Sitting of 16 June 1999

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

Gold Sales
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
9.33 am
Sir Peter Tapsell: I am glad to have the opportunity to initiate a debate on the proposed sale by the Bank of England of more than half of this country's gold reserves. That decision was announced by the Treasury on 7 May and has been widely and critically discussed in the financial press, but the Government have been strangely reluctant to defend it or explain it in any detail to the House.
I should start by making it clear that I have no personal financial interest in the value of gold. I have never purchased any gold bullion, gold sovereigns or shares in any gold mining company for myself, and I have no connection with any mining company or any part of the jewellery trade. However, I have always taken a keen academic interest in the economic role of gold, which has been of importance in every society in recorded history.
In the 1980s, in my capacity as a stockbroker, I was required for some years to manage a gold bullion fund, valued at many hundreds of millions of dollars, for the previous Sultan of Brunei, Sir Omar Saifuddin. I was therefore able to add practical knowledge of the gold bullion market to my academic and political studies of it.
I regard the decision to sell 415 of the 715 tonnes of our gold reserves as a reckless act, which goes against Britain's national interest. The sale of that crucial element of the United Kingdom's reserve assets will weaken our scope to operate independently, reduce our influence in international financial institutions and diminish the United Kingdom as a world financial power.
I shall briefly set out eight of my main reasons for opposing the decision. Later in my speech, I shall expand on some of those and add a few more. First, a move such as the one announced on 7 May was always likely to destabilise the gold price, as Britain is a leading G7 country whose example is likely to influunce0othur countries and because it was not expected to sell gold. Market sentiment has become overwhelmingly negative and the price has collapsed from $287 per fine ounce immediately before the announcement to $259 at the fix yesterday—a fall of 10 per cent. That has reduced the value of our gold reserves in a little over a month by about $650 million, from $6.5 billion to $5.85 billion at current prices. The Chancellor's announcement has so far cost this country's taxpayers over £400 million, which is more than the cost to us of the Kosovo war.
308
Secondly, the decision reduces our monetary independence. For a country to hold gold is always and everywhere seen as an affirmation of independence and monetary sovereignty. We are told that the decision is not connected with preparations for joining the euro, but if we were to join—the Treasury has said that 40 per cent. of the proceeds from those gold sales will be invested in the euro—and if the euro were then to collapse or we were obliged to leave in the future, the absence of significant gold reserves would make it much more difficult to establish the credibility of any new currency that we had to set up.
Thirdly, the decision smacks of short-termism. In their foreign reserve policy, Governments and central banks are supposed to act in the long-term interests of their country. It is true that on a short-term view, gold has not performed well purely as an investment in the past 20 years, but that reflects mainly the success, which is possibly temporary, of central banks in controlling inflation. No Government can be sure that price stability will endure for ever.
Fourthly, the decision is a threat to the London gold market because it reduces the Bank's ability to act as what is known as a swing lender to the market. Many market participants believe that after the sales have been completed, the Bank will not have enough gold to fulfil its function as a swing lender and so retain the centre of the world gold market in London.
Fifthly, about 20 per cent. of the proceeds are to be invested in yen—so the Treasury tells us. Yet, by lending gold we could earn a better return, as the rate of interest on gold is higher than that on yen investments. I have already mentioned that 40 per cent. is to be invested in euros, yet we hear that the Netherlands is already taking steps to build up its foreign reserves to protect the guilder if the euro were to collapse.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman said that the interest earned on gold was greater than that on other foreign assets—
Sir Peter Tapsell: On yen.
Mr. Sheldon: I did not understand that; I am not sure what the interest on gold is.
Sir Peter Tapsell: The deposit rate in Japan at the moment is about 0.5 per cent., and the normal interest rate on gold is l per cent., which is double.
Sixthly, the concept of reserve management that lies behind the decision is deeply flawed. The Treasury has argued that gold makes up almost half of the unhedged or "net reserves", to quote its press release. That concept of net reserves is arbitrary, as it all depends on what liabilities are deducted from gross assets. So far as I have been able to discover, such a concept has never been used by any other country; international gold figures are always quoted in terms of gross reserves. After the sale of 415 million tonnes of our gold, as is intended—125 million tonnes straight away and 290 million tonnes in the medium term—our gold reserves will be only 7 per cent. of our gross reserves, which is slightly less than those of Albania.
Seventhly, the history of the past 50 years shows again and again that United Kingdom Governments have from time to time been forced to intervene, either to stop the

309
pound rising too quickly or, more frequently, to try to slow a fall in the pound. It makes no sense to throw away a key element of that instrument. No other major country is doing so. In relation to imports, our reserves are already far smaller than those of comparable countries.
Eighthly, in the view of many leading bullion dealers, the method of sale chosen—auctions—is also ill advised. Whatever the merits of transparency, the UK taxpayer has certainly lost substantially from the drop in the price consequent on the announcement and the resulting fall in the expected proceeds from gold sales. Each bi-monthly auction of our gold—the first of which will be held as soon as 6 July—is likely to worsen that problem.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Given the great criticism of the introduction of gilt auctions, which have turned out to be successful, and given that the Government have decided to sell the gold, does my hon. Friend think that there is a better method of selling it than by auction?
Sir Peter Tapsell: I did say that there was a problem about transparency. When examined on the problem of method of sale by a committee in Congress the other day, Mr. Greenspan said that it was very unsatisfactory. Incidentally, he is completely against selling gold. He said that, whereas Mr. Buffet could buy silver, and when the report came out three months later that the price of silver that he had been buying had risen, he could sell his silver at a profit, Mr. Greenspan did not think that major central banks should proceed along those lines. That is of course the problem and why, no doubt, the Bank of England has found it necessary to announce to the world that it will keep selling every other month. The penalty one pays for that—for psychological reasons mainly—is a substantial fall in the gold price.
In giving evidence to the Treasury Select Committee recently, our governor said that the fall in the price of gold had been greater than he had anticipated and he thought it to have been overdone. The authorities should have foreseen that the psychological impact of the Bank of England, of all institutions, announcing that it would take such a course of action, would be very adverse on prices.
That brings me to comment on the historical background. The argument about gold has gone on for centuries. The Bank of England was founded in the reign of King Charles II and, as early as 1717, it decided to put our reserves into gold. That was done, interestingly, on the advice of Sir Isaac Newton, who was born and brought up in Grantham in Lincolnshire—my home county. It is very appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), whom I congratulate on his promotion, should today be sitting on the Opposition Front Bench.
Sir Isaac Newton, Lincolnshire's most famous son—the county has had a famous daughter since, but I shall pass over that rather more controversial point—proposed that, in effect, the Bank of England should put its reserves into gold. The matter was debated at length in the House of Commons and was approved, only after great controversy, in December 1717. Thereafter, many other central banks and other countries argued about whether they would put their reserves into gold, silver, a mixture
310
of the two, or some other form. People have often forgotten that the great economic debate of the second half of the 19th century all over the western world was over bimetallism—in effect whether a country ought to have its reserves in gold or silver.
That debate culminated in the presidential election of 1896—the most ferociously fought and perhaps most famous of all American presidential elections, which centred on whether the United States should put its reserves entirely into gold or a mixture of gold and silver. At the Democratic convention of 1896 in Chicago, William Jennings Bryan made his famous two-hour speech on the subject, in which he used the phrase about mankind not being crucified on a cross of gold—one of the greatest speeches ever made. But William Jennings Bryan lost the presidential election by 500,000 votes, and William McKinley, the pro-gold winning candidate, ensured that the United States shortly thereafter went on to the gold standard. The Federal Reserve Board was originally established to look after the gold.
I mention all that—there is a great deal more to it; many histories of the period have been written in economic terms—to show that what we are discussing is of immense importance and has always been regarded as such. We tend in our debates in this House to think only of more recent events, such as Britain's return to a gold link in 1925, our retreat from it in 1931, the American abandonment of a fixed relationship between gold and the dollar in 1971 and about whether, today, Britain should join the single European currency—the arguments over which are very closely related to those I have been describing. It is very significant that, as recently as last Thursday, the British people were, in effect, being asked to vote on matters closely related to the subject of this debate.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend think that the whole business of the instruction given to the Bank of England to switch from gold largely into euros is simply a pathetic attempt—a device—to give credibility to, and boost the value of, the Euroflop currency?
Sir Peter Tapsell: I said that I thought that that was one of the possibilities. It is certainly among those that commentators have discussed. I have never been an advocate of the conspiracy theory of history, and I tend to think that slightly more complicated issues are involved than that, but I shall return to the issue of the relationship with the euro.
The point of my remarks about the history of the issue and the fact that it has been passionately argued about for centuries, was to show the amazing contrast with the almost furtive way in which the announcement was made on 7 May. One might have expected that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make the announcement at the Dispatch Box—but far from it. The announcement came on a Friday afternoon, in answer to a planted written question by the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), who is not even in the Chamber today, and who has not yet had time to establish himself in the House as a leading authority on international monetary affairs. It seems extraordinary that it should have been done in that way.
Moreover, the written answer given by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury—who I am glad to see in her place—was extremely cursory and brief, and contained

311
only a very small part of the story. As is characteristic of the present Government, the information was contained in two press releases, each several pages long, one from the Treasury and one from the Bank of England, giving a great deal of information about the Government's intentions—vastly more than was given in the written answer—and then press conferences were held at which many questions were answered. The House of Commons was sidelined again, on this very important issue. For those reasons, the way in which the announcement was handled was disgraceful.
The immediate effect has been the loss of £400 million of our taxpayers' reserves, and so far the only beneficiaries of this event have been the foreign finance houses, which have been shorting the gold market. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) in all friendliness, I am not a subscriber to the conspiracy theory in any aspect of life, so I shall not go into detail about the conspiracy theories that are widely circulating in the City about that shorting of the gold market, but it is often said that some of those famous foreign finance houses have shorted gold to a huge amount—vastly greater than the tonnage of sales contemplated by the Bank of England—and that it was therefore vital for them for the gold price to fall substantially so that they could close their positions and take huge profits. I do not know whether that is true, although I think that there is no doubt that several finance houses have been shorting gold in a very large amount, so I suspect that the financial press will pursue that point with vigour in the days and weeks to come.
Everyone remembers how Mr. Soros precipitated the last Russian economic collapse by publicly declaring that, in his view, the rouble was overvalued. Not long after, he said that his funds had lost $800 million as a result of that collapse in the Russian market. I do not know whether our Chancellor has been inspired by Mr. Soros to follow in that path, but he seems to have produced a somewhat similar effect.
I have the greatest respect for the Bank of England, and it is perfectly clear that the Bank did not take the decision. I doubt whether it even favours it. It was given an instruction by the Treasury and when, at the press conference, a Bank of England spokesman was asked by a journalist whether the Bank thought that this was a good idea, that spokesman replied:
"It was a political decision."
I hope that, when the Economic Secretary replies, she will—as has not yet been done—give us all the reasons for this political decision, because the Bank of England, despite its many merits, has not always been clever at playing the market, and Governments in general are not usually very clever at playing markets. The last time that the Bank of England sold gold in sizeable quantities was in 1971, at about $40 per fine ounce. The price of gold then rocketed, reaching a peak of $850 by 1980. So when the Bank of England last sold gold, it did so at the worst possible time, and I do not know whether anyone has ever worked out the extent to which the British taxpayer was deprived of profits by that decision.
I strongly suspect that the Bank of England is now again selling at pretty near the bottom of the bear market—or what would have been the bottom if it had not made its announcement. As I said in my personal declaration of non-interest, I have never owned gold,
312
but in recent weeks, as the gold price has declined, I have said jocularly to friends that, if I won the national lottery, I would put half the proceeds into gold bullion with the price below $300. I believe that many people who have followed these matters with interest were thinking that it was about time that the finance houses closed their short position. It is extraordinary, as a matter of market judgment, that the Treasury and Bank of England should have chosen this very sensitive moment to step in and deal that damaging blow to market confidence.
The answer that other countries have given is extremely interesting. We have not really been told the Government's reasons for their sale, but on 26 May the Prime Minister, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), said that
"throughout the world countries have been selling gold in order to diversify their reserves."—[Official Report, 26 May 1999; Vol. 332, c. 351.]
That is really the only ministerial statement that has been made, and that was elicited by an omnibus question by my hon. Friend.
The Prime Minister's answer was most misleading, as I shall show. Of the more than 100 countries that hold gold, only five, with relatively small economies, have sold. No other major economy has sold gold or intends to sell it. It must be borne in mind that the losses imposed on the British taxpayer by the Chancellor's decision have also been suffered by the French, German, Italian and American taxpayers. I cannot imagine that, when the Governor of the Bank of England next attends a cocktail party in Basle for the monthly meeting of the Bank for International Settlements, he will be the most popular chap there.
Mr. Christopher Gill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Several times he has instanced the potential loss to British taxpayers as a result of the Bank of England selling its gold reserves. I understand that point and entirely agree with him. However, is there not another consideration? Gold and money are a store of value. If, by selling gold, the Bank of England put that value into another currency that seems unlikely to preserve the store of value for British taxpayers, would that not have a doubly deleterious effect on taxpayers' funds, first by making a loss on the transaction, and secondly by investing the proceeds in a currency where the store of value will not be retained?
Sir Peter Tapsell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I shall deal with that point later, as I intend to make a fairly comprehensive speech about gold. The point about gold, as my hon. Friend says, is that it is no one else's liability. As soon as one puts money into other stores of credit, other factors are at work.
I return to the Prime Minister's claim that so many other countries were selling gold. No major country is planning to sell gold, and other countries must be extremely irritated by the way in which the British Government have handled the matter. A series of central bank governors of major countries have issued similar statements on the subject. For example, on 19 May the governor of the Bank of France, Mr. Jean-Claude Trichet, said:
"I will simply say that as far as I am aware—and this is not just the position of the Bank of France and our country, but also the position of the Bundesbank, the Bank of Italy and of the United States, and these are the four main gold stocks in the world—the position is not to sell gold."

