important, and I hope that we can give the House some more accurate information nearer the time.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend has a great deal of experience in this House, and she must take with a large amount of salt the co-ordinated questions on fire safety at the millennium dome that have been tabled today. Is not it a fact that the Opposition have lost the battle? They have consistently criticised the dome and tried to undermine it as an enterprise. It is now on track to become an enormous success, and all they can do is try to raise a public scare about something that has been extremely well catered for. Are not they a pathetic Opposition, who are now realising what a success the millennium dome will be?
    Janet Anderson: I have been reassured by Opposition Members' support for the project. Following conversations with Opposition spokesmen, I am aware that they now share our opinion that the project will be a great success.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Not for the first time, may I put on record the Opposition's continuing and consistent support for the project—which, you will recall, Madam Speaker, originated under the Conservative Government? It is utter nonsense to pretend that we have criticised and carped about it. I have pointed that out several times in this place.
    While acknowledging that one of the many thousands of tasks that needs to be completed over the next 159 days is ensuring public safety, may I ask the Minister to join me in congratulating Jennie Page and all those working on the site, who have never lost heart in the project and have been inspired by it? That inspiration—despite the regrettable public attitude that still exists—is the best hope that the dome will soon be a great success.
    Janet Anderson: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Jennie Page, and to David Trench, the construction director at the dome. Their contribution to making sure that the project is on time and
    14
    on target has been beyond the call of duty. Hon. Members will wish to know that the New Millennium Experience Company has produced its annual report and accounts, which will be available in the Vote Office. All hon. Members will receive a millennium bulletin from us shortly, which will keep them up to date with further developments.

    Dome
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What steps are being taken to ensure that cooking smells in the millennium dome are neutralised. [91370]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The majority of kitchens in the dome have an air extraction plant which takes the air out of the dome. A few have filtered air-cleaning systems. Both will ensure that cooking smells are kept to a minimum.
    Mr. Prentice: That was a good answer to something that has been perplexing me. There are to be 37 eating outlets in the dome, as I learned when I joined the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) in a visit there a few days ago. One of the 37 is McDonald's, which will be opening its 1,000th outlet in the UK. It occurred to me that we should use the dome to celebrate the great regional dishes and culinary diversity of this country. Can my hon. Friend reassure me that the 37 outlets will include restaurants where we can sample some of the great United Kingdom dishes of which we are so fond?
    Janet Anderson: I understand that the 37 outlets cover a diversity of eating opportunities. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not be disappointed.

  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Millennium Compliance
    Mr. James Plaskitt: What progress is being made on the state of readiness of the national infrastructure in preparation for the millennium date change. [91379]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The latest results of the independent assessments of key sectors and processes of the infrastructure were announced at the national infrastructure forum on 13 July. They show that key elements including water, telecommunications, postal services, benefit payments, cash distribution and railway safety systems have achieved blue status, indicating that the assessments have not identified any risk of material disruption over the date change period, which is of course welcome news.
    There has been good progress since the previous report in April, but there is still much to complete in some programmes. Local authorities and financial institutions have a small number of reds, indicating that they are significantly behind in their preparations and will require

    15
    a concerted effort over the next few months to avoid possible material disruption to their services over the date change and beyond.
    Mr. Plaskitt: Six local authorities have been given a red classification, one of which is Warwick district council. The assessment appears to have been based on a questionnaire organised by KPMG. Warwick district council is fully ready in terms of outcomes and is of the view that there is a very low risk of material disruption, but it was given a red because of KPMG's emphasis on processes, which has given a misleading impression. Before there is a further check on progress, will my right hon. Friend review the assessment criteria so that they focus more on outcomes and less on processes?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has made an interesting contribution and made it plain how complex these matters can be. It is not for me to say whether Warwick council deserves a clean bill of health, but the Government offices are working closely with all the named authorities and will be anxious to pursue with the council the issues that he raised.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the President of the Council accept that there is still considerable uncertainty, and some anxiety, about the date change and all that it implies? She has not given us a monthly report for July, as she said she would. Will we get that tomorrow in the House? Does she accept that the booklet that has been distributed is strong on reassurance but weak on warning? If she makes a statement tomorrow, will she tell members of the general public which areas they should keep an especial watch on? When will she name names?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means by that last remark, because we are publishing all the information that we can. Of course he is right to say that some uncertainty remains, and that is likely to continue all the way through, because those who give certain responses do not know what they are talking about. I anticipate publishing the July results in the very near future: over the next day or so.
    The hon. Gentleman said that the booklet was weak on warning. We sought to ensure that people know where to go for information, and to keep that information as up-to-date as possible. We will continue to do that. Action 2000 has been publishing the latest results in a series of newspaper advertisements that began a few days ago.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Can I take it from that reply that there will be no statement to the House until October at the earliest? Surely we should have one tomorrow.
    Mrs. Beckett: No. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the practice has been a quarterly statement to the House. That will continue.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Lady said monthly.
    Mrs. Beckett: I said that we would publish the information monthly. We will publish the July information in a written answer. That will be followed through in August and September. We are seeking means
    16
    to make that information available to every Member of Parliament, so we shall ensure that the House is kept informed even during the recess.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The President of the Council was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Thursday Sittings
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What assessment she has made of the impact of the experiment in relation to sittings on Thursdays. [91380]
    Dr. Ian Gibson: What assessment she has made of the experiment in relation to Thursday sitting hours. [91383]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Modernisation Committee published a report last Monday that concluded that the majority of hon. Members consider that the experiment has been a success and should be continued in the next Session.
    Dr. Starkey: Does my hon. Friend agree that, far from reducing the hours that the House sits—a misleading statement often made by the Opposition—the changes mean that a full day's business can be taken on Thursdays? On average, the House has sat for an hour longer a day since the experiment began. Is not that further proof that this Government are more open to scrutiny than the previous Administration?
    Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend is right to say that the report from the Modernisation Committee makes it clear that the same important topics are being discussed and that substantive motions have been voted on. Most important, it shows that, on Thursdays, there has been, on average, an extra hour's business. That gives the House more time to discuss important matters.
    Dr. Gibson: Has my hon. Friend any evidence that the questions asked on a Thursday are classier, sharper and more political than questions asked at other times? Has he any evidence that the work done on a Friday by hon. Members who can get home to start the weekend's constituency work earlier has had benefits for our constituents?
    Mr. Tipping: Hon. Members have to balance the needs of the House with those of their constituents. Finishing at 7 pm on a Thursday allows hon. Members to spend a full day extra in their constituencies. I have watched how my hon. Friend performs on a Thursday, when he is sharp and to the point. The Modernisation Committee report also found evidence that takings at the bar on a Thursday night have fallen. Perhaps my hon. Friend, given his sharpness and clarity on a Thursday, does not indulge on a Wednesday night.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Is the Minister aware that the picture is very different if the time devoted in our proceedings to procedure motions and timetable motions is subtracted from the total hours that the House sits, and that in fact less time is given to real Government scrutiny? Will he explain the benefit of taking up the House's time with measures such as the Railways Bill, which we considered last week and which cannot proceed in the time available?
    Mr. Tipping: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the facts, he will see that fewer procedural motions have been tabled under this Government than under the previous Administration. He should reflect on the comments of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who last week rightly described the hooligan elements in the House whose actions have led to a greater focus on procedural motions. People outside the Chamber want a House of Commons that debates the core issues, not silly game-playing.
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: The Liberal Democrats welcome the extension of the Thursday sittings experiment. It is rare for a measure to be popular with hon. Members and to the best advantage of the country.
    Does the Minister agree that further changes are needed to ensure that the House is even more effective at holding the Government to account, at passing sensible legislation and at providing proper representation? Will he undertake that the pace and development of the Modernisation Committee's work will be maintained?
    Mr. Tipping: A number of measures have made major changes to the House's work. In particular, I believe that the focus on pre-legislative scrutiny will have a profound and long-lasting effect. I am delighted that the Westminster Hall experiment will begin when we return for the next Session. That will allow an opportunity for further modernisation, and give Back-Bench Members a chance to raise matters of constituency importance. There has been change, and there will continue to be change.

    Visitor Facilities
    Angela Smith: To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), representing the House of Commons Commission, what proposals the Commission has evaluated for the provision of facilities for visitors to the Houses of Parliament. [91381]
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): Plans have been prepared to convert Westminster Hall cafeteria into a centre for visitors to the Houses of Parliament in 2002, after Portcullis house opens. The centre will provide alternative catering facilities. I am pleased to say that good progress on the new building means that it may be possible to bring forward the conversion to 2001. The relevant Committees and officials of the House are now examining options.
    Angela Smith: Many of us welcome the hon. Gentleman's answer, but while we enjoy our constituents' visits, they are often spoiled by the lack of refreshment facilities for them. I speak as someone who was ticked off by the Serjeant at Arms Department for allowing my
    18
    cubs to eat their sandwiches in the one of the W Rooms off Westminster Hall—I had to send them outside in the rain. While we welcome the proposed use of the Westminster Hall cafeteria, could we not use the hall itself, which is used for lobbies and functions, to provide special facilities in the interim period?
    Mr. Kirkwood: That would be difficult. One of the difficulties that the Commission always faces is that the uses to which the precincts of the Palace—both the House of Commons and the Lords—are put are constrained by architectural and national heritage considerations. The hon. Lady's point is well made. I encourage her to continue to press the House of Commons Commission and the appropriate Committees to put pressure on all the available authorities to improve what is available for our constituents and other visitors. The conditions are certainly inadequate and need to be improved, but we are doing all that we can.

    Portcullis House
    Mr. Paul Flynn: To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), representing the House of Commons Commission, what was the original estimate and what is his latest estimate of the cost of Portcullis house. [91382]
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The estimated cost of Portcullis house, as agreed by the House of Commons Commission in 1993, was £165 million, including construction costs, furnishings, fees, value added tax and an element for risk. At the time, the forecast inflation for 1992–99 was between £51 million and £62 million. The present forecast outturn costs to the original brief for construction fees, furnishings, VAT and risk remain at £165 million at 1992 prices, but inflation in 1992–2000 is now estimated at £56 million. Approved changes to the original brief have added a cost of £4 million and £10 million is attributed to delays caused by London Underground Ltd.'s work on Westminster station. The current overall estimate is, therefore, £235 million.
    Mr. Flynn: It seems unfair that inflation occurred in those years, which seems to be a total surprise to the relevant authority. Has the hon. Gentleman noted that the cost of that single building is 10 times the cost of the Welsh Assembly building? There is another difference—the Welsh Assembly building is beautiful. Is he satisfied that the Commission used the right financial rigour in its advance financial planning?
    Mr. Kirkwood: The contractual arrangements that were agreed by the House in 1993 are industry-standard. The provisions made for inflation were agreed and known at the time. The estimates are not out of line. They were between £51 million and £62 million and, in the event, it looks as though inflation is likely to be somewhere between the two, at £56 million. The building should be judged on the basis of value for money. It is designed to last for 200 years. If the low maintenance and running costs meet the design specifications, the building will truly be seen to have been good value for money in 200 years' time. If the hon. Gentleman wants to hang around and make representations

    19
    at that time, I will be here to try to ensure that true judgments can be made then, when the full value of the building can be judged.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that the taxpayer has to foot the bill for Portcullis house, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that all relevant work has been subject to competitive tender?
    Mr. Kirkwood: Indeed it has. All the normal European and other contract compliance rules have been fully taken into account and executed in the operation of the contract. The Commission has undertaken a mid-term review, which has just been completed by the consultants, Northcroft, who confirmed that, provided that the building meets its design specification to last between 125 and 200 years, the public purse will truly get value for money from what will be an architecturally special building.

    Deputy Speakers (Westminster Hall)
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What representations she has received concerning the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons for the appointment of Deputy Speakers for sittings in Westminster Hall. [91384]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): A few representations on this
    20
    subject have been received and a motion will be put before the House after the recess covering this and other arrangements for sittings in Westminster Hall.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Government restore to Parliament as a whole and to Back Benchers in particular the right to choose their own officers? Does my hon. Friend consider that it is now inappropriate for Deputy Speakers to be appointed through the usual channels and that the Government and the Opposition Front Bench should have no hand in it whatsoever? Should not this be the subject of a free vote by Back Benchers because it is our property? Secondly, and not unimportantly, Deputy Speakers tend to be a curia from which Speakers are chosen. It is appropriate that this House and Back Benchers choose our Deputy Speakers in future. What does he say?
    Mr. Tipping: I say what I said a moment ago: a motion will be brought before the House after the summer recess and before the next Session. Of course, Members will have an opportunity to vote on it. Let me remind my hon. Friend that the Modernisation Committee report recommended that the four senior members of the Chairmen's Panel should acquire those posts.

    NEW MEMBER
    The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
    Stephen Rothwell O'Brien Esq., for Eddisbury

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you advise me how an important issue can be raised before the House recesses on Tuesday? As someone who fully supported—indeed, urged—the military intervention in Kosovo, I am concerned, as other hon. Members are, about the slaughter of 14 civilian Serbs on Saturday, including a boy of 15. If the House were not going into recess, there would be various ways to raise the matter, including Prime Minister's Question Time. If we cannot raise it before we rise, it will be nearly three months before it can be raised on the Floor of the House.
In those circumstances, and remembering that we went into Kosovo to protect all civilians against murder and ethnic cleansing—the murder of the 14 Serbs is undoubtedly ethnic cleansing—I ask only that you reflect on how we can raise the matter today or tomorrow because much lies in your hands, for reasons that I cannot touch on.
Mrs. Alice Mahon rose—
Madam Speaker: Let me reply please.
Mrs. Mahon: It is on the same point.
Madam Speaker: Let me hear it then.
Mrs. Mahon: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that a precedent was set for making a statement by the Foreign Secretary when Albanians were massacred by Serb paramilitaries. It is clear from the case of the 14 Serbs that many Serbs, Roma and other ethnic minorities in Kosovo are being subjected to a reign of terror. They are hiding out and, in some cases, being protected by KFOR. Given that situation, will the Foreign Secretary come to the House to make a statement, as has been done previously? If we are to appear even-handed, and equally as concerned about whoever is massacred, that seems to be the only fair way to proceed.
Ann Clwyd rose—
Madam Speaker: Is it on the same point of order?
Ann Clwyd: It is on Kosovo, but not related to the point of order made by my hon. Friends.
Madam Speaker: Perhaps I should reply to the point of order raised by the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). I do, of course, understand their concern, especially the point about even-handedness—that is exactly what we want to see. The Government Whip on the Treasury Bench will have heard both the comments that were made. I suggest to the hon. Members that they might also make representations to the Leader of the House to see whether, in the time available—I am aware that there is little time—there can be a statement from the Foreign Office, if that is wanted.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received a
22
request from the Prime Minister to make a statement today on the publication of the Government's annual report, or are we to deduce from the absence of such a request that the Prime Minister, although publishing the report and presenting it to Parliament, is not willing to subject it to the scrutiny and questioning of the House? Further to that point, is it in order for a Command Paper to be published and commercially available in a supermarket 24 hours before it is available to Members of this House through the Vote Office?
Madam Speaker: If my memory serves me correctly, I thought that a Labour party manifesto commitment was to publish an annual report and to do so in that way. I am aware of the sale of such a publication. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am one of his constituents; although I went to a supermarket yesterday, I was far more interested in food than in publications, and I should not have looked for it. I am not certain whether the correct way to proceed is that it should be on sale to the public before being made available to Members of the House. However, I understand that that annual report is a publication that is not open to questioning from the House at this stage.
Ann Clwyd: Further to a previous point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not giving you advance notice of this. If we are to have a statement on Kosovo, I hope that it will include some information on reconstruction. After any conflict, it is well known that it is important to reconstruct a country as quickly as possible so that people can return to a normal way of life. Reports from Kosovo are especially worrying because they suggest that, although people involved in the conflict were talking about reconstruction and redevelopment after the end of the conflict, some countries now appear to be dragging their feet over giving the necessary assistance for that reconstruction to take place as quickly as possible.
When we return to the House, we shall be in the winter months. It is important that people in Kosovo can rebuild their homes and communities as quickly as possible. We must ensure that those countries which may be dragging their feet face their responsibilities to assist those communities to do that rebuilding.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady will have heard what I said previously about a possible statement from the Foreign Office. I shall not reiterate what I said, but I am sure that the Government Whip will have taken note of her comments; perhaps she would make her representations known in that direction.
Ms Ann Coffey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the past two weeks, 28,000 letters have been delivered to Members of the House in the name of our constituents, but those letters were unsigned. They are part of what I understand is called the "Keep our Gold" campaign, in response to advertisements in the national newspapers. A mailing company paid almost £7,000 for the letters to be distributed in the internal mail via the Post Office. I cannot find out the name of the company behind those letters. I should like to know its name because we could all save ourselves a great deal of time and trouble by replying to it directly. I am at a loss as to why the company wants to keep its name secret. As you can

23
imagine, Madam Speaker, I suspect the worst. Could you help me by inquiring further into the matter—especially as to whether you feel that it is an abuse of the internal system?
Madam Speaker: Yes indeed;, I will ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the matter. I do not know the company responsible—
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody rose—
Madam Speaker: However, it could be that Mrs. Dunwoody does.
Mrs. Dunwoody: You flatter me, Madam Speaker; I have no idea which company is responsible. However, further to that point of order, may I point out that I sent a letter to every one of my constituents named in those unsigned letters? Today, I have received a series of phone calls from people saying that they have no idea what it is about. I asked for written confirmation before approaching anyone on their behalf. It is revealing that many of those people had their names and addresses used without their knowledge.
Madam Speaker: I am delighted to have that information. I shall certainly ask the Serjeant at Arms and the authorities here to investigate the matter.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. While the Foreign Office is in a listening mood, will it also take into account the vast problems of toxic difficulties in Serbia, such as the pouring into the Danube of ethylene dichloride—
Madam Speaker: Order. It is not the Foreign Office that must take those matters into account: the hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order with me. The point has already been made and the House understands the views held by several hon. Members.

Business of the House
3.41 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords shall have been received.
I shall speak only briefly as the House has a great deal of important business before it this afternoon. This procedural motion is designed to aid the smooth progress of business. If approved, it allows you, Madam Speaker, not to adjourn the House this evening until any messages from the Lords have been received.
The order was first laid last Friday, at which time hon. Members objected to it and a large number of other measures. I make no complaint about that: those involved would simply say that they were exercising their rights. However, as we all know, rights entail responsibilities, and there is a responsibility on the Government to pursue and protect their own legislation.
I think that there is also a responsibility to try to achieve the timetable laid out in last Thursday's business statement. It was made clear then that the House would be asked to consider any Lords' messages received prior to the recess. Moreover, any legitimate concerns could have been raised during the three and a half hours that the House spent debating business issues that day. None were raised. It is perfectly reasonable to expect the House to consider messages from the Lords in the final two days before the recess. That is a long-standing practice, and precedents have been set.
I hope that we will now quickly move on to discuss the real issues affecting our constituents. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred to the "hooligan" element in the House last week, and it may be that this is just another example of such an outbreak. However, if there are any real concerns, I anticipate that they will be addressed quickly.
3.43 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It is all too rare that we have a chance to deliberate, in a calm and reflective manner, on motions that are all too often rejected or described as "merely procedural". I object to the term "merely procedural" because much of what we do in this place depends on an understanding of our procedures and on a fair and proper interpretation of them.
I am equally grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for pointing out that, on Friday, a certain number of matters, including this important procedural motion, were objected to. As always, I was here on Friday, and I counted 39 private Members' Bills to which the Government objected. I shall not detail them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on.''] Since my hon. Friends want me to do so, those Bills included the Cancer Care Bill, the Fuel Safety Bill, the Poverty and Social Exclusion (National Strategy) Bill, and the Concessionary Television Licences for Pensioners Bill—all killed by the Government on Friday, along with many others.
After those 39 private Members' Bills had been killed by the Government on Friday, as the Parliamentary Secretary acknowledged, I took the opportunity to object to this measure, and I shall explain why. I was interested to know

25
why the Government should consider it necessary to move such a motion on a Friday afternoon. I have no objection to that. As you know, Madam Speaker, I am habitually in the Chamber on a Friday, for which hon. Members are grateful, and I appreciate that. However, I was puzzled by the fact that on a Friday afternoon, at the very end of business, after they had killed the 39 private Members' Bills, the Government seemed to want to slip this motion through quietly.
The motion contains some potentially disturbing elements. As we heard in the remarks introducing the debate which may gather momentum as we get into it—right hon. and hon. Members will see its importance as I skip my way through the salient points—the motion states with seductive simplicity that you, Madam Speaker,
"shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords shall have been received."
That strikes me as a procedural blank cheque.
If one glances down the Order Paper, one sees that the Government are anxious to limit debate on other important matters. The Employment Relations Bill is allocated up to three hours. A very important matter, motion No. 8—the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, no less—is allocated only one hour. The debate of such important matters as the appointment of my hon. Friend is restricted, yet the present motion contains the rather sinister element that the House shall not adjourn
"until any Message from the Lords shall have been received."
In other words, the Government apparently expect us to sit here and twiddle our thumbs, on the off-chance that a message may be received from another place. I am not sure whether that is a reasonable request at this stage of our proceedings—that is for the House to judge. However, it requires just a little thought to decide whether it is reasonable for us to prolong today's sitting, when there is a further sitting of the House tomorrow.
Although there is to be an important debate tomorrow on public expenditure—I fully accept that—I should have thought that our procedures contained sufficient leeway and flexibility for the Government to have stated that should the messages from the Lords not be received during today's sitting, it would be reasonable for us to deal with them tomorrow.
Is it not dangerous to expect us to receive a message from another place and deal with it instantly, without any possibility of consideration, when instead we could receive the message during today's sitting, ponder it overnight, deliberate and consult, and return in a proper and deliberative way to deal with the matter during tomorrow's sitting? Although the debate tomorrow is important, it is difficult to imagine that there would be no scope in tomorrow's business to allow the matter to be considered in a more deliberative manner.
Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he accept that the truncated consideration of the Employment Relations Bill, in particular its peculiar treatment relative to the earlier motion, will be greeted with some alarm in my constituency, not least by Mr. James Naylor, a prominent business man and member of the London regional council of the Confederation of British Industry, who told me only last week of his grave concerns about the present contents of the Bill, and of the importance of every opportunity for
26
it to be revised? Will not Mr. Naylor regard it as extraordinary that the Government intend to handle business in such a bizarre fashion?
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who typically goes to the heart of the matter incisively and analytically. People outside will be rather puzzled when they see that a measure as important as the Employment Relations Bill is being cut off in its prime, and we are being denied proper debate. The Bill affects many businesses—the employers and the employed—yet we are apparently expected to take a leisurely and open-ended approach to whatever messages might be received from another place.
I do not know what those messages may or may not contain. I wonder whether the Government know. I suppose that they must have some idea, but they are not telling us at present. The Minister did not give us that information in his introductory remarks. He was Delphic—if I may put it that way—and opaque on the subject. We are expected to accept, as a matter of trust, that the Government must get through their business, which is apparent from the jack-booted approach that the Government take to most things these days, not least the rest of the business on the Order Paper.
The Minister had the gall to ask, as a matter of convenience to the Government, for a blank cheque in order to ensure that when messages come from another place they can be dealt with in a peremptory fashion, without the time—that is the implication—to consider them properly. I do not know whether it is within your purview, Madam Speaker, to contemplate suspending the sitting of the House when those messages arrive so that we may give them some thought. That might be one possibility if the Government continue to insist that the messages be dealt with today.
The Government might concede that point at the conclusion of this debate, which I am happy to see may continue until any hour. We can deliberate this matter at length—I am grateful for that—but the other matters of legislative importance later on the Order Paper are time limited. We therefore have the bizarre situation whereby we can, happily, debate this procedural matter about the timing of business in the House—which I regard as important—at any length, but we cannot debate substantive legislative matters at any length.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: My right hon. Friend heard the earlier reference to the "hooligans". Does he not agree that he has amply demonstrated that, far from residing on the Opposition Back Benches, those hooligans are on the Government Front Bench? That is evident from the way in which the Government are treating the House and its procedures.
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. The callous and cavalier slaughter of 39 private Members' Bills in the House last Friday could also be described as a hooligan act—and I am happy to do so.
Mr. Christopher Fraser: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that one private Member's Bill enjoyed the Minister's support—
Madam Speaker: Order. We will leave last Friday's private Members' Bills to last Friday. Let us deal with the motion on the Order Paper.
Mr. Forth: Indeed, Madam Speaker. I have tried to illustrate that this apparently simple procedural motion raises many questions. However, my main question is: why do the Government think it is so important to deal with this matter today when the House will sit again tomorrow, when we will hardly be pressed in terms of the business on the Order Paper? I am sure that there will be scope to return to this matter then. If this motion had been worded differently and had said that any messages received from another place today could be dealt with properly tomorrow, which would give hon. Members the chance to consider them, it would have been extremely acceptable.
I find it difficult to accept—I am reluctant to do so unless the Minister provides a further explanation—the fact that the Government have issued an instruction. They have said, "Trust us; we know what we are doing and we must get our business through"—the Government Whip is helpfully nodding, which confirms what is in the Government's mind. That attitude is not extraordinary but absolutely typical of the Government; it is the kind of attitude that we have come to expect from them.
Before I consent to this measure, I want the Government to answer one point. This motion is not only debatable but—as I think you will confirm, Madam Speaker—a matter upon which the House could vote if it so desired. Before we contemplate whether we will divide the House, I hope that the Minister will have the courtesy to tell us his thoughts on why it is so important to ram through this business today, in the way that the motion outlines, rather than allowing the House to return to it tomorrow when we will not have the same time constraints. We could then deal with it on that basis. That is my simple, modest request.
I am grateful for the Minister's courtesy in coming to the House to explain the motion, which these days is quite unusual, but I should like further explanation of why he wants to deal with that business today, rather than tomorrow. I shall then want to consider whether the matter is one that should divide the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 12.

Division No. 272]

[3.55 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Blears, Ms Hazel

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Boateng, Paul

Alexander, Douglas

Borrow, David

Allan, Richard

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Allen, Graham

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Bradshaw, Ben

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Brake, Tom

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Brand, Dr Peter

Ashton, Joe

Breed, Colin

Austin, John

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Banks, Tony

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Barnes, Harry

Browne, Desmond

Barron, Kevin

Buck, Ms Karen

Battle, John

Burden, Richard

Beard, Nigel

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Begg, Miss Anne

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Bennett, Andrew F

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Benton, Joe

Cann, Jamie

Berry, Roger

Caplin, Ivor

Betts, Clive

Casale, Roger

Blackman, Liz

Caton, Martin

28

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Harvey, Nick

Chaytor, David

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Chidgey, David

Healey, John

Chisholm, Malcolm

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Clapham, Michael

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Hepburn, Stephen

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Heppell, John

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hill Keith

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hinchliffe, David

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hoey, Kate

Clwyd, Ann

Home Robertson, John

Coaker, Vernon

Hood, Jimmy

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hope, Phil

Cohen, Harry

Hopkins, Kelvin

Coleman, Iain

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Connarty, Michael

Howells, Dr Kim

Corbett, Robin

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cotter, Brian

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Cousins, Jim

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cox, Tom

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Cranston, Ross

Humble, Mrs Joan

Crausby, David

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Hurst, Alan

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Cummings, John

Illsley, Eric

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Dalyell, Tam

Jamieson, David

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Jenkins, Brian

Darvill, Keith

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Dawson, Hilton

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Denham, John

Dismore, Andrew

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Dobbin, Jim

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Donohoe, Brian H

Keeble, Ms Sally

Doran, Frank

Keetch, Paul

Dowd, Jim

Drew, David

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Kemp, Fraser

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Khabra, Piara S

Efford, Clive

Kidney, David

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Kilfoyle, Peter

Etherington, Bill

Kirkwood, Archy

Fearn, Ronnie

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Reid, Rt Hon Frank

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Fisher, Mark

Lepper, David

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Leslie, Christopher

Flint, Caroline

Levitt, Tom

Flynn, Paul

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Linton, Martin

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Livingstone, Ken

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Galloway, George

Lock, David

Gerrard, Neil

Love, Andrew

Gibson, Dr Ian

McAllion, John

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McAvoy, Thomas

Godman, Dr Norman A

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Godsiff, Roger

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

McDonagh Siobhain

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Macdonald Calum

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Grogan, John

McFall, John

Gunnell, John

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Hain, Peter

McIsaac, Shona

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Hancock, Mike

McNamara, Kevin

29

McNulty, Tony

Powell, Sir Raymond

Mactaggart, Fiona

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

McWalter, Tony

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

McWilliam, John

Prosser, Gwyn

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Purchase, Ken

Mallaber, Judy

Quinn, Lawrie

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Rammell, Bill

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Rapson, Syd

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Raynsford, Nick

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Martlew, Eric

Rendel, David

Maxton, John

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Meale, Alan

Rooker, Jeff

Merron, Gillian

Rooney, Terry

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Rowlands, Ted

Miller, Andrew

Roy, Frank

Mitchell, Austin

Ruddock, Joan

Moffatt, Laura

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Ryan, Ms Joan

Morley, Elliot

Salter, Martin

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Sanders, Adrian

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Mullin, Chris

Savidge, Malcolm

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Sawford, Phil

Oaten, Mark

Sedgemore, Brian

O'Brien, Bill (Normtanton)

Sheerman, Barry

O'Hara, Eddie

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Olner, Bill

Singh, Marsha

Organ, Mrs Diana

Skinner, Dennis

Palmer, Dr Nick

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Pendry, Tom

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Perham, Ms Linda

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

Pickthall, Colin

Soley, Clive

Plaskitt James

Squire, Ms Rachel

Pollard, Kerry

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Pond, Chris

Steinberg, Gerry

Pope, Greg

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Pound, Stephen

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

30

Stoate, Dr Howard

Ward, Ms Claire

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Wareing, Robert N

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Watts, David

Stringer, Graham

Webb, Steve

Stuart, Ms Gisela

White, Brian

Stunell, Andrew

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Wicks, Malcolm

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Wills, Michael

Temple-Morris, Peter

Winnick, David

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Wise, Audrey

Timms, Stephen

Woolas, Phil

Tipping, Paddy

Worthington, Tony

Todd, Mark

Wray, James

Touhig, Don

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Wyatt, Derek

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tyler, Paul

Mr. David Hanson and

Vis, Dr Rudi

Mr. David Clelland.

NOES

Beggs, Roy

Shepherd, Richard

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Swayne, Desmond

Forsythe, Clifford

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Wardle, Charles

Hunter, Andrew

Luff, Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Mr. Eric Forth and

St Aubyn, Nick

Mr. Graham Brady.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords shall have been received.

Orders of the Day

  Employment Relations Bill
  Lords amendments further considered.
  Lords amendment No. 21 agreed to.

  Employment Relations Bill

    New Clause
    Lords amendment: No. 22, after clause 27, to insert the following new clause—Employment rights: employment outside Great Britain—
    ".—(1) In section 285(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (employment outside Great Britain) for "Chapter II (procedure for handling redundancies)" there shall be substituted "sections 193 and 194 (duty to notify Secretary of State of certain redundancies)".
    (2) After section 287(3) of that Act (offshore employment) there shall be inserted—
    "(3A) An Order in Council under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".
    (3) Section 196 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (employment outside Great Britain) shall cease to have effect; and in section 5(1) for "sections 196 and" there shall be substituted "section".
    (4) After section 199(6) of that Act (mariners) there shall be inserted—
    "(7) The provisions mentioned in subsection (8) apply to employment on board a ship registered in the register maintained under section 8 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 if and only if—

    (a) the ship's entry in the register specifies a port in Great Britain as the port to which the vessel is to be treated as belonging,

    (b) under his contract of employment the person employed does not work wholly outside Great Britain, and

    (c) the person employed is ordinarily resident in Great Britain.

    (8) The provisions are—

    (a) sections 8 to 10,

    (b) Parts II, III and V,

    (c) Part VI, apart from sections 58 to 60,

    (d) Parts VII and VIII,

    (e) sections 92 and 93, and

    (f) Part X."."

    4.7 pm
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 306, 325 and 329.
    Mr. McCartney: Section 196 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 generally limits the operation of the Act to employees who ordinarily work in Great Britain. It is a complicated section resulting from several consolidations, some relating to legislation at least a quarter of a century old.
    After careful consideration, we concluded that the complexities are unnecessary. International law and the principles of our domestic law are enough to ensure
    32
    that our legislation does not apply in inappropriate circumstances. There must be some proper connection with the UK first, and in such cases it is right that UK law should apply. Other legislation has no need for such restrictions. We believe that now is the time to simplify the provisions, in line with our commitment to good regulation.
    Repealing that section has a number of other significant advantages. It ensures that we fulfil our European Union obligations, which, in some circumstances, mean that rights that are derived from Europe should apply to individuals who may not currently be covered. It extends employment rights to employees temporarily working in Great Britain and thus facilitates the implementation of the posting of workers directive, which otherwise would require further regulations later this year. It also means that people who may have worked for some years in the UK, but who are nevertheless excluded from claiming under the Employment Rights Act 1996, will be able to rely on the protection of our legislation, as should be the case. The recent case of Carver v. Saudi Arabian Airlines demonstrates the need for this provision.
    I do not claim that the amendment will have dramatic effects in practice—few cases arise, and the additional costs to employers will be minimal. Nevertheless, it takes forward an important principle, and modernises and simplifies our legislation. The position of mariners is special, and special provisions apply to them at present under sections 196 and 199. The amendment ensures that their position is unchanged.
    The implications of doing otherwise can be fully examined in the longer term. The new powers in the Bill to confer rights—clause 20, which would become section 23 of the Act—will provide us with the opportunity to consult on whether changes to the provisions applying to mariners would be desirable.
    The first subsection in the new clause makes a parallel change to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, removing the territorial restriction in that Act on rights to be consulted about mass redundancies. Subsection (2) is a purely technical change to powers in the 1992 Act to extend rights to offshore installations. Currently no procedure is specified for making the order. The amendments will provide for negative resolution, in line with the procedure that applies under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
    Amendments 306, 325 and 329 are consequential to the repeal of section 196.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 23 agreed to.

    New Clause
    Lords amendment: No. 24, after clause 32, to insert the following new clause—Transfer of undertakings—
    ".—(1) This section applies where regulations under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 (general implementation of Treaties) make provision for the purpose of implementing, or for a purpose concerning, a Community obligation of the United Kingdom which relates to the treatment of employees on the transfer of an undertaking or business or part of an undertaking or business.
    (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make the same or similar provision in relation to the treatment of employees in circumstances other than those to which the Community obligation applies (including circumstances in which there is no transfer, or no transfer to which the Community obligation applies).

    33
    (3) Regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
    Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    We indicated in our "Fairness at Work" White Paper our intention to revise the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—commonly known as the TUPE regulations—to improve their operation. These regulations implement the European Communities acquired rights directive, and safeguard employees' rights when the business in which they work changes hands between employers.
    Since the White Paper was published, we have agreed with our European partners a new, improved directive: that was a notable success for the UK presidency last year. The new directive sets out for the first time an explicit definition of the transfer of an undertaking. It also gives member states clear options to allow, but not require, independent workers' representatives to negotiate changes to terms and conditions to save jobs when the undertaking of an insolvent employer is transferred, just as they can in cases of insolvency when no transfer is involved; to provide that the transferor's outstanding debts in relation to the employees do not pass to the transferee, so as to save jobs when the undertaking of an insolvent employer is transferred; to ensure that the transferor notifies the transferee of all the rights and obligations that will be transferred in a relevant transfer so far as they are or should be known to the transferor; and to include all occupational pension rights within the terms and conditions that pass from the transferor to the transferee in a relevant transfer.
    The amendment of the directive has laid the groundwork for our revision of the regulations. Officials in my Department are currently drawing up detailed proposals, in liaison with colleagues elsewhere in Whitehall and in informal discussions with the main employer and employee representative bodies and other outside interests, in line with social partnership principles. I am grateful for the constructive contribution that the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and others have made to this process.
    There is a high degree of consensus on the main issues to be addressed in the revision of the regulations. That is particularly so in the area of public sector contracting, where we have been assisted by the TUPE forum, which is a representative body with members from the CBI, the TUC, Unison, the Construction Confederation, the Business Services Association, the Local Government Management Board, the Association of Direct Labour Organisations and others.
    Our aim is to seek views on our detailed proposals by way of a formal public consultation document to be published a little later in the year, and to have the new requirements in place by next spring.
    As this work has progressed, however, it has become clear that some of the changes that we may decide to make could not be achieved under the existing powers in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. In particular, extending the scope so as to give rights to individuals when they would not have them under the directive could not be done under those existing powers. That limits the options available for tackling two major areas of uncertainty in the regulations: their application to contracting-out operations and their application to transfers involving public sector bodies.
    34
    If we had to rely on the existing powers alone, we could be prevented from putting forward proposals to meet the widespread expectation—shared by employer and employee bodies alike—that the new regulations will apply comprehensively to changes that occur in service contracting. Specifically, it could prevent us from ensuring that recontracting or bringing back in-house of a contracted-out service was covered in cases where the conditions in the directive were not met, but where it was wished to provide consistent treatment.
    The existing powers would also be insufficient to allow us to apply the regulations to transfers of purely administrative functions between public administrative bodies, should we wish to do so.
    Amendment No. 24 seeks to remove those technical obstacles, so that we can be certain that we have sufficient powers to achieve what we are likely to be asked to achieve when we go out to formal public consultation.
    4.15 pm
    I should stress that we are not yet ready to present our detailed proposals for revision of the regulations. Some difficult legal issues must be addressed, and my officials are still considering them. Besides, we are obviously not in a position to prejudge the outcome of the public consultation to which I have referred.
    Mr. Tim Collins: May I express my hope, and that of many other Conservative Members, that the Minister receives the promotion that is due to him?
    The Minister said earlier that consultation would take place in the autumn, and that proposals would be in place some time next spring. I appreciate that he may not be able to be precise, but can he give us some idea of the minimum period that will elapse between the conclusion of the consultation and the implementation of the regulations?
    Mr. McCartney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his initial comments. I do not know whether they were helpful or unhelpful, but they were certainly apposite, given that we are dealing with the transfer of undertakings from one job to another—although I am not sure that that covers Ministers.
    The hon. Gentleman's main point is very valid. When my officials have completed their work, I shall be happy to give both the official Opposition and the Liberals a clear indication of the timetable for the proposals. That will involve consultation. This is the first opportunity that the Government have had, prior to consultation about specific regulations, to sit down with stakeholders and involve them in the preparation of a consultation document. When the timetable is produced, it will be as a result of agreement. The hon. Gentleman, however, asked a fair and reasonable question, and I shall answer it as soon as I can. If that is before the House returns from the recess, I shall write to him and to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesmen, the hon. Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey).
    The use to which the power will be put will, as I have said, be subject to consultation. That is why the amendment was drafted in relatively wide terms. I hope,

    35
    however, that by describing in some detail the purposes for which we expect the power to be used, I have been able to allay any fears that hon. Members may have had. I trust that I have succeeded in making clear what are undoubtedly complex legal points.
    Mr. David Chidgey: It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify one point. He referred to the transfer of undertakings from the public to the private sector. May I take him back a few years, to a time when privatisation policies were in full swing and many public-sector agencies became private, contracted-out organisations?
    In recent years, contracts have been re-tendered so that other private sector companies can bid for the privilege of undertaking the services. The Public Services Agency is an example. One problem that has arisen is exactly how the TUPE rights of workers are transferred to the second privatised employer who has contracted for those services. It has caused some confusion, and, as I think the Minister will know, what should happen is not made clear in the directive. Has the Minister taken this on board in the regulations, and, if not, can he assure me that he will?
    Mr. McCartney: That is a fair and, indeed, important point. The whole purpose of agreeing the review with our European partners was to take account of exactly such issues.
    Over the years, a complexity has arisen because of decisions made in courts and in employment appeal tribunals. There are grey areas applying to both employers and employees, which should not need to be there. A common approach is needed on the part of employers' and employees' organisations to put the matter right, which is why prior consultation is taking place. I trust that the consultation will address those issues fully and effectively, so that when the new proposals are introduced next spring there will be a sense of common ownership, and both rights and obligations in regard to what happens in the case of first, second and, potentially, third-generation contractual arrangements will be clarified.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 31 agreed to.

Schedule 1

  COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
  Lords amendment: No. 32, in page 17, leave out lines 25 to 29 and insert—
  ("2A.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule.
  (2) The meaning of collective bargaining given by section 178(1) shall not apply.
  (3) References to collective bargaining are to negotiations relating to pay, hours and holidays; but this has effect subject to sub-paragraph (4).
  (4) If the parties agree matters as the subject of collective bargaining, references to collective bargaining are to negotiations relating to the agreed matters; and this is the case whether the agreement is made before or after the time when the CAC issues a declaration, or the parties agree, that the union is (or unions are) entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit.
  36
  (5) Sub-paragraph (4) does not apply in construing paragraph 27(3).
  (6) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) do not apply in construing paragraph 30 or 36B.")
  Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 72 to 74, 109, 110 and 198.
  Mr. McCartney: Every time I say, "I beg to move," someone shouts.
  The purpose of amendment No. 32 is to clarify the scope of collective bargaining and how it may be altered. We wanted it to be absolutely clear that, even if the Central Arbitration Committee issues a declaration of recognition, the union and employer could agree to alter the scope of collective bargaining to include other matters than pay, hours and holidays.
  Similarly, amendment No. 198 clarifies the scope of collective bargaining in part III of the schedule by introducing a paragraph 70B. New paragraph 70C allows the parties to vary a bargaining method imposed by the CAC under part III. That mirrors the existing provision in paragraph 27 for bargaining methods imposed under part I.
  I turn to the issue of whether a union should be required to give up an existing collective bargaining agreement to apply for recognition under part I. The CAC is required to reject applications for recognition in a bargaining unit if any union, including the applicant union, is already recognised to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of one, or more workers in the bargaining unit. One effect of that is to require a union that has a very limited, but possibly long-standing recognition agreement covering the union's role in disciplinary matters, for example, to give up that recognition to apply for statutory recognition under part I.
  We do not believe that recognition for what might be called "non-core" issues should bar the union from seeking recognition through the procedure for pay, hours and holidays, if both the employer and union are happy for recognition to continue. The union should be able to seek recognition on the "core" issues of pay, hours and holidays without being forced first to tear up an existing agreement.
  Therefore, amendment No. 73 provides that a voluntary agreement that does not include bargaining about pay, hours or holidays does not bar the recognised union from applying under part I. The employer will, of course, still be able to terminate the voluntary agreement if he or she wishes. It may be that an employer, faced with an application for recognition on pay and so on, wishes to renegotiate on the matters for which he already recognises the union. The Government's amendment allows that.
  Amendment No. 72 is a technical change to the wording. Amendment No. 74 ensures that changes to a bargaining unit made by the CAC under part III are taken into account in deciding whether another unit is recognised.

  37
  Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 ensure that the definition of collective bargaining in relation to changing the bargaining unit is the definition already in force—what the parties have agreed, or the CAC has imposed. Amendment No. 198 is equivalent to paragraphs 2(7) and 27, and applies to a new unit that is determined under part III. It allows both the definition of collective bargaining and the method for collective bargaining to be varied, or ended if the parties agree to do so.
  Those are constructive changes. I commend them to the House.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 33, in page 18, line 12, leave out from ("registered") to end of line 14 and insert
  ("in the register maintained under section 8 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 shall be treated as ordinarily working in Great Britain unless—

  (a) the ship's entry in the register specifies a port outside Great Britain as the port to which the vessel is to be treated as belonging,")

  Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 34, 38, 41, 45, 48, 57, 62, 65, 67 to 69, 75, 78, 85, 88, 90, 100, 101, 105, 107, 108, 111, 113, 114, 128, 133, 136, 139, 145, 147 to 149, 188, 205, 208 to 210, 213, 215, 216, 219, 224, 225, 231, 234, 235, 241, 244 to 246, 251 to 253, 256, 257, 259, 261, 267, 268, 274 to 277 and 279.
  Mr. McCartney: The amendments fall into several small groups, which effect minor improvements to the schedule.
  Amendments Nos. 33, 100 and 209 are identical corrections to the wording of the schedule to reflect the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The meaning of the schedule is unchanged in each case.
  Amendments Nos. 34, 101 and 210 alter the power to change the 21-workers threshold for recognition. They allow the Secretary of State to make transitional arrangements and, more important, to apply the change in all three parts of the schedule in which it appears. Without the amendments, only paragraph 6 could be altered.
  Amendments Nos. 113, 145 and 147 slightly increase the standard of proof required for a successful application under part III to change the bargaining unit from "prima facie evidence" to being "likely" that the original unit was not appropriate.
  Amendments Nos. 274 and 275 removes references to a worker's breach of contract from the provisions on detriment and dismissal connected with recognition in part VIII of the Bill. The amendments are not intended to allow workers to breach their contracts in pursuit of union recognition, but are aimed at preventing employers from circumventing the protections for workers from detriment or dismissal arising from campaigning on recognition.
  The amendments solve another potential problem. In providing that actions in breach of contract are not protected, the schedule is currently different from other detriment and dismissal provisions—in section 44 of the
  38
  Employment Rights Act 1996, for example—because those provisions do not contain any mention of breach of contract. Retaining the Bill's existing text might be taken to imply that a worker is always protected under other similar provisions when he acts in breach of contract. Again, that is obviously not desirable.
  Amendments Nos. 274 and 275 would continue to protect a worker from detriment or dismissal provided that the worker's action is not unreasonable. In most cases, it will be unreasonable for a worker to break his or her contract, but not, of course, when the employer has written in clauses making the actions protected by the provisions—such as campaigning for or against recognition—a breach of contract. It would not be sensible to allow such clauses to be written in.
  I therefore do not believe that the change represents a substantial alteration of the provisions. The change does, however, reduce the risk of their circumvention by unscrupulous employers, and of unintended consequences on other legislation. On that basis, I hope that the House will agree that the change is desirable.
  I should now like to speak to even more technical amendments. Amendment No. 75 allows for the possibility of more than one union being recognised jointly for a bargaining unit. Amendments Nos. 78, 276 and 277 insert missed or consequential cross-references, whereas amendment No. 88 is for clarity; amendments Nos. 108 and 149 are grammatical; and amendment No. 111 ensures consistent terminology. For additional clarity, amendments Nos. 128, 215, 216, 234, 235, 252, 256, 257 and 259 remove superfluous words. Amendment No. 208 corrects a cross-reference; and amendment No. 225 corrects another.
  Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, amendment No. 279 requires the CAC to give notice of its declarations to the parties.
  Mr. Collins: As the Minister said, this group of amendments is largely a technical one. I shall therefore confine myself to asking the Minister two questions.
  First, the Minister mentioned the Government's proposal to "increase slightly" the required standard of proof in provisions on bargaining units. Will he explain to hon. Members who are not lawyers the reason behind the Government's decision to increase slightly the standard of proof?
  Secondly, the Minister mentioned amendments dealing with the possibility of recognition of more than one trade union in a bargaining unit. Will he tell the House the Government's general attitude to the general desirability, or otherwise, of more than one trade union being recognised within a bargaining unit? He will know that it is often thought that one of the keys to Germany's success since the second world war has been a strong governmental imperative favouring single union recognition in specific industrial blocs. I should be very interested to know the Government's view on whether such a change is felt to be desirable, or whether it should be a matter purely for the bargaining partners themselves.
  Mr. McCartney: In such matters, the burden of proof falls not only on employers, but employees. If there is a request for a change in bargaining units, it is only

  39
  reasonable and fair that whoever makes the request should present to the CAC—which will have to decide—no more or less than substantial evidence. The provisions would simply send a signal that, if either or both parties wishes to change the arrangements and to legitimise that change, they should present no more or less than professional, reliable evidence to the CAC.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) also raised the issue of recognition of more than one union in a bargaining unit. As he will have noticed, various provisions in the Bill and schedule 1 address that issue.
  4.30 pm
  Where there are long-standing arrangements involving more than one union—and where an employer is happy with that—we do not want to disturb them. However, where there is the potential for disagreement, we will have in law a means by which people can come forward for recognition. The proposal provides a right, changes the culture and makes clear to the unions and others concerned that the CAC will not deal with issues where a dispute arises between unions over recognition. It is for them to resolve those disputes. Until they do, they will not be able to secure an agreement.
  Where there is an agreement—and where it is fair and reasonable for more than one union to make a proposal—we will allow the process to continue. On green-field sites, for example, it would seem reasonable that, where an application for the bargaining unit comes in—and there has been no history of any arrangement—the CAC should request the employer to make known whether he agrees or otherwise with the proposed bargaining units. Where there is not an agreement, the CAC will seek advice and evidence before it makes a determination about the bargaining unit, including whether it should relate to single table bargaining or not.
  All of the circumstances that we can think of are covered by the proposals. The point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was well made. The Government have been at pains to try to ensure that the proposals are about facilitating good employment relations and preventing disputes from arising. Where disputes arise, we will have a mechanism to deal with them. We want to try to ensure that good, modern employment relations do not lead to a situation where disputes arise. Where disputes do arise between unions, they will not be able to use the procedure.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 34 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 35, in page 18, line 40, leave out ("in the second period")
  Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 36, 37, 39, 40, 42 to 44, 46, 47, 49 to 52, 64, 66, 70, 71, 76, 77, 80 to 84, 86, 87, 91 to 99, 102 to 104, 106, 112, 120, 155, 173, 175,
  40
  184, 187, 192, 199 and 200, 201 and amendment (a) thereto, 202, 203, 204 and amendment (a) in lieu, 206, 207, 211, 212, 214, 217, 218, 220, to 223, 226, to 230, 232, 233, 236 to 240, 242,243, 249, 250, 254, 255, 258, 260, 262, to 266, 269 to 273, and 278.
  Mr. McCartney: The Government's amendments deal with the procedures for derecognition. Amendments. Nos. 201 to 204, 206, 207, 211, 212, 214, 217, 218 and 220 to 223 deal with applications for derecognition by an employer on the grounds of having fewer than 21 workers. Most of them are simple clarifications of the procedure. Amendment No. 201, for example, clarifies the way in which an employer must apply, in keeping with changes to part III.
  Amendment No. 203 clarifies the time in which the application must be made. If an employer believes that he or she has fewer than 21 workers over a 13-week period, an application for derecognition must be made within five working days of the 13 weeks ending. Amendment No. 211 requires the CAC to decide whether an application from an employer is valid before the union is allowed to challenge it. Obviously, if the application is invalid, there is no need to involve the union. Most of the other amendments are equally technical.
  Amendment No. 217 is a substantive change, which requires the CAC to reject an application for derecognition if it is made within three years of another application for derecognition of the bargaining unit which the CAC rejected. This reflects the statement in the "Fairness at Work" White Paper that
  "the CAC will not entertain an application for derecognition within three years of … an unsuccessful request for derecognition".
  This is a logical complement to the three-year bar on applications for recognition after an unsuccessful application, and will promote stability in industrial relations.
  Turning to an employer's request for derecognition, amendments Nos. 226 to 230, 232, 233 and 236 to 240 are simplifications and modest improvements to the procedure.
  Amendments Nos. 228, 229, 232 and 233 are equivalent to amendments Nos. 35 to 37, 39 and 40, to which I have already spoken. Together, they consolidate the two negotiation periods in paragraphs 80 and 81. At present, the union has a first period of 10 working days to respond to a request for derecognition, and if it agrees to negotiate there is a second period of 20 working days for negotiation.
  Amendment No. 233 ensures, for consistency with part I, that failure to respond to an application within 10 working days is treated as rejection of the application. Amendments Nos. 237, 239 and 240 require the response and negotiation process to have taken place.
  Amendment No. 236 bars repeat applications for derecognition for three years, as I described on amendment No. 217, and amendment No. 238 is consequential. Amendment No. 242 does the same for applications by workers for derecognition, and amendment No. 243 is a consequential change.

  41
  As a result of the changes to the ballot procedures, the CAC is required to hold a derecognition ballot rather than being able to choose to do so, and amendments Nos. 249 and 250 are technical changes to reflect that. The changes are largely technical, and all are improvements. I commend them to the House.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I want to speak to amendment (a) to amendment No. 201 and amendment (a) to amendment No. 204. They represent a last-ditch attempt to write something helpful to small businesses into the Bill.
  Many small and medium-sized firms will not be spared from the Government's determination to force businesses to recognise trade unions for bargaining purposes, and the new law will apply to those with as few as 20 employees. It is difficult to see how a business with so few staff needs union representation and collective bargaining arrangements. Most small firms simply do not have the capacity to administer such arrangements, and Labour's failure to recognise that illustrates its near total lack of understanding of how businesses work.
  The amendments would raise the threshold for a small business from 21 to 50.
  Mr. Chidgey: What is the Conservative party's view on the rights or otherwise of individual employees to join or not to join a trade union?
  Mrs. Browning: I made it clear last Wednesday that we believe that, notwithstanding the right of union recognition in the workplace, if that is the wish of the work force, individuals should be free to contract individually with the employer. That is the right flexibility.
  The Government opposed the increase from 21 to 50 in the Lords, but so did the Liberal Democrats, who constantly say that they are the champions of small business. They, too, wanted to limit the definition of a small firm to one with only 21 employees. Representations have been received from almost every business organisation: the CBI, British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors all support increasing the threshold for exemption. The Government have ignored those calls, and the result will be a tough time for small business.
  My noble Friend Baroness Miller of Hendon made a compelling case in the other place and drew to the Government's attention the fact that there is a precedent for the figure of 50. It is the defining number for a small firm in the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998—which was introduced by the Government—and is compatible with European legislation.
  Labour Members may be surprised that I should pray in aid European legislation, but the Government must be consistent. It is not acceptable for them to say that we have to harmonise with Europe and do everything that it tells us on employment legislation while refusing to acknowledge that 50 is the definition used in many parts of European employment legislation. For some reason, the Government want to draw into the scope of the Bill all companies with 21 or more employees.
  I am pleased that the Minister is in his place this afternoon, as he was unable to be with us for last Thursday's proceedings. I wish that he had been, as he
  42
  would then have witnessed the chaos of the debate. There was good will among Conservative Members to make progress—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Lady cannot go into the history of matters. She must concentrate on what is before the House.
  Mrs. Browning: I stand chided, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I look forward to the Government accepting the amendments, given that I understand that they have had a change of heart and accepted an amendment to clause 15 that they voted against last Thursday. This may be the Minister's final opportunity to represent the Department of Trade and Industry at the Dispatch Box, as it is possible that he will move on to greater things tomorrow. We all wish him well, but acceptance of the amendment would be a mark of his recognition of the importance of the small business sector in this country.
  Mr. Chidgey: I draw the Minister's attention to amendment No. 93, which deals with the adjudication by the Central Arbitration Committee of a claim for recognition. I refer him to proposed new paragraph 36C(b), which states that an application would be invalid unless the CAC decided that
  "a majority of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union."
  The Minister will recall that in our Committee proceedings, we debated at some length the process by which the true feelings of the work force could be determined when establishing the right to trade union recognition. We debated whether total reliance on a ballot would be the right way forward. In earlier speeches in the House, I spoke with some force about how the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service had worked on that problem, and noted that on some occasions, it would reject a ballot of employees that appeared to favour recognition of a union.
  The amendments seem to acknowledge that other ways exist to establish a work force's true intent with regard to recognition of a union that will act on members' behalf. Those alternative ways would recognise the needs of particular workplaces and units, and I hope that the Minister will elaborate on that when he responds to the debate.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for her helpful remarks.
  Mrs. Browning: I hope that the Minister is well.
  Mr. McCartney: I think that the Conservative party has mounted a campaign to keep me here so that I will change my mind about some matters. However, I will not do that this afternoon.
  I must take issue with the hon. Lady about small and medium-sized enterprises. The previous Conservative Government closed such businesses at the rate of one every three minutes in every working day. Between 1992 and 1997, there was a net loss of 70,000 small businesses each year, and a total of 350,000 such losses in the whole period. In 1998, the first year of this Government, there has been a net gain of 38,000 in the sector. The number

  43
  of small businesses is growing under this Government, whereas hundreds of thousands were forced to the wall by the previous Government's economic policies.
  This Government have dealt sensitively with small and medium-sized enterprises. The "Fairness at Work" White Paper and what happened thereafter was a major consultation exercise on the balancing of rights and obligations in the workplace. No one except the Conservative party would argue that there are not circumstances in which it is legitimate in a disagreement for the CAC to test, by a ballot or by other means, whether recognition should proceed in a company with more than 21 employees.
  4.45 pm
  Many small companies already recognise unions on a voluntary basis. The Government want to encourage voluntary arrangements for recognition in companies of any size. The procedure comes into play only when there is a disagreement. There is no requirement on companies with fewer than 21 employees to go through statutory recognition procedures.
  The Government are sensitive to the needs of small business. Indeed, as a Government, we advocate small business in a very big way, if I may put it like that. The introduction of the Small Business Service shortly by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry is indicative of this Government's strategy of involvement and advocacy throughout Whitehall and the economy on behalf of small businesses. There are no grounds for the Conservatives to argue that the Government are anti-small business.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton wants to hide behind small businesses to promote her anti-trade union feelings. That is the real issue.
  Mrs. Browning: Given that the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the chambers of commerce and the Institute of Directors have all said in terms that the definition of a small business in the Bill should allow more than 21 employees—the threshold that the Government insist on setting—that is clearly not a political agenda. Those businesses are sending a message to a Government who say that they are concerned about and interested in small businesses, but who are refusing even to listen to the voice of small business. That does not stack up with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady has got it wrong again. The Government listened to the voice of business, both in the preparation for the White Paper and in consultation so far. That is why we have the threshold. The proposal is in the Bill because we listened. Let us remember that at the start of the process there was opposition to the recognition arrangements. We accept that there is a difference of opinion about the principle of recognition, but the Government have bent over backwards to secure agreement among social partners on a range of measures within the recognition process. Where there has not been agreement, the Government have produced balanced proposals.
  44
  I have listened to the arguments of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and of her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), before he moved on to pastures new. We sometimes miss the right hon. Gentleman. That is not the hon. Lady's fault, but occasionally he brought a spark to our debates, given his rather extreme views on employment relations in the workplace. The hon. Lady may have similar views and, from her point of view, may put them over more convincingly than her right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Opposition amendments are really inspired by hostility to trade unions, which the Conservatives see as an incubus on business? In fact, well-regulated businesses of any size receive great support and help from trade unions. They flag up employee discontent at an early stage and allow conduits for problems to be resolved satisfactorily. They flag up health and safety issues.
  There are a variety of matters on which anyone who runs a business should set out to have a good relationship with the trade unions, so that the business can be run efficiently and well.
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. Employers have increasingly moved away from the agenda of the 1980s and early 1990s, when confrontation was the name of the game and managers of companies and their owners were isolated from the work force. The Conservatives encouraged confrontation. We have now moved to an era of more partnership, where employers see equal value in ensuring that the work force have got representation that enables them to communicate effectively with them, to see them as their most important asset and to see the trade unions who represent the work force as part of the process of securing a long-term future for the company concerned.
  Mrs. Browning rose—
  Mr. McCartney: The minute that I mention trade unions, the hon. Lady is up on her hind legs.
  Mrs. Browning: Indeed I am, because it was the Conservative legislation of the 1980s that set union members free to have a say. That legislation, which was opposed by the Minister and the Labour party, ensured that the people—he will be familiar with that term—got the power in the workplace. We took it away from union bosses who had abused it for decades. I am accused by Labour of not being in favour of trade unions, but the point the Minister raised about merchant seamen related to an amendment to employment legislation that I made the previous Government accept in the previous Parliament. I pioneered it on behalf of merchant seamen. I need no lectures from Labour.
  Mr. McCartney: Having been sacked under a Conservative Government for seeking to recruit people to trade unions, I think that the hon. Lady's comments have a hollow ring. The Conservative party and its Front-Bench team have made their views clear. They oppose trade unions and effective trade unionism. They undermine at each stage the concept of partnership in the workplace, and continue with the old language of us and them and the old concept of employee representation. We have

  45
  moved on decades, but the hon. Lady is still back in the 1970s, 1980s or early 1990s. As we go into the next century, we are trying to provide through this Bill a new basis of partnership in the workplace, with rights and responsibilities. That is what we have set out our stall with, and it increasingly has the support of the business community.
  I have not found the hon. Lady's arguments so far convincing. The amendments would allow a union to be recognised on the basis of 21 workers, but derecognised on the basis of 50. That is hardly logical or sensible. I shall address the underlying point of the 21-worker threshold for recognition and derecognition.
  Mr. John Healey: My right hon. Friend might be interested to know that I held a two-hour consultation with small and medium-sized businesses in the Dearne valley through the Dearne valley business club on Friday. They welcomed the Small Business Service and when we discussed taxation and regulation, not one employer raised a concern about our recognition proposals. Does he agree that despite the protestation of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) that she is making a last-ditch attempt to protect small business, there is in fact a large last-ditch attempt to extend the licence of some employers unilaterally to deny the right of workers to representation through a trade union, even if there is a strong majority in support in the firm?
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton cannot in 18 minutes of this debate wash away the 18 years of incompetence towards small business of the previous Government. She is trying to curry favour with small businesses.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Small Ministers.
  Mr. McCartney: As well as being anti-union, Conservative Members are sizeist. I can see the hon. Gentleman eye to eye from here and if he wants to contribute, he is welcome.
  No small businesses in Britain will be impressed by the Conservative party's deathbed conversion to looking after their interests in this place. Most small businesses see the Conservative party as irrelevant to the needs of the next decade, to the development of their businesses and the economy, and to the stable macro-economic policy that goes with it. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton is trying to do a disservice to the tens of thousands of small businesses that recognise trade unions and want to continue that. Increasingly, since the introduction of this Bill, employers are asking trade unions to talk to them about recognition. The culture is changing out there. The hon. Lady may want to stand on the beach and stop the tide coming in, but she will not—she cannot. Employers want effective, good working relationships with trade unions.
  I understand the hon. Lady's stated desire to protect small firms from onerous demands; I shall return to that point in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) was right to point out that in all the discussions held by Labour Members, whether Ministers or not, there is continuing dialogue with small businesses—in our constituencies, regionally and
  46
  nationally. They come to us with practical problems and issues; they are not fundamentally opposed to their employees having a say, or being represented in the workplace by a union of the employees' choice. Nor are they opposed to effective information and consultation processes in the workplace.
  Small businesses have an entirely different agenda, which is more practical and down to earth. They want the Government to be alongside them; that is why the Small Business Service will be an outstanding success as an advocate for small businesses in their relationship with the Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth introduced the Bill that became the Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998—another ground-breaking piece of legislation which assists in the prevention of disputes or in their resolution so that they do not go before employment tribunals. That was another attempt by the Government to provide new services, especially so that small businesses and employees could resolve their differences without having to go to a tribunal. The Government are putting in place a range of measures to help to improve employment relations but, if disputes arise, those measures will help to resolve them effectively and quickly.
  Mrs. Browning: If everything is so wonderful, why does the right hon. Gentleman think that in the Institute of Directors "Fairness at Work" research paper, a company states:
  "We employ less than 20 people at present and with the Government's current attitude we're likely to stay that way."?
  Is the agenda to keep small businesses small?
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady knows that the previous Conservative Government were not even interested in keeping them small. They buried them—for every three minutes of every working day, one small business went bust under the Tories. Under the Labour Government, small businesses are flourishing—a 38,000 net gain in 1998 during our first year in government. We are determined to see a growth in the small and medium-sized business sector; that is why we reduced corporation tax from 23 to 20p in the pound—the lowest rate ever, and it will be kept there, or below, for this Parliament. We introduced a 10p starting rate of tax to help new companies to get established, and to be effective in maintaining and achieving growth. That is why we have put huge sums into investment in small businesses and given them access to venture capital. The Government are serious about the promotion of small businesses in the economy.
  I could list a range of measures. However, I advise the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton to read my speech in Hansard of 25 June, when we debated innovation and enterprise. That whole debate was on the Government's strategy for small and medium-sized enterprises. The hon. Lady is just plain wrong. It goes back to the point I made earlier. She cannot get off the hook; she is anti-trade union. She does not want unions to be effective in the workplace.
  As for the point about the Institute of Directors, I have a good working relationship with the institute. I cannot call its members "comrades", as I call my colleagues in the Confederation of British Industry—I am not quite sure that I can use that word of my colleagues in the Institute

  47
  of Directors. There are some matters on which we disagree and the matter raised by the hon. Lady is one of them. The Institute of Directors has been opposed to the whole concept of recognition. I accept that its members hold that view. However, that does not prevent me from having a fair and effective working relationship with the institute on a range of other issues. I want a good relationship with the institute and I have one. This is just one of the issues on which we disagree.
  However, it is interesting to note that many of the companies that are members of the institute recognise trade unions. For all the huffing and puffing, when it comes to the practicalities and the day-to-day arrangements for effective consultation processes and working relationships, they are more than happy to engage with trade unions—increasingly so.
  Mr. Phil Woolas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as well as being hostile to trade unions, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) misunderstands the point? It is quite possible in a firm of 19 or 20 employees, under the rights of individual representation—rather than the recognition given by the Bill—for a trade union to have access to an employer 19 times over. In every business, there comes a point when an employer would sooner deal with one collective representative than try to deal with a series of individual problems. Given that the balance has to be struck somewhere between those two points—collective recognition and individual representation—do not many companies, especially those in the clothing and textile sector—
  5 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not make such long interventions.
  Mr. McCartney: That intervention took longer than 21 seconds, so it is not allowed under the statutory procedures of the House. However, my hon. Friend's point is fair and valid, and would be echoed by all Labour Members. Employers want to have effective relationships in the workplace, and we as a Government are trying to get the balance right between individual and collective rights. At disciplinary and grievance proceedings, all employees will, for the first time, have the statutory right to be represented, or to have someone with them, whether that is a full-time, part-time or voluntary trade union official or a fellow employee.
  The basis of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton is a stated desire to protect small firms from onerous demands, but I believe that that is only a shield to cover her anti-trade union views. However, the Government share her stated views: we do not and will not place onerous demands on small businesses. That is why, at the end of the consultation process, we were able to confirm the White Paper's statement about arrangements for businesses employing fewer than 21 workers.
  Unlike the hon. Lady, we thought that that limit would not place a terrible burden on small businesses. After taking evidence and discussing the matter with various firms, we could have chosen a larger or smaller figure if
  48
  we had thought it appropriate; however, we decided that, on balance, 21 reflected our judgment of the best figure. I am happy to repeat the assurances that we have given previously. We believe that 21 is a sensible and workable figure, but we have taken powers to amend it if, in practice, it turns out to be too low or too high.
  Let me remind the House why we introduced the recognition procedure: it is to promote voluntary agreements between unions and employers, and to allow workers who want the protection and representation of a union in bargaining their pay, hours and holidays to have a right to that protection and representation, if that is what the majority of workers want. That is a common sense approach. The issue has been discussed both here and in the other place, and every time the Conservatives have expressed the assumption that trade unions are necessarily bad for business. That is not true.
  An increasing number of members of the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and similar organisations accept and involve trade unions in their activities and in the workplace. Industrial relations are not a zero sum game: that one side gains does not mean that another loses. Our proposals are balanced. Workers, whether or not they are union members, will benefit from working in partnership with their employer, and the employer will benefit as well. It is a question of mutual trust and mutual involvement, instilling a sense of belonging and involvement and so helping the business to grow.
  I cannot agree with the hon. Lady's amendments, either in the letter or in the spirit. Therefore, forlornly, I ask her not to press them to a vote.
  Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 350, Noes 121.

  Division No. 273]

  [5.4 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Borrow, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Allan, Richard

  Brake, Tom

  Allen, Graham

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Breed, Colin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Austin, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Ballard, Jackie

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Barnes, Harry

  Burden, Richard

  Barren, Kevin

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Battle, John

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Beggs, Roy

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cann, Jamie

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Casale, Roger

  Benton, Joe

  Caton, Martin

  Berry, Roger

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Betts, Clive

  Chaytor, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Chidgey, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Boateng, Paul

  Clapham, Michael

  49

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Healey, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cohen, Harry

  Heppell, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Connarty, Michael

  Hill, Keith

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoey, Kate

  Cotter, Brian

  Home Robertson, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cox, Tom

  Hope, Phil

  Cranston, Ross

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Crausby, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hurst, Alan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hutton, John

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Darvill, Keith

  Illsley, Eric

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jamieson, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jenkins, Brian

  Denham, John

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dowd, Jim

  Drew, David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Efford, Clive

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Keetch, Paul

  Etherington, Bill

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Kemp, Fraser

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Fisher, Mark

  Kidney, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Flint, Caroline

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Flynn, Paul

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Levitt, Tom

  Foulkes, George

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Galloway, George

  Linton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Livingstone, Ken

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Love, Andrew

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McAllion, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McDonnell, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  McFall, John

  Grogan, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gunnell, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hain, Peter

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  50

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sanders, Adrian

  McNamara, Kevin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McNulty, Tony

  Sawford, Phil

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McWalter, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Singh, Marsha

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Martlew, Eric

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

  Maxton, John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Meale, Alan

  Snape, Peter

  Merron, Gillian

  Soley, Clive

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Miller, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stevenson, George

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Morley, Elliot

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stringer, Graham

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mullin, Chris

  Stunell, Andrew

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Oaten, Mark

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Olner, Bill

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Timms, Stephen

  Pendry, Tom

  Tipping, Paddy

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Todd, Mark

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Plaskitt, James

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pond, Chris

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pope, Greg

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pound, Stephen

  Tyler, Paul

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Watts, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Webb, Steve

  Purchase, Ken

  White, Brian

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rammell, Bill

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Rapson, Syd

  Raynsford, Nick

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Wills, Michael

  Rendel, David

  Wilson, Brian

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Winnick, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wise, Audrey

  Rooney, Terry

  Woolas, Phil

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wray, James

  Roy, Frank

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mr. David Hanson and

  Salter, Martin

  Mr. David Clelland.

  51

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Loughton, Tim

  Bercow, John

  Luff, Peter

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Blunt, Crispin

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Body, Sir Richard

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Boswell, Tim

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Brady, Graham

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Brazier, Julian

  Malins, Humfrey

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Maples, John

  Burns, Simon

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Butterfill, John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Moss, Malcolm

  Clappison, James

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Page, Richard

  Collins, Tim

  Paice, James

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Pickles, Eric

  Cran, James

  Prior, David

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Randall, John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Duncan, Alan

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Evans, Nigel

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Faber, David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Fallon, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Flight, Howard

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Spring, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Steen, Anthony

  Fraser, Christopher

  Streeter, Gary

  Gale, Roger

  Swayne, Desmond

  Garnier, Edward

  Syms, Robert

  Gibb, Nick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Gill, Christopher

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Gray, James

  Townend, John

  Green, Damian

  Trend, Michael

  Greenway, John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Viggers, Peter

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Walter, Robert

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Wardle, Charles

  Hammond, Philip

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hawkins, Nick

  Wells, Bowen

  Hayes, John

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Whittingdale, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Wilkinson, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Wilshire, David

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Key, Robert

  Yeo, Tim

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lansley, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Letwin, Oliver

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  and

  Lidington, David

  Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have before made a point of order about the hurdles facing hon. Members who are working in their offices in Norman Shaw North. If the traffic lights are against them when they are crossing the top end of
  52
  Bridge street to enter the parliamentary estate to try to vote in a Division, they are held up probably by a minute and a half, which is critical during a Division. I have just missed a Division for that reason. I hope that, as this is the second time that I have raised this issue, the authorities will take it into consideration for the convenience of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I reply to the hon. Lady? The hon. Gentleman cannot make a further point of order until I have done so. This business is time limited, so points of order are taking up time that is allotted to hon. Members who may want to debate the business. However, to answer the hon. Lady, I recall her raising this matter before, and I hope that the House authorities will take note of her remarks because this is not a matter for the Chair.
  Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for taking up any of the time that is allotted for the business, but postponing points of order until after the Division means that the Chair has no way of correcting problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who was locked out of the Lobby at the last moment, as everyone saw, might have been allowed to enter the Lobby to vote. The Chair has, on occasion, allowed late-comers to enter the Lobby, but that facility is useless if one cannot make a point of order until the vote is over. I do not ask you to make a ruling now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I should hate a hasty decision to stand for ever, but will you discuss the matter with Madam Speaker and bear it in mind?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I note the right hon. Gentleman's point.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may raise a point of order if it relates to this matter. I made the point that we are taking up time allotted for this business, and I have given an adequate reply.
  Mr. Winterton: I have an agreeable and close relationship with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who raised the original point of order. It is a matter about which I, too, am concerned. During Divisions, could the traffic lights be manned by a member of the Metropolitan police, particularly when there are so many tourists in London, to ensure that Members of Parliament can gain ready and speedy access to the precincts of the House of Commons?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  Lords amendments Nos. 36 to 279 agreed to.

Schedule 3

  BALLOTS AND NOTICES
  Lords amendment: No. 280, in page 60, line 8, at end insert—
  ("Separate workplace ballots
  ("Separate workplace ballots
  . The following shall be substituted for section 228 (separate workplace ballots)—
  "Separate workplace ballots.
  228.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), this section applies if the members entitled to vote in a ballot by virtue of section 227 do not all have the same workplace.
  (2) This section does not apply if the union reasonably believes that all those members have the same workplace.
  (3) Subject to section 228A, a separate ballot shall be held for each workplace; and entitlement to vote in each ballot shall be accorded equally to, and restricted to, members of the union who—

  (a) are entitled to vote by virtue of section 227, and

  (b) have that workplace.

  (4) In this section and section 228A "workplace" in relation to a person who is employed means—

  if the person works at or from a single set of premises, those premises, and

  in any other case, the premises with which the person's employment has the closest connection.

  Separate workplaces: single and aggregate ballots.
  228A.—(1) Where section 228(3) would require separate ballots to be held for each workplace, a ballot may be held in place of some or all of the separate ballots if one of subsections (2) to (4) is satisfied in relation to it.
  (2) This subsection is satisfied in relation to a ballot if the workplace of each member entitled to vote in the ballot is the workplace of at least one member of the union who is affected by the dispute.
  (3) This subsection is satisfied in relation to a ballot if entitlement to vote is accorded to, and limited to, all the members of the union who—

  (a) according to the union's reasonable belief have an occupation of a particular kind or have any of a number of particular kinds of occupation, and

  (b) are employed by a particular employer, or by any of a number of particular employers, with whom the union is in dispute.

  (4) This subsection is satisfied in relation to a ballot if entitlement to vote is accorded to, and limited to, all the members of the union who are employed by a particular employer, or by any of a number of particular employers, with whom the union is in dispute.
  (5) For the purposes of subsection (2) the following are members of the union affected by a dispute—

  (a) if the dispute relates (wholly or partly) to a decision which the union reasonably believes the employer has made or will make concerning a matter specified in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) of section 244 (meaning of "trade dispute"), members whom the decision directly affects,

  (b) if the dispute relates (wholly or partly) to a matter specified in subsection (1)(d) of that section, members whom the matter directly affects,

  (c) if the dispute relates (wholly or partly) to a matter specified in subsection (1)(e) of that section, persons whose membership or non-membership is in dispute,

  54

  (d) if the dispute relates (wholly or partly) to a matter specified in subsection (1)(f) of that section, officials of the union who have used or would use the facilities concerned in the dispute." ")

  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Ian McCartney.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 281 to 283.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am most interested that more than 100 amendments from the other place have been agreed to by the House. Does that not demonstrate the most outstanding performance by the House of Lords in constructively amending this Bill? The Government of the day, who are hostile to the role of the House of Lords, have found it possible to agree to dozens and dozens of amendments proposed in the upper House.
  I draw this to the House's attention to show my support for the House of Lords and the valuable job that it does.
  Mr. Eric Forth rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must inform the hon. Gentleman that he cannot use amendment No. 280 as a means of supporting the other place. I was hoping that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would not do so, either.
  Mr. Forth: I was about to endorse amendment No. 280 and to say that we should be grateful to the other place for deliberating as it has on this and many other amendments.
  Mrs. Browning: If my right hon. Friend looks at the Bill, he will see that, since it left this place, it has been amended substantially by the other place, which is why there are so many amendments on the amendment paper.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We should pay tribute to the quality of the work that has been done by the other place. It is reflected in amendment No. 280 and in many other amendments—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned many other amendments. He can discuss only the amendments in the group. This is not an opportunity for a general debate on the other place; it is specifically on the amendment before us, which covers trade union ballots.
  Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the subject of ballots, above any other, the fascinating thing is that the other place should have taken such a view and that the Government should be asking this House to agree with it. That, in itself, is quite remarkable. The Government's original criticism of the other place was that it was not supported by a balloting procedure, yet here we have the other place amending legislation in the whole area of ballots. I shall not digress, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it so happens that I support the concept of an elected upper House, which would involve ballots.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given a ruling. The make-up of the other place has nothing to do with

  55
  the amendment before us. It might be helpful to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst if he thinks of these as normal amendments. He gets confused only if he starts dealing with the other place. I call Mr. Forth.
  Mr. Forth: I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Leigh: I wanted to remind my right hon. Friend that we are trying to take forward a process, with regard to trade unions, that furthers democracy. We are talking about ballots. Would it not be absurd if, in a trade union, there were only two voters for a particular post, so that, if one died, the remaining voter had a unique opportunity to elect the remaining member? If there were only three members and three voters, and one died, it would be possible to come to an agreement. That is precisely what is happening in the other place. If one of the two remaining Labour hereditary peers dies—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is totally out of order. If the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst continues down this line, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat, because he is not keeping within the terms of the amendment before us.
  Mr. Forth: I wholeheartedly endorse the excellent work done by the other place and the contribution that it has made in the context of this amendment. I find it heartening that it is now being supported by the Government. We should take note of that, and I hope that
  56
  the House will wish to record its satisfaction with the contribution that the other place has made to the quality of this legislation.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 281 to 322, No. 323 and Government amendment (c) thereto, and Nos. 324 to 331 agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to the motion on the Reasons Committee.
  Mr. Forth: I recall that this motion is debatable. We have debated it on previous occasions, and I think it appropriate to take this opportunity to explore its implications. I say that particularly in the context of a motion that the House considered earlier, and on which, in fact, it divided.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Under the guillotine, the motion is not debatable; I must put the Question forthwith.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Frank Doran, Mr. Ian McCartney and Mr. Greg Pope; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Hill.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  Employment Relations Bill (Supplemental Allocation of Time)
  Ordered,
  That the Order of the House of 22nd July 1999 be supplemented as follows—

  Subsequent stages
  1. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Employment Relations Bill.
  2. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
  3. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion the Speaker shall—

  (a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided, and the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair,

  (b) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message, and

  (c) put forthwith the Question, That this House does agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

  Reasons Committee
  4. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
  5. A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

  Miscellaneous
  6.—(1) This paragraph applies to proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill and to proceedings of the kind mentioned in paragraph 4.
  (2) Standing Order No.15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings; and the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House.
  (3) Where proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24, commence at a time when proceedings to which this paragraph applies are in progress, the proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of the proceedings to which this paragraph applies.
  7. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which proceedings on any further Lords Message are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.—[Mr. Hill.]

  Local Government Bill (Supplemental Allocation of Time)
  5.38 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move,
  That the Order of the House of 24th March 1999 be supplemented as follows:

  Lords Amendments
  1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
  2. (1) For the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker shall—

  (a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House does agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended.

  (b) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment followed by the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House does agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended,

  (c) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House does disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment, and

  (d) put forthwith the Question, That this House does agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.