313
The chairman of the US Federal Reserve bank, Mr. Greenspan, speaking to the House banking committee in Washington the following day, 20 May—there was obviously co-ordination between the central bank governors—said:
"We should hold our gold. Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world. Germany in 1944 could buy materials during the war only with gold. Fiat money in extremis is accepted by nobody. Gold is always accepted."
Those were the words of Mr. Greenspan, the world's most admired central bank governor. That takes up exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). It is therefore not open to Ministers to say, as the Prime Minister said, that countries of our standing in the world are all selling gold.
Mr. Edward Davey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he confirm that the average annual sales of gold by national central banks across the world over the past decade has averaged 300 tonnes a year—almost three times the amount that the Bank of England proposes to sell?
Sir Peter Tapsell: That is perfectly true, but the holdings of gold by central banks are only 6 per cent. lower now than they were 20 years ago. Other central banks, such as those of Russia and China, have been buying gold. It ic perfectly true that the amount of gold that the Bank of England is selling is relatively small, but the psychological impact on the market is disproportionate.
The Bank of England was the bank that set the lead. Together with Rothschilds and Mocatta, it has always been at the centre of the world gold market ever since 1717. When the Bank of England says that it is selling gold, the tonnage that it is selling is less significant than the psychological impact of that on the rest of the world.
It is true that five countries—Australia, Canada, Argentina, Belgium and the Netherlands—have each sold more than 100 tonnes of gold in recent years, but in no case have those countries done so to diversify their reserves or to increase the technical efficiency of their management. They have all had other reasons.
It would take far too long for me to go into detail about the position in each country, but briefly, Australia sold because there was a mineral price slump in the world at the time and it had an economic crisis. In any case, Australia has very large quantities of gold underground, not yet dug up, so it does not have to worry too much about its gold reserves above ground.
Canada, which also has very large quantities of gold underground, sold in preparation for joining the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement at a time when its currency was under pressure. Argentina has a currency board-type arrangement, which is quite different from a central bank, and is in effect part of the dollar area, so the considerations about gold that would be important to other central banks do not apply. Belgium sold in order to satisfy the debt:GDP ratio criteria in the Maastricht treaty.
The Netherlands is widely believed to be concerned about the possibility that the euro may collapse entirely. It was interesting that the new president of the European central bank, who is a distinguished former governor of
314
the Dutch central bank, went so far as to say publicly the other day that he thought, and had so advised, that the euro was introduced two years too early. The Dutch, who have traditionally run a strong and successful currency since the war, are extremely concerned about the euro. It is said that they have been trying to build up foreign reserves outside the euro, in case the euro collapses.
I shall deal now with the question why central banks should hold gold. I hope that the Minister will reply particularly to these points. It is not just a few of us specialists in the House who are interested. I assure her that the markets generally are extremely interested in the subject. I have never received so many messages from total strangers as I have in recent days, since the title of the debate appeared on the Order Paper. The financial press is also very interested. It is time that the Government explained in detail the reasons for their policy.
Why do central banks hold gold? First, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, because it is no one else's liability. If one invests in the bonds, paper and Treasury bills of other countries, one can suddenly find that one's asset has greatly diminished.
A taxi driver said to me two days after the Government's announcement, "Why are we selling our gold? I don't want to sell my gold and be given toilet paper money in return." That is sound economics. The man in the street may not have read his Keynes, but he has a good grasp of the realities of economics.
If, as the Bank of England proposes to do, it puts 40 per cent. into dollars, 40 per cent. into euros and 20 per cent. into yen as a result of the sale of the gold, it will be speculating. We have seen a tremendous collapse in the yen, and the American dollar has gone up and gone down periodically, so the Bank of England is, in effect, playing the market.
To return to an earlier intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), the argument about transparency also applies to currencies.
When a currency is under pressure it is difficult for a central bank to start to sell it. It is regarded as near-treachery. When the British and French currencies came under serious pressure in 1992, the US Fed and the Bundesbank were expected to support them, not to sell them. There has been some controversy over whether the Germans supported our currency as vigorously in 1992 as we think they should have done. I think that my noble Friend Lord Lamont has views on that subject, which may come out in his book to be published shortly.
In theory, central banks are supposed to co-operate with each other so that when a particular currency comes under pressure, they rally round to support it. The idea that by diversifying into foreign currencies the British Government will suddenly have much more flexibility is an illusion. I very much doubt whether the Government would like the market to see them selling their newly bought euros because they thought that the euro was about to collapse even further. That would not help the Prime Minister's position in the centre of Europe.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in selling our precious gold reserves and putting the money into the collapsing euro,

315
the Government will be showing much more support for the euro than those who belong to it showed support for us in 1992?
Sir Peter Tapsell: Yes, but one should not conduct economic policy on a tit-for-tat basis. Incidentally, we would all be wise not to assume that the euro will continue to weaken for ever. I can speak with a free conscience on this matter, as I voted against every clause of the Maastricht treaty. Indeed, there would never have been a European central bank if three more of my colleagues had joined me and others in voting against the paving motion.
The fact is that the euro now exists and it is just another currency, as I always predicted it would be. Currencies go up as well as down. In my view, the dollar is today over-valued and the euro is under-valued. The fact that in a few weeks or months the euro will probably go up against the dollar and the pound does not strengthen the argument for joining it. Euro-sceptic that I am, I do not believe that it would be in the British national interest for the euro to collapse because that would lead to chaos in Europe and would be damaging for our export markets.
The second reason why one should hold gold reserves is because they build public confidence. Market research carried out last year by one of the world's leading research companies in several European countries showed overwhelming support for countries maintaining gold reserves: 76 per cent. of respondents in France, 72 per cent. in Germany and 75 per cent. in Italy said that gold reserves are important in supporting a strong economy; 84 per cent. in France, 83 per cent. in Italy and 65 per cent. in Germany agreed that having a strong gold reserve helps to bolster public confidence on which economies depend. Similar results—70 per cent. opposing the sale—were received when the British public were questioned on the subject in a recent opinion poll.
Another reason why central banks should hold gold is that, over the very long term, gold maintains its value. In 1900, the value of gold was almost identical to its value in 1717. Although its soaring up to $850 in 1980 artificially over-priced the market—it has been coming down ever since—gold holds its long-term value, as we have seen throughout history. On 27 May, the Financial Times pointed out that $35 an ounce, which was what gold was in 1971 before President Nixon and Treasury Secretary Connally broke the link between the dollar and gold, would be equivalent to $281 today. Thus, despite the fact that gold is at the bottom of a long bear market, it was still worth more than $35, in today's terms, when the Government made their announcement. It has now dropped below that figure.
Mr. Sheldon: It all depends where one takes one's basis. However, $35 an ounce was the price before the war, so the hon. Gentleman must take that as his basis as well.
Sir Peter Tapsell: The right hon. Gentleman is a distinguished former Treasury Minister, but I must point out that that was not the price before the war. The price of $35 an ounce was fixed at Bretton Woods in 1944. In 1932, President Roosevelt devalued the dollar against gold and we devalued, under a Labour Chancellor, in 1931. However, the $35 that was officially linked to gold—which put the whole world not on a gold standard
316
but on a dollar standard between 1945-71—clates from Bretton Woods. I have not argued that gold has been a particularly good market investment in recent years, but it has not been as bad as many people would suppose. Even since 1971, it has roughly held its value in line with inflation.
My next argument for central banks holding gold is that a country's reserves should be diversified to minimise risk. Research shows that gold is an ideal portfolio diversifier. When I was given the Brunei fund to manage, I had to go on a crash course because I knew nothing about gold management. I took much expert advice and even commissioned, at great expense, advisers to give me an idea of how much gold should be in a portfolio. The boffins who deal with those matters believe that, over a long term, the ideal gold holding in a major portfolio is about 20 per cent. That is because gold is an ideal diversifier as its returns are what is technically known as "negatively correlated", which means that they operate in a counter-cyclical manner. When bonds and equities fall in price, gold tends to go up.
Gold prices are much more volatile than other market prices. It is not unusual for gold to go up 2 or 3 per cent., or down 2 or 3 per cent. in a single day. If Wall street falls by 2 or 3 per cent. in a single day, it is headline news throughout the world. Thus gold has a stabilising effect in a long-term portfolio.
Gold is also the asset of last resort. Although it is needed in good times, it can be vital when times are difficult. The last sale of gold in France was in 1969 to deal with the financial consequences of the May 1968 uprising. In Portugal gold was last sold following the 1975 revolution. More recently, in 1991 India used its gold reserves to borrow $1 billion to avoid default.
I have already quoted Mr. Greenspan, who said that in 1944 Germany could not buy anything except with gold. In a real crisis, there is no doubt that gold is important. It is not just my taxi driver who takes that view. When I was in Vietnam last year, everybody told me that every Vietnamese peasant has gold underneath his floorboards or his straw because the Vietnamese have no confidence in their currency. We tend to talk about gold in terms of official reserves, but a lot of unofficial gold is hidden in China and Vietnam and, one is always told, in France—although I have a French wife and I have not yet managed to discover her gold hoard. It is widely believed that people hold gold all over the world secretly, against the possibility of disaster, which is a tremendously important market consideration. That is what is meant by the psychology of gold and it is extraordinary that the Bank of England should have taken this decision, and the way that they have done so.
I do not wish to go into the question of International Monetary Fund gold sales in any detail, because that is a separate, although obviously related, subject. The IMF is not a central bank. It is ironic that the Chancellor, who is understandably keen to help the poorer nations of the world, seems also to be keen to persuade the IMF to sell gold. He hopes that it will do so, but many poorer countries would be extremely hard hit by that.
Hon. Members who are interested might care to read the recently published pamphlet entitled "Gold mining's importance to sub-Saharan Africa and heavily indebted poor countries", because 41 HIPCs mine gold, and it is an extremely important part of the exports of nine of those

317
countries. Curiously enough, the sale of IMF gold, if it depressed the price of gold still further, would seriously and adversely affect many of the poorest countries.
The sale of our gold will not increase the size of our reserves; they will remain the same, so that argument cannot be used. Many countries feel that they ought to be building up their reserves, and they are all trying to do so. An extraordinary aspect of the situation is how dangerously low Britain's net reserves are. Their net value on 7 May was only $15 billion. A more sensible policy than selling gold would be to build up our reserves by buying dollars and other currencies with our sterling. That would help to lower the exchange rate of sterling, which is a desirable objective at present, and increase our reserves of foreign currencies, which the sale of gold will not achieve.
Mr. Tyrie: In view of the experience in the 1990s with the huge movements of global capital, does my hon. Friend believe that open market operations are an intelligent way in which to try to alter the value of a currency?
Sir Peter Tapsell: I would not normally take that view, but our long-term economic aim ought to be the building up of our reserves. That is what every country wishes to do, and many of them are pursuing that. Our reserves in relation to our imports are very low, so any step that we can take to build up our reserves will be welcome.
I have mentioned the aspects of pubic opinion. I am not one of those who thinks that one should follow focus groups and so on, but it is overwhelmingly evident that public opinion in this country is opposed to the whole policy of selling gold by 5:2. The Government will have to be persuasive if they are to change that view.
There have been previous attempts to reduce the role of gold in central banks. The last was the introduction of special drawing rights. At that time, I happened to be an adviser to the monetary authority of Singapore. I went to see Dr. Goh Keng Swee, who was then Singapore's Finance Minister and who, in my experience, had the most subtle and brilliant financial mind of any Finance Minister or central bank governor I have ever known. I said to him, "Dr. Goh, will Singapore take SDRs?" Dr. Goh replied, "I have no intention of putting a paper tiger into Singapore's tank." That is a slogan worth keeping in mind.
The whole point about gold, and the quality that makes it so special and almost mystical in its appeal, is that it is universal, eternal and almost indestructible. The Minister will agree that it is also beautiful. The most enduring brand slogan of all time is, "As good as gold." The scientists can clone sheep, and may soon be able to clone humans, but they are still a long way from being able to clone gold, although they have been trying to do so for 10,000 years. The Chancellor may think that he has discovered a new Labour version of the alchemist's stone, but his dollars, yen and euros will not always glitter in a storm and they will never be mistaken for gold.
10.26 am
Mr. Edward Davey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) on keeping to a fairly balanced view when he developed the theory of the role of gold in a modern economy. However, I disagree with his conclusions.
In answer to my intervention, the hon. Gentleman talked about the psychological importance of this sale of gold and explained the psychological role of gold in monetary economics. He was right to focus on that, because gold's main contribution in the modern monetary economy is that it is, at the last resort, the store of value and the provider of assistance in underpinning market confidence. However, many other commodities and assets retain value for investors, businesses and Governments and there are many other ways of maintaining market confidence in a modern economy, from regulation to the lessons of history.
At the end of this century, many participants in the financial markets—and in all product and labour markets, for that matter—have much greater confidence in the ability of capitalism and financial capitalism to deliver success. That was not the case centuries ago, when gold made a much more important psychological contribution. The lesson of history is that we do not need gold to underpin confidence and value. The role played by gold has been declining, which means that the hon. Gentleman's point about its psychological contribution is much less strong today.
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that, in the past, gold was absolutely vital—in the early days of financial capitalism, it was crucial—but the role that he wishes to attribute to it is not as strong as he suggests.
Mr. Gill: Does the hon. Gentleman think that these matters should have been discussed in the House before the decision to sell was made, given that money has been put aside in reserves by the taxpayer? The taxpayer clearly has a view, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) explained in his excellent presentation. There is also the question whether the taxpayer feels that that store of value, which belongs to him, has been preserved by putting the proceeds of the sale of gold into other investments. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the House should have been granted a debate on these important matters before the Government took the decision to sell the gold?
Mr. Davey: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. One of the criticisms that can be made of the Government is that they were too open and transparent about the sale of the gold, and that that has moved the market price. I do not subscribe to the criticism that has been made of the Bank of England's approach, because I think that the way in which it has set out these sales over the next 12 months will help to bring order and stability to the gold market, which, as has been said, is characterised by volatility.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) tempts me a little. The problem with the House is that we do not analysis Government expenditure in enough detail. The House grants £300 billion to £350 billion of public expenditure without full debate. We should scrutinise the Government on that expenditure: not on technical gold sales. There is a strong argument for not having a full debate on gold sales, because that could move markets.

319
The role of gold can be overplayed. That is not to say that gold markets are not important and that we should not have gold reserves: of course we should. I do not pretend to have all the financial knowledge before me properly to take a view about whether the Bank of England is right in its portfolio adjustment, but I concede that the people who are overseeing the portfolio of assets that the Bank of England holds in its vaults must from time to time decide whether to make changes and adjustments. It would be nonsense if the Bank of England were to hold static for ever a particular set of assets in particular proportions.
Mr. St. Aubyn: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is right that the Government took this decision without giving any thought to the effect on the developing world and on the gold price? Jobs are now being lost in very poor countries as a result of this decision.
Mr. Davey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, because that is also one of my concerns. Will the Minister explain a little more the thinking behind this decision? Now that we have this debate, it would be sensible for the Government to outline the thinking behind this sale, particularly with respect to employment in developing countries that have gold as one of their key commodity exports and the Government's policy to promote the sale of gold from the International Monetary Fund to help to deal with debt relief in poor countries. I hope that all parties in the House support that policy, because it is crucial that we try to forgive the debts of the poorest countries—the debts that are deemed to be, in Jubilee 2000 language, unpayable. The Government have made a good start, and I hope that they go further. It would be wonderful if the Minister were to announce today further gold sales for that purpose, but I doubt that she will do so.
I hope that the Minister will explain the thinking to reassure us that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing, that there is some co-ordination between the Treasury and the Bank of England on all aspects of policy, and that the policy on assisting debt relief has been linked to the policy of portfolio adjustment at the Bank of England. If those decisions are not co-ordinated, the Government are not doing their job properly.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle on securing this debate. It will help the House to focus on the role of gold in a modern economy. I take a different view from his. In international monetary economics in the late 20th century, money creation and the complexity of global financial markets is such that the role of gold is much diminished. Money creation in modern financial capitalism is almost endogenous and does not rely on a stock of yellow commodity lying in the central bank's reserves. The workings of financial capitalism have almost no relation to gold.
The hon. Gentleman is right that, in extremis, if the whole structure of financial capitalism were to fall to the ground with a nuclear meltdown of the financial markets, the role of gold would come to the fore. It is right for central banks to consider all potential future risks to ensure that our society and our economy can function even in such disaster scenarios. They should hold gold, but they do not need to do so as they have in the past.
I do not know whether selling 125 tonnes of gold over the next 12 months and buying yen, euro and dollar assets is the right portfolio adjustment. Not many hon. Members
320
have the information and expertise to make that full analysis. However, I think that it is right that the Bank of England is considering how best to deploy its assets.
The total amount being sold is very small compared with the amounts that have been sold by other countries in recent times and that are expected to be sold in the future. Switzerland has announced future sales of 1,300 tonnes of gold, which is much greater than the amount that the Bank of England proposes to sell. We should put this matter in context, and should not get too hot under the collar about it.
10.36 am
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I agree that more attention should be given to this subject. The Government should have called a debate, and I regret that they did not. I also agree about the mystique—"Goldfinger" is on television tonight, so it is an apposite day on which to hold this debate, and I have set my video recorder.
The key issue is whether gold can still play a monetary role. It used to play a big monetary role because people did not trust paper money. It played a crucial role in the development of the international traded goods sector in the 19th century. It was very effective, because it was difficult to cheat. It coincided with a period of stable prices in the 19th century. I say coincided because it was largely luck: it was because gross domestic product grew at roughly the speed of the monetary base—the increase in the amount of gold available—and thereby serious deflation was avoided.
That history of success in the 19th century was carried over into the 20th, and gold was used as part of the stabilising function in the Bretton Woods system in 1944—the dollar link. When inflation created by the Vietnam war destroyed Bretton Woods, that should theoretically have led people to rush back to gold. They did a little, but no serious analyst suggested that gold should be brought back as the monetary base. There were more sophisticated arguments for commodity-based standards, which I think had some merit, but virtually no one, even during the crisis created by global inflation, thought that gold was the right way to go.
Since that time, gold has steadily fallen in price. Can gold once again play a role as a reserve currency? I do not think so. It is no longer a good store of value: we have seen that in recent years. I do not think that gold is a suitable vehicle for open-market operations, which are themselves far less relevant in an age of such huge global capital flows. Nor do I think that we will go back to gold as a vehicle for dealing with inflation, if that returns.
Gold is, as the famous phrase goes, a barbarous economic relic. I cannot believe that it makes good economic sense to spend a huge amount of money digging something up, turning it into ingots and then burying it again in vaults. These gold sales are not primarily a monetary issue. I note that the Monetary Policy Committee did not even discuss the matter. The case for the demonetisation of gold is strong.
I cautiously support the sales, but I am sorry that the Government have not moved more carefully. I do not think that there was any need to rush into these sales. We do not know whether the gold price will go down or up. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) said that he thought it was at a low point.

321
He may be right, and he may be wrong—we do not know—but he could be right, and if he is right we should proceed more cautiously.
Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Tyrie: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not, because I have only two or three minutes in which to finish my speech.
I am a little worried that we will sell too quickly. It is a question not just of the amount, but of the speed. There are good arguments for believing that the gold price may continue to fall. The United States might start selling gold. Has the Treasury a view on whether major countries are now considering gold sales? Is there any suggestion that they might?
I think that gold will be used less in the 21st century as a store of value in Third world countries—Vietnam was mentioned earlier—and that will result in more gold coming on to the market. Improvements in mining techniques will almost certainly increase the amount of gold available. I worked in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development for a while, and it was found to be profitable to "leach" the piles of slag that had already been used for gold mining, to obtain gold by means of more efficient industrial processes. The supply side points to a weak gold price for some time to come.
With great respect, I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) was talking nonsense when he suggested that the Government might be selling in order to influence the price of the euro. They could do that perfectly well by using the forward book, with or without gold, as a reserve in the vaults. As I have said, I would like the Government to explain why so fast, and why so much.
10.42 am
Mr. Quentin Davies: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) on securing this short debate, during which he raised a number of points that it would be remiss of the House not to discuss seriously. He is a distinguished parliamentarian, and brings to the subject a wealth of professional experience as well as the depth of historical knowledge for which he is famed in the House. I never listen to him without learning something that I did not know before, and I certainly was not disappointed on this occasion.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) also made some sensible points, and we heard a valuable—but sadly, owing to the shortage of time, all too short—contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), who probably knows more about the subject than any other Member except my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle.
The Government have left two questions in the minds of parliamentarians and the public. First, why did they decide to sell the gold? We are still no clearer about that, and I hope that we shall be clearer by the end of the debate. Secondly, why have the Government adopted such an astonishing method of conducting the sales?
322
Because the Government had not given us sufficient explanation, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Chancellor, wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but all that he received was a lot of waffle. The reply stated:
"As we have been careful to explain this is a prudent restructuring of the reserves."
This is to do with
"Prudent management of public finances"
to achieve a
"better balance in the portfolio."
Those are evasive answers. We need an answer to the question, why is it more prudent for gold to constitute 20 per cent. of the net and 7 per cent. of the gross reserves, rather than 40 per cent. and 17 per cent., or whatever the current figures are? We have heard no explanation of the factors that determined the Government's course of action, and we badly need one.
Gold has traditionally been held as a reserve because its value is a negative function of the strength of the dollar, a positive function of inflation rates and a negative function of real interest rates. It is possible to construct a hedge against the dollar simply by holding other currencies, but there is no such obvious way of obtaining protection against a resurgence of inflation, a collapse of real interest rates or interest rates becoming negative again, as they have during all our lifetimes, that is better than holding gold. As my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle pointed out, gold is a long-term insurance policy against contingencies that we do not foresee in the immediate future, but which could always return. We need to know why the Government have decided that they want to roughly halve that insurance policy. After all, 700 tonnes of gold is not very much for an economy the size of ours.
The Government must think that there is some reason for holding gold in the reserves, or they would have decided to get rid of the entire gold reserve. We need a clear explanation of why they think it prudent to hold a mere 300 tonnes. If they agreed with the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, it would be logical for them to get rid of gold altogether; but they have not, and their actions lack credibility.
Do the Government have formal models for determining their management of the portfolio of the reserves? Is there a formal risk management model? If so, will they place it in the House of Commons Library, so that all of us, including the public, can learn on what the portfolio decisions are based, and why such adjustments are apparently required? After all, the Government are acting in an agency capacity, managing the taxpayer's money.
The Minister must reply to the serious point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle. We cannot allow the rumours to grow, because they are extremely dangerous to public confidence. It has been suggested that the market is very short of gold, that the short positions may be a substantial multiple of the total amount of gold currently held by the Bank of England, and that the Bank's real motive is to save the bacon of firms that are running those short positions. If such a suggestion is being made seriously, it must be dealt with authoritatively and definitively, and we want an answer from the Government now.