  (2) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

  Subsequent stages
  3. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
  4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
  5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion the Speaker shall—

  (a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided, and the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair,

  (b) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message, and

  (c) put forthwith the Question, That this House does agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

  Reasons Committee
  6. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
  7. A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

  Miscellaneous
  8. This paragraph applies to—

  (a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments,

  (b) proceedings on any further Message from the Lords, and

  (c) proceedings of the kind mentioned in paragraph 6.

  9. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies.
  10. Proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  11. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  12. Where proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24, commence at a time when proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies are in progress, the proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of the proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies.
  13. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
  The Local Government Bill left the House of Commons on 24 March for another place, and has now completed its passage through the Upper House. It has been further improved by my noble Friends, and we therefore have a few amendments to consider. The Bill has already been subjected to extensive scrutiny both here and in another place, and I think it entirely appropriate to limit the amount of time available for discussion of the amendments.
  Local government needs to be clear about exactly when the Bill will become an Act, so progress on it is very important. We need to make progress on, in particular, work relating to best value.
  I understand that, in the main, the debates in the upper House were conducted in an excellent spirit, with noble Lords committed to clarifying the Bill and its implications. I hope that something of that spirit still attaches to the Bill and that we can have a productive and constructive discussion. All the amendments that we have to consider were introduced in another place by the Government, whether to clarify existing provisions or to meet concerns that had been expressed by noble Lords. They are intended not to be controversial, but solely to improve the Bill.
  Therefore, I shall spend no further time discussing the guillotine motion and hope that we can move on as soon as possible to considering the amendments.
  5.40 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: By any standards, this is an extraordinary motion, but, sadly, all too typical of the Government. There is a danger of regarding such motions as an everyday event. Indeed, they are almost becoming that; they are becoming a habit with the Government. Better than any glossy annual report, the motion reveals the Government's true state: it shows vividly their control-freak tendency.
  60
  We have to ask ourselves first: what has the motion to do with the Bill? The Minister referred to the history of the Bill. During the debate on the timetable motion, she talked about the scrutiny in Committee. She said:
  "Debate was conducted in good spirit: it was overwhelmingly constructive, and there was a general intention to improve the Bill, not to wreck it."—[Official Report, 24 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 399.]
  Ms Armstrong: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Waterson: I assume from that sedentary intervention that the Minister still stands by those sentiments. She made some complaint at the time that the Report stage was taking too long, hence the allocation of time motion. She will have read carefully the debates in the Lords. Indeed, she has conceded that the Lords had, to use her word, improved the Bill. One hesitates to think what will happen after the Lords have been emasculated by the Government.
  The Lords debates have been constructive and concise. Many amendments were discussed in the other place and not pressed to a vote. There was clearly no attempt to delay the Bill. The Minister has implicitly conceded that point.
  Ms Armstrong indicated assent.
  Mr. Waterson: The Minister does so again from a sedentary position.
  We shall discuss an amendment on consultation with outside bodies over best value. That point, which was raised by Opposition Members in the Lords, was accepted in principle by the Minister in the other place and reproduced in the form of a Government amendment. That is just one concrete example of how the other place has set about the Bill in a constructive and workmanlike fashion—so much so that, in effect, all today's amendments are Government amendments, many of them technical in character.
  I have a shrewd suspicion that debating all the amendments will take less time than is allocated for in the timetable motion. Therefore, why are we having the motion at all? It clearly has nothing to do with the business that is before us.
  We shall not, of course, have the opportunity, because of the utter reasonableness of their lordships, to debate again some of the big issues in the Bill. The Government's desire to be over-prescriptive and over-centralising in their attitude to local government contrasts starkly with the Conservative party's approach to local government: it wants to localise and to repatriate powers to it. The Bill will, of course, give the Government unprecedented and draconian powers against local government.
  The Government were not willing to accept in the Bill even a sunset provision. As the Bill now makes no such provision, we shall not be able to debate the matter. Neither does the Bill contain de minimis provision. Neither shall be we be able to debate the continuation, under another name, of capping—despite the Government's clear general election pledge to get rid of it.

  61
  I return to my question: why exactly are the Government pressing their timetable motion today? Why use a sledgehammer to crack a nut? There can be no suggestion of the Opposition seeking to disrupt the passage of this business. Just a few days ago, on 22 July, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) rightly said—it applies also to this motion—that the Government's guillotines are
  "caught up in some wider Government agenda".
  He went on to say:
  "The guillotine has nothing to do with these two Bills; it is revenge"—
  for something else that happened.
  I endorse those remarks entirely in the context of this guillotine. I also entirely agree with the shadow Leader of the House's remarks, made in the same debate, that
  "The guillotine is therefore unnecessary and vindictive … it is an attempt to unite the Labour party after its well-advertised splits and tensions, and it does so at the expense of the freedoms of the House."—[Official Report, 22 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 1363-67.]
  The fact is that the Government are becoming positively promiscuous in their use of such motions to crush dissent and stifle debate. The motions reveal business managers' nervousness half-way through this Parliament, and after local and European election results and the recent Eddisbury by-election. I was pleased to see my new hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) take his seat earlier today.
  As we approach the next general election, Government Whips will begin to find Labour Back Benchers less easy to control. We are also now entering the much-heralded so-called "year of delivery". However, between now and the next general election, glossy brochures will no longer be sufficient: the Government will have to start delivering on some of their pledges.
  I am sure that there are other reasons for the motion—such as Labour Members who like to be tucked up in bed at an early hour; and Ministers who do not like facing the fast-bowling, or want to get off on their holidays. Perhaps the impending reshuffle, however, is the most significant reason for this ill-judged motion. I wish the Minister—I am sure that my right. hon. and hon. Friends will agree—nothing but the best in the impending reshuffle. We enjoy having her where she is, and wish her a long and happy stay in that position. However, reshuffles affect not only Ministers, but Whips.
  Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend was very selective. I wonder whether he was being so deliberately?
  Mr. Waterson: I was probably being selective accidentally, if that is of any help to my hon. Friend—who made a cogent point, if only I knew what it was.
  The fact is that such motions are a matter of not merely Ministers and Labour Back Benchers but Government Whips—who wish to appear macho, to protect their own jobs. It remains to be seen how successful they are in that endeavour.
  62
  As for the Opposition, I shall certainly not be seeking to divide the House on the motion. The Government, with their large majority, could certainly—yet again—steamroller it through. However, in the context not only of the Bill and its provisions, but of Parliament and its rights and duties, it is important that we should make it absolutely clear that we wholly deprecate the motion, and think that it is wholly unnecessary.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: In the Minister's brief introduction to the debate, she relied fairly heavily on the argument that the matters that we shall be considering were "non-controversial"—I think that that was the term that she used. She seemed to imply that the provisions had been eased quietly through another place—where little debate on them was necessary—and that they were all just jolly good, non-controversial things on which we need not detain ourselves for too long. That in itself is controversial. It is not good enough for a Minister to say that something is non-controversial simply because she says so, and that therefore the House should pay little or no attention to it. That assertion needs to be challenged.
  That would be so in any case. However, when one looks, even cursorily, at the headings for the groupings of amendments to be covered in three hours, if we agree to the motion—which I am reluctant to do without further clarification—one sees that we are to deal with matters such as "Consultation on performance indicators." That is a very broad subject. Consultation is never uncontroversial—maybe not the fact of it, but its extent. Those who are to be involved in consultation is a matter for debate.
  We are then to be asked to consider:
  "Inspections: housing benefit and council tax benefit."
  What could be more controversial than these matters? The House could easily spend three hours on each of them. Then we come to:
  "Powers of the Secretary of State, and commencement".
  If there is one thing that should make the House anxious, it is the phrase:
  "Powers of the Secretary of State".
  These matters have been debated with passion in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House time and again, and rightly so. In that innocuous phrase could lie any number of controversial matters which the Minister has sought to brush under the carpet and slide through the House without further consideration. That is to say nothing about commencement which, I confess, may be relatively uncontroversial. However, in other circumstances, the nature and timing of the commencement of a Bill can be a matter for some argument.
  We then come to an amendment charmingly headed "Minor and drafting". If ever I saw a candidate for closer inspection, that is it. How often have we come across matters of great importance buried under that innocuous-sounding heading?
  Sir Paul Beresford: One aspect of "Minor and drafting" concerns the Greater London Authority, as the Government have had to shift the numbering of 10 clauses because the first 60 clauses have had another 10 added. Is not that an indication of the quality of the drafting and the thinking of the Department in proposing the Bill?
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who reinforces my point. Concealed within this heading can be any number of changes—some of which, I accept, may be reasonable. However, others may well materially affect the substance of the Bill, and therefore deserve further consideration.
  Last but not least, we are to consider "Council Tax and precepts"—a matter which, in the past, has often given rise to debates that have lasted a whole day. In your many years of distinguished service to the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will have been party to debates in Standing Committee, if not on the Floor of the House, in which "Council tax and precepts" alone could have given rise to many hours of impassioned debate by hon. Members. So many aspects of this matter would normally require detailed consideration and debate.
  I am beginning to wonder whether the motion to restrict debate is remotely acceptable. I hope that the Minister will feel it necessary to expand on what she said to reassure us why she believes that only three hours is sufficient to deal with all these important matters. I do not accept her characterisation of these matters as non-controversial. How could council tax and the powers of the Secretary of State be non-controversial? I have never heard of such a thing.
  It is getting towards the end of term, and the Minister has her bucket and spade on her mind—some of her right hon. Friends have caravanning on their minds. Ministers are all worried sick about the reshuffle, about which the Prime Minister seems unable to make up his mind. However, those are not good enough reasons to hurry through the business this evening. Ministers are all worried out of their minds about losing their gigantic ministerial salaries, private offices and chauffeur-driven cars, but they are paid enough and they should be prepared to be here as long as necessary to do justice to the matters before us. They should not say insultingly that they want to rush business through in three hours so that they can go to their offices and worry about whether they will still be in their jobs tomorrow.
  I hope that the Minister will seek to expand on these matters as I ponder whether I wish to support the guillotine motion.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: I listened closely to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), the Opposition spokesman, and I heard nothing worthwhile to support his objection to the guillotine motion—a motion which, on principle, Liberal Democrats would normally want to oppose. However, we need reasons for opposing the motion.
  A great deal of time has been spent on this Bill in this House, in Committee and in another place. We will spend some time on it tonight, and there will be opportunities in future to spend more time on it.
  64
  The reasons given by the official Opposition seem to have nothing to do with the business before us, and are simply opposition for opposition's sake. I hope that we can draw this debate to a fairly prompt close so that we can get on with debating the Lords amendments.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: That was an extraordinary speech from someone who claims to represent a party which is seeking to hold the Government to account.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that it was hardly an extraordinary speech? It was a typical speech from a Liberal Democrat.
  Mr. Leigh: I agree, and to take my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) to task for what I thought was an over-moderate speech and for daring to speak one word of opposition to the Government was ridiculous of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders).
  I wish to refer to timetable motions, which were quite rare. There were no timetable motions at all in the House until the controversies of the Government of Ireland legislation in the last century, when the Bill raged back and forth on Report alone for some 80 days and the Speaker had to stay in his seat literally for hour after hour. The whole Government were in danger of crumbling because they could not keep their people on the Benches for those hours.
  When I entered this House, I did not think that timetable motions were applicable to minor amendments at this late stage of a Bill. The Government cannot have it both ways. If these amendments are uncontroversial, surely there is no need for a timetable motion. Surely nobody suspects that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would talk for hour after hour and hold up the Government's business. In fact, we will not be able to hold anything up, because there is no major business to conclude before we all go on holiday tomorrow.

  Three hours is not long for any debate, but if my right hon. and hon. Friends wanted to spend three hours on the timetable motion, there would be no time at all to discuss the amendments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst maintains that the amendments are not uncontroversial. That may be part of the truth, but they contain nothing that is likely to detain the House for hour after hour.
  The House will have to come to a sensible conclusion about timetable motions if we are to protect our traditional role of scrutinising the Executive. Are we entering a period when virtually every Bill is timetabled? Some think that that would be a good idea.
  Ms Armstrong indicated assent
  Mr. Leigh: Some believe that one should have an agreement from the word go, to stop filibustering and prevent the Opposition from talking for hour after hour in Committee while Government Back Benchers are told by their Whips to say nothing. That is a perfectly justifiable point of view.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend mentioned filibustering. I hope that he will accept that that is impossible in the House because of the diligence and wisdom of the occupants of the Chair, who will always prevent any suggestion of time wasting or frivolity.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman should not try to draw the Chair into the argument.
  Mr. James Gray: My hon. Friend may not have noticed just now that the Minister showed that she wholeheartedly agreed that the more business was guillotined, the better it was from her point of view.
  Mr. Leigh: The Minister is an honest lady who is entitled to her point of view. She believes that all business should be timetabled. That is a rational and logical point of view. That might be convenient for the Government, because it would mean that they could plan their business exactly, but it might not be entirely convenient for the Opposition or, more important, for the process of democracy, which relies on Oppositions using the one power that is available to them—to speak. That power has not been taken lightly and has often resulted in the harsh light of scrutiny being thrown on Bills.
  Are we playing a game in the House, in which the Government say their piece, we say ours, and they get their business through with some cosy arrangement agreed through the usual channels; or is this a living and vibrant place in which people feel passionately and use the power available to Back Benchers to talk and talk and subject the Executive to scrutiny, perhaps thereby making the Government slip up? That is what we are paid to do. It is a noble and important role for Oppositions.
  Mr. Swayne: When programme motion after programme motion was agreed between Government and Opposition Front Benchers during the passage of the Scotland Bill—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need to give me the history of the Scotland Bill. I was sitting here at the time. We do not want to get into that.
  Mr. Leigh: This is not the Scotland Bill; it is not a matter of huge controversy. In the 1970s, we took weeks and weeks to discuss devolution legislation. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was there day after day—as were the late Mr. Enoch Powell, and Mr. Michael Foot—holding the Government to account. What is wrong with that?
  We will not have hour after hour and day after day of controversy on the Bill, but we are saying that it is treating the House with contempt to allow only three hours for our deliberations, including the timetable motion. The Government should be ashamed of themselves.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: The problem when a programme motion is agreed between Government and Opposition Front Benchers is that, in the ordinary course of debate, issues are discovered that require further elucidation by the Minister or, indeed, by Back Benchers. The timetable motion, agreed in advance, simply cannot take account of that. That is why such motions should be avoided if at all possible.
  66
  The motion is entirely avoidable. It may be that we will not come across issues that could have detained us long, but it remains a possibility. That is why it is pointless to have a programme motion when one is clearly not needed.
  Question put and agreed to
  Resolved,
  That the Order of the House of 24th March 1999 be supplemented as follows:

  Lords Amendments
  1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
  2. (1) For the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker shall—

  (a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House does agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended.

  (b) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment followed by the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House does agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended,

  (c) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House does disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment, and

  (d) put forthwith the Question, That this House does agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.

  (2) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

  Subsequent stages
  3. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
  4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
  5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion the Speaker shall—

  (a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided, and the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair,

  (b) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message, and

  (c) put forthwith the Question, That this House does agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

  Reasons Committee
  6. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
  7. A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

  Miscellaneous
  8. This paragraph applies to—

  (a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments,

  (b) proceedings on any further Message from the Lords, and

  (c) proceedings of the kind mentioned in paragraph 6.

  9. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies.
  10. Proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (11) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  (12) Where proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24, commence at a time when proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies are in progress, the proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of the proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies.
  (13) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Local Government Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 14 and 20, which are to be considered today. If the House agrees to either of the amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

  Clause 4
  PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND STANDARDS
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 36, leave out ("such persons as he thinks fit.") and insert—
  ("(a) persons appearing to him to represent the best value authorities concerned, and
  (b) such other persons (if any) as he thinks fit.")
  6.6 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  The amendment further refines subsection 4(3) by placing a requirement on the Secretary of State, or the National Assembly for Wales, to consult persons who appear to them to represent best value authorities, and other persons, if any, as they consider appropriate, before specifying performance indicators or standards under the clause.
  The Government have made it clear, both in the local government White Papers published a year ago and regularly during the passage of this Bill through both Houses, that we intend to consult widely on performance indicators and standards before they are specified under the clause. Hon. Members will be pleased to see that commitment set out in the Bill. I hope that they will also be pleased to hear that we intend to consult on our draft suite of best value performance indicators and standards shortly.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: The Minister rightly said that the amendment is about consultation. It was a constant theme in the Bill's earlier stages both here and in another place that, given that the Government are taking draconian powers, there should be as wide a consultation as possible. The clause originally referred to the Secretary of State consulting anyone whom he saw fit to consult, so we welcome the amendment.
  I agree with what the Minister said about the provenance of the amendment. It arose from a debate in the other place. It would insert into the Bill a requirement to consult with representatives of best value authorities when consulting on performance indicators and standards. That matter worried the Local Government Association and other bodies representing local government. The amendment reflects the views on all sides of the House of Lords.
  Sir Paul Beresford: All hon. Members will agree with what my hon. Friend is saying, but amendment No. 6, to which we will come later, would speed up the introduction of the provisions on best value.
  70
  Any delay would therefore mean that matters reserved for consultation would not be ready in time for the introduction of the legislation. Should not the Government delay implementation, or at least confine it to those measures that are on the face of the Bill?
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend makes a very practical point, which we shall debate in connection with amendment No. 6. I hope that the Minister responding to that debate will take my hon. Friend's remarks into account.
  The amendment reflects the cross-party views of the House of Lords. We have always argued that, if the Government were to insist on taking such draconian powers, the consultation involved should be as wide as possible. The amendment also reflects the concerns of local government organisations, and those raised by Baroness Miller in the House of Lords. I welcome it.
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: I wish only to emphasise that the amendment enjoyed cross-party agreement in the other place, where it was accepted that consultation was vital and should be as wide as possible. I hope that the Minister will spell out the limits of the consultation and assure the House that sufficient time will be available for it.
  Mr. Meale: I assure the House that all appropriate authorities and associations will be consulted. Moreover, I can tell the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) that there will be no delay. The Government believe that we can get the Bill on the road in time.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

  New Clause
  Lords amendment: No. 2, after clause 13, to insert the following new clause—Inspections: housing benefit and council tax benefit—
  ".—(1) The following shall be substituted for section 139A(1) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (reports on administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit)—

  "(1) The Secretary of State may authorise persons to consider and report to him on the administration by authorities of housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  (2) The Secretary of State may ask persons authorised under subsection (1) to consider in particular—

  (a) authorities' performance in the prevention and detection of fraud relating to housing benefit and council tax benefit;

  (b) authorities' compliance with the requirements of Part I of the Local Government Act 1999 (best value).

  (2A) A person may be authorised under subsection (1)—

  (a) on such terms and for such period as the Secretary of State thinks fit;

  (b) to act generally or in relation to a specified authority or authorities;

  (c) to report on administration generally or on specified matters."

  71
  (2) In section 139C(1) of that Act (reports) for the words from "in particular" to the end there shall be substituted "in particular—

  (a) in the prevention and detection of fraud relating to benefit, or

  (b) for the purposes of complying with the requirements of Part I of the Local Government Act 1999 (best value).""

  The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Armstrong): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 8.
  Ms Armstrong: Throughout the passage of this Bill in both Houses of Parliament the Government have stated that they are committed to ensuring that the legislative framework for best value should be as transparent as possible. The new clause in amendment No. 2 is therefore designed to put the benefit fraud inspectorate's powers on as clear a statutory footing as possible.
  The benefit fraud inspectorate's work on the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit is very much in keeping with the ethos of best value, but the existing powers are framed in very specific, rather than general, terms. We want to make absolutely sure that the inspectorate can contribute its expertise to the best value scrutiny of this very important area of local authority work. This is, therefore, a technical amendment, designed to provide clarity about the extent of the BFI's powers to inspect authorities for the purposes of best value.
  Amendment No. 8 is a technical amendment that will ensure that clause 28(2)(b) correctly identifies the provisions that confer powers reserved to the Secretary of State that will not be exercisable by the National Assembly for Wales. The amendment inserts two additional references into clause 28(2)(b). The first is to clause 23, which makes provision for inspection and other arrangements in respect of police authorities. The second new reference is to the new clause included in amendment No. 2, making arrangements in respect of inspection of council tax benefit administration and housing benefit administration. This again is a technical amendment designed to tidy up the Bill, clarify its application and take account of changes that we are making elsewhere.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Waterson: I shall not detain the House. The Minister rightly said that amendment No. 8 is purely technical. Amendment No. 2 is somewhat more substantial, and would have the effect of clarifying that pursuit of benefit fraud is part of the best value process. Lord Whitty made that point in the debate in the House of Lords, stating that
  "we wish to make absolutely sure that this very important area of local authority work is subject to the same best value scrutiny as will exist elsewhere."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 514.]
  Although Conservative Members might have reservations about the implementation of best value and about its centralised and prescriptive approach, all hon. Members agree that it is important to bear down on
  72
  benefit fraud, wherever and however it occurs. It is clearly right that pursuit of fraud should be placed firmly in the best value regime. We support the amendment.
  Mr. Sanders: I am worried about the problems encountered by the housing benefit authorities in the verification process. Increasing regulation and checks on claimants have caused significant delays for claimants and landlords. Although the amendment would permit investigation into whether the relevant administration is administering housing benefit correctly, the process of that investigation could impact on claimants and landlords alike. I hope that the Minister will clarify that.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I, too, intend to be brief and helpful. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). All hon. Members are in favour of the benefit fraud inspectorate chasing up fraud, especially in housing benefit, where the problem is notorious. It makes sense to apply best value criteria to the new inspectorate.
  However, the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) was right to say that the new inspectorate will look closely at the work of local authorities. That will involve studying how their computer systems are run. Given the recent difficulties with student grants, it is easy to see the difficulties that might arise.
  The BFI will be yet another body looking at best value. The most recent edition of the Municipal Journal shows that there are inspectorates for best value, housing, benefit fraud, social services, fire services and for police. Given that there is also the Office for Standards in Education, the Government have set up what amounts to a forum—or collegiate collection—for best value inspectorates that meet twice a year. To my surprise, the Minister had the audacity to be photographed in the middle of the inspectorates' membership. Her colleagues were wise enough to stand further to the back, but some are too tall to remain invisible.
  The problem is that those inspectorates cost money. In all the tiers of local government, there are lots of non-productive jobs that cost an enormous amount of money, and the growing list of inspectorates will add to that.
  The problem is that the inspectorate, in applying best value, will cost local authorities money. There is no indication of the costs. Perhaps the Minister can explain. To get some feeling for the likely costs, one has only to consider those for some of the other inspectorates. For example, I understand that the chief executive of Newham now heads the best value branch of the Audit Commission on a salary of £150,000 a year.
  There is no indication in the amendment or the notes—or in the Minister's speech—of what that inspectorate will cost. One local authority in London estimates that an auditor will spend 150 days a year on best value alone. That will cost £300 a day, which is £45,000 a year—half the cost of a new council house. If we multiply that by 33, for each London authority, we realise that it will mean phenomenal costs for London alone and, for some of the inspectorates, it is for some doubtful benefit. In addition—ignoring those costs of £300 a day, or £45,000 a year, when an inspectorate arrives at a local authority—the authority must also allocate time for council officers to produce reports. Knowing some of the

  73
  Labour-controlled authorities, when they get a report on best value from the inspectorate, they will produce reports on the reports. There will be meetings, discussions and further reports, all costing enormous sums of money and requiring extra manpower.
  I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer me now, but perhaps she could write to me with an estimate of the manpower increase for best value, the extra costs and where the costs of those services—if one can call them that—have been distributed.
  The Minister cannot use the basis of the savings. Applying the provision across the average, it will not apply to some authorities, which are good and efficient. The savings will be negative. After all, compulsory competitive tendering saw to that.
  Ms Armstrong: I thank hon. Members for the constructive way in which they have approached these amendments. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) asked about the verification framework and the significant delay in the collection of some housing benefit. That is not the issue that we are debating, but through best value we will discover more effectively those authorities that are dealing with housing benefit efficiently whatever the problems, ensuring that payments are made on time and they are reducing fraud.
  One of our main aims is to learn about and celebrate good practice and ensure that we spread that. The administration of housing and council tax benefit varies considerably. The hon. Gentleman may also have noticed that housing management and aspects of benefit that cover both the Department of Social Security and local authorities are both part of the beacon council scheme this year, which was intended to spread good practice.
  Mr. Sanders: I understand what the Minister is saying. My concern is that introducing another tier or inspection may cause further delay. Officers' minds will be turned to the inspection process, rather than the delivery of the benefits regime.
  Ms Armstrong: I am disappointed by that intervention. As we said in Committee, at every stage in best value, councils have the opportunity to take a hold on matters. The intervention powers that we are discussing under the amendment are there to be used if everything else has failed. The amendment links in the benefit fraud inspectorate, which already exists and has a statutory basis. It is intended simply to ensure that that statutory basis coincides with best value and the best value regime.
  Both the hon. Members for Torbay and for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) rightly made considerable play in Committee of the fact that the inspectorates needed to co-ordinate effectively and that there needed to be clarity. Much time is spent on the police inspectorate and how we would ensure that it was still able to continue its work with integrity and fit into best value. The amendment simply deals with the benefit fraud inspectorate and its statutory basis. It will ensure that that basis none the less allows and enables it to be involved in the best value regime. We are not talking about another tier, but about carefully ensuring effective co-ordination and co-operation.
  I understand the hon. Member for Mole Valley wanting to make fun of a number of matters. I heard him talk enviously about the reshuffle and I know that he wishes
  74
  that he was part of the speculation. We have set up a forum so that we can ensure that each inspectorate co-operates effectively and is planning its programme of work so as to ensure that local authorities do not face huge additional burdens because of inspectors arriving all at the same time and so forth. The amendment will ensure effective co-ordination.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I understand the Minister's reasoning and point of view but will she agree to answer in writing my question on costs and increasing manpower? I realise that it is impossible for her to answer it today.
  Ms Armstrong: In Committee I promised that we would produce an effective regime for the payment of the inspectorate, which will be a balance between Government grant and contributions from local authorities, and I shall fulfil that promise. That will be the way in which we will measure the additional contribution that local government will have to make. As the hon. Gentleman conceded in his speech, there will none the less be savings. On that basis, I conclude my remarks.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 14

  SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWERS
  Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 10, line 20, leave out paragraph (d)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 7 and 9.
  Mr. Jones: The Government have introduced three amendments to clause 14, which are all technical and intended to clarify its effect. I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 3 and 4, the first of which paves the way for the other.
  Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 have been introduced to make a technical change to clause 14. They would make what was paragraph 14(2)(d) into a free-standing subsection. Hon. Members will note that the wording of the new provision would remain identical to that of the original, and would not extend the powers of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly in any way. The amendment has been proposed simply to clarify the scope of the existing provisions.
  Amendment No. 5 deals with a number of situations in which the exercise of subsection 14(5) powers by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly might cause difficulties. These relate to cases in which there is a right of recourse to the Secretary of State, or he has an existing role or power in relation to a best value authority. Amendment No. 5 is designed to clarify the operation of the clause in such situations and tackles the problem by introducing two new subsections to clause 14. I emphasise that the circumstances in which the provision would apply are exceedingly rare.

  75
  6.30 pm
  We have always maintained that intervention under clause 14(5), where the Secretary of State takes over responsibility for a function, would be the exception, not the norm, and that it would be to address the very worst failure in service delivery. We envisage that, in the handful of cases where a direction was issued under clause 14(5), most often, the Secretary of State would not exercise the function himself, but would appoint an independent person to carry it out. Where nominees were appointed, they would, in most cases, be considered to be independent from the Secretary of State, and the difficulties that I outlined relating to the Secretary of State's powers would not arise. Although the circumstances in which the provisions would be necessary are very rare, the amendment is essential for ensuring the proper function of the clause in all circumstances.
  I stress that Lords amendment No. 5 is not about increasing the powers of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly, but about ensuring that their existing roles and powers can continue to be exercised sensibly. When the Secretary of State takes over a function, he does so on behalf of local people to ensure that a higher standard of service is delivered. Local people's rights of appeal and other such entitlements should not be compromised to enable that to happen. The amendment will help to ensure that such a circumstance does not arise.
  Lords amendment No. 9 is technical and ensures that the new regulatory powers that we propose to introduce under clause 14(5A)(a) can be used effectively in Wales. The Bill provides that the National Assembly will exercise the full range of intervention powers set out in clause 14(5). The Secretary of State will not take action under that clause in respect of failure in Wales, as he has no powers to do so. Where the Assembly wishes to make regulation in respect of functions where powers have been transferred to it, it is a relatively straightforward process. However, there will be some cases where the Assembly intervenes under clause 14(5) and judges it necessary to make use of the consequential regulatory power at clause 14(5A)(a), but in an area where powers have been reserved to the Secretary of State. If those regulatory provisions are necessary, it is clearly unsatisfactory to leave the Assembly with no powers to make them as that would either lead to the creation of mutually conflicting provisions or, worse still, inhibit the Assembly from taking clause 14(5) action at all, even where it is the most appropriate form of intervention.
  Lords amendment No. 9 addresses the potential anomaly by providing that in circumstances where the Assembly might wish to make regulatory provision in respect of a reserved area following intervention, it may do so, but only with the express approval of the Secretary of State. The Government believe that that is consistent with the principles of Welsh devolution, but will ensure that the National Assembly has the same flexibility to use the powers in clause 14 as would be available to the Secretary of State in England. That will provide consistency and ensure that the National Assembly will have the same freedoms to act to protect the interests of local people in Wales as exist elsewhere.
  76
  Lords amendment No. 7 is technical. Clause 27(2) lists the order-making and regulatory powers that, in England, would be subject to the negative resolution procedures of either House of Parliament. The amendment adds the new regulatory powers set out in Lords amendment No. 5 to that list.
  Lords amendment No. 6 is also technical. Hon. Members know that the Government's approach to commencement is designed to provide best value authorities with some certainty about when their statutory obligations will begin, while providing an opportunity to commence certain provisions promptly, where it is sensible or helpful to do so. The amendment will help to achieve that by allowing, if necessary, early commencement of provisions relating to police and fire authorities in both England and Wales. The previous wording of clause 26 did not achieve that and we have therefore made this necessary adjustment to allow the Government to align commencement of best value for those authorities in both countries.
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: I am delighted to respond to the amendments and even more delighted to see almost as many Ministers as Government Back Benchers. I cannot think why they need to demonstrate their performance today, but I suspect the fact that they keep their pagers on will reveal to the House what is in store.
  We do not intend to delay the House long, but we have some questions. The Minister described the amendments as technical, tidying-up amendments. We want to test what he means by "technical". By and large, when Ministers say amendments are "technical", they are centralising measures that grab power for the Secretary of State wherever possible.
  The amendments are described as technical, but they increase the centralising powers of the Secretary of State's Department. We should not be surprised because the Green Paper stressed that best value was designed to bring about "cultural change", and the Government's 1997 manifesto said:
  "The basic framework … of local service provision must be for central government."
  The amendments show the Government grabbing whatever power they can.
  Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are in one sense strictly technical, so my questions seek clarification. On Report in another place, the Minister, Lord Whitty, remarked:
  "the wording of the new provision remains identical to the original."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 514.]
  If so, perhaps the Minister can explain why the words have to be changed. Can he confirm that that interpretation is correct? As he said, clause 14(2)(d) permits the Secretary of State to direct an authority
  "to take such other action as in the Secretary of State's opinion is necessary and expedient".
  Crucially, the amendment would permit the Secretary of State to direct an authority to take not "such" but "any" action that he considered necessary or expedient. What is the difference between "such" and "any"? If "any" is the same as "such", why did the word have to be changed? In what circumstances would the Secretary of State take "any" action and what would such action be?

  77
  Lords amendment No. 5 extends the powers of the Secretary of State. The Minister was at pains to say that the amendments do not extend his power, but it is nonsense to suggest that. Even a cursory glance at this amendment reveals that it does. It creates a new regulatory power and puts it into the hands of the Secretary of State. Lord Whitty said that its use would be "exceedingly rare" in any circumstances, but it is a far-reaching provision which gives the Secretary of State the power to disapply or modify an enactment that confers a function on him in respect of a function of a best value authority.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that it would be better to leave such a function in the hands of a failing or lamentably inefficient authority than for someone to come in and recognise the importance of getting it discharged efficiently?
  Mr. Woodward: The difference between the Opposition and the Government is that the Conservatives believe in local democracy; the electorate can always get rid of councillors—as the Government found out in this year's local elections when they began rapidly to lose seats throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman should realise that the Conservatives do not believe in centralising power; the Government believe in centralising power—giving more and more power to the Secretary of State and taking it away from local authorities.
  Sir Paul Beresford: Does my hon. Friend agree that the boot is on the other foot? The intervention by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) referred to the Minister stepping in. There is a great deal of flag waving for that, but the headline in the Municipal Journal is
  "Intervention 'will be kept to a minimum'".
  In other words, the Minister will probably not step in anyway.
  Mr. Woodward: As always, the Deputy Prime Minister is all over the shop—or all over the train perhaps, as we have begun to see. He has a disastrous disintegrating transport policy, as well as disintegrating local authority power.
  The amendment gives no small power; once again, it is a Henry VIII measure. Secondary legislation will be used, so we have concerns about the amendment—in the context of the centralisation of power to the Secretary of State. Once again, our questions to the Minister are principally about the times when that power would be exercised. It is not good enough for the Minister simply to say that it would be used only in exceptional circumstances. It is in exceptional circumstances that power is abused. It is incumbent on the Minister to explain to the House the precise circumstances in which that power would be used.
  The Government should tell us why they are introducing the amendment at such a late stage, if they believe that the matter was such an important part of the Bill all along. The Minister should give the House examples in which the Secretary of State's powers under clause 14(5) would be exercised. Today, the Minister has not justified why there should be such a right of recourse to the Secretary of State and why the Government are unable to trust local democracy.
  78
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) has already expressed some concerns about amendment No. 6 which he may wish to adumbrate. The amendment empowers the Secretary of State to order the early commencement of provisions relating to police and fire authorities in Wales. Ordinary commencement is 12 months after the passing of the Bill. Unamended, clause 28 gave the power to the National Assembly for Wales; amended, it shifts the power to order early commencement of
  "sections 15 to 17 or section 26",
  and the new section on housing benefit and council tax benefit to the Secretary of State. The amendment reduces the commencement order powers of the National Assembly and gives them to the Secretary of State.
  Why has the Minister done that? On what occasions would that measure be used? As Lord Whitty said, in another place—[Interruption.] The Ministers on the Treasury Bench are chatting among themselves; they do not want to listen to what their noble Friend said. However, it might be as well if they listened. Lord Whitty said that the measure would allow early commencement
  "where it is sensible or helpful to do so".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 514.]
  Will the Minister tell the House what "sensible" and "helpful" mean in that case, so that we can understand the purpose and meaning of the legislation, instead of the obfuscatory way in which he has delivered the amendments to us today?
  Mr. Sanders: The fundamental question has remained unanswered in Committee and in the other place, although perhaps we shall receive a glint of light this evening: what are the exceptional circumstances? Secretaries of State already have powers to intervene in local government—for example, in a social services department. If there is any hint of abuse in a placement, the Secretary of State can intervene. In a failing school, the Secretary of State can intervene. Powers of intervention exist. Why is there a need for additional powers?
  In his opening statement, the Minister said that the powers were there to protect local people. What is the purpose of the ballot box in a local election if it is not to give the people the power to remove a failing local authority? Why should a Secretary of State make that decision? Under best value regimes, it is the Secretary of State who sets the standard and monitors whether it is being met. The Secretary of State sanctions and judges whether that standard has not been met. Why is the additional power needed? It would be extremely helpful if we could have an answer on what the exceptional circumstances are.
  6.45 pm
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: I should be interested in the answer to a more specific question about the Secretary of State's new powers in the measure. What are the Secretary of State's powers to intervene in local government procedures when the contracting-out arrangements—or non-contracting-out arrangements—are being changed? I have in mind a specific example from my constituency, where confidential council records were abused.
  Bearing in mind that such records might end up in the hands of third parties under the new contracting arrangements, I want to know what action the Secretary

  79
  of State would take if, for example, a situation arose similar to the one in which we were left in Bromsgrove during the local government election campaign. During the campaign, information was targeted on various named individuals who were eligible for free bus passes. Their names were held in confidence by the local council, but the individuals were specifically targeted, by name, address and a code marking used by the council. They were sent Labour party political propaganda that suggested—from records that should not have been available to the party—that, if the Conservative party were to win in Bromsgrove on 6 May, we would abolish free bus passes. The House will be pleased to hear that we have not done so. What action would the Secretary of State be prepared to take if information was abused in that way?
  It transpired that the person responsible for that act was Councillor Peter McDonald, who is now the leader of the Labour opposition on Bromsgrove district council—I am pleased that he is in opposition. The chief executive of the council has given me clarification that those letters were sent and that Councillor Peter McDonald was in possession of the records. The chief executive told me that he had handed a copy of those sensitive records to Councillor McDonald.
  When we took up the matter after an article about the abuse of that information had appeared in The Birmingham Post, the chief executive told me
  "it would seem reasonable to assume that the information used to 'target' the Labour Party literature was largely based on information obtained from Council sources.
  His letter continued:
  "It is fair to point out that Mr Fisher"—
  one of the council officials—
  "initially declined to provide such information and, as a result, was subject to considerable 'pressure' from Councillor McDonald. In eventually yielding to that pressure Mr Fisher told Councillor McDonald of his reservations in supplying the information and indicated that under no circumstances should the data be used for Party political purposes. He also advised Councillor McDonald that before using the information for any purpose he should discuss the situation with myself"—
  that is, the chief executive.
  The letter continued:
  "Councillor McDonald chose to ignore this and has never discussed the information, or its use, with me.
  In retrospect, and assuming that the Labour Party are unable to offer an alternative version of events, it would appear that Mr Fisher's trust in Councillor McDonald was misplaced."
  The letter then goes on to justify the actions of the council officer who handed over the information.
  If Councillor McDonald is found guilty of an offence, it could be a criminal offence under the Data Protection Acts. He would be guilty of bringing the Labour party into disrepute. It would seem that a sleaze allegation could be made against Bromsgrove Labour party, and I should be grateful if the Minister clarified whether the Secretary of State's new powers would deal with events such as those.
  Sir Paul Beresford: To be helpful to the Minister, my speech will give him time to work out how to respond to the outrageous accusation clearly spelled out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride). That councillor's actions are merely a classic example of the sort of behaviour that we remember from many previous occasions and have come to expect.
  The amendments are wonderful amendments to an amazing clause. They give huge powers to the Secretary of State, especially amendments Nos. 3 to 5. Any regulation that the Secretary of State likes, he can add to, and any he does not like, he can remove—there is no democracy and no discussion. In Committee, the clause was referred to as the "trust me" clause, and its provisions would suit Ministers if there was a slack local council or a trade unionist who needed to be pleased.
  We have heard brave words about how the amendments would enable the Secretary of State to intervene, and the Municipal Journal headline reads, "Intervention 'will be kept to a minimum'" Failures triggering the provisions of amendments Nos. 3 to 5 fall into two groups. The first is "Failures of process", which we are told are unlikely to trigger intervention; the second group is "Failures of substance", which we are told are more likely to trigger intervention.
  Under "Failures of process" is listed first:
  "a failure to consider competition".
  That is the crux of getting a decent value-for-money, best-value services, but it is out of the window. Next, we find "a failure to consult", but that could be avoided pretty easily, with a couple of sweeps of the local wards to make sure everything sounds all right. Then, we have
  "a failure to set performance targets".
  I can understand why local authorities might not meet that requirement, especially as they are still awaiting Government guidance on some of those matters. Finally, we have
  "a failure to publish benchmarking data."
  Given the struggle of some of the inner London Labour authorities to find benches, let along benchmarks, one would hardly be surprised if they failed to meet that requirement.
  Under "Failures of substance", we find first:
  "a failure to meet any single national performance standard".
  As we feared, the Secretary of State can choose selectively to pick on any local authority that is not in favour that month. A second failure of substance is
  "persistently high costs not warranted by service excellence or need".
  I can think of innumerable Labour local authorities, especially in London, that fail by that standard. Next, we find
  "a failure to improve standards".
  The difficulty with that is that, in some areas, it might be impossible to do so. Take ground maintenance: a dry summer means that grass cutting is kept to a minimum, but a wet summer means that the contractor or the in-house team will struggle to keep up, with the result that the local authority is held to have failed to improve standards. Finally, under "Failures of substance", we find
  "a failure to act on critical inspection reports".

  81
  One of the difficulties with that is that, every so often, there is what one might call an oddball inspector. That provision might mean that a local authority got into distinct difficulties merely because the Secretary of State chose to accept the report of a single oddball inspector.
  My greatest concern about the amendments is that they would allow soft joint ventures, local authority company guarantees and even municipal trading. At no stage in proceedings on the Bill have Ministers made it clear that municipal trading will be outlawed. That causes me great concern because, if that matter is not dealt with, we shall have returned to the position of the late 1970s. Compulsory competitive tendering brought local authorities back into line. Many Conservative Members feel that best value is the next logical step from CCT but, the more I listen to the Minister, the greater my doubts about that.
  Amendment No. 6 appears to be a reshuffle of the original amendment, but the original concern stands. We expect Royal Assent on this Bill in August 1999 and the Bill should come into force in autumn 2000, but many local authorities are way behind in preparing for best value. They have mixed reasons for that—some are waiting for Government guidance. We need to recognise that it will be at least five years—2005—before the best value programme is fully up and running and we can expect to see any results from it. Meanwhile, there is a great clamour to get rid of CCT, which goes on 2 January 2000, five years before the best value results can be expected. To the recipients of services and to those who pay for them, those could be five years of heavy damage.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It would be appropriate if the Minister asked for the leave of the House before replying to the debate.
  Mr. Jones: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
  The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) entertained the Committee with several speeches, but, as far as this Bill is concerned, he appears to be stuck in a rather schizophrenic state. From his experience in local government, he gives many reasons why local authorities, all carefully chosen to be Labour authorities, did not perform adequately or efficiently. Those comments are balanced by attacks on the Bill for placing too onerous a responsibility on local authorities to perform to standards of efficiency and service that central Government may lay down.
  At least the Liberal Democrats are consistent. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) expressed the well-rehearsed argument that there was no reason why the amendment should impose an extra requirement, because the only thing needed to ensure that local government is efficient, effective and incorrupt is the ability of local electors to throw out offending councils at election time. That argument has been used consistently throughout our deliberations on this Bill and others, but if we accept it—[Interruption.]
  The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) says that that argument has the merit of democracy, but I shall not embarrass him and bore the House by detailing the many occasions on which Conservative Governments
  82
  interfered in, and attacked, local government. Suffice it to say that, now that they are in opposition, the Conservatives continue to attack local government. However, they cannot have it both ways. At least the Liberal Democrats are consistent—wrong, but consistent, and there is merit in consistency. I put it to the hon. Member for Witney that there is nothing but hypocrisy in his arguments—he cannot have it both ways.
  The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) appears to have confused the Bill before the House today, which deals with best value, with a Bill that is to be introduced in the next parliamentary Session, which will deal with ethics in government. In any case, the case that she describes is one that would come before a court. It is not a matter for discussion in the context of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Witney asked why the word "any" was used instead of "such" in amendment No. 4. The word "such" would be used in a clause with more than one provision, but if it stands alone, "any" is better drafting. It is simply a drafting point, and there is no other significance.
  In amendment No. 5, new subsection 5A provides the Secretary of State with a regulation-making power to make consequential arrangements that include disapplying or modifying existing legislation, and specifies the circumstances in which the power would apply. Hon. Members will note that the scope of the provision is very narrow and will apply only in cases where the Secretary of State has a function in respect of a best value authority and where he has issued a direction under subsection 14(5). We expect that to be a rare combination of circumstances.
  7 pm
  Subsection 5B specifies the nature of the regulations. Again, it is very narrow in scope. The regulations can modify existing legislation, but they will operate only in circumstances in which the Secretary of State wishes to exercise an existing function concurrently with a best value function of the authority.
  I shall clarify further why those provisions are needed, by providing an example of the circumstances in which they might be used. The example that the Government provided in another place concerned the Secretary of State's role when exercising a planning function on behalf of an authority. Were he to intervene to take over a planning function, decisions on planning applications would thereafter be made in his name. In the event of planning permission being refused, the applicant would have his usual right of appeal, but that is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
  I am sure that the House would agree that it would be undesirable for the Secretary of State to determine appeals against his own refusals of planning permission. The new subsection that we are introducing would allow for regulations to be made to make alternative arrangements to deal with the fact that the Secretary of State had taken a decision that was now subject to appeal, and the regulations would be written to ensure that they were consistent with the Secretary of State's role as the planning authority. Similar provisions would need to be made to allow the Secretary of State, for example, to continue to call in controversial planning applications.
  Where the regulations proposed are in force, the Secretary of State will still be able to use his call-in power. Those planning applications that he would want to

  83
  call in, had the regulations not been in force, would still be subject to a process that is likely to involve a public local inquiry. For cases dealt with in that way, there would not be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State; this is the position now for all cases that are called in. The right to seek judicial review in the courts is still available, of course, and would not be fettered by the proposed regulations.
  Amendment No. 6 does not reduce the Assembly's powers, as was rather unbelievably claimed. It never did have the power to act in respect of police and fire authorities. The amendment simply ensures that police and fire authorities in Wales can be treated in the same way as in England.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 30

  MAJOR PRECEPTING AUTHORITIES: FURTHER REGULATION
  Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 18, line 31, leave out ("60(8)") and insert ("70(8)")
  Mr. Meale: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  As we heard earlier, this is a minor drafting amendment. The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) pointed out in Committee that the reference to section 60 of the Greater London Authority Bill was incorrect. We undertook to change the reference, but to do so at a later stage, in case there were further numbering changes to that Bill. We are now inserting the correct reference to section 70.
  Mr. Woodward: We have little to say about the amendment, except to commiserate with Ministers that, after the Department has been so singularly unlucky and won so few Bills, it still manages to be incompetent and get the numbering wrong. None the less, we are pleased that it has finally put its house in order as it prepares for the summer, and we shall not oppose the amendment.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1

  LIMITATION OF COUNCIL TAX AND PRECEPTS
  Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 22, line 51, leave out ("section 70") and insert ("sections 70 and 71")
  Ms Armstrong: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 20.
  Ms Armstrong: The Greater London Authority Bill is currently being discussed in the other place. In its Committee stage in the House and in the other place, there were amendments to the provisions for substitute calculations. Most of the amendments to schedule 1 to the Local Government Bill reflect those changes to the Greater London Authority Bill. The amendments also make a few changes to ensure that references to the GLA
  84
  Bill in the Local Government Bill are accurate and take account of the special arrangements for the budget requirement and tax-setting calculations set out in the GLA Bill. That has necessitated one small consequential amendment.
  I apologise for the number of amendments, but I assure hon. Members that they are not substantive. They simply ensure that this Bill and the GLA Bill are consistent in their provisions for the GLA.
  Mr. Woodward: I have a small number of questions to the Minister about the amendments. We recognise that, in another place, the noble Lord said that these were all technical amendments—we know what "technical" usually means to the Government—and that they related mainly to the Greater London Authority Bill. He also said that they were not substantive.
  Can the Minister confirm to the House that the amendments relate only to the Greater London Authority Bill? If they do not, will she tell the House to which other areas they refer?
  Ms Armstrong: With the leave of the House. I said that the amendments related to the changes in the Greater London Authority Bill. Some of them affect the Metropolitan police, but relate to the GLA Bill.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 20 agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Northern Ireland Act Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1999, which were laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 50) on Children's Services (Quality Protects) Special Grants for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 (HC 617), which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Question agreed to.

  HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Nick Hawkins be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee, and Mr. Michael Fabricant be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Bradley, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  SOCIAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Howard Flight be discharged from the Social Security Committee, and Mr. Desmond Swayne be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Bradley, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  EUROPEAN SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Shaun Woodward and Mr. Robert Walter be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Mr. Owen Paterson and Mr. Laurence Robertson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Since no message has yet been received from the Lords in relation to the Employment Relations Bill, I am now required to suspend the sitting. The Division bells will be rung five minutes before the sitting resumes.
  7.10 pm
  Sitting suspended.

  EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BILL
  Lords amendments again considered.
  8.25 pm
  On resuming—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have to acquaint the House that a message has been brought from the Lords as follows. The Lords do not insist on their amendment to the Employment Relations Bill to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose an amendment in lieu of that amendment, to which they desire the agreement of the Commons. They agree without amendment to the amendment proposed by the Commons to the remaining Lords amendment.
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords amendment in lieu, in page 8, line 20, at the end to insert the words—
  ("(4) The payment of higher wages or higher rates of pay or overtime or the payment of any signing on or other bonuses or the provision of other benefits having a monetary value to other workers employed by the same employer shall not constitute a detriment to any worker not receiving the same or similar payments or benefits within the meaning of subsection (1)(a) of this section so long as—

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

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

  As my noble Friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey has explained in another place, the Government are prepared to accept the amendment in the spirit of partnership—[Interruption.] I knew that that would wake them up and get them going.
  It was our intention to replace the power in clause 17 with a substantive provision. Unfortunately, that proved not to be possible in the time available. We had informal consultations with interested parties that revealed complications. Ultimately, we judged that it would be better to give ourselves more time to address the issue. Nevertheless, I shall take this last opportunity briefly to restate the Government's position.
  86
  We made it clear, in the "Fairness at Work" White Paper and subsequently, that current law allows the employer and worker, if they wish, to conclude a contract in terms that differ from those in a collective agreement that would otherwise apply to the worker. That is the position now, and it will continue to be the position once the scheme for statutory trade union recognition is in place.
  Collective agreements are, of course, increasingly sophisticated, and many already provide flexibility—in the form of performance-related pay and benefits, for example—so that employers who have negotiated such agreements may feel no need to negotiate different terms for individual workers. However, other employers may wish to do so. They are free to do so, and they shall continue to be free to do so. The only proviso is that, in doing so, they must not discriminate unlawfully—for example, on grounds of race, sex, disability, or trade union membership or non-membership.
  We believe that employees should be protected against dismissal or detriment if they refuse to give up the terms of a collective agreement. It should not be permissible, for example, for an employer to say, "Unless you agree to an individual contract and give up the collective agreement, I'll see you're never promoted again." We shall continue working to draw up regulations to protect workers from such pressure.
  We agree with the Opposition, however, that the mere fact that one worker has received benefits under an individual contract cannot constitute a detriment for those who do not receive such terms. Obviously it will remain unlawful to link the granting or withholding of benefits to a worker's membership or non-membership of a trade union.
  The Government should have preferred to deal with those matters somewhat differently in regulations, but we accept that the point was particularly important to the Opposition. We have been willing, therefore, in partnership, to compromise on an amendment that will allow the Bill to complete its passage today, so that the wider benefits that the Bill will confer may commence without delay.
  I should also like to take this opportunity to say that the Bill has now involved—in constructive work—two years of my life. I give my thanks to the social partners—particularly the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry, but also others—with whom I have worked, over the past two years, in preparing the White Paper and subsequently the Bill.
  God willing, the House will today pass the Bill, making it the Employment Relations Act—which will help to modernise workplace relations; help people to combine work and family responsibilities; underpin a flexible and efficient labour market; and help business to attract and retain the skilled work force necessary if they are to compete and succeed. The Act will also ensure that workers receive the proper rights at work that they should have had and maintained in the 18 years of the previous, Tory Government.
  The Government are ensuring that, from day 1 of their employment, every British worker—full-time, part-time, temporary, casual or agency worker—is treated with compassion and as employers' most important asset. If an employee wishes to join a trade union, to be represented

  87
  by that union and to work for others to be represented by that union, they will not suffer a sacking or other detriment for that important task.
  I am proud of the Government's achievements in this area. I hope that the House will pass the proposal from the Lords so that we can get on with rolling out the rights in the Bill for millions of workers in Britain.
  8.30 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: In the spirit of partnership, we are glad to have been of assistance to the Government in enabling them to incorporate this amendment in the Bill before it becomes an Act tomorrow. We are pleased to have been able to modify what we believe to be, in principle, a damaging Bill.
  When the Conservatives tabled this amendment in Committee in another place, assurances were given by Ministers. Interestingly, many of the changes to the Bill in another place were due to the fact that Ministers there appeared to have some experience of running businesses, and were therefore much more receptive to many of the Conservative amendments.
  In Committee, the Government seemed to support my noble Friend Baroness Miller who tabled the amendment and took it through the other place. Ministers in another place promised that they would bring back a modified amendment on Report. On that basis, the Conservatives were asked to withdraw the amendment. I am pleased that my noble Friend did not do so because it was subsequently put to a vote, which the Conservatives won.
  Therefore, the amendment came back here, and only last Wednesday the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry tabled an amendment not to modify the Bill—as promised by Ministers in the Lords—but to overturn the amendment that the Conservatives had won in another place. I accept the contrite tone of the Minister's contribution tonight, but this was a matter of ministerial honour, as has been made clear in another place and here last Wednesday.
  Ministers who give their word that they will bring an amendment back on Report or at Third Reading and then fail to do so are duty-bound, as members of the Government, to try to keep their word. I am grateful, now the amendment has come to the Commons, that Ministers have sought to rectify the matter tonight.
  Much valuable time could have been saved last Wednesday if Ministers had tabled such an amendment then because, as we know, the Bill was guillotined and yet—quite properly—we had spent some time discussing clause 15 last Wednesday, which is a matter of some concern both here and outside this place.
  88
  I am not sure that we would wish to be regarded as partners in this matter, but we are pleased to have been able to advise the Government, and that they have accepted the amendment. We are particularly pleased that honour has been seen to be upheld within the ministerial team.
  Mr. David Chidgey: I can understand the Minister's feeling of elation tonight, as it has taken some two years to get to this stage. The Liberal Democrats welcome much in the Bill, and we have long argued for many of the issues in it.
  If I have a criticism, it is that, in spite of the Bill taking two years, many of the amendments for which we called in Committee have appeared only in the last week or so. Nevertheless, we are grateful to the Minister and his team, who have heard some of the pleas that we have made and incorporated our views in the Bill. For that reason, I am pleased to say that I wish the Bill to go forward. It is a first step—but not the last step—towards fairness at work.
  Lords amendment in lieu agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Hunting with Dogs
  8.35 pm
  Angela Smith: I am pleased to present a petition from my constituents in Basildon and East Thurrock. I agree with the petitioners, who ask for the hunting of wild mammals with dogs to be banned because it is cruel and unnecessary and has no place in modern Britain. The petition states:
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Government to act to end hunting by making a clear commitment by the year 2000 to legislate for its abolition.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Ring and Ride
  Mr. Ian Stewart: It is my pleasure to present a petition signed my constituent Sandra Dutson and more than 10,000 other users and supporters of Greater Manchester Accessible Transport Ltd., otherwise known as Ring and Ride. The petition states:
  The present system of rebates of fuel duty paid to commercial passenger transport companies who operate scheduled public transport services is not paid to ring and ride or dial-a-ride services. We consider that this system unfairly discriminates against persons with mobility difficulties, to whom these services are the equivalent of normal bus services, which they are physically unable to use.
  To lie upon the Table.

  State Pensions
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: It has been my happy privilege to conduct several Adjournment debates recently. After the past two, members of the public have sent me copies of letters to the Minister who responded, complaining that the response was inadequate. One was a Trade and Industry Minister and the other, I regret to say, was the Minister who is to respond tonight. The public felt that he had not dealt fully with the complexities of annuities.
  Were I a Minister, in normal circumstances I would bring along 12 minutes of material and extemporise for three minutes in response to the speech. Given that we have the best part of two hours in which to explore this issue fully, and that the Minister will have cleared his diary until 10.30 pm, I will flag up for him at the outset the questions to which I seek answers.
  The move to the new national insurance recording system, NIRS2, has caused delays in the payment of the state retirement pension. Given the time available, I thought of multiplying my questions, but I have decided to restrain myself to only five. I hope, however, for a full and comprehensive response.
  Basic state pensions are paid more or less in full, but there are serious problems with the state earnings-related pension, SERPS, and possibly more than 100,000 pensioners are receiving something based on a clerical calculation. As I understand it, someone at the Contributions Agency has sat down with a pocket calculator, dug out the files and worked out how much the SERPS figure should be. When will those estimates be adjusted so that people receive the correct amount?
  My second question is about the interest on the money that people have not yet received. When will it be paid? Some of the delays have been for months and for hundreds of pounds, so there is a problem with the interest that has been foregone. I hope that the Minister will say when it will be paid.
  My third question has to do with the future and people eligible for state pension when they reach 60 or 65. By what date will newly retired pensioners get the correct pension amount from day one of their eligibility?
  Fourthly, who pays the compensation bills which, if one includes age-related rebates, run into tens of millions of pounds? I hope that the Minister will give us some assurance about the private sector's contribution to the compensation bills.
  Finally, what lessons have the Government learned from the pension payments fiasco? I hope that the Minister will tell us about the inquiry that has been launched, who is leading it and what its terms of reference are. When will the inquiry report, and whose head is on the block?
  I hope that the Minister will respond point by point to those five headline questions. The matter has been tackled twice by the Public Accounts Committee. The Committee's 22nd report, entitled "Delays to the New National Insurance Recording System", was published earlier this month. Rather alarmingly, given that the
  90
  Committee's first investigation was published in June 1998, the July 1999 report found that matters were "much worse".
  The Minister may take some comfort from the fact that the contracts were signed by the previous Administration. He may consider the problem to be a Tory bungle, which of course it was. However, the Minister has been in his post for nearly a year, with responsibility for pensions for a significant part of that time. The Public Accounts Committee states that matters have got worse rather than better in the past 12 months, so I am sure that the Minister will say, "Mea culpa", lay his hand on his heart and admit his share of the blame for this worrying matter.
  Today, the Government produced their annual report. I understand that people can get two Tesco club card points for buying it, and that is all that it is worth. I looked for an apology to pensioners for the delays in payment of their state retirement pension but, curiously, apology found I none. The Minister is welcome to intervene to tell where in the annual report that apology occurs, or where the report mentions that more than 250,000 pensioners have not received the pension to which they are entitled. Any review of the past 12 months should at least mention that, but I cannot find one. I cannot decide whether the report is shameless or shameful—it is both, I think—but, on pensions, it is misleading in the extreme.
  The first of the five questions that I put to the Minister relates to the clerical estimates of SERPS pensions that are currently in payment. A constituent of mine—whom I shall call Mr. N, for the purposes of anonymity—was 65 in Christmas week last year. The Government gave him a Christmas present, which took the form of not paying his proper pension. When he received his pension book, he discovered that, instead of getting about £100 a week of basic state pension and SERPS, he received only the basic state pension.
  Mr. Bob Russell: Scrooge.
  Mr. Webb: Scrooge indeed. Many pensioners would not have been aware that there was anything wrong. The complexities of SERPS are beyond many of us. A less alert pensioner than Mr. N would not have noticed a problem. However, Mr. N had done something astute a couple of years previously. I suspect that not voting Labour might also be considered astute, but I have in mind the request that he sent to the Contributions Agency for a pensions forecast. The agency told him that he would be entitled to about £35 a week of SERPS.
  Strangely, although the Contributions Agency knew two years ago that Mr. N was entitled to SERPS of at least £35 a week, and I cannot envisage any circumstances in which that figure would have decreased in the two years—unless I am much mistaken, it could only increase—the Government were none the less unable to pay him the money that he was told he was entitled to then. They paid him only the basic pension.
  Mr. New is an astute gentleman, as I mentioned, so he contacted me. I took up his case with the Minister and, a matter of weeks ago, Mr. New received a letter from the Department. Having received it, he rang my office because it contained words to the effect of, "We are prepared to have a guess. We'll have a stab at what we think you're entitled to. If it is too little, we'll pay you the balance. If it is too much, we'd like it back."

  91
  Mr. New was understandably rather concerned—genuinely concerned. The Public Accounts Committee raised this issue in the abstract, but here is a real person asking whether he should take the money. This gentleman was sufficiently unsure as to what the letter meant and how certain or otherwise the money was that it created genuine uncertainty for him. He did not know whether to say yes to an extra £35 a week, plus back-pay of nearly £800. We advised him that he should take the money, but that there was a risk that the Government would want some of it back. Fortunately, he had his pension forecast, so it was pretty clear that there would not be a problem.
  What is bizarre is that the Government were able to send out letters two years ago to tell people what they were entitled to—presumably the letters are still on file somewhere—with what was presumably rather prehistoric technology and yet, knowing that the new system was not working, they could not even make a guess at their SERPS pension.
  Mr. New got round the problem. He was given £10 in compensation, as 160,000-plus retirement pensioners have been. Mr. New said that he rang up and asked whether it was a joke. The person at the other end of the line said, "Well, yes. It is rather a joke." Mr. New was offended by the £10, but that is all that he has had so far.
  Mr. New now has some money—he has back-pay to his birthday, just before Christmas, and he is getting what the Government thought that he should be entitled to in SERPS when they wrote to him two years ago. However, Mr. New, as far as I am aware, went on working and accruing SERPS entitlements. Therefore, even now and despite all the fanfare, he is still not getting his full SERPS pension. Every week, another pound or two is being added to the arrears that the Government owe him, to say nothing of the £800 back-payment, which he has just received and on which he has had no interest.
  The key question for the Minister is, when will Mr. New and other constituents who have had clerical estimates of their SERPS entitlements get the correct amount? When will they know that they do not have to pay anything back? When will the problem be resolved for those people?
  Secondly, when will the interest be paid? The case of Mr. H from Yate in my constituency illustrates that problem. He had the misfortune to be 65 in September 1998. He had a rather larger SERPS entitlement—I think, of the order of £45 a week—and he had also sent off for a pension forecast a couple of years earlier. He knew that the figure was too low. He told me that he could not manage on the basic state pension alone, so he deferred his retirement. He took a part-time job to make ends meet. Essentially, a year of his life, when he would perhaps have wanted to spend time with his family, was spent trying to make ends meet because of a Government bungle.
  Let us remember that we are talking about someone who was told a couple of years ago that he was entitled to that £40 to £50. The Government knew about it then and yet they were incapable of delivering it to him last September. Mr. H delayed until late spring or early summer before seeing me. I initiated contact with the Minister and Mr. H has received a lump sum of a little under £2,000. When one is talking of those sorts of
  92
  figures, one starts to ask about interest forgone. Mr. H, too, was getting only a clerical estimate of SERPS entitlement—he is still not getting his full pension.
  When will the interest be paid and how much? What interest rate will the Government use? Pensioners often get a reasonable rate of return on their savings in specified investments. What is more to the point, they may have had to run down savings that were in illiquid forms, which they had perhaps planned to use later in their retirement. How confident is the Minister that my constituent will be properly compensated for interest forgone? What additional compensation will he receive for having to defer his retirement? Doing so changed the course of his life—how will the Government compensate him?
  Having asked when clerical assessments will be sorted out and when interest will be paid, my third question is when will newly retired pensioners have their pensions handled right on day one, on their 65th or 60th birthday? As the Minister knows, I tabled several written questions in the week before this debate to ensure that I was as well informed as possible. I asked for an update of the April written answer on progress in rectifying the problems with NIRS2, the national insurance recording system. Much to my regret, he adopted increasingly obfuscatory tactics by referring me back to the answer given in April. That raises some interesting questions. Have there been no developments worthy of report since April?
  Mr. David Rendel: It has got worse.
  Mr. Webb: It is difficult to say; I hope that the Minister will tell us. As he suggested, I looked back at the April answer. In response to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), no less a person than the Secretary of State said:
  "It is planned that the Benefits Agency's review of cases will be completed in six months."—[Official Report, 21 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 591.]
  That suggests that all the pensions payments problems will have been sorted by 21 October. I do not think that that promise refers to the age-related rebates for personal pensions. I think that that is a different matter but I may be wrong. My reading of the written answer is that six months from that date, everyone currently receiving a pension will be getting the right amount and that newly retired people will get the right amount from day one. The Minister is welcome to vary or clarify that pledge. I am worried that he felt that referring back to that written answer was an adequate response, given that the Public Accounts Committee thought that things had not stayed the same but got worse. Its report criticised the Contributions Agency for not owning up to the fact things were getting worse. I am alarmed by the Minister's reticence, although I understand it.
  My fourth question is who foots the bill for compensation and how much will it be? I have asked several questions about that but the reply has been that the Government will not know until they have finished. They do not yet know how much it will be. Some 167,000 pensioners have had £10 each, so the Government have already spent £1.7 million, to say nothing of compensation of more than £30 million paid to personal pension providers. That is £20 million less than the Treasury thinks that it has gained by holding on to the cash. There is a £20 million black hole there. Who will pay for it?

  93
  I thought that the whole point of the private finance initiative was to transfer risk from the public to the private sector. There is no point in having the public sector underwrite PH projects because that is the only incentive that the private sector has to perform. I do not know the nitty-gritty of the contracts between Andersen Consulting and the Contributions Agency but the whole thing seems to have been handled appallingly. I hope that the Minister will assure us that Andersen Consulting will foot the bill to the extent that the problems are of its making. The public sector deserves no less. The House would be worried about any further PH projects if a precedent is set whereby the private sector partner can perform appallingly—it seems to have been a shambles on both sides—without footing the bill. I hope that the Government can assure us that, apart from their little windfall in respect of age-related rebates, the compensation and the interest forgone will be paid by the private sector.
  I want to pass on to the Minister something that one of my constituents told me. Mr. H rang the Benefits Agency in Bristol to ask if it could help him with his problem. It was at a loss and did not know what to say. He heard one of the people there say, "help" on the phone. I am alarmed that in 1999, when the problem was well known to Ministers, officials of the Department concerned could not brief members of the public.
  I have heard something more alarming. When Mr. H recently phoned the Contributions Agency to say that he had been told that the new system was in place, someone told him that it had been running for three months but that half of what it was getting was still rubbish and had to be sent back. I find that deeply depressing. Is the Minister aware that those receiving the output from that computer hold that view? I understand that the slogan is "garbage in, garbage out". I fear that that is still the case for far too many people.
  Finally, what lessons have been learned from this fiasco? I understand that supervision of the Contributions Agency is now being transferred to the Inland Revenue and the Treasury. However, I hope that the buck will not be passed in that process. I am glad to see that the Minister of State, Department of Social Security is responding to the debate—presumably because he is responsible for paying out the money, even if he is not responsible for working out how much should be paid. I assume that that is the distinction.
  What lessons have been learned? Who is leading the internal inquiry? What are the terms of reference? What is the time scale for the inquiry? Whose head is on the block? I sense that an inquiry might not be taking place; there has been no mention of one in the written answers. However, 250,000 pensioners have been short-changed by the Government. The Government's glossy annual report contains plenty about what they have done for pensioners, but one would have thought that many pensioners would been happier to have had their pension paid in full and on time—instead of all the gimmicks.
  It is vital that lessons are learned from this fiasco. I am pleased that the Minister has plenty of time both to answer my questions and to tell us how he will prevent such a fiasco from ever happening again. I look forward to his response.
  8.56 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on his success in securing the debate; I shall endeavour to respond fully to all the points that he made.
  The Government recognise that this is a most important issue, which causes concern and uncertainty for thousands of pensioners throughout the country; we very much regret the inconvenience, the disruption and, in some cases, the financial difficulty that has been caused to them. I welcome this opportunity to update the House on the matter, and to inform hon. Members of the progress that we have made.
  I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the difficulties are now significantly behind us. However, it will take some months to complete checks on all the benefit claims awarded when the problems were at their height last year. Only then will we be able to state for sure that people have received all the benefit that is due to them. However, we are determined that that will be the result of the process.
  I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised by the hon. Gentleman and by scores of other hon. Members who, like him, have written to me about these difficulties on behalf of their constituents. I will respond to the points that have been raised in a moment. However, first, I remind the House of the background.
  The delays that we have heard about in this debate resulted from problems with the replacement of the national insurance recording computer system—the replacement is known as NIRS2. The contract to deliver NIRS2 was awarded, and the project delivery structure was set up by the previous Conservative Government in 1995—as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. The system was initially supposed to be fully operational by 10 February 1997. However, it was not and, at the general election in May 1997, we inherited a project that was already facing substantial difficulties.
  Our strategy for dealing with it has been twofold: first, to minimise the problems for those who depend on contributory benefits; secondly, at the same time, to secure the substantial long-term gains offered by NIRS2 for the effective operation of the benefit system. We wanted to achieve both those objectives, so we implemented robust contingency arrangements to minimise disruption for people, including making emergency payments and carrying out clerical calculations of benefit entitlement. By Friday, clerical calculations had been carried out in more than 13,600 cases.
  I want to clarify one point made by the hon. Gentleman. When a clerical calculation has been carried out, we can be pretty confident that the result is correct. Clerical calculations offer a quicker way of getting to the answer than waiting for the current process of reviewing all claims to end. In cases where a clerical calculation has been carried out, the correct benefit is already in payment—in other words, it is not an estimate.
  We were particularly anxious to minimise the serious financial difficulties that could have arisen for some—the hon. Gentleman has quoted a couple of cases. We have taken steps to compensate those who have been adversely affected, despite our contingency arrangements. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, more than 160,000—in

  95
  fact, 167,000—pensioners were compensated for delayed payments between April and June this year, with further payments under the Department's special payment scheme automatically being considered as cases are reviewed. When the review process has been completed, everyone will have received all the pension and other contributory benefits due to them, together with any compensation due.
  The hon. Gentleman has asked what interest rate is payable in those circumstances. The normal building society rate is applied; however, no compensation is payable unless certain conditions are met. First, the delay must have been at least eight months; that is the normal rule applied by the Department in respect of delays in retirement pensions. Secondly, the amount that has not been paid must be at least £100. Thirdly, the amount of compensation payable based on building society interest rates must be at least £10. Those are the standard rules applied by the Department in respect of compensation for delayed payment of retirement pensions.
  Mr. Rendel: What would happen in a case of a pensioner being able to prove that, for one reason or another, he had to withdraw savings from a fund that paid a higher interest than the normal building society interest rate; or he had to borrow money and so had to pay interest at a considerably higher rate, which he would not have had to do had his pension been paid on time? Would not such circumstances make a case for compensation paid at a rate rather greater than the building society rate?
  Mr. Timms: No one has given me any such example, but it is not our intention to vary the long-established rules for compensation in such cases. The procedure is well established and we anticipate that we shall continue to operate it.
  It has also been important to ensure that NIRS2 is delivered successfully, so that its potential for supporting welfare reform in future is fully realised. We worked in partnership with Andersen Consulting on a major review of the system and its problems, so as to get the project back on track. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that those efforts have borne fruit: NIRS2 is a powerful system which will enable important improvements to the benefit system to be made quickly and efficiently in future. I have visited the NIRS2 installation and spoken to those responsible for its development. I am satisfied that it will, in due course, serve us well.
  The problems surrounding the system's introduction have rightly been the subject of considerable interest. As the hon. Member for Northavon said, the Public Accounts Committee took evidence from those involved and rightly expressed its concern about the impact of the delays in finalising the correct rate of benefit in payment. However, the Committee recognised that, without the Government's contingency arrangements, the impact would have been much worse. By and large, the contingency arrangements worked well, which is a tribute to those who operated them.
  Let me set out in greater detail how the problems arose; in doing so, I shall answer one or two of the hon. Gentleman's points. In spring and early summer last year, we hoped that it would be possible to introduce the new
  96
  system during the summer. However, when the system was implemented it became apparent that there were a number of matters to be ironed out before it could be relied on to produce what the Benefits Agency needed. It took some weeks before we were confident about what was being produced.
  NIRS2's live facilities for jobseeker's allowance were rolled out on 9 November last year, followed by the other short-term benefit, incapacity benefit, on 18 November. Facilities for the long-term benefits—retirement pension and widows benefit—became available on 6 January this year. NIRS2 has thus been capable of processing new claims to all the contributory benefits since 6 January of this year. The hon. Member for Northavon asked when I expected the system to be able to do that. The answer is that it has been able to do so since 6 January this year.
  However, from the beginning of January, we faced a new problem. The hon. Gentleman, who is an expert in these matters, knows that at the beginning of each year, we start to require the national insurance contributions data from the previous tax year in order to establish benefit entitlement. Because of the delays and difficulties since the summer, it had not been possible to load up the data for all those contributions on time.
  On 6 January, the system capability was in place, but a large chunk of the data needed was not. About a third of the data had not at that stage been loaded—16 million of the 47 million items for the year. Although the system was capable of processing the claims, the data that it needed to do so were missing in about a third of cases.
  The priority at that point was clearly to load up the remaining data as quickly as possible. By the beginning of February, I was becoming concerned about the rate of progress, as there were still 13 million records to go. I commissioned daily reports on the numbers, and during February the number fell sharply, I am pleased to say, to less than 7 million.
  Currently, there are just 160,000 records outstanding, the rest having been successfully loaded. In some ways, we are now in a better position than we normally would be at this time of year. The reason is that NIRS2 is a better system than NIRS1 was. Allowing for records that are rejected, as some records always are, and with outstanding queries, NIRS2 has posted about 900,000 more records than NIRS1 had done by a comparable time a year previously. Indeed, the previous year had been a good one for NIRS1. We are now in quite good shape in terms of the data loaded to the system, and we are starting to see improvements in performance from NIRS2, vindicating our commitment to making it work well.
  For the 1998–99 tax year, there are 46 million items to be posted. The target is for 98 per cent. of them to be posted by 31 December this year. The national insurance contributions office of the Inland Revenue, which is now responsible for NIRS2, is two weeks ahead of schedule for hitting that target, boosting our confidence that we have a good system for the future.
  I and the Government apologise unreservedly to those who have been inconvenienced and, in some cases, distressed by the problems that have occurred. I have no hesitation in putting that apology on the record.
  The hon. Member for Northavon referred to a couple of his constituents who had been particularly inconvenienced. I am not aware of the case of the person

  97
  whom he introduced as Mr. N but went on to refer to as Mr. New. The hon. Gentleman may want to tell me more about that, and I shall be happy to investigate.
  The other constituent whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned was Mr. H, who I think has appeared on HTV West to speak about his problems, so I do not think that there is much reason for anonymity in that case, but I shall respect the fact that the hon. Gentleman referred to him as Mr. H. I know that that case has been resolved. The arrears due to Mr. H were paid within a couple of weeks of the hon. Gentleman writing to me about the difficulties that his constituent faced.
  I pay tribute to staff in the Benefits Agency and the Contributions Agency, which is now the national insurance contributions office of the Inland Revenue, and to staff in Andersen Consulting, who have worked extraordinarily hard to resolve the difficulties and have put us in a relatively happy position.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the review process. We have completed about 30 per cent. of the process so far, and I am hopeful that it will be completed by the end of the year. By that stage, we will ensure that everybody has received all of the benefits, plus any compensation, due to them.
  Mr. Webb: The Minister has announced a further slippage in the completion date. He said previously that the review would be completed six months from 21 April, which is 21 October. Last week, when I asked him for a report on progress to date, he referred me to the April date. When did he learn about the slippage to the end of December and why did he not have the grace to respond accordingly to my question last week?
  Mr. Timms: I am bringing to the House the best current information: the whole process will be completed by the end of the year. Of course, if it is possible to conclude sooner, we shall do so. However, I am advised that we can anticipate the completion of the process by the end of the year.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that more than a quarter of a million pensioners had received incorrect pension payments. That is not the case. Some 285,000 pensioners are having their payments reviewed through this process, but all of those payments were not wrong. Of the 30 per cent. of cases that we have reviewed so far, we have found errors in about 10,000. Thirty per cent. of 285,000 cases is about 90,000 cases, but errors were found in 10,000 of them. Of those, the great majority of pensioners were underpaid, so we shall increase their payments in order to put things right.
  However, a small number of pensioners were overpaid and, as the hon. Gentleman said correctly, in those circumstances people have been asked to indicate an understanding that they will need to pay back the overpayment. Matters are in hand to put that into effect. Anybody who has difficulties in the meantime may contact the national insurance benefit task force.
  Mr. Michael Trend: I seek clarification about what will occur in the case of overpayment. The Minister said, in a rather sinister manner, that he was putting matters in hand. What will happen to people who have been overpaid a relatively modest amount, who have spent the money in good faith because they did not
  98
  understand the original advice that they should hold back, and who did not know their genuine position? Will the Government pursue such people in law in order to recover the money overpaid?
  Mr. Timms: Any such case will, of course, be handled with sensitivity by the agency. However, as I have said—and this was a feature of the speech by the hon. Member for Northavon—people were asked to indicate that they understood that that was a possibility. It was absolutely right that that should have occurred, and payments were made on that understanding.
  The national insurance benefit task force was set up to help resolve some of those difficulties. It may be helpful if I read into the record both the address and the telephone number of that task force, which has been established to assist people who are experiencing difficulties or who have queries about the problems that we have discussed this evening. The postal address of the task force is: PO Box 6, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE98 1XB. The telephone number is: 0845 6010586, which is a local-call-rate number. Anyone who has a query about these matters is welcome to call that number at any time between 8.30 am and 4.30 pm, Monday to Friday.
  People also have the option of contacting their Member of Parliament, as hundreds of them have done. If their MP then writes to me, I can give an assurance that problems such as those that have been highlighted by the hon. Gentleman will be dealt with promptly, as they were in the case of Mr. H. The hon. Gentleman wrote on 16 April, and full payment was made on 30 April. The hon. Gentleman will therefore accept that the issue was swiftly resolved once it had been drawn to our attention. It is our firm intention that such hardship cases should be resolved speedily.
  Mr. Webb: The Minister is being very generous in giving way. I want to be absolutely clear about the situation for people who will retire in future. Is he saying categorically that anyone reaching 60 or 65 will now get the correct, full pension from day one, and that we shall not have to write to him henceforth about new cases?
  Mr. Timms: I certainly hope so. In the old days with dear, old NIRS1, there was the occasional error, and I cannot give an absolute commitment that there will never be an error in future. I certainly hope that there will be none. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the NIRS2 functionality is now fully in place and there is no problem in calculating the benefits, as there certainly was until 6 January, and then, because of lack of data, for several months earlier this year. I can give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks.
  I was asked how much compensation we expect to pay in total. I said that £1.67 million has been paid in the £10 payment category. We estimate that ultimately about £7 million of compensation will be payable. About £3 million of that will be paid through the £10 special scheme, and £4 million under the Department's normal compensation arrangements, which I outlined earlier in my remarks. To date, we have paid a total of £1.853 million in compensation of both kinds.