323
Apart from the question "Why do it?", the obvious question in the minds of the public is, "Why do it in what is apparently such an incredibly incompetent and foolish fashion?". Someone who is going to sell something does not announce it in advance to the world, and certainly does not try to talk down the price of a commodity in which he is rather long. In normal circumstances, that makes no sense. If these circumstances, or these rules, are abnormal, we had better hear why it is sensible to make a public announcement. On the facts, it is extremely foolish and damaging. As my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle said, the markets have reduced the value of the whole gold reserve by 10 per cent. or more since the announcement, and it is clear that the announcement has been one of the major factors in the fall. This is, prima facie, a clear case of incompetence on the part of the new Labour Government.
As if that were not enough, how extraordinary it was to try to talk the International Monetary Fund into agreeing on a programme of gold sales a few weeks before trying to sell our own gold. That was madness. One has to be as incompetent as the Government appear to be to damage the market in advance of such a major sales operation. The Minister and, indeed, her boss the Chancellor, owe the taxpayer an explanation. Why have the taxpayer's assets been squandered and their value gratuitously reduced? No sensible business man or woman would dream of conducting his or her affairs in such a way. Or is it perhaps that the conspiracy theory is right? Has the Government's whole plan been simply to drive down the gold price by whatever means, fair or foul, to save the position of certain figures in the City—the firms that were hinted at by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle—which, apparently, are so short and potentially in such trouble? The Minister has an opportunity to throw light on that. I hope that she will do so.
Given the appalling mistake of having alerted the rest of the world that we were going to sell the gold, why did not the Minister think of alternative ways of proceeding? If she did, why did she not choose them? A private placing is one obvious route that I would have wanted to explore. Some central banks are buying gold. As their balance of payments improve, perhaps China and some of the far east countries will add to their reserves. We have already heard that the Bank of France and the other major gold holders are not selling. Perhaps they might have been prepared to buy a little more, particularly if the alternative was a public auction. They might have said, "We'll help the British out a bit and take some." The discount would almost certainly have been a good deal less than the 10 per cent. and more that has been the effective discount following the manner in which the Government decided to proceed.
Alternatively, what about "feeding the fix"—feeding the market over time? Was that alternative properly explored? If so, why was it not chosen? Of course, the amounts are significant, but, for years and years, the South Africans fed the fixing in the opposite direction. They sold their annual gold production over time, spreading it over the year. They found that to be a good way of doing things, so why, conversely, is it not a good way to reduce one's gold reserves? We want to hear whether that potential solution was explored and, if so, why it was rejected.
324
Finally, what about the idea of a millennium issue—a retail issue of gold, not sovereigns? Each coin would presumably be much more valuable these days. That might have had distinct marketing opportunities at the millennium. Had we proceeded down that route, the Government might even have sold the gold at a premium and a discount would not have been necessary. Again, we want a clear explanation of why that route was not chosen.
10.52 am
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I congratulate the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) on securing the debate and on his fascinating and wide-ranging speech, which, as the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said, again displayed his skills and knowledge as a historian. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford on his promotion to the Front Bench. We heard in yesterday's Finance Bill Committee that we were to lose two of the Front-Bench team from the Opposition. We welcome him and his colleagues to their new places.
In this extremely interesting debate, we have heard the two traditions, if you like, of attitudes towards gold. We have heard from the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle of the mystical significance of gold—I was waiting for that word to appear and he did not disappoint me. During the sensible contributions of the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), we heard of the alternative view that was taken by Keynes in the 1930s—of gold as a "barbarous relic".
I regret only that I have been left so little time to respond to the multiple points that have been raised, but I dismiss first the wilder rumours to which the hon. Members for Louth and Horncastle and for Grantham and Stamford both referred. They are nonsense. It is important that we do not in the House take at face value such absurd rumours, which occasionally float around the markets. We should be careful not to give currency to such rumours by remarks in the House that may verge on the irresponsible.
Several Members have asked why the Government have decided to restructure the reserves and to reduce our holdings in gold. The answer is simple. We have reviewed the nature of our portfolio—the assets that we hold in the reserves. We believe that the size of the holdings and their spread across currencies and gold should be determined by the balance of the risk and reward that is offered by gold, and how that compares with the other assets that are held in the reserves.
As some hon. Members have pointed out, gold has been a very poor investment over the past 20 years. The gold price in June 1979 was $280 dollars an ounce. It is little changed on that today, although it shot up to an unsustainable peak of some $800 an ounce in 1980. By contrast, other investments have offered capital gains, or reinvestment of substantial interest earnings over that period. What we are looking for in the restructuring of the reserves is a sensible diversification of the assets.
We are not saying that gold will continue to be a poor investment. As the hon. Member for Chichester said, none of us knows, but we would not be planning to retain a significant proportion of the reserves in gold if we believed that it had no place as a store of value. However, what has happened to the real value of gold should caution the House against some of the more exaggerated claims in its favour.

325
We continue to believe that gold is a valuable asset and that it performs an important role in countries' reserve assets, but it has to justify its share in terms of its contribution to the overall balance of risks in our reserves portfolio. A key objective in that portfolio's management is to minimise the risk to the taxpayer of fluctuations in the value of the reserves. Financing a large part of the reserves through borrowing in foreign currency largely eliminates that currency risk, as the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford has acknowledged, but considerable risk is borne on the remaining net foreign currency and gold reserves, totalling the equivalent of $14 billion.
The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle asked why we use that measure of net reserves. Perhaps I may draw his attention to the advice of the International Monetary Fund that countries should disclose not only their gross reserves, but their currency liabilities, so that a proper judgment can be arrived at of net reserves.
Almost half of this country's net reserves have been held in the form of gold. Without taking a view on the prospects for gold, that is a very big exposure to a single asset. Reducing our gold holdings from 715 tonnes to some 300 tonnes over a number of years will gradually bring gold's share of the net reserves down to about a fifth. We believe that that will achieve a better balance in the portfolio.
We will have a better diversified portfolio. We will not be as concentrated in gold as in the past. At the moment, we are twice as exposed to movements in the gold price as to movements in the value of the dollar. Therefore, it is a simple portfolio decision, designed to reduce the risk borne by the British taxpayer.
326
The hon. Members for Louth and Horncastle and for Grantham and Stamford raised the question, as did other hon. Members, of the timing. The decision to sell now was not motivated by any view that the gold price was about to fall further, or by any of the wilder fantasies that have been suggested. The decision follows a careful review of the role for gold in the UK's reserves. As I have said, it is about portfolio restructuring, not about playing the market, which the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford seems to want us to do.
Of course we considered various routes for selling the gold before we decided that an auction programme offered advantages of transparency, spreading sales out over a lengthy period. If we had sold outside an auction process, we risked uncertainty over the timing of sales and much greater undermining of the gold price. If we had gone for covert sales on that scale, it is extremely likely that the sales would have been possible only at a discount to the market price. The House would rightly have been critical of such a course.
The gold market has become increasingly sensitised to central bank sales in recent years, of which, as some hon. Members have reminded us, there have been many throughout the world. There would have been a real danger that the market would have realised that a major central bank was selling and would have over-reacted to the volumes actually sold. As the Governor of the Bank of England has indicated, even with the orderly and transparent procedure that we have adopted, the market reaction has been somewhat overdone.
The Financial Times said there were three questions to ask about the—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We now come to the next debate.

Rail Network Integration (London)
11 am
Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: In opening this debate, I do not think that it is at all inappropriate to seek your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, simply to mention that this is national bike week, and that today is national cycle to work day, which is strongly supported by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. This morning, I personally participated in the events, by cycling from Barking to Westminster, via Tower Hamlets and Covent Garden.
I am sure that the House will wish to congratulate everyone involved in supporting those events, including the all-party cycling group and the British Heart Foundation, which—wholly appropriately, Labour Members may think—was giving out red roses. I should also like to thank the Minister for Transport in London for her personal support for cycling and cyclists. Her support is very much appreciate by those who are involved in cycling.
Yesterday, in his statement, the Deputy Prime Minister best summed up the essence of this debate when he described a "joined-up London". That is exactly what is required.
I shall briefly deal with only three matters—as I know that several colleagues also wish to speak—the first of which is the definition of integration. Secondly, I shall give some examples of good practice in my own constituency and in east London generally. Thirdly, and most importantly, I shall describe the creation of a London orbital line, which would link the East London line, the South London line, the West London line and the North London line.
Integration is not only about theoretical connections or construction projects. Although those are important, integration also encompasses many other matters, such as accessibility generally, and the ability of people with disabilities to access the transport system. Integration is also about ensuring that connecting modes, such as the bus network—which is much maligned, but does an excellent job—feed adequately into the underground system, the rail network and the docklands light railway. It is also about signage—including the language used—in transport hubs and connecting stations, so that individuals feel comfortable with where they are and where they are going.
One of the most advantageous aspects of the London underground is that even tourists seem to be sufficiently comfortable with how the system operates to be able to arrive at a station, look at a map, enter the underground and arrive at a completely different part of London. Maps are therefore very important. I commend DLR for producing integrated maps showing transport modes other than DLR—a model which is being copied by other operators, and can only improve transport in London.
Security in the transport system, too, is very important, and is achieved not only by closed-circuit television but by ensuring that stations and other venues are staffed.
The debate is about user-friendly transport—which includes indicator boards notifying passengers when the next bus or tube will arrive—so that we have not only theoretical integration, but physical and even emotional integration, allowing people to feel comfortable and
328
confident in using public transport. Everyone involved in the issue is promoting that type of integration, and much progress is being made in achieving it.
I should like to echo the comments made yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister in paying tribute to all of London Transport's staff. In the majority of their activities, despite many problems, they are very efficient, helpful and courteous. I am sure that many hon. Members have seen many more rude passengers than rude staff members, who provide an excellent service.
In Poplar and Canning Town, unlike in some parts of London, we are well served by transport links. In my constituency, we have the docklands light railway, the Jubilee line extension, London City airport, a variety of bus routes, the District and Central tube lines and the London-Tilbury-Southend line. We are also right next door to the channel tunnel rail link, which will be in Stratford.
My constituency also has many good examples of integration, such as at Limehouse station and the newly reconstructed West Ham station, and especially at Canning Town—which has a state-of-the-art station to interface the bus network, the Jubilee line extension, Silverlink and DLR. The Canning Town station is clean, safe and efficient. Consequently, it is becoming ever more popular.
Public transport in east London generally is becoming busier, as it carries ever more passengers. DLR, for example, previously carried about 20 million passengers annually, but is now carrying 28 million passengers a year. Although passenger numbers will be reduced significantly when the Jubilee line extension opens—from 29 million passengers annually to 21 million—they will rise to 40 million when the Lewisham extension opens. The Government office for London and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are considering provision of extra DLR trains to deal with those increased numbers.
It has been well argued that east London will be the engine for this great capital city, to drive us into the next millennium. East London's transport infrastructure will be critical in ensuring that east London is successful in playing that role, and the London orbital should be one of the main aspects of that infrastructure.
The purpose of the London orbital is to link the East London, South London, West London and North London lines into a circular line. The South London line is run by Connex, the West London and North London lines by Silverlink, and the East London line—which has recently re-opened after a three year refit, and has some new connections, particularly at Canada Water—by London Underground.
The problem to date, however, has been that the lines do not quite link up. There is a missing link between Dalston and Whitechapel, where there is a disused railway viaduct, and another missing link between Surrey Quays and Queens Road station, in Peckham.
London Underground has proposed two schemes to join up those missing links. The first is a northern extension, which London Underground Ltd. authorised to proceed in 1997, but needs additional funding. The second is a southern link, on which, last year, the Deputy Prime Minister authorised preparatory work, and on which a decision will be taken this summer.