  99
  The hon. Gentleman asked what we were doing about the Public Accounts Committee's recommendations. We are considering them carefully and they will be taken forward by the Inland Revenue, which is now responsible for managing the NIRS2 system in discussion with Ministers. The hon. Gentleman referred to an inquiry. Clearly, that will be a matter for Ministers to consider in their response to the recommendations in the report.
  The final point that I want to make relates to the hon. Gentleman's important question about what lessons have been learned from the experience. The most important lesson relates to how such projects should be developed in the future. There was a fundamental flaw in the way in which this project was set up because it was thought that somebody needed to write a detailed specification and hand it over to a firm of consultants. They would then be sent away for a couple of years to build the system according to the specification. On 10 February 1997, the consultants would be brought back to plug in their machine and everything would work.
  Of course, that is not a sensible way to try to build an information technology system of this complexity. It might make sense if one is building a bridge or developing a project of the kind that is frequently associated with the private finance initiative. We need a much more partnership-based approach to projects so that throughout the project's development, there will be a close relationship between, in this case, the Department of Social Security or the Inland Revenue and the people doing the work. Changes that are needed over the life of the project and issues that are raised during the work can
  100
  then be quickly and sensibly tackled. We can then have confidence that the resulting system will meet the Department's requirements.
  That is the biggest lesson to be learned from the problems that we have had with NIRS2, and we are building it into our future planning for modernisation. There is a great need to modernise the systems on which our benefits system depends. We inherited systems that were pretty antiquated in a number of respects, but we have to modernise them in a way that does not lead to a repeat of the difficulties that we have experienced with NIRS2.
  Mr. Webb: Will the Minister clarify his response to two of the issues that I raised specifically? First, who will pay the compensation? I am not sure that he told us whether Andersen Consulting will face a big bill and I should be grateful to an answer on that. Secondly, although he said that an inquiry would be the Inland Revenue's business, can he confirm that no inquiry has yet started?
  Mr. Timms: On the latter point, we have not yet responded to the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee, but we shall do so. A great deal of work has gone into learning the lessons of what happened with NIRS2. Andersen Consulting has already paid some compensation because of the delays in the project and the matter of whether further compensation will be payable has not yet been determined, but the public purse will be the source of funding for compensation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Nine o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Starch-based Products
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures the Government have taken to encourage the use of(a) biodegradable starch-base plastics and (b) other starch-based products in place of petrochemicals [91654]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: A fully biodegradable product can offer significant environmental benefits, for example where it can be composted or reused in another form. A particular type of degradable product, "inherently degradable resins" (starch mixed with polyethylene), was developed in the latter part of the 1980s. Although marketed as biodegradable, research has suggested otherwise. The micro-organisms consumed the starch, leaving the polyethylene intact.

  Our recent consultation paper, "Less Waste: More Value", emphasised the need to gain more value from waste through re-use, recycling, composting and recovery of energy. Products which are specifically designed for disposal with no beneficial recovery potential run counter to this approach.

  Right-to-buy Scheme
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many local authority dwellings were sold under the right to buy scheme in 1998–99. [92476]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Rented Housing (London)
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many affordable houses to rent were developed in each London borough in 1998; and if he will make a statement. [92428]

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

  Borough

  1998–99

  Barking and Dagenham

  193

  Barnet

  352

  Bexley

  158

  Brent

  220

  Bromley

  167

  Camden

  174

  City of London

  0

  2

  Borough

  1998–99

  Croydon

  369

  Ealing

  222

  Enfield

  204

  Greenwich

  269

  Hackney

  582

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  266

  Haringey

  264

  Harrow

  85

  Havering

  59

  Hillingdon

  397

  Hounslow

  208

  Islington

  211

  Kensington and Chelsea

  110

  Kingston upon Thames

  84

  Lambeth

  199

  Lewisham

  367

  Merton

  119

  Newham

  354

  Redbridge

  85

  Richmond upon Thames

  44

  Southwark

  171

  Sutton

  39

  Tower Hamlets

  340

  Waltham Forest

  342

  Wandsworth

  83

  Westminster

  196

  These additional social lettings come from new build, the purchase and rehabilitation of existing property and from empty properties brought into use for temporary social housing. The ADP and LASHG also supports the provision of homes for shared ownership and incentive schemes which assist social tenants to move into home ownership and vacate their lettings for others in housing need.

  On the basis of information provided to the Department by local authorities, there were at least 35 council houses built in London boroughs in 1998–99.

  Transport (Disabled) Access
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress in improving accessibility to public transport for people with disabilities in London. [92404]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Progress at the national level will impact on London. We are already bringing forward regulations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to require new trains, buses and newly licensed taxis to be accessible to disabled people, including those in wheelchairs.

  The Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations came into effect on 1 January 1999 requiring all new trains, including Underground trains, to meet requirements for wheelchair access and a range of other features to help people with disabilities. We are proposing that all new single deck buses will have to comply with similar regulations from next year and double deckers from the year after. There are now nearly 1,000 low floor buses in use throughout London, and most areas will have routes on which this type of vehicle are in operation.

  All taxis in London will be accessible by 1 January 2000 and there are already more than 16,000 accessible taxis in the fleet. National requirements on accessibility

  3
  are proposed to come into effect from 2002 and will lead to further improvements in access standards for taxis. Other provisions of the Act which come into effect in 2004 will also require reasonable steps to be taken to remove or alter barriers to access Underground stations. Investment in the Underground, which the Public Private Partnership will bring, will, amongst other things, enable work to be carried out to establish a network of key stations which would be fully accessible to those with mobility problems.

  Dedicated door-to-door services in London are currently provided primarily by the Dial-a-Ride and Taxicard schemes. Working with the Commission for Accessible Transport we will be taking forward their proposals on pilot schemes on better co-ordination of services.

  The Greater London Authority Bill places a duty on the mayor to address transport issues affecting disabled people and others who may face difficulties in using all forms of public transport. The mayor's transport strategy must (under clause 124(2)(a) of the Bill) contain proposals for transport which is accessible. London Boroughs Local Implementation Plans will have to deliver the mayoral strategy.

  Schedule 8(3) of the Bill places the mayor under a duty to have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the membership of Transport for London represents the interests of those who require accessible transport.

  Council House Sales (Bolton)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many council house sales were completed by Bolton Local Authority in each year from 1980 to 1998; what revenue accrued to the local authority; and if he will make a statement. [92696]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The available information reported by Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council is in the table. Actual cash receipts will depend on the extent to which sales had been financed by loans from the authority.

  Number and capital value of sales in Bolton

  Year

  Total sales

  Value of sales (£000)

  1980–81

  681

  4,131

  1981–82

  399

  2,728

  1982–83

  305

  n/a

  1983–84

  231

  1,961

  1984–85

  271

  2,374

  1985–86

  272

  n/a

  1986–87

  307

  2,244

  1987–88

  289

  2,596

  1988–89

  396

  3,457

  1989–90

  698

  6,074

  1990–91

  683

  n/a

  1991–92

  282

  4,352

  1992–93

  198

  2,658

  1993–94

  150

  2,615

  1994–95

  156

  2,233

  1995–96

  129

  1,775

  1996–97

  90

  1,466

  1997–98

  134

  2,110

  1998–99

  154

  2,693

  Housing Green Paper
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish the Green Paper on Housing. [92538]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We intend to publish a Housing Policy Green Paper later this year.

  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will include proposals for a single tenancy for social housing for England and Wales in his Green Paper on Housing. [92539]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are a wide range of housing policies in need of modernisation, building on the reforms the Government have put in place during our first two years. The Government are considering currently the issues which should be included for consultation in a Housing Policy Green Paper later this year. No decisions have been reached yet.

  Rail Crossing, Rovie
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will exercise his powers under the Level Crossing Act 1983, as amended by the Level Crossing Regulations 1997, to instruct ScotRail to install an automatic open crossing which is locally monitored on the rail crossing at Rovie, Rogart in Sutherland. [92531]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Secretary of State has received an application from Railtrack for an Order under the Level Crossing Act 1983 to authorise the most appropriate safety measures for the level crossing at Rovie.

  The Department is now seeking the advice of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on the safety issues at Rovie Crossing. We expect to receive HSE's advice around the middle of August. The Secretary of State will then take a decision on Railtrack's application. Any new safety measures will be for Railtrack Scotland (not ScotRail) to install.

  Planning Inspectors
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 12 July 1999,Official Report, columns 14–15, on planning inspectors, what is his Department's definition of a secret society. [92532]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Planning inspectors have a quasi-judicial role and must not only conduct themselves in an open and impartial manner, but been seen to do so. Membership of a society that is perceived by many people to operate with a degree of secrecy is therefore inconsistent with the work of an Inspector.

  Departmental Expenditure (Leeds)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the programmes funded directly by his Department, relating to social exclusion, regeneration, community development, employment or education, currently operating in(a) the City of Leeds and (b) the Leeds Central parliamentary constituency, listing for each

  5
  programme the amount of such funding for each of the last three years and the amount planned to be spent in each of the next three financial years. [92912]

  Mr. Meale
  The information requested is not held by my Department centrally. The Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber (GOYH) has provided the following details:

  Leeds has received £17,528,250 Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Funding (SRB) in the last three years. The projected SRB spend for the next three years is £36,271,583. It is not possible to break down the figures at constituency level but three of the most significant SRB schemes cover part of the Leeds Central constituency:

  Rebuilding Our Communities: £12.5 million 7 year programme from Round 2 (1996) focusing on Chapeltown/Harehills, Hyde Park/Burley and Beeston. The scheme links housing based regeneration with programmes to improve training and employment opportunities, raise attainment and encourage new business start-ups.

  Partnership with Young People: £24 million 7 year programme from Round 3 (1997) Leeds Initiative led programme to address the needs and aspirations of young people aged 9-25 in the deprived wards of Burmantofts, Chapel Allerton, Harehills and University.

  Investing in the Community: £7.4 million 7 year programme targeted at the Beeston Hill and Holbeck communities to tackle multi-deprivation and social exclusion.

  The Urban Community Initiative Programme which tackles social deprivation in the inner city has received £3.5 million European funding, 1997–99 and new programmes for the next six years are being negotiated at the moment.

  The Capital Challenge Scheme project had £4.9 million approved in 1996, expected to be completed by March 2000 to establish a series of Customer Service centres in and around Leeds for the community to access a range of public services under one roof.

  Round 5 of the SRB includes a £25 million, 7 year bid submitted by Leeds Initiative, Better Neighbourhoods and Confident Communities. This will target the most socially excluded neighbourhoods in Leeds to address the issues of neighbourhood decline.

  Contaminated Land (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions his Department has had with Gloucestershire local authorities regarding funding bids via the contaminated land supplementary credit approval programme; and if he will make a statement. [93137]

  Mr. Meale
  My Department wrote to all relevant English local authorities on 21 January 1999 inviting applications for funding under the 1999–2000 contaminated land supplementary credit approval programme. The Department has not received any applications from Gloucestershire local authorities.

  Government Patents
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the Government patents held by his Department. [93079]

  Mr. Meale
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the average annual cost of maintaining a local authority owned housing unit in the latest year for which figures are available. [92190]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The average annual expenditure per dwelling on repairs and maintenance by local authorities in England in 1997–98 was £663.00. This is derived from the revenue expenditures recorded by local authorities that continue to operate a Housing Revenue Account and excludes expenditure of a capital nature.

  Compliance Costs
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reductions were achieved in the compliance costs of regulation administered by his Department and its public bodies for the last year for which data are available; what mechanisms exist for monitoring the post-implementation costs of such regulation; and if he has established targets for reduction in the compliance costs of regulation administered by his Department and its public bodies. [92313]

  Mr. Meale
  Details of regulations that imposed compliance costs on business are published in the Department's regulatory impact assessments and laid in both Houses. A summary of all the regulatory assessments published by the Department and other regulatory Departments in Whitehall are published every six months in a White Paper, and are available on a monthly basis on the Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit's website.

  The Department includes a section on its regulatory activity in its Annual Report.

  There is no arbitrary target for reducing the compliance costs of regulation. However, all departments are required to make an assessment of the risks, costs and benefits of any regulatory proposal that has an impact on business, charities and voluntary bodies before they decide to act. Without an assessment of this kind there can be no collective agreement of a regulatory proposal.

  Basking Shark
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what progress is being made with the United Kingdom listing proposal for the basking shark under Appendix II of CITES; and which countries have indicated that they plan to support the initiative; [93194]
  7
  (2) what representations the United Kingdom will make to range states to seek their support for the United Kingdom listing proposal for the basking shark under Appendix II of CITES; and if he will make a statement. [93193]

  Mr. Meale
  A UK proposal to add the basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) to Appendix II of the CITES Convention was submitted to the CITES Secretariat on 14 May. It was circulated for comment to all 145 CITES parties, including range states, on 31 May. We will consider responses before making a final decision on whether to submit the proposal to next year's 11th CITES Conference, by the Secretariat's deadline of 12 November 1999. We have already received indications of support from several countries.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Complaints)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many complaints had been received by the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Complaints Commissioner by 30 June. [92947]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand that he received 53 complaints within his remit by 30 June.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the budget for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Complaints Commissioner for(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [92946]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Complaints Commissioner's office is financed by members of the CTRL High Level Forum (HLF), which comprises the developers undertaking the CTRL and associated works, and the local authorities along the length of the Rail Link. The HLF set a budget for 1999–2000 of £262,868. The budget for 2000–01 will not be set until early next year.

  Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Industry
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 8 July 1999,Official Report, column 589, on refrigerants, if he will estimate the potential number of signatories to the Declaration of Intent in relation to reducing emissions of HFCs; and how many signatories there were at the latest available date. [93051]

  Mr. Meale
  The current number of signatories to the Declaration of Intent with the air conditioning and refrigeration industry is 205. It is difficult to estimate the potential number of signatories to the Declaration of Intent because there are a large number of smaller air conditioning and refrigeration companies in operation, many of which do not belong to a trade association. It is important to note that those who have already signed up are mostly members of the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Industry Board (ACRIB) and much larger companies in general.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 12 July 1999,Official Report, column 12, on refrigerants, how many individual refrigerators are operating in his Department's buildings. [93052]
  8
  Mr. Meale
  Information about the number of refrigerators in my Department's buildings is not recorded centrally. The number of refrigerators in our new London headquarters buildings is as follows:

  Local refrigerators: 112

  Refrigerated cabinet: 3

  Refrigerated cold counter: 4

  Freezer: 4.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to make the training and certification of refrigeration and air-conditioning contractors a legal requirement; and if he will make a statement. [92948]

  Mr. Meale
  The proposed new Council Regulation (EC) on substances that deplete the ozone layer, which is expected to enter into force next year, will require the Government to define the minimum qualification requirements of servicing personnel who handle ozone-depleting refrigerants.

  We will be consulting industry about the appropriate level of qualification needed. We are also considering whether these requirements should be extended to cover servicing personnel handling non-ozone-depleting refrigerants.

  Air Quality (London)
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on air quality in London from January 1998 to the latest available date, listing all major pollutants, times when maximum recommended levels were breached; and by what extent. [93191]

  Mr. Meale
  The information requested has been placed in the Library of the House. Raw data on air pollution from the national monitoring networks and summary statistics, including exceedences of national and international standards and guidelines, are also available on the Department's website at:

  http:///www.environment.detr.gov.uk/airq/aqinfo.htm.

  Public Appointments
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many appointments to public bodies were made by his Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99, broken down by (i) gender and (ii) ethnicity; and if he will list the chairmen appointed to those bodies in those years, similarly broken down. [92522]

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

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  Chairman

  Members

  Total

  Male

  12

  179

  191

  Female

  1

  54

  55

  Total

  13

  233

  246

  Ethnic Minority

  1

  15

  16

  9

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1998

  Chairman

  Members

  Total

  Male

  21

  335

  356

  Female

  5

  159

  164

  Total

  26

  494

  520

  Ethnic Minority

  0

  23

  23

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

  Test centre

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Leicester (Gypsy Lane)

  7,527

  8,031

  8,797

  5,084

  5,590

  Leicester (Welford Road)

  3,039

  3,352

  3,331

  2,323

  2,690

  Leicester (Wigston)

  5,328

  5,646

  6,443

  5,491

  5,196

  Loughborough

  4,132

  4,196

  4,309

  3,586

  3,600

  Melton Mowbray

  2,052

  2,196

  2,198

  1,910

  1,907

  Hinckley

  2,415

  2,224

  2,405

  1,940

  2,228

  The Driving Standards Agency keeps its test centre estate under constant review to ensure that centres can provide tests of a satisfactory standard while maintaining acceptable local levels of service in a cost effective manner. There are no plans at present to close any of the centres in Leicestershire.

  Local Education Authority Funding
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 in respect of standard spending assessments for primary education, the 10 highest and 10 lowest local education authorities in terms of SSA per pupil aged five to 10 years in maintained schools and the percentage difference, for the mean for all maintained schools, of each of the 20 authorities; [92800]

  (2) if he will list for (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 in respect of standard spending assessments for secondary education, the 10 highest and 10 lowest local education authorities in terms of SSA per pupil aged 11 to 15 years in maintained schools and the percentage difference, for the mean for all maintained schools, of each of the 20 authorities. [92799]

  Ms Armstrong
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Polegate Bypass
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received about the Polegate Bypass Project. [92569]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have received representations on the need for early completion of the Polegate bypass, from East Sussex County Council; on the need for the
  10
  our goals and objectives for improving representation of women, people from ethnic minority groups and people with disabilities.

  Driving Tests (Leicestershire)
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many practical driving tests took place at test centres in Leicestershire in each of the last five years; if the location of these centres is under review; and if he will make a statement. [92509]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The number of practical driving tests taken at the six driving test centres in Leicestershire are as follows:

  design of the Cophall Junction to be changed from a delegation led by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker); and on the need for the scheme to be extended westwards to the A27 from a member of the public.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the groups which (i) he and (ii) his Ministers received in the last six months to discuss the Polegate Bypass Project and (b) the names of the persons who made up the groups. [92570]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In March, my noble Friend Lord Whitty received a delegation representing the Council for the Protection of Rural England, Transport 2000, Friends of the Earth and the A27 Action Group. The delegation was led by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker).

  Darwin Advisory Committee
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the findings of the Financial Management and Policy Review on the Darwin Advisory Committee; and what is the Government's response. [93284]

  Mr. Meale
  The Darwin Advisory Committee advises Ministers on the overall direction, and selection of projects, for the Darwin Initiative grant scheme, which helps developing countries conserve their biodiversity through partnership with British experts. As a non-departmental public body, the Committee is subject to a financial management and policy review every five years and my Department appointed in-house consultants in February this year to carry this out. The Review has been completed, and found in the first stage of its work that there was a continuing need for the functions
  11
  provided by the Darwin Advisory Committee and that the Committee was the most efficient and cost-effective means of fulfilling those functions.

  The second stage of the Review considered the performance of the Committee against its terms of reference, the continued relevance of the terms of reference, the effectiveness of the Committee's working methods and whether the administrative support meets desired standards. The overall impression of this stage of the Review was favourable, although some recommendations were made to enhance the running of the programme. In particular, the Review recommended that now the Initiative has been running for six years, it is timely to take stock of the direction of the Initiative and its principles.

  We accept almost all the findings of the Review and have drawn up a plan for future action taking up its recommendations. The Review and the Government response are both available on my Department's website www.detr.gov.uk and copies are being placed in the Library of the House.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Kosovo
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had, and with whom, about improving the environmental situation in Kosovo following the conflict there; and if she will make a statement. [92199]

  Clare Short
  I met the Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, Klaus Topefer, on June 15, when we discussed the UNEP mission to the Balkans. The aim of the mission, which began earlier this month, is to establish what impact the conflict has had on the environment in Kosovo and elsewhere in the Balkans. Initial assessments indicate that the main environmental threats to health are contaminated water sources and landmines. My Department has made action in both sectors a priority. We have sent twelve rapid response teams to carry out emergency surveying and demining. And we are establishing an Infrastructure Engineering Unit within our Pristina office which will focus on water and electricity rehabilitation.

  Ethiopia and Eritrea
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the current humanitarian situation in Ethiopia and Eritrea. [92819]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on 14 July 1999,Official Report, column 388.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received concerning a humanitarian response to the drought in Ethiopia. [92818]

  Clare Short
  Representations have been received from a number of the major multilateral aid agencies and international non-governmental organisations about the worsening humanitarian situation in Ethiopia. Since 12
  January 1998 we have provided over £6 million for humanitarian actions. My officials are in Ethiopia this week making a further assessment.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Government of Eritrea regarding the reduction in the aid budget for that country. [92808]

  Clare Short
  The Government of Eritre pursue a policy of self-reliance. A reduction in bilateral development activities has taken place by agreement with the Government over the last 18 months. We continue to contribute to development and humanitarian needs in Eritrea through the EC.

  European Commission (Fraud)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of reports of alleged Commission fraud made by Dr. Nikolas Alexandrakis; if her Department has investigated these allegations; and if she will make a statement. [92870]

  Clare Short
  We take fraud against the EC budget very seriously. Specific decisions on fighting EU fraud are a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and are discussed at ECOFIN Council.

  I am not aware of the reports by Dr. Alexandrakis. However, the report of the Committee of Independent Experts, which led to the resignation of the Commission in March, revealed a lack of responsibility and accountability in the Commission's handling of external aid spending in the Mediterranean, in emergency aid and in nuclear safety in Eastern Europe. I welcome the report and the shake up which it has triggered. The new Commission and member states must now ensure that fraud and weak controls are rooted out and that EC funds are spent properly and effectively on development and other programmes.

  Botswana (HIV)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last met representatives from Botswana to discuss the problems of HIV/AIDS. [92709]

  Clare Short
  The Director of UNAIDS, Dr. Peter Piot and I discussed ways to intensify the international response to HIV/AIDS in Africa with representatives of the Government of Botswana and several other African countries during a private meeting in New York on 30 June in the margins of a United Nations conference.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what changes are proposed to her Department's funding arrangements for non-governmental organisations; and if she will make a statement. [92378]

  Clare Short
  We are proposing to make changes to the arrangements for funding Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) from the Civil Society Unit. 1999–2000 was the last year in which UK NGOs could apply for funding under the Joint Funding Scheme (JFS)
  13
  which was originally set up to support the initiatives of the voluntary sector in the UK. Over the next five years, expenditure under this scheme will be phased out and replaced by two new arrangements; the Civil Society Challenge Fund and Partnership Programme Agreements for individual organisations.

  The Civil Society Challenge Fund is expected to contribute to the achievement of the International Development Targets, in particular the reduction of poverty. It will be open to a wider range of UK civil society than was the case with the JFS and will fund projects which have a focused approach to strengthening civil society in developing countries. Applications may be submitted from October of this year. Approved projects will be funded from April 2000.

  Partnership Programme Agreements will be open to organisations who share DFID's goal of the eradication of poverty and are actively engaged in a range of DFID's strategic concerns. The Agreements will be linked to mutually agreed strategic outcomes, allow for selectivity and flexibility in the application of DFID funding and provide the opportunity for DFID and the partner organisation to maximum the effectiveness of their collaboration. The negotiation of Agreements with individual agencies will begin in Autumn 1999.

  In addition to these special schemes DFID will continue to support the work of NGOs across the range of its programmes.

  Further information on the new arrangements is available from DFID's Civil Society Unit based in East Kilbride.

  Widows (Third World)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what resources her Department has given in the past three years to projects specifically targeting widows in Third World and conflict zones. [92820]

  Clare Short
  Information in this form is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Yugoslavia
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what sums have been provided(a) as grants and (b) as loans or credits to (a) Montenegro, (b) Macedonia, (c) Bulgaria, (d) Albania, (e) Romania and (f) Hungary since the beginning of NATO's military operation against Yugoslavia. [92720]

  Clare Short
  From the beginning of the NATO military operation, on 24 March 1999, up to 22 July, the following sums (in £ sterling) have been spent under our bilateral programme. All figures are grants. We do not provide loans to these countries from our bilateral programmes.
  14

  Projects

  Humanitarian Aid

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

  104,765

  4,776,775

  Macedonia

  164,000

  6,935,220

  Bulgaria

  670,364

  —

  Albania

  163,000

  12,034,980

  Romania

  1,217,368

  —

  Hungary

  591,758

  —

  Expenditure for Montenegro is included in that for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  Democracy Building
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much overseas aid is being spent on democracy building in the current year; and what percentage this constitutes of total overseas aid. [91338]

  Clare Short
  We do not record expenditure on democracy building on our Policy Information Marker System (PIMS) which covers all bilateral projects with a commitment over £100,000. However, we do record expenditure to promote good government which includes activities to support democracy.

  Records of expenditure in the current financial year are not yet available. We are therefore providing figures for 1998–99 where we spent just over £300 million on projects which recorded good government as an objective. This represents almost 40 per cent. of total PIMS marked expenditure. Nearly £70 million or 8 per cent. of PIMS marked expenditure was spent on projects for which good government was the principal objective of the project. Projects may have more than one objective.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much funding(a) has been provided for and (b) is earmarked for future democracy-building in the Eastern Adriatic. [91337]

  Clare Short
  In Albania we have provided about £20,000 over the last year to establish citizen's advice information services.

  In Bosnia, we have provided some £8 million on democracy building projects since 1996. This has been provided through the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and for reform of the police, the media and government systems.

  In Croatia we have provided £690,000 since 1996 on support to reform of local and national government, the police and judiciary, and the media.

  In Macedonia, we have spent £25,000 in the last year to assist with the regulation of the media.

  New strategies are currently being developed for Bosnia, Albania and Macedonia to support economic and social reforms and promote democracy.

  In Kosovo, we are providing financial and in-kind support to the UN Civil Administration, some of which is used for democracy building. We are supporting independent media organisations and have contributed $1 million to the UN Trust Fund. We are now carrying out assessments of the region's needs for future reconstruction and longer-term development.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in the scientific audit of DFID-funded projects during the past 10 years which have supported the development, testing or use of GMOs; and if she will make a statement. [93149]

  Clare Short
  From the many hundreds of natural resources research projects supported over the last decade we have identified 43 which address genetic modification technologies. I shall send the hon. Member a list of these showing the principal collaborators. We have asked our international partners to identify the extent to which genetic modification technologies are used in the activities to which they allocate my Department's funding. When we have this information we shall carry out the next stages of the audit.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the emoluments of the(a) Chief Executive and (b) members of the Executive Management Committee of the Commonwealth Development Corporation for 1998 indicating performance-related bonus payments where applicable. [93171]

  Clare Short
  Total emoluments for CDC's Chief Executive in 1998 were £168,189 and for the members of the Executive Management Committee £819,429.

  In 1998 CDC senior management were eligible for performance related bonuses up to a maximum of 20 per cent. of basic salary. Each individual's award (within that ceiling) was made on the basis of individual performance.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will publish the formal maximum exposure limits for each country and each sector in which the Commonwealth Development Corporation invested for each year since 1994–95. [92945]

  Clare Short
  My Department has not set formal maximum exposure limits for CDC's investments, either by sector or by country. CDC has an internal portfolio management system based on management judgment, which aims to take a prudent approach to asset allocation.

  Public Appointments
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many appointments to public bodies were made by her Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99, broken down by (i) gender and (ii) ethnicity; and if he will list the chairmen appointed to those bodies in those years, similarly broken down. [92523]
  16
  Clare Short
  Appointments made by my Department to Public Bodies for the years 1997–98 and 1998–99 are as follows:

  Year

  Total

  White

  Ethnic minority

  Male

  Female

  1 June 1997 to 31 May 1998

  41

  35

  6

  23

  13

  1 June 1998 to 31 May 1999

  15

  15

  0

  9

  6

  Information on the ethnic origin of Chairmen appointed to public bodies in the periods requested cannot be provided as the small numbers involved could lead to the identification of individuals without their consent.

  I would also like to refer my hon. Friend to my Departmental Plan on Equal Opportunities published by the Government on 25 May 1999 and deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. The plan sets objectives and targets for improving representation of women, people from ethnic minority groups and people with disabilities.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what humanitarian aid her Department is providing for Sierra Leone; and if she will make a statement. [92576]

  Clare Short
  Since January 1999 my Department has provided over £2.3 million pounds of humanitarian assistance to Sierra Leone through the supply of emergency medical supplies, assistance in the areas of water, sanitation, healthcare, shelter and agriculture.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Market Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the title and purpose of each item of market and opinion research commissioned by or through her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, stating in each case whether the results were published. [89686]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Garvaghy Road
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will ask for a report from the Chief Constable of the RUC on the display of a UVF flag adjacent to the police check point on the Garvaghy Road, Portadown; and if she will make a statement. [91708]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 July 1999]: Since early 1999, many roads and streets in the Portadown area have become the focus for the erection of flags and emblems by respective communities. Complaints in respect of the erection of these have been registered by both communities.
  17
  Currently, police have powers to remove such flags or emblems only in circumstances wherein a breach of the peace is considered imminent. Outside of such circumstances, the matter of removal of the material rests with the proprietor or owner of the property in question.

  Section 31 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 provides for an offence of displaying public support for a proscribed organisation. However the flag in question commemorates the formation of the original Ulster Volunteer Force in 1912, prior to the First World War, and therefore does not satisfy the necessary elements of this offence.

  Occupational Therapists
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time occupational therapists were employed by the (i) Down Lisburn Trust, (ii) Newry and Mourne Trust and (iii) Banbridge and Craigavon Trust (1) in 1997, (2) in 1998 and (3) at the latest available date. [92012]

  Mr. McFall
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Trust

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Down Lisburn

  30

  16

  29

  16

  31

  18

  Newry and Mourne

  17

  1

  17

  1

  17

  1

  Craigavon and Banbridge

  17

  11

  17

  11

  17

  11

  Housing
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer to the hon.

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Northern Health and Social Services Board

  Causeway HSS Trust

  23.036

  24.014

  27.153

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust

  70.787

  73.509

  77.053

  United Hospitals HSS Trust

  3.354

  3.354

  3.421

  Other Trusts

  0.215

  0.224

  0.223

  Total

  97.392

  101.101

  107.85

  Southern Health and Social Services Board

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  25.350

  26.344

  27.194

  Craigavon and Banbridge HSS Trust

  21,742

  23.169

  23.927

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  28.472

  29.461

  30.443

  Others

  8.975

  9.700

  9.702

  Total

  84.539

  88.674

  91.266

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board

  Down Lisburn HSS Trust

  58.636

  60.751

  67.319

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  58.604

  60.677

  67.319

  Ulster Community Hospitals HSS Trust1

  63.949

  66.234

  73.439

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  85.264

  88.315

  97.917

  Total

  266.453

  275.977

  305.994

  Western Health and Social Services Board

  Sperrin HSS Trust

  36.727

  38.405

  40.128

  Foyle HSS Trust

  41.935

  43.758

  45.662

  Total

  78,662

  82.163

  85.790

  1 North Down and Ards HSS Trust prior to April 1998

  18
  Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) of 17 June 1999, Official Report, column 210, on housing, what progress has been made in drafting the legislation to regulate nomination to the Board of the Housing Executive. [92031]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  A specific provision, to regulate the nominations by the Northern Ireland Housing Council to the Board of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, has been prepared for inclusion in the draft legislation mentioned in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North on 17 June 1999,Official Report, column 210.

  Community Care
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients have been discharged from hospitals in the Down Lisburn Trust with community care packages; and how many have been retained in hospitals awaiting such packages since 1 April. [92010]

  Mr. McFall
  Since 1 April 1999, nine patients have been discharged with community care packages from hospitals within the Down Lisburn Trust. There are at present 33 hospital patients who have been waiting three weeks or more for a community care package.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the financial allocation from each health and social services board in Northern Ireland to each health trust for community care provision for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [92008]

  Mr. McFall
  Although service agreements have not yet been finalised, the financial allocations from each health and social services board in Northern Ireland to each health and social services trust for community care provision for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 are as follows:
  19
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the financial allocation from the Eastern Health and Social Services Board towards the Down Lisburn Trust in respect of community care provision for 1999–2000 has been expended to date. [92009]

  Mr. McFall
  Although service agreements have not yet been finalised, of the amount the Eastern Health and Social Services Board proposed to allocate to Down and Lisburn Trust for community care provision for 1999–2000, 24.4 per cent. has been spent to date.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response she proposes to make to the Royal Commission's report on Long-Term Care. [92015]

  Mr. McFall
  While the Commission was sitting, work was already taking place in some of the areas which the report highlights, such as developing a national strategy for carers and the extension of the direct payments scheme to people 65 and over. Where the Commission is recommending new policies for the future, these proposals will require more detailed consideration in coming months.

  Official Documents
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish a list of all those official documents of the last Administration which have been seen by(a) her, (b) other Ministers in her Department, (c) special advisers in her Department and (d) non-career civil servants appointed since May 1997 in her Department. [92167]

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

  Belfast Harbour Estate
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland following the Judicial Review, in respect of D5's planning application for a shopping development at Sydenham on the Belfast Harbour estate, what plans she has for an investigation into(a) this matter and (b) other planning cases where misleading information may have been given to the Minister for the Environment in advance of a decision. [92297]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans for an investigation into this matter. The Planning Service will reconsider its advice on the application for planning permission in the light of the Judicial Review decision. The Secretary of State is not aware of any planning cases where misleading information may have been given to the Minister.

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for the week ended(a) Saturday 3 July, (b) Saturday 10 July and (c) Saturday 17 July the number of violent incidents involving paramilitary groups which took place in Northern Ireland indicating how many involved (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups. [92424]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of security incidents during the period are as shown:

  Period

  Death

  Shooting incident

  Bombing incidents

  27 June-3 July

  0

  5

  3

  4 July-10 July

  0

  1

  2

  11 July-17 July

  0

  0

  0

  The number of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style attacks during the period 27 June to 17 July are as follows:

  Period

  Assault

  Shootings

  Total

  Loyalist

  27 June-3 July

  1

  1

  2

  4 July-10 July

  0

  1

  1

  11 July-17 July

  0

  0

  0

  Republican

  27 June-3 July

  1

  1

  2

  4 July-10 July

  4

  0

  4

  11 July-17 July

  0

  0

  0

  Notes:

  1. The shooting and bombing incidents cannot as yet be firmly attributed to a grouping.

  2. Figures may be subject to minor amendment.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for the week ended(a) Saturday 3 July, (b) Saturday 10 July and (c) Saturday 17 July the number of (1) punishment beatings and (2) punishment shootings which took place in Northern Ireland indicating how many in each category were committed by (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups. [92425]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style attacks during the period 27 June to 17 July are as follows:

  Assaults

  Shootings

  Total

  Loyalists

  27 June-3 July

  1

  1

  2

  4 July-10 July

  0

  1

  1

  11 July-17 July

  0

  0

  0

  Republican

  27 June-3 July

  1

  1

  2

  4 July-10 July

  4

  0

  4

  11 July- 17 July

  0

  0

  0

  Ministerial Meetings (US)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times ministers in her
  21
  Department held meetings with ministers and officials of the United States Government between 1 May 1997 and 1 January 1998, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved and the US representatives at each meeting. [92269]

  Dates/location

  Minister

  US Representative

  22–23 May Washington

  Secretary of State

  Mr. Randolph Bell, Director, UK, Benelux and Ireland Affairs, State Department

  Ms Virginia Manuel, Department of Commerce

  Ms Nancy Soderberg, National Security Council

  Mr. Sandy Berger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs

  Mr. Jim Steinberg, Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European Affairs

  Mr. Sandy Vershbow, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European Affairs

  Mr. Anthony Wayne, Senior Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European & Canadian Affairs, State Department

  Ms Mary Ann Peters, Director for European Affairs

  Mr. Strobe Talbot, Deputy Secretary of State

  Ms Janet T Reno, Attorney General, Department of Justice

  Ms Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State, State Department

  Mr. Larry Butler, Director for European Affairs

  Mr. Don Brandler, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European Affairs

  30 June Hillsborough Castle

  Mr. Ingram

  Mr. John Dalton, Secretary to the US Navy

  9 July London

  Mr. Ingram

  Mr. William Daly, US Secretary of State for Commerce

  3–6 August Washington

  Mr. Ingram

  Mr. Jim Steinberg, Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European Affairs Ambassador Thomas Pickering, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs at the State Department

  23–24 September Washington

  Mr. Murphy

  Mr. Anthony Wayne, Senior Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs

  Mr. Randolph Bell, Director, UK, Benelux and Ireland Affairs

  Mr. Jim Steinberg, Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European Affairs

  Mr. Larry Butler, Director for European Affairs

  Mr. Don Bandler, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European Affairs

  5–13 October Washington

  Mr. Ingram

  Mr. Robert Bryant, Deputy Director, FBI

  Mr. John Lewis, Head of National Security Division, FBI

  Mr. Steve Jennings, Deputy Chief, International Counter-terrorism Unit, FBI

  Mr. Enrique Ghimenti, Chief, Global Counter-terrorism Squad, FBI

  Mr. Tim Gossfield, Supervisor, Irish Counter-terrorism Squad, FBI

  Ms Carol Stroud, Analyst, FBI

  Mr. Gerry Schroeder, Acting Counsel for Intelligence, Department of Justice

  Ms Sara Criscatelli, Attorney, Criminal Division, Department of Justice

  Mr. Dana Biehel, Deputy Chief, Terrorism and Violent Crimes Section, Department of Justice

  Mr. Ellis Mottur, Acting Assistant of Commerce for Trade Development

  Mr. Charles Ford, Minister-Counsellor for Commercial Affairs

  Virginia Manuel, Executive Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Market Access and Compliance

  13 November Washington

  Secretary of State

  Ms Janet Reno, Attorney General, Department of Justice

  Ms Madeliene Albright, US Secretary of State,

  Mr. Sandy Berger, US National Security Adviser

  4 December Hillsborough Castle

  Secretary of State

  Jim Lyons, Special Adviser to President Clinton and Secretary of State for Economic Initiatives in Ireland

  Kathy Stephens, US Consul General

  Parades Commission
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons the results of the opinion survey commissioned by the Parades Commission was published exclusively in the Belfast Telegraph; and if the full report is available to the public. [92953]

  Mr. Ingram
  This is a matter for the Parades Commission. However, I understand that two of the preliminary survey responses were made public at the time of the launch of the Commission's Annual Report. The Belfast Telegraph, the largest circulating local daily newspaper, then requested full details for publication when these became available. No other media outlet requested such details.
  22
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  NIO Ministers have met representatives of the US administration on a number of occasions, both in the United Kingdom and the US, to discuss a wide range of issues.

  The following meetings have taken place between 1 May 1996 and 1 January 1998:

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will place in the Library a copy of the final report of the opinion survey commissioned by the Parades Commission from Research and Evaluation Services. [92954]

  Mr. Ingram
  Copies of the final report will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as they become available and I will send a copy to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the tender process for the commissioning of the recent public opinion survey undertaken by the Parades Commission; what was the fee agreed at time of contract; and what was the final cost. [92957]
  23
  Mr. Ingram
  This is a matter for the Parades Commission. However, I understand that three companies were invited to tender for the opinion survey. The tenders submitted by each firm were evaluated in line with Government Purchasing Agency procedures. The fee agreed at the time of contract, and the final cost, was £9,500 plus VAT.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the method of participant selection for those members of the public interviewed by Research and Evaluation Services for the Parades Commission survey published this year. [92958]

  Mr. Ingram
  This is a matter for the Parades Commission. However, I understand that the representative aspect of the survey is documented, in table 3 of the survey, by age, sex, socio-economic status, religion and area of residence, and is compared to the 1991 census. Details of relevant numbers of each category are given in tables 2 and 3 of the Survey.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make available a copy of the questionnaire used by Research and Evaluation Services in the course of compiling their recent report for the Parades Commission. [92955]

  Mr. Ingram
  I understand the questionnaire is included in the final report of the opinion survey at Appendix 1.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the breakdown of participation by members of the public in the opinion survey undertaken by Research and Evaluation Services for the Parades Commission by(a) religion and (b) postcode. [92956]

  Mr. Ingram
  This is a matter for the Parades Commission. However, I understand that the breakdowns were as set out:

  (a)

  Religion

  Percentage sample

  Roman Catholic

  37

  Protestant

  56

  None

  2

  Other

  1

  Refused

  3

  Total

  99

  (b) No breakdown of participation by postcode is available, but the interviewees reflect the geographic percentages of population relative to local government districts. These are shown in table 1 of the Survey.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons the Parades Commission's opinion survey was not published until 21 June. [92952]

  Mr. Ingram
  This is a matter for the Parades Commission. However, I understand the final draft of the opinion survey was not available until 16 June 1999 and that the survey was published immediately on agreement of this final draft.

  Lisburn Institute of Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what account she took of(a) the
  24
  population and (b) the industrial needs of the Borough of Lisburn in making her decision on the allocation of places to Lisburn Institute of Further and Higher Education. [92951]

  Mr. McFall
  As a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review, an additional 600 full-time higher education places were secured in the further education sector over the next two years. These places have been allocated to six areas of skills needs identified as being important for the development of the regional economy. The six vocational areas are computing, construction, electronics, hospitality and catering, manufacturing engineering and software engineering.

  Colleges of further and higher education were invited to submit bids for the additional places to the Department of Education. Bids were assessed against five common criteria so that places could be awarded on the basis of a college's ability to deliver high quality, relevant provision in the specified vocational areas. The five criteria were: expertise and experience of teaching staff, links with industry; resources; senior management commitment; and track record in provision of higher education. The population of the council area in which a college is situated was not taken into consideration.

  Assembly (Salaries)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the members of the Northern Ireland Assembly are being paid. [92573]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Yes. The Assembly, which is currently in recess, is being paid under the New Northern Ireland Assembly (Salaries and Allowances) Order 1999 which was made under the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998.

  Adam Lambert
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons are thought by the RUC to have been involved in the murder of Adam Lambert on 9 November 1987; how many persons were arrested in connection with this murder; how many were(a) charged and (b) convicted; and what sentences were given. [93090]

  Mr. Ingram
  Police arrested eight suspects in connection with the murder, two were charged (one was withdrawn by the Director of Public Prosecutions) and one person was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder.

  Ministerial Staff
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to which office in the Northern Ireland Civil Service the Special Advisers to the former Deputy First Minister (Designate) have been transferred; what staff have been retained in the Department of the former First Minister (Designate); and if she will make a statement. [92940]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Following the resignation of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) as Deputy First Minister (Designate) the appointments of his Special Advisers were automatically terminated under the
  25
  terms of their contracts. However, the future arrangements for the Office of the Deputy First Minister (Designate) are currently under consideration.

PRIME MINISTER

  Coral Reef Degradation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the oral answer of 1 July 1999,Official Report, columns 419-20, which is the lead ministerial department on Her Majesty's Government's policy on coral reef degradation. [89963]

  The Prime Minister
  As is the case for a range of cross-cutting issues, there is no single Government Department responsible for coral reef degradation. Departments lead on the aspects for which they are directly responsible, consulting other Departments where necessary. For example:The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is concerned with coral reefs within the context of biological diversity and the marine environment;
  The Department for International Development deal with matters relating to coral reefs as they affect economic development in overseas coastal communities;
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is responsible for particular issues concerning coral reefs in British overseas territories; and
  The management of fisheries and deposits in the sea are largely devolved matters. Insofar as these areas may impact on coral reefs, responsibility within the UK is shared by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department, the National Assembly for Wales Agriculture Department and the Departments of Agriculture and the Environment for Northern Ireland.
  Where particular issues involve the interests of a number of Departments, the ENV Committee provides a forum for Ministerial and official discussion of these issues. It is well known that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions takes a strong personal interest in the issue of coral reef degradation and ensures that it is accorded due attention within Government.

  Luxembourg Compromise
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last invoked the Luxembourg Compromise. [91495]

  The Prime Minister
  The Luxembourg Compromise has been invoked twice by the United Kingdom—once in July 1978 and once in May 1982.

  This Government's positive and constructive approach to Europe has meant that we can achieve successful outcomes for the United Kingdom, for example, most recently in the lifting of the beef ban.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister how many individuals his office has recruited under the New Deal for Young People. [91885]

  The Prime Minister
  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 26
  Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on 25 May 1999, Official Report, column 116. One placement has been in my Office and I am delighted to say that the person is now in unsubsidised employment. Subject to the necessary security clearances, I intend to take additional New Dealers in the future.

  Business Ambassadors
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those occasions when he has met Ambassadors for British Business. [91875]

  The Prime Minister
  The Ambassadors for British Business initiative was launched by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in November 1997. It aims to harness the expertise of leading figures in Britain's private sector to promote British strengths abroad, for example by making speeches to overseas audiences in the course of travel on their company business.

  In the course of my duties, I am delighted to have met over half of the 31 business people who participate in this scheme. The Ambassadors do an excellent job in promoting British business at no cost to the taxpayer.

  Internal Histories
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the(a) purpose and (b) audience of internal histories; and what procedures determine the selection of (i) topics and (ii) authors. [91850]

  The Prime Minister
  The purpose of internal histories is to provide factual, accurate and authoritative background information for members of departments on particular topics; planning and decision making; to evaluate the effectiveness of policy and to point out possible lessons for the future. The target audience for internal histories is primarily relevant departmental staff.

  These histories are not written for publication but as public records they are considered under the Public Records Acts for release to the Public Record Office. As has been the practice under successive administrations, it is a matter for Departments whether they wish to conduct an internal history and topics are usually commissioned by senior staff in departments in response, for example, to a need for analyses of major developments or operations or to provide factual reports on particular events. Authors are usually drawn from officers from the department with relevant experience or from within their historical branches.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those foreign Governments, indicating the serving head of Government, who have received letters of protest from Her Majesty's Government regarding human rights abuses since 1970. [91869]

  The Prime Minister
  We frequently raise human rights concerns with other Governments. While occasionally we do this in writing, we more regularly do so through bilateral representations by Ministers and officials or with EU partners. For example, we have made such representations regarding China, Burma, Colombia and Belarus. However, there is no operational need to keep the type of list requested and one is therefore not available.
  27
  Ministers have made written representations for example to the Malaysian Government, the Ugandan Government, the Indonesian Government and the Government of Zimbabwe.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister how long the meeting was with KLA officials on 18 May which he attended; and if he will list the participants. [91871]

  The Prime Minister
  Details of participants were given in my earlier answer of 21 June 1999,Official Report, column 313. In line with normal practice appropriate officials accompanied me at the meeting which lasted just over half an hour.

  Gold Sales
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his letter to the President of South Africa relating to the sale of gold, delivered to the President of South Africa on 17 June. [91872]

  The Prime Minister
  As we announced on 7 May 1999 Official Report, column 485, we have undertaken the sale of gold to produce a better balance in the portfolio of UK reserves. On the advice of the Bank of England we made this public to ensure the sale was carried through on a clear and transparent basis. I wrote to the South African President on 11 June to set out these reasons in some detail and to follow up discussions we had already had with his Government. However, the letter also contained information received in confidence from the South African government. It is established practice under Section 1(c) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose such information.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many appointments to quangos he made between (i) 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998 and (ii) 1 June 1998 and 31 May 1999; [92042]

  (2) how many members of Britain's (a) ethnic minority communities and (b) Asian community he appointed to quangos between (i) 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998 and (ii) 1 June 1998 and 31 May 1999. [92113]

  The Prime Minister
  The number of appointments I have made to bodies listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies" are as follows:

  Between 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998—81

  Between 1 June 1998 and 31 May 1999—58.

  In addition The Queen has made a number of appointments to such bodies on my recommendation.

  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office set out the Government's new policy on collection and disclosure of ethnic origin data for public appointees in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on 11 November 1998, Official Report, column 200. This policy came into effect with regard to new appointments and re-appointments from 1 April 1999.
  28
  However, owing to the small number of public appointments I have made since 1 April 1999 (two women and five men) information about ethnic origin cannot be provided since to do so would risk identifying individuals without consent.

  Information on ethnic origin with regard to appointments I have made prior to 1 April 1999 is not held in the form requested. However, I have asked my Office to research what information is available and I will write to my hon. Friend in due course.

  China (Human Rights)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Prime Minister what improvements have been made by the Chinese Government in respect of(a) human rights and (b) the situation in Tibet since his discussions with Jiang Zemin in Beijing in October 1998. [92051]

  The Prime Minister
  We continue to monitor the observance of human rights in China and the situation in Tibet. We regularly raise our concerns with the Chinese authorities. We are addressing the issue with China through our bilateral and EU/China human rights dialogues. Since October, two rounds of talks have taken place as well as three EU/China human rights seminars. China has signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and invited the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture to visit. These positive steps will help to bring about China's closer co-operation with UN human rights mechanisms. We will continue to encourage China to ratify the international covenants which it has signed and we will continue to support developments in China's legal system which we believe will bring about positive change to human rights in the longer term.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 6 July 1999,Official Report, column 433, on Special Advisers, if he will set out the terms of the similar arrangements which applied under previous Administrations as they relate to briefing hon. Members of the party in Government. [91858]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 21 July 1999]: The introduction of the "Model Contract for Special Advisers" in May 1997 set out for the first time in a public document the duties and responsibilities of Special Advisers. These include helping to brief party MPs and officials on issues of Government policy, which, like the other duties, is not new. It ensures that Party publicity is factually accurate and consistent with Government policy. Successive Administrations have recognised that this is an appropriate task for Special Advisers.

  Policy Unit
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions members of his policy unit have visited the Republic of Ireland on official business since 1 May 1997, indicating the name of the member and the dates of travel in each case. [92272]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times he has held meetings with Ministers and officials of the Irish Government since 1 January 1998, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting and the names of the Irish Ministers and officials at each meeting. [92270]

  The Prime Minister
  Since I came to office I have had numerous meetings with the Irish Government to discuss the political situation in Northern Ireland and a range of other issues of mutual interest. Given the frequency and nature of the meetings, it is not possible to list all the separate occasions and locations. The meetings have, however, usually been held in London, Dublin or Belfast and made public in the normal way at the time. In addition, I have of course met the Taoiseach at European and other international meetings. In line with normal practice, I was supported at the meetings by the appropriate number of officials.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reason no announcement has yet been made in respect of the co-ordination within Government of animal welfare policies; when he expects to make such an announcement; and if he will make a statement. [92308]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: We are committed to continue working to ensure highest possible standards of animal welfare. Major steps already taken include announcing at the end of last year the end to all cosmetics testing on animals in the United Kingdom and no new licences have been issued for such tests since we came to power. We have also negotiated the phase-out across Europe of battery cages for laying hens. To date, co-ordination between Government Departments has been on an informal basis. However, this will be put on a formal basis this autumn by the establishment of an Interdepartmental Ministerial Group.

  Bilderberg Group
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister from whom members of the Government received invitations to attend meetings of the Bilderberg Group. [92863]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) on 7 May 1999,Official Report, columns 476-77.

  Who sends invitations is a matter for the Bilderberg Group.

  European Commission
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the current state of disciplinary proceedings against Commission officials implicated in alleged fraud; how many are involved; at what levels; and what is the timescale for concluding such proceedings. [92865]
  30
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin) on 20 January 1999,Official Report, column 505 in which she undertook to write to the hon. Member. She did so on 30 April 1999 and a copy of the letter was placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The European Commission has been asked to provide an update on progress made since then and when proceedings are expected to conclude. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to write to the hon. Member when this information is received.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [92654]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: 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 will normally be made by Government car. The last time I used a train was on 22 June 1999 to travel to Birmingham to attend a Conference to mark the anniversary of the New Deal and to present awards to the 100,000th New Dealer.

  Tibet
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what discussions he proposes to have about the continued occupation of Tibet with the Chinese President Jiang Zemin, when he visits the United Kingdom in the autumn; [92188]

  (2) what representations he proposes to make to the Chinese President, Jiang Zemin, this autumn about the detention of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, recognised by the Dalai Lama as the 11 Panchen Lama of Tibet. [92189]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: We are very much looking forward to the first ever State Visit by a President of the People's Republic of China this Autumn. During President Jiang's visit we expect to discuss a full range of bilateral, regional and international issues.

  Sutherland Commission
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) of 21 July 1999,Official Report, column 1184, when he expects his Government to complete its consideration of the majority and minority reports of the Sutherland Commission; and if the Government will then make a formal response to the Commission's recommendations in respect of funding of nursing and personal care. [93030]

  The Prime Minister
  We are considering the Royal Commission's proposals and the reactions to the Commission's report. We will announce our decisions in due course.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [92653]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  To attend the Church of England General Synod in York in July 1998.

SCOTLAND

  European Communities Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the European Communities working groups which met over the last 12 months with a representative from his Department in attendance; if he will list the number of times each met; if he will indicate the nature of the Government's representation; and if he will make a statement. [88472]

  Dr. Reid
  Officials from my Department regularly attended European Communities working groups when matters of importance to Scotland—in particular, fisheries, agriculture and structural funds issues—were being discussed. Occasionally, my Department was represented by officials from the United Kingdom's Permanent Representation to the European Union.

  Oncologists
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of clinical and medical oncologists per 100,000 population for each health authority in Scotland. [90806]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 28 June 1999,Official Report, column 30. Clinical and medical oncologists are not based throughout Scotland, but are employed in Cancer Centres in five locations—Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Inverness. They provide services at the centres and on an outreach basis according to need, to cover all health authorities. There is not a specific number of oncologists or proportion of oncologists' time assigned to each NHS Trust or Health Board.

  From 1 July, this is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Scottish Adjacent Water Boundaries Order 1999
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reasons, prior to laying the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 1126), his Department did not invite observations from the Scottish Parliament. [91074]

  Dr. Reid
  Observations were not invited from the Scottish Parliament because it did not exist when the Draft Order was laid before this Parliament on 8 March and debated by both Houses on 23 March.

  Genetically Modified Fish
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 21 July 1999,Official
  32
  Report, column 531, what was the transgenic nature of the work at Otter Ferry Salmon Ltd.; and what were the results of the research. [93195]

  Dr. Reid
  The work involved the production of genetically modified Atlantic Salmon. Copies of a growth hormone gene taken from Chinook Salmon were introduced into 10,000 Atlantic Salmon eggs by micro-injection. The fish were grown in a land-based containment facility for up to one year. A high level of containment was maintained throughout the project. A small number of fish were identified as transgenic, based on accelerated growth. Approximately 50 of the fish grew at four times the normal rate, with no sign of abnormalities. The project was terminated after approximately a year, and all the fish were destroyed.

  Departmental Nomenclature
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an announcement on the name by which his Department is to be known. [93604]

  Dr. Reid
  With the agreement of the Prime Minister, my Department will be known as the Scotland Office.

HEALTH

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those NHS Trusts in England which are not millennium compliant. [90104]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 7 July 1999]: At 31 May 1999, there were four out of 477 National Health Service organisations considered by the NHS Executive to be making 'unsatisfactory' progress in their preparations for Year 2000. They were: Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust; Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust; Oxfordshire Ambulance NHS Trust; Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust. In each case action is being taken by the NHS Trusts concerned with the support of the NHS Executive to ensure they will be fully prepared with compliant systems and equipment or effective contingency plans in place by 30 September 1999, the deadline set for all NHS organisations.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken to ensure Mid Essex Hospital Trust is millennium compliant. [90003]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 7 July 1999]: Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust is working towards the 30 September deadline to ensure that all systems are compliant or that effective contingency plans are in place if full compliance cannot be achieved. The NHS Trust has appointed its Director of Nursing as the new project manager in charge of its response to the year 2000 issue and the Chief Executive of the NHS Trust is personally involved in the process. The NHS Executive Eastern Regional Office year 2000 team and the NHS Trust are working closely to ensure that appropriate plans

  33
  are in place and that all deadlines are met. Work is being undertaken in the following areas, which were assessed as "unsatisfactory" in the 31 May returns:
  The production and regular updating of inventories for information technology systems.
  The identification of proposals to fix or replace information technology systems which are not year 2000 compliant.
  The assessment of legal liabilities arising from year 2000 non-compliance.
  The identification of key areas of risk, which would result in year 2000 compliance not being addressed by 30 September 1999.

  It is the NHS Trust's intention that it will meet the deadline of 30 September.

  Myodil
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date the drug Myodil was granted a product licence of right under the terms of the Medicines Act 1968. [90764]

  Ms Jowell
  Documentation held by the Medicines Control Agency indicates that a product licence of right for Myodil was granted in September 1972, although the MCA cannot categorically verify that date. An entry on the MCA' s computerised Produce Licence database gives the date of authorisation as 19 November 1973. This may be the date on which the formal notification was sent to the company. There were over 39,000 applications for product licences of right and it is reasonable to assume that there would have been some delay in processing those applications.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the legal framework regulating the fluoridation of water supplies; and if he will make a statement. [91552]

  Ms Jowell
  The White Paper "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" acknowledged that present legislation on fluoridation is not working. We have commissioned a scientific review of the evidence on fluoride and health, which is due to be complete by the end of February 2000. If the review confirms that there are benefits to dental health from fluoridation and that there are no significant risks, we intend to introduce a legal obligation on water companies to fluoridate where there is strong local support for doing so.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of fluoridating all drinking water in the north-west. [92699]

  Ms Jowell
  Assuming the review of scientific evidence shows benefits from fluoridation and no significant risks, decisions on schemes will be taken by local authority area and costs will be assessed for each individual scheme.

  Cancer Care
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the members of the Cancer Care Action Group and the organisations for which they work; [91983]
  34
  (2) if he will report on the progress made by the Cancer Care Action Group in identifying and implementing improvements to the quality of care for patients and their relatives; and if he will make a statement. [91984]

  Mr. Hutton
  We recognise the importance of voluntary sector organisations in the care and support of patients with cancer. The Cancer Care Action Group has been established to promote more effective involvement of these organisations in the development and implementation of policy on cancer care. The Group includes representatives of cancer-related voluntary sector organisations and the National Health Service Executive. The organisations represented are:

  Breakthrough Breast Cancer

  Breast Cancer Care

  Cancer Black Care

  CancerBacup

  Cancerlink

  Colon Cancer Concern

  Crocus Trust

  Help the Hospices

  Leukaemia Care Society

  Macmillan Cancer Relief

  Marie Curie Cancer Care

  National Cancer Alliance

  National Conference of Cancer Self Help Groups

  National Council for Hospices and Specialist Palliative Care Services

  The Prostate Cancer Charity

  St. Christopher's Hospice

  Sargent Cancer Care for Children

  Sue Ryder Foundation

  Women's Nationwide Cancer Control Campaign.

  The Group is chaired by the Chief Nursing Officer and representatives of the NHS Executive and members of the National Cancer Forum also attend.

  The Cancer Care Action Group first met in January 1999. It reviewed and advised on current cancer policy initiatives, the development of the National Health Service Cancer Information Strategy and psychosocial support for patients with cancer. The group also identified the need for further work to improve voluntary sector involvement in initiatives to improve quality in the NHS, and in education and training for health professionals.

  Nurses (Expenses)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he is planning to take to ensure that nurses are refunded the costs of all work-related journeys; [92208]

  (2) how many clinical nurses working in the community are not refunded for the cost of their work-related journeys; [92207]

  Mr. Denham
  It is the responsibility of local employers to ensure that systems are in place to refund all staff for the costs of expenses necessarily incurred on National Health Service business. I am not aware of any clinical nurses working in the community who are not refunded
  35
  expenses necessarily incurred on NHS business. I will be happy to look into any particular case the hon. Member has in mind.

  Doctors (General Practice)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the procedures for the selection of doctors to vacant general practices; and when those procedures were last revised. [92228]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no current plans to review the procedures for the selection of doctors to vacant general practices.

  The procedures were last revised on 10 December 1998 when The National Health Services (General Medical Services) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1998 were issued.

  Barnet Hospital
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people failed to attend appointments arranged for acute treatment at Barnet Hospital in 1998–99. [92365]

  Mr. Denham
  Data are not collected from individual hospitals, only National Health Service trusts. Barnet General Hospital is part of Wellhouse NHS Trust.

  In 1997–98 there were 6,592 did not attends (DNAs) for first outpatient attendances and 19,183 DNA's for subsequent outpatient attendances arranged for acute treatment, at Wellhouse NHS Trust.

  In 1998–99 there were 753 failed to attends for elective inpatient admission and 6,370 DNAs for outpatient appointments.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 July 1999,Official Report, column 362, on primary care groups (management allowances), when he expects the information requested to be available centrally. [92394]

  Mr. Denham
  Validated information is expected to be available in the autumn.

  Children (Care and Treatment)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives he has announced to enhance the care and treatment of children. [92439]

  Mr. Hutton
  A number of major initiatives have recently been announced. The "Sure Start" project is aimed at developing partnerships and local services for young children and their families in areas of disadvantage to ensure that the health, educational, social and emotional needs of children aged under 5 years are met, and that they arrive at school ready to thrive. In England £452 million has been committed to the development of the Sure Start project over the next three years.

  On child and adolescent mental health services, specific targets have been set in the National Priorities Guidance 1999–2002—which reflects the unevenness and inequality in the current pattern of these services, recognises our
  36
  commitment to service improvement and features an additional investment of £84 million over the next three years.

  On 13 July the Department and the Department for Education and Employment Ministers wrote to chief executives of local education authorities offering funding to support local healthy schools programmes to safeguard and improve the physical and mental health and well being of pupils and teachers as a factor in improving school standards. The budget for this programme in 1999–2000 is £4 million.

  Last May we announced the introduction of Diana Children's Community Nursing Teams, to help families in the community with children suffering from life threatening illnesses, the budget for which is £4.2 million over the next three years.

  The "Quality Protects" programme, which is funded at £375 million over the next three years, was announced last September. This initiative will transform the management and delivery of children's social services and provide better life chances for children in the care of local authorities and children in need.

  AD2000
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been recruited to take part in the AD2000 trial based at the Clinical Trials Unit University of Birmingham; what the target number of participants is; and when he expects the trial to be completed. [92434]

  Mr. Hutton
  The AD2000 study opened to recruitment in the West Midlands in October 1998 and the national launch was held in December 1998. As of 21 July, 239 patients had been entered from 20 centres. The target is 3,000 participants. The first results—on the short-term effects of donepezil on behavioural problems, activities of daily living, and well-being of carers—are expected to become available in the year 2000. The AD2000 study is also investigating the longer-term effects of donepezil on disease progress and the cost-effectiveness of donepezil, in particular the need for institutionalisation. Long-term effectiveness results are not expected until after the year 2002 when recruitment should be completed.

  Nurses (Salaries)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average salary of(a) male and (b) female nurses. [92436]

  Mr. Denham
  We estimate that the average annual basic pay for male and female nurses (qualified and unqualified), after the implementation of the April 1999 pay award, is £15,900 and £16,000 respectively. The national terms and conditions for National Health Service nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff are the same for male and female staff. Therefore, the difference between these figures simply reflects the variations in the grade and seniority mix of male and female nurses.

  These estimates are based on the results from the Department's August 1997 Earnings Survey, scaled up to reflect pay awards since August 1997. The figures are the average full-time equivalent basic pay levels i.e. the basic

  37
  pay of part-time staff was scaled up to that of full-time staff, and exclude payments for overtime and other leads and allowances.

  Acute Care
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals in the NHS have no(a) piped oxygen facilities and (b) air conditioning or temperature control in their acute wards. [92371]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Under-age Tobacco Sales
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with national representatives of trading standards officers about implementation of the proposed Draft Tobacco (Prohibition of Advertising and Promotion) Regulations 1999. [R] [92249]

  Ms Jowell
  Officials of the Department have met representatives of the Local Government Association and trading standards officers' umbrella body, the Local Authorities Co-ordinating body on Food and Trading Standards to discuss the proposed Enforcement Protocol for local authorities to tackle under-age tobacco sales.

  Draft Concordat (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish, before the summer adjournment, the most recent draft concordat between his Department and the National Assembly for Wales. [92333]

  Ms Jowell
  Work on the health and social care concordat is proceeding well. A draft of the concordat should be ready to be discussed with colleagues in Wales once the overarching concordats have been put to the First Secretary. I do not intend to publish the concordat in advance of that.

  Imported Food Regulations 1984
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prosecutions have been made for breaches of the Imported Food Regulations 1984 since they came into force. [92697]

  Ms Jowell
  The general provisions of the Imported Food Regulations 1984 and the Imported Food (Scotland) Regulations 1985 were replaced by the Imported Food Regulations 1997, which apply to the whole of Great Britain. Figures on the number of prosecutions under these Regulations are not kept centrally.

  Doctors (Complaints)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about the procedure available to investigate complaints against doctors; and if he will make a statement. [92637]

  Mr. Denham
  The procedures for investigating complaints against doctors generate much interest and are regularly the subject of correspondence. Complaints often involve complex assessments of clinical judgments which require expert review. Detailed guidance has been provided to National Health Service employers for the 38
  handling of complaints and any disciplinary action which needs to be taken as a result. Investigations need to be dealt with as quickly as possible. They should balance the employer's responsibility to protect the interests of patients with the need to ensure fair treatment for the doctor complained against.

  Northwick Park Hospital
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to modernise the accident and emergency department at Northwick Park hospital; and at what cost. [92631]

  Mr. Denham
  Northwick Park Hospital, which forms part of The North West London Hospitals National Health Service Trust, has received two tranches of NHS modernisation funding to develop its accident and emergency facilities:

  February 1999—£782,000 to provide 5 additional treatment rooms, a new x-ray machine and enable improvements to the entry areas and layout within the Department; May 1999—£630,000 to provide a six bedded resuscitation unit and ancillary accommodation.

  Implementation of these improvements will help to reduce the length of time patients wait to be treated and the quality of the environment in which they are treated.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if GM crops designed to produce products or by-products with medicinal properties will be subject to regulation under the Medicines Act 1968. [92722]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: Products and by-products made from genetically modified crops which satisfied the definition of a medicinal product, as defined in Article 1 of Directive 65/65/EEC, would be subject to medicines legislation. The Medicines Act does not cover the regulation of crop cultivation. The Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions is responsible for implementing Directive 90/220 on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to provide a substantive answer to the questions tabled for answer on 7 July 1999 about millennium compliance by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Ref. 90003 and 90104). [92580]

  Mr. Denham
  I have replied to the hon. Member today.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when will he reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam of 3 March concerning a constituent, Mrs. J. Timms. [92925]

  Mr. Denham
  I shall reply to the hon. Member's letter shortly.

  Acquired Brain Injuries
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 3 December 1998,Official

  39
  Report, column 258, on acquired brain injuries, when the consultation on new guidance will commence; and when it will be completed and published. [92568]

  Mr. Hutton
  Consultation is currently taking place with the National Health Service and the voluntary sector. It is expected that the guidance will be published in the spring of 2000.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 February 1999,Official Report, column 139, on beta interferon, when he plans to announce his decisions following the consultation on the paper, "Faster Access to Modern Treatment". [92734]

  Mr. Denham
  Ministers will be making an announcement in due course.

  Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implementation of the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996 by local authorities. [93070]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of people receiving direct payments is increasing steadily. The latest data which are available show 1,400 people receiving direct payments on 30 September 1998, compared with 1,000 people on 1 December 1997. The Department is working with local authorities, users and other stakeholders to increase further the number of people who are able to benefit from the increased independence which direct payments can offer.

  North and East Devon Health Authority
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 525, on the North and East Devon Health Authority, when he plans to publish his assessment of the Appeal Court decision. [92567]

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

  Residential Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 204, on residential allowance, when he will publish his proposals for consultation. [92566]

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

  Dr. Moor
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the costs to the NHS of(a) the legal and administrative arrangements for the selection to the vacant general practice formerly held by Dr. Moor of Wigrove Road, Fenham, Newcastle and (b) subsequent locum and other temporary arrangements after Dr. Moor's resignation. [92237]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.
  40
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Dr. Moor resigned from his general practice in Wigrove Road, Fenham, Newcastle and what was the date of each subsequent(a) advertisement of the practice, (b) selection panel hearing and (c) appeal hearing. [92235]

  Mr. Denham
  Dr. Moor resigned from his practice in Wingrove Road, Fenham, Newcastle on 31 March 1998.

  The advertisement for the practice vacancy appeared in the British Medical Journal on 30 January 1998.

  Selection panel hearings have been held on the following dates:

  27 and 28 February 1998

  2 October 1998

  21 July 1999.

  There have been no appeal hearings to date.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons he directed the advertising of the vacancy to the general practice formerly held by Dr. Moor of Fenham, Newcastle to be made a second time; and how many NHS patients were on the practice list at the time. [92236]

  Mr. Denham
  An appeal on a point of law by an unsuccessful Partnership was made against this practice vacancy and was subsequently upheld.

  Accordingly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State instructed the Health Authority to select a fresh selection panel to reconsider the original applications in accordance with Regulation 17(11) of the General Medical Services Regulations 1992.

  There were 3,393 patients on the practice list at the time the vacancy was declared.

  Medical Student Places
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce a decision on the allocation of additional medical student places. [92461]

  Mr. Denham
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England announced the allocation of 684 extra medical student places to Higher Education Institutions on 22 June 1999. These were in addition to 158 places that had already been allocated earlier this year. An announcement of more than 100 further places is planned for the spring of next year.

  General Practice Vacancies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appeals against selections to general practice vacancies were handled by the NHS Executive; what was the average length of time from advertising the practice vacancy to the appeal; and in how many cases (i) more than one appeal was heard and (ii) the same practice vacancy was advertised more than once, in each year since 1994. [92233]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of the
  41
  instructions and guidance issued by his Department to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, since its establishment. [93053]

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

  Lancashire and South Cumbria (Health Authority Reorganisation)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to make changes to the health authority structures in the regions of Lancashire and South Cumbria; [92926]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the savings which could be made from the unification of North West Lancashire and South Lancashire health authorities in terms of management costs. [92927]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service Executive North West is presently considering the impact of recent policy changes on organisations across the whole region, including health authorities and trusts. It is proposing to engage Members of Parliament, health authorities, NHS trusts, primary care groups, community health councils and others in local dialogue to discuss the way ahead. At this stage, the regional office has no specific intentions, nor has it made any recommendations for health authority changes in Lancashire and South Cumbria. Any reconfigurations which may emerge from this process will reflect these discussions and not be driven purely by financial considerations.

  Accident and Emergency Units
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accident and emergency units in England and Wales have been closed following merger with a neighbouring accident and emergency unit in each year since 1980. [92571]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not collected centrally. It is for health authorities to decide what facilities are required for local populations.

  Public Appointments
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appointments to public bodies were made by his Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99, broken down by (i) gender and (ii) ethnicity; and if he will list the chairmen appointed to those bodies in those years, similarly broken down. [92516]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested is given in the table. The Department's goals and objectives for ensuring recruitment from all sections of the community were published by the Government on 25 May in "Quangos: Opening Up Public Appointments 1999–2002" copies of which are available in the Library.

  The names of those appointed as chairman as at 1 March 1998 are listed in the Departmental Public Appointments Annual Report 1998, copies of which are available in the Library. Information as at 1 April 1999 will be published shortly and copies of the 1999 Annual Report will be placed in the Library.

  They show that between 1 April 1998 and 31 March 1999, 13.1 per cent. of all appointments made were to people from an ethnic minority background while
  42
  48.1 per cent. were to women. This compares with 10.7 per cent. and 45.5 per cent., during the previous 12 month period.

  Appointments made by gender and ethnicity between 1978–98 and 1998–99

  Appointments made between 1 April 1997–31 March 1998

  Appointments made between 1 April 1998–31 March 1999

  All posts

  White

  Male

  555

  658

  Female

  487

  620

  Ethnic minority

  Male

  77

  106

  Female

  48

  87

  Total male

  632

  764

  Total female

  535

  707

  Chairman

  White

  Male

  106

  146

  Female

  62

  89

  Ethnic minority

  Male

  6

  8

  Female

  2

  4

  Total male

  112

  154

  Total female

  64

  93

  Workplace Back Pain
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investment his Department is making in pilot projects to combat back pain in the workplace. [92929]

  Ms Jowell
  We are providing £500,000 to support pilot projects under the 'Back in Work' programme. Project proposals of between £5,000 and £50,000 have been invited from businesses, trade unions and workplace organisations. The closing date for applications is 31 August.

  This programme is part of the Healthy Workplace Initiative which is jointly sponsored by the Department and the Health and Safety Executive. The Healthy Workplace Initiative was launched on 9 March this year by myself and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for health and safety.

  Social Care Workers
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to encourage the social care work force to obtain additional qualifications. [92937]

  Mr. Hutton
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Quality Projects Initiative
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the progress of the Quality Projects Initiative. [92936]

  Mr. Hutton
  The quality protects programme was launched in September 1998 and is designed to transform the management and delivery of children's social services. It is supported by a new £375 million special children's grant.
  43
  All local authorities are required to submit an annual quality protects management action plan (MAP) to show how they intended to improve their children's services. The MAPs for Year 1 submitted in January were all assessed as reaching an acceptable standard. As a result of this I wrote to all local authorities confirming that subject to Parliamentary approval they would be receiving payment of their allocation of the children's special grant for 1999–2000. In their MAPs due to be received in January 2000 we will expect to see evidence of real improvements in the quality of services being provided by local authorities.

  On 29 June we published a national overview report, Mapping Quality in Children's Services: An Evaluation of Local Responses to the Quality Protects Programme, which presents the key messages and findings from the first round of MAPs. Copies of the report are available in the Library. It identifies many examples of good practice from across the country but it also highlights major areas where improvement is urgently needed. To support local authorities tackle some of these development needs we will be publishing a national work programme later in the summer which will set out a plan of work by the Department at national, regional and local level. Sixteen quality protects project teams have been set up within the Department to develop policy and disseminate good practice on a range of issues including disabled children, children's participation, placement choice, new child protection guidance and ethnic minority children.

  We shall also be publishing our revised objectives for children's services, supported by a full set of performance indicators, which sets out clearly our expectations of the part to be played by local authorities in delivering better outcomes for some of the most vulnerable children in our society.

  We have appointed eight regional development workers to drive forward measures to improve services and to work with local authorities to help implement their management action plans.

  When we launched the quality protects programme we said that elected members had a crucial role in ensuring that the programme was a success. In order to help members understand their roles and responsibilities, we have recently held seven joint Departmental/Local Government Association regional seminars for members.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of total gross expenditure in England in 1998–99 on personal social services was accounted for by services for(a) children and (b) the elderly. [92938]

  Mr. Hutton
  Gross expenditure data for England in 1998–99 on personal social services are not available until spring 2000. Comparative data for 1997–98 showed that 50 per cent. of total gross expenditure was accounted for by services for the elderly and 23 per cent. for children.

  Casualty Department Modernisations
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many casualty department modernisation 44
  schemes are planned this year to (a) provide for expansion or redevelopment and (b) improve telemedicine links. [92928]

  Mr. Denham
  Of the 169 Accident and Emergency modernisation schemes going forward this year, there are 63 involving expansion and redevelopment. A further 45 schemes involve redesign or general refurbishment of Accident and Emergency departments. In addition 34 schemes will improve telemedicine links.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the preparedness of key sectors of the UK infrastructure for the millennium bug. [91385]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt),Official Report, columns 14-15.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Question Time
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council if she will ensure that oral questions to the Secretaries of State for Defence, Culture, Media and Sport, International Development and Northern Ireland last for one hour each. [91386]

  Mr. Tipping
  No. Within the current time available this could only be done at the expense of questions to other Ministers.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals she has for reform of Question Time. [91486]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have no immediate plans for procedural change but am prepared to look at any constructive proposals. Some adjustment to the question rota will be discussed through the usual channels in the autumn to reflect the consequences of devolution.

  Thursday Sittings
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the President of the Council what assessment she has made of the experiment in relation to Thursday sitting hours. [91387]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey),Official Report, column 16.

  House of Lords Reform
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on progress on proposals for the reform of the House of Lords. [91388]

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on progress on proposals for the reform of the House of Lords. [91389]
  45
  Mrs. Beckett
  The Royal Commission on the reform of the House of Lords issued a consultation document in March of this year and I understand that, in response, it has received over 1,300 written submissions concerning the long-term reform of the House of Lords from members of the public, MPs, peers, academics and a range of organisations.

  The Commission is keen to secure the widest possible range of views on the issues raised by its terms of reference and it has organised a series of public meetings throughout the UK to enable it to probe and test the written evidence it has received and to hear the views of members of the general public. The final meeting will be in London on 27 July.

  There is no reason to believe that the Royal Commission will not report on schedule by the end of this year.

  Legislative Process
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to speed up the legislative process. [91485]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have no plans to speed up the legislative process as such. The House's procedures already provide sufficient flexibility in cases of urgency. I am looking at ways of improving the quality of legislation. When this involves the publication of draft Bills for pre-legislative scrutiny, this may appear to lengthen the legislative process.

  Gender Impact Assessment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the subject of each gender impact assessment drawn up by her Department since June 1997, indicating in each case whether the outcome has been(a) put out to consultation and (b) published. [92004]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 22 July 1999,Official Report, column 636, by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health.

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

  Management and Services Review
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the Report of Mr. Michael Braithwaite on the Review of Management and Services to the House of Commons Commission. [93530]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  On 26 October 1998, Mr. Michael Braithwaite was invited by the House of Commons Commission to undertake a review of the system of management and decision-making responsibilities for services to the House which was set up following the inquiry in 1990 by Sir Robin Ibbs.
  46
  The Commission has considered the Report of the team lead by Mr. Braithwaite at three meetings, the last of which was on 19 July. The Report was published today as House of Commons paper 745.

  The Commission is grateful to Mr. Braithwaite and his colleagues for reporting fully on the complex issues referred to them and for their constructive recommendations. The team considers the proposals in the Report provide a coherent framework for building on the Ibbs Report's recommendations on management, financial control and decision-making in the House.

  The Commission welcomes comments from Members, staff of the House and others which should be addressed, in writing, to the Secretary of the Commission.

  Parliamentary Data and Video Network
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what monitoring is undertaken of the frequency with which hon. Members and staff are unable to access the PDVN network; with what results; and if he will make a statement. [92801]

  Mr. Allan
  The Parliamentary Data and Video Network (PDVN) is monitored on an operational basis with real time information. This indicates to Parliamentary Communications Directorate staff when an individual piece of infrastructure equipment is not responding to the network. This is a dynamic process and is actioned for fault reporting purposes.

  There is no individual monitoring of access problems by individuals, but trends are established and pursued. It is currently not possible to report on the availability of individual services on the PDVN. Tools to provide this information will be implemented in the coming months.

  Regrettably, there have recently been some serious problems with the network infrastructure which have prevented access to PDVN users. A project to replace the overloaded components of the network was initiated some time ago and will be implemented during the forthcoming summer recess.

  Women's Organisations (Consultation)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the women's organisations which have been consulted over proposed legislation by her Department during this session; and if their responses have been published. [86996]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Privy Council Office has made no proposals for primary legislation during this Session.

  However, the Government are committed to making sure that policies are inclusive and take full account of the needs and experience of all those affected by them. "Guidelines on Policy Appraisals for Equal Treatment", published in November 1998, commit policy makers to assessing how proposals affect different groups of people.

DEFENCE

  Army Personnel Centre
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Army Personnel Centre for the financial year 1999–2000. [93586]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Chief Executive of the Army Personnel Centre has been set the following Key Targets for 1999–2000.Key Target 1—The percentage of filled posts (excluding posts gapped for less than 28 days and all posts for private soldiers and subaltern officers) to be 91 per cent. or greater.
  Key Target 2—The proportion of personnel posted in-year by the APC, whose rank and Service qualifications of the post, to be 92 per cent. or greater.
  Key Target 3—The percentage of in-year postings authorised by the APC where personnel are given at least 6 months notification (see Note) to be 52 per cent. or greater.

  Note:

  Short-notice operational requirements and postings following initial training and long career courses are excluded
  Key Target 4—The percentage of change requests received by the APC which are authorised and/or accurately processed within 5 working days of receipt at the Document Handling Centre to be 93 per cent. or greater.
  Key Target 5—The percentage of due terminal benefits made by the fifth working day after discharge/retirement of following receipt of the correct authorisation paperwork by Pensions Division, whichever is later, to be 97 per cent. or greater.
  Key Target 6—To achieve a year-on-year reduction of 1 per cent. in operating costs.

  2nd Division
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of transferring the HQ of 2nd Division from York to Edinburgh; and if he will make a statement. [91320]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The main cost of the move will be works required to prepare the headquarters building in Edinburgh, for which some £250,000 has been allowed in this current financial year, and staff transfer costs, for which provision of some £750,000 has been made over the next two years. As far as savings in annual staff costs are concerned, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 19 July 1999,Official Report, column 424.

  Depleted Uranium Ammunition
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the environmental effects of targeting depleted uranium ammunition on dummy armour. [91844]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Elizabeth Peace to Mr. John Bercow, dated 26 July 1999:
  I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about the environmental assessment of targeting depleted uranium (DU) on dummy armour as such firings were part of a research programme managed by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) on behalf of the Ministry of Defence (MOD).
  48
  DU ammunition was last fired at the DERA Eskmeals range at hard targets or dummy armour in September 1995. Public concern about the risk of contamination from DU prompted DERA, in December 1993, to commission an independent study by W S Atkins Environment. The report of the study, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House, concluded that there was no significant risk to the public, site personnel or the environment. The comprehensive environmental monitoring programme, that DERA continues to conduct, confirms that this is still the case. The monitoring reports are all within the public domain; the most recent reports, for 1995/96, were presented to the Environment Agency and local councils at the beginning of last year and further reports will be available to the public in due course as a matter of routine.
  I hope the above is helpful.

  JP233 System
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what exports of JP233 Runway Denial System the Government have approved; and if he will make a statement on JP233 system support technicians with respect to their recall from abroad by his Government. [91880]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 15 July 1999,Official Report, column 286. The Government are strongly committed to applying the terms of the Ottawa Convention under which JP233 would be prohibited as an anti-personnel landmine. The recall or reassignment to other tasks of any technicians working overseas is a matter for their employer.

  Chinook Helicopters
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, (1) pursuant to his answer of 14 July 1999,Official Report, column 229, if he will place the full contents of the Air Safety Action Message CH-47-99-ASMA-02 161228Z in the Library and indicate the actions taken by his Department for each of the checks identified; [92096]

  (2) if he will assess, in relation to the crash of Chinook ZD576, the circumstances of the US incident that resulted in the issuing of the Air Safety Action Message CH-47-99-ASAM-02 161228Z; and if he will make a statement; [92088]

  (3) if he will list the reported instances of hydraulic contamination reported on Chinook helicopters for each year since 1993; [92086]

  (4) if hydraulic contamination has been identified as the (a) possible and (b) confirmed cause of instances of uncommanded flight manoeuvres on the Chinook helicopter since December 1993; [92087]

  (5) if Air Accidents Investigation Branch personnel investigating the fatal crash of RAF Chinook ZD576 have identified problems relating to hydraulic contamination; and if he will make a statement; [92061]

  (6) what instances of (a) confirmed and (b) suspected hydraulic contamination have been reported on Chinook helicopters since the issuance of the Air Safety Action Message CH-47-99-ASAM-02 161228Z. [92085]

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what design changes were made to the FADEC software for RAF Chinook MK2 after May 1994; and what was the cost to his Department of this work; [92329]
  49
  (2) pursuant to his answer of 13 July 1999, Official Report, column 96, on Chinook helicopters, if the redesign changes incorporated in the FADEC software undertaken by Textron Lycoming between 1989 and June 1994 were covered by warranty; [92324]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 13 July 1999, Official Report, column 96, on Chinook helicopters, what was the cost to his Department of the redesign changes incorporated in the FADEC software by Textron Lycoming between 1989 and June 1994; [92323]

  (4) how many representations he has received since 1 May, requesting that he re-open the inquiry into the loss of the RAF Chinook on the Mull of Kintyre. [92330]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to the hon. Members and copies of my letters will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what criteria the Government will decide what proportion of the costs incurred by the British armed forces(a) during the air campaign over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and (b) as part of the contribution to KFOR, will be met from the Treasury Contingency Reserve and what proportion from his Department's budget; and if he will make a statement. [92295]

  Mr. George Robertson
  As I explained to the House on 21 June 1999,Official Report, column 743, it has been agreed with my Treasury colleagues that the Reserve will cover the net additional costs of those operations where my Department is unable to accommodate them without detriment to other commitments.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops the UK has pledged to KFOR; how many have been deployed so far; and when he expects all the UK troops pledged to KFOR to be deployed. [92823]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The United Kingdom has provided all of the forces for NATO which were requested by NATO. We currently have around 10,000 personnel committed to KFOR operations.

  The withdrawals of the 1st Battalion Parachute Regiment, the 1st Battalion Royal Gurkha Rifles and the 1st Battalion Irish Guards, which I announced on 19 July 1994, Official Report, column 418, means that number will reduce to around 7,000 by mid-October as other nations build up their contributions.

  The UK contribution to KFOR will be kept under review.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions(a) he, (b) British military personnel and (c) his officials, (i) have had and (ii) will have with (1) French, (2) German and (3) Spanish authorities to review operations surrounding the Kosovo conflict. [91577]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Ministry of Defence is looking at the lessons learned from the Kosovo conflict, and is contributing to similar work at NATO. I and my 50
  Department will continue to have contacts with Allies, including France, Germany and Spain on a wide range of issues, including lessons learned.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers aged under 18 years are currently deployed in NATO's K-FOR in(a) the Balkans and (b) Kosovo. [92126]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Information is not available in precisely the detail requested. However, as at 1 June 1999, 17 soldiers aged under 18 were stationed in the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be able to provide a figure for the number of Serbian tanks destroyed in Kosovo. [92493]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The NATO Munitions Effectiveness Assessment Team is carrying out a full assessment of the damage inflicted on Serbian military vehicles. Their findings are expected by the end of the year.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he will make for the winter accommodation of British forces in Kosovo in respect of(a) corimec cabins, (b) new hard-walled buildings and (c) requisitioned buildings; and what is the latest date by which (i) these decisions must be taken and (ii) the purchase and construction cycle must start and finish. [92490]

  Mr. George Robertson
  On Friday 23 July, the Defence Procurement Agency placed a contract with Hunting Engineering Ltd. to supply, build, maintain and operate temporary field accommodation (TSA) for our forces in Kosovo at an estimated cost of about £110 million. TFA will comprise hard-walled living accommodation, appropriate to the range of weather conditions encountered in the area, together with administrative and other facilities. The accommodation is planned to be fully deployed by December and is expected to obviate the need to occupy requisitioned buildings.

  Cadets
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people recruited to each of the armed forces in the most recent year for which figures are available had been a member of the(a) Army Cadets, (b) Sea Cadets, (c) Air Training Corps and (d) Combined Cadet Force. [92540]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Full information is not available to answer the question precisely as raised. The information available for Financial Year 1998–99 is as follows:Of the people who joined the Army, 2,762 had been members of the Army Cadets, and 562 had been members of the Combined Cadet Force.
  Of the people who joined the Naval Service, it is known that 371 had been members of the Sea Cadets, 232 had been members of the Combined Cadet Force, and 456 had been members of either the Air Training Corps or the Army Cadets. This is based on research covering about 85 per cent. of entrants in the year.
  Of the people selected to join the Royal Air Force, 693 had been members of either the Air Training Corps or the Combined Cadet Force (RAF section).

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the expenditure made by his Department on the Concept Demonstration phase of the Joint Strike Fighter project for each financial year from 1995–96 to 1999–2000. [91336]

  Mr. George Robertson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 26 July 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about expenditure made on the Concept Demonstration Phase of the Joint Strike Fighter project for each financial year from 1995–96 to 1999–2000. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.

  Payments made by my Department to the United States on the Concept Demonstration Phase of the Joint Strike Fighter programme from 1995–96 to 1999–2000 are as follows:

  Year

  £ Million

  1995–96

  Nil

  1996–97

  9.0

  1997–98

  46.7

  1998–99

  34.1

  1999–2000

  21.0(Forecast)

  All figures are at outturn prices for the years in question.

  Armed Forces (Deaths)
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many 16 and 17 year-olds have died while on service and in training in the UK armed forces since 1982; and if he will list the causes of death in each case. [92492]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  A total of 92 Service personnel who were aged 16 or 17 have died since 1 January 1982. Nearly half these deaths occurred off-duty, and the majority of these were as a result of traffic accidents. A summary of the information is as follows:

  Cause of death

  Deaths

  Battle wound or injury

  Direct result of action by or against organised enemy

  3

  Other battle casualties

  1

  Intentional inflicted non-battle casualties

  Assault

  11

  Self-inflicted

  29

  Accidental injuries

  Off duty

  342

  Schemes and exercises

  4

  All other training

  8

  On duty

  5

  Natural causes (diseases)

  419

  All deaths

  92

  1 This death arose from a fight off duty

  2 All self-inflicted deaths occurred off duty

  3 35 of the deaths were as a result of RTAs

  4 Includes one death as a result of heart failure that is recorded as occurring on duty

  Public Appointments
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many appointments to public bodies were made by his Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99, broken down by (i) gender and (ii) ethnicity; and if he will list the chairmen appointed to those bodies in those years, similarly broken down. [92517]

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

  (a) 1 June 1997 to 31 May 1998: 37; (i) 32 male, five female; (ii) 37 white. This includes the following appointments of Chairmen: His Honour Judge Rogers (Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objectors), Mr. John Bridgeman (National Employers' Liaison Committee) and Mr. G. Richards (Oil and Pipelines Agency).

  (b) 1 June 1998 to 31 May 1999: 31; (i) 24 male, seven female; (ii) 31 white. This includes the following appointments of Chairmen: Sir John Cadogan (Defence Nuclear Safety Committee), Sir Michael Beetham (RAF Museum), Sir Barry Wilson (Royal Naval Museum) and Baroness Dean (Armed Forces Pay Review Body).

  These figures include new appointments as well as reappointments.

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

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

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the recruitment totals from 1990 to the present for each TA centre in Devon. [89182]

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

  Armed Forces Deployments
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops(a) are serving with NATO and (b) are involved in peacekeeping operations. [90983]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Some 16,300 UK Service personnel are currently serving with NATO, either in support of NATO operations in Kosovo, Albania and Bosnia, or in Headquarters appointments. Just over 300 are deployed in support of the UN's peacekeeping operation in Cyprus.

  Turkish Defence Minister (Visit)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the dates of the recent visit to the United Kingdom of the Turkish Defence Minister; what was his itinerary; which Ministers and companies he met; and what portion of the cost of the visit was met by the United Kingdom Government. [920841

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Turkish Defence Minister visited the United Kingdom on 12-14 July. On 13 July, he held meetings with the Secretary of State for Defence, and visited Royal School of Artillery, Larkhill. On the evening of the 13th, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence held a dinner in his honour. On 14 July, he visited Flag Officer Sea Training and the Permanent Joint Headquarters. He met representatives of the following UK companies: Marconi Electronics Systems Ltd., Matra British Aerospace Dynamics UK, Alvis plc, GKN Westland Helicopters Ltd. and British Aerospace plc. The United Kingdom Government paid for the in-country costs of the Turkish Defence Minister; the Turkish ambassador held a private dinner on 12 July.

  Personnel (Bosnia)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom service personnel have been killed in Bosnia in the last three years. [92214]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 21 July 1999]: Since 1 January 1996, 23 United Kingdom Army personnel have died while serving in Bosnia. There were no deaths of Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel.

  None of these deaths were the result of hostile action.

  Turkey
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom military personnel have visited Turkey in each of the last three years; and in which capacities. [90441]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Senior military personnel who have visited Turkey in the last three years are as follows: in 1997, the Commander in Chief Fleet; in 1998, the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, the new Commander in Chief Fleet, the Assistant Chief of the General Staff and Flag Officer Sea Training and in 1999, the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Chief of the Air Staff and the Judge Advocate General. There have also been high-level visits to UK forces deployed on Operation 'Northern Watch'. A full list of all military personnel who have visited Turkey is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Armed Forces Chaplains
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the religious faiths ministered to by chaplains in each of HM armed forces; if he will list for each faith(a) the number of chaplains at each rank and (b) the highest rank obtained by a chaplain since 1969; what bodies govern the promotion of chaplains; and when the rules governing armed service chaplains were last amended; [92932]
  54
  (2) if he will break down into budget heads the annual cost of the chaplaincy service for each of the armed forces. [92933]

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

  Absence without Leave
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service men and women were reported absent without leave in 1998; and how many were not recovered. [92735]

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

  Firearms Training
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 25 May 1999,Official Report, column 98, on firearms training, if he will list the schools where a combined cadet force gives pupils access to firearms training; how many firearms, of what calibre, are stored on school premises; and how many pupils are enrolled in training programmes each year. [92677]

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

  Armed Forces (Religious Faiths)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many persons in each of the armed forces subscribe to or identify with each major religious faith according to personnel records. [92934]

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

  Weapons Exports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) of 15 July 1999,Official Report, column 286, on weapons exports, from which section of the defence budget the costs are to be met; what is the size and timing of the expenditure involved; and by what means Parliament will be informed of the expenditure after it has been incurred. [92423]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The costs will be met from Section J of Vote 1. The exact size and timing remains to be determined, but I refer my hon. Friend to the Minute laid before Parliament on 4 February 1999 which reported the estimated cost to be between £15 and £17 million. Once the gift has been made in full, it will be recorded in the Appropriation Account.

  Portsmouth Naval Base
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what physical constraints would prevent Portsmouth Naval Base becoming the home base port for the two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy if their overall weight displacement was over 46,000 tons. [92422]
  55
  Mr. George Robertson
  The size of the new aircraft carrier is currently estimated to be up to 40,000 tonnes but this will very much depend on the design selected. There are no known physical constraints that would prevent Portsmouth Naval Base from becoming the base port for the vessels currently envisaged.

  Treasury Contingency Fund
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what applications his Department has made to the Treasury Contingency Reserve for funds in each year since 1989; how much was requested; how much was received; and if he will make a statement. [92283]

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

  Suppliers (Contracts)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts exist with suppliers outside the United Kingdom for the replacement of ordnance and ammunition expended in operations by the British armed forces; which companies service those contracts, and for which items; and if he will make a statement. [92284]

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

  Anglo-US Defence Co-operation
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many staff from the United States Defence Nuclear Facilities Safety Board have been stationed at the Atomic Weapons Establishment as part of an exchange of staff since 1 January 1997; [92257]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the collaboration between the Atomic Weapons Establishment and the United States Defence Nuclear Facilities Safety Board; and if he will list the co-operative agreements between the Atomic Weapons Establishment and the United States Defence Nuclear Facilities Safety Board which have been in existence since 1 January 1990, indicating when each agreement was made; [92258]

  (3) how many staff from the Atomic Weapons Establishment have been stationed at the United States Defence Nuclear Facilities Safety Board as part of an exchange of staff since 1 January 1997; [92256]

  (4) how many times members of staff from the Atomic Weapons Establishment have visited the United States Defence Nuclear Facilities Safety Board since 1 January 1997; on what dates each visit took place; and what was the purpose of each visit. [92255]

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

  Low Flying Sorties
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-level sorties under 220 feet were undertaken during(a) the Kosovo conflict and (b) the Gulf War. [92634]
  56
  Mr. George Robertson
  The RAF did not undertake any operational low-level sorties during the course of the Kosovo campaign. Precise figures for the Gulf war are not available, but in excess of 170 operational low-level sorties were flown by the RAF at altitudes below 250 feet.

  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, if he will arrange for performances of the Royal Military Tattoo 2000 to be staged at principal garrison towns in addition to those at Horse Guards Parade in London. [92627]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Royal Military Tattoo 2000 is the Armed Forces' flagship contribution to the nation's Millennium celebrations with a theme of Defence of the Realm: Past, Present and Future. It will combine pageantry, son et lumière and state of the art technology and has been specifically design for production on Horse Guards Parade. It is not suited to being staged at other venues around the country without major modification and considerable additional expense.

  Royal Ordnance, Bridgwater
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the strategic security of supply for ammunition and explosives in relation to Royal Ordnance. Bridgwater, indicating the actions he is proposing. [92553]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: The Ministry of Defence recognises that the British Armed Forces need to have access to reliable sources of supply for ammunition and explosives. We are currently negotiating with Royal Ordnance potential partnering arrangements covering a wide range of ammunition products. It is too early to predict the outcome of these negotiations. The industrial base required to support the company's likely future business, including individual Royal Ordnance factories, is a matter for the company.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all current bilateral agreements between the United Kingdom and the United States affecting RAF Menwith Hill. [92943]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The presence of the United States Visiting Forces at RAF Menwith Hill is governed by the NATO Status of Forces Agreement of 1951 and other arrangements appropriate to the relationship which exists between the governments of the United Kingdom and United States for the purposes of our common defence. These arrangements are confidential and are withheld under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information relating to defence, security and international relations.

  Married Quarters
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average annual cost of maintaining a Defence Housing Executive administered married quarter for the latest year for which figures are available. [92191]
  57
  Mr. Spellar
  In the Defence Housing Executive (DHE) 1999 Corporate Plan, the action plan sets out a key target relating to the unit cost of housing and aims to achieve a figure of less than £5,400 per property. The figure is calculated by dividing the total cost of the DHE (£349,152 million including some £100 million rental payment to Annington Homes Ltd) by the number of properties occupied (including those which are Substitute Services Families Accommodation) (63,195). The equivalent figure for Financial Year 1998–99 is £5,460. The cost of the upgrade programme is not included as this is outside the routine cost of housing provision.

  Future Aircraft Carrier
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the impact of recent operations in South East Europe on the Future Aircraft Carrier programme. [91335]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Recent operations in the Gulf and the Balkans have demonstrated the important part that aircraft carriers can play in supporting a range of activities from peacekeeping to military action. We are carrying out a full study into the lessons learned from the Kosovo conflict. Initial conclusions will be made available to the House in the Defence White Paper in the autumn and a more definitive account should be available by next spring.

  Overseas Students (Sandhurst)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if, in respect of overseas students at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst for each year from 1992 to 2000 inclusive, he will list the total number of overseas students indicating their countries of origin. [92488]

  (2) in respect of overseas students at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (a) what is the current cost per student to (i) the defence budget and (ii) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget and (b) what is the total annual cost to those budgets. [92489]

  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.

  Armed Forces Training
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers, sailors and airmen were in training on 1 April. [92944]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  On 1 April 1999, the number of soldiers, sailors and airmen/airwomen under training were:

  Naval Service (including RN ratings and RM other ranks)—3,542

  Army soldiers—12,490

  RAF airmen/airwomen—2,345.

  Radiation Exposure
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department has(a) undertaken and (b) assessed in relation to the heath effects of (i) radiation emanating from military use of infra-red cameras and (ii) microwave radiation emitted from
  58
  military surveillance equipment; what guidance is issued to personnel using this equipment; what instructions have been issued to medical staff in order to monitor any effects from the use of this equipment; and what instructions have been issued to military personnel to protect civilians from radiation exposure. [92935]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Traumatised Service Personnel
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) financial and (b) material assistance his Department has provided to the Ty Gwyn clinic for traumatised service personnel at Colwyn Bay; what similar facilities exist elsewhere in the United Kingdom; and what rules govern the admissions policy of military hospitals for dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder. [92736]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My Department does not provide financial or material assistance to the Ty Gwyn clinic, and I am not aware of any similar facilities in the United Kingdom which specialise in the treatment of traumatised Service personnel. Admission of Service personnel suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder to the Duchess of Kent's Psychiatric Hospital, Catterick, would be on the basis of clinical judgment. Former Service personnel are eligible for treatment of post traumatic stress disorder at the Duchess of Kent's Psychiatric Hospital, free of charge as NHS patients, if they live within the catchment area of the hospital. If not, the cost of treatment would need to be met by their local health authority in accordance with NHS budgetary procedures. Admission of former Service personnel would depend on spare capacity being available.

  Armed Forces Personnel
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel have(a) left and (b) joined the (i) Army, (ii) Navy and (iii) RAF in the last two years for which figures are available. [88704]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [pursuant to his reply 2 July 1999, c. 293]: I regret to inform the hon. Member that some of the information I gave was incorrect. For outflow of UK Regular Forces between 1 April 1998–31 March 1999, the figure for the Royal Air Force should read 4,889 and the total should read 27,435.

  Tomahawk Missiles
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the cessation of production of Block III Tomahawk missiles in the United States later this year on the capabilities of the Royal Navy submarine fleet. [91328]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Tomahawk Block III production line at Raytheon was closed for new orders some time ago, and we expect that the missiles ordered by the UK will all have been delivered by the end of 1999. The capabilities of the RN submarine fleet will not be affected by the closure.

  The US Department of Defence has now embarked on a programme for refurbishment and upgrade of older missile stock up to Block III standard which will carry it

  59
  through the period up to 2004–05, when the next version of Tomahawk, called Tactical Tomahawk (TACTOM), becomes available. The replacement of the Royal Navy's Tomahawk missiles used in the Balkans, currently being negotiated, will come from this refurbishment and upgrade programme.

  Ballistic Missile Pre-feasibility Study
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the unclassified version of the summary of the ballistic missile defence pre-feasibility study. [92487]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I am placing in the Library today a declassified version of the report which presents the findings of the Ministry of Defence UK Ballistic Missile Defence Pre-Feasibility Programme. In addition to the report itself, I am placing in the Library two related documents, an Executive Summary of the report and a Statement of Work, setting out the scope of the Pre-Feasibility Study.

  Trident Warhead
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work is(a) in progress and (b) planned on changing the Trident warhead from fixed to variable yield. [93172]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The UK has flexibility in the choice of yield for the warheads on its Trident missiles.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Racial Discrimination
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government intend to submit to the relevant international bodies its latest periodic reports under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. [93579]

  Mr. Straw
  The United Kingdom's Fifteenth Report under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and its first Report under the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities were submitted to the United Nations and Council of Europe respectively on 23 July 1999. Copies of the Reports have been placed in the Library.

  Leave to Remain
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to replace the current application forms for foreign nationals wishing to apply for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. [93580]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The current application forms expire on 14 October 1999. Revised versions of the seven existing forms will be prescribed during September and it 60
  is planned to make them available before the end of that month. From the time they are issued until 1999, applications may be made on either the newly prescribed forms or the present versions. Only the new forms may be used for applications made on, or after, 15 October 1999. Copies will be placed in the Library as soon as they are available.

  Immigration Rules
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the purpose of the concession to Immigration Rules in respect of the one year rule and women suffering domestic violence. [92471]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under the Immigration Rules, spouses of British Citizens or of people settled in the United Kingdom are not given settlement on arrival or following the marriage; they are granted an initial period of 12 months. At the end of this 12 month probationary period, settlement will be granted if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the marriage is still subsisting and that each of the parties has the intention of living permanently with the other as his or her spouse.

  If, for whatever reason, the marriage has broken down during the probationary year, settlement is normally refused. That is because the fundamental reason for the person's admission in the first place—to continue or commence stable family life—no longer exists. In the past, cases where violence was the reason for the breakdown of a marriage have been considered sympathetically but it was held that domestic violence could not normally override the requirements of the Immigration Rules.

  The probationary period is intended as a safeguard against abuse. If settlement were granted immediately there would be no recourse against applicants who desert their partners as soon as they arrive in the country. The absence of a probationary period would also allow more bogus marriages to escape detection. We, therefore, have no intention of abolishing this requirement of the Rules, which in the generality of cases is the only sensible way to operate a firm but fair immigration control.

  However, we were aware that this policy placed a small minority of individuals in a distressing dilemma in that their insecure immigration status left them feeling "trapped" in a violent marriage. They faced a stark choice between staying within the violent relationship or leaving their sponsor and being refused settlement.

  As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend on 16 June 1999, Official Report, columns 164-65, the domestic violence concession has been introduced for overseas spouses who wish to remain in the United Kingdom, but who wish to leave their partner because of domestic violence before completion of the 12 month probationary period. The concession allows them to settle in the United Kingdom even though they are no longer living with their sponsor provided they comply with the conditions set out in the concession.

  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to monitor the impact of the concession to immigration rules on domestic violence and the one year rule. [92470]
  61
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The concession will be closely monitored in order to assess its effectiveness. Arrangements have been made for officials to note the details of all applications under this concession once a decision has been reached.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [92675]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: I last travelled by train during the course of my official duties when I visited a Drugs Arrest Referral Scheme, the Television Video Links Project and delivered a speech at the Association of Chief Police Officers' Conference in Manchester on 14 July.

  Passport Agency
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what computer systems, printers, laminators and other production equipment which were planned to have been replaced by the introduction of new systems by private contractors are still being used at(a) Liverpool and (b) Newport offices of the Passport Agency; and if he will make a statement. [92905]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The United Kingdom Passport Agency planned to retain its existing main computer and some peripheral equipment in all its Regional passport offices until the new issuing system had been implemented in all six offices. This was to facilitate communication and data collection, service telephone inquiry bureau and provide a contingency.

  In the Liverpool office, older equipment continues to be used to service urgent applications for customers calling at the office, in the telephone inquiry bureau and in administrative sections. In Newport, the older system is used in the telephone inquiry bureau and in administrative sections.

  The delay in implementing new systems at other passport offices will mean longer use of old equipment and the Agency is negotiating with support companies to ensure maintenance and development work is carried out.

  Wormwood Scrubs
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 July 1999,Official Report, column 466, on Wormwood Scrubs, if he will place in the Library a copy of the action plan drawn up in response to the Chief Inspector of Prisons' first 15 recommendations contained in his 1996 inspection report including the response to the recommendations to date; and if he will make a statement. [93026]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have arranged for copies of the response to the first 15 recommendations contained in Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons' report of his 1996 inspection of Wormwood Scrubs to be placed in the Library.

  Child Curfews
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what forecast he has made of the number of 62
  local child curfews (a) applied for and (b) implemented, in the first year of the provision being available; and if he will make a statement. [92885]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have not made a forecast. Applying for a local child curfew is optional for local authorities, to be considered in the light of the wider crime and disorder strategies they are developing under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and of the outcome of local consultation.

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [91683]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her on 22 July 1999,Official Report, column 636, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health.

  As lead department for race equality issues, the Home Office is committed to ensuring that through the impact of its policies, all sections of society are treated equally. The Department is working closely with the Women's Unit to develop good practice for carrying out gender impact appraisal.

  Policy appraisal for equal treatment—including the impact of policies on women—is an integral part of policy development. Guidance was issued throughout the department on 4 December 1998 and is part of the department's policy development checklist.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed dated 10 March seeking his Department's approval for an exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall relating to crime reduction. [92773]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: We have no record of having received the letter of 10 March to which the right hon. Member refers, but have since received a copy from his office.

  "Kno Way" is an excellent example of a project involving the police, business and the voluntary sector in tackling crime and anti-social behaviour. It is to be particularly praised in addressing the issue of safety for vulnerable and elderly people.

  An exhibition about the project in the Upper Waiting Hall of the House of Commons would have the full support of my Department. I will be writing to the right hon. Member formally to record my views.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter dated 7 June from Mr. K. Allden, of Brixham, South Devon, concerning an incident involving the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary. [93186]

  Mr. Boateng
  Mr. Allden was sent a reply to his letter on 14 July.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the earliest date of unopened post received by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [93029]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is currently no unopened post in the Mail Handling Section. However, there is a separate procedure for dealing with applications and accompanying fees in the Travel Documents Case Management Unit. These letters are normally unopened until they are processed and a cashier issues a receipt for the fee. As at 26 July, the earliest date of unopened Travel Documents applications was 16 June.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current backlog of cases at the Liverpool office of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and how many of these cases have been outstanding for over(a) six months, (b) 12 months and (c) two years. [92898]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  At 30 June 1999, the current backlog of cases in the Liverpool office stands at 95,200. 84,000 cases have been outstanding for six months; 50,800 have been outstanding for 12 months and 3,200 for two years. This Government inherited large backlogs and are putting in place steps to deal with them.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress made with the pilot implementation of the integrated information technology system in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [92902]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Pilot implementation will begin only after the system has passed its contractual acceptance tests. Those tests represent the final stage of the formal testing process which began in June. I intend that the testing should be exhaustive. The pilot stage is accordingly unlikely to begin much before the end of this year.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases are held in the Central Work in Progress Store of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and how many of the cases have been outstanding for more than(a) six months, (b) one year and (c) two years. [92901]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are approximately 110,144 cases held in the Work in Progress Store of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Of these cases, 20,927 have been outstanding for more than six months, 36,330 have been outstanding for more than one year, and 52,887 have been outstanding for more than two years.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets he has set for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to reply to correspondence from(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public; and what has been the performance of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in meeting those targets in each month since the beginning of 1999. [93028]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Home Office Public Service Agreement commits the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to reply to 95 per cent. of correspondence 64
  from (a) hon. Members within 15 working days. Since January 1999, a monthly average of 16 per cent. met the target.

  In respect of (b), correspondence from members of the public, the Home Office Public Service Agreement commits the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to reply to 95 per cent. of correspondence within 20 working days. Since January 1999, a monthly average of 72 per cent. met the target.

  UK/US Treaties
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the current bilateral(a) treaties and (b) agreements between the United Kingdom and US Governments which include provisions relating to the interception of communications. [93073]

  Mr. Straw
  There are arrangements appropriate to the relationship which exists between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States for the purpose of our common defence. It is the long-standing practice of this Government and previous Administrations not to comment on the detail of such confidential arrangements.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions have taken place in the period 1 May 1997 to 31 December 1998 between Ministers and United States citizens concerning the interception regime operated in the United Kingdom. [93072]

  Mr. Straw
  During the period in question, I have had discussions with the Attorney-General of the United States Government on several occasions about the interception regime operated in the United Kingdom, in particular in the context of encryption and the use of intercept product as evidence.

  Passports
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if court orders can be endorsed in children's passports; and if he will make a statement. [93165]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Where children hold passports, a court can require the surrender of a passport to prevent a child being removed from the jurisdiction, and so the endorsement of a court order may not be necessary. However, the endorsement of passports with summaries of court orders has been considered by the Parent/Carer Child Abduction Co-ordinating Group, which is an interdepartmental group of officials, together with Re-unite. The Group will be looking at the effectiveness of introducing endorsements of the passports of children at risk of abduction.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the contract for the supply of blank passports to the Passport Agency which expires in October 1999 has been renewed. [93088]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Discussions are in progress with the contractor to ensure a continuing supply of blank passport books.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are in place for the updating of photographs on children's passports before a formal renewal of the passport is required; and if he will make a statement. [93166]
  65
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is no legal requirement for the photograph on a child's passport to be updated before the formal renewal of the passport after five years. While the appearance of young children can change rapidly, a photograph provides evidence to an immigration officer of basic characteristics, and only in a minority of cases would a child not be able to be identified. The United Kingdom Passport Agency has issued passports to young children for many years without difficulty prior to the policy change in October 1998 requiring separate passports. An application can be made for an amended passport with a new photograph in at a cost of £11.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals have been made to his Department for private sector involvement in the issuing of passports; if he will list the proposals received; and if he will make a statement. [93168]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It would not be appropriate to disclose details of the proposals submitted for Private Sector Involvement in the Issue of the British Passport. This information is commercially confidential. The high level criteria applied in awarding the United Kingdom Passport Agency's contract for the passport issuing arrangements were security, continuity of service, compatibility, management information systems, archive system, commercial and technical criteria, examining support/speed/method/customer service, evergreening and cultural compatibility. On the basis of these criteria, contracts were awarded to the supplier who put forward the best solution.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors led to the timing of the introduction of new computer systems at the Passport Agency; and if he will make a statement. [93169]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The factors that led to the timing of the introduction of the new computer systems in the United Kingdom Passport Agency were the need to modernise existing systems, to enhance the Agency's capacity to prevent passport fraud and improve the security of the British passport, to replace obsolete printing equipment, to provide better customer information and to continue to improve the Agency's efficiency and effectiveness and the need for the introduction of the new system to coincide with its quiet season between October and the end of the year. The new computer systems were introduced at the Agency's request.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date work on the procurement of private sector involvement in the issuing of passports began; and if he will make a statement. [93170]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The procurement exercise to involve the private sector in the issuing of passports began with the placing of a notice in The Official Journal of the European Communities and Government Opportunities on 25 October 1996. A description of the procurement methodology is given in Annexe B of the summary of the business case for private sector involvement which has been placed in the Library.
  66
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passports have been issued by the Passport Agency in each year since 1995–96 and in 1999–2000 to date. [93167]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the table.

  1 April to 31 March

  Number

  1995–96

  4,686,524

  1996–97

  5,076,035

  1997–98

  4,872,233

  1998–99

  4,737,057

  1999/20001

  1,988,562

  1 The final figure includes up to 18 July 1999 and shows record levels of production

  Stalking
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought under anti-stalking legislation; how many such prosecutions were successful; and in how many cases the Crown Prosecution Service has appealed against the sentences given. [92234]

  Mr. Boateng
  Available data from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, for 1997 and provisionally for 1998, are given in the table.

  Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides that the Attorney-General may refer to the Court of Appeal sentences for certain offences which he believes to be unduly lenient, for the Court of Appeal to review and, if appropriate, increase. Offences contrary to sections two and four of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 do not come within the ambit of part IV and so there have been no such references.

  Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates courts and convicted at all courts for offences under s2 and s4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 19971 England and Wales, 1997 and 19982

  Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates courts and convicted at all courts for offences under s2 and s4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 1 England and Wales, 1997 and 1998 2

  Offence/disposal

  1997

  1998 2

  Section 2—Offence of harassment (summary)

  Total proceeded against

  507

  4,304

  Total convicted

  249

  2,221

  Conviction rate3

  49

  52

  Section 4—Putting people in fear of violence

  Total proceeded against

  243

  1,505

  Total convicted

  76

  522

  Conviction rate3

  31

  35

  1 Came into force on 16 June 1997

  2 Provisional

  3 The number of offenders convicted at all courts as a percentage of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts

  Police Service (Women)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women left the police service before reaching normal retirement age in each of the last five years; what were the reasons for their early retirement; if he will list the number and reasons for women's early retirement in Merseyside Police; and what initiatives he has to retain in and recruit women to the police service. [92259]
  67
  Mr. Boateng
  The Police service, supported by the Government, seeks to encourage applications to the police service from all under represented groups. As part of this strategy, we are proposing to review the whole recruitment process from application to selection with a view to removing any discriminatory practices.

  Women now represent 15.17 per cent. of police officers in England and Wales and there has been a steady increase in female representation at senior ranks. There are now three women chief constables out of a total of 43.

  Numbers of women leaving the service in England and Wales

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Police dismissed or required to resign

  118

  95

  110

  14

  18

  Police voluntary resignations

  194

  187

  172

  258

  241

  Police medical retirements

  380

  390

  376

  348

  316

  Police ordinary retirements

  78

  30

  63

  40

  53

  Police deaths

  4

  9

  11

  7

  6

  Total wastage

  774

  711

  732

  667

  634

  Left before ordinary retirement

  696

  681

  669

  627

  581

  Women leaving the Merseyside Police

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Police dismissed or required to resign

  4

  4

  0

  0

  1

  Police voluntary resignations

  5

  1

  2

  9

  5

  Police medical retirements

  23

  26

  33

  19

  20

  Police ordinary retirements

  2

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Police deaths

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Total wastage

  34

  32

  35

  28

  30

  Left before ordinary retirement

  32

  31

  35

  28

  27

  Single Currency
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much expenditure his Department(a) has incurred to date and (b) expects to incur in the future, on preparations for possible United Kingdom entry into the European single currency; and if he will make a statement. [92554]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: Following the publication of the Government's Outline National Changeover Plan, the Home Office is considering what preparation may be necessary for the introduction of the euro. The Home Office has no specific budget for euro preparations.

  Existing staff resources have been used in the initial management planning that has taken place to date. No additional cash expenditure has been incurred. Nor will any additional funds be sought in the foreseeable future to draw up plans. Departmental changeover work will continue using existing staff resources.

  Ms Loraine Whiting
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up a public inquiry into the death of Ms Loraine Whiting, a constituent of the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey. [92497]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: This tragic case has already been investigated at a Coroner's inquest and by the Police Complaints Authority. I do not consider that a further inquiry would bring any significant new information about the case to light.
  68
  While we are encouraged with the steady increase in the number of women officers and we welcome local force initiatives, we do accept that women are still poorly represented, and we intend to look at what further action can be taken to increase female representation throughout the service.

  The number of women who left the police service before reaching normal retirement age, together with the number and reasons for women taking early retirement in Merseyside are listed in the tables:

  Immigration Appellate Authority
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct the Immigration Appellate Authority to send an explanatory statement to Mr. Wright of Holne, near Buckfastleigh, Devon, in relation to its decision of 2 December 1998 to refuse a visa to his wife Mrs. Miranda Musraj (Wright); and if he will make a statement. [92216]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 21 July 1999]: The Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) sent an explanatory statement to Mrs. Musraj (Wright) and her representative on 23 July 1999. The date set for the hearing of the appeal is 18 August 1999 at 10 a.m. at Taylor House, London. It is not the normal practice of the IAA, who are completely independent of the Home Office, to send a copy of the statement to any person other than the appellant and their nominated representative.

  Public Safety Radio Communications Project
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he will ensure that Bedfordshire Police Authority has sufficient funds to cover the introduction of the Public Safety Radio Communications Project. [92533]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO), which is responsible for managing the Public Safety Radio Communications Project (PSRCP) is at an advanced stage of negotiations with British Telecommunications which will lead to a firm price for authorities to consider as part of their business case.
  69
  Over the next three years, the police service will receive an additional £1.24 billion in central government funding. The Government have also relaxed the rules on the use of capital receipts from the sale of assets. Police Authorities now have the freedom to use all proceeds from sales for capital investment. The scope for additional funding for the PSRCP is under consideration.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers left the Metropolitan police other than through ill health and ordinary retirement(a) during 1998 and (b) during 1999 to date. [93085]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the number of officers leaving the Metropolitan police other than through ill health and ordinary retirement was 645 in 1998 and 389 to 22 July 1999.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest estimate of the number of police officers expected to retire from the Metropolitan police(a) during 1999, (b) in 2000 and (c) in 2001. [93086]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the number of officers expected to retire from the Metropolitan police service during 1999 to 2001 is:

  1999: 1,000

  2000: 950

  2001: 900.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of officers who left the Metropolitan police other than through ill health and normal retirement during the past two years(a) left the police service altogether and (b) transferred to other UK police forces. [93087]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the information requested is given in the table:

  Percentage

  1997

  1998

  Officers leaving the police service altogether

  18.4

  23.1

  Officers transferring to other police forces

  18.8

  13

  Note:

  When 100 per cent. = the total number of officers who left the Metropolitan police in each year.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many detective inspector and detective chief inspector posts within the Metropolitan Police remain unfilled. [93083]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that at the end of June, 73 detective inspector posts were unfilled, and there was one detective chief inspector more than the budgeted manpower target.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police recruits were admitted to each initial training course at the Metropolitan Police Training College at Hendon(a) during 1998 and (b) during 1999 to date. [93084]
  70
  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the number of police recruits admitted to each initial training course at the Metropolitan Police Training College at Hendon during 1998 and 1999 to date, is as given in the table:

  Recruit intake

  1998

  1999

  Intake 1

  93

  143

  Intake 2

  71

  142

  Intake 3

  153

  183

  Intake 4

  140

  145

  Intake 5

  183

  90

  Intake 6

  178

  93

  Intake 7

  174

  1110

  Intake 8

  131

  —

  Intake 9

  149

  —

  1 expected

  Tobacco
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with national representatives of trading standards officers about implementation of the proposed Draft Tobacco (Prohibition of Advertising) Regulations 1999. [R] [92248]

  Mr. Straw
  To date, I have had no meetings to discuss the proposed Draft Tobacco (Prohibition of Advertising) Regulations 1999 with national representatives of trading standards officers.

  Football Offences
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in London have been charged with offences under the Football (Offences) Act 1991 following incidents at London clubs. [92396]

  Kate Hoey
  The Metropolitan Police advise that in season 1998–99 there were 47 arrests under the Football (Offences) Act 1991. Of these, 24 people were charged with offences under the 1991 Act. A further eight people were issued with a caution. Information is not readily available for earlier years and I will write to my hon. Friend when this becomes available.

  Firearms Consultative Committee
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the future of the Firearms Consultative Committee. [93082]

  Mr. Boateng
  Under the terms of the Firearms Consultative Committee Order 1996, the Firearms Consultative Committee will continue in existence until 1 February 2000. It is open to the Government at that stage to make a further Order for three years. This will be considered nearer the time.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to appoint a new chairman to the Firearms Consultative Committee. [93081]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are presently considering the arrangements for chairing the Firearms Consultative Committee.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contingency plans he has made in relation to the possibility of a national firefighters' strike. [92899]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There are already well-established contingency arrangements for dealing with threats of industrial action in the fire service. These include arrangements, where possible and where needed, for military assistance to fire authorities so that emergency fire cover can be provided. The Government are also ready to consider such other measures as may be appropriate, to discharge their overriding responsibility for ensuring the protection and security of the public.

  Police Discipline
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings against two police officers

  Population in prison by ethnic group, sex and nationality—England and Wales 31 March 1999

  Ethnic group (percentage)

  Type of prisoner

  Total

  Total percentage

  White1

  Black

  South Asian

  Chinese and other

  Males and Females

  64,212

  100

  82

  12

  3

  3

  British Nationals

  58,884

  100

  86

  10

  2

  2

  Foreign Nationals

  5,262

  100

  79

  12

  3

  6

  Unrecorded

  66

  100

  33

  35

  11

  21

  Males

  61,036

  100

  82

  12

  3

  3

  British Nationals

  56,199

  100

  86

  10

  2

  2

  Foreign Nationals

  4,775

  100

  81

  13

  3

  3

  Unrecorded

  62

  100

  34

  33

  12

  21

  Females

  3,176

  100

  76

  19

  1

  4

  British Nationals

  2,685

  100

  86

  11

  1

  2

  Foreign Nationals

  487

  100

  50

  0

  0

  50

  Unrecorded

  4

  100

  23

  59

  3

  15

  1 Includes those with no recorded ethnic group

  Firearms Clubs
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 25 May 1999,Official Report, column 98, on firearms training, if he will list those schools that have target-shooting clubs approved by his Department; how many firearms, of what calibre, are stored on school premises; and how many pupils are enrolled in these clubs each year. [92678]

  Mr. Boateng
  For reasons of security, it is not our policy to publish the locations at which firearms are stored. Records of the number and calibre of firearms held by individual schools and of the number of pupils enrolled in the shooting club are not kept centrally. Each school club appoints a responsible adult to take charge of all aspects of shooting at the school. The responsible adult must have personal experience of the weapons used by the school and at least one year's experience of exercising control of the age group of pupils concerned. This adult is issued with a firearm certificate by the police on which the club's guns are entered. Before any school club is granted approval, the police inspect the armoury in which 72
  involved in a disturbance on the Holloway Road on 17 March 1996; and what measures have been taken to address the concerns of the victims. [92679]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that a Commander's Discipline Board found two officers guilty of making an unnecessary arrest, and disciplined them. Both officers were cleared of using excessive force. The person who was arrested made a formal complaint, which led to disciplinary proceedings. It will have been for the Police Complaints Authority to inform the complainant of the outcome.

  Local Inmates Database
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 12 July 1999,Official Report, column 77, on the Local Inmates Database, what is the ethnic composition of the prison population. [92930]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The requested information is given in the table. This information is included in the April 'Prison Population Briefing' at the internet site http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/areas/prisf htm.

  the guns will be stored. No club is allowed to hold more guns on the club certificate than can be safely stored in the armoury under secure conditions. Nor are they allowed to possess guns with muzzle energies and velocities greater than those stipulated on the range safety certificate.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Film Council
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the ways in which the establishment of the new Film Council will benefit the British film industry. [91340]

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the ways in which the establishment of the new Film Council will benefit the British film industry. [91359]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Film Council will deliver a coherent strategy for the development of a sustainable UK film industry, taking forward the vision set out in the Film
  73
  Policy Review. The Council will be a Lottery distributor in its own right, guaranteeing, for the first time, a dedicated share of Lottery resources for film amounting to at least £27 million, a significant increase on previous years.

  Over the next three years, the Film Council will receive in the region of £150 million to put into support for the film industry and film culture.

  Cyclists (Royal Parks)
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress he has made on proposals to improve provision for cyclists in the Royal Parks. [91348]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Royal Parks Agency has agreed to provide a number of new cycle routes through the Royal Parks. Progress depends on the availability of resources and the outcome of consultation. I have asked the Agency to consider how provision for cyclists can be extended further.

  New Opportunities Fund
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the New Opportunities Fund will award its first grants. [91349]

  Mr. Banks
  The New Opportunities Fund announced its first awards on 12 July 1999. A total of £1,870,443 has been awarded under its out-of-school-hours child care programme to 115 projects across the UK creating a total of 8,736 new out-of-school child care places.

  Funding Agreements
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the objectives are of the three-year funding agreements negotiated by his Department with its sponsored bodies. [91350]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Funding agreements provide a focus for my Department's relationship with its sponsored bodies. They detail the outputs which each of the bodies has agreed to achieve in return for public funding.

  BBC Scotland
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on the relationship between BBC Scotland and the rest of the BBC. [91352]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have had no such discussions. The BBC's Royal Charter and Agreement ensure the Corporation's independence in the management of its day-to-day affairs.

  Cultural Events (Access)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures his Department is taking to provide greater access to cultural events for schoolchildren from a wider range of social backgrounds. [91353]

  Mr. Banks
  Working with our sponsored bodies, my Department encourages all publicly funded organisations to ensure the widest possible access to cultural events. The 74
  New Audiences fund, managed by the Arts Council of England, has provided grants to pilot projects aimed at attracting new and younger audiences to such events. For example, New Generation Audiences will provide free tickets to cultural events to schoolchildren and encourage them to exchange information using the latest technologies.

  Seaside Resorts
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps his Department is taking to encourage family holidays at UK seaside resorts, with particular reference to Scarborough and Whitby. [91354]

  Janet Anderson
  Our strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism", contains a host of initiatives designed to promote quality in tourism in this country, including a model regeneration plan for resorts. It also identifies actions to help increase access to tourism for those with low incomes, for families, for elderly people and for people with disabilities.

  Single Regeneration Budget awards of over half a million pounds to the Yorkshire and Humberside Coastal Tourism Initiative (which includes Scarborough and Whitby) and almost £3 million to the Falsgrave Community Investment Initiative in Scarborough will help encourage families to holiday in the area.

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on progress with the establishment of the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. [91355]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  NESTA is preparing to launch its main programmes in the Autumn and has already launched eight pioneer projects.

  Cricket
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to encourage more state schools to play cricket. [91356]

  Mr. Banks
  As well as the various initiatives aimed at encouraging sport in schools through Sport England's Active Schools programme, the English and Wales Cricket Board have an number of initiatives aimed specifically at encouraging schools to play cricket. These include the Wrigley Schools Cricket Tournament, a Kwik Cricket based competition for state primary schools and the production of a new Development Game for secondary schools designed to bridge the gap between Kwik and hardball cricket.

  Social Exclusion
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment his Department has made of the contribution that arts and sport can make to tackling social exclusion; and if he will make a statement. [91357]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department has led an inter-departmental Policy Action Team which reported to the Social Exclusion Unit on the contribution arts and
  75
  sport can make to combating social exclusion. The team found that participation in the arts and sport can develop individuals' talents and self-confidence, encourage collective effort and contribute to improvements in health and education attainment and reductions in crime and unemployment. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Netball
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support his Department provides for netball in Essex. [91358]

  Mr. Banks
  This year, Sport England will provide the All England Netball Association with over £420,000 to promote netball in all parts of the country, including Essex. Some of this funding will be used to employ a team of seven development officers, one of whom is responsible for Essex.

  Essex Local Authorities are planning to run a netball event as part of the Millennium Youth Games next year with the support of lottery funding.

  Competitive Sports (Schools)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to encourage competitive sport within schools. [91360]

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what contribution the national lottery is making to encourage the playing of competitive sporting fixtures in schools. [91365]

  Mr. Banks
  We are well aware of the value of encouraging competitive games both within and between schools. As well as being one of the criteria schools have to meet to be awarded a Sportsmark, we have asked Sport England to ensure that arranging inter-school competitive fixtures is a key part of the job description of the new Active Schools Co-ordinators. This initiative will be supported by £30 million from the Lottery Sports Fund.

  Sports (National Lottery Funding)
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he will take to ensure that sports bodies which receive money from the national lottery are accountable for their spending. [91361]

  Mr. Banks
  Sports bodies are fully accountable to Sport England for all aspects of their projects and are required to sign a contract to this effect before receiving funding.

  Youth Music
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when schools will be able to apply for funding to promote youth music from the new body set up by his Department and the Department for Education and Employment. [91362]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The National Foundation for Youth Music, which is a charitable body operating independently of Government, is currently consulting on 76
  its proposed criteria and eligibility. The consultation period will conclude on the 1 October, after which finalised criteria and eligibility will be published.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the number of children who will benefit from the new National Foundation for Youth Music. [91368]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The National Foundation for Youth Music is an independent body, and is responsible for identifying its policies and outputs without reference to Ministers. The Foundation's ultimate aim is to ensure that every child has the opportunity to access music-making.

  Museum Attendance
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the impact of introducing free entry for children on museum attendance. [91363]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The number of child visits at those national museums and galleries in England which adopted free entry for children from April this year is being regularly monitored. An assessment of the policy's effectiveness will be made when sufficient information is available from which to draw reliable conclusions.

  Royal Parks Constabulary
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will review the powers of the Royal Parks Constabulary constables in relation to the area and roads surrounding St James's and Hyde parks. [91364]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have no plans to review the powers of the Royal Parks Constabulary in relation to the area and roads surrounding St. James's and Hyde Parks. The Constabulary's primary duty is to maintain order in the Royal Parks and making them safe for park users. If there is a need to apprehend a person beyond the boundary of a Royal Park, they can call upon the Metropolitan Police for assistance. Constitution Hill in the Green Park, Birdcage Walk in St James's Park, and the North, South, West and East Carriage Drives in Hyde Park are already the policing responsibility of the Royal Parks Constabulary.

  Sports (Women)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action his Department is taking to increase the proportion of adult women who participate in sport. [91366]

  Mr. Banks
  The Government has made clear its determination to improve opportunities for women at all levels in sport, whether as participants, competitors, coaches or administrators. We are working closely with the Sports Councils and others to find ways to encourage more women to take part in sport, and our Sports Strategy will address the issue of increasing participation by all sections of the community.

  Football World Cup 2006
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations he has made to the Football Association about the bid to host the 2006 World cup. [91367]

  Mr. Banks
  The Government are providing the fullest diplomatic and promotional support for The FA's bid in accordance with FIFA bidding guidelines. As Parliamentary time allows, I will continue to meet members of the FIFA Executive when they visit this country, and accompany the 2006 bid team abroad when requested.

  I am determined that The FA's bid should continue to be pursued with the utmost vigour and integrity, and very much hope that the bidding process between now and July 2000 will be conducted in a spirit of friendly rivalry. I believe it is an excellent bid with a very good chance of success.

  Millennium Dome
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what will be the arrangements by which schools may apply for free tickets for schoolchildren to the millennium dome. [91372]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company has sent to schools an Information and Booking form for educational visits to the Dome at Greenwich. The form is available from NMEC's 12 regional offices. The form includes details about the Education Tours scheme through which up to one million free tickets will be available to schools. Each school will be able to apply for up to 100 free tickets. As the brochure explains, details of how to apply for free education tours will be sent to schools in September. Copies of the Information and Booking Form will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the effect which the millennium experience will have on the tourist industry. [91373]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The British Tourist Authority (BTA) has estimated the number of overseas visits to the UK in 2000 as 27.5 million. The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) forecasts 2.4 million overseas visitors to the Dome. The BTA has also indicated that as a direct result of the Millennium Experience an additional £300m-£500m of overseas tourist revenue will be brought into the UK economy. It is conceivable that as a result of the Millennium celebrations this figure could be doubled if the knock-on effect to related industries is taken into account. The BTA has further estimated that 10,000–15,000 new tourism-related jobs will be created. This is excellent news for the whole of the UK.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the representation of the various English regions through the Millennium Experience. [91374]

  Janet Anderson
  While there are no exhibits within the Dome which are dedicated specifically to the English regions, there are a number of opportunities for regional 78
  representation. For example, I am pleased to say that as part of the "Our Town Story" project, the Wirral is due to have its day in the Dome on 31 May 2000.

  "Our Town Story", sponsored by McDonald's, is linked to the Theatre space and Education Centre at the Dome. It enables more than 20,000 schoolchildren and other members of the community in every education authority and library board area in the UK to stage a performance in the Dome telling the story of their community. The "Our Town Story" stage will seat 500 people and will be a professionally equipped theatre space.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the importance being attached to religion in the organisation of the millennium celebrations. [91375]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government recognise the important significance of the year 2000 as a Christian anniversary, and is keen to see this reflected in the official celebrations. However, we also wish to ensure that celebrations are accessible and relevant to people of all religious persuasions and none. Through the Lambeth Group, my Department, the Millennium Commission and the New Millennium Experience Company are working closely with the Christian churches, ecumenical groups and other faith communities to ensure that the spiritual aspect of the occasion receives proper recognition. We are also working with Church groups in the four nations of the UK to deliver ecumenical Millennium Church Services in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast on Sunday 2 January 2000.

  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures will be in place to facilitate visits from schoolchildren from the most peripheral parts of the United Kingdom to the dome at Greenwich; and if small, rural schools in Scarborough and Whitby will be eligible for such arrangements. [91376]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is not responsible for travel arrangements to the Dome for schoolchildren or any other groups. Very few, if any, visitor attractions subsidise or pay for school travel and very few provide significant numbers of free entry tickets for schoolchildren. NMEC is providing up to one million free school tickets under the Education Tour scheme. All schools in the UK can apply for these tickets. NMEC has also worked hard to negotiate deals with travel providers and operators which represent good value for money for visitors to the Dome. NMEC has informed schools about these providers and operators in their area.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of school pupils from Scotland will be able to visit the dome on a free basis. [91377]

  Janet Anderson
  There are up to one million free tickets available to schoolchildren. Final details of allocations, including the ballot arrangements, will be announced in due course. However, the free tickets will be on a pro rata to school population basis. Under the Education Tours Scheme, schools in Scotland will be allocated about 8.5 per cent. of the free tickets. However,
  79
  NMEC are not able at this stage to indicate how those tickets will be finally apportioned to the individual Local Education Authorities (LEA's) or individual schools.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will extend the duration of the millennium dome exhibition beyond 31 December 2000. [91378]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Millennium Experience at the Dome is planned as the centrepiece of the nation's millennium celebrations and will run for one year from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000, and be a truly unique and once-in-a-lifetime experience for visitors. The Government are committed to identifying a sustainable, viable use for the Dome after the Millennium Experience ends and launched a competition for that purpose on 4 March 1999. The competition is proceeding well and the outcome will be announced in Spring 2000.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what training Millennium Dome staff will receive in order to deal with problems; and what powers they will have in respect of the public. [91267]

  Janet Anderson
  All staff will receive appropriate training in line with best practice for the nature and scope of their duties and responsibilities.

  Sports Participation
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action his Department is taking to increase the proportion of(a) pensioners, (b) people with disabilities and (c) people from ethnic minorities who participate in sport. [91311]

  Mr. Banks
  The Government fund Sport England to develop programmes in all these areas. On(a), Sport England believes in lifelong participation in sport, and its Active Communities programme has seen substantial investment in initiatives with particular appeal to older participants, such as capital Lottery funding for walking, keep-fit/yoga, swimming, cycling, golf and bowls. For example, 290 awards have been made to bowls projects, grants of £26 million supporting project costs of £42.5 million. Through the monitoring of completed Lottery projects, Sport England reports that participation among senior citizens at these facilities has doubled.

  Sport England also monitors the age structure of the population and its Facilities Planning Model (a mathematical model aimed at assessing the needs for sport and recreational facilities) is used, on a local community and national level, to determine facilities required for each age group, including older people. Through its advice to local authorities Sport England encourages the needs and concerns of older people to be incorporated in Local Sports Strategies and Best Value practices.

  Other work in this area includes support for GP referral schemes, working with the health sector to encourage physical activity to maintain good health.

  On (b), Sport England has adopted the approach that, wherever possible, support should be channelled through mainstream sport rather than separate disability
  80
  organisations. This decision was based on consultation and feedback from all parts of sport for people with disabilities.

  Sport England has overseen the formation of the National Federation of Disability Sport, which brings together all the key disability sports organisations. With the election of a management board and appointment of key staff at both a national and regional level, it is able to ensure that people with disabilities can receive proper sporting opportunities.

  As well as its own Disability Advisory Group, Sport England also has a service team of staff with the appropriate skills to co-ordinate and audit the disability work that Sport England is doing across the range of all its service areas, including Lottery programmes. Baselines of sporting provision for people with disabilities in England have been established and research carried out to find out their exact needs.

  On (c), Sport England has made special efforts to tackle the problems that exist in this area, including setting up its own advisory Group and working with the Commission for Racial Equality jointly to appoint two staff to work on anti-racism initiatives with the governing bodies of sport.

  Six sports were initially identified as priority areas for work: cricket, basketball, rugby league, rugby union, athletics and swimming. The starting point for each sport is the formulation of a racial equity statement.

  Sport England has also given financial support to help develop action plans for sports which seek the elimination of racism.

  Sport England has contracted the Office for National Statistics to conduct a survey to measure accurately levels of participation by members of the ethnic minorities. By establishing the sporting needs of the Black, Asian and other ethnic minorities support can be much more effectively tailored.

  Sport England has also organised and run generic equity workshops for the governing bodies of sport. This is a structured programme and part of the Running Sport range of education and training support.

  In addition, following the publication of the Football Task Force's report "Eliminating Racism from Football", I asked the football authorities to consider how they could implement the recommendations.

  This has been a good start, but I want to ensure that racism is tackled by all sports. To that end I have written to the Governing bodies of cricket, tennis, athletics, rugby union and league asking them how the problems can be addressed within their sports. I hope to meet with those Governing Bodies, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Local Government Association to discuss how we can go about removing racism from sport in the very near future.

  Lottery Funding (East Midlands)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will take steps to ensure that
  81
  the Gedling Borough Council area receives a comparable share of the lottery money per capita to other parts of the country; [91561]

  (2) what steps he is taking to address the unequal regional distribution of lottery grants, with particular reference to the East Midlands. [91560]

  Mr. Banks
  We recognise that some parts of the country have done less well than others from Lottery funding. We are determined to ensure that Lottery money is allocated more fairly and equitably in the light of need across the whole of the United Kingdom.

  The National Lottery Act 1998 contained a number of measures designed to bring this about. Distributors must now examine the needs of their sectors systematically and draw up strategic plans which reflect those needs and their proposals for addressing them. They have new powers to encourage specific applications where these are not forthcoming spontaneously, to delegate decision-making closer to the grass roots, and to enter into joint schemes. Revised Policy Directions issued to the distributors last year also stressed the need to ensure that all parts of the country have access to Lottery funds.

  Last November, my Department hosted a conference in Barnsley to discuss how the Lottery can assist in the regeneration of coalfield communities. In addition, we are working with the distributors to examine the reasons for the low take-up of funds in many coalfield areas. The results of the first phase of this research, which establishes the extent of the problem, were published on 13 July 1999. We are currently analysing these results and are about to commission further work to consider what needs to be done to ensure that such areas receive their fair share of Lottery money.

  Welsh Language Television
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to improve the reception of television channels carrying Welsh language programmes throughout Wales; and if he will make a statement. [92711]

  Janet Anderson
  BBC Wales and S4C analogue broadcasts presently reach 97.6 per cent. of the population of Wales. The nine Welsh transmitter sites in the launch phase for digital terrestrial television will deliver BBC services to 70 per cent. of the population and S4C services to 63 per cent. BBC and S4C also broadcast their services on digital satellite, and will broadcast on digital cable when available. The BBC, ITC and the digital broadcasters are now considering plans for the further development of digital terrestrial television across the UK.

  Public Appointments
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many appointments to public bodies were made by his Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99, broken down by (i) gender and (ii) ethnicity; and if he will list the chairmen appointed to those bodies in those years, similarly broken down. [92520]
  82
  Mr. Chris Smith
  The information is noted in the following table, which includes all appointments which fall under my responsibility or where my role is to advise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, or through him Her Majesty The Queen.

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Her Majesty The Queen and Prime Minister

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  Gender

  Male

  72 (62.6%)

  121 (64.3%)

  Female

  43 (37.4%)

  67 (35.7%)

  Total appointments

  115

  188

  Of which chairmen:

  Male

  12 (92.3%)

  14 (82.3%)

  Female

  1 (7.7%)

  3 (17.7%)

  Total

  13

  17

  Ethnicity

  White

  95 (82.6%)

  153 (81.3%)

  Ethnic

  8 (6.9%)

  12 (6.4%)

  Unknown1

  12 (10.4%)

  23 (12.2%)

  Of which chairmen:

  White

  12 (92.3%)

  13 (76.4%)

  Ethnic

  0

  0

  Unknown1

  1 (7.7%)

  4 (23.5%)

  1 Where information on ethnic background is not known or where appointees have declined to disclose this information

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

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Compliance Costs
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what reductions were achieved in the compliance costs of regulation administered by his Department and its public bodies for the last year for which data are available; what mechanisms exist for monitoring the post-implementation costs of such regulation; and if he has established targets for reduction in the compliance costs of regulation administered by his Department and its public bodies. [92317]

  Mr. Mudie
  Details of regulations that imposed compliance costs on business are published in the Department's regulatory impact assessments and laid before the House. A summary of all the regulatory impact assessments published by the Department and the other regulatory Departments in Whitehall are published every six months in a White Paper, and are available on a monthly basis on the Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit's website.

  The Department published details on the quality and quantity of its regulatory activity in the Departmental Annual Report.
  83
  There is no arbitrary target for reducing the compliance costs of regulation. However, all Departments are required to make an assessment of the risks, costs and benefits of any regulatory proposal that has an impact on businesses, charities and voluntary bodies before they decide to act. Without an assessment of this kind there can be no collective agreement of a regulatory proposal.

  University Appointments
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many professors were appointed to university posts in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99, broken down by (i) gender and (ii) ethnicity. [92511]

  Mr. Mudie
  The available data include those entering their current Higher Education Institution on appointment as professors either on promotion or as a result of a move from a professorial post elsewhere. Those gaining professorial rank within their existing institution are therefore excluded.

  Figures for the two most recent years are shown in the table.

  Professors entering Higher Education Institutions in the UK

  1996–1997

  1997–1998

  Ethnicity

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  White

  209

  43

  264

  41

  Black Caribbean

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Black African

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Black Other

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Indian

  3

  0

  2

  1

  Pakistani

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Bangladeshi

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Chinese

  3

  0

  3

  0

  Asian Other

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other

  7

  0

  5

  1

  Information not provided

  55

  7

  63

  9

  Total

  279

  50

  339

  53

  Public Appointments
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many appointments to public bodies were made by his Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99, broken down by (i) gender and (ii) ethnicity; and if he will list the chairmen appointed to those bodies in those years, similarly broken down. [92515]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment made a total of 68 appointments and re-appointments to non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) in 1997–98. Of these, 48 were men and 20 were women. Three were from ethnic minorities. Included in the total of 68, are the appointments or re-appointments of seven chairs, all of whom were men. None was from an ethnic minority.

  In 1998–99, my right hon. Friend made a total of 142 appointments and re-appointments to NDPBs. Of these, 101 were men and 41 were women. Nineteen were from ethnic minorities. Included in that total of 142, are the appointments or re-appointments of eight chairs, one of whom was a woman. None was from an ethnic minority.

  Secondary School Teachers
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures the Government are taking to expand the availability of secondary school teachers specialising in(a) physics, (b) mathematics and (c) information technology; and if he will make a statement. [92577]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The wide ranging reforms to the teaching profession set out in our Green Paper "Teachers—meeting the challenge of change" will make teaching more attractive. Over time, it will substantially boost our ability to ensure the supply of high quality teachers we need.

  We are also investing £130 million in shorter term measures, many of which target these shortage subjects. Last October, I announced £5,000 incentives for graduates in maths and science subjects to go into teaching. These have already brought a substantial increase in PGCE applications in those subjects, by 37 per cent. for maths and 33 per cent. for physics. This comes on top of £10 million of financial assistance for trainee teachers in shortage subjects, including maths, physics and technology, and the waiver of PGCE tuition fees. We have also launched a scheme to recruit 600 mature maths and science graduates and match them to vacancies in schools. Other action targeting these subjects includes the high-profile national advertising campaigns of the Teacher Training Agency. They also work closely with higher education institutions and professional subject associations on a range of initiatives to boost recruitment to teaching.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children of secondary school age have a statement of Special Educational need and what proportion that represents of the overall numbers of such children in(a) North West Leicestershire, (b) the county of Leicestershire, not including the City of Leicester, (c) the City of Leicester, (d) the East Midlands and (e) England. [92507]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information available is shown in the table.

  Numbers and percentage of pupils in maintained secondary schools by local education authority area in England January 1999 (provisional)

  Numbers of pupils with statements of Special Educational need

  Numbers of pupils in schools

  Percentage of pupils with statements

  Rutland

  68

  2,122

  3.2

  Leicestershire

  1,318

  42,598

  3.1

  City of Leicester

  677

  17,979

  3.8

  East Midlands

  6,615

  277,995

  2.4

  England

  77,370

  3,123,048

  2.5

  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children of primary school age have a statement of Special Educational need and what proportion that represents of the overall numbers of such children in(a) North West

  85
  Leicestershire, (b) the county of Leicestershire, not including the City of Leicester, (c) the City of Leicester, (d) the East Midlands and (e) England. [92508]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information available is shown in the table.

  Numbers and percentage of pupils in maintained primary schools by local education authority area in England January 1999 (provisional)

  Numbers of pupils with statements of Special Educational need

  Numbers of pupils in schools

  Percentage of pupils with statements

  Rutland

  53

  2,595

  2.0

  Leicestershire

  940

  50,205

  1.9

  City of Leicester

  619

  30,428

  2.0

  East Midlands

  5,655

  381,082

  1.5

  England

  69,833

  4,460,614

  1.6

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

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  LEA's Education Capital Programme, supported by the following government programmes and initiatives1

  5,273,000

  27,505,000

  8—

  Annual Capital Guidelines3

  1,563,000

  2,155,104

  3,426,036

  Supplementary Credit Approvals4

  368,000

  323,000

  1,019,000

  New Deal for Schools5

  677,000

  1,705,684

  2,862,282

  Class Sizes

  9—

  380,822

  755,330

  Removal of Outside Toilets

  9—

  64,024

  9—

  Energy Management

  9—

  186,150

  9—

  Security in Schools6

  9—

  193,000

  201,000

  National Grid for Learning6

  9—

  998,000

  900,000

  Grant to Voluntary Aided Schools (inc. VA Challenge Fund)7

  154,000

  170,000

  188,000

  Grant to Grant Maintained Schools

  149,345

  276,172

  504,157

  1 Education Capital Programme: Includes capital expenditure supported by the Authority's own resources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  8 Not available.

  9 Not applicable.

  Note:

  The following initiatives had not been established in 1997–98: Toilets, Energy, Class Sizes and National Grid for Learning.

  Table B: Provisional Indicators: Amounts already committed as TRADE AND INDUSTRY part of future ACGs and Grants provided resources allow

  £000

  To be part of:

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Annual Capital Guideline

  3,123,002

  767,493

  VA Grant

  0

  0

  NDS Grant

  1,471,000

  238,719

  Class sizes

  0

  0

  Note:

  There has been no application from Leicestershire for PFI credits.

  Leicestershire Education Authority
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what capital investment in schools in the Leicestershire Education Authority has taken place in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to date; and what the planned levels are for the next two years. [92579]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Table A shows the capital investment the Government have made in schools in Leicestershire in the three years up to 1999–2000. Table B shows the level of investment the Government intend to make for the following two financial years, provided resources allow. This represents commitments arising from existing projects. We cannot indicate what investment we will make in new projects in Leicestershire at this stage.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contribution the Office of Science and Technology plans to make to exhibitions at the Millennium Dome. [91148]

  Mr. Battle
  The prime responsibility for exhibitions at the Millennium Dome rests with the New Millennium Experience Company.
  87
  However, officials from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Office of Science and Technology have had several discussions with the New Millennium Experience Company about ideas and source material for exhibits which promote greater public understanding of science, engineering and technology and its key role in shaping the world of the 21st century. These have covered such areas as sustainable development, bio-engineering and future transport technology.

  Post Office
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many appointments to the Post Office within the last 12 months have been made before the final date of(a) trawl and (b) external application was reached. [91001]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I understand from the Post Office that it does not use a trawl system for job vacancies. All vacancies filled internally are subject to an open resourcing policy, which enables anyone in any grade in the organisation to apply. Closing dates for the receipt of applications for all posts filled internally or externally are strictly adhered to, and the Post Office is not aware of any appointments made within the last 12 months before the final dates for either internal or external applications were reached.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 25 June 1999,Official Report, column 474, on Parcelforce, if the loans to Parcelforce have been repaid; and if they are repayable at commercial rates of interest. [91178]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]The loans to Parcelforce from the Post Office Group Centre have not been repaid.

  It is Post Office normal practice to charge its constituent businesses, including Parcelforce, interest at a commercial rate on their in-year funding requirements. As Parcelforce is not a legal entity and therefore has no share capital, other loans to Parcelforce from the Post Office Group Centre are treated within the Post Office Group as a surrogate for equity and, as such, do not carry an obligation for interest payments.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of Crown post offices; and when he will lift the moratorium on conversion of Crown post offices to agency status. [91314]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  As announced in the White Paper "Post Office Reform: A World Class Service for the 21st Century" published on 8 July, the Government have agreed a strategy for the future of Crown post offices, which reflects proposals put by the Post Office to the trade unions, of retaining a core of directly owned and managed Crown offices at which at least 15 per cent. of the total business transacted by the counters' network will be done. The lifting of the moratorium on the conversion of Crown offices to agency status was announced on 7 December 1998 by the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson).
  88
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the future of the powers of entry, search and arrest currently enjoyed by the Investigation Branch of the Royal Mail under his proposals for a limited company. [91481]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Consolidation of the reform package in primary legislation will involve changes to a range of existing powers in order to reflect the new framework which separates Government ownership from Post Office business operations and introduces new, independent regulation. The future of the powers of entry, search and arrest, currently available to the Investigation Branch of the Royal Mail will be considered in this wider context.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if(a) the postal archives and (b) the Post Office Museum will become part of the public limited company under his proposals for the Post Office. [914801

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Post Office is currently looking at plans for the future management of its heritage collection in the light of the recent closure of the National Postal Museum. No firm decisions have yet been reached but we will be assessing the impact of public limited company status on any proposed plans.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions his Department has held with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport regarding the future of the Post Office Archives and the Post Office Museum; and if he will make a statement. [91479]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  There have not been any discussions between Departments, but the Post Office is considering proposals for the future management of its heritage collection in the light of the recent closure of the National Postal Museum in London. I understand that the Public Record Office and Museum and Galleries Commission guidelines continue to be met.

  Viewing of the philatelic collection is available by appointment, as has always been the case. The artefacts collection is currently not on public display, but is accessible through written application to:

  The Post Office Archives Centre

  Freeling House,

  Mount Pleasant Complex,

  London.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, under the proposal for the Post Office outlined in the Post Office White Paper, the Government will underwrite any debt issued or raised. [91739]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  As the White Paper sets out, the Government believe that borrowing by the Post Office should, on value-for-money grounds, be from the National Loans Fund, but at a commercial rate without a Government guarantee.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the studies carried out in Europe by the European Commission referred to on page 19 of the Post Office White Paper regarding the need for greater competition in postal services. [91747]
  89
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The European Commission had the following studies carried out in accordance with Article 7(3) of the Postal services directive 97/67/EC:Study of the impacts of liberalisation in the postal sector: Liberalisation of incoming and outgoing intra-community cross-border mail (Price Waterhouse Coopers)
  Study on costing and financing of universal service obligations in the postal sector in the European Union (NERA)
  Study on the weight and price limits of the reserved area in the postal sector (Ctcon)
  Study on the liberalisation of clearance, sorting and transport (Ctcon)
  Study of the impact of liberalisation of direct mail (Arthur Andersen)
  Modelling and quantifying the scenarios for liberalisation (MMD).

  The first five of the above are available on the internet at http://www.ispo.cec.be/ under "postal services". We understand that the sixth will be available shortly.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Post Office Regulator will be required to publish details of internal transfer pricing arrangements under the proposals in the Post Office White Paper. [91736]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government are committed to a transparent regulatory regime. The new postal services Commission will therefore not only have powers to require information, but to publish information for the benefit of consumers and in the interests of good regulation. They will, therefore, have the ability to publish details of internal transfer pricing arrangements. The Government do not propose to require them to do so.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, under the proposed public limited company status for the Post Office, it will be possible for the company to be put into(a) receivership by creditors, (b) voluntary liquidation and (c) compulsory liquidation. [91740]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Once the Post Office has become a public limited company under the Companies Acts, it will be subject to the full range of company law.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Post Office's power to acquire land by compulsory purchase order will apply to its non-monopoly services following its conversion to a public limited company. [91745]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Post Office privileges which have been granted in the past, including the Post Office's power to acquire land by compulsory purchase in certain circumstances, were provided to facilitate the universal service obligations (USO) placed on the Post Office. The USO is not limited to services within the monopoly area. For example, it also covers standard parcels and the registered letter service. The Government have decided that these privileges should remain for now but that they should be kept under review by the Regulator.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he made of the compatibility of his proposals relating to the duties to be owed by the directors of the Post Office plc with the provision of the Companies Acts. [91751]
  90
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The intention of transforming the Post Office into a public limited company is to underline the clear separation of the functions of ownership and management. In particular it will make it absolutely clear that the Directors owe their duties to the company and not directly to the Government as owner. This will reinforce the new arm's length relationship between the Government and the Post Office Board.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he has implemented to ensure that the transfer of Royal Mail Priority Services to Parcelforce does not result in any monopoly services being delivered by Parcelforce. [91735]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  No monopoly business is carried by Parcelforce. However, as set out in the White Paper, under the transfer of Priority Services much of the operational activity, at least initially, continues to be carried out by Royal Mail. This raises the possibility of the Post Office monopoly business improperly subsidising wider Parcelforce business in the competitive arena. The Government therefore asked its auditors for the Post Office to look at the business case for the transfer; at the basis on which revenues and costs would be treated under the new arrangements; and, in particular, whether this was on a defensible basis from a competition point of view and with accounting transparency. In the light of the advice from the auditors, the Government have confidence that the arrangements are satisfactory. They will continue to be monitored by the auditors until the Regulator has its own arrangements in place.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what additional Government services the Government plans to deliver through the sub-post office network. [91748]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The unrivalled reach of the nationwide network of post offices, and the trust in which it is held by its customers, make it ideally suited as a delivery channel for a wide variety of Government business. As at present, Post Office Counters Ltd. will remain free to bid for this business.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to introduce legislation to create the Post Office as a public limited company. [91752]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  As soon as parliamentary time permits, primary legislation will be brought forward to consolidate the reform of the Post Office and the postal market.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry over what periods the Post Office will be permitted to borrow under the proposals in the Post Office White Paper. [91750]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The precise terms, including maturity of any borrowing, will depend on the investment concerned and will be discussed with the Post Office as part of the notification and approval process.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if debt incurred by the Post Office under the proposals in the Post Office White Paper will be accounted for as Government debt. [917431
  91
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Under national accounts definitions, as the Post Office is in the public sector, Post Office debt will score within the Public Sector Net Cash Requirement (previously Public Sector Borrowing Requirement) which is closely related to changes in Public Sector Net Debt.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what mechanism the company referred to at paragraph 18, page 51 of the Post Office White Paper will enforce the duties which it is proposed the directors of that company will owe to that company. [91734]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Once the Post Office has become a public limited company under the Companies Acts, it will be subject to the full range of company law. Its directors will be subject to the legal duties imposed on directors under those Acts.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the non-monopoly services of the Post Office will account for the cost of capital tied up in its fixed assets; and how such fixed assets will be valued under the arrangement proposed in the Post Office White Paper. [91737]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Postal Services Directive 97/67/EC lays down specific requirements about transparency of accounts which address these issues. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has instructed the Post Office to comply with these requirements and will be ensuring that they do so. How the non-monopoly services of the Post Office will account for the cost of capital tied up in its fixed assets, and how such fixed assets will be valued, will be a matter in the first instance for the Board of the Post Office. These accounts will be independently audited and, in due course, will also be subject to scrutiny by the new independent regulator, the Postal Services Commission. All services will be included.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what power the proposed Post Office Regulator will have to ensure fair competition by the Post Office in the area of those non-monopoly services which are still subject to the universal service obligation. [91744]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The regulator will have a range of powers to ensure that the Post Office competes fairly and does not act anti-competitively, including in the competitive area. It is proposed that the Postal Services Commission will have concurrent powers with the Director-General of Fair Trading to apply competition rules in respect of the Post Office (and other licensed postal operators).

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Post Office will be included in the proposed Utilities Bill. [91741]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  No. We intend to bring forward separate legislation on the Post Office as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plan he has to ensure that following its conversion to a public limited company Ministers remain accountable to Parliament for the Post Office. [91757]
  92
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The current arrangements will remain in place and in fact be strengthened. The Post Office is currently required by the Post Office Act 1969 to provide my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with its accounts and annual reports and my right hon. Friend is required to lay them before each House. This arrangement will continue. An obligation will also be laid on the Regulator to report annually to my right hon. Friend and this report will also be laid before each House. In addition, the Government have undertaken to report annually to Parliament on the progress of the reforms set out in the White Paper, and particularly on the functioning of the arm's length relationship. The aim will also be to report once the Strategic Plan has been approved, though commercially confidential details of the Plan will not be revealed. But the Government will not be involved in the day to day management or detailed issues, as noted on pages 44-45 of the White Paper.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what safeguards will be incorporated in the measures proposed in the Post Office White Paper to ensure that the terms of the loan arrangement, other than the rate of interest, are on an arm's length basis. [91742]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Post Office Board will be clearly accountable for running the business successfully on the basis of a rolling five-year strategic plan agreed with the Government. Any borrowing for growth investments will be on commercial terms. The Government will be responsible for approving annually the five-year rolling strategic plan and approving borrowing for major acquisitions and other growth investments, but otherwise will not be involved in normal management and commercial matters which fall to the Post Office.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers will be given to the Post Office regulator to ensure that the debt: equity ratio of the Post Office non-monopoly services will be similar to those operating generally in the private sector of these markets, under the arrangement proposed in the Post Office White Paper. [91755]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To place the Post Office on a more commercial footing, and one where it can be better benchmarked against its competitors, the balance sheet will be restructured with the Post Office ceasing to hold, and have access to interest from, the present level of accumulated External Financing Limit surpluses. It is planned that the change will take effect on 1 April 2002. During the interim period, the Government will consider with the help of professional advisers the appropriate shape of the balance sheet.