329
The two schemes would cost only £150 million. Moreover, when the links are built, London Underground could run a line from Highbury, down the East London line to Peckham, and then—on Connex lines—on to Clapham Junction, Wimbledon or Croydon. Although Wimbledon or Croydon are currently the preferred options, after working for 13 years as a firefighter at Battersea fire station, I prefer the Clapham Junction option. However, I do not think that that argument will sway LUL.
Completion of the links would make it possible to run trains right round an orbital route at no extra cost. I believe that that should happen, and much of the Deputy Prime Minister's statement yesterday seemed to be advocating such a course.
The main benefits of such an approach are that the initial stage could be under construction within the lifetime of this Parliament, and the links would reach parts of London that currently are not on the tube, such as Peckham, Battersea and Hackney. Such an approach would be an important step towards integrating tube and rail networks; improve the accessibility of regeneration areas, such as the docklands; and create new cross-London railways at one twentieth the cost of a new tube line.
The orbital would also give through-London passengers an alternative to going via the centre, improve radial journeys, and put more of south London—which currently has 40 per cent. of London's population, but only 11 per cent. of stations—on the tube map. I am not sure what south London ever did to offend the powers that be who originally designed the tube network.
Thus, at no great expense, an orbital network could be devised for London, because most of the lines needed for such a network are already in place. One can travel from Clapham Junction to Willesden Junction and on into the east end via Highbury and Islington and the North London lines with only one change. The East London line, which reopened in March last year, currently runs between New Cross and New Cross Gate. London Underground is currently looking into the pros and cons of extending that line north from Shoreditch, via Bishopsgate, to connect with Dalston. In a reply to a written question tabled in July last year, the Government stated that they were considering how best to take that project forward. The scheme, whose estimated cost is only £150 million, is relatively inexpensive because it uses much existing infrastructure. Yesterday's statement by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister clearly moves that agenda forward, which is welcome.
In respect of the southern extension, London Underground appears to have two favoured alignments: New Cross Gate to East Croydon or West Croydon, or from Surrey Quays on to South London rail lines, but with services to Wimbledon via Streatham and Tulse Hill. The Surrey Quays link would make use of largely disused land to connect with existing rail lines north of Queen's road, Peckham.
London Transport, Railtrack and the Association of Train Operating Companies attended a conference last year to discuss ways in which the organisations could work more closely together. The objective was to improve integration, and I understand that my hon. Friend the
330
Minister for Transport in London attended. As a result, four different working groups were set up to consider different aspects of integration. The first is physical integration, and LT has appointed a project manager to ensure that action is taken quickly on matters such as joint maps and a combined timetable. There are working parties on fares and ticketing to improve links; on public affairs issues; and on long-term schemes and strategies, in a joint arrangement with ATOC. The long-term working group is considering the bigger issues, preparing briefing documents for the new mayor and assembly next year, and working toward a common stance.
On the orbital network, LT would argue that, in world-city terms, there might be a role for enhancing the network, but it will obviously depend on the mayor's strategy. In addition, there is the question of funding. The Government have stated that, if road pricing is to be acceptable, the money derived from it must be used to fund public transport, such as bus priorities, road calming measures or pedestrianisation. However, revenue derived from car travel could usefully be used for schemes such as the extension of the East London line, which would be relatively inexpensive. The extended line would naturally form part of an inner orbital network. It is possible that the mayor might be encouraged to form an orbital network if it conforms with his or her other policies and priorities.
The orbital might come about naturally: as other schemes came to fruition, they would simply need to be linked up—for example, the Croydon tramlink already covers one quarter of the outer orbital network. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister spoke of "joined-up London", and referred to the London link plan connecting the five airports with the channel tunnel rail link. He mentioned expanding the network from its current form by adding the Jubilee line extension, the docklands light railway extensions, the Croydon tram and the Thames water taxis. I believe that London's transport network is doing an excellent job in the circumstances, but it could do much better.
I am grateful to Archie Galloway, chairman of the East London Group, for writing to me in support of the London orbital. His group represents 10 London boroughs, the City of London corporation, local business and regeneration agencies, and it launched a brochure on the case for the orbital yesterday. I should also like to express my appreciation to my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Mr. Linton) and for Putney (Mr. Colman), who have worked hard to promote transport issues in London with parliamentary colleagues and those outside who are interested or involved in transport.
The case for the London orbital is well made, and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and his Department are clearly looking in that direction. I anticipate further progress being made between now and the arrival of the new mayor and assembly next year.
11.14 am
Mr. Martin Linton: I, too, welcome the announcement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister of a private-public partnership in which London Underground and Railtrack will together examine ways in which the surface railway system and the London underground can be linked. My right hon. Friend has been a long-term advocate of such a linkage between tube and rail in London, which, in a useful

331
phrase, he described yesterday as "joined-up London". He also mentioned some of the major schemes that could flow from that linking: for example, the five airports around London and the channel tunnel rail link could all be linked into the same railway system, thus enabling swift communication between them.
In a debate such as this, we can focus closely on London and consider in detail the possibilities opened up by that statement. One scheme that is explicitly included in the discussions between London Underground and Railtrack is the East London line extensions, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) referred. I am sure that the northern extension, which would link the East London line to the North London line will be mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), just as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) will refer to the southern link that will link the East London line to the line into Croydon. That will enable tubes to be run from Highgate down to Croydon and Wimbledon and give the first tube interchange for the Croydon tramlink, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) is so enthusiastic.
I shall concentrate on another possibility, which is that of running trains from Highgate around to Clapham Junction, via either Brixton or Streatham Common. The important thing is the link to Clapham Junction. The reason for my interest in the scheme and for my having asked many questions about the East London line, which lies many miles from my constituency, is that my constituency contains Clapham Junction, which is one of the oldest and most famous large stations in London. It was built in 1863 and, many years ago, it became the busiest station in the United Kingdom—indeed, the busiest in Europe, and it still has signs that advertise that claim. Its name has become famous world wide: Harold Macmillan used the phrase, the "Clapham Junction of politics" to mean a place that everyone has to go through; and, in a music book, I even discovered a description of the chord of the diminished seventh as the "Clapham Junction of music", because it is the chord from which one can go anywhere.
Clapham Junction has entered popular currency in many different ways, yet it is not on the tube system. That omission is a long-standing and keenly felt grievance of the people of Battersea, and it needs to be put right. My reasons are not purely parochial; there are many reasons why that link should be made. Many commuters do not want to go to a central London terminus, but to some other part of London. Entering London from any direction other than the south or south-west, they are able to get off the train and on to the tube system before they reach a terminus; but that is not possible coming from the south or south-west, because Clapham Junction is not on the tube. More important, a scheme such as the London orbital would allow access to the tube system by many communities in London that do not currently have such access.
Quite apart from linking up with the East London and South London lines, the network would lead to a link to the West London line, which goes from Clapham Junction up to Willesden Junction. It is sorely underused by rail passengers—few even know of its existence. Until recently, there was only one stop on the line between the two junctions, at Kensington Olympia, but last month
332
another stop was opened at West Brompton. Apart from those two stops, the line passes without stopping through the rest of Battersea, through Sands End in Fulham and through a station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) which is intriguingly named North Pole—it was closed many years ago, but I believe that it should be reopened. At Willesden Junction the line joins the North London line, completing the London orbital route that we are seeking.
That orbital route has long been dreamed of. It was suggested many years ago by the Greater London council. The Railway Development Society and Transport 2000 have campaigned for it under the name Outer Circle. The story is rather like Frobisher's search for the north-west passage. Only since yesterday have we been able to say that it can be done, because only when the two missing links in the East London line are joined up does the orbital route become possible.
That creates three important possibilities for travellers in London. One is for commuters going to Docklands or north London rather than the terminus who want to avoid the hassle of going through the centre of London. They will be able to make a direct connection with an orbital route. Another important use is for through London passengers. Many people have no business in central London and come to the capital only because the railway system is so centred on it. Given the option of an orbital route they might well get off at Clapham Junction, go to Willesden Junction and get on a train in another direction. A few people do that already, but not many because there is not a regular orbital train. I am convinced that many people would happily get off at stations such as Highbury and Islington or Willesden Junction, which are two or three miles from the terminus, and change to another line if they could.
However, the most important issue for inner London Members is that many communities in inner London are disfranchised from the tube system. A London orbital line would correct an ancient injustice. Large parts of south London were bypassed by the tube system, as were Hackney and some parts of north London. That happened partly for geological reasons. When the system was built it was thought to be impossible to tunnel through clay. A tunnelling expert today would say that clay was the best material through which to tunnel. There were also historical reasons that the train services in north London were longer distance lines that were less inclined to build up commuter services, so the tube was relied on for that, whereas the south London train lines developed as commuter lines.
As a result, south London, which has nearly 40 per cent. of the population of London, has only 11 per cent. of the tube stations. More insidious than that is the fact that many lines have far fewer trains per hour, which means that access from the south London suburbs—or, indeed, from Hackney—to central London is often much more difficult. It is possible to get to the centre of London quickly from Bromley, Croydon or Clapham Junction. The system is handy for those who work near the terminus, but it is not conducive for those who want to travel to any other part of London or join in London as a metropolis. That contributes to south London's reputation