  The Regulator will be responsible for ensuring fair competition and that there is no undue cross subsidy from the monopoly to competitive market, nor an abuse of a dominant position. In particular, it is intended that the Regulator will be able to require the Post Office to provide regulatory accounts and other financial information clearly distinguishing between monopoly and competitive services, and in the competitive area, between Universal Service Obligation (USO) and non-USO services. It is also intended that the Regulator will have a power to impose changes in accounting practices if this would facilitate transparency.
  93
  Until we have primary legislation, the Regulator will advise my right hon. Friend on these and other matters relating to the Secretary of State's regulatory duties in relation to the Post Office.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what fee will be paid by the Department of Social Security to sub post offices for administering cash benefit payments under the arrangements applicable from 2003. [91749]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The contractual arrangements between the Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters Ltd. are commercially confidential, as are the contractual arrangements between Post Office Counters Ltd. and certain retail banks under which customers of those banks can access their accounts at post offices.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under the proposals in the Post Office White Paper, what measures will be put in place to ensure that charges between the monopoly service provider division of the Post Office and the non-monopoly service provider divisions are arrived at on an arm's length basis; what services will be included in these arrangements; and how they will be valued. [91756]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Postal Services Directive 97/67/EC lays down specific requirements about transparency of accounts which address these issues. The Secretary of State has instructed the Post Office to comply with these requirements and will be ensuring that they do so. All services will be included. How they will be valued will be a matter in the first instance for the Board of the Post Office. These accounts will be independently audited and, in due course, will also be subject to scrutiny by the new independent regulator, the Postal Services Commission.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Post Office exemption from traffic regulations will apply to its non-monopoly service vehicles under the proposals set out in the Post Office White Paper. [91753]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Post Office privileges which have been granted in the past, including those relating to aspects of traffic regulations, were provided to facilitate the universal service obligations (USO) placed on the Post Office. The USO is not limited to services within the monopoly area. For example, it also covers standard parcels and the registered letter service. The Government have decided that these privileges should remain for now but that they should be kept under review by the Regulator.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many community sub-post offices there are in the United Kingdom. [91766]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I understand from the Post office that at the end of May 1999 there were 2,082 community sub-post offices in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what borrowing limits his Department will propose be laid down by Parliament for borrowing by the Post Office under the proposed arrangements for borrowing subject to Government approval set out in the Post Office White Paper. [91754]
  94
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Under the new framework announced in the White Paper, the Post Office will be able to borrow for growth investments up to an annual limit of £75 million in each of the next five years. The Post Office will be free to seek approval for growth investments costing more than £75 million, as necessary, but the approval of Ministers will be required. The Government will approve Post Office requests for borrowing for these larger investment cases which are consistent with the rolling five-year strategic plan, commercially robust, and pose no undue risk to the taxpayer. The precise terms of any borrowing will depend on the investment concerned.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the possible steps being considered by his Department under its proposals to liberalise further the postal market referred to at page 21 of the Post Office White Paper. [91746]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  This is a matter to be considered by the new regulatory body, the Postal Services Commission, not the Department. The White Paper makes it clear that the Regulator should be free to consider all appropriate mechanisms.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those countries included in his Department's analysis of the postal services of other countries in which the postal services have been reformed in a way similar to that proposed in the Post Office White Paper; and what system of price regulation was adopted, listing in each case the appropriate formula. [91738]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Among the developed countries, Australia, New Zealand, all the Nordic countries, Ireland, Belgium and Austria have now adopted models of a government-owned plc. Of the different systems of price regulation, the information available is as follows:

  Australia
  Australia Post sets charges which are reviewed by an external body, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The Government may disallow a variation of postage rates for ordinary post within Australia.

  Denmark
  In the reserved area the Minister of Transport determines the conditions for the fixing of postal charges for inland letters covered by the exclusive right. Tariffs are determined by Post Danmark and are approved on the basis of a price cap model. This consists of the rates being regulated by the percentage development in the gross price index (consumer price index) with deduction of 1 per cent.

  Ireland
  The Regulator is responsible for sanctioning tariff increases for letter post only.

  New Zealand
  Maintains a relationship between the price of the standard letter and movements in the Consumer Price Index.

  Sweden
  There is a price cap on the domestic letter rate for private individuals. The charge to private individuals for delivery of letters weighing up to 500g may be increased by a maximum of the average change in the net price index over a three year period.
  95
  Belgium
  The postal service provider sets the tariffs and pricing structures for public service activities within the pricing framework laid down in its management contract (with the Government). Price ceilings are subject to the approval of the relevant Government minister.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has met representatives of the Post Office to discuss the reduction in the size of the network; and if he will make a statement. [92017]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  There have not been any such meetings. The Government remain committed to a nationwide network of post offices, and will be discussing with the Post Office the criteria for access to post offices which we intend to publish by the end of this year. The Regulator will have a duty to monitor performance against these criteria.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff were employed by the Post Office in Scotland for each of the past five years; and what forecast he has made of staff levels for each of the next five years. [92005]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I understand from the Post Office that the numbers of staff employed in Scotland for each of the last five years were as follows:

  Post Office

  Year

  Royal Mail

  Counters Ltd.

  Parcelforce

  Total

  1995

  13,286

  1,276

  920

  15,482

  1996

  13,675

  1,270

  930

  15,875

  1997

  14,028

  1,203

  940

  16,171

  1998

  14,872

  1,207

  950

  17,029

  June 1999

  14,541

  1,152

  926

  16,619

  No forecasts of staff levels in Scotland for the next five years are available.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices in Scotland were closed on a temporary basis in each of the past five years; and how many of these were subsequently re-opened. [92016]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I understand from the Post Office that the numbers of sub-post offices closed in Scotland on a temporary basis and subsequent reopenings in each of the last five years were as follows:

  1994–95
  29 temporary closures of which two reopened within the year; nine other offices reopened from previous years' closures.

  1995–96
  17 temporary closures of which three reopened within the year; three other offices reopened from previous years' closures.

  1996–97
  41 temporary closures of which five reopened within the year; 14 other offices reopened from previous years' closures.

  1997–98
  35 temporary closures of which four reopened within the year; eight other offices reopened from previous years' closures.

  1998–99
  44 temporary closures of which 14 reopened within the year; eight other offices reopened from previous years' closures.
  96
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has for continuation of free postal services for(a) Braille material and (b) talking books, as part of his programme of Post Office restructuring. [91949]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]As set out in the White Paper on Post Office Reform, the Government believe that there is a genuine need for special services for the blind and has made clear that the Post Office will continue to be obliged to provide them under the reform programme.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what level of losses sustained by non-monopoly services of the Post Office following its conversion to plc status will be regarded as constituting a subsidy from the monopoly services of the Post Office. [92052]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  It will be the responsibility of the Regulator to ensure that any cross-subsidy from the monopoly area to competitive activities is the minimum required, in their opinion, to ensure the continued provision of services required by the universal service obligation at a uniform tariff. It will be for the Regulator to determine the extent to which this is affected, if at all, by plc status.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date Ministers were advised that the Horizon project should be cancelled. [92134]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The decision to proceed with the Horizon project in a restructured form and without the benefit payment card culminated in an agreement in principle signed between ICL and Post Office Counters Ltd. on 24 May 1999.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Minister has specific responsibility for the Horizon Project. [92067]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]I have specific responsibility under the Secretary of State for Post Office issues, including the Post Office's interest in the Horizon project.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices in(a) urban, (b) suburban and (c) rural areas are provided with a guaranteed minimum level of income. [92413]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]I understand from the Post Office that, as part of the new subpostmasters remuneration system, all sub-post offices receive some level of guaranteed minimum income. The system, which was specifically designed to help support smaller, mainly rural offices, includes a fixed element and an element which varies according to the amount of business a sub-post office handles. The fixed element is a larger proportion of the overall pay for small offices.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what payments are made per transaction to post offices for processing each DSS benefit payment; and what payments will be made where post offices act as agents for banks and individual payments not made via automated credit transfer into bank accounts. [92346]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The remuneration arrangements between Post Office Counters Ltd. and subpostmasters and subpostmistresses are commercially confidential.
  97
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the average number of transactions of DSS benefit payments processed by post offices broken down by category of post office; and what estimates he has made of the forecast decrease in transactions as automated credit transfer is encouraged. [92347]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I understand from the Post Office that the number and percentage in 1998–99 of DSS benefit payment transactions processed by category of post office are as follows:

  Number of transactions

  Percentage

  Crown offices

  181,469,895

  23.9

  Sub-post offices

  572,503,350

  75.4

  Community offices

  4,555,729

  0.6

  Other

  759,288

  0.1

  Existing paper-based methods of paying benefits at post offices are to be progressively phased out between 2003 and 2005 in favour of more modern means of payment based on the existing Automated Credit Transfer system.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) post offices and (b) sub-post offices there are in each parliamentary constituency in England and Wales; how many have been opened in each of the last five years; and how many have been closed. [92460]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I understand from the Post Office that it is not possible to provide figures for post offices and sub-post offices opened and closed in each of the last five years in each parliamentary constituency in England and Wales. However, I will shortly be placing in the Library a list of the numbers as at the end of March 1998 of Crown post offices and sub-post offices in each parliamentary constituency in England and Wales. I will forward a copy of this list to the hon. Member as soon as is practicable.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research he has commissioned during the current review of company law into the services provided by insolvency practitioners and their cost; when the results of that research will be published; and if he will make a statement. [91783]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  A comprehensive review of company law was announced in March 1998 with the aim of a final report in the Spring of 2001. A consultation document on the strategic framework was published earlier this year with the intention to publish a summary of responses in the autumn.

  In February this year a separate review, joint with the Treasury, of company rescue mechanisms was announced which will include consideration of the cost of and access to the service of insolvency practitioners. This review is expected to be completed by the end of the year.

  Miners (Respiratory Diseases)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidelines his Department has set for 98
  the length of time which former miners suffering 80 per cent. emphysema should expect to wait for a spirometer test. [92121]

  Mr. Battle
  This is the longest running personal injury action in the UK and the development of an agreed assessment process, which can handle the 77,000 claims received, has inevitably taken some considerable time. However, as soon as agreement in principle on spirometry testing was reached in March we awarded the contract for the programme of spirometry testing throughout Scotland, England and Wales to Healthcall Services Limited. This is principally to help prioritise claims for the full medical assessment process, but will also enable us to extend offers of interim payments to new categories of miners and, in some cases, make full and final offers. Some 3,300 claimants have already been assessed, and we anticipate that the majority of the remaining existing claimants will be completed by the Autumn, with the most elderly being considered first. This should help ensure that those with severe disabilities are invited to be tested at an early stage.

  Airlines
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive further evidence from the Director General of Fair Trading about the proposed alliance between American Airlines and British Airways. [91219]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]: My officials have held a number of discussions with officials from the Office of Fair Trading and I have met the Director-General of Fair Trading three times to discuss this case. I am not yet at a stage at which I can reach a final decision.

  Gender Discrimination
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people in Scotland have(a) taken cases alleging gender discrimination to an employment tribunal and (b) had their cases upheld in the last 12 months for which figures are available and in the three previous years. [92129]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The number of people in Scotland who have taken cases alleging gender discrimination to an Employment Tribunal over the period 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999 was 192 of which 11 were upheld. The following table provides the figures for the last three financial years.

  Year

  Applications

  Upheld

  1996–97

  196

  20

  1997–98

  240

  28

  1998–99

  196

  16

  Electronic Correspondence
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will make it his policy to reply to electronic correspondence electronically; and if he will make a statement. [92028]

  Mr. Byers
  It is already my policy to respond to electronic correspondence electronically where practicable.

  Genetic Testing
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce restrictions on the use of genetic testing by employers; and if he will make a statement. [92251]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government are considering carefully the Human Genetics Advisory Commission's report on "The Implications of Genetic Testing for Employment", which was published on 14 July 1999. We intend to publish our response in due course.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Minister for Science has completed his examination of the growth of biotechnology clusters announced on 16 April; and if he plans to publish the report of the findings. [92246]

  Mr. Battle
  The study led by my noble Friend the Minister for Science on biotechnology clusters has been completed and the report will be published shortly.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 19 July 1999,Official Report, column 374, on statutory instruments, for what reasons the cost of providing the information would be disproportionate. [92478]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]It would have exceeded £500.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will request from the Swiss Government, their consent to place in the Library their environmental impact assessment into the Ilisu Dam project. [92757]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Environmental Impact Appraisal Report (EIAR) is being prepared for the company bidding for this project; supplemental reports are being prepared for the Swiss authorities. We have already asked the company and the Swiss authorities whether they are prepared to allow ECGD to release these documents. They have advised that they are not prepared to agree release at the present time. We understand that they intend to release the reports when they have been finalised.

  BNFL
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the value of BNFL's operations in the United States of America; and if he will make a statement on future market opportunities for BNFL in the United States. [92815]

  Mr. Battle
  In 1997, the turnover of Westinghouse's nuclear business—which BNFL acquired for $900 million along with Morrison Knudsen in March this year—was $1.1 billion. BNFL's US subsidiary, BNFL Inc, earned revenue of $67.6 million. BNFL's current US order book is worth a potential $9 billion if all contract options are exercised. BNFL has been set the target of enhancing its financial performance further through material and progressive growth in profits generated from ordinary 100
  activities. Its success in winning an increasing share of the US clean-up business will help contribute towards this goal.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what method is being used by BNFL to put a value on its United States contracts for the purpose of Government proposals to sell its stake in the company. [92816]

  Mr. Battle
  BNFL has been set the target of increasing the overall contribution made by its US business to BNFL profits, and of increasing towards 15 per cent. the proportion of BNFL profits derived from the US business.

  MOX Shipments
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) of 29 June 1999,Official Report, column 116, on MOX shipments, if he will list the qualifications and career experience of the technical experts advising on the process of separating plutonium from MOX fuel. [92761]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), 7 July 1999,Official Report, column 578. The advice in that reply was given by the Head of the Safeguards Office in the Department of Trade and Industry who has a first class honours degree in chemistry. This official worked initially for the Ministry of Defence at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, dealing with plutonium chemistry, measurement methods and underground nuclear testing. He then moved to the UKAEA's Harwell Laboratory, where he led work on the development of radiometric instrumentation for the non-destructive measurement of nuclear materials. Before moving to the DTI as Head of the Radiation Dosimetry Branch of the National Physical Laboratory, this official was responsible for the UK's long-term research and development programme concerning the management and disposal of radioactive wastes at the then Department of the Environment. The official has been chairman of the IAEA' s Standing Advisory Group on Safeguards Implementation since August 1996.

  Competitiveness Indices
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are his Department's currently preferred indices of competitiveness; and what their levels were in May of each year since 1979. [92561]

  Mr. Byers
  The Competitiveness White Paper, published on 16 December 1998, announced the Government's intention to develop a set of competitiveness indicators to measure the UK's progress. This work is in hand and will be published in due course.

  Unfair Dismissals
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what proportion of(a) men and (b) women who have appealed to an employment tribunal in respect of unfair dismissal during the last 12 months have had their claim upheld. [92510]
  101
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Between 1 July 1998 and 30 June 1999, the Employment Tribunals received a total of 35,017 applications for unfair dismissal. Of those determined at a tribunal hearing the following numbers were upheld:

  Male

  Female

  Total determined

  3,585

  1,770

  Numbers successful

  1,493

  791

  Arms Exports (Africa)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences Her Majesty's Government have (a) granted and (b) refused for the export of arms to (i) Zimbabwe, (ii) Uganda and (iii) Rwanda for the period 1 January 1998 to the present day; and if he will make a statement. [91333]

  Dr. Howells
  The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 1 January 1998 and 7 July 1999, 46 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and 23 Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in Rwanda, Uganda or Zimbabwe of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, the so-called Military List.

  In the same period, two applications for such SIELs were refused; no applications for such OIELs were refused in full.

  Individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings and OIELs may also cover a range of countries. Where this is so, the licence is included in the table in the total for all of the relevant ratings and/or countries.

  Individual Licences issued between 1 January 1998 and 7 July 1999 covering the export to Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Number of applications refused for such SIELs

  Number of OIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Rwanda

  PL5006

  1

  0

  0

  Uganda

  ML2

  1

  0

  0

  ML3

  2

  0

  0

  ML6

  2

  0

  0

  ML11

  1

  0

  1

  ML15

  0

  0

  1

  Zimbabwe

  ML1

  11

  0

  3

  ML2

  7

  0

  2

  ML3

  5

  1

  4

  ML4

  1

  1

  0

  ML5

  3

  0

  0

  ML6

  3

  0

  3

  MLIO

  4

  0

  4

  ML11

  7

  1

  4

  ML13

  1

  1

  2

  ML15

  1

  0

  1

  102

  Individual Licences issued between 1 January 1998 and 7 July 1999 covering the export to Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Number of applications refused for such SIELs

  Number of OIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  ML22

  3

  0

  0

  PL5002

  0

  0

  3

  PL5017

  4

  0

  0

  PL5018

  1

  0

  2

  PL5021

  2

  0

  0

  This information does not cover any Media OIELs that may have been issued during this period. Media OIELs authorise the export to all destinations of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists, when working in areas of conflict. This information should be considered in light of the answer given by the then Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  Certain Open General Export Licences cover the export to specified countries, including Uganda and Zimbabwe, of certain goods on the Military List. Copies of all Open General Export Licences valid at any time during the period are in the Library of the House.

  Premium Telephone Lines
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to review the regulatory framework governing the use by businesses of premium telephone lines; and if he will make a statement. [92276]

  Mr. Wills
  The Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS) has responsibility for regulating premium rate services. ICSTIS enforces an effective Code of Practice which has provisions to ensure that consumers are given adequate information to enable them to take informed decisions about the use of premium rate services. The Code ensures that the costs of calls to premium rate lines used by businesses must be given in advertisements and has provisions limiting the time spent by callers on these services. ICSTIS and Oftel are planning to review the regulatory framework for premium rate services later this year to ensure that consumers continue to benefit from the right level of protection.

  Money Lenders
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to review the regulatory framework governing the activities of private money lenders; and if he will make a statement. [92275]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published last week the Government's Consumer Strategy White Paper "Modern markets: confident consumers", which sets out many proposals to improve and review consumer credit legislation. These include:
  reviewing the consumer credit licensing system;103 requiring wealth warnings to be included in documents given to prospective customers instead of transient advertisements on radio, television and cinema;changing the wealth warning required in advertisements for equity release schemes;changing the way the annual percentage rate of charge (APR) of the total charge of credit is calculated in the UK so that it is calculated on the same basis throughout the European Union;changing the way the APR for low-start mortgages is calculated; and reviewing rules on extortionate credit.
  A copy of the White Paper is available from the Library of the House.

  Compliance Costs
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reductions were achieved in the compliance costs of regulation administered by his Department and its public bodies for the last year for which data are available; what mechanisms exist for monitoring the post-implementation costs of such regulation; and if he has established targets for reduction in the compliance costs of regulation administered by his Department and its public bodies. [92314]

  Mr. Byers
  Details of regulations which impose compliance costs on business are published in the Department's regulatory impact assessments copies of which are placed in the Libraries of both Houses. A summary of all regulatory impact assessments published by the Department and the other regulatory Departments in Whitehall are published every six months by way of Command Paper, and are available on a monthly basis on the Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit's website. Where appropriate, regulatory impact assessments also contain information on how a regulation will be monitored.

  The Department published details on its regulatory activity in its Departmental Expenditure Plans Report (Cm. 4211). Recent examples of measures already taken or planned to reduce burdens on business include:
  the establishment of a new Small Business Service which will offer smaller firms practical assistance to help them meet their regulatory obligations. Consultation on its proposed role began on 30 June;
  consultation on proposals for a new service to help new small employers get to grips with running a payroll, to be operated through the Small Business Service;
  plans to consult on increasing the threshold below which companies need not have their accounts independently audited from its current level of £350,000; and
  proposals to amend the Working Time Regulations to give more flexibility and to reduce the detailed record-keeping for employers.

  Although there is no arbitrary target for reducing the compliance costs of regulation we are committed to minimising the burden of regulation on business. In addition all Departments are required to make an assessment of the risks, costs and benefits of any regulatory proposal which has an impact on businesses, charities and voluntary bodies before they decide to act. Without an assessment of this kind there can be no collective agreement to a regulatory proposal.

  Government Patents
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the Government patents held by his Department. [93078]

  Dr. Howells
  There are 15 patents currently in force for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is the proprietor. Their details are as follows:

  GB2325266: Blind or Curtain

  GB2323496: Measurement of Effective Radiating Area of a Transducer

  GB2309777: Interferometer

  GB2307052: Real Time Radiation Resistant Meter

  GB2293162: Apparatus for Verifying the Performance of Optical Fibre Measurement Equipment

  GB2289345: Optical Lenses

  GB2285150: Timing Apparatus

  GB2278738: Electromagnetic Machine GB2278434: A Broadband Interferometer

  GB2265525: Method of Allocating Broadcasting Criteria in a Network

  GB2226443: Helium-Neon Lasers

  GB2238449: Improvements in or relating to T. D. M. A. Systems

  GB2215847: Magnetometers Using High Temperature Superconductors

  GB2211930: Improvements in or relating to Monitoring Pyrogenic Processes

  EP0862745: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Level Gauging Device.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the subject of each gender impact assessment drawn up by his Department since June 1997, indicating in each case whether the outcome has been (a) put out to consultation and (b) published. [919991

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her on 22 July 1999,Official Report, column 636, by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women.

  As part of the Government's commitment to ensuring that its policies are relevant to the lives that people live today, this Department is working closely with the Women's Unit on gender issues. Our approach to developing policy initiatives is consistent with the principles set out in the joint document from the Cabinet Office, Home Office and Department for Education and Employment, "Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment", which was published in November 1998.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families claiming family credit have (a) one child, (b) two children, (c) three children, (d) four children, (e) five children and (f) six children or more; and if he will break these numbers down by regions. [92574]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.
  105

  Number of children in families receiving family credit by Government Office Region as at February 1999

  Number of children

  All children

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6 or more

  GreatBritain

  788.1

  301.5

  281.5

  135.0

  49.7

  14.2

  6.3

  North East

  51.0

  20.8

  19.1

  8.2

  2.0

  0.7

  *0.1

  North West

  120.8

  47.0

  43.7

  20.0

  7.0

  2.3

  0.8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  92.8

  34.2

  34.2

  15.9

  5.8

  1.9

  0.8

  East Midlands

  64.0

  23.6

  23.1

  11.4

  4.3

  1.1

  0.5

  West Midlands

  83.7

  30.3

  28.6

  15.3

  6.3

  2.1

  1.0

  Eastern

  52.0

  19.4

  18.6

  8.6

  3.9

  1.0

  0.6

  London

  60.2

  21.6

  20.3

  11.2

  4.7

  1.4

  0.9

  South East

  71.9

  26.1

  25.2

  13.1

  5.2

  1.7

  0.6

  South West

  62.4

  23.0

  22.0

  11.8

  4.4

  0.6

  0.6

  Wales

  49.3

  19.4

  18.1

  8.3

  2.8

  0.5

  *0.2

  Scotland

  80.0

  36.0

  28.6

  11.2

  3.2

  0.8

  *0.2

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred. Figures marked "*" are subject to a high degree of sampling error and should only be used as a guide to the current situation.

  2. Cases are allocated to each Government Office Region by matching the postcode against the 1999 version of the Postcode Directory.

  3. Children are defined as aged 0–18.

  Source:

  Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what new instructions have been issued regarding counting money in claimants' current accounts as capital for the purpose of determining entitlement to housing benefit. [92575]

  Angela Eagle
  We have not issued any new instructions regarding counting money in claimants' current accounts as capital for the purpose of determining entitlement to Housing Benefit. The policy remains that all holdings with a clear monetary value are treated as a claimant's capital. This includes the amount held in their current account after offsetting any amounts of income paid into the account used in the assessment of Housing Benefit entitlement.

  Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent studies have been commissioned by the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board relating to the needs of severely and profoundly deaf people; and what recommendations from those studies his Department has acted on. [92562]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board (DLAAB) is an advisory body and does not itself commission work. However, in 1998 the Board was commissioned by the Department of Social Security to undertake a study on deafness in children and young adults. This work will be completed shortly.

  In addition, the Department more recently commissioned the Board to undertake a study of deaf-blind people who had claimed DLA. The Department is currently acting on certain findings arising from this work, in particular recommendations on improving evidence gathering on claims from deaf-blind people and on the need to increase the understanding of the problems arising from the combination of deafness and blindness amongst those responsible for administrating Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance.
  106
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many members of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board are (a) deaf and (b) have a professional specialism in hearing impairment. [92563]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board has one member who has a severe hearing impairment. She is consultant psychiatrist in mental health services for deaf people and has been a trustee of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People since 1996.

  Benefits (Scotland)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, for each state benefit, he will forecast the number of claimants and total cost by benefit for Scotland for the next three years together with forecasts for(a) Scotland'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 Scotland. [92390]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on 23 July 1999,Official Report, column 673.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the level of spending on social security in Scotland 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) Scotland'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 Scotland. [92389]

  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. An estimate of Social Security Benefit Expenditure in Scotland in the past five years can be found in the table.
  107
  Estimated Social Security benefit expenditure in Scotland (and as a percentage of Great Britain expenditure)

  Year

  Expenditure (£ million)

  Percentage

  1994–95

  7,970

  10.0

  1995–96

  8,300

  9.9

  1996–97

  8,680

  9.9

  1997–98

  8,920

  10.0

  1998–99

  9,120

  10.0

  Notes:

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

  2. Expenditure figures have been rounded to nearest £10 million.

  Source:

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

  Pensions
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the difference was in each year since 1980 between the amount by which pensions would have increased for married couples, with the spouse as a dependent adult, if they had been based on(a) the retail prices index and (b) average earnings. [92485]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table. Information is also provided on what the rate would have been if the link uprating by the higher of earnings or prices had been retained.

  Basic pension for married couples including dependency increase

  £s per week

  Uprating date

  Actual rate paid increased by Retail Prices Index

  Rate if increased by higher of earnings or prices

  Rate if increased by AverageEarnings

  November 1980

  43.45

  43.45

  43.45

  November 1981

  47.35

  48.40

  48.40

  November 1982

  52.55

  52.45

  53.75

  November 1983

  54.50

  57.00

  58.40

  November 1984

  57.30

  59.85

  61.35

  November 1985

  61.30

  65.05

  66.70

  July 1986

  61.95

  68.00

  69.75

  April 1987

  63.25

  71.85

  73.65

  April 1988

  65.90

  77.45

  79.40

  April 1989

  69.80

  84.25

  86.35

  April 1990

  75.10

  92.40

  94.75

  April 1991

  83.25

  101.20

  105.05

  April 1992

  86.70

  108.90

  113.05

  April 1993

  89.80

  114.10

  118.50

  April 1994

  92.10

  117.65

  122.15

  April 1995

  94.10

  121.65

  126.30

  April 1996

  97.75

  125.05

  131.25

  April 1997

  99.80

  130.30

  136.75

  April 1998

  103.40

  135.65

  142.35

  April 1999

  106.70

  142.30

  149.30

  Notes:

  1. The Retail Prices Index (all items) has been used as published by the Office for National Statistics

  2. Average Earnings Index Whole Economy (Non Seasonally Adjusted) as published by the Office for National Statistics

  3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 5 pence at each uprating

  4. Figures based on a man plus a dependent wife both aged under age 80 where the man has 100 per cent. entitlement

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Opinion of the Advocate General in the 108
  case of Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS and Others (Case Number C78/98) will be published; and what is the reason for the delay. [92536]

  Mr. Timms
  The European Court of Justice has indicated that the Advocate General is due to issue his opinion on 14 September 1999 in the case of Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others (case number C78/98).

  The Advocate General had been expected to issue his opinion on the case on 6 July 1999. The date on which an opinion is issued is a matter for the Advocate General. We are unaware of the reason for the delay on this particular case.

  Lone Parents
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the impact of the New Deal on the incomes of lone parents who have been helped into work. [92473]

  Angela Eagle
  The New Deal for Lone Parents provides practical help and advice for lone parents on Income Support who want to make the move into work. Since it was launched, the service has helped over 16,500 lone parents into work.

  In addition, a range of new measures will mean that lone parents will be even better off in work. Key initiatives include; the National Minimum Wage; the new 10p starting rate of income tax, from which people on low incomes gain up to £2.88 a week; and the Working Families Tax Credit which, from October, will guarantee a minimum income of £200 a week for every family in full-time work.

  Analysis of benefit administration data for a sample of around 300 lone parents who moved into work and on to Family Credit following participation in the New Deal for Lone Parents as at March 1998 showed that they were, on average, £40 a week better off.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) new claims of invalidity benefit were made in each year since 1995, (b) exits from incapacity benefit to other work or benefits were made in each year since 1995 and (c) claimants of incapacity benefit were resident in each local authority in (i) Tyne and Wear, (ii) the counties of Northumberland and Durham, and (iii) the area covered by the former county of Cleveland in each year since 1995. [92225]

  Mr. Bayley
  The number of new claims which resulted in an award of Incapacity Benefit, and the number of people leaving Incapacity Benefit for each year since it was introduced in April 1995 are set out in the table.

  The main reasons for leaving Incapacity Benefit are receipt of a medical certificate advising that the recipient can return to work, a decision by the adjudication officer that the person does not satisfy the medical test of incapacity (the all work test) and the award of State Retirement Pension. It is estimated that every year about 100,000 people who have been sick for 28 weeks or more

  109
  leave Incapacity Benefit voluntarily for work. However, detailed information on the destinations of Incapacity Benefit leavers is not routinely collected and it is not known how many actually return to work in any year.

  Incapacity Benefit recipients

  Spells commencing

  Spells Terminating

  13 April 1995 to 31 March 1996

  508,600

  558,900

  1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997

  514,100

  568,000

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  481,600

  560,200

  Incapacity Benefit Recipients by County, Metropolitan or Unitary Authority North-East

  29 February 1996

  28 February 1997

  28 February 1998

  Tyne & Wear

  Gateshead

  12,351

  13,241

  10,901

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  12,554

  13,661

  11,348

  North Tyneside

  9,487

  9,729

  8,511

  South Tyneside

  8,612

  9,294

  7,700

  Sunderland

  19,116

  20,049

  16,581

  Durham

  Chester-le-Street

  3,007

  3,300

  2,736

  Darlington

  3,860

  4,185

  3,323

  Derwentside

  5,363

  6,138

  4,944

  Durham

  4,307

  4,600

  3,629

  Easington

  11,234

  12,169

  9,913

  Sedgefield

  5,972

  6,501

  5,615

  Teesdale

  772

  883

  730

  Wear Valley

  3,859

  4,202

  3,690

  Northumberland

  Alnwick

  1,016

  1,278

  952

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  995

  859

  709

  Blyth Valley

  3,982

  4,416

  3,365

  Castle Morpeth

  1,666

  1,998

  1,621

  Tynedale

  1,768

  1,931

  1,641

  Wansbeck

  3,901

  4,418

  3,427

  Former County of Cleveland

  Hartlepool UA

  6,095

  6,294

  5,391

  Middlesborough UA

  7,232

  7,455

  6,223

  Redcar & Cleveland UA

  8,309

  9,031

  7,036

  Stockton-on-Tees UA

  7,862

  8,548

  7,052

  Notes:

  1. Figures are from a 5 per cent. sample of the computer and exclude a small number of cases held clerically.

  2. Figures are also subject to a rating factor to account for missing postcodes.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many winter fuel payments have been made in respect of last winter; how many of the payment cheques issued have not been cashed; and how many payments are still due to be paid; [928511

  (2) if he will list the number of winter fuel payments and their value made in each month in the current year. [928531

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of Winter Fuel Payments is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Willetts, dated 23 July 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary questions asking how many winter fuel payments (WFP) have been made in respect of last winter; how
  110
  Notes:

  1. Figures are from a 1 per cent. sample of claims to Incapacity Benefit made in Great Britain.

  2. A person may commence or leave benefit more than once during a year.

  3. Figures are for all rates of Incapacity Benefit (IB). Incapacity Benefit replaced Sickness Benefit and Invalidity Benefit from 13 April 1995.

  4. Figures for IB spells terminating during the period includes recipients who automatically transfer to State Retirement Pension.

  The table below gives the number of Incapacity Benefit recipients in local authority areas in Tyne and Wear, Durham, Northumberland and the former county of Cleveland as at the end of February each year from 1996 to 1998. Comparable figures are not available for 1995.

  many of the payment cheques have not been cashed and how many payments are still due to be paid. You also asked if he would list the number of winter fuel payments (and their value) made in each month in the year.
  I am unable to provide all of the information in the format requested, as this would only be available at disproportionate cost. The Benefits Agency (BA) does not collect statistics on the number of uncashed payments.
  Delivery of the payments was broadly similar to the previous winter and about 10 million payments were automatically issued last winter to eligible customers. This figure does not include those customers who were identified as entitled to a WFP at a later date because of a retrospective award of a qualifying benefit or those whose benefits were maintained clerically.
  Approximately 1.4 million £50 payments were issued automatically to pensioners receiving Income Support (IS) or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) by the end of November 1998. A further 8.6 million £20 or £10 payments were issued to other eligible pensioners by the end of January 1999. Around 3.4 million of the £20 or £10 payments were issued via Automated Credit Transfer to the customer's bank account, 5.2 million were

  111
  sent to Post Offices for issue along with the weekly pension payment and the remainder issued via girocheque or payable order directly to the customer's address.
  BA records indicate that payments have been issued to all customers where the information held suggested entitlement. BA offices will investigate claims from customers who may have expected a payment, but did not receive one, if they contact the office which normally deals with their pension or benefit.
  Approximately 113,000 of the payments issued to Post Offices were returned to BA offices without being cashed. Staff investigated the reason for non-collection (for example, death of the pensioner or prolonged hospitalisation); the vast majority of these have now been re-issued.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the numbers of (a) single pensioners and (b) married couple pensioners in each year since 1980. [92486]

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

  Retirement pensioners by gender November 1980 to March1999 Millions

  Men and Women

  Men

  Women

  November 1980

  9.1

  3.2

  5.9

  June 1981

  9.2

  3.2

  6.0

  May 1982

  9.4

  3.2

  6.1

  March 1983

  9.4

  3.2

  6.2

  March 1984

  9.5

  3.2

  6.3

  March 1985

  9.6

  3.2

  6.4

  March 1986

  9.8

  3.3

  6.5

  September 1987

  9.9

  3.4

  6.6

  March 1988

  10.0

  3.4

  6.6

  March 1989

  10.0

  3.4

  6.6

  September 1990

  10.2

  3.5

  6.7

  March 1991

  10.2

  3.5

  6.7

  March 1992

  10.2

  3.5

  6.7

  March 1993

  10.2

  3.5

  6.7

  March 1994

  10.3

  3.6

  6.7

  March 1995

  10.3

  3.6

  6.7

  March 1996

  10.4

  3.7

  6.8

  March 1997

  10.6

  3.8

  6.8

  March 1998

  10.8

  3.9

  6.9

  March 1999

  10.9

  4.0

  6.9

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred thousand and shown in millions.

  2. Figures include pensioners resident in GB and overseas but exclude Northern Ireland.

  3. Figures may not total due to rounding.

  Source:

  Pensions Strategy Computer System (PSCS), 5 per cent. sample of "live" cases. Prior to March 1996 the figures are based on a 10 per cent. sample.

  Departmental Costs (Scotland)
  Mr. Salmond
  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
  112
  (c) other administrative costs for those facilities and staff based in Scotland; indicating the headquarters administration costs and the total costs for the branch network. [92357]

  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 in the format requested. For information on the Benefits Agency in Scotland, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) on 16 July 1999,Official Report, columns 349–50.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) 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; [92142]

  (2) how many appointments to public bodies were made by his Department in (a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99, broken down by (i) gender and (ii) ethnicity; and if he will make a statement. [92514]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  Details of all1 appointments made to this Department's Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs)

  1 June 1997 to 31 May 1998

  1 June 1998 to 31 May 1999

  Total

  190

  142

  Male

  119

  88

  Female

  71

  54

  Asian

  10

  3

  Other ethnic minorities

  7

  3

  1Includes appointments to the Department's Tribunal NDPBs, made by the Lord Chancellor or President of the Independent Tribunal Service.

  The overall reduction in the proportion of ethnic minority appointments made to this Department's public bodies has been caused by the fact that there have been no new non-judicial appointments to the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS). This is because ITS is to be replaced by The Appeals Service, which will only comprise of judicial appointees, on 1 April 1999. Non-judicial ITS appointments currently make up 69 per cent. of all this Department's public appointments. While effort is made to ensure social diversity on our remaining public bodies, the constitution of these bodies restricts the pool from which suitable candidates can be sought. For example, legislation governing war pensions committees stipulates that members should be drawn from ex-service organisations.We have two overall commitments for equal opportunities and public appointments:
  the equal representation of women and men, pro-rata representation of members of ethnic minority groups, and increased participation of disabled people; and
  the appointment on merit, using fair selection procedures, which recognise non-traditional career patterns as suitable qualifications for appointment.

  This Department's plan on equal opportunities was published on 25 May 1999, in the document "Quangos: Opening Up Public Appointments", and was deposited in

  113
  the Library. This plan sets objectives and robust targets for improving the representation of women from 36 per cent. towards 50 per cent., from 5.8 per cent. towards 7.5 per cent. for people from ethnic minority groups, and that people with disabilities are appropriately represented.

  Social Security (Scotland)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the additional (i) headquarters functions, (ii) buildings, (iii) computer systems and (iv) other administrative functions which would be required for a separate Scottish social security system on the basis that the system inherited his Department's staff, buildings and systems in Scotland. [92676]

  Mr. Timms
  No. Social security is a reserved matter handled on a GB-wide basis and there are no plans to change this. The information requested is therefore not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

TREASURY

  Low-paid Workers
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total cash value of(a) the extra money paid to low-paid workers as a result of the introduction of the minimum wage in 1999–2000 and (b) the increase in child benefit in 1999–2000. [91226]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]: It is not possible to give a cash value for the extra money paid to low-paid workers as a result of the introduction of the minimum wage. However, the Low Pay Commission estimated in its first report that the average increase in income for those affected by the minimum wage would be 30 per cent.

  The estimated total cash value of the increase in child benefit between 1998–99 and 1999–2000 is £0.9 billion.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Inland Revenue will begin to publicise the Working Families Tax Credit and the Disabled Person's Tax Credit. [91830]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Plans are already in hand to launch a high profile publicity campaign in early September. The campaign will consist of TV and national press advertising, leaflets and posters.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to instruct the Inland Revenue to consult with pension providers in respect of the proposed NIRS2 compensation package. [92146]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: The Government are considering the content of the Public Accounts Committee report, "Delays to the new National Insurance Recording System". A full response will be given to the Public Accounts Committee on all recommendations. Meanwhile, the Inland Revenue is in regular contact with the pensions industry.

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if staff at the Contributions Agency aged 60 years or over were allowed to continue in employment on a year-to-year basis until the age of 65, prior to the Agency's transfer from the Department of Social Security. [92202]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In July 1996, the Contributions Agency (CA) advised its staff that they were considering changing the normal retirement age because the Agency was faced with a need to reduce staff numbers. After lengthy consultation with Trade Union Side, the CA gave notice in August 1997 that with effect from 31 July 1998 the normal retirement age for all staff would be 60. As a transitional measure, people could be retained for up to 12 months, but not beyond age 62 for people at pay bands B2 and B3 (equivalent to Executive Officer level); and not beyond age 65 for people in pay bands up to and including B1 (equivalent to Administrative Officer level). No extensions of service were to be given beyond 31 July 1999.

  Tobacco Products
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the tax revenue raised from tobacco products in 1998. [92240]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The amount of tax revenue (excise duty and VAT) raised from tobacco products in 1998 was £10,090 million.

  Value Added Tax has been estimated from Office for National Statistics figures for household final consumption expenditure on tobacco.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the sums paid to the Exchequer by political parties reimbursing the Government for the cost of services supplied by special advisers to backbenchers of the governing party(a) from 1 May 1987 to 1 May 1997 and (b) since 1 May 1997. [92074]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 21 July 1999]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which the Prime Minister gave him today.

  National Assembly for Wales
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish, before the summer adjournment, the most recent draft of the concordat between the Treasury and the National Assembly for Wales. [92327]

  Mr. Milburn
  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.

  VAT (Labour-intensive Services)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Commission's current proposals regarding the application of VAT on labour-intensive services. [92831]
  115
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Commission's proposal, which provides for Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain local labour-intensive services on an experimental basis, is still under discussion in a Council working group. Member States have been asked to draw up a list of services which would be covered by the measure but no agreement has yet been reached.

  Smuggling
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans there are for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to purchase x-ray machines capable of screening articulated lorries and containers to assist in combating illegal immigration and alcohol and tobacco smuggling; and if he will make a statement. [92768]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are currently no plans for such purchases.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what funds have been allocated in(a) the present financial year and (b) in 2000–01 for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to purchase x-ray machines capable of screening articulated lorries and containers to assist in combating alcohol and tobacco smuggling. [92769]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such funds have been allocated in the present financial year. Funding plans for 2000–01 have not yet been finalised.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the revenue value of detected alcohol and tobacco fraud and smuggling for each of the last three financial years from(a) sources within the EU, (b) sources outside the EU and (c) diversion fraud. [92765]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that Customs do not hold records that differentiate between sources within and sources outside the EU.

  The revenue value of smuggled tobacco and alcohol products detected by Customs for the last three financial years has been:

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Smuggled

  29

  76

  140

  Diversion Fraud

  No comparable figures

  207

  245

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the target levels for the present financial year for the detection of alcohol and tobacco fraud and smuggling; and what progress has been made in achieving these target levels in the first three months of the current financial year. [92766]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs targets for the detection of alcohol and tobacco smuggling and fraud for the present financial year are:
  to detect alcohol and tobacco fraud and smuggling to the revenue value of £307 million, and to disrupt or dismantle 25 major excise smuggling organisations.
  Data in respect of our performance against these targets during the first three months of the year (April-June) are still being collated and validated. However, the emerging results are encouraging and, if this pattern continues, Customs consider they are on course to achieve the targets by the end of 1999–2000.
  116
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) fines, (b) charges and (c) convictions have resulted each year since 1 January 1990 from the (i) detection of fraud and (ii) detection of misdeclaration of goods on (1) cigarettes, (2) hand rolling tobacco, (3) cigars, (4) spirits, (5) cider, (6) fortified wines, (7) wine and (8) beer entering the United Kingdom. [92764]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that central records are not kept in this format.

  Excise Goods
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are(a) in place and (b) planned to prevent the purchase of non-duty paid excise goods through the internet. [92767]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise are aware of the risks from this form of smuggling. Staff at postal and courier depots have been alerted and Customs are looking separately at the wider issues involved.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those proposals for private finance initiatives for each department of state made since 1 May 1997, stating for each the proposed(a) contribution from private finance and (b) date of commencement; and if he will list in each case whether the sums involved count against the ceilings for public investment set by the Treaty of Maastricht. [92771]

  Mr. Milburn
  (a) Table 1 gives the details underpinning Table B 16 of 1999 FSBR covering PFUPPP projects signed from 1 May 1997 to 1 April 1999. Under PFI, the public sector contracts for services not assets, and capital investment is only one of the activities undertaken by the private sector in order to supply these services. The figures in Table 1 therefore do not reflect the total value of these contracts, but do reflect Treasury estimates of capital expenditure by the private sector.

  (b) Table 2 shows a list and start dates of those projects which the Treasury has been informed are operational.

  Table 1: PFI/PPP projects signed since 1 May 1997 (as at 1 April 1999)

  £ million

  Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  LB Islington (LA)

  22

  Kent IT (LA)

  7

  Harrow (IT) LA

  1

  Isle of Wight Waste Mgt (LA)

  13

  Kirklees Waste Mgt (LA)

  33

  LU Power

  108

  LU Prestige

  222

  Luton Airport Parkway

  20

  Brent Street Lighting (LA)

  8

  Hereford and Worcester Waste (LA)

  57

  NE Derbys Social Housing (LA) (0.4)

  n/a

  Berwick on Tweed Soc Housing (LA)

  2

  Lambeth Vehicles (LA)

  10

  Manchester Energy (LA)

  4

  Tower Hamlets HAT (LA)

  23

  Sheffield Offices (LA)

  28

  Total

  558

  117

  Table 1: PFI/PPP projects signed since 1 May 1997 (as at 1 April 1999)

  £ million

  Defence

  AFPAA (IT)

  150

  DFTS

  70

  Army Mail

  11

  MSHATF

  100

  Hawk Simulator

  10

  Tidworth Water and Sewage

  6

  Joint Service College

  68

  Attack Helicopter Training

  165

  Yeovilton (Family Quarters)

  8

  RAF Lossiemouth (Family Quarters)

  24

  RAF Lyneham Sewage

  5

  RAF Mail

  12

  RAF Fylingdales (Power Station)

  7

  RAF Basic Training (Bulldog Replacement)

  30

  RAF Cosford/RAF Shawbury (Family Quarters)

  13

  Fire Fighting Training Unit

  35

  Total

  714

  Scotland

  Mearnskirk Hospital (Geriatric Beds)

  2

  Dundee Hospital Energy Mgt System

  3

  Baldovie Waste/energy (LA)

  43

  HM Prison Kilmarnock

  32

  Dundee Teaching Hospital (Parking)

  3

  Highlands and Islands Airport

  10

  Hairmyres Hospital

  68

  Law Hospital

  100

  Highland Council (IT)

  13

  SCRA Integrated Info System

  3

  Falkirk (LA)

  65

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary

  180

  Education IT (Moray Council)

  6

  Edinburgh 60 (Care of Elderly) Beds

  2

  Almond Valley Seafield Sewage

  140

  Cumnock Community Hospital

  9

  Inverness Psychiatric Unit

  17

  North Ayrshire College Kilwinning

  9

  Perth and Kinross Office Accommodation

  15

  West Lothian (Elderly) Beds

  2

  Other Scottish Health

  10

  Total

  732

  Department of Trade and Industry

  National Physical Laboratory

  82

  High Performance Computing Project (IT)

  17

  ELGAR

  26

  RA Strategic Partnership

  14

  Total

  139

  Wales

  Chepstow Community Hospital

  8

  A55

  112

  Total

  120

  Department for Social Security

  Prime

  350

  Total

  350

  Home Office

  Prisons Energy

  36

  Prisons Catering

  5

  2 Passport Agency Contracts

  30

  Wiltshire Police (LA)

  3

  Total

  158

  Agecroft prison (Forest Bank)

  55

  Pucklechurch Prison

  30

  Rainsbrook (Onley) STC

  5

  Derby (Ilkeston) Police Station (LA)

  4

  Northumbria Police (LA)

  2

  118

  Table 1: PFI/PPP projects signed since 1 May 1997 (as at 1 April 1999)

  £ million

  Hassockfield (Medomsley) STC

  10

  Greater Manchester Fire Station (LA)

  5

  Thames Valley Police HQ (LA)

  10

  Derbyshire Police HQ

  27

  Mid Glamorgan Wales Probation (LA)

  4

  Total

  226

  Health

  Carlisle

  65

  Dartford and Gravesham

  94

  Norfolk and Norwich

  144

  South Bucks

  45

  North Durham

  61

  Greenwich

  84

  Oxleas

  18

  Calderdale

  65

  Oxfordshire Mental Health Trust

  9

  Bromley Healthcare

  118

  South Manchester University Hospital

  66

  Mayday Healthcare

  8

  Black Country Mental Health

  6

  Barnet General Hospital (Wellhouse)

  54

  Surrey CC residental homes (LA)

  29

  LB Westminster residential (LA)

  4

  Worcester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  85

  Harrow Health (LA)

  4

  Bay Community NHS Trust

  7

  Eastern Regional Office Fulborn

  10

  Thames Gateway NHS Trust

  6

  Leeds Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

  5

  Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust

  62

  Total

  1,049

  Department for Further Education and Employment

  Employment Service IT (IT)(ES)

  116

  University College London (HE)

  28

  Kings College London (HE)

  142

  University of Durham (HE)

  0

  Falmouth College of Arts (HE)

  3

  Hammersmith and West London College (FE)

  2

  Runshaw College (Adult Education) (FE)

  2

  Tynemouth College (FE)

  0

  Wyggeston and QE Sports Centre

  2

  Waltham Forest (LA)

  1

  Hull Primary School (LA)

  2

  Hillingdon School (LA)

  18

  Colfox School (LA)

  15

  Clarendon College (FE)

  17

  Dudley LEA (LA) IT

  26

  Portsmouth New School (LA)

  12

  Enfield New School (LA)

  16

  Lewisham Schools Catering (LA)

  4

  ES IT Partnership (IT) (ES)

  6

  South Thames College

  3

  Total

  415

  Inland Revenue

  Longbenton

  120

  Edinburgh

  10

  Glasgow

  10

  Stockport

  6

  Bootle

  12

  Total

  158

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  English Heritage/RCHME/HSIS

  2

  Total

  2

  119

  Table 1: PFI/PPP projects signed since 1 May 1997 (as at 1 April 1999)

  £ million

  Lord Chancellors Department (Including the Northern Ireland Court Service)

  ARAMIS

  30

  Northern Ireland Courts

  30

  Total

  60

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Berlin Embassy

  17

  2 small vehicle service contracts

  3

  Total

  20

  Northern Ireland Departments

  PLANAPS IT System

  1

  Belfast Hospital Renal Unit

  3

  Royal Group of Hospitals Equipment

  2

  Contract Energy Services (Craigavon) (0.5)

  0

  Renal Dialysis Facilities (0.3)

  0

  Training and Employment

  7

  Clinical Waste Disposal

  4

  Table 2: Operational PF1 projects signed since 1 May 1997

  Project name

  Department

  Start date

  ES IT

  DfEE/ES

  May 1998

  Agecroft Prison

  Home Office

  —

  Hull Primary Schools

  DfEE/LA

  January 1999

  Dudley Schools IT

  DfEE/LA

  January/February 1999

  Lewisham Schools—catering contract

  DfEE/LA

  February 1999

  Falmouth College of Arts—student housing

  DfEE

  September 1998

  King's College London—UMDS

  DfEE

  July 1999

  Stockport Accommodation

  Inland Revenue

  April 1999

  Manchester Accommodation

  Inland Revenue

  August 1998

  Edinburgh Accommodation

  Inland Revenue

  December 1998

  Glasgow Accommodation

  Inland Revenue

  December 1998

  PRIME

  Department of Social Security

  April 1998

  Customs Duty
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue has been collected each year since 1 January 1990 in (a) customs duty and (b) indirect tax from (i) cigarettes, (ii) hand rolling tobacco, (iii) cigars, (iv) spirits, (v) cider, (vi) fortified wines, (vii) wine and (viii) beer entering the United Kingdom by (1) post and (2) private carrier. [92770]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The table provides details of Excise Revenue for Post for the calendar years 1993–1998. Earlier information is not available. This does not include VAT and Customs Duty, which are not readily available. Excise duties are recorded as a global sum; the breakdown in the table is based on samples of goods imported.

  Import duty schedule: net receipts

  £000

  Calendar year

  Tobacco

  Spirit

  Wine

  Total

  1993

  15

  1

  2

  18

  1994

  44

  2

  6

  52

  1995

  94

  4

  13

  111

  1996

  131

  6

  18

  155

  1997

  140

  6

  19

  165

  1998

  144

  6

  20

  170

  120

  Table 1: PFI/PPP projects signed since 1 May 1997 (as at 1 April 1999)

  £ million

  Laboratory IT System (0.8)

  1

  Accruals Accounting Payroll System IT

  3

  Kinnegar Sewage

  13

  Total

  34

  National Savings

  IT System

  100

  Total

  100

  Serious Fraud Office

  Document management IT

  4

  Total

  4

  Overall total

  4,681

  Note:

  Local Government Figures-Projects shown are for additional Central Government revenue There are no ceilings for public investment set by the Treaty of Maastricht.

  Table 2: Operational PFI projects signed since 1 May 1997

  There are no ceilings for public investment set by Treaty of Maastricht.

  It is assumed that private carrier means fast parcel operators, for which the revenue is not separately recorded.

  Duty Free
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 March 1999,Official Report, column 859–60, if he is able to estimate the increased revenue to the Treasury as a result of the abolition of duty free shopping for this financial year and the next. [93160]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have estimated that the abolition of duty free sales within Europe could yield £120 million in revenue receipts in a full year, but this does depend entirely on how the companies providing the services seize on the new commercial opportunities that are now open to them. This estimate will be kept under review as further information on the marketing strategies of the operators becomes available.

  Duty Differentials
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce the duty differential on (a) beer, (b) spirits and (c) tobacco between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Community. [93141]

  Mrs. Roche
  Any changes to the levels of UK alcohol and tobacco duties is a matter for the Chancellor's Budget deliberations.

  VAT rates in the European Community (standard rates and reduced rates; and main items subject to reduced rates')

  Percentage

  Member state

  Standard rate

  Reduced rate

  Austria

  20

  10—Food; books; newspapers public transport

  Belgium

  21

  12—Food (coal only); social housing

  6—Food; books; public transport; water supplies

  0—Newspapers

  Denmark

  25

  0—Daily newspapers

  Finland

  22

  17—Food

  8—Pharmaceuticals; public transport

  0—Newspapers

  France

  20.6

  5.5—Food; public transport; pharmaceuticals; books

  2.1—Newspapers

  Germany

  16

  7—Food; books and newspapers; local public transport

  Greece

  18

  8—Food; public transport; pharmaceuticals

  4—Books and newspapers

  Ireland

  21

  12.5—Domestic fuel and power; newspapers; new housing

  0—Food; books; pharmaceuticals

  Italy

  20

  10—Certain foods; domestic fuel and power, public transport; pharmaceuticals

  4—Basic foodstuffs; books and newspapers; certain social housing

  Luxembourg

  15

  12—Fuel (other than gas and electricity)

  6—Fuel (gas and electricity)

  3—Food; books and newspapers; pharmaceuticals

  Netherlands

  17.5

  6—Food; books and newspapers; public transport; water supplies pharmaceuticals

  Portugal

  17

  12—Certain foods

  5—Food; books and newspapers; public transport; water supplies; hotels; pharmaceuticals

  Spain

  16

  7—Food; water supplies; public transport

  4—Basic foodstuffs; books and newspapers; pharmaceuticals

  Sweden

  25

  12—Food

  6—Newspapers

  United Kingdom

  17.5

  5—Domestic fuel and power

  0—Food; books and newspapers; public transport; children's clothing; new housing;water and sewerage services; pharmaceuticals; aids for the disabled; charities

  1Taken from European Commission Document XXI/148/98—EN 'VAT rates applied in the Member States of the European Community'

  Compliance Costs
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reductions were achieved in the compliance costs of regulation administered by his Department, its public bodies and by other departments for which Treasury Ministers are responsible for the last year for which data is available; what mechanisms exist for monitoring the post-implementation compliance costs of such regulation; and if he has established targets for reduction in the compliance costs of regulation administered by his Department and its public bodies and by other Departments for which Treasury Ministers are responsible. [92316]

  Mrs. Roche
  Details of regulations that imposed compliance costs on business are published in the Chancellor's Departments' regulatory impact assessments and laid in both Houses. A summary of all the regulatory impact assessments published by the Chancellor's
  122
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rates of VAT in each of the member states of the European Union for each of the main commodities and services. [93125]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The table details the standard and reduced rates of VAT in each member state and the main commodities and services subject to a reduced rate.

  Departments and the other regulatory Departments in Whitehall is published every six months in a White Paper, and is available on a monthly basis on the Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit's website.

  There is no arbitrary target for reducing the compliance cost of regulation. However, all Departments are required to make an assessment of the risks, costs and benefits of any regulatory proposal that has an impact on businesses, charities and voluntary bodies before they decide to act. Without an assessment of this kind, there can be no collective agreement of a regulatory proposal.

  Economic and Finance Council
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Minister from his Department has attended each of the meetings of the European Council of Finance Ministers held in 1999 to date. [93173]
  123
  Ms Hewitt
  Attendance at the meetings of the Economic and Finance Council of Ministers held in 1999 to date, is set out as follows:

  Date

  18 January

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer

  8 February

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer

  15 March

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself

  10 May

  Myself

  25 May

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Paymaster General

  12 July

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Migration (North-East)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the level of net migration from each local authority area in Tyne and Wear and the counties of Durham and Northumberland in each of the past five years, separately identifying net migration (a) within and (b) outside the North East. [92462]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 26 July 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question for an estimate of the level of net migration from each local authority area in Tyne and Wear and the counties of Durham and Northumberland.
  The estimates of net migration are not sufficiently reliable to be published as a separate component of the total population estimate for each local authority. It is not, therefore, our policy to release them.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how often and when the definition of unemployment used for measuring unemployment has been changed since 1979. [92556]

  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. Austin Mitchell, dated 26 July 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the definition of unemployment.
  The ONS measure of unemployment, derived from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and counts as unemployed people who are: a) without a paid job; b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained. The LFS has used the ILO definition since 1984. Prior to this a slightly different definition was used. This included people who were without a paid job who were looking for work in the reference week, or prevented from seeking work by temporary sickness or holiday, or were waiting to start a job they had already obtained or were waiting for the results of a job application. Full-time students who were seeking work but who were not available to start work in the next two weeks because they had to complete their education were excluded. The definition was used from spring 1979 to spring 1983.
  124
  The Labour Force Survey measure of unemployment has been compiled and published on the same definition since 1984 (annually 1984–1991; quarterly 1992 to March 1998) and a monthly moving average of each three month period from April 1998.
  The ONS also published the monthly numbers of people who are claiming unemployment related benefits, also known as the Claimant Count. There have been nine changes affecting the coverage of the monthly claimant count since 1979 which have been significant enough to warrant a recasting of the consistent seasonally adjusted series. Further details of these discontinuities are given in the November 1995 edition of Labour Market Trends, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Multinationals
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of United Kingdom gross domestic product is accounted for by multinational corporations. [92680]

  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. Austin Mitchell, dated 26 July 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on multi-national corporations.
  The proportion of gross domestic product accounted for by multi-national corporations is not available.
  Some limited information on the activity of foreign owned businesses was published in an article Globalisation: scope, issues and statistics' in the November 1997 edition of Economic Trends, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library. This article included:
  information on the proportion of net output accounted for by foreign-owned manufacturing enterprises derived from the Annual Census of Production;
  estimates of the proportion of turnover and persons employed accounted for by foreign owned businesses involved in certain service industries.

  Foreign Investment
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of total investment in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) the Australian and (c) the New Zealand economy was accounted for by gross foreign direct investments in each year since 1970. [92682]

  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. Austin Mitchell, date 26 July 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on foreign direct investment.
  The proportion of foreign direct investment in the UK of total investment over the last ten years, expressed as a percentage is:

  1989: 16.7

  1990: 16.2

  1991: 8.7

  1992: 9.2

  1993: 10.2

  1994: 5.7

  1995: 11.1

  1996: 13.2

  1997: 16.9

  1998: 26.2

  125
  More information can be found on the ONS databank available through the House of Commons library. The ONS does not publish information for Australia and New Zealand, although data are published in the OECD publication International Direct Investment Yearbook 1998, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Money Trading
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was traded on a daily basis on average (a) on the UK foreign exchanges and (b) in the rest of the world in each year since 1979. [92565]

  Ms Hewitt
  Average daily turnover during April in foreign exchange spot, forwards, and swaps is set out in the table:

  $ billions

  1989

  1992

  1995

  1998

  UK

  184

  291

  464

  637

  Rest of World

  534

  785

  1,108

  1,345

  These are estimates derived from triennial surveys coordinated by the Bank for International Settlements since 1989.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Excheuer what proportion and number of people in each of the regions to be covered by the new regional development agencies are in the age range (a) 50 to 65 years, (b) 65 to 85 years, (c) 85 and over, (d) above pensionable age and (e) above 50 years; what proportion of the population as a whole in each region these figures represent; and if he will provide figures on the same basis showing the estimated population figures for (i) 2004, (ii) 2009, (iii) 2014, (iv) 2019 and (v) 2024. [93438]

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

  Letter from John Fox to Mr. Eddie O'Hara, dated 26 July 1999:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics has been asked to reply to your recent question asking for population statistics for the new Regional Development Agencies. I am replying in Dr. Holt's absence.
  The population estimates and projections for the age-groups you have requested are given in the attached tables.
  Mid-1997 population estimates for English Regional Development Agency areas

  Population (000)

  Percentage of population

  1997

  North East

  50–64

  426.3

  16.4

  65–84

  372.9

  14.4

  85+

  42.6

  1.6

  Pensionable age

  482.4

  18.6

  Age 50+

  841.8

  32.4

  North West and Merseyside

  50–64

  1,129.6

  16.4

  65–84

  956.7

  13.9

  85+

  124.9

  1.8

  Pensionable age

  1,250.6

  18.2

  Age 50+

  2,211.3

  32.1

  126

  Mid-1997 population estimates for English Regional Development Agency areas

  Population (000)

  Percentage of population

  yorkshire and humberside

  50–64

  816.5

  16.2

  65–84

  704.8

  14.0

  85+

  93.5

  1.9

  pensionable age

  922.5

  18.3

  Age 50+

  1,614.8

  32.1

  East Midlands

  50–64

  689.2

  16.6

  65–84

  587.5

  14.1

  85+

  74.0

  1.8

  Pensionable age

  761.3

  18.3

  Age 50+

  1,350.8

  32.5

  West Midlands

  50–64

  885.8

  16.6

  65–84

  742.9

  14.0

  85+

  88.8

  1.7

  Pensionable age

  961.3

  18.1

  Age 50+

  1,717.6

  32.3

  South West

  50–64

  823.4

  16.9

  65–84

  785.4

  16.1

  85+

  118.2

  2.4

  Pensionable age

  1,027.5

  21

  Age 50+

  1,727.1

  35.4

  Eastern

  50–64

  883.9

  16.6

  65–84

  754.9

  14.2

  85+

  99.9

  1.9

  Pensionable age

  983.4

  18.4

  Age 50+

  1,738.9

  32.6

  Greater London

  50–64

  1,002.7

  14.1

  65–84

  807.4

  11.3

  85+

  121.1

  1.7

  Pensionable age

  1,072.6

  15.1

  Age 50+

  1,931.3

  27.1

  South East

  50–64

  1,307.1

  16.4

  65–84

  1,121.0

  14.1

  85+

  167.6

  2.1

  Pensionable age

  1,476.5

  18.6

  Age 50+

  2,595.8

  32.6

  1996-based subnational population projections for English Regional Development Agency areas

  Population (000)

  Percentage of population

  2004

  North East

  50–64

  464.3

  18.1

  65–84

  372.4

  14.5

  85+

  43.0

  1.7

  Pensionable age

  481.5

  18.8

  Age 50+

  879.7

  34.3

  North West and Merseyside

  50–64

  1,229.6

  17.9

  65–84

  950.9

  13.9

  85+

  122.1

  1.8

  Pensionable age

  1,251.7

  18.3

  Age 50+

  2,302.6

  33.6

  127

  1996-based subnational population projections for English Regional Development Agency areas

  Population Percentage of (000) population

  Population Percentage of

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  50–64

  901.4

  17.7

  65–84

  708.3

  13.9

  85+

  93.7

  1.8

  Pensionable age

  930.1

  18.3

  Age 50+

  1,703.4

  33.5

  East Midlands

  50–64

  785.9

  18.4

  65–84

  607.5

  14.2

  85+

  77.1

  1.8

  Pensionable age

  796.8

  18.6

  Age 50+

  1,470.5

  34.3

  West Midlands

  50–64

  970.3

  18.1

  65–84

  755.7

  14.1

  85+

  93.4

  1.7

  Pensionable age

  992.1

  18.5

  Age 50+

  1,819.4

  34.0

  South West

  50–64

  963.1

  19.1

  65–84

  813.1

  16.1

  85+

  123.3

  2.4

  Pensionable age

  1,079.5

  21.4

  Age 50+

  1,899.4

  37.6

  Eastern

  50–64

  1,012.3

  18.3

  65–84

  800.2

  14.5

  85+

  106.8

  1.9

  Pensionable age

  1,051.4

  19.0

  Age 50+

  1,919.3

  34.7

  Greater London

  50–64

  1,098.5

  15.1

  65–84

  764.9

  10.5

  85+

  108.2

  1.5

  Pensionable age

  1,025.4

  14.1

  Age 50+

  1,971.6

  27.1

  South East

  50–64

  1,499.3

  18.1

  65–84

  1,169.1

  14.1

  85+

  172.2

  2.1

  Pensionable age

  1,554.6

  18.8

  Age 50+

  2,840.6

  34.4

  Population Percentage of (000)

  population

  2009

  North East

  50–64

  497.8

  19.6

  65–84

  367.1

  14.4

  85+

  50.3

  2.0

  Pensionable age

  499.5

  19.6

  Age 50+

  915.1

  36.0

  North West and Merseyside

  50–64

  1,285.5

  18.8

  65–84

  957.8

  14.0

  85+

  138.7

  2

  Pensionable age

  1,312.0

  19.2

  Age 50+

  2,382.0

  34.9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  50–64

  960.3

  18.8

  128

  Population Percentage of (000)

  population

  65–84

  713.3

  13.9

  85+

  107.0

  2.1

  Pensionable age

  981.8

  19.2

  Age 50+

  1,780.6

  34.8

  East Midlands

  50–64

  833.2

  19.1

  65–84

  630.6

  14.5

  85+

  91.7

  2.1

  Pensionable age

  863.5

  19.8

  Age 50+

  1,555.5

  35.7

  West Midlands

  50–64

  1,005.7

  18.7

  65–84

  777.7

  14.5

  85+

  109.5

  2.0

  Pensionable age

  1,055.8

  19.7

  Age 50+

  1,892.9

  35.3

  South West

  50–64

  1,031.8

  20.0

  65–84

  847.1

  16.4

  85+

  144.5

  2.8

  Pensionable age

  1,175.3

  22.8

  Age 50+

  2,023.4

  39.2

  Eastern

  50–64

  1,078.0

  19.1

  65–84

  836.1

  14.8

  85+

  127.5

  2.3

  Pensionable age

  1,152.2

  20.4

  Age 50+

  2,041.6

  36.1

  Greater London

  50–64

  1,206.5

  16.3

  65–84

  754.8

  10.2

  85+

  113.9

  1.5

  Pensionable age

  1,053.3

  14.2

  Age 50+

  2,075.1

  28.0

  South East

  50–64

  1,602.9

  18.9

  65–84

  1,219.2

  14.4

  85+

  198.0

  2.3

  Pensionable age

  1,692.0

  20.0

  Age 50+

  3,020.0

  35.7

  Population (000)

  Percentage of population

  2014

  North East

  50–64

  518.5

  20.5

  65–84

  400.5

  15.9

  85+

  52.9

  2.1

  Pensionable age

  532.2

  21.1

  Age 50+

  972.0

  38.5

  North West and Merseyside

  50–64

  1,341.0

  19.7

  65–84

  1,056.7

  15.5

  85+

  142.7

  2.1

  Pensionable age

  1,398.1

  20.5

  Age 50+

  2,540.4

  37.3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  50–64

  1,011.9

  19.6

  65–84

  794.7

  15.4

  85+

  110.5

  2.2

  Pensionable age

  1,054.2

  20.5

  Age 50+

  1,917.1

  37.2

  129

  Population (000)

  Percentage of population

  East Midlands

  50–64

  871.2

  19.7

  65–84

  716.9

  16.2

  85+

  97.6

  2.2

  Pensionable age

  946.5

  21.4

  Age 50+

  1,685.8

  38.1

  West Midlands

  50–64

  1,047.4

  19.5

  65–84

  859.9

  16.0

  85+

  115.5

  2.1

  Pensionable age

  1,132.7

  21.0

  Age 50+

  2,022.7

  37.6

  South West

  50–64

  1,075.6

  20.4

  65–84

  971.9

  18.4

  85+

  151.9

  2.9

  Pensionable age

  1,297.1

  24.6

  Age 50+

  2,199.3

  41.6

  Eastern

  50–64

  1,115.6

  19.3

  65–84

  963.1

  16.7

  85+

  136.3

  2.4

  Pensionable age

  1,271.1

  22.0

  Age 50+

  2,215.0

  38.4

  Greater London

  50–64

  1,365.4

  18.1

  65–84

  824.3

  10.9

  85+

  110.8

  1.5

  Pensionable age

  1,112.6

  14.7

  Age 50+

  2,300.4

  30.5

  South East

  50–64

  1,683.0

  19.5

  65–84

  1,400.1

  16.2

  85+

  207.2

  2.4

  Pensionable age

  1,859.0

  21.5

  Age 50+

  3,290.3

  38.1

  Population (000)

  Percentage of population

  2019

  North East

  50–64

  540.5

  21.5

  65–84

  426.0

  16.9

  85+

  56.0

  2.2

  Pensionable age

  565.3

  22.5

  Age 50+

  1,022.5

  40.7

  North West and Merseyside

  50–64

  1,425.3

  20.9

  65–84

  1,120.6

  16.5

  85+

  148.7

  2.2

  Pensionable age

  1,476.8

  21.7

  Age 50+

  2,694.6

  39.6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  50–64

  1,086.2

  20.9

  65–84

  850.1

  16.4

  85+

  116.0

  2.2

  Pensionable age

  1,123.1

  21.7

  Age 50+

  2,052.3

  39.6

  East Midlands

  50–64

  938.8

  20.9

  65–84

  778.3

  17.3

  85+

  104.5

  2.3

  130

  Population (000)

  Percentage of population

  Pensionable age

  1,019.5

  22.7

  Age 50+

  1,821.6

  40.5

  West Midlands

  50–64

  1,123.0

  20.8

  65–84

  915.2

  16.9

  85+

  122.7

  2.3

  Pensionable age

  1,199.1

  22.2

  Age 50+

  2,160.9

  40.0

  South West

  50–64

  1,161.0

  21.5

  65–84

  1,065.4

  19.7

  85+

  161.8

  3.0

  Pensionable age

  1,406.6

  26.0

  Age 50+

  2,388.2

  44.2

  Eastern

  50–64

  1,210.5

  20.5

  65–84

  1,046.2

  17.7

  85+

  147.7

  2.5

  Pensionable age

  1,373.3

  23.3

  Age 50+

  2,404.3

  40.8

  Greater London

  50–64

  1,520.2

  19.8

  65–84

  880.9

  11.5

  85+

  112.4

  1.5

  Pensionable age

  1,193.1

  15.5

  Age 50+

  2,513.4

  32.7

  South East

  50–64

  1,837.4

  20.8

  65–84

  1,521.5

  17.2

  85+

  221.8

  2.5

  Pensionable age

  2,007.9

  22.7

  Age 50+

  3,580.8

  40.5

  Public Appointments
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appointments to public bodies were made by his Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99, broken down by (i) gender and (ii) ethnicity; and if he will make a statement. [92513]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government announced in their publication "Quangos—Opening up Public Appointments 1999–2002" (copies deposited in the Libraries of both Houses) their commitment to the equal representation of women and men in public appointments and a pro rata representation of members of ethnic minority groups. In moving towards achieving these commitments, the Chancellor's departments have set an ambitious overall goal that women should form a minimum of 40 per cent. of appointments to Chancellor's Departments' Public Bodies by 2003 (or for small bodies that at least one appointment should be held by a woman). There is also a goal that each of the Chancellor's Departments' Public Bodies should include at least one appointment from a member of the ethnic minorities by 2003 and that ethnic minorities should account for a minimum of 4 per cent. of appointments to larger bodies. The following table gives details of appointments made to NDPB's of the Chancellor's departments and agencies over the periods requested. Information on the number of appointments by both gender and ethnic origin cannot be provided since the number of new appointments in each category is less than five.
  131

  NDPB

  Appointments 1997–98

  Appointments 1998–99

  Policy Holders Protection Board

  4

  1

  Royal Mint Advisory Committee

  3

  2

  Statistics Advisory Committee

  2

  0

  Social Security Contributions
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the forecast levels of social security contributions for(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland for each of the next three years. [92391]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on 23 July 1999,Official Report, column 699.

  Social Security Contributions (Scotland)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the level of social security contributions in Scotland over each of the last five years(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of the United Kingdom total. [92388]
  132
  Dawn Primarolo
  The available estimates of the share of National Insurance contributions made by Scottish residents are based on a 1 per cent. sample of National Insurance records in respect of employees. The latest information available is given in the table:

  Estimated Scottish share of UK total Percentage

  Scottish estimate £ billion

  1994–95

  8.7

  3.7

  1995–96

  8.6

  3.8

  1996–97

  9.0

  4.2

WALES

  Primary School Funding
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on primary school funding in Wales. [93146]

  Mr. Hain
  This is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

CABINET OFFICE

  Office of Public Service
  Mr. Shepherd
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the Government propose to make an order in council to place the former functions of the Office of Public Service within the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Code of Practice on Open Government. [92645]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  An order-in-council restoring the Parliamentary Ombudsman's jurisdiction over the part of the Cabinet Office whose functions were formerly carried out by the Office of Public Service was approved at Her Majesty's Privy Council Meeting on 21 July. The Order, which will also bring that part of the Cabinet Office

  Date/Minister

  Location

  Meetings

  12 July-16 July 1997 Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Washington

  Janet Caldow, Institute of Electronic Government

  Larry Haas, Office of Management and Budget

  Dr. Harold C. Relyea, Library of Congress

  Dr. Thomas, Brookings

  Bob Stone, National Performance Review

  John Kamensky, National Performance Review

  Patrick Kennedy, President's Management Council

  David Barram, US General Services Admin

  Senator Sam Brownback, Chairman of the Senate Oversight of Gov. Sub-Committee

  Smartcards
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment he has made of the benefits of requiring the carrying of smartcards by persons seeking access to Government services. [91718]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  There is no intention that people should be obliged to carry smartcards to obtain general access to public services. However, the experience of the private sector shows that smartcards can be popular and effective. The Government is interested in the benefits which smartcards can offer both for secure authentication and the enhancement of privacy.

  Civil servants by Department, responsibility level1 and gender, 1 April 1998

  SCS

  G6/G7

  SEO/HEO

  EO

  AO

  AA

  Total

  Department

  M

  W

  M

  W

  M

  W

  M

  W

  M

  W

  M

  W

  M

  W

  Advisory, Conciliation & Arbitration Service

  2—

  2—

  25

  2—

  225

  143

  39

  73

  30

  97

  6

  11

  330

  328

  Agriculture

  101

  15

  568

  119

  1,753

  826

  1,515

  885

  891

  1,562

  615

  1,076

  5,443

  4,483

  Cabinet Office

  103

  28

  212

  78

  334

  137

  204

  215

  179

  318

  88

  102

  1,120

  878

  Charity Commission

  8

  2—

  19

  13

  73

  64

  65

  105

  46

  78

  27

  28

  238

  290

  Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal

  29

  5

  137

  147

  24

  25

  47

  110

  60

  193

  83

  313

  380

  793

  Crown Prosecution Service

  42

  5

  1,081

  864

  187

  228

  348

  936

  331

  994

  137

  633

  2,126

  3,660

  Culture, Media & Sport

  13

  8

  48

  24

  94

  45

  157

  81

  56

  53

  13

  19

  381

  230

  Customs and Excise

  65

  8

  363

  91

  4,912

  1,559

  5,051

  3,147

  2,376

  3,448

  1,244

  1,848

  14,011

  10,101

  Defence

  358

  26

  4,090

  351

  17,816

  3,104

  12,923

  4,479

  8,993

  12,119

  5,153

  7,785

  49,333

  27,864

  Education and Employment

  115

  35

  467

  209

  1,769

  1,431

  3,918

  9,044

  4,204

  13,229

  530

  1,006

  11,003

  24,954

  Environment, Transport & the Regions

  206

  47

  1,089

  217

  2,123

  767

  2,912

  1,148

  1,638

  3,049

  821

  1,824

  8,789

  7,052

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  16

  2—

  47

  11

  85

  27

  57

  36

  31

  41

  16

  23

  252

  140

  FCO: Diplomatic Service

  413

  30

  519

  140

  1,151

  319

  774

  622

  512

  770

  146

  98

  3,515

  1,979

  Friendly Societies, Registry of

  10

  2—

  14

  5

  31

  7

  18

  18

  13

  24

  9

  2—

  95

  57

  134
  within the remit of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, will be laid before the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many times ministers in his Department met members and officials in the United States Government between 1 May 1997 and 1 December 1997; and if he will list the dates and locations of each meeting, the ministers involved and the names of the US ministers and officials at each meeting. [90424]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Cabinet Office Ministers had the following meetings with the following members and officials in the United States Government between 1 May and 1 December 1997.

  The Central Information Technology Unit (CITU) in the Cabinet Office is currently chairing an Interdepartmental Steering Group on Smartcard Technology, which is developing a framework for their possible use in service delivery.

  Civil Servants
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many civil servants are in post in each department and grade broken down by(a) gender and (b) ethnicity. [92512]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Civil Service Statistics personnel statistics are collated and published annually by the Cabinet Office. The latest information shown in the tables, is for staff in post at 1 April 1998.
  135

  Civil servants by Department, responsibility level1 and gender, 1 April 1998

  SCS

  G6/G7

  SEO/HEO

  EO

  AO

  AA

  Total

  Department

  M

  W

  M

  W

  M

  W

  M

  W

  M

  W

  M

  W

  M

  W

  General Register Office—Scotland

  2—

  2—

  8

  2—

  34

  7

  22

  23

  14

  49

  22

  30

  100

  109

  Health

  279

  140

  498

  315

  615

  536

  344

  586

  233

  751

  140

  250

  2,109

  2,578

  Health and Safety Commission/Executive

  66

  12

  615

  75

  1,097

  454

  153

  226

  311

  836

  2—

  2—

  2,240

  1,600

  HM Prison Service

  71

  9

  475

  85

  1,454

  537

  2,486

  1,309

  19,975

  4,920

  3,971

  2,079

  28,432

  8,939

  Home Office

  85

  24

  426

  152

  1,554

  775

  2,047

  1,720

  868

  1,753

  607

  1,165

  5,587

  5,589

  Information, Central Office of

  5

  2—

  22

  14

  97

  87

  23

  15

  14

  26

  10

  7

  171

  150

  Inland Revenue

  226

  21

  2,401

  567

  5,564

  2,505

  5,800

  6,886

  5,001

  13,968

  3,725

  10,238

  22,717

  34,185

  International Development

  41

  5

  142

  35

  147

  87

  114

  95

  111

  216

  41

  53

  596

  491

  Intervention Board

  5

  2—

  26

  6

  120

  71

  124

  145

  186

  337

  43

  68

  504

  630

  Land Registry

  23

  6

  132

  56

  650

  264

  1,026

  1,518

  988

  2,520

  277

  952

  3,096

  5,316

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  45

  16

  177

  118

  643

  668

  853

  1,394

  1,572

  3,083

  656

  1,386

  3,946

  6,665

  National Savings

  9

  2—

  42

  9

  311

  219

  159

  252

  515

  1,494

  410

  982

  1,446

  2,960

  National Statistics, Office for

  25

  5

  122

  67

  347

  306

  337

  391

  309

  793

  134

  317

  1,274

  1,879

  Northern Ireland Office

  19

  2—

  17

  6

  19

  19

  12

  42

  15

  26

  13

  21

  95

  120

  Office for Standards in Education

  15

  2—

  134

  63

  29

  17

  31

  23

  23

  66

  6

  49

  238

  220

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  9

  2—

  24

  16

  41

  24

  17

  32

  9

  49

  2

  25

  100

  150

  Office of Fair Trading

  8

  5

  45

  14

  62

  42

  57

  43

  25

  70

  16

  22

  213

  196

  Office of Telecommunications

  2—

  2—

  38

  18

  33

  14

  10

  20

  2

  8

  5

  6

  92

  70

  Office of Water Services

  6

  2—

  9

  7

  23

  23

  26

  26

  10

  32

  2—

  11

  80

  100

  Ordnance Survey

  5

  2—

  40

  2—

  342

  75

  869

  206

  144

  174

  21

  18

  1,421

  477

  Public Record Office

  2—

  2—

  15

  11

  52

  39

  59

  31

  57

  64

  66

  46

  250

  190

  Registers of Scotland

  2—

  2—

  16

  6

  127

  104

  197

  221

  137

  133

  62

  109

  540

  570

  Royal Mint

  2—

  2—

  21

  2—

  108

  11

  50

  45

  29

  74

  9

  14

  220

  146

  Scottish Courts Service

  2—

  2—

  17

  2—

  109

  22

  102

  117

  63

  190

  135

  132

  430

  464

  Scottish Office

  136

  23

  426

  125

  809

  305

  527

  383

  348

  697

  397

  622

  2,643

  2,155

  Scottish Prison Service

  14

  2—

  102

  32

  771

  104

  2,050

  269

  965

  262

  114

  123

  4,016

  790

  Security and Intelligence Services

  30

  2—

  208

  19

  1,242

  259

  1,475

  515

  350

  481

  105

  250

  3,410

  1,530

  Serious Fraud Office

  7

  2—

  24

  8

  25

  12

  13

  16

  8

  22

  5

  9

  82

  70

  Social Security

  88

  36

  605

  277

  2,714

  1,971

  8,562

  13,668

  12,990

  36,684

  5,220

  10,666

  30,179

  63,302

  Trade and Industry

  197

  37

  781

  194

  1,623

  700

  906

  666

  966

  1,573

  362

  796

  4,835

  3,966

  Treasury

  67

  12

  168

  49

  154

  71

  81

  64

  59

  150

  16

  42

  545

  388

  Treasury Solicitor

  39

  8

  92

  73

  36

  31

  35

  56

  31

  51

  13

  14

  246

  233

  Welsh Office (including OHMCIS)

  53

  20

  149

  49

  264

  137

  218

  270

  163

  366

  190

  253

  1,037

  1,095

  Departments with less than 150 staff

  69

  8

  82

  38

  120

  71

  93

  69

  79

  136

  67

  73

  510

  395

  Total

  3,139

  617

  16,778

  4,785

  51,913

  19,249

  56,906

  52,241

  65,930

  108,029

  25,754

  45,597

  220,420

  230,518

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

  2 In order to preserve confidentiality number withheld and the total rounded to the nearest 10 as there are less than 5 staff at this level.