333
for having quiet suburbs with people who do their job in the City and go home at half past five, whereas north London has a more raffish, cosmopolitan atmosphere.
Joan Ruddock: Not true.
Mr. Linton: South London has changed. The train system built with that in mind is now inappropriate. Thousands of students and young people who come to work in the capital and live in south London want to be able to travel around London until late at night. They do not just want to go to work and go back home. The tourism industry in south London suffers inordinately from the fact that the area does not exist on the tube map. Millions of tourists come to London under the impression that it is almost entirely north of the Thames. Tourist attractions, as Battersea power station will become, find it difficult to persuade tourists that south London exists.
The entertainment industry suffers from the same problem. I am president of Battersea arts centre. Even though it is often the Time Out pick of the month, it is surprisingly difficult to persuade people from north London that they can catch what used to be called a British Rail train to Clapham Junction, get off, walk five minutes and find an arts centre. It is much closer than many of the arts centres that they frequently go to in north London, but it seems far less accessible. That is a problem for the parts of London not touched by the tube system.
Those in inner south London suburbs such as mine, close to the centre but far away in travel time, suffer most. My constituency is criss-crossed with hundreds of railway lines. It probably has a greater concentration of railway lines than any other constituency, even though acres upon acres of goods yards have been closed. However, it is like the ancient myth of Tantalus. We have all the railway lines, but after one stop people have to change to a different mode of transport. A two or three-mile journey to central London can often take an hour.
We should try to use the enormous possibilities that the public-private partnership opens up to revert to the original concept of the London underground. It was not built to take people to central London and dump them there. The concept was that trains would continue underground from the terminus to take people to different parts of London. That is why the Metropolitan line tunnels are wide enough to take large steam trains, although they have never been used for that. The concept of linking tube and railway lines will make it possible for the first time for people from outside London to travel in and have the advantage of being taken not just to Waterloo, but to several stations in inner London.
No other capital scheme could be started during this Parliament. Indeed, it could be completed early in the next if approval is given to the extensions later this year. At perhaps £150 million—my hon. Friend the Minister may be able to give us a better idea of the cost—it will be only one twentieth of the £3 billion that a new tube line would cost.
The third great advantage of the scheme is that it would put all London into quick contact with the regeneration areas in Docklands. It would also help many disadvantaged areas in inner London. The Thameslink line, which goes through central London, was opened for
334
its true purpose only 10 or 15 years ago. It still has very few stations and those at Walworth and Camberwell, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), have been closed for a long time. That is probably the longest stretch of railway track in London with no station and it is in one of the most densely populated areas. Although they are close to the centre, those suburbs are inaccessible.
The orbital scheme has many advantages for regeneration, cost and time scale. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister introduced the concept of a joined-up London. Including the London orbital and other routes in the concept and joining them to the tube system will contribute enormously to the revival of inner London.
11.29 am
Mr. Norman Baker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on securing this debate. I do not know whether he accelerated the timing of the Deputy Prime Minister's statement yesterday, or whether he was just very timely, unlike some of the trains that many of us rely on. I found his comments and those of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) interesting. We all agree that we must make the maximum creative use of the existing infrastructure. I benefited from the London orbital, such as it is, on Monday, when I travelled from Brighton to Oxford without changing, on the line via Kensington Olympia. I agree that the line is hardly used, but the potential is there.
The Thameslink service has allowed people from outside London to go through the city without having to change. The situation 10 years ago, when people had to get off at Victoria, take the tube and get another train somewhere else was simply ludicrous. People going about their business in London do not want loads of people traipsing on and off trains at different stations.
The idea of merging sub-surface lines with the tube is nothing new. I used to live at the end of the District line, at Upminster. Long before my time—pre-war, I think—that line was used for a combined London, Tilbury and Southend and underground service; one could get a train from Richmond to Southend via the tube network and overground lines. Such ideas were used in the past and it may be simply a matter of reactivating them. There used to be shared use of the Bakerloo line north of Harrow, with combined services running up to Watford Junction but that has now been cut back on the underground map.
I sympathise with the point about south London. I used to live in north London, and south London was a different world; it was pretty inaccessible, partly perhaps because of the nature of the underground map, which is representative rather than accurate in its portrayal of the distance between stations. For example, the escalator link between Monument and Bank is shown as about as long as the distance between Upminster and Barking on the District line. That would make it the longest escalator link in the world, I imagine.
Perhaps the Government could consider encouraging London Transport to devise a more creative map that shows more of the existing connections with—to use the shorthand—the British Rail network, of which many members of the public are not aware. Why are not the links to Clapham Junction and Olympia on the underground map?

335
I am surprised at the involvement of Railtrack and the Government's warm reception of it. The Government have been highly critical of Railtrack, with good reason, for giving a first-class service to its shareholders and a third-class service to some of its customers. We have heard about underinvestment and broken rails in the Severn tunnel and the Deputy Prime Minister has rightly been trying to force Railtrack to invest more in the network, but it seems that its reward for not doing so is to be given a share of the London underground network. We can only conclude that, had it failed even more abysmally, it would have been allowed to enter the two deep-tube public-private partnership competitions as well.
We must be careful before we hand over more of our rail infrastructure to Railtrack, given its poor performance so far. I hope that belt-and-braces contracts will be signed to ensure that it does not get another milch cow for its shareholders, leaving people in London, and the Government, wringing their hands and wondering what has gone wrong.
One of the technical questions that need to be answered is about the effect on overground suburban services. I am not sure whether it is intended that underground or overground rolling stock should be predominantly used. There is an acute shortage of rolling stock, and that which is used on the overground lines, which would presumably integrate with the underground network, is in many cases very old indeed. The Connex services from my part of the world use 1963 trains, and I think that 1954 trains run from Uckfield; certainly they were built before I was born, and they are still in daily use. What would the criteria for new rolling stock be?
All the underground system is third rail, as are many of the suburban services, but the north London services use overhead lines, so that complication needs to be sorted out. I am also slightly concerned about the capacity of the underground system to handle more trains. We can do a certain amount by increased signalling, but my understanding from talking to London Underground employees and my colleagues in London is that one of the problems is not signalling but station capacity. If we had more trains, the congestion on platforms, which is a real hazard, would only get worse. For example, London Bridge station is regularly blocked to prevent people from accessing the platform until one or two trains have gone.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that there may be a danger that the Government will take this opportunity to reduce the urgency of the Crossrail proposal? The suggested link has always been the Treasury's answer to Crossrail; it is the cheap version, allowing the Heathrow express to run along the top of the Circle line and into Liverpool Street. Better integration is on offer, but no new capacity. We should be wary of an excuse to drop the urgency of the Crossrail project.
Mr. Baker: That is a helpful intervention. We need to do both: to use our existing infrastructure in the best way but also to have new schemes giving access to areas such as Hackney—which Crossrail would serve—that would not benefit from the orbital link.
The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I can understand the hon. Gentleman's regarding the intervention by the hon. Member for North
336
Essex (Mr. Jenkin) as helpful, but it was less than helpful in its failure to point out that it was the previous Administration who shelved Crossrail.
Mr. Baker: That is equally true. I can agree with both Front-Bench representatives who have intervened on me.
There is a Treasury input in the public-private partnership proposal. The hidden hand of the Treasury is always there, trying to ensure that as little public money as possible is spent on the project and that as much of it as possible is shunted off to the private sector. We have heard that there are problems with the timetable and we do not know when deals will be concluded and contracts signed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) did not get an answer when he asked:
"If there is a further delay to the PPP plans, what allowance has he"—
the Deputy Prime Minister—
"made for the extra finance that will be required to ensure that maintenance and investment continue? At what point will he show that the public-private partnership is best value, and will he use the public sector comparator to do that? Are the Government holding discussions with other consortiums … about the possible integration between the national rail network and the sub-surface lines … or is only Railtrack in the running?"—[Official Report, 15 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 161.]
Those questions, with respect, were not answered yesterday, so I am hoping that if I repeat them today my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and I will be able to read the answer in the Official Report tomorrow.
Why are the Government so opposed to the idea of a public interest company, which could provide the investment that the underground system needs? Do not large older systems such as London's tube network require access to predictable long-term sources of capital, including the ability to borrow against their own revenues? Allowing London's new transport authority to borrow, free from the artificial public sector borrowing requirement constraints, would enable it to access a capital market at far less expense than any private sector borrower. Why have the Government ruled that out and taken a more uncertain route?
There are problems with station capacity. Railtrack has said that the new Canada Water station on the East London line is unable to take more than four-vehicle trains and that peak demand "may cause serious overcrowding." That does not sound like a world-class transport system.
Significant investment will be required in signalling, station capacity for passengers, platform capacity, rolling stock, new connections, dealing with the third rail overhead problem and ensuring that suburban overhead services do not suffer as a consequence. I welcome the idea of using infrastructure, but I put those points in a constructive manner to the Minister and ask her whether proper estimates have been made and, if so, who will pay.
If an agreement is finally concluded and signed with Railtrack, will it be under any obligation to extend the network, perhaps to take in Crossrail, or, perhaps, to consider new connections, or will it simply be there to make the most of the existing infrastructure? If we are

337
to give Railtrack yet another helping hand—which I did not expect the Government to do—we should exact a high price for it, and I hope that the Government will do so.
11.41 am
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I am delighted to join in the debate and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) has raised it. I want to concentrate on the vital missing link in the London orbital, which in Hackney we describe as the east London tube line extension. As we have heard, there are two gaps, one in the southern area and one in the northern area. I want to concentrate on the urban regeneration consequences of filling in that vital missing link.
I have been arguing the case for the east London extension for about 10 years. I think that it was about eight years ago that I raised it in an Adjournment debate. I am glad to see that there is much more support for it now than there was then. In those 10 years, Ministers and shadow Ministers have come to Hackney and said that it is a super idea, but they have gone away and not much has happened. The only real thing that has happened is that, after a lengthy and cumbersome Public Works Acts inquiry, the Secretary of State has given permission for at least the northern missing link to be filled in.
But now we are told that we must await the arrival of the Mayor of London. To the putative front runners, whether it be Trevor Phillips for Labour, Jeffrey Archer for the Conservatives or—well, I will not mention my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) because my pager tells me that to do so would be off message—I would say that I could neither vote for any of them nor recommend that anyone else should vote for them unless they can give a copper-bottomed guarantee that this will be a top priority when a Labour Mayor of London is elected.
The scheme will have a huge number of regeneration consequences for the London borough of Hackney. Although £150 million is petty cash for the railways, this is not some small scheme for us. The regeneration consequences of the east London tube line extension are enormous. Hackney is the third most densely populated authority in Britain. More than a quarter of its population live in the corridor of the proposed east London tube line extension on the orbital route, and they are waiting for the benefits to flow from it. Unemployment in Hackney is double that for London and Britain, and is comparable only with the highest rates in the north west and the north east of England. In some wards in the east London tube line extension corridor, the rates are three times the London level.
In that corridor are 2,500 businesses, employing 30,000 people, so two-thirds of all Hackney's jobs are in this new line catchment area. We estimate that 14,000 jobs are waiting to be created if the missing link is put in, 8,000 of which will be directly attributable to the new line, and the others will be offshoots of the new line.
Not all those new jobs will be taken by Hackney people, but the unemployment rate in Hackney is expected to fall by 10 per cent., which is a massive fall, once the line is up and running. In addition, we calculate—this was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea
338
(Mr. Linton)—that the link with central London and docklands could provide another 2,500 jobs for Hackney residents and many jobs for residents from other parts of east and south London.
In addition to that, Hackney's age profile is such that during the next five years a huge surge of school leavers will come on to the job market, and unless the line is up and running, many of those school leavers will not have a job at all, even with the excellent work being done under the new deal.
Like Battersea and certain other areas in London, we do not have a tube at all, so two-thirds of Hackney's work force travel outside the borough. Some use private cars, although car ownership is also at almost the lowest level in London. Many use the buses, although they are becoming less and less reliable. Therefore, this is a critical reliable route for the people of Hackney. To make a quick comparison, neighbouring Islington has three tube lines. Its demography is almost the same as Hackney's, yet it has 50 per cent. more local jobs. I suspect that many of those are related to the transport in the area. Therefore, the orbital line is critical for Hackney.
I make one last political point. The supremo for the scheme is the Deputy Prime Minister. He has been to Hackney, as has my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, to look at the scheme, and we were delighted to see them. We are concerned about the long hard struggle and the long wait that we have had. Some people in Hackney are asking whether the Deputy Prime Minister can cut the mustard on this one. We have always regarded him with affection. We see him as the Mike Tyson of politics. But we are beginning to wonder whether he is losing his ability to strike the knock-out punch, or, to put it more prosaically, where will the money come from and when will we get it?
Originally, we were told that London Transport would give us the money straight out. Then we were told that it would be part of a private finance imitative. Now we are told that it will be part of a public-private partnership. We do not blame the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions; we blame the Treasury, as ever. We are all fed up with these Treasury gyrations and gymnastics. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to tell us that the money is coming shortly.
11.47 am
Joan Ruddock: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on initiating this important debate in the House. I agree with everything that has been said by my hon. Friends, and, perhaps, even with the odd thing that has been said by Opposition Members.
Eight years ago, I was shadow Minister for Transport in London, and I produced a report then which stated:
"Through the election of a Greater London Authority, Labour will return to London the strategic planning it so desperately needs. We will link land use and transport planning to provide greater access at lower environmental costs. We will set higher standards for every aspect of public transport and maximise the integration of different modes to provide easier, more pleasant and more reliable travel."
I am delighted that old Labour's promises are being so forcefully fulfilled by new Labour today.
I also acknowledge that the process by which the proposals came to us through the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday was undoubtedly encouraged by the activities

339
of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) and all the work that his group has done in trying to advance the case for transport integration in London.
I add my specific support to the extensions of the East London line. As others have said today, south London and, in the case of Hackney, north London, are ill served, or served not at all, by the underground system. Therefore, it is crucial to have the extension from New Cross Gate to Croydon.
My constituency will stand to gain a tremendous amount. We have made no job calculations, but we expect a real boost to the local economy and to providing access to jobs that exist elsewhere which are not easily accessed at the moment. Regeneration is at the heart of the economic progress that is being made in my constituency.
The partnership between a progressive Labour authority and the Government is producing a welcome and essential fall in unemployment and an improvement in the local economy and environment. However, we want more. Yesterday's report about the premature deaths suffered by people in this country from the effects of car-borne pollution should spur us all to access the railways. In my constituency, much of the car exhaust comes from vehicles passing through to other parts of London. We need to be able to reduce reliance on that form of transport, and the integration of London's railway services will be important to that end, however it is done.
The East London line extension group has argued that, although the necessary investment to build the two extensions to the line amounts to £150 million, the extension will boost the £1.5 billion investment provided through regeneration schemes in the affected areas. That will foster jobs in general but also, I hope, the growth of the creative and arts industries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea mentioned that such industries are important for many people, but my area has many practising artists and creative institutions. We want to extend the links with their counterparts across the river, such as have already been established between Lewisham Art house and the Whitechapel gallery, for example. Such links create jobs and add to the richness of London life.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out his vision of a connected London and talked of new connections between all the major transport hubs. As the plans progress, I urge the Government to think carefully about the local integration of different modes of transport and the stations that they serve. Again, a local example could be the blueprint for much of what the Government want to achieve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town, in opening this debate, referred to the criteria defining integration. I agree with everything that he said about what that means, and that it is more complex than merely providing a variety of services or linking hard rail, light rail and the underground.
In Lewisham, there are 28 passenger rail lines, which go into central London and out towards the south. There are 39 major bus routes, serving numerous destinations, and the docklands light railway will soon extend through my constituency and into Lewisham. However, it seems to me that most people learn to use—and keep on using—a single route. They have great difficulty in planning other routes to places that they visit occasionally or when they want to make a change. That is a critically important
340
matter. We need better sign provision and maps, and must enable people to maximise their use of rail through improved connections. There is no doubt that that is the integration that we need for the 21st century.
The Lewisham challenge partnership is led by my local authority. It proposes that the locality needs a new type of integration. The Lewisham passenger transport interchange proposed by the partnership deserves the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister. It is the subject of a bid under the single regeneration budget and represents an important model. The bid document states that the aim of the bid is to
"improve the ease of use of interchange by reducing the time taken for transfer between services and make the service more attractive to commuters currently using private cars"
and to
"connect the stations more directly with the leisure, retail and business activity within the town centre and the wider community."
That is of crucial importance. As has happened in so many other boroughs, towns and other parts of London, our railway station has been cut off from the town centre by railway lines, two major roads and the extensions necessary to carry car-borne traffic. Reintegrating people, transport services and leisure and business activities gives rise to some very important issues.
The new interchange will also promote and exploit transport's potential to encourage business. Employers as well as employees are concerned about integration, which will help with employment links across the Thames and throughout the region. The improvement to the natural and man-made environment will make the interchange more attractive and pleasant to use.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look carefully at what is happening in my area as an example of how to move forward, and to bear in mind the discomfort suffered by so many people when the East London line was out of action. We all want to see the new proposals go ahead, but due regard must be given to the travelling lives of passengers and customers when the new works are in hand.
I end by saying that, in 1836, the first urban railway in the world was opened, to great excitement, in my constituency. It ran between Greenwich and London bridge, and Deptford station is still being used to this day. Of course, I was not around at the time—
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Lady is old Labour.
Joan Ruddock: On the contrary, I am absolutely new Labour. However, I can imagine the enormous excitement that that innovation must have brought to south London. Since then, the railway has suffered from much neglect. Trains are so overcrowded, late and in such poor condition that many Londoners are completely disenchanted with the rail system. But I believe that we are now at the beginning of a new age of great excitement about the use and integration of rail and underground systems, from which all Londoners will benefit.
11.57 am
Ms Karen Buck: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on securing this debate, and wish to express my gratitude to

341
my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) for the leadership that he has shown in recent months in helping to build the case for the orbital network. They have set out a powerful and persuasive case for seizing and developing the opportunities presented by yesterday's statement.
Safe, affordable and reliable public transport is the key to tackling traffic congestion in our city. It will bring immeasurable benefits for London's economy and help to tackle social exclusion, as well as making London a cleaner and more pleasant place to live in. Like other Labour Members, I warmly welcomed yesterday's statement by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister about the London link scheme that will link the national railway and the underground. Greater integration has to make sense in terms of making the best use of available capacity and improving the potential for passengers to make journeys through London and on the orbital route.
It makes sense for Railtrack to be a partner in the developments, although it will have to improve on its investment and management record. I speak with passion on that subject, as I depend on the Bakerloo line, to which the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) referred earlier. That line goes as far as Harrow and has suffered continual disruption because of signal failures throughout the 1990s. The surface train and underground network extending from Watford, through Queen's Park station and into Baker street has been less effective than it could have been because of the signal failures that have plagued it. I look forward to the Government and the rail regulator being firm and tough in negotiations with Railtrack to ensure that the company delivers.
My purpose in contributing to the debate is to stress the need to fill the gaps that at present are left by the underground and surface rail services. The orbital network presents a great opportunity in that regard but, to fulfil our wider ambitions for public transport, we must make sure that swathes of the inner city are not excluded.
Surface train services that interconnect with the underground should be able to operate as regularly as most suburban bus services, giving passengers confidence about reliability and frequency. That is the only way to make sure that people use the underground as an alternative to their cars, particularly for getting to work, when punctuality is of the essence. In my corner of west London, a densely populated inner-city community is squeezed between two important rail lines—the West London line and the Paddington mainline and channel tunnel link. Properties on those estates need soundproofing to insulate them from the noise of the trains that pass virtually under their windows, but the people there have no access to either service.
Silverline plans to run trains on the West London line from Clapham to Barking, covering half the London orbital route through north London and offering numerous interchanges to the tube and other lines. Unless there is a station at North Pole road, however, thousands of people on the William Sutton Trust estate, the Peabody estates and the Hillfarm estate in north Kensington will have no means of accessing the service.
A proposal to reopen a station at North Pole road has been under consideration for decades. About three years ago, Railtrack concluded that only three additional
342
stations should be provided on the West London line between Clapham and Willesden junction. There will be stations at West Brompton, which I was pleased to see open recently, at Shepherd's Bush and at either Chelsea harbour or North Pole road. I understand that capacity is not sufficient to win priority for North Pole road.
The exciting opportunity presented by the public-private partnership and the orbital network makes this the right time to seize the chance to reopen that station. If that means delivering extra capacity or re-routing freight traffic to enhanced alternative routes, so be it. Unless we resolve those problems, we will not create the comprehensive integrated network that we need.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the ways in which regeneration interacts with an integrated public transport system. In 1992, north Kensington city challenge identified the area's poor transport infrastructure, congestion and unreliable bus services as a major barrier to employment. Public transport links remain extremely poor, particularly to the south of the borough and the employment opportunities of west London.
In particular, links are poor to the Park Royal industrial estate, which has been assisted with European money, and which provides many employment opportunities. Although north Kensington is close to that estate as the crow flies across Wormwood Scrubs, the community has no means of reaching it by public transport. If there were a station at North Pole road, people would be able to change at Willesden junction to get to jobs on that estate.
The single regeneration budget scheme that is tackling unemployment in north Kensington has illustrated the fact that the physical isolation of the major estates affects the social exclusion of residents. It also contributes to the 13 per cent. unemployment in the St. Charles ward—40 per cent. more than the inner London average. Local surveys confirm that there is extreme dissatisfaction with public transport in north Kensington, not only for employment reasons but because of the isolation of young parents and young people's inability to get to entertainment venues in the evenings.
I believe that there is an overwhelming case for services that link us to the orbital network. Kensington and Chelsea council would welcome proposals to release capacity for local services and new stations, and so would I. North Kensington is not alone. Similar cases have been made for Hackney and south London. Labour Members share an enthusiasm for what the orbital network can deliver in the context of wider investment in the surface and underground networks. Will Railtrack help to deliver extra capacity to make the links work and to take us towards a 21st century network that will leave no socially excluded islands abandoned at its centre?
12.4 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on obtaining today's debate and on its timing. His prescience must be valued by his constituents, as the debate comes just one day after the Government's major statement on the subject. I would not dream of suggesting that his success was due to anything other than heavenly inspiration.
I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for national bike week, and I was at the front of the queue with him at this morning's successful event. Some of those who