  Civil Servants by Department, responsibility level1 and ethinic origin3—1 April 1998

  SCS

  G6/G7

  SEO/HEO

  EO

  AO

  AA

  Total

  Department

  W

  EM

  W

  EM

  W

  EM

  W

  EM

  W

  EM

  W

  EM

  W

  EM

  Advisory, Conciliation & Arbitration Service

  2—

  2—

  30

  2—

  324

  9

  54

  8

  81

  18

  14

  5

  510

  40

  Agriculture, Fisheries & Food

  104

  2

  573

  11

  1,717

  50

  1,376

  53

  1,832

  144

  1,378

  140

  6,980

  400

  Cabinet Office

  84

  2

  204

  2—

  314

  7

  271

  27

  302

  46

  96

  15

  1,271

  98

  Charity Commission

  12

  2—

  26

  2—

  137

  7

  155

  20

  98

  23

  55

  19

  483

  71

  Crown Prosecution Service

  45

  2—

  1,581

  118

  328

  16

  1,098

  88

  976

  139

  494

  49

  4,522

  410

  Culture, Media & Sport

  17

  2—

  49

  2—

  83

  2—

  59

  5

  75

  16

  18

  7

  301

  33

  Customs & Excise

  70

  2—

  421

  12

  6,020

  158

  7,022

  486

  4,691

  570

  2,173

  258

  20,397

  1,490

  Defence

  333

  8

  3,717

  61

  17,476

  275

  13,784

  224

  18,059

  378

  10,878

  366

  64,247

  1,312

  Education & Employment

  105

  2—

  492

  9

  2,049

  64

  6,707

  646

  8,507

  1,426

  698

  109

  18,558

  2,250

  Environment, Transport & the Regions

  260

  2—

  1,145

  37

  2,182

  121

  3,068

  180

  3,237

  392

  1,424

  127

  11,316

  860

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  10

  2—

  36

  2—

  79

  8

  54

  10

  47

  18

  19

  11

  245

  49

  Foreign & Commonwealth Office

  387

  2—

  544

  2—

  1,195

  23

  1,071

  38

  856

  96

  134

  29

  4,187

  191

  Health

  367

  14

  760

  36

  1,036

  85

  674

  167

  892

  289

  5

  2—

  3,734

  600

  Health & Safety Executive

  73

  2—

  635

  7

  1,400

  45

  324

  26

  980

  99

  2—

  2—

  3,410

  178

  HM Prison Service

  61

  11

  521

  45

  1,493

  31

  3,227

  140

  22,437

  664

  5,039

  204

  32,778

  1,095

  Home Office

  79

  2—

  495

  8

  1,804

  62

  2,702

  278

  1,680

  503

  1,261

  286

  8,021

  1,140

  Information, Central Office of

  2—

  2—

  34

  2—

  142

  6

  22

  9

  29

  9

  14

  2—

  250

  25

  Inland Revenue

  244

  2—

  2,904

  39

  7,737

  228

  12,019

  585

  17,367

  1,274

  11,286

  1,149

  51,557

  3,280

  International Development

  25

  2—

  78

  2—

  138

  2—

  185

  14

  237

  39

  51

  10

  714

  68

  Intervention Board

  2—

  2—

  23

  2—

  130

  2—

  174

  12

  371

  42

  73

  11

  770

  67

  Land Registry

  26

  2—

  172

  2—

  833

  16

  2,294

  66

  3,083

  210

  1,092

  89

  7,500

  384

  136 137

  Civil Servants by Department, responsibility level 1 and ethnic origin 3—1 April 1998

  SCS

  G6/G7

  SEO/HEO

  EO

  AO

  AA

  Total

  Department

  W

  EM

  W

  EM

  W

  EM

  W

  EM

  W

  EM

  W

  EM

  W

  EM

  Lord Chancellors Department

  50

  2—

  274

  2—

  1,192

  36

  1,890

  196

  3,812

  536

  1,704

  161

  8,922

  933

  National Savings

  6

  2—

  43

  2—

  505

  2—

  402

  2—

  2,076

  14

  1,185

  7

  4,217

  26

  National Statistics, Office for

  32

  2—

  177

  7

  590

  24

  641

  49

  954

  77

  404

  11

  2,798

  170

  Office for Standards in Education

  11

  2—

  82

  2—

  10

  2—

  22

  2—

  18

  7

  18

  2—

  161

  18

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  9

  2—

  37

  2—

  58

  2—

  36

  8

  44

  8

  19

  6

  203

  26

  Office of Fair Trading

  8

  2—

  37

  2—

  60

  2—

  43

  26

  41

  25

  9

  13

  198

  66

  Ordnance Survey

  5

  2

  40

  2—

  363

  2—

  893

  12

  231

  2—

  19

  2—

  1,551

  20

  Royal Mint

  2—

  2—

  22

  2—

  117

  2—

  95

  2—

  102

  2—

  23

  2—

  360

  2—

  Scottish Office

  139

  2—

  436

  2—

  769

  2—

  592

  2—

  716

  5

  466

  2—

  3,118

  14

  Other Scottish Departments

  64

  2—

  348

  2—

  762

  2—

  976

  6

  1,044

  5

  915

  6

  4,109

  18

  Security & Intelligence Services

  29

  2—

  219

  2—

  1,480

  2—

  1,760

  6

  773

  2—

  440

  2—

  4,701

  14

  Serious Fraud Office

  7

  2—

  33

  2—

  31

  2—

  22

  10

  18

  2—

  9

  6

  120

  32

  Social Security

  99

  2—

  627

  21

  4,075

  65

  18,596

  855

  39,217

  3,134

  11,214

  1,029

  73,828

  5,110

  Trade & Industry

  196

  2—

  857

  22

  1,861

  131

  1,188

  157

  1,678

  414

  764

  155

  6,544

  880

  Treasury

  66

  2—

  165

  7

  171

  6

  106

  22

  145

  47

  33

  20

  686

  100

  Treasury Solicitors Department

  32

  2—

  88

  6

  38

  6

  41

  16

  41

  15

  16

  2—

  256

  45

  Welsh Office (including OHCMI)

  73

  2—

  195

  2—

  396

  2—

  477

  2—

  522

  6

  438

  2—

  2,101

  14

  Departments less than 100 with known ethnic origin

  41

  2—

  106

  6

  162

  11

  107

  28

  83

  38

  33

  17

  532

  100

  Total

  3,181

  53

  18,226

  478

  59,257

  1,527

  84,227

  4,482

  137,352

  10,744

  53,910

  4,331

  356,156

  21,620

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

  2 In order to preserve confidentiality number withheld and the total rounded to the nearest 10 as there are less than 5 staff at this level.

  3 Number of non-industrial staff who responded to departmental surveys on ethnic origin.

  Note:

  W = White, EM = Ethnic Minority

  Source:

  Mandate and Departmental Returns

  Minister without Portfolio
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what meetings the former Minister without Portfolio held with members and officials of the United States Government during his visit in January 1998 to Florida and Washington; and if he will list the date and

  Official

  Date

  Location

  Capricia Marshall, Executive Assistant to the First Lady

  5 January 1998

  The White House, Washington

  Melanne Verveer, Deputy Chief of Staff to the First Lady

  5 January 1998

  The White House, Washington

  Mark Penn, White House, pollster

  5 January 1998

  The White House, Washington

  Ellen McCullough Lovell, Director of the White House Millennium Programme

  5 January 1998

  The White House, Washington

  Gender Impact Assessment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office 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. [91677]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  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.

  Anti-drugs Co-ordinator
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many times the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator has met Ministers and officials of the Irish Government since 1 January 1998, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting and the names of the Irish Ministers and officials at each meeting. [92271]
  138
  location of each meeting and the names of the United States officials who took part in each meeting. [92285]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The itinerary of the former Minister without Portfolio shows the following meetings with United States Government officials during his visit to Florida and Washington in January 1998:

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator has not had any meetings with either Ministers or officials of the Irish Government.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what action the Government are taking to tackle age discrimination within Government departments. [92204]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Cabinet Office has this week issued "Age Diversity in the Civil Service: Guidance for Departments and Agencies".

  This Guidance is designed to help Departments and agencies to implement the Code of Practice published by the Department for Education and Employment in June. It includes advice on avoiding age and age-related criteria, such as age limits, for recruitment, selection, training and development.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Meat Inspection Charges
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the organisations which he has met to discuss meat inspection charges. [R] [90386]

  Mr. Rooker
  Since the beginning of this year, my right hon. Friend the Minister and I have separately met representatives of the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers (now the British Meat Federation) and jointly met a delegation of small plant operators led by an all-party group of hon. Members. I have also had meetings with a representative of turkey producers, the National Farmers Union, Dr. Richard North, and a further meeting with representatives of the all-party parliamentary group. With the Parliamentary Secretary, I have recently met with representatives of the Small Abattoir Federation (SAFe) and the Country Landowners Association (CLA), and with my right hon. Friend the Minister I have met with the Meat and Livestock Commission. These meetings included discussions on charging, but, with the exception of that with SAFe, they were not set up specifically for that purpose.

  In addition, all Ministers in the Department have had issues of charging raised with them when attending functions around the country.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) of 17 June 1999,Official Report, columns 216-18, on the Common Fisheries Policy, if alternative management measures include (a) the amendment of the existing quota and (b) the introduction of a permit system. [91767]

  Mr. Morley
  I have placed in the Library of the House copies of the research objectives of the study to which he refers. These include evaluation of possible adjustment of the operation of the quota system. This is not intended to affect quota share. It does not include a permit system.

  Gender Impact Assessment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [91678]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government is committed to making sure that its policies are fair and inclusive and take full account of the needs and experiences of all those affected by them.

  Although the nature of the Ministry's responsibilities means that much of its activity does not have a gender-specific impact, the Ministry has guidance in place which requires, among other things, the preparation of an impact analysis during policy development in cases where there is the possibility of differential impact on differing groups such as men and women. No formal impact assessments have been drawn up since June 1997. The women's organisations listed in the answer given by my
  140
  hon. Friend the Minister of State on 23 June 1999, Official Report, column 418, have been contacted for views on a wide range of policies, and on legislative proposals.

  Beef Premiums
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will pay 80 per cent. of the beef premium on the first instalment. [92431]

  Mr. Rooker
  The EC legislation currently specifies that the advance of the beef special premium is at 60 per cent. of the total payment. Although increases in the advance have been authorised in the past there has been no proposal to date from the Commission to increase the rate this year.

  Pigmeat
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers he has to invoke Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome to restrict the importation of pigmeat; and if he will make a statement. [92429]

  Mr. Rooker
  In certain circumstances, Article 30 (ex Article 36) of the Treaty allows the maintenance of restrictions on the free movement of goods where these can be justified for the protection of the health and life of humans or animals or on the grounds of public morality or policy. However, it is clear from Rulings by the European Court of Justice that we cannot use Article 30 to impose higher UK standards on imports where EU law has been harmonised as it has been in the case of both pigmeat and farm animal welfare.

  Lay Holdings
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy not to increase the number of lay holdings over 10 hectares owned by corporate bodies. [92430]

  Mr. Morley
  The Wash Fishery Order 1992 restricts all lay holders to a maximum holding of 10 hectares. The Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee are grantees of the Order and can allocate larger areas to lay holders only if they have obtained ministerial permission. To date, the Committee has not made a formal request to do so.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate his Department has made of the effect of the proposed climate change levy on protected horticulture; and if he will make a statement. [92298]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on 15 June 1999 Official Report, column 118.

  Defensive Labelling
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to minimise defensive labelling by food producers in respect of nut content. [92491]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are urging industry to take action on so-called defensive labelling, such as "may contain nuts", so that it is restricted to cases where it is really necessary
  141
  and not used as an alternative to improving production procedures. The UK Food and Drink Federation (FDF) and the British Retail Consortium (BRC) have both recently produced guidance notes for their members on this. Discussions with industry are continuing.

  Public Appointments
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many appointments to public bodies were made by his Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99, broken down by (i) gender and (ii) ethnicity; and if he will list the chairmen appointed to those bodies in those years, similarly broken down. [92519]

  Mr. Morley
  The appointments made to public bodies are:

  Chairmen

  Total

  (a) 1997–98

  Total

  30

  223

  Male

  27

  190

  Female

  3

  33

  White

  30

  221

  Ethnic

  —

  2

  (b) 1998–99

  Total

  4

  85

  Male

  3

  67

  Female

  1

  18

  White

  4

  83

  Ethnic

  —

  2

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

  Veterinary Laboratory Agency
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the 1998–99 Annual Report and Accounts for the Veterinary Laboratory Agency. [93601]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I am pleased to announce that the 1998–99 Annual Report and Accounts for the Veterinary Laboratory Agency 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.

  TB (Badgers)
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response the Government have received to the submission on recommendation 69 on TB and badgers, which they made to the Standing Committee to the Bern Convention. [93603]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Following submission of the document in April, the UK Government has responded to a number of subsequent questions from the Secretariat to the Bern Convention and has supplied additional technical information. At the request of the Secretariat, the information has been consolidated into a single document,142
  which has been forwarded to the Secretariat and is now being sent to delegates of the Standing Committee. A copy of this latest document, which supersedes the earlier one, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Easter 1998 Floods
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) of 31 March 1999,Official Report, column 744, on floods, what further progress the Environment Agency has made in implementing its Action Plan in response to the Independent report on the Easter 1998 floods. [93605]

  Mr. Morley
  The Chairman of the Agency has provided me with a report of progress up to the end of June 1999. Copies are being placed in the House Libraries.

  I am pleased to note that the Agency remains on course for completing the substantial work programme set out in the Action Plan. In line with the priorities that I set out last October, the Agency has received an independent report on its management structures and skills base and the recommendations will be implemented by next April. An elaboration of the Environment Agency's flood defence supervisory duty was published in May, along with interim high level targets for the Agency and other flood and coastal defence operating authorities. The Agency is now working with others to ensure that flood and coastal defences are identified and inspected; the results recorded and assessed; and appropriate action to remedy defects put in hand. Consultation on further development of high level targets and the supervisory duty is in hand.

  The Agency has reported that indicative maps of floodplains have been produced ahead of the September target, and are currently being distributed to local authorities for use in both development control and emergency planning. These maps are being used to review the Agency's database of properties at risk of flooding. Further work has been done on flood warning, with an extension to the number of properties now able to receive direct Automatic Voice Messages through the telephone system. Flood warning messages have been reviewed and a new system to replace the present colour-coded warnings is planned from September 2000. The Agency is embarking on a significant programme of work, both internally and with partners such as local authorities and the emergency services, to ensure that the necessary preparations are made. I have agreed with the Agency that it is important to ensure that these arrangements are introduced successfully and are coupled with a campaign to increase public awareness.

  The programme of improvements to the Agency's telemetry network is starting following MAFF agreement to grant aid work in England. The National Assembly for Wales is separately considering the telemetry programme in Wales.

  The Agency continues to make good progress in implementing the Easter Floods Report and I will ensure that the House is updated on future progress.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gender Impact Assessment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [91679]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her on 22 July 1999,Official Report, column 609, by my right hon. friend the Minister for Women.

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

  My Department has not carried out any gender impact assessments since June 1997.

  Palestine National Authority
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to support the Palestine National Authority in developing its economy. [92239]

  Mr. Hoon
  Our support for the Palestine National Authority in the development of its economy includes our aid assistance of £8 million each year to the Authority, our support for the Interim Economic Issues (for which £2 million has been set aside by the Department for International Development) and technical assistance to the Ministry of Economy and Trade and Negotiations Affairs Department. The UK also contributes 16 per cent. of EC aid to the Palestinians. We expect this to amount to over £50 million over the next five years.

  Concordat (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish, before the summer adjournment, the most recent draft of the concordats between his Department and the National Assembly Wales. [92326]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Work on the international relations and European Union concordats, in which my Department has a considerable interest, is preceding well. We hope to put the draft concordats to the Assembly Cabinet shortly. The concordats will not be published in advance of that.

  Minurso Mission
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to provide a contingent of personnel to the United Nations Minurso mission organising the referendum in the Western Sahara. [92636]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have no plans at present to reintroduce a contingent to Minurso due to heavy commitments elsewhere.

  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which states which are parties to the Partial Test Ban Treaty have not(a) signed and (b) ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. [92754]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Those states which are parties to the Partial Test Ban Treaty but have neither signed nor ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty are: Afghanistan, Botswana, Bahamas, Central African Republic, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Gambia, India, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritius, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Tonga and Trinidad and Tobago.

  Those states which are parties to the Partial Test Ban Treaty but have signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty are: Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burma, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Liberia, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Uruguay, USA, Venezuela, Western Samoa and Zambia.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to encourage the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. [92758]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We continue to urge those states which have not yet ratified the treaty to do so as soon as possible—in particular those whose ratification is essential for it to enter into force.

  Britain has played a leading role in preparing for a Special Conference of states that have ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty this October in Vienna, to consider ways of accelerating the process of bringing the treaty into force.

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the General Affairs Council held in Brussels on 19 and 20 July; and if he will make a statement. [92707]

  Ms Quin
  1. The General Affairs Council in Brussels on 19 July 1999 adopted the A points listed in document 10103/99. Copies of the documents listing the A points will be placed in the Library as soon as they become available.

  Open Debate

  2. The GAC had a wide-ranging exchange of views in public session on lessons from Kosovo for the EU's external relations. They agreed that more needed to be done to improve the effectiveness and consistency of EU responses to international crises. An important first step should be to make sure the new CFSP structures introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty worked.
  145
  Presidency Presentation on Procedure

  3. The Council noted the Presidency's plans for taking forward preparatory discussions for the Inter-Governmental Conference.

  Middle East Peace Process

  4. The GAC agreed conclusions welcoming the new government in Israel and looking forward to further developments in the Middle East Peace Process. The GAC hoped that the forthcoming visit to the region by the Presidency, Commission and EU special envoy would further enhance ties with the region.

  CFSP

  5. The GAC was joined over lunch by Javier Solana, appointed Secretary-General of the Council and High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy by the European Council at Vienna. He looked forward to starting his new post in late October or November, and outlined key areas for immediate work, including ways of strengthening CFSP and implementing the Common Strategy on Russia.

  WTO/New Round: Commission Communication

  6. The Commission presented a Communication on the proposed new trade Round. The General Affairs Council will return to the subject in October.

  Western Balkans

  7. The GAC welcomed the appointment of Mr. Bernard Kouchner as Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General. It stressed the urgency of setting up an international civilian presence in Kosovo. It gave political agreement to a Regulation setting up a European Agency for Reconstruction.

  8. The GAC examined the EU sanctions regime and agreed that measures affecting the Serb people rather than the Belgrade regime would be the first to be lifted. They agreed to examine ways to alleviate the situation of democratic bodies in the FRY. They affirmed that parties competing in elections in the FRY should not have anyone convicted or indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia as candidates.

  9. The GAC welcomed plans for the Stability Pact summit in Sarajevo on 30 July and heard a presentation by Mr. Bodo Hombach, EU Special Representative and Co-ordinator of the Pact.

  10. The GAC welcomed the informal political dialogues to be held on 20 July with Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia, and decided to consider the creation of EU/Croatia consultative task force. It agreed with the Commission that it would be feasible to envisage opening negotiations for a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Macedonia.

  East Timor

  11. The GAC discussed East Timor and reiterated its strong support for the UN-organised consultation process which enables the East Timorese people to express their views as to the future of the territory.

  Twinning

  12. The GAC discussed ways of improving procedures for the financing of twinning projects.

  Nomination of the Commission

  13. The GAC approved Member States' formal nomination for the new Commission.
  146
  European Conference

  14. The third meeting of the European Conference took place on 19 July, attended by Foreign Ministers of EU Member States, Central and Eastern European candidate countries, Cyprus, Malta and Switzerland. Discussion focused on the Western Balkans, looking at the way forward and lessons to be learned from the Kosovo crisis. The Conference also agreed conclusions on combating transnational organised crime.

  Co-operation Councils with Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan

  The first Co-operation Councils with Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan were held on 20 July, following the entry into force of their Partnership and Co-operation Agreements with the EU on 1 July.

  GCHQ (Pension Rights)
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 June 1999,Official Report, columns 307-08, if he is now able to estimate the cost of compensation for loss of pension rights which have been incurred in respect of the 14 former employees of GCHQ. [92459]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: GCHQ officials are close to reaching agreement with the CCSU on the basis for calculating the amount of compensation in each of the 14 individual cases; there remain issues relating to tax and to the precise method of payment which may have implementations for the overall cost. It is expected these will all be resolved soon. The Government Actuaries department will then be asked to calculate the precise cost of the scheme.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current IGAD negotiations concerning the civil war in Sudan. [92822]

  Mr. Hoon
  In the run up to the current IGAD peace negotiations in Nairobi, we have been pressing the case for a comprehensive ceasefire and for the IGAD Partners Forum proposal of a secretariat which would support a sustained and accelerated negotiation.

  We are following the course of the talks closely, but it is too early to confirm how successful the talks have been.

  International Criminal Court Treaty
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to put forward detailed proposals for the ratification of the International Criminal Court Treaty. [92810]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government will bring forward legislation to enable ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as soon as the Parliamentary timetable permits. We are strongly committed to the Court and want to be among the first sixty States to ratify.

  Burma
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the State Peace and Development Council in Burma concerning dialogue with the Committee Representing the People's Parliament. [92811]

  Mr. Hoon
  Our policy is to press the SPDC to enter into substantive dialogue with democracy leaders, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and ethnic minority leaders. We do so regularly.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the introduction of sanctions on Burma. [92812]

  Mr. Hoon
  Our leading role in international action on Burma is supported by the interest shown by the public, non-governmental organisations and pressure groups in the UK in bringing pressure to bear on the regime. Representations received include calls both for and against sanctions.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Burmese Government concerning the re-opening of universities and colleges. [92813]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since universities and colleges closed in 1996, we have raised the issue with the Burmese regime on a number of occasions. We shall continue to do so. The question has also been covered in UN resolutions, most recently that of the UN Commission on Human Rights adopted in April 1999.

  Child Soldiers
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Governments of(a) Liberia, (b) Colombia, (c) Nigeria, (d) Sri Lanka, (e) Sudan, (f) the Democratic Republic of Congo, (g) Sierra Leone and (h) Ethiopia concerning the rehabilitation of child soldiers. [92809]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We believe that the use of children as soldiers, in contravention of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, is one of the worst violations of children's rights. We are working to encourage and assist the demobilisation and rehabilitation of child soldiers around the world.

  The majority of child soldiers today are fighting in guerilla organisations, not for governments. We therefore need to take a broad approach to the issue.

  Our approach is based on a combination of support for international efforts in this field, in particular the work of the UN Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict, Olara Otunnu, whose recent visits have included Sri Lanka, Colombia and Sudan; discussions with governments, such as the Governments of Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo and Sierra Leone; ensuring that the needs of former child soldiers are effectively addressed in any post-conflict reconstruction, eg in Sierra Leone; and, with the Department for International Development, support for practical
  148
  measures to address this issue, eg in Liberia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda and Sierra Leone.

  We have heard allegations that Ethiopia may have used child soldiers in its war with Eritrea, but we have seen no evidence to confirm this. We continue to monitor the situation. We are not aware of any reports of the use of child soldiers in Nigeria.

  Balkans
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the(a) mandate and (b) composition of the 13 July High Level Group for Kosovo and the Western Balkans. [92828]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  At the Cologne Summit of 20 June, the Heads of State of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US directed that the economic reconstruction process be guided by the High Level Steering Group. The first meeting of this group took place on 13 July under the joint chairmanship of Yves Thibault de Silguy of the European Commission and James Wolfensohn of the World Bank, and was attended by Finance Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, the US and Finland, the Managing Director of the IMF, the President of the EIB and the President of the EBRD, the Special Co-ordinator of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe, and the Deputy Secretary-General to the UN.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [92753]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: In accordance with the terms of the Ministerial Code, Ministers are required always to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. The last time I used a train in the course of my official duties was on Saturday 26 June to travel to Gatwick Airport to board a commercial flight to Rio de Janeiro to attend the EU Latin America and Caribbean Summit.

  Botswana
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Botswana. [93161]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Relations between the UK and Botswana are excellent, and several thousand British citizens live and work in Botswana. British exports to Botswana amounted to around £20 million last year, while imports from Botswana amounted to about £77 million. The Department for International Development maintains an aid programme in-country aimed at poverty reduction, education, HIV/AIDS awareness and public sector reform. The British Council is engaged by the Government of Botswana to recruit teachers from the UK, and to place trainees in UK institutions.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list with dates and
  149
  details all public interest immunity certificates he has issued since 1 May 1997. [92733]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: Details of the two public interest immunity certificates signed by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs since 1 May 1997 are as follows:

  Date

  Case

  30 October 1998

  R v. Mullen

  10 April 1999

  Paul and John Grecian v. HM Customs and Excise

  In both cases, disclosure of the documents referred to in the certificates would have caused real harm to the work of the security and intelligence agencies.

  In addition, one certificate was signed by another Foreign Office Minister, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, on 26 September 1997 in the case of Rowland and Norgen v. Bock and Gouden Akker Properties. Disclosure of the document referred to in the certificate would have caused serious harm to the UK's foreign relations and could have revealed the identity of an informant.

  Postal Services (Yugoslavia)
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the postal services between the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia will be returned to the level applying before the recent military operation. [92638]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: The United Nations civilian presence in Kosovo has identified 10 key areas which are priorities for rehabilitation. The postal service is one of these.

  The Royal Mail have informed us that they hope to re-establish a surface mail service between the UK and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) within the next fortnight, but that no alternative route for air mail services has yet been identified given the flight ban between the territory of the EU and that of the FRY.

  Sanctions and Arms Embargoes
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the sanctions and arms embargoes currently implemented by the United Kingdom. [93581]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  As of today's date, the United Kingdom implements Security Council resolutions which impose arms embargoes or wider sanctions regimes in relation to Angola, Iraq, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Government have also implemented an arms embargo on Ethiopia and Eritrea, called for in non-binding SCR 1227 (1998).

  The United Kingdom implements additional sanctions imposed by the European Union of Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burma, China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Gambia, Libya and Sudan.

  The UK currently implements two arms embargoes as a result of decisions by the OSCE—on Armenia and Azerbaijan.
  150
  There is also a national arms embargo on Iran.

  I shall keep the House informed of current sanctions regimes and arms embargoes and their scope on a yearly basis. All new sanctions or arms embargoes and any amendments to existing sanctions or arms embargoes will be announced at the time. We shall be laying a list of sanctions regimes and arms embargoes implemented by the UK in the Libraries of the Houses. A "Summary of Additional UK Restrictions on the Export of Strategic Goods" which includes details of additional national controls, will be annexed to this list. Both documents will shortly be available on the FCO website. These documents replace the "Summary of Government Commitments Regarding the Application of Strategic Export Controls", copies of which are currently in the Libraries of the Houses and on the FCO website. An updated version of the sanctions list will be laid in the Library annually or more frequently if policy changes require a revision.

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the annual report of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy will be available. [93582]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Copies of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy's annual report for 1998–99 will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses this week.

  The foundation makes a valuable contribution to the promotion of democracy overseas. Its activities include providing assistance to political parties, parliaments, the independent media, trade unions, human rights groups, women's groups and other non-governmental organisations involved in political development.

  In 1998–99, the foundation received £3,168,815 from the FCO, along with £211,256 from corporate and charity sources. With these funds it supported 274 new projects and managed another 223. It directed most of its funds to supporting democratic institutions in its priority areas, which are: Central and Eastern Europe, the Commonwealth of Independent States and Anglophone Africa. It also supported worthwhile projects in other parts of the world, such as South East Asia and the Middle-East.

  In particular, the foundation initiated three important technical assistance projects in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Nigeria and Indonesia, all of which are undergoing crucial transition processes towards fair and free democracy. The foundation can also pride itself on groundbreaking work in Qatar in the lead up to their Central Municipal Council elections, where women were given the vote and allowed to stand as candidates for the first time ever in the Gulf states. Most recently, the foundation has been preparing the ground to initiate projects in Kosovo, if and when this is appropriate.

  Export Restrictions (Balkans)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what United
  151
  Kingdom specific export restrictions currently apply to Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia; for what reasons; and what proposals the Government have to lift them. [93583]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  UK national export controls in general apply to all countries.

  The only UK specific export control currently in place on Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia is Group 3, Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, which prohibits the export without an export licence of certain all-wheel drive utility vehicles capable of off-road use, heavy-duty recovery vehicles and drop-sided trucks.

  This control was introduced to address concerns that such vehicles might be used by paramilitary groups against British troops deployed on peacekeeping duties in the former Yugoslavia.

  We are currently taking steps to remove this control in respect of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia, as we no longer perceive the uncontrolled export of these vehicles as a threat to British troops.

  EU Arms Embargo
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent changes there have been to the EU arms embargo against Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if he will make a statement. [93584]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Council of the European Union adopted on 19 July a Council Decision amending Common Position 96/184/CFSP to allow transfers of small arms to the police forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This decision was taken in order to promote peace and stability in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Member States are required to inform the Council of any transfers made under this exemption. The export of small arms to the police forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina remains licenseable under the terms of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended.

  Diplomatic Immunity
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many serious offences were alleged to have been committed in 1998 by persons entitled to immunity. [93585]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  From a community of over 17,500 persons entitled to immunity, 21 alleged serious offences by such persons were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1998. "Serious offences" are defined in accordance with the 1985 White Paper on Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges, i.e., as any offence that would in certain circumstances carry a maximum penalty of 6 months or more imprisonment. The majority of alleged serious offences in 1998 involved driving under the influence of drink and shoplifting.

  Lord Levy
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the nature of the briefings provided to Lord Levy prior to his recent visit to Syria and Jordan. [93054]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office provided Lord Levy with background briefing on Syria and Jordan before his visit.
  152
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 20 July 1999,Official Report, column 962, on the middle-east, if he will place in the Library the full texts of telegrams from British posts in Jordan and Syria concerning the diplomatic missions carried out by Lord Levy. [92941]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Under the Code of Practice on access to government information, exemption 2, internal telegrams are not made public. This is in line with previous government practice.

  However, I can inform the hon. Member that our Ambassador in Amman reported that Lord Levy's was
  "a highly successful visit which has given a valuable fillip to bilateral relations".

  Our Ambassador in Damascus said he was "most grateful" to Lord Levy for undertaking a programme of "notably warm and substantive meetings".

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) of 13 July 1999,Official Report, column 140, on the Prime Minister's personal representative, if he will list Lord Levy's official engagements in Jordan and Syria. [92942]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) on 13 July 1999,Official Report, column 140.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 July 1999,Official Report, column 464, on ministerial visits, if he will list the dates on which he and his ministers plan to be absent from the office during the summer adjournment for reasons other than departmental business. [93089]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Ministers' holiday plans during the summer adjournment are personal and it is not the normal practice to disclose such information.

  UN Commission on Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 July 1999,Official Report, column 597, on the 55th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, what are the terms of reference of the Special Rapporteur study; and what measures he will take to promote public awareness of the study. [92931]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities recommended the appointment of a Special Rapporteur in August 1998. The mandate has to be endorsed by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), currently under way in Geneva. Subject to ECOSOC's approval, the Special Rapporteur will carry out a study on the concept practice of Affirmative Action to be presented to the Sub-Commission. The Special Rapporteur will invite comments from governments and NGOs preparing his study.

  Public Appointments
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many appointments to public bodies were made by his Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99, broken down by (i) gender and (ii) ethnicity; and if he will list the chairmen appointed to those bodies in those years, similarly broken down. [92521]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The following appointments or reappointments were made to FCO non-departmental public bodies in 1997, 1998 and 1999.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Total number of appointments

  33

  54

  21

  Male

  24

  35

  14

  Female

  9

  19

  7

  Of White origin

  33

  47

  18

  Of Black origin

  —

  3

  —

  Of Asian origin

  —

  3

  3

  Other

  —

  1

  —

  154
  1997

  Mr. D. A. Thompson

  Baroness Shirley Williams

  1998

  Sir R. Braithwaite

  Baroness Kennedy

  1999

  Sir Keith Morris; of White origin

  Ernie Ross MP1; of White origin.

  Information on the ethnic origin of individuals appointed before 1 April 1999 was given in confidence. We cannot therefore disclose it.
  1 Mr. Ross was appointed by the Secretary of State as one of 13 governors of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. The governors in turn elect one of their number, in this case Mr. Ross, to act as chair.

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

Baroness Prashar
Miss Usha Kumari Prashar, CBE (wife of Vijay Kumar Sharma, Esquire), having been created Baroness Prashar, of Runnymede in the County of Surrey, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Lester of Herne Hill and the Baroness Pitkeathley.
Lord Bradshaw
William Peter Bradshaw, Esquire, having been created Baron Bradshaw, of Wallingford in the County of Oxfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Berkeley and the Baroness Thomas of Walliswood.

Pay Agreements
2.49 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for encouraging moves towards longer-term pay agreements.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the question of whether pay agreements are arranged on an annual basis or over some other period is a matter for employers and employees to determine in the light of their particular circumstances.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply, although at this stage it is not too encouraging. Does he agree that some of the pay settlements reached in the private sector spanning two or three years have been good both in terms of improved productivity and the generation of greater stability for all concerned? When will the Government make a start with similar models in their own area of competence—especially as they have now introduced public service agreements spanning three years?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are a considerable number of pay deals in the private sector spanning a number of years; for example, those made by the Ford Motor Company, Rover Group, Blue Circle and British Energy, to name but a few. However, it should be understood that some 90 per cent of all settlements are struck for one year. A number of settlements—about 5 per cent, according to CBI figures—are for less than one year. It is not for the
1282
Government to say whether those deals have been good for the companies involved. It is for companies and employees to make their own specific pay arrangements. The Government's Comprehensive Spending Review makes it possible for pay to be managed over a longer period than one year by providing greater certainty over levels of funding. That is the role that the Government should play.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister accept that many people will be deeply relieved by his Answer? Does he agree that this country's history of experiments, by both parties, to intervene in collective bargaining has been a fairly universal and consistent disaster?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the thrust of my Answer was on those lines. We have no desire to become involved in specifying the length of any deal. That is for people to decide in the specific circumstances of their industry. There may, of course, be cases where it is entirely appropriate and may lead to higher productivity and better performance. However, that is for companies and employees to decide for themselves.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does my noble friend really ask us to believe that negotiations in the public sector, particularly the Civil Service, are between the employer and unions, as though the Government were not the employer? Is it not well known that the arguments that go on every year because the Treasury tries to get a settlement that is below RPI poison industrial relations in the public sector and are the main reason why, as the Prime Minister says, productivity cannot be increased in the public sector?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly one aspect of this problem is the total sum of money available for pay deals. That is a matter which the Government will lay down and have a great interest in, but within those parameters the decision must continue to be that of the employer and employee.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, at the risk of embarrassing the Minister just prior to a reshuffle, is he aware that we on this side warmly welcome his initial Answer and his response to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh? Can he go further and assure the House that the Government have absolutely no intention to interfere in pay bargaining in any part of the private sector, and that the only area in which the Government have an interest in pay bargaining is the public sector where they are the employer?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thought that it was absolutely clear from my Answer that we had no intention to intervene; and that will continue to be our policy. I am not embarrassed to be congratulated by the noble Lord. Coming from the noble Lord, that is a great pleasure.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, while not dissenting from the Minister's proposition that employers and trade unions should be left to settle their

1283
own affairs, does his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, suggest that he has completely forgotten that there are exceptions? Does he agree that between 1974 and 1979 concerted action by the government, CBI and TUC played a significant part in reducing the level of inflation in this country from 28 per cent—part of which was due to the previous Conservative government—to about 8 per cent? Does my noble friend agree that in some circumstances it has a part to play?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am happy to answer questions about the current policy of the Government. I have never felt very comfortable about re-fighting past battles. I am perfectly prepared to accept that there may have been some cases where such action was successful and others where it was not. However, as of today we do not see that as being advantageous.

British Council and BBC World Service
2.54 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle asked The Earl of Carlisle asked Her Majesty's Government:
What resources they intend to provide for the British Council and the BBC World Service over the next three years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, under the Comprehensive Spending Review settlement announced in July 1998 the British Council received, or will receive, £133.1 million, £136.1 million and £138.9 million for the three years from April 1999 to March 2002, representing a real increase of some 2 per cent in the period over the 1998–99 level. This was in line with the real increase for the FCO as a whole. The BBC World Service received, or will receive, £175.5 million, £174 million and £177.7 million in the same three-year period, a real increase of nearly 3.9 per cent on average on the 1998–99 level.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer, to which I can only respond with the dying words of the first Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, Charles James Fox. On his deathbed he turned to his wife (named Elizabeth) and said:
"That does not signify, my dear Liz".
Does the Minister agree with me that in the fifth report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons concerned with resources every single witness lamented the fact that the shortfall of funding for the British Council and BBC World Service meant that they would not be able to do their important jobs with as great effect as they should? Does she also agree that next year's CSR bids should put the British Council and World Service to the top of the agenda, and that if the British Council is called upon to assist with reconstruction in the Balkans the extra money that it
1284
requires should come from the Treasury, not the Foreign Office or the grant-in-aid fund, which is lower now than it was at any time during the previous government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his sterling advertisement on behalf of the FCO. However, I did not believe that his initial quote was particularly appropriate. These sums of money signify very much indeed. I am the Minister for BBC World Service, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy chairs the British Council. Everyone always wants more money for their particular parts of government, but the fact is that the money allocated is sufficient for the purposes of both organisations. For example, the British Council is active in new areas, such as the promotion of creative industries, design, film and the spread of good governance and human rights. The World Service is forging ahead with its plans for languages in real audio on the Internet within five years and the introduction of two continuous streams of English programming, one general and one news. I believe that both organisations are able to proceed with their plans and are properly funded.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that both the British Council and the BBC World Service provide unrivalled, honourable and honoured service at minimum cost and maximum effect? In those circumstances, can she assure the House that the welcome news that a real increase is to be provided in the next three years is one that will be built upon and there is no need to worry about diminishing payments for such tremendous services?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can point only to what has happened in the CSR. On this occasion actions speak louder than words. I echo what my noble friend said. The British Council is of enormous benefit to Britain in the public diplomacy field as our principal agency for cultural relations abroad; and the BBC World Service is an excellent organisation, keeping some 42 foreign languages in service and broadcasting in English as well.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, will the Minister repeat the sums of money for the BBC World Service? Unless my hearing has gone, I believe she said that the figures were £175 million for the first year, then £174 million, and then £177 million. If so, do those figures give comfort to the BBC World Service in planning ahead? I do not have a calculator with me but it does not seem to be a real increase.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, perhaps I may explain. The noble Baroness is right. The figures I gave were £175.5 million; £174 million; and then £177.7 million. The increase is somewhat lumpy—if I may put it that way—because we are investing in a new transmitter in Oman. It is important to have that capital investment up front. As the noble Baroness may

1285
know from the articles written by the chief executive, Mark Byford, the BBC World Service is well satisfied with the outcome of the CSR.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I warmly endorse the praise expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, of the British Council and the BBC World Service. However, can the Minister assure the House that any increase in the grant in aid for either the British Council or the World Service will not be at the expense of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's activities in what I believe is now known as the field of public diplomacy?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Wright, that his successor in the Foreign Office, Sir John Kerr, is as assiduous an accounting officer as the noble Lord was in his day. If I know Sir John at all, I assure the noble Lord that he will be very active in ensuring that money is not siphoned out of other parts of the FCO budget either into the BBC World Service or the British Council.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I praise the BBC World Service for the marvellous way in which it is bringing on online services and training journalists, for example in the Indonesian elections. Can any additional training which may fall either to the British Council or the BBC World Service in relation to the Balkans and Kosovo be considered as falling under the proposed reconstruction funds rather than the moneys currently available to those two outstanding services?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an apposite point. The BBC World Service has expanded its services into the Balkans, as I am sure the noble Baroness knows, especially in its Albanian and Serbian services.
The matter is under review. As the noble Baroness will appreciate, a number of parties are extremely interested in how it is to be financed. I assure the noble Baroness that all care will be taken on the matter.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, the Minister will remember that about five years ago the then Prime Minister, John Major, called a three-day conference in London entitled Britain and the World at which a number of eminent people, including most members of the Cabinet, spoke. The clear outcome of the conference was that the BBC World Service and the British Council represented the greatest value for money in the area of British diplomacy. Three months later both budgets were cut.
Will the Minister confirm that instead of considering increases of 1, 2 or 3 per cent over the next five years in the budgets for the BBC World Service and the British Council, the Government will look at the priorities of foreign policy and consider a double digit increase?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an interesting point about the previous administration. It was in order to bring some certainty to the budgetary planning of the BBC World Service
1286
and the British Council that the Government ensured that the money available over the next three years is clearly indicated.
The money available for the British Council appears in percentage terms to be less than that for the World Service because the British Council is able to raise money from a variety of other sources. However, it is important to ensure that while the aspirations of many may not be met, the functioning of both organisations is properly secured. The Government believe that to be the case.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, pursuant to the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and my noble friend, what specific action do the Government intend to take in view of the strongly worded conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Committee in its report, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Resources that,
"the British Council is seriously underfunded",
and that on its present and projected budgets the BBC World Service will not be able to face increasing competition or keep pace with new technology?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in that case I expect that the FAC is glad that it is dealing with this Government and not the previous government because we have put in a great deal more money. I know that the noble Lord has great difficulty with the maths. We have had many discussions on the figures in the past. I can again go over the figures with him quietly later. I am sure that we shall have the opportunity again of convincing him, as I believe it is easy to do, that his sums are wrong.
We shall keep all these points under review, as would any responsible government. I believe that our record is considerably better than that of the party he supports.

Kosovo: Civilian Casualties
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements are being made to ensure that civilian victims of NATO bombing in Kosovo, whether Albanian or Serbian, receive adequate compensation for injuries sustained.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, our Armed Forces complied strictly with the laws of armed conflict, and in particular with the Geneva conventions and the first additional protocol to the conventions. Of course we regret any civilian casualties. Questions of possible compensation could arise only if unlawful action had been taken. We are satisfied that our action was lawful.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, thank the Minister for that response. However, she will not be surprised that I find it somewhat disappointing. She said yet again that accidents happen in the shape of injuries

1287
and deaths to the civilian population. That being so, there seems to me to be an obligation upon all of us who gave support to this action—I believe that that represents a majority of the people in this country—to accept some responsibility for the injuries and deaths caused to innocent people. Therefore will the Minister be good enough to think again in respect of her response to my Question?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I know that my noble friend is motivated by the best humanitarian principles. However, there cannot be a question of compensation. That would arise only if unlawful action had been taken.
NATO forces were very careful in their choice of targets. Of course anything that went wrong because of human error is very much to be regretted. But the fact remains that we are convinced that our action was lawful. We are convinced of the legality of our targeting and that our armed forces complied very strictly with the laws of armed conflict. In that case, I am afraid that there cannot be a question of compensation on this issue.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the Minister will recognise that humanitarian aid will assist those who have been mutilated or otherwise seriously handicapped as a result of casualties. However, perhaps I may widen slightly the question to ask about compensation not for civilians in Kosovo but for our immediate allies. As the Minister is aware, the blocking of the Danube is now putting tremendous strain on already relatively fragile countries, such as Albania and Bulgaria, with the after effects of refugees on Macedonia and Albania.
Can the noble Baroness say anything about NATO's discussions about the compensation which was promised to these relatively fragile democracies upon which they now profoundly depend?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, these matters have to be discussed in a number of different fora, not least of which is the Stability Pact Summit which, as the noble Baroness may know, is due to take place in Sarajevo on 30th July. It will not only discuss the issues on compensation but also the rebuilding of that part of the world.
The noble Baroness raises an important issue about the Danube because, as she knows, there is no question of giving aid directly to Serbia while Mr Milosevic is in power. The situation in the Danube affects many other Balkan countries and I assure the noble Baroness that we are well seized of the difficulty. A good deal of thought is going into how the circle can be squared and one of the major opportunities to debate that in detail will be on 30th July.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, following the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Serbia, the Americans have offered compensation to the Chinese. What representations have the Government
1288
and our NATO partners received from the Russian Government about compensation to civilians in Serbia, given that last month Mr Chernomyrdin said:
"Sooner or later, NATO will be expected by the world community to pay Yugoslavia for damages to compensate the bereaved families of innocent victims."?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the issues relating to Russia are based on an interpretation of international law with which Her Majesty's Government do not agree. I refer the noble Lord to my original Answer that, as we do not believe that our bombing was unlawful, the issue of compensation does not arise.
As regards the Chinese Embassy, it is common for ex gratia payments, without any admission of liability, to be made when one state damages the diplomatic premises of another.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the Minister comment not only on the legality of our action but on whether it was in accordance with the principles of the just war, one of which is proportionality; that is, the use of proportionate force to achieve the end in view? Is the Minister as confident about that as she is about the legality of our actions?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I am confident about the issue of proportionality. I am sure that anyone who sat through the debates in your Lordships' House during the bombings knows the care with which my noble friend Lord Gilbert was able to describe the targeting processes and the detail into which Members of the Front Bench, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, went in explaining how bombing raids were undertaken. Furthermore, when things went wrong, we were unprecedented in the openness with which we dealt with that. We have nothing to hide in our conduct of the campaign. Our Armed Forces did extraordinarily well, and the three-quarters of a million returning Kosovar-Albanians know the truth of what I am saying.

Department of Health: Workforce Planning
3.13 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the timetable for the review of workforce planning promised in the Department of Health's reply (Cm 4379) to the House of Commons Health Committee's report on future staffing requirements (1998–299, HC 38-I).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the review will begin in the autumn. We anticipate that it will take around three months to complete and will be followed by the publication of a consultation document making proposals for action.

1289
Following a short consultation period and any necessary modifications for the proposed action plan, an implementation timetable will be established.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's Answer and congratulate her on her department's late conversion to the view that its workforce planning for the NHS was inadequate. However, will the review, as a matter of urgency, consider severe shortages in, for instance, obstetrics, gynaecology, radiology and paediatrics? Will she confirm that the medical profession will be closely involved in the review, despite the recent war of words conducted by the Prime Minister?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there are an awful lot of issues to unpick in that supplementary question! I do not know about the department, but I do not need convincing of or converting to the idea that we need to improve workforce planning throughout the NHS. Many people share that view within both government and the professions.
The review will look at how we undertake the task of workforce planning with the view of streamlining it and making it more efficient and coherent. It will not undertake the workforce planning itself. We are taking immediate action in some of the areas that the noble Lord mentioned—obstetrics and gynaecology, for example—in order to deal with the difficulties.
As regards the "war of words", we intend the process to be consultative and we need to involve all the professions, not only the medical profession, in the review. The noble Lord should not believe too much of what he reads in the newspapers. Those of us who have heard the Prime Minister speaking to health service audiences know exactly how much he values their contribution.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, until the Government came to power, it was always the practice to keep junior hospital staff in post until they were found suitable employment at the end of their 20-year training? That was readily achievable by recruiting new trainees only when the posts were vacated by their senior colleagues. Why will not the Government now restore that civilised practice, bearing in mind that the NHS is a monopoly employer and that the training of junior staff costs a lot of money?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, described the process as civilised, but I am not sure that it was the best in ensuring high-quality services for patients or proper employment opportunities for those who he was right to say had undergone a long training period. However, given the changes in the way in which services are delivered and the demands on health services, the 20-year timeframe to which he referred illustrates the difficulties of workforce planning and the need to have more flexibility in the system.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is little short of a national scandal that, for almost all of the past 50 years, the NHS has been a
1290
net importer of doctors, in particular from the Indian sub-continent which is scarce of doctors itself? Does she agree that we should welcome with rejoicing, the fact that the Government have announced the training of a further 1,000 doctors? Will she say whether, if there is a need, the Government will make available funds to increase that number?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend is aware that this month we announced 1,000 additional medical school places distributed throughout the country, bringing medical education into new areas including the West Midlands and Stockton-on-Tees. Therefore, as regards long-term planning, we are increasing the supply of doctors who are trained in this country. There has also been an increase in the number of training places for midwives and nurses. We should not underestimate the contribution which continues to be made to the NHS by those who are trained overseas. Of course we do not want to denude countries of their trained personnel on whom they depend, but nor should we devalue what can be learnt from the interchange of professionals—and I refer to professionals leaving this country and working elsewhere as well as those coming to work here.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the civilised practice to which I referred was practised by every government and that, if this Government were to restore it, the skills of the workforce would rise? Why will they not do so?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am sure that the review, which we have agreed will be consultative, will be interested to hear the noble Lord's views and he can put that suggestion forward. I was not making a party political point. I was saying simply that what was right in the past may not necessarily be right for the present. let alone the future.

Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
3.19 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. As your Lordships will be aware, this gives effect to the decisions taken by your Lordships' House on Thursday on the basis of the Procedure Committee Report.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to public business be amended as follows-
After Standing Order 8
Insert the following new Standing Orders:
8A.—(1) In implementation of section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999, this Standing Order makes provision for hereditary peers who are excepted from section 1.
(2) The excepted hereditary peers shall consist of the following categories:

(i)

(a) 2 peers elected by the Labour hereditary peers;

(b) 42 peers elected by the Conservative hereditary peers;

(c) 3 peers elected by the Liberal Democrat hereditary peers;

(d) 28 peers elected by the Cross-bench hereditary peers;

(ii) 15 peers, elected by the whole House, from among those ready to serve as Deputy Speakers or in any other office as the House may require; and

(iii) any peer holding the office of Earl Marshal or performing the office of Lord Great Chamberlain.

(3) Elections shall be conducted in accordance with arrangements made by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(4) In order to stand for election or qualify as an elector under paragraph (2)(i), a peer must register with the Clerk of the Parliaments, identifying the party or Cross-bench group to which he belongs. In order to stand for election under paragraph (2)(ii), a peer must register separately with the Clerk of the Parliaments. A peer may not stand for election nor vote if he has not taken the Oath or is on Leave of Absence.
(5) In the event of a tie between two or more candidates standing in any of the elections held in accordance with paragraph (2), the matter (if not resolved by the electoral arrangements adopted by the House) shall be decided by the drawing of lots.
(6) The Clerk of the Parliaments may refer any question concerning the propriety of the electoral process to the Committee for Privileges.
(7) In the event of a vacancy occurring at any time up to the end of the initial period through death among the peers elected in category (2)(i) or (2)(ii), the vacancy shall be filled by the nearest runner-up in the relevant election under paragraph (2) who both wishes to fill the vacancy and is otherwise available. The provisions of paragraph (5) are applicable for this purpose. If no such runner-up is available, the House shall decide how the vacancy shall be filled.
(8) In this Standing order and in Standing Order 8B the end of "the initial period" is the end of the first session of the next Parliament after that in which the House of Lords Act 1999 is passed.
8B.— (1) In implementation of subsection (4) of section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999, this Standing Order makes provision for by-elections to fill vacancies occurring by death among excepted hereditary peers after the end of the initial period.
(2) In the event of the death of a hereditary peer excepted under Standing Order 8A(2)(i) only the excepted hereditary peers in the group in which the vacancy has occurred shall be entitled to vote.
(3) In the event of the death of a hereditary peer excepted under Standing Order SA(2)(ii) the whole House shall be entitled to vote.
(4) The provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3) shall apply also in the case of any subsequent by-elections.
(5) The Clerk of the Parliaments shall maintain, and publish annually, a register of hereditary peers (other than peers of Ireland) who wish to stand in any by-election.
(6) By-elections shall be conducted in accordance with arrangements made by the Clerk of the Parliaments and shall take place within three months of a vacancy occurring.
(7) Paragraphs (5) and (6) of Standing Order 8A shall apply to by-elections under this Standing Order.— (Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Judicial Standing Orders
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The purpose of this amendment to judicial Standing Orders is to enable the House, upon report from the Appeal Committee, to modify in certain circumstances the obligation that appellants should lodge security for costs. At present, the sum required is £18,000, which is intended to represent two-thirds of the average cost of an appeal to your Lordships' House. It thus provides a guarantee that the respondents, if successful, will be reimbursed at least to that extent.
The Standing Order does not at present give the House any discretion to waive or even to modify this requirement, so that an appellant who is unable to find the money cannot proceed with his appeal. My noble and learned friends the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary have unanimously decided that the Standing Order ought to be amended so as to give them such a discretion. It is their belief that circumstances that would warrant the exercise of this discretion will only rarely arise, but it is right for them to have the discretion. I agree that it is a sensible amendment and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the following amendment be made to the Standing Orders regulating judicial business:
Standing Order V
Line 1, after ("that") insert ("unless otherwise ordered by the House").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
3.24 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF AMENDMENTS TO WHICH THE LORDS HAVE DISAGREED AND A COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF AN AMENDMENT MADE BY THE LORDS TO A COMMONS AMENDMENT TO WHICH THE COMMONS HAVE DISAGREED
  [The page and line refer to Bill 67 as first printed for the Commons]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  27 Clause 14, page 11, line 18, after ("assistance,") insert—
  ("() itself providing advice or assistance,").
  28 Page 11, line 20, leave out (", except itself providing advice or assistance").
  29 Clause 15, page 11, line 18, after ("assistance,") insert—
  ("() itself providing representation,") HL Bill 87.
  30 Page 11, line 43, leave out (", except itself providing representation").
  The Commons do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 27 to 30 to which the Lords have disagreed but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
  30B Page 11, line 18, after ("assistance,") insert—
  ("() employing persons to provide advice or assistance,").
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their disagreement to Commons Amendments Nos. 27 to 30, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30B in lieu thereof. With your Lordships' leave, I shall also speak to the remaining amendments in lieu, Commons Amendments Nos. 30C to 30F, and to Amendments Nos. 30BA and 30DA.
  The new Commons Amendments Nos. 30B to 30E would restore to the Bill powers for the legal services commission to employ salaried lawyers to provide advice, assistance and representation as part of the criminal defence service. In addition, Amendment No. 3OF would extend the scope of Clause 15(9) to provide that regulations about choice of representative could not require a person to select an employee of a body established and maintained by the commission. As it stands, Clause 15(9) only precludes regulations that require someone to select a representative employed directly by the commission. Your Lordships may recall that the Government intend to pilot two models for employing salaried defenders; direct employment by the legal services commission, and employment by separate not-for-profit bodies established and maintained by the commission for the purpose of providing criminal defence services. Amendment No. 30F will extend the principle of choice enshrined in Clause 15(9) to both situations.
  1294
  The provisions in the Bill about salaried defenders have already been exhaustively debated. Despite some of the warnings we have heard in this House, these provisions would not create a US-style public defender system; they do not strike at the heart of our constitution or the rule of law; and I have the utmost confidence that they do not sound the death-knell of the criminal Bar, which—I confidently predict—will go from strength to strength. They are modest provisions to add a further item to the range of ways in which the legal services commission may secure criminal defence services.
  The other place, the democratically elected Chamber, has now twice restored to the Bill the powers for commission to employ salaried defenders directly. Some 75 Members of the other place have signed an Early-Day Motion in support of salaried defenders, including Labour Members and some Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members. I invite your Lordships to respect the views expressed in the other place by not rejecting these modest proposals for a third time.
  Salaried defenders are part of a package of reforms set out in this Bill that makes substantial changes to rights of audience and removes other restrictions on the provision of legal services that cannot be justified in the public interest. The Bill has established the principle that employed advocates should enjoy full rights of audience.
  Our reforms of legal aid and legal services will benefit the public and widen consumer choice; as I have already said, the other place is proposing an amendment to improve further the clause about the right to choose a representative in criminal cases. I have to submit to Your Lordships that it must ultimately be for the elected Chamber to decide what is in the interest of the public and of consumers, on any issue concerning restrictive practices, rights of audience and whether the state may expend public money on criminal defence services through salaried lawyers or be confined exclusively to lawyers in the private sector.
  I now come to the reasons why the Government see value in a power to employ salaried defenders and I will then deal briefly with the arguments against them put in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and others.
  Salaried defenders will give the public a wider choice of representative; they will provide the legal services commission with the means to assess the value for money of criminal defence services generally, and provide a competitive stimulus to lawyers in private practice; and they will increase the commission's flexibility in providing criminal defence services, in particular allowing it to fill any gaps in coverage there may be in remote areas.
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, wishes to restrict salaried defenders to this last role alone. His Amendments Nos. 30BA and 30DA would allow salaried defenders to give advice and assistance or to represent clients only in areas too remote or insufficiently lucrative for the private provider to wish to provide a service. I have said on a number of occasions that salaried defenders will indeed give the commission the greater flexibility to provide access to

  1295
  legal services in every part of the country. But I cannot accept these amendments because salaried defenders have more to offer than just filling in gaps in provision. They will help the legal services commission to determine whether it is obtaining value for money, a matter to which I shall return shortly; and they will give the public a wider choice. On the all-important issue of choice, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said in our last debate:
  "I have no fear that the independent Bar would beat any public defender service if the accused person were given any choice. I have never been afraid of competition and neither has the Bar".—[Official Report, 14/7/99; col. 421.]
  He also described it as "ludicrous" that choice would be exercised in favour of the state defence service, although I have to remind him that more than 20 per cent of the clients of the Public Defence Solicitors' Office in Scotland are now using its services by choice. If no one would choose a salaried defender in preference to a member of the Bar in private practice, then surely the Bar has nothing to fear. The noble Lord says that choice will inevitably be removed. Heedless of my explanation that a salaried element in a mixed economy of criminal defence services will be built up gradually following a number of small pilots, he seems to have in his mind the concept of a vast bureaucracy, overstaffed and underemployed, pressing the Government to cast off the principle of client choice—a principle that permeates this Bill—in order to keep itself in business.
  I stress this point as plainly and clearly as I can. The Government intend to ensure, first, that defendants will be offered a choice of representative; and secondly, that that choice will lie between contracted firms in private practice and, perhaps, a local salaried defender's office.
  We have already announced that all franchise firms will receive a contract in the first round. After that, if they continue to meet quality standards and take part in the duty solicitors' scheme, I see no reason why they should not all win further contracts. The choice we intend to offer is enshrined on the face of the primary legislation in Clause 15(9). Clause 15(9) provides that regulations under Clause 15(8)—that is, regulations which limit defendants' choice of representative—may not require the defendant to choose an employee of the commission. As I have explained, the other place has proposed an amendment, Amendment No.30F, that will strengthen that subsection further.
  We shall discuss the provisions regarding choice in some greater detail when we come to the next group of amendments. But it may be helpful if I anticipate that and remind the House that, while we are seeking to promote the greatest possible continuity of representation, a person's choice of representative will not necessarily be irrevocable. Regulations under Clause 15(8)(e) will define circumstances in which a change of representative is justified. I say in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that those will include a genuine and well-founded loss of confidence or other breakdown in the lawyer-client relationship. Regulations under Clause 15(8)(d), dealing with the permitted number of representatives, will define the circumstances, including all jury trials, when a defendant
  1296
  may choose a specialist advocate as a second representative. It would therefore be possible for someone who is represented by a salaried defender in the solicitor role to choose a barrister in private practice as advocate.
  As I explained on Report, the right to choose a second representative as advocate would apply even if the original representative, whether a salaried defender or a solicitor-advocate, had the necessary qualifications to appear as advocate himself or herself. I hope that those examples will convince your Lordships that the Government are committed to providing real choice.
  The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, made a characteristically brief but pertinent contribution to our previous debate on this subject from the Opposition Front Bench. He saw no evidence of any need for salaried defenders; he could not understand how they would enhance competition and quality; and he feared that they would undermine the perception and perhaps the reality of criminal justice.
  On the question of evidence, I would refer him to the body of international research and opinion based on comparisons of different systems in other jurisdictions. I described those in our last debate and will not repeat the details now. However, the consensus is that a mixed system, combining private and salaried lawyers, can be the best and most cost-effective way of providing publicly-funded criminal defence services: better, that is, than either a wholly private system such as ours, or a comprehensive public defender system of the type found in some parts of the United States.
  The right to choose a representative, which I have already discussed, and the safeguards to protect the independence and integrity of salaried defenders, to which I shall return in a few moments, will, I submit, be more than adequate to preserve the perception and reality of justice.
  As for the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, about competition and quality, salaried defenders will provide a competitive spur for private sector lawyers and a benchmark to assist the commission to secure value for money—that is, the best possible combination of quality and price. In our previous debate the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, inferred from this argument the entertaining but mistaken image of a Treasury spy reporting on barristers who waste public money in court. It may help the House if I explain that point in a little more detail, since perhaps it has not been fully understood up to now.
  The legal services commission will be responsible for procuring high quality criminal defence services for people who need them. It will also have a duty of seeking the best possible value for money. It will do this, for the most part, by negotiating contracts with lawyers in private practice. The commission will be in a much stronger position to perform that function effectively if it provides some of the services itself. That will give it a clearer and more detailed understanding of what is involved in providing a quality service, how long it should take and how much it should cost. As a provider, the commission will be able to negotiate with more knowledge and authority than if it were solely a purchasing body.

  1297
  I turn now to what I think are the two main underlying arguments against salaried defenders: that they are inevitably of poorer quality; and that they are inadequately independent and will collude with the prosecution.
  In the last analysis quality depends on adequate funding and proper training and support for the lawyers who provide the service. That is equally true whether the service providers are employed, contracted or working at prescribed rates or fees. The criminal defence service will be adequately funded and will have a career structure for its advocates which will ensure that they have regular and appropriate training and support. The Bill requires me to provide the funding that the legal services commission needs to fulfil its duty to provide the advice, assistance and representation required by suspects and defendants in the interests of justice.
  Next, I address the need for independence. I have said repeatedly in our debates that I do not accept that a lawyer's professional independence and judgment depend on whether his status is self-employed or employed. I shall not weary the House by rehearsing all the arguments again. But I point out that salaried defenders will not work for the Crown Prosecution Service; they will not even work for the Crown. They will work either for the legal services commission, which will be an independent, non-departmental body, or for bodies established by the commission.
  They will be employed as criminal defenders, and I have no doubt at all that, as such, they will dedicate themselves to defending their clients with the same professional skill and judgment, and the same independence, as would barristers or solicitors in private practice. There is simply no danger of collusion with the prosecution and perhaps less risk of an appearance or perception of collusion than where two barristers from the same chambers appear on opposite sides.
  All salaried defenders employed by the commission will be operationally independent of the rest of the commission. They will be organised in a separate unit or units and will not have responsibilities for any of the commission's other functions. They will report to a senior lawyer responsible for managing them in a way that respects and protects their professional integrity. I draw attention to this last point in particular in answer to the question posed last time by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. A barrister or judge concerned about the competence or behaviour of a salaried defender would be able to make informal representations to the senior criminal defender at the commission, just as he could, in practice, to the head of chambers of a colleague in private practice. In exactly the same way in the case of the Crown Prosecution Service, he could make representations to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General.
  Commons Amendments Nos. 30B and 30D are intended to give a slightly better flavour of the fact that salaried lawyers will be employed specifically as criminal defenders. Rather than saying that the commission may itself provide advice, assistance and
  1298
  representation, the amended Bill would say that the commission could employ persons to provide these services.
  Lawyers in our country are rightly proud of their independence, but that independence flows from their membership of a profession and their obedience to the ethical rules which their profession enforces—not from the way in which they are paid. I believe that it is, to more than a little extent, offensive to the many thousands of employed lawyers to assert that the independence needed to advise and act for a client exists only among those in independent practice in the private sector.
  The role of your Lordships' House is, essentially, as a revising Chamber. Perhaps I may say that that role was played to a very high order in the passage of this Bill. The Bill is replete with improvements made either in your Lordships' House, or in the other place following suggestions first made here. The purpose and objectives clauses for the community legal service and criminal defence service draw heavily on the principles clause proposed by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Lloyd of Berwick. The report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation led to the substantial package of government amendments to the powers of the Lord Chancellor to give directions to the legal services commission. These amendments achieved a better distinction between those substantive matters which should be subject to further approval procedures in this House and another place, and those matters of an administrative or budgetary nature. At Third Reading I stated:
  "I believe that the House is now broadly content that the parliamentary procedure attaching both to my powers and the legal services commission's funding code are appropriate".—[Official Report, 16/3/99; col. 690.]
  I take the opportunity to repeat that I believe that that is broadly so.
  The improvements did not stop there. Clause 16, the code for salaried defenders, was inspired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. The new clause on litigation funding agreements owes its existence to the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. There are other improvements of substance and drafting by the score throughout the Bill, from Clause 1 about the membership of the legal services commission to the clause clarifying the independence of justices' clerks in Part V.
  At the outset of our debates in Committee (col. 487), I promised not to adopt the obdurate approach which we had seen in time past, where the Front Bench was unwilling to accept manifest improvements to Bills under consideration. I described that approach as destructive of the raison d'être of a revising chamber. I hope that I have been true to my word, and can claim some force in saying that this Bill, in its current state, is one in which this revising chamber can take some pride. I submit that to thwart the twice-expressed will of the elected chamber on the issue now before us would be contrary to the raison d'être of a revising chamber. It would bring discredit to this House on an issue where par excellence the will of the elected chamber really

  1299
  should prevail. On the basis of those explanations and arguments, I commend to your Lordships the amendments.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their disagreement to Commons Amendments Nos. 27 to 30, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30B in lieu thereof.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

  AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 30B
  30BA Line 2, at end insert ("in areas where appropriate advice or assistance is not reasonably available from other sources").
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I beg to move, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 30B, Amendment No. 30BA. I give great credit to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the changes he has made to the Bill, either here or in another place, as a result of suggestions put forward by my noble friend Lord Goodhart and others. He has approached the Bill in a constructive way. I hope that he will not mind my saying that I have to cavil that he does not go quite far enough.
  Mr Keith Vaz, the Minister in another place, sought to question the motives of those who spoke and those who voted in this House to delete from the Bill the provisions which set up a state criminal defence service. He said that our purpose was, in effect, to protect the vested interests of the established profession by preventing choice. I have also heard it said in this House on a number of occasions that we are upholding restrictive practices. I have to say, with the greatest respect, that "restrictive practices" and "vested interest" is the wishy-washy language of consumerism which ignores the historical reasons for an independent Bar.
  The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the purpose of the state criminal defence service is to widen consumer choice. That phrase, when used, seems to overlook the fact that the consumer in the field of criminal law and practice is not somebody who is choosing between two different makes of motor car or two different sorts of television sets which may be the subject of a Which? report; he is a person facing a serious threat to his reputation and liberty.
  Part of the struggle of the people of this country for freedom and democracy involved a fight to ensure that there were judges who were independent of the executive and that there were advocates who appeared in the courts of this country who put the interests of their clients above the interests of the people in power.
  The recitals to the Bill of Rights 1688, for example, complain of partial, corrupt and unqualified persons serving on juries in trials, of excessive fines and of illegal and cruel punishments. That was a reaction to men such as Judge Jeffreys who was a venal attorney-general as an advocate, later a corrupt and cruel judge, and a servant of the Stuart Crown and not of justice and the people. I mention him as an outstanding example from history, and also because I was born in a
  1300
  house built in the parkland of his old mansion at Acton, Wrexham. I hope that not too much has rubbed off on me.
  The Crown Prosecution Service is to be even more firmly in the hands of the state, because the Bill opens up all the courts to it. The state defence service is proposed in the name of wider choice. The accused currently has a wide choice of solicitors to represent him in his area. Through them, particularly in serious trials, he has access to the best advocates in the country.
  The Government argue that state employees in a state defender service will act with the same independence as the rest of the legal profession because the statute says so in its code of conduct in Section 16. They argue that judges are paid by the state and they are incorruptible, so why should state defenders be different? We are reaching the stage when the state will be prosecuting, defending and paying for the judge. The only truly independent and impartial element of the criminal justice system in our higher courts will be the jury. It will not be many months before we are faced with legislation to limit the cases in which jury trial will be permitted.
  The argument against the state defender system is not fuelled by vested interests. I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for repeating what I said on Third Reading. If choice is maintained between a state nationalised defence service and independent solicitors and banisters, there is no contest. Time and again we have been told that in Scotland, where a pilot project is running, 20 per cent of defendants choose the state defender service. The only light to be thrown on those figures came from Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws from the Government Benches. She said that it depended on the sign of the zodiac that a person was born under. Those born in January and February were assigned the state defender service and those born later in the year were entitled to an independent solicitor and barrister. I do not accept the arguments about free choice and the figure of 20 per cent in Scotland.
  The standards of service to the consumer—the person who faces a threat to his liberty—are currently protected by the highly competitive nature of the independent Bar and the contract system introduced by the Bill. The legal services commission will insist on higher standards from those who are contracted to provide criminal defence work at the independent Bar. The court is currently protected by the strict disciplines of the legal profession, particularly the Bar, the chambers and the professional bodies. We are concerned to maintain the balance between the state, which prosecutes, and the individual who is charged.
  The Government ask how we dare suggest that those attracted to the state defender service would be of an inferior quality. Those of us from all quarters of the House with practical knowledge of the functioning of the Bar and the solicitors' profession in criminal law realise that a state defender service will not attract the highest calibre of candidate. There are not glittering prizes in the state defender's office. The Lord Chancellor referred to my suggestion that the creation of a state defender service nationwide would result in a

  1301
  vast bureaucracy. The Crown Prosecution Service certainly has. I do not see how a state defender service could operate a little bit here and a little bit there, but not over large tracts of the country. Of course there will have to be a structure, of course it will be expensive and of course there will be a head of the service and various levels of management beneath that. There will be a bureaucracy.
  Our position is not extreme. It is shared by the criminal practitioners in the House from all parties who have spoken, including some on the Government Benches. It is also shared by Mr Denzil Davies in another place. Our position is irreconcilable with that of the Lord Chancellor.
  However, it would be churlish of me not to recognise the force of what the noble and learned Lord later said about the change in regulations concerning the right of a defendant to change his lawyer if he loses confidence in him. That has not been said before and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for making it clear that regulations will cover that.
  I appreciate the constitutional questions that have been raised, but the principle of an independent Bar and independent solicitors acting for the accused when prosecuted by the state is fundamental. It is a freedom that has been long fought for and gained. It has nothing to do with fashionable consumerist ideas.
  Moved, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No.:30B. Amendment No. 30BA—(Lord Thomas of Gresford)
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have two questions for the Lord Chancellor about the regulations. First, when the accused seeks to have a second defender, who decides whether that request should be granted? I hope that it is a magistrate, who is outside the set-up. Secondly, if that request is granted does the second defender have the conduct of the case?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the answer to the first question is that I am fairly confident that it is a judge. The answer to the second question is yes.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I fear that I may lay myself open to the charge of dissembling if I venture to compliment the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on his opening remarks. They were the most dispassionate and constructive that I have yet heard him utter on the subject.
  I remain, however, fearful of the idea of a state-employed representative defending the accused in a criminal case. I find that repugnant in principle. It is even more repugnant if both prosecutor and defender are employed by the state.
  I recognise that, in his amendments, the noble and learned Lord has sought to allay the fears of those who share my view by seeking to separate the criminal defence representation service from the criminal defence service itself, making it a self-standing body. That is a constructive proposal.
  1302
  We are not seeking to question the integrity or professionalism of criminal lawyers employed by the state. However, we believe that duty to one's employer and duty to the court are irreconcilable. The noble and learned Lord supports the amendments from another place modifying this situation, and that means some progress has been made.
  However, I am less happy about the noble and learned Lord's remarks both with regard to the question of need and with regard to the question of competition. I cart find no evidence in our country of the need for a state criminal defence service; nor has the noble and learned Lord sought to lay any evidence of need before your Lordships' House. With the addition of the solicitors' profession, which is to have full rights of audience in the Crown Court, the case for need is weakened rather than strengthened.
  In relation to competition, I must first thank the noble and learned Lord for explaining the amendment which came from another place, making it absolutely clear that the criminal accused will be able to choose, in all circumstances, between a state employed defender where available, on the one hand, and a private sector barrister on the other. That is reassuring and welcome, and I thank him for it.
  However, in relation to the criminal accused who is on legal aid, the fact that he chooses between a state employee on the one hand and a private self-employed barrister on the other who is in receipt of legal aid funds is irrelevant from a competition point of view. All the accused is concerned with is choosing the best man or woman to represent him in court. So what is the relevance of competition to that?
  Surely it lies elsewhere. Surely the importance of competition to which the Lord Chancellor refers covers the cost to the state of employing a defender who is employed by the state, as against the cost to the state of employing a private sector lawyer who is the beneficiary of moneys which come from the new contracting process which will flow from this Bill.
  But is that competition as we understand the term in a market economy? Market prices play no role in pricing either service. The cost of the state employee is determined by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Equally, the cost of a private sector lawyer will be determined by a process of contractual bargaining between the Lord Chancellor's Department and a particular firm of solicitors—a negotiation in which the Lord Chancellor's Department is a monopoly provider of funds.
  Where is the competition? The fact is that the stale is in control in both cases. It will not be the forces of competition which determine the future role that the criminal defence service will play; it will be the forces of politics which lodge in the noble and learned Lord's department.
  Having delivered myself of what is likely to be, in the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's opinion, a long speech, I now come to my closing remarks. Of course I entirely accept the constitutional position as set out by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Noble Lords have had the opportunity to amend this Bill

  1303
  at Committee stage, Report stage and at Third Reading. The Bill went to another place. Your Lordships' amendments were reversed. It came back and your Lordships sent it back again. It is now back in your Lordships' House. There is no question that, in terms of political legitimacy, another place is in a stronger position than your Lordships' House.
  I regret the fact that another place chose to support amendments which in some respects undermine the constitutional position of the criminal accused. However, it is now your Lordships' constitutional duty, I submit, to accept that position; to take the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at his word; to accept that he has great confidence in what he has done and to leave matters to move to their obvious conclusion.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, in the words normally associated with a dying declaration, I have a settled, hopeless expectation that the Government will inevitably get their way. But I should like to record my personal dismay at the Government's dismantling of our system for the administration of justice as we know it.
  There is no demand; there is no need for a state criminal defence system. Why therefore is it being foisted upon us? The answer, I fear, is not a surprising one. It is because the Treasury wants it, and the Treasury wants it, in the words of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, because it provides a means to assess whether value for money is being achieved. What goes into "value for money"? Where does justice feature in that concept? I fear it features very little.
  The idea behind the Commons amendment is to establish that a state system is cheaper—that is what "value for money" in the Treasury approach means. If it is cheaper, what will happen? There will be no justification in that situation for the state criminal defence service existing alongside the private service. It will be the means of dealing with legal aid.
  I referred to the "dismantling" of our system. Perhaps I may refer to the same process in regard to the Crown Prosecution Service. That is being imposed not out of a theoretical desire to give rights of audience to lawyers who are employed—there is no need for that; there is no demand—it is again to see whether it can be established that the employed lawyer, under the employed system, can provide better value for money, which merely means the Treasury concept of it being cheaper. If it is, there will not be any exception to the CPS doing all the prosecution work; and it is not only the CPS; it is also the government employed lawyers in their specialities; for example, Customs and Excise and the Revenue. The Treasury says it will be cheaper to employ them than to go outside.
  I come now to the rights of audience where the position is the same. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was at pains to point out that, despite solicitors in private practice for the past five years having had the unfettered right to appear in all the High Courts so long as they pass the simple requirements of the Law Society, only 1 per cent of solicitors in private practice availed themselves of that advantage. We were
  1304
  provided with the explanation. First, they were not very good examinees. I do not blame them. Why should they be? They were not trained for advocacy, which is a specialist function. No doubt GPs would fare the same way if they were tested to be brain surgeons. Secondly, the solicitors found the work a disturbance to their methods for running their practices. It takes time to research a problem. It is cheaper to farm it out to the Bar.
  The listing system can be accommodated by the Bar, which can take the rough with the smooth, but with solicitors there was too much rough and too little smooth. The quantity of work available to them was too small. That is what the Lord Chancellor's own advisory committee discovered through two universities retained to do the research. That information does not feature anywhere except in a long article by Professor Zander. We would not have heard about it but for that article.
  Why should matters change? They should do so for two reasons. First, it has been made somewhat easier for the city solicitor who does not appear in the county court or police court to be allowed to qualify for advocacy rights. Much more to the point, advocacy will be forced upon the reluctant solicitor. The block contracts that will be the manner of retaining solicitors will be from start to finish and include advocacy. Of course a solicitor can contract out of the advocacy if he is so minded but that would cost him money—and block contracts will be highly competitive. It will not be a satisfactory financial situation if the solicitor contracts out. He will therefore avail himself of the audience rights.
  The rights of audience imposed that way will produce a cheaper system. Block contracts will turn out to be cheaper than a contract with solicitors to do their side of the work, with the engagement by solicitors of others in cases that the Bar now does in practice although it has no entitlement solely to do so. The rights of audience will be another dismantling of the profession designed to be cheaper.
  Your Lordships may say that all that is a bit far fetched, but I remind the House of the aetiology of the conditional fee, which was introduced by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern when he was Lord Chancellor. He did not introduce it other than on the basis that regulations would fill in the details of what the arrangement would cost and so on. He told us in Committee that in Scotland the conditional fee was operative but there was no mark-up or increased fee for taking the risk. He thought that a moderate increase of 5 per cent was all that would be necessary. On that prospectus, power was given to enable the conditional fee system to exist which had hitherto been looked upon as contrary to public policy—largely over the conflict it raised between solicitor and his client.
  That prospectus was false because 5 per cent became 10 per cent. That was not good enough so 10 per cent became 20 per cent. That was not good enough so it was multiplied by five, contrary to the Lord Chancellor's own advisory committee, and turned into 100 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with that shrewd insight for which he is well known—said, "You must not use the conditional fee to prejudice and cause delay. It must

  1305
  not be open to the authorities to say that this is a case where one could get a conditional fee system up and running and there should not be legal aid". That provision to safeguard legal aid was put in statutory form in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.
  What has happened with a change of government? It is not that the conditional fee has been to some extent modified but the conditional fee is essentially to do away with legal aid in all personal injury cases and others. That has been allowed by regulations or orders made by the Lord Chancellor—not by primary legislation—in the teeth of resistance by the Government to monitoring exactly what is happening. Risk evaluation was referred to by the one small investigation undertaken by a policy institute. Risk evaluation was rightly queried because in personal injury cases, it is common ground that the success rate is more than 90 per cent. The risk evaluation on the short test that was made showed that clients were being charged not 10 per cent or 20 per cent but close to 50 per cent. I wager that the majority of those cases did not come to trial, for the simple reason that they were observed at an early stage to be open and shut.
  If the Government are prepared to use conditional fees in the manner that I have suggested, that is the clearest possible demonstration that, given the fascination with achieving something cost-effective, the evaluation is likely to be made without a proper introduction and assessment of justice. That is not what the Treasury is good at. For those reasons, in the words of the classicist, 0 tempora 0 mores.
  4.19 p.m.
  Viscount Runciman of Doxford: My Lords, I rise to query one implication of what I understood the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, to be saying. I have almost always found myself to be in agreement with him whenever I have heard his silver-tongued eloquence in the House on these matters in the past.
  My concern is the implication, which I hope he may be willing to disavow, that the quest for value for money is inherently misconceived because it is merely a euphemism for a loss of quality for the sake of cheapness. Anybody who has looked in detail, from outside and inside, at the criminal justice system will agree that in some significant areas it is seriously underfunded but that others—not least criminal defendants—do not get value for money in that the interests of justice and could be equally well served at less cost. To the extent that that is so, and to the extent that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor believes that the Government are introducing measures which will reduce cost without impairing standards, it seems to me that that is something which, in principle, all Members of this House ought to be willing to support.
  Amendment No. 30BA, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 30B, negatived.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  30C Clause 14, page 11, line 20, leave out (", except itself providing advice or assistance").
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30C, to which I spoke when introducing Amendment No. 30B.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30C.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  30D Clause 15, page 11, line 40, at end insert—
  ("() employing persons to provide representation,").
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30D, to which I spoke when dealing with Amendment No. 30B.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30D.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  [Amendment No. 30DA, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 30D, not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  30E Clause 15, page 11. line 43, leave out (", except itself providing representation").
  30F Page 12, line 35, after ("Commission") insert ("or by a body established and maintained by the Commission").
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30E and 30F en bloc, to which I spoke when dealing with Amendment No. 30B.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30E and 30F.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  31 Clause 15, page 12, line 25, at end insert—
  ("() an individual who has been provided with advice or assistance funded by the Commission tinder section 14 is to be taken to have selected as his representative pursuant to that right the person who provided the advice or assistance,").
  31C Page 12, line 25, at end insert—
  ("(aa) an individual who has been provided with advice or assistance funded by the Commission under section 14 by a person whom he chose to provide it for him is to be taken to have selected that person as his representative pursuant to that right,").
  31D Page 12, line 35, at end insert—
  ("(9A) Regulations under subsection (8)(aa) may prescribe circumstances in which an individual is to be taken to have chosen a person to provide advice or assistance for him.").
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31C and 31D en bloc, in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 31. When we last debated

  1307
  this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, tabled a Motion that this House should disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31. No doubt it was inadvertent, immediately after his group of then successful Motions about salaried defenders, that he moved the Motion without speaking to it. I do not know whether he would have pressed it if he had first heard the explanation of Amendment No. 31, which I subsequently gave to the House. I imagine that he is as surprised as the rest of us to find that this issue is still before us.
  These amendments relate to Clause 15, which establishes the duty of the commission to fund representation, sets out the means by which it may do so and provides powers to limit the extent to which the defendant may choose his or her representative.
  It is right that defendants should be able to choose their representative, not least to promote their confidence in the criminal justice system. Clause 15(7) enshrines this principle. However, a completely unrestricted choice would not be practicable nor desirable. Subsection (8) therefore contains powers to limit that choice.
  Amendment No. 31 sought to extend those powers in order to ensure, as far as possible, that a person was represented by the same lawyer throughout the case. One of the fundamental weaknesses of the present criminal legal aid system is its fragmentation. This can lead to help being given under several different parts of the scheme in a single case: green form advice, advice and assistance at the police station, advice from the duty solicitor at the magistrates' court and a full legal aid order for representation in court. That produces duplication and delay as well as unnecessary cost.
  Amendment No. 31C, like Amendment No. 31 before it, is central to our plans to eliminate these deficiencies in the future. It is a power to make regulations providing that an individual should stay throughout the case with the lawyer he first chooses unless there is a good reason to change. Once an individual has chosen an adviser, typically when being questioned by the police, the taxpayer should only have to pay for another lawyer to take over the case, necessarily repeating a good deal of the work that has already been done, if there is a good, sound reason for a change. An example would be a conflict of interest between clients.
  Perhaps I may explain how we envisage the system working in practice. A person being questioned by the police will be able to select his or her adviser from any firm holding a contract with the legal services commission, or, perhaps, a salaried defender. Suspects would be shown a list of all firms based in the area and be informed of the implication of their choice. If the chosen adviser were not available, the individual would use the duty solicitor for the time being. But the duty solicitor would not be considered to have been selected, as a preference had been expressed for someone else. If an individual declines to express a preference, he will be advised by the duty solicitor and deemed to have selected the duty solicitor as his representative.
  1308
  Amendment No. 31C reinstates the power provided by Amendment No. 31, but in a way that makes clear that it is only intended to apply to a chosen adviser. The power provided by Amendment No. 31 could have been applied to any provider of advice and assistance; it did not distinguish between those who had been chosen by the suspect and those providing advice only because the chosen adviser was not available. The intention was for the regulations to make clear that a person advised by the duty solicitor would not be deemed to have chosen the duty solicitor as representative if a different choice had been expressed.
  Amendment No. 31C is a more limited power that applies only to chosen advisers. Amendment No. 31D provides power to define what constitutes a choice. This is necessary to deal with the situation of an individual who declines to express any preference. The regulations would provide that someone who remained silent, having been informed of his right to make a choice and the implications of not doing so, would be deemed to have chosen the duty solicitor who actually advised him. This is necessary to prevent people playing the system by refusing to express a preference, accepting the advice of the duty solicitor, and then seeking to exercise their right to choose a different representative when the case reaches court, probably causing the case to be adjourned.
  I have said repeatedly during the passage of the Bill that the public will receive quality-assured services. People requiring criminal defence services will benefit from performance standards that will be incorporated in all contracts. These will apply equally to salaried defenders. They will include targets for the proportion of requests to attend at a police station, having been selected by the individual, which are met by the solicitor's firm or the offices of the salaried defender. All firms with criminal defence service contracts and any salaried defenders will take part in the duty solicitor's rota. Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that advice and representation from the duty solicitor in any sense constitutes a second-class service.
  Perhaps I may add that we intend to consult on the details of all the regulations under Clause 15, including regulations about continuity between advice and representation under these amendments, as well as the details of the regulations that I mentioned when dealing with the previous group of amendments under Clause 15(8)(d) and (e). Regulations under Clause 15(8)(e) will define circumstances in which a change of representative is justified such as a conflict of interest between clients or a genuine and well founded loss of confidence or other breakdown in the lawyer/client relationship. Regulations under Clause 15(8)(d), dealing with the permitted number of representatives, will define the circumstances, including all jury trials, when a defendant may choose a specialist advocate as a second representative.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31 C and 31 D in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 31.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, my inadvertence on the previous occasion, for which I must apologise to the House, has had the benefit of clarifying and extending this clause and of introducing a degree of flexibility which it did not previously have. What concerned me was that a person who chose a lawyer under the clause as it was previously drafted was then fixed with that lawyer whether he maintained confidence in him or whether conflicts of interest had arisen. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for accepting the points which have been made to him on this matter. I have no opposition to the amendment that is put forward.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  56 Clause 29, page 19, line 14. at end insert—
  ("(5) If a conditional fee agreement is an agreement to which section 57 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (non-contentious business agreements between solicitor and client) applies, subsection (1) shall not make it unenforceable.").

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  56B Line 4, after ("applies") insert (-or is an agreement which is enforceable at common law")
  The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 56B to Commons Amendment No. 56 but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
  56C Page 19. line 17, after ("proceedings") insert ("apart from proceedings under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990").
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 56B to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 56C in lieu thereof.
  In bringing Amendment No. 56C before your Lordships' House the Government are fulfilling an undertaking given on the previous occasion on which this House considered this Bill. At that time we had before us Amendment No. 56B, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. On that occasion I said that the effect of Amendment No. 56B would have been to broaden the effect of Amendment No. 56 so that it excluded from the scope of this legislation not only non-contentious business agreements, but any form of fee agreement enforceable at common law, typically conditional fee agreements with no uplift—often known as Thai Trading agreements—and gave reasons, which I will not now repeat, as to why that would be undesirable.
  However, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made it absolutely clear that all he was trying to achieve was to preserve the position of solicitors entering into Thai Trading agreements in respect of proceedings under Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. If I may say so, this is another area of this Bill where the Government have both listened and responded positively. Section 82 allows people aggrieved by a statutory nuisance, for example inadequate housing, to seek an order for that nuisance to be put right. These cases are heard in a magistrates' court and are
  1310
  technically criminal cases, although they are in substance brought to enforce a civil right. Conditional fee agreements are not permitted in criminal cases under the existing legislation, and that position is maintained by the Bill. But as a result, the effect of bringing Thai Trading agreements into the scope of the legislation so as to be able to regulate them in the consumer interest was to outlaw them in these Section 82 proceedings.
  I said that after careful consideration the Government accepted that in this area an exception should be made to the general bar on using a conditional fee agreement in a criminal case. As I say, essentially these cases are about enforcing civil rights; and many of them are about the right to a decent standard of housing, an issue to which the Government attach a very high priority as part of their drive to combat social exclusion. I therefore suggested a somewhat unusual—perhaps completely unprecedented—course, which caused a little merriment around your Lordships' House but none the less, or perhaps because of that, found favour with your Lordships. I proposed that this House accept Amendment No. 56B, warts and all, for tactical purposes in order to make it possible to bring forward in another place an alternative amendment which dealt squarely with an exemption for the Environmental Protection Act. This is what Amendment No. 56C does. It amends Section 58A of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 so that proceedings under Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act are exempted from the ban on the use of conditional fees in criminal cases.
  I trust that Amendment No. 58C will meet with your Lordships' approval, and I would like to put on record my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for giving us the opportunity to make this useful amendment.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 56B to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 56C in lieu thereof.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, Amendment No. 56C, in our view, brings in a small but distinct improvement to this Bill. In that respect it is the last of many improvements to the Bill which have been made both in your Lordships' House and in another place. I join with my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford in paying a tribute—it is certainly a genuine tribute—to the Government and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in particular for their willingness to listen to the arguments to make improvements to this Bill, some of which have been very much more important than this amendment.
  I have to say that we are left with a number of serious concerns. One of those was aired in the debate earlier this afternoon; others have been discussed at length at earlier stages of this Bill. As Amendment No. 56C is certainly in our view an improvement to the Bill, all I need to say at this stage is that we are happy to welcome it.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [H.L.]
4.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [H.L.]
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The page and line refer to Bill 74 as first printed for the Commons]
  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  1 Clause 1, page 1, line 21, leave out ("may order the offender") and insert ("shall sentence the offender for the offence by ordering him").

  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 1.
  1A That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
  Lord Windlesham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2 which deals with the same point.
  Let me rehearse briefly the background to these amendments. Earlier in the Session, at Third Reading the House made a small but significant change in the wording of the opening clause of the Bill. The purpose of that clause is to enable a youth court or other magistrates' court to refer certain categories of young offender under the age of 18 to youth offender panels. The new power is not intended to be available where an offence is one for which the sentence is fixed by law, nor where the court is proposing to impose a custodial sentence, or to make a hospital order, or is proposing to make an absolute discharge.
  Moreover, to be eligible for referral the young person before the court needs to have pleaded guilty, and never to have been previously convicted of a criminal offence, nor bound over to keep the peace or be of good behaviour. I wish to stress that none of these requirements is affected in any way by the amendment.
  It has been made clear that the policy objective of the legislation is one that we can all accept; that is, to prevent reoffending by as many young people as possible who are appearing in court for the first time. Rather than attending the court in a detached, resentful, and often uncomprehending manner, the aim is to divert young first offenders away from the procedural formalities inherent in the penal system. Instead, they will be referred to youth offender panels designed to help young people to understand the effects of their actions on the victims and on a wider community.
  The ideals of reparation and taking personal responsibility are far from new. But now, under the general rubric of restorative justice, it is a concept whose hour has come. The proposed referrals
  1312
  complement the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and form part of what we should acknowledge as a carefully thought-out series of policies designed to combat the widespread harm done by youth offending. All of that is common ground and is welcome.
  The only aspect which divided the House on Third Reading was whether the referral orders should be mandatory, provided that certain conditions were met, or the sentencing court should have discretion whether or not to make such an order, taking account of all the circumstances of the actual case once the facts had been established. After a full debate the House agreed, albeit by a narrow majority of four, on a vote in which 293 Peers took part, to an amendment moved by myself and supported by four leading counsel—the noble Lords, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, Lord Renton, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Thomas of Gresford, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. All, save the noble Lord. Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, are present in the Chamber this afternoon, and all have experience of sentencing as Recorders in the Crown Court.
  The effect of the amendment was to leave the making of a referral order within the discretion of the court. Other notable speeches in support were made from the Cross Benches by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, former Lord Chief Justice of England, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, Chairman of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice.
  The debate continued in the House of Commons and covered much of the same ground. It was the subject of a full-day session in Standing Committee and later occupied some two hours of debate on the Floor of the House on Report. On each occasion Ministers declined to make any concession to meet the objections of principle that had been raised towards mandatory sentencing, and the Lords' amendment was reversed on a Division in Standing Committee.
  Earlier this month, on 8th July, some carefully drafted alternative wording was proposed from the Opposition Benches for Clause 1. But that, too, was rejected in another place, once again on a Division at the Report stage. In the course of that debate the Home Secretary declared that he accepted the case for flexibility. But his speech concentrated on the way in which referral orders are to be drawn up in the form of a contract with the offender.
  These details will be important, especially as it is intended that the duration of the order may vary between three to 12 months, with the actual term being specified by the sentencing court. The noble Lord. Lord Williams of Mostyn, may recall that he used the same example in his unsuccessful attempt to head off defeat the last time we debated this matter.
  The Home Secretary took the reasoning further when he replied to the debate on Report in another place. He pointed out that if what he referred to as "unanticipated inflexibilities" should arise, the Secretary of State would have power under Clause 2(3) of the Bill to make such amendments by regulation as he considered necessary to vary the descriptions of the offenders to whom the compulsory or discretionary referral conditions should apply.

  1313
  But varying the conditions does not go to the heart of this dispute. Whatever criteria are adopted to describe the categories eligible to be referred to youth offender panels, and however carefully constructed the contract that is drawn up by the panel for each individual young person, the reality remains that the court must—not "may"—make a referral order when sentencing any offender to whom the Act applies. This is the central feature of the procedure which remains objectionable for the reasons that have already been comprehensively rehearsed in both Houses.
  As the Bill stands, the first two clauses attempt to define the sort of person it is envisaged should be subject to the new order. The objection is that sentencing in a just society is not, or should not be, directed towards categories of people at all. Once guilt has been established, the court should treat each offender as an individual and decide on the penalty appropriate to the harm done and other relevant factors. Treating people before the courts by category inevitably produces hard cases at the margin.
  I submit that we should heed the warning of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, with his great experience of sentencing over a long period of time. In the previous debate he said:
  "the sad fact is that the mandatory sentence or mandatory disposal order will inevitably he a potential miscarriage of justice".—[Official Report, 23/3/99; col. 1159]
  I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Windlesham.)
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I hope that I am allowed to comment at this time. I am concerned about the wording of the Commons amendment; it somewhat blows a hole in the definition of the difference between a sentence and an order with which I grew up. As a social worker in the criminal justice field, I learnt that the difference was that if one was sentenced, that was the end of it; if one was placed on an order. one had to complete a programme. If the programme was not satisfactorily completed, one could be referred back to the court and another punishment imposed. The Commons amendment seems to do away with that definition. Clearly someone who has been placed on a referral order can, under Clause 13, be referred back. Therefore, I make the simple point that if the Commons amendment is included in the Bill, the definition that we have grown up with will no longer be valid.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Windlesham has put forward the case fully and with great clarity, so one can be brief. Those of us who have had judicial experience know that mandatory sentences and even mandatory probation orders—anything mandatory—fetters the discretion and should be avoided especially when dealing with young first offenders where the circumstances can be very unusual and not necessarily warrant any kind of mandatory sentence.
  1314
  In case they are wrong I suppose that the Government are relying on Clause 2(3) which enables the Secretary of State to put the matter right and alter the provisions as regards mandatory sentences in Clause 1 by making a regulation. That is a sign of weakness. Bearing in mind the vast experience already obtained in the courts, it is far better that we avoid mandatory sentences and enable the courts, with all the facts before them. including the personality of the accused, to do the right thing. Under the Bill as it stands, a number of injustices occur and that is unfortunate. It would not be worth waiting for a regulation.
  In any event, as I have said on previous occasions. it is far better that the Government should get the primary legislation right first time instead of using the power to fall back on regulations which neither House would have power to amend. Therefore, I strongly hope that what my noble friend Lord Windlesham said will be accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I remember very well the answer he gave at Report stage. I very often agree with him on legal matters. On this occasion I hope that he will realise that it would be unwise for the Government to fetter the courts in the way that the House of Commons was advised to do and to which he was then a party. One of the signs of greatness in our parliamentary system is the ability of Ministers to change their minds. I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord will believe it right to do so.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as I have supported this amendment with my noble friend Lord Windlesham on more than one occasion, I compliment him on the way he presented it today. There is very little more one can add. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, understands the argument. We agreed long ago that he could not change his attitude towards it so that the matter should he put to the House. The argument is simply put. There should be some flexibility to avoid injustice, which must occur from time to time if one has a mandatory regime.
  As I understand it, the issue brings to light a misconception perhaps on the part of the Home Secretary that inflexibility can be cured by Clause 2(3). I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will agree that it cannot. It relates to the referral conditions in Clause 2. We are essentially concerned with Clause 1. So we are landed with what is a mandatory regime.
  As this matter has been to another place, I do not believe that it will be possible for the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to change tack. I wish that he could and would. I can well understand that he cannot and he will not. As a parting shot over the bows, one can say, as Sir Nicholas Lye11 said in another place when my noble friend's amendment was rejected, it was a constructive amendment to an otherwise thoroughly sensible proposal. That echoes the way in which those who support the amendment put it forward. This matter has been fully debated in your Lordships' House in which the Opposition command no overall majority and in another place where the Government command a massive overall majority. The argument was narrowly

  1315
  won in fair debate in your Lordships' House, according to the Official Report. However, the amendment was rejected in the other place by 296 votes to 118.
  I speak only for myself, as usual, but it would seem ridiculous to jeopardise a good Bill by insisting on the amendment today. But it leaves a slight on the magistracy. It calls into question their experience, dedication and general competence. If the matter were put to a vote, I would abstain. Your Lordships have done a great service through this amendment and in supporting my noble friend Lord Windlesham today. In the course of time and in the light of experience, the Home Secretary may wish to recognise that.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, on this occasion, as when your Lordships last discussed this issue, I disagree with my noble friend Lord Windlesham and other noble Lords and agree with the Government in their approach to this amendment.
  In my view, the Government are not in any way casting a slight on magistrates, as my noble friend has just suggested. They are trying to widen the procedures we use beyond the present system. I believe that as the system develops, magistrates would understand that very well. Whether the new system will work, we do not know. That will be proved only over a period of time by trying it out. However, we do know that despite the best efforts of caring and experienced magistrates, who put everything they have into making judgments, the present system does not work as well as anyone would like, and far too many young people reoffend. Surely it is well worth trying a different approach.
  The Government know that many young offenders continue to have what is the awesome experience of appearing in court. However, they will then have the very different experience of appearing before a panel. The panel will require a great deal of them and will involve such young people in committing themselves. If they fail in what they undertake, they will then return to the court.
  My noble friends have explained that they are happy with the panel procedure itself but feel that the magistrates should have it simply as an option among other sentencing procedures. For most offences I would agree with that. Magistrates are the people on the spot. They have experience and skill and they should decide in their different jurisdictions. I have taken part in that procedure, and I have carried out a great deal of youth work. I know that while sometimes it does work, too often it does not.
  However, we must look at this matter from the point of view of young people themselves. When they talk over with their friends what happens when one is caught for the first time, the change, if the magistrate is to decide what happens, will not be great. Young people will know that another possible sentence will be added to the existing possibilities they will face. For the scheme to work, young people will need to see certainty in it—the certainty of appearing in court and then, for most of them, before a panel. The panel will have a list of unattractive elements to which those young people
  1316
  will have to agree and stick over a period of time. The news will soon get out among young people likely to offend as to what happens when one appears before the panel and if one fails to do what one has agreed to do. One will go back to court and even worse will follow.
  Whether it is left to the magistrates to choose the panel most of the time, one cannot tell. One simply does not know. However, what is important is that young people should know that the automatic procedure for most people will be to appear in the court, then face the panel and agree to all the elements set down by it. If they do not succeed, such young people will have to go back to the court. I do not call that mandatory sentencing. It is an extension of the possibilities for dealing with young people. I am sorry that great lawyers are so conservative that they cannot see this measure from the point of view of young people. They cannot admit that the present system does not work and they are being difficult about it. I hope that on this occasion the Government will stick to their guns.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, does she realise that we are not trying to defend the present system? We are saying that the Government are not correcting the present system in a rational way.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, we are not trying to be difficult merely because she disagrees with us.
  Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. He brings to the debate his vast experience of the criminal justice system. I have always admired his work in this field but on this occasion I part company with him. I support very much the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour.
  Noble Lords will recall that during the passage of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill through your Lordships' House, I said that there was a need to introduce a little flexibility to the lower tariff of sentencing in the magistrates' courts. When at that time I spoke of flexibility, I sought not simply to restrict the provision to cases of absolute discharge. I was trying to ensure that people conditionally discharged were not referred to the youth offenders panel. The purpose of the amendment was to avoid, in almost all cases, the need for referral to the youth offenders panel. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is designed to introduce a discretion in the process. I believe that discretion at the lower end of the sentencing process was, and perhaps is, appropriate. Unfortunately, that is not being offered today.
  As on previous occasions, I cannot support the total flexibility proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. That would completely negate the primary aim of this imaginative new development by starving the new panels of referrals. I believe there is clarity in Clause 1. It clearly describes offences which do not require referral to the youth offenders panel:

  1317
  sentences that are fixed by law, sentences where a custodial option or a hospital order is envisaged or where an absolute discharge is appropriate.
  There is considerable variation in sentencing in magistrates' courts. Some are more punitive than others, despite sentencing guidelines which have been recommended by the Magistrates' Association. Such variation often brings the sentencing process into disrepute. For example, a court in East Anglia may sentence a young person to a conditional discharge whereas a London court may give an absolute discharge for the same offence. The effect of that is striking. In one case the individual will be referred to the youth offenders panel, while in the other that would not be required. The weakness of the present provision lies in the way magistrates exercise sentencing discretion, thus allowing some to form part of a contract with the young offenders team while others are exempted under Clause 1 of the Bill. A law is a bad law if it does not treat individuals with equity when they commit the same or a similar offence.
  The Government should look seriously at these variations in practice. Of course I appreciate that there is no single yardstick by which one can establish a uniform method of working in the courts and so allow trivial cases to be dealt with without having to refer them to youth courts. A little leeway at the lower end of the sentencing tariff will allow the use of discretion and thus introduce a more balanced approach to sentencing. Furthermore, it will reduce the workload of the youth offenders team. We must accept that some offences do not require youngsters to enter into a contract. I shall watch carefully the working of that part of the Act, and, if appropriate, shall return with amendments to future criminal justice legislation.
  I accept that it is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to undermine the youth referral panels. However, there is a real risk that more magistrates than we care to imagine will dislike the idea of losing control of the disposal of young offenders to a panel, and may not use the referral process as envisaged in the Bill. If that were to happen, it would undermine the aim of Clause 1, which is to provide a more suitable form of sentencing for most young offenders who appear in court for the first time than could be provided in court.
  Let us remind ourselves again of what would be lost if the proposed youth panel system were to be jeopardised by magistrates choosing to keep most cases in the youth court. The panel would be better able fully to involve the young person and the parents in discussing the offence, its impact on the victim and the steps that should be taken to make amends and ensure that there was no repetition. In the formal proceedings of the youth court, young offenders and their parents often fail fully to understand what is happening. The legal procedures can hinder the process of young people and their parents speaking and contributing fully to the discussion. A contract could be drawn up to concentrate on the best course of action to prevent reoffending, including attention to the welfare needs of the young
  1318
  person and his or her family; for example, family counselling, educational measures, and help to overcome drug abuse.
  Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I have found this a difficult question to which to return. However, I have been fully persuaded by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour that the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Windlesham should not be accepted.
  Referral to a youth offender panel should be obligatory in the circumstances and situations set out in Clauses 1 and 2 because I fear that magistrates might be unwilling to use the new scheme to the full. As I have said previously, I am very keen on this new proposal. It has been in the pipeline for several years and, at last, we are placing it on the statute book. Every encouragement needs to be given for the referrals to be made.
  Magistrates do not always make the right decisions. I was in a police car earlier this year and watched a criminal event taking place. I recently heard that what I regarded as criminal behaviour was not so accepted by the magistrate and the person was let off. Therefore, I come down strongly on the side of acceptance of the Commons amendment, which I back, for the reasons more fully and eloquently explained by my noble friend Lady Carnegy.
  Viscount Runciman of Doxford: My Lords, I shall be brief. I was mainly in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. However, I wholly accept that there are arguments on both sides and I am sure we all support the objective of the legislation. I merely want to ask the Minister whether he will make clear what seems to be the strongest grounds on which the Government are insisting on maintaining their position; namely, not that they do not trust magistrates to do what they are there to do, but that in this particular instance the Minister is afraid that for some reason magistrates will be unwilling to use a power that has been placed in their hands precisely to meet the kind of cases in which we all agree that it should be used. It has not been clear to me in any of the previous discussions why it is the Minister's belief—which must be the case to be consistent with his position—that he does not think that magistrates will do what he feels the interests of justice require.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the main issue is the simple one of the discretion of magistrates. We all support restorative justice and concur with the setting up of the new panels. We hope that they will he as successful as we all believe they may be. We should have preferred magistrates to preside over the panels and for the police always to be represented on them. However, we are not arguing about those matters today.
  The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, pointed out that the description in the amendments before the House has altered slightly, so as to make this an act of sentencing, which previously it was not. That seems to be a secondary order point or, if anything, lower in the hierarchy of points that might be made. Nevertheless, I welcome the change of wording. Being sent to a panel, which can result in a loss of freedom for the young

  1319
  offender, or in that person having to pay money, will be seen by the young person as a sentence, and that is the correct description. The question that we are considering today is whether magistrates should be obliged to send young first offenders to the new panels in most cases, subject to the exceptions that have been set out. We should much prefer it to be an option for magistrates.
  There are two arguments in the opposite direction. The first is that some magistrates will not be happy with the idea of panels and will use any option that is given to them so as never to send young offenders in this category to the panels. Personally, I doubt that that will happen. My noble friend Lady Carnegy is right to say that we cannot be sure at this point whether the panels will do the job that we hope that they will do, or whether they will work as well as we hope in the form in which they are being set up. But if they do work, I believe that magistrates will be keen to send young offenders to them. They will not hold back from doing so if it is in the general interest that they should; namely, if it leads to less offending, particularly among youths—and we are all worried about the amount of youth crime and the way in which some youths move from small to larger crime. I do not believe that magistrates will in general hold back, provided that the process is seen to work. Of course there will be Benches of magistrates who will be keener on the idea from day one. If the process does not work very well, other magistrates will hold back from sending youths to the panel. But if the process works as we hope it will, magistrates will use it. That is one of the reasons why it is important to provide an option.
  The second argument is about sending a message to those who are likely to offend for the first time. I doubt whether the question of whether it is statutorily essential for magistrates to send young people to a youth panel or have an option to send them to the panel will be weighed in the balance with an first offender. I do not believe that appearing before a panel would be so much of a deterrent as would a conventional sentence. In any case, I do not believe that the nice point with which we are dealing will be weighed heavily in the balance.
  We on these Benches prefer this to remain an option in the way in which your Lordships changed this aspect of the Bill. This is not a party point. We support my noble friend Lord Windlesham.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, once more I am most grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, introduced this matter with his usual courtesy, accuracy and lucidity, which makes my task much easier. He set out the store so plainly that there is nothing I need add about the consequences of the order.
  I have thought carefully about these matters. It is plain that there is a division of approach. Fundamentally, on all sides of the House everyone is agreed that the new referral order should be supported. Therefore, the question on which we disagree is what should be the triggering mechanism. The more I have reflected on what has been said the more I have concluded how lamentably little sentencers know in an area where they could know more. When one is at the point of sentence, the material available will necessarily
  1320
  be limited. That is not the fault of magistrates but a necessary consequence of the way that we sentence young people.
  It was said that a number of your Lordships who had spoken, from the former Lord Chief Justice down, for whom I have the greatest respect, had had great legal experience as sentencers. I agree. However, that body of past sentencing experience has not been enormously productive in the outcome experience of young first-time offenders who plead guilty. One needs to focus with great care on the component population of which we are speaking. We are concerned with young first-time offenders who have pleaded guilty. If we fail that component we know what will happen. Those young people will have arid and wasted lives, the prison population a few years later will rise and they will end up with unproductive, unhelped lives.
  The heart of the dispute has already been defined. The question is whether or not this target group should have referral orders in virtually every case. The exceptions have been properly described: custody; obligatory sentences in the circumstances described by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, or absolute discharge. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Runciman, we want to ensure that every one of the target group I have defined is given the opportunity that attendance at a youth offender panel offers. We say that in those circumstances it should be virtually automatic.
  Very often the court system, particularly for young children who enter it for the first time, does not assist at all. The processes, structures, delays and procedures often militate against a young first time offender having the informed assistance and help that he or she wants. It is said that the magistrates have all the facts at their disposal when they come to pass sentence. In a deeper sense I do not believe that that is true. They are aware of the immediate circumstances of the offence, and they should retain responsibility in terms of proportionality in deciding whether custody or an absolute discharge should be imposed. As indicated earlier, they decide the length of the order.
  We believe that the present system denies sentencers the deeper understanding of the needs of children and young people. As a consequence, sentences have not been appropriate. Sometimes, the sentences have not been firm enough, not in the sense of being punitive but in the sense of giving directed assistance and support, which is the critical aspect of the new scheme. The referral order has built-in flexibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, pointed out. It requires the offender to attend meetings and agree a programme of activity. Many of them have never had any structure to their lives at all. The terms of the contract can be infinitely flexible so that it is suited to different offenders and offences. We seek to take away the present limiting straitjacket from the sentencing process.
  It is interesting to see how views have crystallised. Everyone who has spoken has a deep involvement and interest in these matters, and there has been a virtually even—not in numerical terms—division in the way that we propose to proceed. The more I have thought about it the more certain I have become—not because we have

  1321
  said it once and, therefore, to say it three times makes it acceptable—that the views expressed by the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, among others, are right.
  There is one other minor point. It is always the one that is not of the greatest importance. I must remind the House that the amendment to Clause 1, which we agreed by a majority of four, was flawed in that the references to compulsory referral orders remain throughout Part I of the Bill. I simply put that to the House because it is my duty to do so. It does not bear on the validity of the argument. The more I have reflected on this matter the more I am convinced that the views expressed by the noble Lords I have mentioned are right.
  Lord Windlesham: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord for the way he has worded his reply. I suggest that here we have an instance of good intentions, which are not denied and have been expressed articulately, that can have adverse consequences. The Minister spoke about the target group being young first-time offenders who plead guilty. He said that every one of that group should be given an opportunity to take part in youth offender panels where they would receive informed assistance and help. Does not the expression "given an opportunity" suggest an element of free choice? Yet, there is no free choice in this instance. On the contrary, there is an intentional element of compulsion.
  If we consider young first-time offenders who plead guilty, is it fanciful to believe that there could be pressure brought to bear to plead guilty when the circumstances of the actions that brought them before the court might not result in a criminal conviction? But the good-intentioned people who believe in the value of the panels have decided that those young people will be eligible only if they plead guilty. That will mean a conviction, and criminal record with which a young person must live for the rest of his or her life. That is a very serious matter.
  Conversely, the insistence on first offenders will make ineligible those who have previously been bound over for a lesser offence. Why can they, too, not benefit from referral to a panel? Because in attempting to define eligible persons by category they have been excluded. Consequently, human nature will continue to defy categorisation and definition in the way we see it set out in the first two clauses of the Bill.
  Contrary to what has been said by some speakers in the course of the debate, initially there were signs that the Government might be considering accepting the amendment tabled in this House. The Explanatory Notes that accompanied the Bill in the House of Commons stated that the drafting of Clauses 1 and 2 was under review. Yet that was not the response of the Home Secretary in moving the Second Reading in another place. He was the first speaker in the long drawn-out proceedings in the Commons. He stated bluntly that the Government would seek to reverse the Lords amendment which made referral discretionary rather than mandatory.
  1322
  There were lengthy exchanges in Standing Committee, and approximately two hours of debate when the Bill returned to the Floor of the House of Commons. But none of it counted for anything as the Home Secretary had already made clear that the Government intended to reverse the amendment.
  I remain convinced that this is a wrong turning of some significance in criminal policy. I accept that the issue divides opinion. Nowhere was the division more clearly demonstrated than on the Liberal Democrat Benches. On the previous occasion one of the sponsors of the amendment carried by the House was the Liberal Democrat Front Bench spokesman, but I shall embarrass him no further. As I do not intend to press the matter, he will not have to vote one way or the other.
  We have had a lengthy and valuable debate. It raises issues of principle. It is right that we should explore them again, as we have done today. However., I do not intend to press the motion. I beg leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  5.30 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  2 Page 2, line 2, leave out ("order the offender") and insert ("sentence the offender for the offence by ordering him").
  [Amendment No. 2A not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  3 Clause 7, page 7, line 15, at end insert—
  ("() Where the panel allow any such person as is mentioned in subsection (4)(a) ("the victim") to attend a meeting of the panel, the panel may allow the victim to be accompanied to the meeting by one person chosen by the victim with the agreement of the panel.").
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. Amendments Nos. 10, 23, 26 to 39 and 49 are grouped together because they are technical or minor drafting amendments. Amendment No. 3 makes it clear that a victim attending a panel meeting may be accompanied by a supporter. Amendment No. 10 is a minor drafting amendment to ensure that witnesses are able to use communication aids if the court considers that it would improve the quality of the evidence. Amendment No. 23 is a minor drafting amendment. The original formula in Clause 52 could have resulted in someone who is able to understand

  1323
  questions put by the court but not to give answers that could be understood being deemed competent. Amendment No. 23 deals with that.
  Amendment No. 26 is a technical amendment relating to Northern Ireland. There is no guarantee that the Northern Ireland Act provisions will necessarily be in effect by virtue of political agreement in Belfast by the time this Bill becomes an Act. We have, therefore, put in these provisions to ensure that the clause works in advance of devolution. Amendment No. 27 ensures that ministerial functions so far as exercisable under devolved competence would transfer automatically under Section 53 of the Scotland Act 1998 to Scottish Ministers.
  Amendment No. 28 omits subsection (10) of Clause 66 in the usual way so that public funds can be used to implement the Bill. Amendment No. 29 ensures that paragraph 6 covers all possible ways in which the court can deal with the offender. Amendment No. 30 makes it clear that paragraph 10(2), extension of referral for further offences, relates to paragraphs 11 and 12 to avoid any confusion that might otherwise arise.
  Amendments Nos. 31 and 49 replace references in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 to a convening officer with references to a "judge advocate" because "convening officers" are now out of date after the Armed Forces Act 1996.
  Amendments Nos. 32 to 39 extend the existing exceptions to the prohibition on the use of answers given under compulsion in criminal trials to the insolvency area.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I agree with Amendment No. 3, which is welcome, and the other amendments for the most part. However, I wish to draw attention to Amendment No. 27 which refers to Scotland. It seems odd that we should be placing this action retrospectively on the statute book with regard to Scottish devolution before the Scotland Act 1998. The boundaries of issues devolved to Scotland are sometimes difficult to follow. That is potentially damaging. However, that is a larger question than the immediate issue here.
  To say that this Act—in normal circumstances it is patently a post-commencement enactment as regards the Scotland Act—shall nevertheless be taken to be a pre-commencement enactment does not seem satisfactory in principle. It alters devolution in this one, I admit small and rather technical, respect after the event. I do not think it a good idea for Acts of Parliament to carry this kind of provision in future.
  It would be helpful if the Minister would explain further what is happening. Devolution has become an important matter. The boundaries of devolution between England and Scotland, England and Wales, and, it is to be hoped in due course, England and Northern Ireland, are different. They are not the same boundaries. The
  1324
  same items are not being devolved. They differ between the three countries within the United Kingdom. That makes the matter more difficult.
  It is an extremely small issue as regards this Bill. Nevertheless, I believe that a bad principle underlies the small amendment.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to be fully instructed on this otherwise arcane matter.
  I take the noble Lord's point, but it is a standard provision which enables Scottish Ministers to make the commencement orders in due course. I anticipate that there will be some occasions in the future when this will happen. I agree that one needs to be careful, but the amendment simply says that any provision of this Act extending to Scotland should be taken to be a pre-commencement enactment within the meaning of that Act. It is a mechanical device to give powers to the Scottish Ministers. I am grateful for the noble Lord's query.
  Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I endorse the amendments. On Amendment No. 3, Clause 7 of the Bill allows for an offender to be accompanied by another person. I am somewhat horrified that the Bill passed through this Chamber without a proposal for the vulnerable victim also to have the opportunity to bring a person with him to the panel meetings. I can find no other reference to that. I believe that I should criticise myself and others if we did not insert that at this time. I warmly welcome the amendment.
  I believe that Amendment No. 10 is a great improvement and clarifies the original version.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, in his comments on Amendment No. 27, the Minister said that it was to enable Scottish Ministers to put down commencement orders. But are the matters referred to here matters for which Westminster has been legislating after the matter has been devolved to Scotland? If so, the House is doing a little more than the Minister said. Are we using the clause in the Scotland Act, which provides that Westminster can continue to legislate on any matter already devolved if it finds it necessary to do so?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, because your Lordships disagreed to certain matters and the timetable was disrupted, Clause 27 is necessary to enable the Scottish Ministers to make the commencement orders. There may be similar occasions in future, although they should diminish with time. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, this is simply the mechanism which allows the Scottish Ministers to make the commencement orders. I do not see anything wrong in principle in that.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  4 Clause 17, page 13, line 13, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. It is grouped with Amendment No. 5.
  The purpose of these amendments is to strengthen the presumption that sexual offence complainants are eligible for assistance; in other words, they will be deemed eligible unless they specifically inform the court that they do not want to be considered as eligible.
  It is notorious that a good deal of material shows that many sex offence complainants who choose to report a sexual offence to the police decide not to go any further with it. We do not want the trial process to make it too difficult for complainants to take their case through to trial. It was suggested that the presumption in Clause 17 as originally drafted did not go far enough to assure rape complainants that they would receive help.
  Therefore, the amendments strengthen the initial presumption of eligibility for sex offence complainants. In other words, they will be considered eligible for help unless they tell the court they do not want to be helped. It is important that the court retains the discretion to decide which special measure or combination of measures will improve the complainant's evidence. That will include consideration of whether the measure might tend to inhibit the ability of the defence to test the complainant's evidence. I stress again that if the court decides that none of the special measures would improve the complainant's evidence, it will not make any available.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
  Lord Desai: My Lords, I welcome the amendments. Your Lordships may recall that I spoke on the matter when the Bill was before the House. The Commons have improved the provision immensely. I shall say no more about it because there was an excellent discussion in another place, especially the contribution from my honourable friend the Member for South Swindon. The amendments considerably improve the complainant's position and I look forward to its implementation.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  5 Clause 17, page 13, line 36, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 39 and insert ("(or to that offence and any other offences), the witness is eligible for assistance in relation to those proceedings by virtue of this subsection unless the witness has informed the court of the witness' wish not to be so eligible by virtue of this subsection.").
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  6 Clause 20, page 15, line 29, leave out ("21(6)") and insert ("(Special provisions relating to child witnesses)(8)").
  7 Leave out Clause 21.
  8 After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—

  SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO CHILD WITNESSES
  (".—(1) For the purposes of this section—

  (a) a witness in criminal proceedings is a "child witness." If he is an eligible witness by reason of section 16(l)(a) (whether or not he is an eligible witness by reason of any other provision of section 16 or 17);

  (b) a child witness is "in need of special protection" if the offence (or any of the offences) to which the proceedings relate is—

  (i) an offence falling within section 34(3)(a) (sexual offences etc.), or

  (ii) an offence falling within section 34(3)(b), (c) or (d) (kidnapping, assaults etc.); and

  (c) a "relevant recording", in relation to a child witness, is a video recording of an interview of the witness made with a view to its admission as evidence in chief of the witness.

  (2) Where the court, in making a determination for the purposes of section 19(2), determines that a witness in criminal proceedings is a child witness, the court must—

  (a) first have regard to subsections (3) to (7) below; and

  (b) then have regard to section 19(2);

  and for the purposes of section 19(2), as it then applies to the witness, any special measures required to be applied in relation to him by virtue of this section shall be treated as if they were measures determined by the court, pursuant to section 19(2)(a) and (b)(i). to be ones that (whether on their own or with any other special measures) would be likely to maximise, so far as practicable, the quality of his evidence.
  (3) The primary rule in the case of a child witness is that the court must give a special measures direction in relation to the witness which complies with the following requirements—

  (a) it must provide for any relevant recording to be admitted under section 26 (video recorded evidence in chief); and

  (b) it must provide for any evidence given by the witness in the proceedings which is not given by means of a video recording (whether in chief or otherwise) to be given by means of a live link in accordance with section 23.

  (4) The primary rule is subject to the following limitations—

  (a) the requirement contained in subsection (3)(a) or (b) has effect subject to the availability (within the meaning of section 18(2)) of the special measure in question in relation to the witness;

  (b) the requirement contained in subsection (3)(a) also has effect subject to section 26(2); and

  (c) the rule does not apply to the extent that the court is satisfied that compliance with it would not be likely to maximise the quality of the witness's evidence so far as practicable (whether because the application to that evidence of one or more other special measures available in relation to the witness would have that result or for any other reason).

  (5) However, subsection (4)(c) does not apply in relation to a child witness in need of special protection.
  (6) Where a child witness is in need of special protection by virtue of subsection (l)(b)(i), any special measures direction given by the court which complies with the requirement contained in subsection (3)(a) must in addition provide for the special measure available under section 27 (video recorded cross-examination or re-examination) to apply in relation to—

  (a) any cross-examination of the witness otherwise than by the accused in person, and

  (b) any subsequent re-examination.

  (7) The requirement contained in subsection (6) has effect subject to the following limitations—

  (a) it has effect subject to the availability (within the meaning of section 18(2)) of that special measure in relation to the witness; and

  (b) it does not apply if the witness has informed the court that he does not want that special measure to apply in relation to him.

  (8) Where a special measures direction is given in relation to a child witness who is an eligible witness by reason only of section 16(l)(a), then—

  (a) subject to subsection (9) below, and

  (b) except where the witness has already begun to give evidence in the proceedings,

  the direction shall cease to have effect at the time when the witness attains the age of 17.
  (9) Where a special measures direction is given in relation to a child witness who is an eligible witness by reason only of section 16(l)(a) and—

  (a) the direction provides—

  (i) for any relevant recording to be admitted under section 26 as evidence in chief of the witness, or

  (ii) for the special measure available under section 27 to apply in relation to the witness, and

  (b) if it provides for that special measure to so apply, the witness is still under the age of 17 when the video recording is made for the purposes of section 27,

  then, so far as it provides as mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) or (ii) above, the direction shall continue to have effect in accordance with section 20(1) even though the witness subsequently attains that age.").
  9 After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—

  EXTENSION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION (SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO CHILD WITNESSES) TO CERTAIN WITNESSES OVER 17
  (".—(1) For the purposes of this section—

  (a) a witness in criminal proceedings (other than the accused) is a "qualifying witness" if he—

  (i) is not an eligible witness at the time of the hearing (as defined by section 16(3)), but

  (ii) was under the age of 17 when a relevant recording was made;

  (b) a qualifying witness is "in need of special protection" if the offence (or any of the offences) to which the proceedings relate is—

  (i) an offence falling within section 34(3)(a) (sexual offences etc.), or

  (ii) an offence falling within section 34(3)(b), (c) or (d) (kidnapping, assaults etc.); and

  (c) a "relevant recording", in relation to a witness, is a video recording of an interview of the witness made with a view to its admission as evidence in chief of the witness.

  (2) Subsections (2) to (7) of section (Special provisions relating to child witnesses) shall apply as follows in relation to a qualifying witness—

  (a) subsections (2) to (4), so far as relating to the giving of a direction complying with the requirement contained in subsection (3)(a), shall apply to a qualifying witness in respect of the relevant recording as they apply to a child witness (within the meaning of that section);

  (b) subsection (5), so far as relating to the giving of such a direction, shall apply to a qualifying witness in need of special protection as it applies to a child witness in need of special protection (within the meaning of that section); and

  1328

  (c) subsections (6) and (7) shall apply to a qualifying witness in need of special protection by virtue of subsection (1)(b)(i) above as they apply to such a child witness as is mentioned in subsection (6).").

  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 to 9.
  We discussed at length, and quite rightly, the need for special protection for children involved in criminal cases. It was accepted by all who spoke that children need special help. They are better able to give evidence and suffer less distress if they are kept out of the courtroom. In particular, the sooner after the alleged offence they are allowed to give evidence the better their recollection of that offence is likely to be. That is why children in violent and sexual offence cases now routinely give evidence-in-chief on video, and further evidence at trial through a live television link.
  The Bill extends eligibility for protection to all child witnesses. But it requires the court to consider, for all children, whether special measures would actually improve their evidence.
  Several lobby groups told us that they were concerned that, for children in sex and violence cases, this Bill reduces the certainty they have under the current legislation that they will get help to give evidence. They were concerned that we were not making the best use of this opportunity to strengthen protection for child witnesses. So this group of amendments creates a new category of witness: those in sex and violence cases, who require special protection. These witnesses need and would have a high degree of certainty about how they are going to give evidence.
  All child witnesses in these cases would give their evidence in chief by means of a pre-recorded video unless it were not in the interests of justice for the recording to be admitted. Child witnesses in violent offence cases would then go on to give further evidence through live link at trial.
  When we are ready to implement the measure, children in sexual offence cases would be cross-examined on video before the trial unless they had told the court that they did not want to be cross-examined until the day of trial. This last provision is a target we are setting ourselves to work towards. We believe that video-recorded cross-examination can work, and we are committed to implementing it as the norm for child witnesses in sex offence cases. We have always been committed to making this measure available for witnesses who are most in need of protection. But, as we have discussed in earlier debates, there are a number of technical and procedural difficulties that we will need to work with all criminal justice agencies to overcome.
  We shall consider setting progressive targets for implementation, if that is what it will take. The implementation programme is a question for the multi-agency implementation steering group which is already hard at work on deciding the best approach.
  It may be that the working group decides that the best way to get this measure off the ground is first to bring it in for the Crown Court for very young witnesses, and

  1329
  we are prepared to consider that. If it is recommended that we wait until all eligible witnesses can be catered for nationwide, we shall consider that, too.
  In Clause 18(3), the Bill gives the Secretary of State flexibility to commence provisions for different types of cases, circumstances or areas as he thinks fit. That is designed to bring about a method of implementation that is realistic and workable. Video-examination will mean a hearing centred on the child, on a day set aside for the hearing, with the child kept completely away from the trial himself. We believe that that is a fair measure to enable children in these very difficult cases to give their best evidence and suffer the least distress. However, the hearing will be under the control of a judge. The questioning will be conducted by the lawyer for the opposing party, through an intermediary if the judge approves one, and cross-examination can be re-opened if further evidence becomes available or it is otherwise in the interests of justice.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 to 9.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  5.45 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  10 Clause 29, page 22, line 45, after ("disorder") insert ("or other impairment").
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  11 Clause 40, page 29, leave out lines 13 to 16 and insert—
  ("(c) it is an issue of consent and the sexual behaviour of the complainant to which the evidence or question relates is alleged to have been, in any respect, so similar—

  (i) to any sexual behaviour of the complainant which (according to evidence adduced or to be adduced by or on behalf of the accused) took place as part of the event which is the subject matter of the charge against the accused, or

  (ii) to any other sexual behaviour of the complainant which (according to such evidence) took place at or about the same time as that event,

  that the similarity").
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14.
  These amendments to Clauses 40 and 41 correct a technical flaw in the amendments which I laid on Report. I am grateful to Ms Vera Baird, who brought the matter to our attention. On Report, I laid an amendment—significantly in response to the speech
  1330
  made by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu in Committee—to allow the defence to introduce evidence of the complainant's previous sexual behaviour if it was strikingly similar to the complainant's behaviour during the events constituting the alleged offence, or at or about the same time as the alleged offence.
  However, having thought about it, I realised that the amendment was defective in that it allowed evidence of previous sexual behaviour to be admitted if it was similar to the complainant's behaviour at or at about the same time as the alleged offence, but not if the: previous behaviour was similar to how the complainant behaved during the alleged offence itself. These amendments are designed to remedy that flaw.
  The amendment to Clause 41 completes the effect of the amendment to Clause 40. It also allows the defence to explain or rebut evidence which the prosecution claims relates to the alleged offence, but which the defence considers to be evidence of a complainant's previous sexual behaviour.
  That would not have been possible earlier, as only evidence which the prosecution claimed was evidence of previous behaviour could be rebutted under Clause 40(5). Therefore, we wanted to safeguard the interests of the defendant to allow them to rebut all prosecution evidence—if the judge gives leave—as a balance to the greater freedom the prosecution have to introduce evidence of sexual behaviour.
  The amendments to Clause 42 require judges and magistrates to give reasons for their decisions on admitting, or refusing to admit, sexual behaviour evidence. We received several representations and we thought that the points made were sensible and important. Therefore, we introduced these amendments.
  Clause 40 introduces a tight framework setting down what is relevant and what is not. We wished to get this framework right, in the interests of a fair trial for the defendant. During our debate on Report, we heard several persuasive speeches about the need for strikingly similar provision so that in extreme circumstances the defendant can support his claim that the complainant consented to the act constituting the alleged offence by reference to previous behaviour. The provision, in what will be—if it is agreed—Section 41(3)(c), is very narrowly drawn. Only information that cannot reasonably be explained as a coincidence can be admitted. All evidence would, therefore, have to be very unusual to be admitted.
  Commonplace events such as previous one-night stands, or having sex with someone of the same race, or in a car, would be inadmissible under this subsection, because they could reasonably be considered a coincidence. The Romeo and Juliet scene was the example offered by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, but even that example would only be admissible if it were very similar to defence evidence.
  The prosecution are not subject to the same restrictions as the defence under this clause. Unless the defence can challenge all prosecution evidence, through the provision in subsection (5), they may not be able to introduce evidence to explain or rebut certain pieces of prosecution evidence. We must allow

  1331
  the defence to suggest, where necessary to their case, that evidence the prosecution claim relates to the alleged offence—such as bruising, or other injuries—was caused as a result of the complainant's previous sexual behaviour.
  One example of the problem with the Bill as currently drafted is that, if a defendant in a rape case was running defence of mistaken identity—that he did not have sex with the complainant at all—he could not rebut the prosecution's claim that the complainant did not consent, because he would not be arguing that she did consent. However, the prosecution might have introduced evidence to support the complainant's lack of consent, such as bruising or cuts. The defendant could not challenge that under the Bill as currently drafted. But if the defendant knew that the bruising had been caused by the complainant's previous sexual behaviour, he should be able to introduce evidence showing that. Otherwise, the jury might be misled.
  That is the thinking behind the amendments, which I commend to your Lordships.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
  Lord Desai: My Lords, I welcome the amendments. They do not go as far as I wanted, because I still think that the whole problem of sexual history that a woman has sometimes to recount deters women from bringing cases to trial. However, I welcome the narrowing of the criteria under which sexual history can be admitted.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I also welcome the provisions as now drafted. We discussed them for a long time in Committee and on Report and Third Reading. They were modified in your Lordships' House and subsequently in the other place. It is difficult to get the wording precisely right, but I believe that it has been improved and that the changes that will be introduced by the Bill as a result are desirable.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  12 Clause 41, page 30, line 7, leave out ("other than") and insert ("but excluding (except in section 40(3)(c)(i) and (5)(a))").
  13 Clause 42, page 30, line 35, after ("court") insert ("(but in the absence of the jury, if there is one)").
  14 Page 30, line 36, leave out ("decision to give, or refuse,") and insert ("reasons for giving, or refusing,").
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 to 14.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 to 14.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  15 Clause 43, page 31, line 19, leave out ("when a minor shall while that person") and insert ("shall while he").
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 to 22 and 53.
  Amendments Nos. 15, 18 and 19 remove tautologies in Clauses 43 and 44. Amendment No. 20 defines whom, including those resident in Scotland, the courts should recognise as having authority to offer or veto the parental waiver provided in respect of reporting restrictions in relation to the identification of young victims and witnesses of alleged offences at the pre-trial stage of criminal investigations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are consequential to Amendment No. 20. Amendment No. 53 is consequential to Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 moved on Lords Report on 8th March 1999.
  Amendments Nos. 15, 18, and 19 remove references to "a minor" in Clauses 43 and 44. They are not needed because the clauses already contain references to a person under the age of 18. Amendment No. 20 clarifies the question of parental waiver in respect of children allegedly involved as victims or witnesses. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments No. 15.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I wish only to say that it is somewhat a criticism of your Lordships' House, including myself, that we should have allowed the tautology corrected by the amendments to slip through. On reading the Bill, the problem is obvious and the other place is right to correct us.
  n Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  16 Clause 43, page 31, line 24, leave out from beginning to ("cease") in line 28.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16, and I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 17 and 25. The amendments ensure that the reporting restrictions provided in the Bill, which bite during police investigations before a suspect is charged and which restrict identification of children who are alleged to be victims or witnesses to the commission of an offence, should only be implemented if the draft order to that effect has been approved by affirmative resolution in both Houses.
  We had several discussions about these issues. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raised matters which I said at the time were of genuine interest and importance to the public and to those who discharge a public function by proper reporting. When the Bill was in the other place it was put to us that the media's own regulatory

  1333
  arrangements to protect children could be strengthened in a way that is specific to children who might be harmed by publicity in connection with a crime and that this would be preferable to the provisions in the Bill which restrict pre-trial reporting about child witnesses and victims. For the print media at least, any change to the regulatory arrangements is a matter for the industry as a whole to consult upon. For the broadcast media it is a matter for independent regulators.
  I cannot fetter the discretion of this or any other Home Secretary by making any undertakings about what might happen if such regulatory changes were made. Our objective has not changed. We were prepared to consider the possibility that it might be achieved by other means, and we made these new amendments as a result. We shall need to keep the case for implementation under regular review. Should this, or any future Home Secretary, come to the conclusion in the light of the circumstances then prevailing that the provisions in Clause 43 should be extended to child victims and witnesses, a draft order to that effect will be laid before Parliament. Obviously, a most crucial consideration in such assessments will be whether we continue to have concerns about children being damaged by the media's reports of crime and can justify those concerns.
  These matters were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. It was worth having those debates, on more than one occasion if my memory serves. We have listened carefully to what has been said by those who discharge a public function, and I wish to make: it clear that we shall not implement the provisions unless circumstances make it necessary in our judgment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16.—(Lord William of Mostyn.)
  6 p.m.
  Lord Windlesham: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the voluntary organisations concerned with the interests of the child, in particular the NSPCC, with which he has had a previous connection, have been satisfied? They made representations which were raised by myself, among others, in Committee. At the same time the Minister was in negotiation with the much more powerful representatives of the media. We have heard that the accommodation reached was acceptable to the media. Can the Minister tell us whether the Bill, as it now stands, is acceptable to the voluntary organisations?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, they were consulted. It is my best understanding that they were content on the basis which I have indicated. I do not regard the media organisations as being more powerful than the voluntary organisations. The voluntary organisations—particularly within the field of child protection—have been extremely influential; first, in the way in which we cast the Bill in general structure and in the very helpful amendments and thoughts which have been put forward.
  1334
  It is an extremely difficult balance to cast. We cannot have a free society without a free press. We cannot justify a free press which is wholly enabled and entitled, as it were, to do damage to children. That is why I believe that we have the balance about right. I repeat that—and I hope it will be a comfort to your Lordships and to the noble Lord who has asked this question—we want to keep the matter under constant review. Pan: of that constant review is a readiness always to listen to the voluntary organisations of the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, described.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as the Minister says, it is a difficult balancing act to frame the legislation so that it both gives the protection that we all want for vulnerable witnesses and, for that matter, vulnerable accused, while at the same time retaining a free press. That is not only in the interests of a free press, but also because, as emerged from our earlier debates, sometimes press publicity given to an offence and its immediate circumstances may enable the victim to be identified and may also assist to catch the offender.
  We did not want to make it more difficult for the police to catch an offender and bring him before the courts while trying to protect the victims of or other witnesses to an offence. The balancing act has been difficult. I believe that the current wording certainly goes in the direction that we wished. As the Minister says, it provides, as it were, a sword of Damocles which will hang over the press to try to ensure that its voluntary codes achieve what we all want in terms of protection, without overstepping the mark in the other direction of making things too difficult for the police to pursue their valuable role in this.
  I am not keen on legislative swords of Damocles hanging over sections of the population, whether the. press or anyone else. Nevertheless, in this instance it provides a way out of an awkward drafting situation. I support the amendments.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  17 Clause 43, page 31, line 32, leave out from ("to") to end of line 40 and insert—

  ("(a) a person by whom the offence is alleged to have been committed; or

  (b) if this paragraph applies to the publication in question by virtue of subsection (4A)—

  (i) a person against or in respect of whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, or

  (ii) a person who is alleged to have been a witness to the commission of the offence;

  except that paragraph (b)(i) does not include a person in relation to whom section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (anonymity of victims of certain sexual offences) applies in connection with the offence.
  (4A) Subsection (4)(b) applies to a publication if—

  (a) where it is a relevant programme, it is transmitted, or

  (b) in the case of any other publication, it is published,

  on or after such date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.").
  18 Clause 44, page 33, line 13, leave out ("when a minor").
  19 Page 33, leave out lines 40 to 42.
  20 Clause 49, page 39, line 27, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
  ("(8A) In this section—
  "an appropriate person" means (subject to subsections (8B) to (8D))—

  (a) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, a person who is a parent or guardian of the protected person, or

  (b) in Scotland, a person who has parental responsibilities (within the meaning of section 1(3) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995) in relation to the protected person;

  "guardian", in relation to the protected person, means any person who is not a parent of the protected person but who has parental responsibility for the protected person within the meaning of—

  (a) (in England and Wales) the Children Act 1989, or

  (b) (in Northern Ireland) (Northern Ireland) Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.

  (8B) Where the protected person is (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989) a child who is looked after by a local authority, "an appropriate person" means a person who is—

  (a) a representative of that authority, or

  (b) a parent or guardian of the protected person with whom the protected person is allowed to live.

  (8C) Where the protected person is (within the meaning of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995) a child who is looked after by an authority, "an appropriate person" means a person who is—

  (a) an officer of that authority, or

  (b) a parent or guardian of the protected person with whom the protected person is allowed to live.

  (8D) Where the protected person is (within the meaning of section 17(6) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995) a child who is looked after by a local authority, "an appropriate person" means a person who is—

  (a) a representative of that authority, or

  (b) a person who has parental responsibilities (within the meaning of section 1(3) of that Act) in relation to the protected person and with whom the protected person is allowed to live.").

  21 Page 39, line 43, leave out ("subsection (9)") and insert ("subsections (8A) to (8D)").
  22 Clause 51, page 40, line 43, leave out ("meaning given by section 49(9)") and insert ("same meaning as it has for the purposes of section 49").
  23 Clause 52, page 41, line 8, after ("not") insert ("a person who is").
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17 to 23.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17 to 23.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  24 After Clause 58, insert the following new clause—

  REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION ON USE OF EVIDENCE FROM COMPUTER RECORDS
  (". Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (evidence from computer records inadmissible unless conditions relating to proper use and operation of computer shown to be satisfied) shall cease to have effect.").
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 40, 42 to 48, and 50 to 52.
  The amendments seek to implement the recommendation of the Law Commission that Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 should be repealed. Amendments Nos. 42 to 48 and 50 to 52 are simply consequential.
  Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act— PACE—provides that a document produced by a computer may not be adduced as evidence unless it is shown that the computer was operating properly and was not used improperly.
  There have been enormous advances in computer technology and networking in recent years. That has made Section 69 an increasingly difficult hurdle for either defence or prosecution to overcome. The burdens on business in providing Section 69 certificates for criminal trials and releasing members of staff to attend court to give evidence are believed to be significant.
  The Law Commission concluded that the present law served no useful purpose. It recommended that the provision should be repealed without replacement. The vast majority of those who responded to the consultation agreed that if a law has no useful purpose—or if this part does not—it ought to be repealed. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  25 Clause 62, page 45, line 39, leave out ("or 41(2)") and insert (", 41(2) or43(4A)").
  26 Clause 64. page 46, line 26, at end insert—
  ("(3) Until the day appointed under section 3 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 for the commencement of Parts II and III of that Act this section shall have effect with the substitution for subsection (1) of the following—
  "(1) An Order in Council under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (legislation for Northern Ireland in the interim period) which contains a statement that it is made only for purposes corresponding to the purposes of any of the relevant provisions of this Act—

  (a) shall not be subject to paragraph I (4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament), but

  (b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").

  27 Clause 66, page 46, line 35, at end insert—
  ("() For the purposes of the Scotland Act 1998, any provision of this Act which extends to Scotland shall be taken to be a pre-commencement enactment within the meaning of that Act.").
  28 Page 47, line 34, leave out subsection (10).
  29 Schedule 1, page 50, line 9, leave out ("sentences") and insert ("deals with").
  30 Page 51, line 8, leave out ("those paragraphs") and insert ("paragraphs 11 and 12").
  31 Schedule 2, page 59, line 24, leave out from beginning to ("paragraph") in line 27 and insert—
  ("13.—(1) Section 7 (application of Act to courts-martial) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (Act to apply with modifications where in pursuance of armed forces law a person is charged with an offence to which the Act applies), after "applies" insert "by virtue of section 2(1)".
  (3) In subsection (2) (modifications with which Act applies to courts-martial)—

  (a) omit paragraph (b);

  (b) for paragraph (c) substitute—

  "(c) in section 3(1) any reference to a judge, in relation to the person charged with the offence, shall be read as a reference to the judge advocate appointed to conduct proceedings under section 3(1) relating to the offence (whether or not also appointed to conduct other preliminary proceedings relating to the offence)";

  (c) in paragraph (d), for "court" substitute "judge advocate appointed to be a member of the court-martial"; and

  (d) omit").

  32 Schedule 3, page 61, line 40, at end insert—
  ("() an offence which is—

  (i) created by regulations made under any such rules, and

  (ii) designated for the purposes of this subsection by such regulations;").

  33 Page 61, line 41, after ("section") insert ("1,").
  34 Page 61, line 42. leave out ("otherwise than in judicial proceedings").
  35 Page 62, line 18, at end insert—
  ("() an offence which is—

  (i) created by regulations made under any such rules, and

  (ii) designated for the purposes of this subsection by such regulations;").

  36 Page 66, line 31, after ("regulations;") insert—
  ("() an offence which is—

  (i) created by regulations made under any such rules, and

  (ii) designated for the purposes of this paragraph by such regulations;").

  37 Page 67, line 8, after ("regulations;") insert—
  ("() an offence which is—

  (i) created by regulations made under any such rules, and

  (ii) designated for the purposes of this paragraph by such regulations;").

  38 Page 67, line 9, after ("Article") insert ("3,").
  39 Page 67, line 10, leave out ("otherwise than in judicial proceedings").
  40 Schedule 4, page 71, line 27, leave out ("In section 34(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988") and insert—
  ("The Criminal Justice Act 1988 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  15A. In subsection (1) of each of sections 23 and 24 (first-hand hearsay; business etc. documents), al the end of paragraph (a) insert "and".
  15B. In section 34(3)")
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 25 to 40.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 25 to 40.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  41 Schedule 4, page 72, line 3, at end insert—
  (".—(1) Section 51 (intimidation etc. of witnesses, jurors and others) is amended as follows.
  (2) For subsections (1) to (3) (offences of intimidating, and of doing or threatening harm to, witnesses etc.) substitute—
  "(1) A person commits an offence if—

  (a) he does an act which intimidates, and is intended to intimidate, another person ("the victim'),

  (b) he does the act knowing or believing that the victim is assisting in the investigation of an offence or is a witness or potential witness or a juror or potential juror in proceedings for an offence, and

  (c) he does it intending thereby to cause the investigation or the course of justice to be obstructed, perverted or interfered with.

  (2) A person commits an offence if—

  (a) he does an act which harms, and is intended to harm, another person or, intending to cause another person to fear harm, he threatens to do an act which would harm that other person,

  (b) he does or threatens to do the act knowing or believing that the person harmed or threatened to be harmed ('the victim"), or some other person, has assisted in an investigation into an offence or has given evidence or particular evidence in proceedings for an offence:, or has acted as a juror or concurred in a particular verdict in proceedings for an offence, and

  (c) he does or threatens to do it because of that knowledge or belief.

  (3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) it is immaterial that the act is or would be done, or that the threat is made—

  (a) otherwise than in the presence of the victim; or

  (b) to a person other than the victim."

  (3) In subsection (8) (presumption in proceedings for offence under subsection (2))—

  (a) for "he did or threatened to do an act falling within paragraph (a) within the relevant period" substitute "within the relevant period-—

  (a) he did an act which harmed, and was intended to harm, another person, or

  (b) intending to cause another person fear of harm, he threatened to do an act which would harm that other person,

  and that he did the act, or (as the case may be) threatened to do the act,"; and.

  (b) after "to have done the act" insert "or (as the case may be) threatened to do the act".").

  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 41.I speak also to Amendment No. 54.
  The amendments clarify the drafting of Section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, in relation to the intimidation of witnesses and others involved in criminal investigations and proceedings.
  A recent decision, relating to the intimidation of witnesses through a third party, although eventually overturned by the Court of Appeal, has raised some questions about the current wording of Section 51 of the 1994 Act. There seems to be a misunderstanding in relation to Section 51(3) of the 1994 Act which states that:
  "A person does an act "to" another person with the intention of intimidating, or (as the case may be) harming, that other person not only where the act is done in the presence of that other and directed at him directly but also where the act is done to a third person and is intended, in the circumstances, to intimidate or (as the case may be) harm the person at whom the act is directed".
  It was suggested that a threat to harm the witness, relayed through a third party, would not be caught by the offence. We feel that we should not lose this opportunity to put the matter beyond doubt. The amendments simply seek minor drafting changes. They do not in any way intend to change what was understood to be the existing situation.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 41.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  42 Schedule 6, page 75, line 32, at end insert—
  ("12, 13 & 14Geo. 6 Registered Designs Section 17(11)."). c. 88. Act 1949.
  43 Page 76, line 13, at end insert—
  ("1977 c. 37. Patents Act 1977. Section 32(12).").
  44 Page 76, line 21, at end insert—

  ("1979 c. 2.

  Customs and Excise Management Act

  Section 75A(6)(b). In section 118A(6)(b), 1979. the words "sections 69 and 70 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and".")

  45 Page 76, line 28, column 3, at beginning insert—

  ("Sections 69 and 70.")

  46 Page 76, line 37, column 3, at end insert—

  ("Schedule 3.")

  47 Page 76, line 37, at end insert—

  ("1985 c. 9.

  Companies Act 1985.

  In section 709(3), the words from "In England and Wales" onwards.")

  48 Page 76, line 38, column 3, at beginning insert—

  ("In section 23(1), paragraph (c) and the "and" preceding it. In section 24(1), paragraph (c) and the "and" preceding it.").

  49 Page 77, line 17, column 3, at end insert—

  ("Section 7(3).")

  50 Page 77, line 17, at end insert—

  ("1994 c. 9.

  Finance Act 1994.

  In section 22(2)(b), the words "sections 69 and 70 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and".

  In Schedule 7, in paragraph l(6)(b), the words "sections 69 and 70 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and".

  1994 c.23.

  Value Added Tax Act 1994.

  In Schedule 11, in paragraph 6(6)(b), the words "sections 69 and 70 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and".").

  51 Page 77, line 27, at end insert—

  ("1995 c. 38.

  Civil Evidence Act 1995.

  In Schedule 1, paragraph 10.

  1996 c. 8.

  Finance Act 1996.

  In Schedule 5, in paragraph 2(6)(a), the words "sections 69 and 70 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and".")

  52 Page 77, line 29, column 3, at end insert (", 27").
  53 Schedule 7, page 79, line 20, leave out ("to allegations within subsection (1) of that section whether made") and insert ("in relation to an alleged offence whether the criminal investigation into it is begun").
  54 In the Title, line 4, after ("proceedings;") insert ("to amend section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994;").
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 42 to 54.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 42 to 54.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [H.L.]
6.8 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [H.L.], has consented to place her Prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [H.L.]
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The page and line refer to Bill 107 as first printed for the Commons]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  1 After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
  (" .—(1) The Secretary of State may, in relation to offshore installations, by regulations make provision which, subject to any modifications that he considers appropriate, corresponds or is similar to any provision made by, or capable of being made under, sections 137 to 140 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (powers to prevent and reduce pollution, and the risk of pollution, by oil or other substances following an accident) in relation to ships.
  (2) In this section—
  "offshore installation" means any structure or other thing (but not a ship) in or under—

  (a) United Kingdom territorial waters, or

  (b) any waters mentioned in section 5(9)(b) or (c),

  which is used for the purposes of, or in connection with, the exploration, development or production of petroleum;
  "petroleum" has the meaning given by section 1 of the Petroleum Act 1998;
  "ship" has the same meaning as in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.
  (3) Regulations under this section may—

  (a) contain such consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional or saving provisions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and

  (b) make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different persons, circumstances, areas or localities.

  (4) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult—
  1342

  (a) the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland;

  (b) such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of owners or operators of offshore installations as he may consider appropriate; and

  (c) such other bodies or persons as he may consider appropriate.

  (5) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercised by statutory instrument.
  (6) No regulations shall be made under this section (whether alone or with other regulations) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
  As I have mentioned during earlier debates on the Bill, the Government intend to use it to make improvements to the offshore environmental regime. That includes implementing one of the recommendations in the recent report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, which was published on 15th March this year, and was instigated following events surrounding the "Sea Empress" oil tanker incident in 1996. I have referred to the report at earlier stages of the Bill.
  The work of the noble and learned Lord concerned the control and salvage of shipping and offshore installations in situations where there is a significant threat of pollution. He reached four basic conclusions.
  The first was that incidents that threaten to cause or actually cause marine pollution are so many and varied that the involvement of Ministers in operational decisions is not a practicable option. Ministers are entitled to be kept informed and may subsequently be accountable to Parliament. However, while operations are in progress, Ministers must stand aside, and be seen to stand aside, leaving operational control in the hands of a Secretary of State's specially trained appointed representative (to be called, in the jargon, SOSREPs).
  The second conclusion was that the "trigger" point at which the Government, in terms of their statutory powers and responsibilities, become entitled to give directions is where there is a threat of significant pollution to the UK's pollution control zone, territorial waters or coastline.
  The third conclusion was that officers from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency as a whole should play a much larger part in operations in response to a significant threat of pollution than had been the case in the past.
  The fourth conclusion was that the government response to the threat of significant pollution from or involving an offshore installation must be compatible with their response to such a threat from a shipping casualty. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should, therefore, be given powers and responsibilities in relation to offshore installations which are similar to those of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.

  1343
  I have given the first three conclusions as background. However, it is only this fourth conclusion that these amendments are designed to implement. They are a lengthy set of amendments and it might be useful if I briefly run through them.
  Subsection (1) of the new clause provides the Secretary of State with powers for offshore installations equivalent to those for ships contained in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Subsection (2) seeks to define an offshore installation both by type and geographic location. Subsection (3) seeks to ensure that any regulations made may be tailored to the particular circumstances and various types of offshore installations and that regulations sit well with existing provisions. Subsections (4), (5) and (6) would ensure that consultation takes place with statutory bodies, industry and others prior to the introduction of regulations and that these be made by affirmative resolution of both Houses.
  Amendment No. 4, which is a relatively technical amendment, provides that the powers to make and enforce regulations extend to Northern Ireland. The other amendment in this group reflects the fact that the Petroleum Act 1998 consolidated a good deal of earlier oil and gas legislation, including the Oil and Gas Enterprise Act 1982. These are, therefore, tidying-up amendments.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Whitty.)

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 1
  1A Line 34, after subsection (4) insert—
  ("(4A) The regulations made under this section and section 2 of this Act shall make provision for appeals to lie to a tribunal independent of the Secretary of State from decisions, authorisations, prohibitions, variations and enforcement actions of the Secretary of State or any agency acting on his behalf,").
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 1. I tabled this amendment because of an undertaking given by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, at Third Reading. I shall come to that in a moment. In discussing draft regulations with the generality of industry affected by the Bill, the DETR has seen fit to include in such regulations an effective appeals procedure. The DTI, which has been consulting with the offshore oil and gas industry on the different set of regulations which will implement the Bill so far as that industry is concerned, has so far shown no inclination to include an appeals procedure in its regulations.
  Perhaps I may remind the House of the huge importance to this country of the oil and gas industry. I cannot do so with better words than those used by the Minister for Energy and Industry, Mr John Battle, when he addressed the All Party Group on Oil and Gas last month. He stated:
  "The exploitation of the UKCS"—
  that is United Kingdom Continental Shelf—
  "is one of the great British commercial and technological success stories. In a hostile physical environment, UK technology and teamwork have created a highly-productive oil and gas province
  1344
  which has kept the UK self-sufficient for some 20 years. It provides around 30,000 jobs offshore and many more onshore in support of these, not just in Scotland but in East Anglia. North East England",
  and, the honourable Member added, in his own constituency.
  "Last year saw combined oil and gas production (132 million tonnes of oil and 95 billion cubic metres of gas) running to record levels. Over 200 offshore fields are currently in production".
  By any standards, this is a hugely important industry.
  My second point is that the industry has at no point quarrelled with the objective of the Bill—and, I would add, with the objective of the Commons amendments; that is the new clause which the Minister has just moved—as being appropriate to safeguard the environment. It has been perfectly prepared to accept the new regulations, many of which replace existing statutory provisions (I shall not rehearse old arguments) because it recognises that that is necessary both to ensure high standards of environmental protection and to comply with the European directive.
  The industry is, therefore, nonplussed and somewhat disturbed to find that in the draft regulations upon which it has been consulted, so far there is no provision for an appeal against any ministerial determination, and so on, as I have set out in my amendment.
  I find this all the more surprising because at Third Reading my noble friend Lord Renton moved an amendment in which he sought to write into the Bill the existing statutory provision contained in primary legislation which set out in some detail the appeals procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in reply stated:
  "Whatever we do, I can give a categoric assurance that operators will have rights of appeal under the system that we now propose or any future system were we minded to make any further alteration".—[Official Report, 20/5/99; col. 434.]
  As regards the draft regulations with which his department is concerned, that is being fulfilled; but, where is the corresponding regulation from the DTI in relation to the offshore oil and gas industry? There must be some explanation. The industry has so far complained that in the regulation with which it is concerned there is no provision for appeal. I have to ask the Minister, why not? Is it intended that there should be a new draft or an addition to the existing draft to fulfil his own very clear and specific pledge given only last May?
  I do not want to dwell on the fact unnecessarily, but from the industry's point of view I am sure that the entire House recognises how important it is for there to be a proper appeals mechanism against the regulation. I refer to both this new clause and, as my amendment states, Clause 2 of the Bill—the general operating provisions. We have established that they apply to the offshore oil and gas industry, as they apply to the rest of industry. That was made clear by the Government at the earlier stages of the Bill. That is the reason why I have included Clause 2 in my amendment to this Commons amendment.
  I hope that this time I shall be vouchsafed a proper explanation of what is going on and told when we can expect the offshore oil and gas industry to be accorded the same rights of appeal as the Minister's own department is now prepared to give to anybody else.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 1A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 1, be agreed to.—(Lord Jenkin of Roding.)
  Lord Renton: My Lords, having spent two of the most interesting years of my life as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power—although that was many years ago and there have been many changes since then—I agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Roding that the oil and gas industries are vital to this country. We should legislate with accuracy and clarity and avoid confusion.
  I gladly support the amendment, in spite of the fact that my noble friend is taking advantage of a power to make regulations. That is an overriding power in the Bill. We have complained about it and at this stage we cannot avoid it.
  Noble Lords should bear in mind the implications for the drafting of legislation. The Bill replaces 28 clauses of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and has various vital cross references to the Control of Pollution Act 1974. With regard to the amendment, the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 also have to be borne in mind. God help those who have to construe the legislation and apply it for practical reasons—not just for business reasons, but to ensure this country's supply of gas and electricity without running up against legislative problems. It is not good enough. This is not the way to legislate.
  The Government should try to mitigate the situation they have created. The amendment would help by adding a new subsection dealing with the way in which the regulations are to be made.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, there are two aspects to the debate. The first is the amendment to Commons Amendment No. 1, moved by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Roding. The second is the more general fact that we have known all along that the Bill depends entirely on regulation. Although some regulation is in draft, it will not be possible for ordinary people, let alone lawyers, to interpret the Bill in relation to their circumstances until the regulations are published and passed by both Houses of Parliament. However, that is a secondary issue hanging on the amendment, which I support.
  It is unfortunate that a gap appears to be opening between two government departments on the treatment of appeals. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has been very helpful and I understand that his department is providing an adequate mechanism. However, the Department of Trade and Industry, which deals with the offshore oil industry, is adopting a different approach. I acknowledge that I may have been unjust to that department. It may not be aware of the problem, or the difficulty could be something even worse, such as the person responsible for the promulgation of draft regulations being ill, although that is a somewhat feeble excuse, because none of us should be indispensable. If one person cannot carry out a task, somebody else should be available and competent to deal with the matter, particularly in government.
  1346
  The question of appeals is important. The Minister has accepted the principle and I look forward to his comments, although I understand his possible embarrassment at having to answer for another department.
  I also look forward to some reassurance from the Minister on the fact that the Bill is wholly dependent on the passing of regulations. The Bill is a meaningless jumble of words without the regulations that are needed to back it up and give it the force of law, or at least the force of something that can be interpreted by those who have to comply with it. We have protested all along that we are passing a shell. Industry and commerce cannot implement a shell. They can only implement something that has been written down and is capable of precise interpretation. I hope that the Minister does not mind my repeating the fact that we need more than just the draft regulations. When we come back in the autumn we shall need regulations that we can approve, for the sake of industry and commerce throughout the country. Without those regulations they are being invited to fly blind on a dark night in a thick fog.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I wish to ask one question arising from the Government's amendment. The point was covered in another place, but I am not entirely clear about the answer. The amendment refers to sections of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which it describes as,
  "powers to prevent and reduce pollution, and the risk of pollution…following an accident".
  A question was asked in the other place about whether the powers are intended to be exercised only in the immediate aftermath of accidents. The Minister, in the Standing Committee, said:
  "I should point out that the health and safety regulations normally provide for the period leading up to an accident. The aim of those regulations is the prevention of accidents. If, despite all best plans and preparations, an accident occurred, the powers in new clause 2 would come into operation".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A; 22/6/99; col. 108.]
  It is not clear to me whether the powers that are the subject of the new clause can be exercised in a precautionary fashion. The way in which the Minister answered in another place seemed to suggest that they would come into play only after an accident had occurred. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the new powers will allow precautions to be taken to prevent pollution if there is an accident.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, it causes me no embarrassment to speak for the Department of Trade and Industry as well as the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It is only a minor additional burden. I hope that the whole House is clear about the importance of the oil and gas industry to the economy and well-being of this country. It is central to our future and there is nothing in the Government's intentions that would deliberately or inadvertently lead to any unnecessary restriction beyond what is needed for safety and environmental reasons. Indeed, the oil and gas industry, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indicated,

  1347
  has been supportive of the objectives of this Bill and the regulations which are now in draft relating to the offshore installations.
  Amendment No. 1 would apply beyond the offshore area, if taken literally, and that would clearly not be appropriate, as the noble Lord acknowledged, because in general we have a perfectly adequate appeals process already in place under the 1990 Act which we intend to carry forward unaltered into the new regimes set up under this Bill. We debated this process during the course of the Bill and the Bill was not amended in another place.
  In brief, those provisions provide that an operator may appeal to the Secretary of State against a decision of the regulator. If he wishes, the operator may go on to apply for judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision. That is fairly straightforward. It is fair, efficient and there is no need to change it. If we were to adopt the amendment proposed across the board, it would undoubtedly add an unnecessary and confusing bureaucratic third stage. We could end up with a decision by the regulator being subject to an appeal to the Secretary of State. His decision might then be appealed to the tribunal. Even after all that there would be the possibility of judicial review. That is not a sensible regime. The existing one is appropriate and will be carried forward.
  In relation to the offshore regime the position is slightly different. There the powers will normally be exercised directly by the Secretary of State. In the case of the recommendations of the Donaldson Report, it is clearly impossible for the emergency operational decisions of the Secretary of State's representative to be scrutinised by a tribunal. The Donaldson Report recommended that a Secretary of State representative (a SOSREP) would have an operational support group comprising a small number of specialists, but it emphasised that the Minister or others must not interfere or give the impression of being in charge. The report said:
  "SOSREP may be called upon to make extremely difficult and potentially controversial decisions and he will he unable to make these dispassionately, as he must, if he is looking over his shoulder and guarding his back".
  Should any of his decisions be called into question, then the regulations, which will be based on the existing merchant shipping legislation, will provide for a formal compensation mechanism.
  As for the wider powers in the Bill relating to offshore activities, it is recognised that care needs to be taken to ensure that there are appropriate and impartial avenues of appeal or review both on matters of law and on matters of fact. Indeed, the oil industry's response to the consultation draft showed its concern in this area. The DTI is still considering the appropriate mechanism to put into the regulations. Though a final conclusion has not yet been reached, an ongoing tribunal is unlikely to be the solution. Nevertheless, the regulations will have to consider a process and that additional provision will be included in the next round of DTI regulations, which it is the intention to issue in the next month or so.
  1348
  As noble Lords will recall, the regulations will now be subject to the affirmative procedure in this House and another place. We undertook, in response to anxieties expressed here and in your Lordships' Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, that any subsequent amendments to the sort of provisions set out in the 1990 Act would also be subject to affirmative procedure. That will include changes to the appeals procedure currently set out in the 1990 Act or any subsequent change in specific offshore regulations. We are therefore retaining a parliamentary control which will not saddle the industry with anything inflexible and nevertheless give it grounds for appeal.
  I understand the general objection of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to putting this provision into regulations rather than on the face of the Bill. We have been round that circle a good number of times and I doubt that we will agree tonight. Nevertheless, it is clear that the general appeals procedure applies in the regulations which are already in the Bill and there will be a parallel procedure in the DTI's regulations regarding offshore installations.
  In response to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the scope of the powers included here cannot be used prior to an accident. The powers of the Health and Safety Executive and regulation of the licence are protection against the onset of an accident and therefore are not covered by these new powers. Indeed, the Donaldson Report did not recommend prior protection being covered by these powers. Statutory and other provisions spell out the responsibilities of the operator in respect of the situation prior to an accident and the situation post-salvage, after an accident. Those situations are not altered by our adaptation of the Donaldson provisions into the regulations.
  I hope that I have said sufficient to convince the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that in practice the procedure will lead to the DTI adopting the precedent set by the DETR.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, the Bill cannot come into operation until the regulations mentioned in the new clause, and those in Clause 2 of the Bill, have been approved by both Houses of Parliament. How soon is that likely to be? Until then the Bill will be a dead letter.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I said, the regulations on the general part of the Bill are extant and a number of your Lordships will have seen them. The draft regulations in relation to the offshore position will be published in the next month and we expect the full process to be completed within three months. The Bill will be on the statute book, it is hoped, prior to that and we will therefore have fulfilled our commitment in relation to the EU dimension to transpose the legislation by 30th October, provided your Lordships agree my position tonight.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, this Bill started off on its stony passage to reaching Royal Assent

  1349
  with perhaps the most damaging report the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has ever produced. And here we are, at the final stage in this House considering the Commons amendments and we still find ourselves complaining bitterly that we are having to examine this Bill without some essential pieces of information.
  The noble Baroness on the Front Bench shakes her head. But nobody has seen a draft of the measures of appeal that her noble friend said a moment ago were under consideration by the department.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, for the record, I was not shaking my head; I was losing my spectacles.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness has replaced her spectacles satisfactorily, but she certainly misled me.
  I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in all good faith is assuring us that there will be an appropriate right of appeal for the companies of the industry affected by this legislation. I accept entirely the points he made about the specific application to this clause—of course we cannot have appeals taking place if emergency action has to be taken in the case of a serious accident.
  But I am sure the noble Lord realises the procedural constraints that were upon me in deciding how best to raise this matter at this final last gasp of the Bill. The only thing I could do was seek to amend a Commons amendment. No other amendment would be appropriate, so I have done that here. It is obviously in order because I have been allowed to table and speak to my amendment.
  We still do not know what the right of appeal will be. The Minister made it clear that it will not be the same as the right that applies to the generality of industry. The particular circumstances and statutory framework of the offshore oil and gas industry may make that inevitable, but I protest that we are asked to approve amendments without that crucial information. The Minister may not have taken part personally in the negotiations with the oil and gas industry but I am sure that his colleagues in the DTI have told him that there have been lengthy negotiations and that the question of appeal has been raised again and again, yet still we do not know what is to happen.
  This is the last chapter in what has been one of the most chequered pieces of legislation introduced by any government for many years. Obviously it is not appropriate to divide the House at this stage. I am sorely tempted but I fear that other distractions may make doing so rather pointless. In the circumstances, I have no option but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment; but I tell the Government Front Bench that I do so in a spirit of considerable protest.
  Amendment No. 1A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  2 After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  (b) the licence authorised the carrying on of activities in or on land in England or Wales. And

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

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

  (a) not to have expired, and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  (11) In this section—

  "the 1974 Act" means the Control of Pollution Act 1974;

  "the 1990 Act" means the Environmental Protection Act 1990;

  "the appointed day", in relation to a licence, means the day which in relation to that licence is (or would have been if the licence had not previously expired) the relevant appointed day for licences (within the meaning of section 77 of the 1990 Act);

  "the interim period", in connection with a licence in relation to which subsection (1) or (3) has effect, means the period beginning with the time of expiry and ending immediately before the day on which this Act is passed;

  "site licence" has the same meaning as it has in Part II of the 1990 Act by virtue of section 35(12) of that Act.").

  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 and, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17.
  Amendment No. 2 creates another clause to deal with a problem that has come to light—that a number of waste management licences carried forward from the Control of Pollution Act 1974 were time limited and in some cases the time limits have expired without either the licence holder or the environment agencies being aware of it. The amendments remove the threat of prosecution from businesses that have in good faith been disposing of waste in the belief that they held a valid waste management licence and those who in good faith asked them to dispose of their waste.
  The amendments will provide protection for the holders of expired licences and for the environment by ensuring that the licence surrender provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 apply to time-limited licences issued under the 1974 Act. It may be helpful if I explain the amendments and their effects.
  One of the deficiencies of the waste licensing system originally introduced under the 1974 Act was that those who held licences for waste operations, such as landfill sites, could hand in their licences and walk away from their responsibilities. In line with the polluter pays principle, that deficiency was rectified in the revised licensing system introduced under Part II of the 1990 Act. That Act provides that a site licence remains in force until it is revoked or a surrender application is accepted by the environment agencies. It precludes the agencies from accepting surrender applications unless they are satisfied that environmental pollution or harm to human health is unlikely to occur.
  Licences issued under the 1974 Act were subject to the transitional provision in Section 77 of the 1990 Act which did two things. One was to state that licences were to be treated as 1990 Act licences until they expired. The other was to state that they may be surrendered only in accordance with the 1990 Act. It is clearly anomalous to require a licence holder to apply to the environment agencies to surrender a site licence while the time limit remains in force but to allow the holder to walk away from his responsibilities when the time limit expires.
  A review undertaken by the Environment Agency revealed that a number of 1974 Act licences were subject to time limits and in some cases the licences have expired without either the agency or the operator being aware of it. It is a criminal offence to operate sites without a licence. However, the sites continued to be operated by the licence holders and supervised by the agency as if they had valid licences.
  The amendments serve two main purposes. First, they will validate what has happened since the expiry of licences that have already expired, including removing the threat of prosecution for site operators and those who transferred waste to them in good faith. Secondly, they will ensure that all licences—those that have expired and those that are subject to time limits and will expire in the future—are subject to the surrender provisions of the 1990 Act. That means removing the

  1353
  time limits in licences that have not yet expired. That will ensure that the environment and human health are properly protected in line with the polluter pays principle.
  Those objectives could not be achieved if, on the basis of time limits originally set under the 1974 Act, the operators of landfill sites and toxic waste treatment plants could now walk away from their responsibilities. In the Government's view, it is essential to remove those time limits to ensure that the environment and human health are properly protected—while at the same time protecting the interests of those who may inadvertently have been operating without legislative backing.
  We all regret the need for those provisions. The situation has only come to light since the Bill was drafted.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Whitty.)
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I will avoid commenting on the substance—tempting though it is; I have two relatively minor points to make on the drafting.
  The side note refers to,
  "Time-limited disposal or waste management licences".
  Surely the word "of' should be "or". Secondly, subsection (11) of the proposed new clause states that references to the 1974 Act mean the Control of Pollution Act 1974. There is a similar explanation in respect of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and a definition of "the appointed day" and other phrases.
  The Bill already has two definitions in Clause 5(2). Surely it would be more usual for all those definitions to be placed in one clause, instead of being separated, as they are by the new clause. I suppose it is too late to put the matter into a state of tidy order. I feel bound to point out that that is not the way we usually legislate.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his letter explaining the amendments that the Commons are inviting us to consider. That was most helpful of him and I am grateful.
  I understand that Commons Amendment No. 2 is necessary to legitimise something that has been going on completely illegitimately and that in certain instances we are validating what is factually a criminal offence. So be it. That is necessary.
  I would welcome the Minister's assurance in respect of one matter of concern. When local authorities and county councils were waste regulatory authorities, they used two methods to control, regulate, direct and manage waste disposal. One was the site licence, which dealt with all the environmental matters and quality control. The other was planning permission. The planning permission was the primary control matter and, if you were going to operate a valid planning permission, you had to have a site licence. But, as a matter of practice, if you had a valid site licence and you applied for an extension of planning permission, then, provided the site licence was valid and other things
  1354
  could be managed properly and it would not cause too much difficulty, the licence could be called in aid of an application to extend a planning permission.
  This is a situation which we now face and one which we may face for all time because, if I read the amendment correctly, whatever expiry date applies to the site licence—that is, whether or not it expires post the coming into force of the Act—it will be deemed, if you like, to continue. Perhaps the Minister will be able to reassure me.
  There is another point upon which I require assurance. I shall give the Minister my reasons. Perhaps we may once again consider my own county, which disposes of huge quantities of London's waste. For many years it has had a policy of trying to diminish, if not absolutely eliminate, the importation of waste into the county. That is a completely understandable policy even if, in relation to London, one has to continue to accept some of its waste for practical reasons.
  Many of the existing planning permissions in Essex which have run for many years are coming to the end of their days. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that nothing in the amendments will endanger the achievement of that policy by my former county council. As I say, it may well be that Essex will have to continue to take some waste from London for practical reasons. However, it is not an unreasonable policy for a county in that situation to wish to diminish the practice. Moreover, it seems to me that it is not unreasonable that we in this House should ensure that nothing we do endangers the achievement of that gradual policy. I look forward to the Minister's response.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may first address the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. As regards the side note in the margin of the amendment, I am not sure that the noble Lord is syntactically correct. I can see that there is a certain ambiguity there, but it means that there are two types of licence: a time-limited waste management licence and a time-limited disposal licence. Therefore, the inclusion of the word "or" is correct. If you wanted totally to clarify the matter, you could insert the word "licence" again, but the word "or" is correct.
  As to the noble Lord's other point, I should point out that the new clause does not change the definition; it effectively decrees that certain aspects of the 1990 Act will be held to apply to those inadvertently expired licences and potentially expired licences. It does not actually change the definition. Therefore, I do not think that it would be appropriate to include it within a definitional clause. In a sense, it is a different issue.
  I turn now to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I believe we all recognise that this is not the tidiest of situations. Nevertheless, once we have dealt with the unexpired licences, there is nothing in the change of status of those licences that would affect the ability under planning permission rules of Essex—it is funny how often we debate the concerns of Essex in this Chamber—to alter the use of a site, or whatever. Therefore, it does not directly affect the position.

  1355
  Regrettably, the amendments are necessary and will put the situation back into a sensible position. I hope, therefore, that the House will be able to accept them.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  3 Clause 4, page 3, line 29, after ("consequential") insert ("and minor).
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. In moving the amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Commons Amendment No. 14.
  The current regulatory regimes operate under the "polluter pays" principle. The regulator is obliged to recover from operators the full cost of operating the pollution control regimes. What the 1990 legislation does not enable is charges levied by one regulator to recover money spent by another. Under the new control systems, we are looking to achieve a greater degree of co-operation between regulators—in particular, between the Environment Agency and local authorities. This will include, for example, the Environment Agency now drafting certain guidance notes for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to issue to local authorities. At present, it would not be possible under the 1990 Act to recover the cost of that guidance. The Bill includes provisions to rectify that situation.
  However, the provisions in the Bill will only take effect once local authority regulated processes are phased into the new regime. These amendments, therefore, are designed to enable recovery of the cost of producing the guidance during the transitional period between enactment of the Bill and the phase-in date.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her attempted explanation. However, if we look at Amendment No. 14, which is grouped with Amendment No. 3, we find that it says:
  "The Environmental Protection Act 1990 has effect subject to the following amendments".
  It then purports to amend Section 8(7) of the 1990 Act. However, if we turn to Schedule 3 to this Bill, we find that Sections 1 to 28 have been repealed. Therefore, how can we be amending Section 8? It seems to me to be the most extraordinary legislative attempt, and one which is not valid. We are attempting to amend something that the Bill says should be repealed. How can that be?
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my understanding is that the repeal has been included in the schedule so as to enable the reproduction of the provisions in regulations at the appropriate stage.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it seems to me that we are in a slight procedural hiatus. I entirely understand that part of the 1990 is being repealed in order to permit
  1356
  its, if you like, reincarnation in the form of regulations. But, unfortunately, this particular amendment does not refer to the putative regulations; indeed, it refers to amending the Act. Therefore, I feel bound to support the point made by my noble friend. I am sure that the intention is that those provisions should be transposed into the regulations, but that it not actually what we have in front of us.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the point here is that this is a transitional measure. The repeal of Sections 1 to 8 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will not be commenced until the year 2007.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  7 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  4 Clause 5, page 4, line 5, leave out second ("section") and insert ("sections (Prevention etc. of pollution after accidents involving offshore installations) and").
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Whitty.)
  On Question, amendment agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  5 Clause 5, page 4, line 20, leave out ("22(5) of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982") and insert ("10(8) of the Petroleum Act 1998").
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(Lord Whitty.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  6 Clause 5, page 4, line 22, leave out subsection (10).
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6, which removes the standard provision inserted to avoid questions of privilege.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  7 Schedule 1, page 5, line 36, leave out ("otherwise than") and insert (", or otherwise carrying on any activities of any specified description, except").
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.

  1357
  When I brought forward amendments earlier in the passage of this Bill, to limit its scope to those matters set out in Schedule 1, as requested by your Lordships' House, I explained that consequential amendments to that schedule might be necessary to ensure that it became an exhaustive rather than—as was originally intended—an indicative list of matters which need regulating.
  Having had the opportunity to consider the effect of the Bill in its amended form, we want to make it clear in paragraph 4 to Schedule 1 that a permit will continue to be required for certain activities such as storing coal or storing iron ore which are already currently regulated under the 1990 Act. At the moment the schedule refers only to requiring permits to operate "installations or plant". This could be taken to exclude certain things such as the storage activities I have mentioned which are already regulated under the preceding legislation. We must, of course, continue to regulate those activities and the amendments therefore simply roll forward provisions contained in the current legislation.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(Lord Whitty.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  8 Schedule 1, page 6, line 8, after ("changes") insert ("—
  (a)")
  9 Page 6, line 9, at end insert (", or
  (b) in the case of permits for the carrying on of activities otherwise than in the course of operating any installation or plant, in the carrying on of the activities.").
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.—(Lord Whitty.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  10 Schedule 1, page 6, line 36, after ("information") insert ("—
  (i)") .
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. 1 wish to speak also to Amendment No. 11.
  This is a measure inserted in response to the procedures in another place. This Bill covers a number of regulatory matters regarding pollution. This measure will cover the entitlement of people to know exactly what is coming into their homes and elsewhere.
  In May my right honourable friend the Minister for the Environment launched the Environment Agency's new pollution inventory giving people access to up-to-date information about emissions from the installations which the agency regulates under the integrated pollution control regime. It is proving extremely popular, with 700 to 800 visits a week on the Internet.
  1358
  The Government would like to see the inventory become even more informative. The Environment Agency will consult on extending it to cover the landfill sites and sewage works which it now regulates and my department will consult on the possibility of including information on emissions from the 13,000 or so installations which local authorities regulate under the local air pollution control system. The Bill already contains the power to cover those additional installations.
  These amendments would permit information also to be gathered on energy use and the destination of waste from installations. They are enabling powers and they do not in any way presuppose that we shall choose to collect this information in all instances. The expansion of the inventory must, of course, proceed at a sensible pace in the light of full consultation and with any burdens on business properly considered and justified by reference to the benefits. We may, for example, find that we already have sufficient information about energy use as a result of the energy efficiency requirements of this new regime and other initiatives. We would not expect businesses to have to track the journey of their waste through its various multifarious stages. Nevertheless I believe that it is sensible to take the opportunity provided by this Bill, as the Commons felt was sensible, to enable such information to be gathered in future if it would prove beneficial.
  Access to information about pollution is a vital part of a fair, modern and open society. It has proved a powerful force for environmental improvement in other countries including the United States. This Government intend that information should be similarly available here where appropriate. As I say, these are enabling powers and each enactment would need to be considered carefully together with the industries to which it applied.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(Lord Whitty.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  11 Schedule 1, page 6, line 36, at end insert—
  ("(ii) on energy consumption and on the efficiency with which energy is used;
  (iii) on waste within the meaning of the regulations and on the destinations of such waste;").
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.—(Lord Whitty.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  12 Schedule 1, page 7, line 42, leave out ("to") and insert
  (", 158 and").
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 13.

  1359
  These are a couple of technical amendments which are needed to ensure that the new regulations can apply to the Crown, including to Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales in their private capacity. My officials have been in discussion with the Palace authorities to agree the detail of how the regulations will apply.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
  Lord Renton: My Lords, as this is the last group of amendments which we shall be discussing I hope that I may say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and to the noble Baroness, for their attempts to explain this Bill to us at its various stages.
  I have to say, as I have suggested before, that it is the most chaotic piece of legislation within my recollection, having been in one House or another of Parliament for 54 years. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, can be blamed. I should think that it has gathered momentum behind the scenes and alternatives have been presented which have been impossible to resist. But I do think that as Ministers bear responsibility for what happens they must accept their responsibility. Nevertheless I feel sorry for the noble Lord and am grateful to him for his attempts to explain the impossible.
  When the regulations come before us—the Bill will not be effective until they do—we shall have to consider them carefully even though we cannot amend them. They will be of vital importance. Above all, I refer to the amount of legislation by reference to previous statutes, partly repealed and partly not repealed. That is something that we should not present the users of the statute with. They will be people performing vital tasks within our civilisation, not only in this country but also abroad. I hope that when the regulations have been passed—I cannot ask for a firm assurance on this at the moment as the noble Lord would, of course, have to consult his colleagues—and approved by both Houses of Parliament (if they are), there will without delay be an attempt to consolidate the provisions of this Bill with the relevant provisions of previous legislation so that the people who will be bound by and apply the provisions of this Bill will be able to look at one statute instead of at four or five statutes and a number of regulations. There is nothing to prevent regulations being replaced in due course by primary legislation. That can be done; I hope that eventually it will be done. In the meanwhile, having made the protest, I hope that the Minister will enjoy the Recess which he so much deserves.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Minister I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his good wishes for my noble friend's Summer Recess. Let me place on record, as I tried to say earlier, that some of the complexities are because the repeal will not take effect straightaway. The amendment to which I believe the noble Lord was speaking in general terms, Amendment No. 14, deals with the period before then. The repeal can be commenced only when the Secretary of State orders,
  1360
  using the provision at Clause 5(3). This legislation deals with the repeal of legislation, but it cannot take effect until the appropriate stage. I commend Commons Amendment No. 12 to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  13 Schedule 1, page 8, line 4, at end insert—
  ("() Making provision about the application of the regulations to the Crown.").
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  14 Schedule 2, page 9, line 23, at end insert—
  (" . The Environmental Protection Act 1990 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  . In section 8(7) (expenditure to be covered by charging schemes under the section is that of local enforcing authorities in exercising their functions under Part I of the Act). at the end insert "together with the expenditure incurred by the Environment Agency in exercising, in relation to authorisations granted by local enforcing authorities or the prescribed processes to which such authorisations relate, such of its functions as are specified in the scheme."")
  15 Page 9, line 23, at end insert—
  (" . In section 77(2) (waste disposal licences: transition from Part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974). at the beginning insert "Subject to section (Time-limited disposal or waste management licences) of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999,".").
  16 Page 9, line 25, after ("1") insert ("of the Act").
  17 In the Title, line 2, after ("pollution;") insert ("to make provision about certain expired or expiring disposal or waste management licences;").
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 17.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 17.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Relations Bill
7.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendment and reason be considered forthwith.
Moved, that the Commons amendment and reason be considered forthwith.—(Lord Simon of Highbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Relations Bill
  MOTIONS TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO A LORDS AMENDMENT AND A COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ANOTHER LORDS AMENDMENT
  [The page and line refer to HL Bill 48 as first printed for the Lords]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  17 Clause 15, page 8, line 20, at end insert—
  ("(4) The payment of higher wages or higher rates of pay or overtime or the payment of any signing on or other bonuses or the provision of other benefits having a monetary value to other workers employed by the same employer shall not constitute a detriment to any worker not receiving the same or similar payments or benefits within the meaning of subsection (1)(a) of this section so long as—

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

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

  and paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to this Act and sections 146 and 148(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 shall be construed accordingly.")
  The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason—
  17A Because it is inappropriate to restrict regulations under Clause 15 in this way.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon rose to move, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 17A, but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof:
  17B Page 8, line 20. at end insert—
  ("(4) The payment of higher wages or higher rates of pay or overtime or the payment of any signing on or other bonuses or the provision of other benefits having a monetary value to other workers employed by the same employer shall not constitute a detriment to any worker not receiving the same or similar payments or benefits within the meaning of subsection (1)(a) of this section so long as—

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

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

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  The amendment I am moving today is very similar to the one passed at the Committee stage in your Lordships' House. I moved that amendment because, although the Government had indicated that they would bring forward their own amendment to achieve the same objectives as mine, they had at that time been unable to do so. Indeed, subsequently the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, told me, both in a letter and at a meeting,
  1362
  that there had been certain problems in drafting an amendment. After discussions with Ministers at the end of last week, a mutually acceptable approach was reached in the form of this amendment. I understand that the Government will accept the amendment both here and in the other place.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 17A, but do propose Amendment No. 17B in lieu thereof.— (Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has moved this amendment. I am pleased to confirm that the Government can accept it in its latest form and will do so here and in another place. It was our intention to replace the power in Clause 17 with a substantive provision. Unfortunately, that proved not to be possible in the time available. We had informal consultations with interested parties which revealed complications. In the end we judged it better to give ourselves more time to deal with the issue.
  Nevertheless, I should take this last opportunity to restate briefly the Government's position. We made it clear in the Fairness at Work White Paper and subsequently that the existing law allows an employer and worker, if they wish, to conclude a contract on terms which differ from those of a collective agreement which would otherwise apply to the worker. That is the position now and it will continue to be the position once the scheme for statutory trade union recognition is in place.
  Of course, collective agreements are increasingly sophisticated and many already provide flexibility in the form of performance related pay and benefits, for example. So employers who have negotiated such agreements may feel no need to negotiate different terms for individual workers. But other employers may wish to do so. They are free to do so and they will continue to be free to do so. The only proviso is that in doing so they must not discriminate in an unlawful way; for example, on grounds of race, sex, disability, trade union membership or non-membership. We believe employees should be protected against dismissal or detriment if they refuse to give up the terms of a collective agreement. For example, it should not be permissible for an employer to say, "Unless you agree to an individual contract and give up the collective agreement, I will see that you are never promoted again". We shall continue to work to draw up regulations to protect workers from such pressures.
  We agree with the noble Baroness that the mere fact that one worker has received benefits under an individual contract cannot constitute a detriment for those who do not receive such terms. Of course it will remain unlawful to link the granting or the withholding of benefits to a worker's membership or non-membership of a trade union.
  The Government would have preferred to deal with these matters in the regulations. However, I accept that the point was of particular importance to the noble

  1363
  Baroness and her colleagues and I am pleased that we have been able to reach a mutually agreeable compromise which will allow the Bill to complete its passage today.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the situation. I ask the House again not to insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed and to agree to Amendment No. 17B.
  On Question, Amendment No. 17B agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  323 After Schedule 7, insert the following new schedule—

  SCHEDULE NATIONAL SECURITY
  1. The following shall be substituted for section 193 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (national security)—
  "National security.
  193. Part IVA and section 47B of this Act do not apply in relation to employment for the purposes of—

  (a) the Security Service,

  (b) the Secret Intelligence Service, or

  (c) the Government Communications Headquarters."

  2. Section 4(7) of the Employment3 Tribunals Act 1996 (composition of tribunal: national security) shall cease to have effect.
  3. The following shall be substituted for section 10 of that Act (national security, &c.)—
  "National security.
  10—(1) If on a complaint under—

  (a) section 146 of the Trade4 Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (detriment: trade union membership), or

  (b) section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (unfair dismissal),

  it is shown that the action complained of was taken for the purpose of safeguarding national security, the employment tribunal shall dismiss the complaint.
  (2) Employment tribunal procedure regulations may make provision about the composition of the tribunal (including provision disapplying or modifying section 4) for the purposes of proceedings in relation to which—

  (a) a direction is given under subsection (3), or

  (b) an order is made under subsection (4).

  (3) A direction may be given under this subsection by a Minister of the Crown if—

  (a) it relates to particular Crown employment proceedings, and

  (b) the Minister considers it expedient in the interests of national security.

  (4) An order may he made under this subsection by the President or a Regional Chairman in relation to particular proceedings if he considers it expedient in the interests of national security.
  (5) Employment tribunal procedure regulations may make provision enabling a Minister of the Crown, if he considers it expedient in the interests of national security—

  (a) to direct a tribunal to sit in private for all or part of particular Crown employment proceedings;

  (b) to direct a tribunal to exclude the applicant from all or part of particular Crown employment proceedings;

  (c) to direct a tribunal to exclude the applicant's representatives from all or part of particular Crown employment proceedings;

  (d) to direct a tribunal to take steps to conceal the identity of a particular witness in particular Crown employment proceedings;

  (e) to direct a tribunal to take steps to keep secret all or part of the reasons for its decision in particular Crown employment proceedings.

  (6) Employment tribunal procedure regulations may enable a tribunal, if it considers it expedient in the interests of national security, to do anything of a kind which a tribunal can be required to do by direction under subsection (5)(a) to (e).
  (7) In relation to cases where a person has been excluded by virtue of subsection (5)(b) or (c) or (6), employment tribunal procedure regulations may make provision—

  (a) for the appointment by the Attorney General, or by the Advocate General for Scotland, of a person to represent the interests of the applicant;

  (b) about the publication and registration of reasons for the tribunal's decision.

  (8) Proceedings are Crown employment proceedings for the purposes of this section if the employment to which the complaint relates—

  (a) is Crown employment, or

  (b) is connected with the performance of functions on behalf of the Crown.

  (9) The reference in subsection (4) to the President or a Regional Chairman is to a person appointed in accordance with regulations under section 1(1) as—

  (a) a Regional Chairman,

  (b) President of the Employment Tribunals (England and Wales), or

  (c) President of the Employment Tribunals (Scotland).

  Confidential information.
  10A.—(1) Employment tribunal procedure regulations may enable an employment tribunal to sit in private for the purpose of hearing evidence from any person which in the opinion of the tribunal is likely to consist of—

  (a) information which he could not disclose without contravening a prohibition imposed by or by virtue of any enactment,

  (b) information which has been communicated to him in confidence or which he has otherwise obtained in consequence of the confidence reposed in him by another person, or

  (c) information the disclosure of which would, for reasons other than its effect on negotiations with respect to any of the matters mentioned in section 178(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, cause substantial injury to any undertaking of his or in which he works.

  (2) The reference in subsection (1)(c) to any undertaking of a person or in which he works shall be construed—

  (a) in relation to a person in Crown employment, as a reference to the national interest,

  (b) in relation to a person who is a relevant member of the House of Lords staff, as a reference to the

  1365
  national interest or (if the case so requires) the interests of the House of Lords, and

  (c) in relation to a person who is a relevant member of the House of Commons staff, as a reference to the national interest or (if the case so requires) the interests of the House of Commons.

  Restriction of publicity in cases involving national security.
  10B.—(1) This section applies where a tribunal has been directed under section 10(5) or has determined under section 10(6)—

  (a) to take steps to conceal the identity of a particular witness, or

  (b) to take steps to keep secret all or part of the reasons for its decision.

  (2) It is an offence to publish—

  (a) anything likely to lead to the identification of the witness, or

  (b) the reasons for the tribunal's decision or the part of its reasons which it is directed or has determined to keep secret.

  (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a tine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
  (4) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section it is a defence to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he was not aware, and neither suspected nor had reason to suspect, that the publication in question was of, or included, the matter in question.
  (5) Where an offence under this section committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—

  (a) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or

  (b) a person purporting to act in any such capacity,

  he as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
  (6) A reference in this section to publication includes a reference to inclusion in a programme which is included in a programme service, within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990."
  4. Section 28(5) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (composition of Appeal Tribunal: national security) shall cease to have effect.
  5.—(1) Section 30 of that Act (Appeal Tribunal Procedure rules) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2)(d) for "section 10" substitute "section 10A".
  (3) After subsection (2) insert—
  "(2A) Appeal Tribunal procedure rules may make provision of a kind which may be made by employment tribunal procedure regulations under section 10(2), (5), (6) or (7).
  (2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A)—

  (a) the reference in section 10(2) to section 4 shall be treated as a reference to section 28, and

  (b) the reference in section 10(4) to the President or a Regional Chairman shall be treated as a reference to a judge of the Appeal Tribunal.

  (2C) Section 10B shall have effect in relation to a direction to or determination of the Appeal Tribunal as it has effect in relation to a direction to or determination of an employment tribunal."
  6. After section 69(2) of the Race Relations Act 1976 (evidence: Minister's certificate as to national security, &c.) there shall be inserted—
  "(2A) Subsection (2)(b) shall not have effect for the purposes of proceedings on a complaint under section 54."
  7. Paragraph 4(1)(b) of Schedule 3 to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (evidence: Minister's certificate as to national security, &c.) shall cease to have effect.")

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  323A At the end of subsection (7) of the new section 10 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, insert—
  ("(c) permitting an excluded person to make a statement to the tribunal before the commencement of the proceedings, or the part of the proceedings, from which he is excluded.")
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 323A to Lords Amendment No. 323.
  The Bill provides that a Minister may direct that an applicant and his representative be excluded from all or part of the proceedings where the interests of national security require it. We anticipate that the power to exclude from all future proceedings will be used rarely and only in the most extreme circumstances where national security interests could not be adequately protected otherwise. Where an applicant and his representative are excluded from proceedings, the Attorney-General, or in Scotland the Advocate General, will appoint someone to represent the applicant's interests.
  At Third Reading the concern was expressed that if the applicant was excluded from all the remaining proceedings he would not have the opportunity to make a statement of his case. Since it is government policy that such a statement should be able to be made where an applicant is so excluded, I undertook to see what needed to be done to ensure that the regulations would provide for this. This amendment is the result. It provides the vires for regulations to be made permitting an excluded person to make a statement to the tribunal. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, for bringing to our attention this defect in the Bill.
  To make the position absolutely clear, the Secretary of State in another place gave a commitment that the procedure regulations will provide that such a statement can always be made to the tribunal where the applicant is being excluded from the remaining proceedings. He also said that in drawing up the regulations he will consult members of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
  To sum up, the amendment will ensure that a statement of case can always be made where the applicant is being excluded from all the remaining proceedings. At the same time it does not prevent the exclusion of the applicant from all of the proceedings, which will continue after the statements, in those rare instances where a Minister of the Crown has made a direction to that effect in the interests of national security. Accordingly, I hope that noble Lords will agree to the Commons amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 323A to Lords Amendment No. 323.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
  Viscount Thurso: My Lords, this amendment stems from the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Razzall at Third Reading. We are very grateful to the Government for having taken on board the points mode

  1367
  and for bringing forward this amendment. I am grateful to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, in his place because I know that he is going to give us a far more comprehensive explanation of this matter than I could.
  However. I express our unhappiness at the fact that the amendment goes only some 60 per cent of the way. While we are extremely happy that at least the applicant now has the opportunity to make his case prior to being excluded, there is not much that he can do afterwards if he chooses to disagree. As my honourable friend Alan Beith said in another place,
  "We remain concerned, however, that the power is not capable of satisfactory review, other than by taking a case to court on judicial review at the applicant's expense".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/99; col. 1256.]
  Surely, the suggestion made in another place that members of the commission should be empowered to review the exercise of the Minister's powers was a modest and sensible suggestion and one which this Government of all governments might have felt able to consider.
  Having stated our unhappiness at that aspect, we are grateful that the first point was taken on board and that this amendment has been brought to us. It is a shame that it is so late in the day that I do not believe that there is anything that I can do about the other part. I am not even sure what the constitutional position would be if I asked your Lordships to do anything about it. So I shall just have to take the hump and leave it at that.
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, it grieves me to disappoint the noble Viscount, but I suspect that if I were to undertake a comprehensive survey of the position at this point it would not improve my popularity in your Lordships' House.
  Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I seem to have touched a deep note. I thank my noble friend for having listened to our representations. It is not a schedule I would have drafted in a perfect world, which I define as one in which I draft all the Government's legislation. My noble friend has listened and I am grateful for that.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful for the movement that the Government have made in this matter. We were obviously very disappointed when, on 15th July, the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, felt it necessary to withdraw the amendment because we considered that it covered the situation better than the amendments we have seen today, particularly because my right honourable friend in another place, the Member for Bridgwater, tabled the same amendment which the Secretary of State pointed out was not necessary because the Government had gone 60 per cent of the way in their amendment and promised to try to go 100 per cent of the way via the regulations. However, he conceded that it was almost impossible to achieve 100 per cent success.
  1368
  We are sad that we are being offered admittedly flawed legislation as regards the 40 per cent we have not got when the Government, in the person of the Prime Minister no less, on receiving the original recommendations from the Intelligence and Security Committee that my right honourable friend chaired, suggested acceptance and the Employment Relations Bill as the vehicle for the amendment.
  I am not going to say, like the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that I will have to accept it with the hump. We are grateful for the movement made. We would have liked a little more, but never mind.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I would not want to delay people either on this point. If one looks at the matter carefully, I believe it will be seen that we have far more than 60 per cent. I believe the basic issue is covered of being able to make the statement and that the way in which we are doing it covers the technical point, but that if it was not done in such a manner it might make it impossible to exclude people from the rest of the proceedings. That would not be correct.
  As regards reviewing the Minister's use of directional power, I believe that a judicial review is an appropriate remedy for determining whether a Minister has misused or abused his power. A Minister would have to justify the use of his power in an adversarial context and, much more important, such a review would provide an immediate remedy to the applicant if a Minister was found to have acted improperly.
  As regards the funding of the judicial review that is the mechanism for contesting a Minister's use of his power of direction, where the applicant wishes to be represented, depending on the circumstances, he may be eligible for legal aid. On that basis I ask the House to agree with Commons Amendment No. 323A as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 323.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Tote
7.26 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the steering group's recommendations on the future of the Tote.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, earlier this year, on 12th May, the Home Secretary announced that the Tote should be transferred to the private sector and he rejected the possibility of the Tote being transferred to racing without consideration. In doing so he went back on the clear commitment given by Robin Cook before the last election when he said:
"There will be no proposal by Labour to sell the Tote".
This recent announcement prompted my noble friend Lord Burnham to ask the Government on 10th June the Question, "Who owns the Tote". The Minister then gave an answer that was so opaque that it would have made

1369
Sir Humphrey glow with pride. I believe that the Answer is worth repeating. It states,
"My Lords, the Horserace Totalisator Board is a non-departmental public body whose members are appointed by the Home Secretary. Technically, it is these appointed members who are responsible for the assets owned by the Tote but they do not actually own the assets. Therefore, before the Tote can be sold it will be necessary to introduce primary legislation to change its status and bring it fully within public ownership".
That reply must get the prize in this Parliament for not answering the question. I congratulate the Minister.
If only that were the end of this sorry tale, but, sadly, it is not, because the Minister, with great courtesy, of course, went on to say that the Tote is,
"a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal".—[Official Report, I0/6/99: cols. 1541–4.]
Of course, that is factually correct, but a glimpse of light? Again, sadly, no. The Minister was pressed and asked what did it all mean. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, then fell back on that old standby of turning to page two of the brief and looking for something else to say. He found an answer and announced triumphantly, "We have a steering group report, which made recommendations". He said it once to another question, he said it again arid in all he said it three times. But it was obfuscation.
The steering group was composed of seven members. One might have thought that some of these would have been independent or even perhaps represented racing. Not a chance. Of the seven, five were the Minister's own officials from the Home Office; the sixth was an official from the Treasury, all with the vested interests of their political masters. The seventh member, and chairman of the group, was Peter Jones, the chairman of the Tote, himself not without an interest, and heavily outnumbered by officials.
One can picture the scene in the Home Office a few months ago with the Minister saying, "What can we do about the Tote? We want to privatise it but the Treasury want to keep the money". Sir Humphrey replies, "Don't worry, Minister, we will commission a steering group report". The Minister asks, "What if it recommends something we don't want?". Sir Humphrey says, with a big smile and no doubt a conspiratorial look, "Don't' worry, Minister. We will pack it with our own people". That is what we have been given: a report by Government, written for the benefit of Government, by government officials and with a conclusion that I believe is detrimental to the racing industry.
The Minister should be embarrassed by the report. Why? Because it fails to deal with the central issue of who owns the Tote. The report claims that the taxpayer—namely, the Treasury—has an interest, but offers no credible evidence to back up the claim. It is a conclusion that not only do I not agree with, but the majority of those involved in racing also do not agree with it. Why the chairman of the Tote put his name to this report, I do not know.
Perhaps I may remind the House that the Tote was established by a private Act of Parliament in 1928. It was set up to provide pool betting as an alternative to fixed odds betting, and to provide a source of income for racing. It was not financed by government and it
1370
never has been. It was financed by loans from racing. The Government do not stand behind the Tote, do not guarantee it in any way, and indeed do not own any shares in it.
The report makes the dubious claim that the Government provided the statutory arrangement. That is not true. Parliament, by a private Bill, provided the statutory arrangement. The steering group report claims that a change in the status of the Tote would need to have regard to the interests of the taxpayer. The taxpayer already has an interest as the Tote is very much like any other bookmaker. It is already providing revenue for the Exchequer.
The Tote makes contributions as a bookmaker to the Horserace Betting Levy Board in respect of off-course starting price and Tote odds. Payments to the levy board in the year to 1999 from bookmakers were £52 million, and payments from the Tote in the same year were £4.5 million. The total income to the levy board was around £57 million and the Tote contribution was therefore less than 10 per cent. In 1999 the Tote also returned to racing £2 million in sponsorship and donations, as well as £6.5 million in payments to racecourses for the facilities it uses. Therefore it made a total return to racing, including levy payments. of £12 million. Total racecourse sponsorship is £13.3 million, so the Tote provides about 15 per cent of all sponsorship. The Tote also paid just under £3 million in corporation tax to the Exchequer, as well as its share of betting duties of £21.3 million.
Bookmakers pay around £450 million in betting duty, and I should point out that bookmakers also sponsor racing. Furthermore, they pay £3 million in admission charges to racecourses for the facilities they use, and a percentage of turnover of around £1 million. The Tote retained profits of just under £8 million last year—not a dissimilar percentage to that which the bookmakers retained for their shareholders.
I do not mention these figures to be critical of the Tote, but to put its contributions into context with contributions made by others. Bookmakers make an important but arguably inadequate contribution to racing. Others in the racing industry, in particular racehorse owners and breeders, make a larger contribution. I contend that the Exchequer is already protected and that no decent case has been made that the Treasury should be able to collect the money from the sale of the Tote. To do so would be, I believe, a flagrant abuse of power.
In 1961 the Home Secretary acquired the power to appoint board members, in addition to his power to appoint the chairman. That did not give the Government ownership of the Tote. Indeed, prior to this change, racing appointed a majority of seven out of its 11 members. I believe that the Tote is owned in trust for racing, and I believe that its board members know and understand that. The proof of this is that the Government propose to introduce primary legislation to sell the Tote. If they really owned the Tote, they would not need that legislation.
One unique aspect of the Tote that separates it from other bookmakers is the exclusive right to operate pool betting. There, I believe, is perhaps a conundrum. The

1371
problem is that I do not see how a monopoly can be privatised with no protection either for the taxpayer or indeed for racing without falling foul of competition rules and legislation. A privatised Tote may be a huge success, but what if it was a failure, the pool went down and payments to racing collapsed? As we know, racing needs all the money it can get. It is underfunded and contributions from betting are under threat from the Internet and other bookmakers based abroad who pay no duty.
What could racing do in that situation? It could do nothing but grin and bear it. There would be no protection for racing at all. That is why I am totally against the idea of the present Tote paying off the Treasury and privatising itself. It would be answerable to no one but itself, racing would lose out and the present lack of accountability would be even worse. The Tote should be held in trust for racing and the trustees should be the British Horseracing Board. That follows the recommendations of the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee which stressed the need for an accountable body and one that should be responsible to representative groups of all who work in the racing industry.
Who would run the Tote? It is constrained by its status; it does not have the money for greater investment and it is restricted in its ability to borrow or raise money. The future Tote needs vision to expand its horizons. What I believe the Government should consider is that, in a manner similar to the National Lottery, management of the Tote should be put out under licence from the BHB to competitive tender. The licence period could be five, seven or 10 years. The bidder that offered to invest most and guarantee the largest return to racing over the licence period would win the licence. Racing would win, betting duty would be paid, levy payments would be paid and tax would be paid. The taxpayer would be protected and, most importantly, in recognition of having the monopoly of the pool, the Treasury could receive a share, just as it does from the National Lottery.
Like the National Lottery, the licence would be subject to clear conditions, including protection for existing employees. Thought needs to be given as to whether the Tote betting shops sit well with the pool now that Tote Direct is such a success. If the conditions of the licence were not met, the licence could be withdrawn. I am sure there would be many interested bidders, including the present management.
My proposal has one other great merit. I am advised that it does not require primary legislation. It would be possible to transfer the Tote merely by altering the right of appointment to the board. That would avoid the whole cumbersome process of legislation and a prolonged delay for a slot in the legislative timetable. Even if the Home Office lawyers disagree, as indeed they might—lawyers often do disagree with each other—my proposal could then be achieved by a short private Bill.
I am rather critical of the chairman of the Tote, for one reason: the steering group report. However, let me make it absolutely clear that I believe that Peter Jones is the right man for the job. I think he is running the
1372
Tote extremely well and I am full of admiration for his enthusiasm and, indeed, his commitment to racing. I would ask him only one simple thing: please do not give in to the Minister without a fight. I welcome the recent affirmation from the chairman of the Tote that it should be kept within racing. I do not mind the creation of a racing trust, but the trustees should be the BHB, which represents the whole of racing.
In the final recommendation of its report published in 1991, the Home Affairs Select Committee stated:
"The opportunity to acquire the Tote free is a wonderful incentive for racing to put its house in order".
Racing has put its house in order and it deserves the Tote. I have been critical of the Minister and his report. Of course, he is a well-trained lawyer, and, as he said recently at Question Time, he has in the past acted for and also against the Tote. For that reason, I am sure he will see both sides of the argument. I am equally sure that we will not get a definitive answer from him tonight. But I hope we will have a commitment that he will carefully study all the speeches and ideas that have been put forward this evening.
All noble Lords will support the Minister if he is robust with the Treasury. Finally, I hope the Minister will use his well-deserved break in the Summer Recess to go racing. I am sure he will be warmly welcomed on the racecourses, and that he will enjoy his day. If he wants to place a bet, I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will even offer him a tip.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, We are indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for introducing this matter. It is of vital importance to the health of the racing industry in this country. We are debating the future of the Tote in the 21st century rather than its importance, which is clear to us all and was set out in the noble Viscount's speech.
We may have missed a trick a few years ago, when we could have allowed the Tote to have an off-course monopoly. But that is now water under the bridge. We now have to square the circle of more for the Treasury, if that is possible, and more for racing. The former problem for the Treasury has been highlighted by the recent move offshore by a prominent bookie, with perhaps more to follow. The latter problem is that racing, like every other sport in this country, is always in need of funding.
The Tote is indeed a strange animal. No one owns it. As a generality, it is owned by the country. I do not take quite such a jaundiced view as the noble Viscount. In 1928, when the Tote was formed, people did not think that far ahead—the more the pity. That is a fact of life with which we must live. Matters have moved on since then. Significantly, and probably without precedent for institutions owned by the country, the Tote received no start-up capital from government, and has never received government funding. On the other hand, it brings in tax to the Treasury.
The Tote has grown in recent years from dealing merely with pool betting on the racecourse to cover telephone betting and high street outlets. It also takes

1373
bets on other sporting events. In March this year, its profit before contribution was nearly £24 million. Racing received about £22 million from betting levy, course admission and sponsorship. That means, in effect, when one leaves out all the figures, that the Tote is racing's fourth largest benefactor—after gate receipts, betting levy and media rights.
The future of the Tote has become a matter of fascination in the Home Office in recent years and for successive governments. In the past 10 years alone, there have been four inquiries and major reviews. The matter has always been just too difficult, and nothing has been done. Last year's review was prompted by the Treasury, which, as we know, is always looking for more money. The view of the Tote management—and I agree—is that the Tote should remain within racing, for the benefit of racing. as has been the case in the past. I should have thought there is a fair amount of consensus on that. I feel strongly that the Tote should not merely be thrown on the market, regardless of where the subscriptions for such a sale would come from. Inevitably, over the years it would end up in the maw of the bookies. Equally, I believe that there would be a conflict of interest were it to end up solely in the hands of the British Horseracing Board.
To regularise the present anomaly of there being no legal ownership, as the noble Viscount pointed out, the Tote could possibly be sold off to a trust, which itself could be formed from a variety of interests, not merely the BH13, within the racing industry. That is a tentative, rather than a firm proposal. I am sure that there are all kinds of problems which the legal eagles will bring to our attention, but it is a start. Certainly, with bookies moving offshore, we must get to the bottom of the matter quickly. The idea that the matter is all too difficult and should be left for the time being, or left to someone else, is no longer tenable.
The Treasury will know that the present duty of 6i per cent is now vulnerable. If something is not done, the Tote's income could fall. The ideal—and I can see Treasury officials wincing—would be a reduction in the duty, offset by an increase in turnover. I do not expect the Treasury to have much enthusiasm without proof that turnover would go up. However, if the business were run by a new trust and pushed fully, income would indeed rise. If there were some sale proceeds, if a trust were formed and some money were put up by racing interests, those proceeds could go to the Treasury and mitigate slightly its loss of income.
I have no magic solution. My suggestion of trustees is neither new nor the only solution. The matter is of some urgency and is of great importance. A solution needs to be found soon.
7.46 p.m
Lord Burnham: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Astor and I have been exchanging notes with regard to this debate. At least I am confident that I shall not nearly make the monumental error that I made last week, when, to my horror, a noble Lord on the Government Benches made a speech identical to the one that I was about to make. It turned out that we had received the same brief from a Conservative Member of Parliament.
1374
The Tote is a bookmaker, like any other. It is nothing like as large as the big boys, Ladbroke's and Hill's, or even Coral, which it attempted to take over until the Monopolies and Mergers Commission slapped it down. As such, there is little reason to argue that its constitution should be changed, unless it he to confirm and underline its status as a body holding a monopoly over pool betting on horse racing.
My noble friend gave a large number of figures. It is very relevant that, last year, the Tote paid general betting duty of over £21 million—and it receives no concession on account of the fact that it comes to some extent, so the Government say, under government control. Its only difference from any other bookmaker is its monopoly on pool betting. It should be noted that its turnover this rear is 25 per cent up on last year.
The existence of the Tote comes from the time in the mid-1920s, when Winston Churchill, and subsequently the Labour Chancellor, Philip Snowden, tried and failed to introduced a betting duty in the Budget There is nothing in either the Racehorse Betting Act 1928 or in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 which tends to show in any way that the Government have, or should have, any control over the Tote. The only evidence of that comes from the fact that the Home Office appoints the directors, and the directors would seem to own the Tote.
Recently in this House I asked the simple Question, "Who owns the Tote?". The Minister was answering, so I should not have been so foolish as to expect a sensible—no, "sensible" is unfair; I withdraw the word totally—a direct and informative Answer. I asked the Question on the grounds that it is a matter that must be answered before any government action is taken to decide what to do with the Tote. As I say, my noble friend Lord Astor and I did not receive answer. In the process of his replies, the Minister demonstrated that he had no idea of an informative answer. As usual in such circumstances, he exercised his sense of humour in saying that the report was balanced—four officials from the Home Office were balanced by one from the Treasury. I suggest that he would have shown more balance by admitting that the only representative of racing interests was the chairman of the Tote himself, who must be a little close to the subject to show much balance.
But who does own the Tote? My theory, which I am not prepared to defend against much argument, is that the punter owns it for the period between when he hands his money over the counter and receives a ticket to the point his fancy passes the finishing post and he either wins or loses. On that theory he, and nobody else, is an investor in the Tote. This argument at least has the merit of setting up somebody who has such an investment, which is more than can be said of government It is more likely that the owners of the Tote are the directors and they should be able to do with it as they wish.
The report lays down that the privileged position of the Tote is due to its exclusive licence
"which amounts to a statutory arrangement".
The gift of the Tote to racing in whatever form, in the words of the report,
"ignores the legitimate interest of the taxpayer completely'".
But what is the "legitimate interest of the taxpayer"? In the past 71 years the taxpayer has never put anything into

1375
the Tote and is currently taking £21 million a year out, plus a further £2 million in corporation tax. The report states that the,
"Tote has always been a partnership between government and racing".
It goes on to say that,
"Tote profits should remain [for] the benefit of racing even if Government get a return for the taxpayer".
Jolly decent! Anyone who reads the report must be led to the conclusion that the last observation is due to the fact that civil servants outnumbered racing representatives on the committee by five to one. Of course racing should benefit from the Tote. Government apart, there is no justification for anybody else doing so—certainly not the shareholders in a public company that might buy and privatise the Tote. This hardly needs saying. All the profits now go to racing. If it was sold in the way suggested, racing would get only what was left over after the shareholders' interests had been satisfied. Fortunately, even the signatories to the report, considering, as they do, that the Government should get their cut, do not contemplate that.
In their four conclusions the signatories state their agreement that the whole of the Tote business should be sold as a unit. Few, except possibly the bookmakers, particularly Hills who will not play games with Tote Direct, would disagree with that, or that it should have an exclusive licence to conduct pool betting on horseracing. This last is the most important point. With the growth in distribution of the British racing product round the world on a 24-hour basis, any trust that is established must be acceptable and responsible to the racing industry as a whole.
This evening I shall not comment on which body in racing should control the Tote; if I did so I might have to declare an interest, but it must be a body that acts on behalf of racing and is in some way in racing. In the past year the Tote has contributed £12.3 million to racing, which is an increase of 62 per cent since 1996, in spite of the setback as a result of the refusal by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to agree that the Tote should take over Corals. The financial strength of the Tote is emphasised by the fact that, while its bid for the Coral betting shops did not succeed, it came a good second. I seldom bet for a place but this was a promising run. My noble friend Lord Astor commented on the financial restrictions that prevent the Tote from raising money for capital improvements. At least it could do so in order to buy Corals.
In spite of the report, it is hard to argue that the Treasury should demand money for adapting the present licence purely to underline the Tote monopoly. In order to support this view it is necessary to accept that the Government should have a right to a bit of everything. The case is similar to that of the Trustee Savings Bank when the courts decided that the TSB belonged to depositors, not the government. Sadly, racing seems to have got it wrong several times: betting shops, SIS and in the off-course betting monopoly. Therefore, it is essential that the Tote's monopoly over pool betting must be confirmed on behalf of racing. If its status is changed, the bookmakers may challenge this monopoly,
1376
particularly in the light of the spread of betting as an industry, and spread betting. This would be most damaging. The Tote must be reserved for racing.
In its last paragraph, the report suggests that it is more important to get it right than to do it quickly. Another informed commentary on the future of the Tote says much the same thing. Effectively, both say that one should delay any action as long as one can. With the pressure on the Government to implement all the 100 or so statements in their manifesto, about which they have, as yet, done nothing, there is a reasonable chance to sort it all out, particularly the decision as to into whose hands the Tote should fall. Let us not do a Dangerous Dogs or Firearms Bill.
7.55 p.m.
The Earl of Huntingdon: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for initiating this important short debate on a subject that is current and, because of recent events, even more meaningful than it may have seemed when he first tabled this Question. I must declare, if not strictly an interest, perhaps a relationship. As a racehorse trainer, albeit now on a sabbatical—having spent three times the normal required span to trigger some leave—I and my family have been closely connected with horseracing as a sport and a business for three generations. My grandfather, Aubrey Hastings, who I believe was the only person to have ridden and trained a Grand National winner (Ascetic Silver) had just bought Brown Jack in Ireland when the original Racecourse Betting Act which created the Tote was passed in 1928. It provided a safe haven of state controlled pool betting for racegoers, some of whom may have distrusted bookmakers in an age when illegal bookmaking was rife. It also had a remit to raise money for horseracing and improvement of the sport and breed.
This important signpost was repainted in 1961 when the Betting Levy Act established the Levy Board. At that time my father, Peter Hastings-Bass, was training at Kingsclere, one of the legendary private stables and gallops in England. Another milestone was reached in 1972 when I was assistant trainer to Sir Noel Murless in Newmarket, when the Horserace Totalisator and Betting Levy Boards Act gave the Tote the chance to take on off-course bookmakers. During all this time, the Tote was seen as a proactive friend of racing's interests. Many people in racing would bet with the Tote because they felt that they were at least helping racing while they were losing their money. As soon as I was legally allowed to bet and open a credit account, I too bet with the Tote. Like most others, I too have helped racing.
I make no secret of the fact that I am no fan of our general system of betting. My noble friend, and previously successful owner in my stable, Lord Sandberg, knows what a benefit to racing a pool system of betting without bookmakers can be. When he was a member of the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club, two days' racing a week at Sha Tin and Happy Valley enabled it to generate more money for racing and charity than the Levy Board is able to do for British racing on seven days a week with 59 courses.

1377
However, to bring the greatest benefit to both racing and the punter there is no need for a Tote monopoly, as an exemplary system exists in Australia. There one has a strong tote, the TAB, which has a monopoly of off-course betting, with outlets in betting shops and pubs, and a strong on-course presence. Bookmakers are licensed on courses, are extremely competitive, stand large bets and have been at the forefront of technological advances.
The result of the structure of our betting industry, with the cake being cut into too many slices, is that 1.2 per cent of betting turnover is returned to racing, as compared with between 4.4 per cent and 15 per cent in other major racing countries. In the unlikely event of an off-course Tote monopoly, the best alternative has always been the strengthening of the Tote so that it can compete with the three big bookmakers. The Tote board and executive is a strong professional body well able to build around the charismatic ethos and political legacy of the late Lord Wyatt. It was unlucky not to acquire the 133 betting shops from the Coral-Ladbrokes deal, but it has significant reserves, which puts it in a very strong position for future acquisitions.
Racing needs a strong Tote that is not emasculated by government attempts to realise a profit by an asset sale which has only a short-term viewpoint. Clearly the British Horseracing Board would love to gain control of the Tote as it has no significant income stream. I feel that the ownership is less important than preserving the Tote's opportunity to continue to benefit racing and maintain its exclusivity of pool betting. Government and the taxpayer are obviously entitled to their interest, but racing (both horse and greyhound) needs to be the shareholder.
I mentioned the recent events which have made the noble Viscount's initiative even more relevant. I refer to the recent publicity surrounding the High Court ruling which allowed Victor Chandler to advertise his Gibraltar-based service on Teletext and via the fax. The burgeoning off-shore betting business was always going to be a nettle that needed grasping. What serious punter—the average bet in Gibraltar earlier this year was £2,500 from Far East clients—can fail to be attracted by a 3 per cent deduction, or service charge, as opposed to the usual deduction of 9 per cent in the United Kingdom? Ireland has already reduced betting duty to 5 per cent, but ours remains at 6.75 per cent, and it is all too easy for Victor Chandler to offer a voluntary 1.5 per cent levy on every British racing bet struck in Gibraltar.
Even if the High Court ruling is overturned, enough publicity will have been generated to alert most punters whose bet is over £20 to the attractiveness of a free phone call to Gibraltar or other off-shore betting centre. Obviously the Tote's credit business will be adversely affected and its clients' loyalty to it and its longstanding position as racing's closest ally will be severely tested. By the time the Tote's status is resolved, how weakened will its position be unless something is done rapidly to counter the growing threat of the Internet and off-shore telephone betting?
1378
As Peter Jones, Chairman of the Tote, said in his annual speech,
"If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to achieve anything for the taxpayer out of a change in the status of the Tote, then he had better make sure he has something left to sell".
In the wider picture, future levy income is threatened, as Rob Hughes the Levy Board chairman has pointed out strongly. Perhaps the committed Tote monopolist, wherever he or she may he, will see that the only way for the Government to counter this threat of uncontrolled betting will be to introduce some form of off-coarse Tote monopoly. Punters are going to bet under the lowest tax regime. The Government should not bury their heads in the sand over the issue. They should ensure the continuing strength and well-being of an accountable Tote and attract worldwide punters by having as low as possible a tax rate.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Astor for introducing this important debate at this interesting time. The Tote is the biggest single potential saviour of British racing. We can make a terrible mistake in the next six months, nine months, year or so, if we make the wrong decision now.
The biggest problem facing the Tote is its total lack of funds. The pool is too small. Anyone who wants to bet in a big way changes the odds so dramatically that he is forced not to put his money with the Tote but to go to a private bookmaker instead. The situation is getting better. Tote betting is becoming more available on the high street. But there is a big problem in the betting industry. Most towns have far too many bookmaker shops. For instance, Newmarket has seven, costing perhaps £80,000 in total to run. If the number were cut to two, there would be a big saving. Like the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, I believe that the time has come to think in a different way about how off-course betting should take place.
We need to be able to bet in more convivial surroundings. We need cafeterias in the shops—and why not in the pubs? On-course bookmakers have had a tricky year, paying up to £100,000 for a pitch at Cheltenham or Royal Ascot. The bookmakers do not contribute nearly enough to racing, one of Britain's major pastimes and sports. But the Government also have their role to play. The Government contribute little or nothing, but they have a bigger and bigger say. We have the smallest return from the betting industry of any country in the world. The owners put far too much into the industry. We need as soon as possible to drop the betting tax to at least 5 per cent so that it is level with Ireland.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Astor that the best answer is for the Tote to be put into a trust arm of the British Horseracing Board as soon as possible. It should then float it on the stock market to raise money. And as quickly as possible with the money it then raises, it should buy one of the big chains so that it has a ready-made industry. But, in order to benefit from its own strength, it is essential that the Tote buys rather than is bought. If it slips out of the hands of the racing industry, that could benefit the private pockets of just a

1379
few. As the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon said, we need seriously to concern ourselves with Tote-only working off-course, and a mixture on-course. That works well in Australia; and there is no reason why it would not work well here.
We hear many politicians saying, "The cost of compensation for closing all the bookmaker shops around the country will be enormous." But if we are not careful, are we not in danger of shutting our eyes to the big problem: no racing through lack of funds. We have killed off many industries without compensation. So why are the bookmakers to be treated differently?
To improve racing, we need the Tote to invest more in racing. The Tote needs money to buy itself the strength to service the industry of racing. We must raise the money and invest it for the benefit of the sport. But do not let the Tote fall into the wrong hands, and so sell Winston Churchill's 1928 treasure chest for racing. Through Jack Straw, this Government said that they would never sell the Tote. Now they have accepted that they will. The Peter Jones report advised them that that is not too bad a thing to do. We must be responsible for the future of horseracing, one of Britain's most respected and popular sports. The report states that the status quo is not an option. I agree with that, unless there is a huge increase in funds. An increase in funds is essential so that the pool industry can work.
The report also states that the split between pool betting and Tote Direct should not be separated. Again, I agree wholeheartedly. The sale of the Tote to the trust about which I speak should be expedited as soon as possible in order to alleviate the uncertainty of the present situation. If legislation is necessary, it should be introduced as a priority in the next Session of Parliament. Over the years there have been too many reviews. None has been decisive. Most have been extremely disruptive. They have been unsettling for the industry.
We can change all that, and change it we must. Times are a-changing, with betting moving to Gibraltar and elsewhere. We have a man there at present—he is probably there on the back of some of my bad bets—and large chains will surely move there soon. Such a move is irresistible because of the lower rates. I hope that the Government think very hard about what they do because they have the future of this great industry in their hands.
8.10 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate with some eminent speakers. I put myself forward as a reformed reprobate. I bet a few times a year but, as I calculated before I entered the Chamber, I began in 1946 at the age of 11. I then had my first bet on the Tote; it was for two shillings and got three shillings back. That did not seem to be good value, but the race was a point-to-point. It set me off on the road to a misspent childhood at school—I became a bookmaker for a while and made a small profit, but turned to punting thereafter.
1380
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for introducing this challenging debate. If I may make an invidious choice, I was most attracted by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, because he did what I wanted to do. When noble Lords have mentioned the Tote, they have failed to distinguish between pool betting and fixed-odds betting. Pool betting was created in this country in the 1920s in order to give punters a choice. I refer in particular to new punters, those who place small bets and those who bet occasionally. Like a mutual organisation, it contributed a large amount to racing rather than contributing to shareholders, as bookmakers do should they be lucky enough to make a profit.
Often, bookmakers tell us that they make little profit. The small bookmakers such as those with whom I used to play pontoon on the train in my early teens, do not make much profit. They are the ones who go on to the racecourse and have the most difficult time, and they are the ones who lend colour to racing. As I have stated in your Lordships' House in the past, I profess to be a Tote monopolist. In a previous debate in this House, the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, and I clearly stated that in an ideal world we would wish to have a Tote monopoly in this country. We regret that the chance was not taken in the 1920s and 1930s to go down that path. The countries which have done so have reached a degree of affluence in sport and it has returned to racing a high proportion of the turnover of betting. That is reflected in prize money and in the welfare of stable staff and so forth.
However, we must accept what we have. Although in many debates I crossed swords with Lord Wyatt of Weeford, we must congratulate him and the present chairman of the Tote, Peter Jones, on dealing with a difficult situation in terms of pool betting. It is difficult for a pool betting operation to compete with fixed-odds bookmakers. Regular backers of horses prefer to bet with bookmakers. If one bets in reasonably large sums in this country, doing so on the Tote on a day-to-day basis makes no sense. One has only to look at the returns and the statistics.
On the other hand, people attending the big meetings as casual racegoers—for instance, Ascot and Cheltenham—or attending Sunday race meetings, which I hope will become frequent, go to the Tote because it is less complicated and needs less explanation.
In the idea of privatising the Tote, we face a problem. I have supported the idea of privatisation, but wanted to privatise only that part which acts as a fixed-odds bookmaker. We have used the term "Tote" to embrace both pool and fixed-odds betting, but it has become a rival to the main fixed-odds bookmakers. The pool has become a minority operation, the least profitable, because of its handicap in competing on a day-to-day basis and achieving the turnover which will make it attractive to people to queue up at the Tote windows.
It is right that the Tote should be privatised in one form or another. I do not want to discuss the methods which we may consider appropriate or to discuss the Government's approach. I hope that they will come forward with a reasonable conclusion, but so far we

1381
have had little clue. However, I hope that they recognise that the Tote pool, which is the method of betting for the little man, the novice and family racegoer, and which attracts new people to racing is very important. As the noble Earl said, it is attractive to professional trainers, for example. He said that if he wanted to bet—he probably does not do so, even during his sabbatical—he would prefer to bet on the Tote. Other professionals in his sport would also prefer to do so because they know that the money goes into a pool which contributes to the good of racing. The good of racing ought to be the Government's primary object in considering how to privatise the Tote.
Racing in Britain is a marketable product. I was told only today by the chairman of the Tote, who was kind enough to telephone me about what I intended to say in my speech, that punters in Singapore are more interested in the racing at Southwell. I am sure that the management of Southwell will not mind me saying that it is a relatively minor racecourse. The new technology enables British racing to be beamed out to Africa, to the Far East and all over the globe, and the pictures are provided by the organisation known as SIS. SIS is owned by bookmakers, but no one controls the way the images are used. People can create their own Tote pools and fixed-odds betting on our product.
My advice to the Government would be to take the Tote away from the bookmakers, sell off the shops and then create an environment in which the Tote can operate in the way it was originally intended; that is, as a beneficiary to racing, to the small punter and to the family racegoer. They should give it an environment in which it can flourish. If we can achieve the Australian system, so much the better, but I doubt whether it is possible. I love the idea of a Tote monopoly for off-course racing and having my old friends who taught me to play poker and pontoon on the train remaining on the course to provide a bit of atmosphere. I believe that I should have had a rougher run today had I been known to play those games. For some reason, during the gloomy post-war years such people had pity for a young boy, obviously unhappy at his public school, wishing to risk his pocket money while travelling on a dirty train to Newbury races.
The possibilities in the long term are excellent. We congratulate the Tote on what it has done to hold together the pool betting, albeit dragged along in the wake of fixed odds betting. That was the only way it could survive and I do not blame the Tote if it tells me its feelings. However, I hope that it does not do so in a newspaper, as happened the last time I made a similar controversial statement. Luckily, it was a newspaper not seen in your Lordships' House, as it is more notable for its ladies than its horses. Its report had as its headline "Falk Off", in bold letters and it accused me of being a dotty Peer and of insulting the Royal Family. I suggested that betting shops should not open late at night without proper safeguards for their staff and that apparently was insulting Her Majesty the Queen Mother. That is the press for you.
I suggest that the Government look very closely at the value of the original Tote pool and if the bookmakers do not play ball and contribute to the Levy Board as
1382
they should—I should point out that I am great friends with bookmakers and I love them, especially those who ask me to lunch at various racecourses—it should not be too difficult to take the iron hand out of the velvet glove and say that if they do not behave the Government will pay much more attention to the Tote pool. That can be done and I hope that the Government will do it.
I hope that the Government will make use of one of the greatest images of racing in the world. After all, we started it and most countries took it from us. If we can make racing more prosperous, all parts of racing will pull together. At the moment they are all at each other's throats. Those of your Lordships who read The Racing Post every day will know it is like a novelette with someone sticking the knife into someone else or contradicting them on how we should proceed. All that would go.
Racing in Britain is a wonderful sport. It has been an example to the rest of the world—although it can be dangerous, because it involves large sums of money and we have had some scandals—but it can only remain the best if the Government take a proper and carefully considered position at this vital stage. If they get it right, the whole of racing will benefit. It will become prosperous, and we will congratulate ourselves on doing a good job.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this is a disconcerting occasion, because every speaker seemed to know what they were talking about. That is a first for me. It was also interesting that nobody had the same solution. Despite their enormous knowledge, all the speakers had different solutions to offer.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said that he had been traduced by a magazine called The Lady— I assume that that was the one he was talking about.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I did not want to besmirch your Lordships' Chamber by mentioning the name of the newspaper, but it is better known for its telephone numbers and its ladies.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I wonder what on earth the noble Viscount was doing reading such a newspaper. It is plain that he never had a chance in life. He went to a public school and the racecourse that he chose to visit was Newbury. As every schoolboy knows, it was at the battle of Newbury that his noble ancestor, the second Viscount Falkland, Lucius Cary, died fighting on the wrong side in the Civil War.
I must declare an interest, as I often have to do, and then the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, says that I am making a joke of it. In the past I have had previous convictions and acted for Coral, Mecca, Ladbroke, Arthur Prince, William Hill, the Tote, Surrey Racing and Victor Chandler, to mention just a few. Although I have never had a bet in my life, subject to one proviso that I shall introduce parenthetically shortly, I believe that racing is an important part of the fabric of our national life as is betting, for many people. In a free society, people should be able to enjoy themselves as they please, either by going to the races, breeding or training horses—the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, is a

1383
notable contributor in that capacity—or simply having a bet. One should not be to censorious about other people's views.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, reminded me that the old jokes are always the best and produced them gratefully this evening. Is it official Opposition policy that the Tote should be disposed of with no benefit to the tax payer?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, if the Minister would care to read the Home Affairs Select Committee report, the Minister at the time, Peter Lloyd, said that there was a possibility that the Tote could be handed to racing. The point I made in my speech—I am sure that the Minister took careful cognisance of it—was that the taxpayer could benefit from the pool.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I know that it is late at night, but I always listen carefully to what the noble Viscount says. The Committee reported in 1991. Peter Lloyd has never been a member of the present Government. My question was—I am happy to give way again—whether it is official Opposition policy that the Tote should be disposed of with no financial benefit to the taxpayer.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Minister presses me, but we are here to ask about Government policy, not Opposition policy. I may say that our policy is that the argument must be won that the taxpayer deserves something. That case has not yet been made.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Viscount's comments are not a surprise to me or to my noble friend Lord Donoughue, who has a significant interest in and knowledge of these matters. The fact is that the Opposition have no policies and I am happy to record that point.
The Tote is a significant asset, as we all agree. Who owns it? That was the question that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, put to me on a more crowded and earlier occasion. The fact is that the directors do not own it. They are able to direct the assets and the conduct of the business, but there is no reason why legislation should not be introduced to enable the Tote to be sold. I do not think that anyone objects to that as a matter of principle.
The real question is how the Tote should be organised for the future. It was suggested by several of your Lordships in different ways that it should be given to racing. I do not understand what racing is as a concept, because it is diverse. The noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, has enormous knowledge of the workings of the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club, where betting is dealt with differently. I have been there myself to see how matters obtained.
Racing comprises at least the following—those who own horses, those who bet on horses, and those who are employed in what is, after all, an industry, such as those who work in the betting shops. Although the number of betting offices has declined from about 20,000 to nearer 10,000, they employ a vast number of people. Many
1384
ordinary punters like betting. They do not always claim to win, but they like the subtextual skill of picking the early morning prices. There is no earthly reason why, in a free society, people should not be able to do that.
It would be a surprise to me if the Tote ever became the only monopolistic method of betting in this country. I know that the world spins and times change, but it is interesting that the noble Viscount seems to be coming to the conclusion that he wants no private industrial competition in the betting industry but simply a monopoly—the Tote. I do not think that that would suit most people and I am not satisfied that it would benefit racing.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister. I presume that when he talked about the noble Viscount and a monopoly, he meant the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and not myself. For the record, I have never proposed a monopoly.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right, I was just teasing and testing to see whether he was still focusing on my deeply appropriate argument.
The noble Lords, Lord Sandberg and Lord Rowallan, and the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, said that there have been too many reviews over the past years which have not always been deeply considered. We owe it to the Tote as an organisation, and also to the staff who work there, not to disrupt their lives and expectations unnecessarily. It seems to me that the conclusions. signed by Peter Jones, Chairman of the Tote, on behalf of the steering group, are perfectly sensible. The recommendations are that Ministers should announce the intention to sell the whole of the Tote business without specifying the method of sale. I imagine that that is to achieve the best possible consequence, which is not always the same as the best possible immediate price.
Viscount Astor: Ah!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Viscount says "Ah". We should learn some lessons from the sale of Railtrack, which consisted of the sale of vast public assets with no possibility of recovery for those members of the public who, one way or another, had some expectation of benefit from it.
It was recommended that the sale should be planned on the basis of a national exclusive licence to conduct pool betting and appropriate regulation to be put in place to oversee the operation of pool betting on horseracing. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, and the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon. One must bear in mind that those are subtle interrelationships. Appropriate regulation should be in place, the cost of which to be borne by the pool operator; and the respective legitimate interests of taxpayer and racing should be the subject of further discussion.
I cannot think of a more rational, open-minded menu than that. All the points are taken on board. No one pretends that there is an easy answer. There is a

1385
recognition there that in a society which is rightly regarded as open, diversity of view and difference of approach should be recognised.
Ownership is extremely expensive, as is training. If one looks at what happened on Diamond Day on Saturday, one can see that the industry is capable of thriving with outside sponsorship. That was an extremely enjoyable day for all who were present. First, we need to focus on the fact that this is an industry. Many people not only work in it but also dedicate their lives to it. Therefore, it is foolish to treat the Tote as a political football. Neither the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, nor the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, who speaks from the Back Benches, tried to do that. No one did that this evening.
There is little future utility in looking at what happens in Australia or the United States because their historical approach to the issue has been utterly different. I repeat to your Lordships that many millions of people like to have a punt at the bookies. They do not want to go on course because they are working; they do not want the Tote because they like the early morning prices and the accumulators. That is part of the fun, even when you lose at the end of the day. Other people like doing crosswords, coming to Question Time and reading Hansard. One might have thought that those are all rather bizarre activities but some people enjoy them and are extremely reluctant to give them up.
1386
This has been a helpful debate. The more ideas that are put forward, the better it will be for racing. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked whether we should look at some sort of national lottery model. The answer to that must be yes. No one pretends that in every aspect of its operation and subsequent donations the National Lottery has been perfect. But that is something which we should consider.
I have a certain amount of experience of acting for bookmakers, although not contributing to their profits—quite the reverse. I believe that this provides a good opportunity for people to say that there is a blank sheet of paper. We are all interested in the future of racing, bookmaking and the Tote. Should the Tote have been able to act more freely in the past? Should it have developed its high street bookmaking operations? Many people believe that that should have been so, while others hold a different view, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned this evening.
This is an opportunity to co-operate and achieve the best possible outcome. To my mind, no solution should be dismissed on the basis of dogma or past experience. Racing has a marvellous future, with great opportunities. There are difficult financial constraints. But if everyone sits down with an open mind and says that they will think about the ideas, then we can achieve the best possible outcome. But no government can sensibly overlook the legitimate interests of the public purse and the taxpayer. I am most grateful to your Lordships.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.

  Sentencing of Women
  Sentencing of Women
  Immigration Act Detainees: Access to Internet
  Immigration Act Detainees: Access to Internet
  Immigration Act: Voucher Scheme
  Immigration Act: Voucher Scheme
  Macpherson Inquiry Papers: Access
  Macpherson Inquiry Papers: Access
  HM Prison Risky
  HM Prison Risky
  Foreign Nationals: Leave to Remain in UK
  Foreign Nationals: Leave to Remain in UK
  Euan Sutherland and Christopher Morris
  Euan Sutherland and Christopher Morris
  International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
  International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
  Passport Agency: Business Plan
  Passport Agency: Business Plan
  Macpherson Inquiry: Costs
  Macpherson Inquiry: Costs
  Louis Farrakhan
  Louis Farrakhan
  Gold Prices: Effect on South Africa
  Gold Prices: Effect on South Africa
  Wales: Spending Review and Objective 1 Status
  Wales: Spending Review and Objective 1 Status
  Labour Market Status
  Labour Market Status
  Unemployment: Local Authority Wards
  Unemployment: Local Authority Wards
  Privileges Committee Report
  Privileges Committee Report
  Human Rights: Joint Committee
  Human Rights: Joint Committee
  Personal Representatives of Ministers: Security Clearance
  Personal Representatives of Ministers: Security Clearance
  Government Departments: Sponsorship
  Government Departments: Sponsorship
  Leaks of Official Information
  Leaks of Official Information
  House of Lords Ministers: Visits to European Commission
  House of Lords Ministers: Visits to European Commission
  Questions for Written Answer
  Questions for Written Answer
  Reserve Forces: Gulf War and Medical Discharge
  Reserve Forces: Gulf War and Medical Discharge
  Strategic Defence Review
  Strategic Defence Review
  Royal Navy: Orthopaedic Surgeons
  Royal Navy: Orthopaedic Surgeons
  Haslar Hospital Intensive Care Unit
  Haslar Hospital Intensive Care Unit
  Armed Forces: Retirement of Senior Medical Officers
  Armed Forces: Retirement of Senior Medical Officers
  Armed Forces: Secondary Care Medical Treatment
  Armed Forces: Secondary Care Medical Treatment
  School Curriculum: Religious Education
  School Curriculum: Religious Education
  Public Policy: Privatisation of Arms Industry
  Public Policy: Privatisation of Arms Industry
  Assisted Areas
  Assisted Areas
  National Museums and Galleries: Ticketing
  National Museums and Galleries: Ticketing
  GM and non-GM Crops: Pollen Dispersal
  GM and non-GM Crops: Pollen Dispersal
  Scotland: Concordats
  Scotland: Concordats