343
attended are more regular bikers than others who turned up for the photo opportunity. I do not include the hon. Gentleman in that remark. I got there on my own bike and so did he, but one or two hon. Members were there just for today, and were looking forward to slipping back into their ministerial cars.
I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's tour d'horizon around the integration projects that are expected to flow from the ideas currently in play. He was enthusiastic about spending the proceeds of new taxes that will be imposed on Londoners with cars and businesses that have car parks. That did not sound very new Labour. He dreamt of spending revenues before a single penny has been collected. We remain opposed to those taxes because it is unfair to withdraw Government grants from local authorities for public transport in London while making Londoners pay extra.
Ms Glenda Jackson: Is that another U-turn in Conservative policy? The hon. Gentleman knows that road charging and a workplace levy would be an empowerment for local authorities that chose to use them rather than a statutory requirement. During the Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said that the Conservative party supported congestion charging in principle and supported a private non-parking levy for everywhere in the United Kingdom except London.
Mr. Jenkin: Once again, the Minister has misunderstood Conservative policy, but we are not discussing that point this morning. The Government are fond of claiming that the taxes raised would be hypothecated, but hypothecation means nothing unless it provides additional money. If the Government are withdrawing grant and replacing the shortfall with the taxes—
Ms Jackson: We are not.
Mr. Jenkin: The Minister is doing that.
We have heard valuable speeches from the hon. Members for Lewes (Mr. Baker), for Battersea (Mr. Linton), for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). We all want more investment in infrastructure, and we share the dream of integration. The previous Conservative Government did not have a bad record on either. We oversaw completion of the Victoria line, began the Jubilee line extension, and opened Thameslink and the docklands light railway. I sat on the Committee that dealt with the Croydon tramlink, another Conservative project. The much acclaimed Heathrow Express was opened by the Prime Minister with a great fanfare, and the Minister herself gave it a prize at the Railway Forum dinner earlier this year.
Ms Jackson: The Railway Forum gave the prize.
Mr. Jenkin: I saw the hon. Lady there, and I saw her present the prize.
Ms Jackson: The Railway Forum gave the prize.
Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Lady is suggesting that she did not believe in the prize that she handed over, far be it from me to allow any unparliamentary expression to cross my lips.
344
Where will the money come from for the further integration that we all want?
The black cloud that looms over London Underground is the dreadful public-private partnership, with which the Government have replaced the investment plans that they inherited from the Conservatives. The Government cancelled those plans as soon as they came into office, in the name of a publicly owned and publicly accountable service. That has been followed by two years of absolute stalemate. The morale of the tube's staff and management has plummeted. It is a bit rich for the hon. Member for Deptford to say that old Labour's promises are being fulfilled, the day after the Government announced that the privatised Railtrack will provide the capital and investment for which the tube has been crying out.
According to the Labour party, Railtrack was public enemy No. 1 because it made profits and doubled annual investment in the railways. It has been transformed into the rescuer of the public-private partnership for the tube. We must welcome the fact that the Government are at last talking sense, but there are many questions to be answered about the PPP.
It is envisaged that three infrastructure companies will be involved in the PPP. Why is one of those companies, the sub-surface tube, being let to one bidder on a privileged basis, with no competition? How are we to know whether Railtrack is being forced to strike a good deal for the taxpayer? We shall never know, because there will be no competition. A deal has been sewn up between the Government and Railtrack.
There will be proper competition for the deep tube, and we welcome that. We understand why the Government made that decision; their original plans for the PPP were paralysed by the fact that Railtrack was by far the most credible bidder for all the tube, so it was difficult to get any competition in bids for any of the infrastructure companies. By giving Railtrack privileged access to the strategic part of the tube in which it is interested, the Government will ensure that there is better competition for the other parts of the tube.
That prompts the question of when the proposals will be implemented. The Government originally promised that the contracts would be tendered last autumn, but yesterday's statement was little more than a declaration of intent; there is no agreement between any of the parties and the Government say that only pre-qualification will be completed by this autumn.
The greatest irony is that we are expected to take the Government seriously when they have been complaining for two years that Railtrack is not investing enough, but they are now placing the future investment in the sub-surface tube in Railtrack's hands. How are we to have any confidence that Railtrack will invest enough if the Government do not have confidence that Railtrack has invested enough in its existing responsibilities? How will the Government ensure that Railtrack will invest in the tube? The lesson is that two years of paralysis, no decisions and no policy have left the Government in urgent need of taking the best available opportunity as the clock ticks on.
The Government need to learn that there is no point in briefing against Railtrack, damaging its credibility in the City and undermining its share price and its ability to raise the funds that the Minister wants it to invest. She needs to understand and explain to people that Railtrack profits

345
are good for investment because they will strengthen its balance sheet and enable it to borrow and to finance the investment that the Government want it to make in the surface railway as well as in the tube.
What rates of return will Railtrack be allowed to earn? Will there be track access charges for tube trains running on Railtrack-maintained track or will there be a simple rate of return contract? What would be a fair rate of return? What profit will Railtrack make on this deal? Who will provide the ultimate financial guarantees? Will there be a repeat of the channel tunnel rail link financing, in which Railtrack rode to the rescue of the deal, backed by £3.5 billion of Treasury guarantees? Much to the satisfaction of the Minister and her colleagues, Railtrack's profits on the channel tunnel rail link will be made on the back of those Treasury guarantees. Is that what is meant by a public-private partnership? At least our privatisation proposals for the tube would have put the risk entirely on the private sector so that it earned its profits rather than having them backed by the Government and the taxpayer.
The fundamental problem is the financial illiteracy of the PPP. A report published by Professor Stephen Glaister and others said:
"The PPP threatens to impose burdensome long term pressures on Underground operating revenues, including the prospect of continually rising fairs, in order to pay back up front investment by private contractors."
In a public-private partnership, private sector investment does not come free; it has to be paid for. If one increases the capital in the business, one must increase the revenue to service the capital to provide the return. Where will that revenue come from? Will it come from higher fares, or from further subsidy to which the Treasury has yet to agree?
There are two underlying factors. First, the £7 billion that has been promised for investment in the tube does not compare favourably with the £7 billion invested in the tube during the last 10 years of Conservative Government. The proposals will not transform management attitudes or increase the efficiency of the operation of the tube, as privatisation is doing in the railways and other industries. The situation will stay the same, without a great bonanza of new finance.
The second factor is the deadline. In response to a parliamentary question on the comprehensive spending review, the Government made it clear that the Treasury will completely stop financing the tube in 2000–01. The deadline is therefore next April. The Minister and her colleagues say that they are not negotiating the PPP against a deadline, but I say to them, "Pull the other one." The Treasury is holding a gun to her head because the Government know that if they end up having to finance the tube out of her Department's expenditure, cuts will have to be made elsewhere to make up that shortfall, as the Government had to do as a result of cancelling our privatisation proposals.
I emphasise again that yesterday's statement was no more than a statement of intent, and there is no agreement. Ultimately, we must place our faith in Railtrack. It rescued the channel tunnel rail link and it will rescue part of the tube, but the Government need to promise themselves that they will have better relations with Railtrack than in the past to enable the company to raise the finance to do the job that the Government want it to do.
12.17 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I join other hon. Members who have contributed to this debate in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on securing the debate. If timing is all, my hon. Friend has everything. It is entirely typical of the contributions of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) that in his opening remarks he impugned the impartiality of the Speaker's Office in the selection of Adjournment debates.
With the exception of the hon. Member for North Essex, the other speakers in the debate, including my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Mr. Linton) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), have all warmly welcomed the innovative proposals launched by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in his statement yesterday.
We propose to link up surface and underground rail to create, in a telling phrase, a joined-up London. Speaker after speaker referred to the benefits that those proposals will bring to their constituents and the importance of transport infrastructure for regeneration, job creation and tourism. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who has had no small hand in the groundwork for our innovative approach, spoke of the improvements to the environment that will result from the creation of a joined-up London.
Ms Harriet Harman: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of joining up London, may I make a plea for Peckham to be joined up? A railway line, which shakes people's windows, runs past Camberwell Station road, but there is no station on that road, so can we please have a station there again? Also, could Peckham be put on the tube map, otherwise people will think that it is a place to which one never goes or leaves? We want to share in the regeneration through the underground coming to Peckham.
Ms Jackson: I shall certainly pass on my right hon. Friend's concerns about the absence of Peckham from the tube map.
Speaker after speaker has not simply settled for the proposals on a joined-up London and a London orbital rail link, but used them to trigger their powers of imagination, creation, energy and innovation. They see the enormous potential in taking such an approach.
The only person who has significantly failed to see the benefits of the proposals is the hon. Member for North Essex, who expressed concerns about them. At the moment, London Transport and Railtrack are only exploring the details of the proposed public-private partnership, yet the hon. Gentleman worried whether the taxpayer would be getting a good deal—that comes from a member of a party which, in government prior to 1997, was responsible for selling our railway infrastructure to Railtrack for a fraction of its worth. His party spent hundreds of millions of taxpayers' pounds on the privatisation of our railways. It proposed privatisation of the tube—with only a reduced network and the requirement for public funding for at least four years following privatisation. Had such a privatisation gone

347
ahead, it would itself have taken more than four years to achieve. The contract for the channel tunnel rail link that his party signed collapsed almost a year after the ink had dried on it.
Railtrack indeed has had a major part to play in saving the channel tunnel rail link, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said. Everything is on time and on budget, and central and essential to that is the deal that he cut. Not one additional penny of public money was put into that restructured deal, which has ensured that the rail link can be saved. That deal means that, in an infinitely shorter period than the previous Administration envisaged, the channel tunnel rail link will revert to the private sector. There is only a 99-year lease on the line, and not a 999-year one, which the previous Administration signed away.
We have made it abundantly clear that not only the proposals launched yesterday but the overarching PPP, which will attract to the underground money that the lamentable stewardship of the previous Administration significantly failed to secure, will be approved only when we are assured that they will truly produce the best cost benefit for the taxpayer and provide the kind of service that both London and Londoners need.
Others who welcomed yesterday's announcement included those in the private sector, which is extremely interested in submitting—I trust—competitive bids for the PPP. Indeed, one senior source from the relevant part of private sector which will be bidding was quoted in yesterday's Evening Standard as saying:
"This is good news … The private sector is confident it can provide dramatic improvements for the Tube."
In a somewhat schizophrenic approach to what has been proposed, the hon. Member for Lewes on one hand argued that there should be no restraint whatever on public spending, but on the other became much exercised over the costs of the PPP. We have made it abundantly clear that of course public sector comparators are part and parcel of ensuring that, once the decision is taken, it will be rooted in Government confidence that we have got the best possible value for the taxpayer, and that the service created will be the kind of 21st century public underground system that this capital city and the people who live in it so desperately need.
The proposals are part and parcel of an overarching approach to public transport in this great capital city and, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, of ensuring that this great city retains its competitiveness and becomes even greater globally. The proposals for the linking of surface and underground rail, which, as my hon. Friends have said, will also connect London's five airports to the channel tunnel rail link, are part of creating a truly global city for the people who live in it for the 21st century.
As all my hon. Friends have said, the proposals are to be greatly welcomed; they offer enormous benefits. Clearly, many details will have to be worked through.
348
Labour Member after Labour Member has pointed to the importance of integrating not only the lines but other transport modes and timetabling, providing better and much more accessible information. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town made a most telling point on accessible transport. The Government have made it clear that we believe that public transport must be accessible to all our citizens. Indeed, we are pleased that public transport providers are working towards that end.
Our proposals are aimed at righting the wrongs of the previous Administration's neglect and disinterest in funding London Underground by integrating public transport and providing the benefits of such transport over a range of areas. I have touched on some of them, as have all my hon. Friends. Regeneration, the potential for job creation and improvement in our environment are all part and parcel of improving the quality of life in this great city, ensuring that we leave for future generations a city not worse but infinitely better than that which we know.
Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town and all my hon. Friends on their positive contributions and welcome of the proposals announced to the House yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that Railtrack is bailing the Government out on these projects and that it is therefore pointless for the Government to brief against it, because that would undermine its financial viability and credibility in the City, thus preventing it from raising the money required? Will she give an assurance that the Government's adversarial relationship with Railtrack is now at an end and that the questions between Railtrack and the regulator will be resolved as quickly as possible, so that confidence in Railtrack can be restored?
Ms Jackson: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is new to his elevated position, but I thought that even he would have been aware of the rail summit that was launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and convened by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Every aspect of the railway industry was represented at it. The message from that summit, which was endorsed by all in the railway industry, was that the culture of blame is over and that the industry should work together.
Mr. Jenkin: It was a stunt.
Ms Jackson: Stunts are the only matter on which the hon. Gentleman could claim primacy over other hon. Members.
I am grateful to all my hon. Friends for endorsing the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister; it is indeed a vision. Under the proposals, the future for London is infinitely brighter.

Adoption (Children in Care)
12.30 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I am most grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate. I am especially grateful to have support in the Chamber today from the chairman of the all-party children group, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who has so much knowledge on this issue and is greatly respected in the House; from the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis); and from the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who is a former family lawyer.
Children are in care because they have been abused or neglected by their family or, in some cases, have no family. They are the most deprived children in Britain, and we, the state, are responsible for them. We owe them a special interest. We are failing them miserably.
The many foster parents and care workers in children's homes work very hard to care for the children for whom they are responsible, but the results of our so-called care system are extremely bleak. On average—and typically—children are moved from place to place once a year. They are far more likely than their contemporaries to become involved in child prostitution or drug dealing. Incredibly, boys leaving care are 50 times as likely as their contemporaries to end up in an adult prison and—perhaps saddest of all—a quarter of the girls who go through care become pregnant under age during the process.
Yet there is a tried and tested solution, supported by evidence of studies undertaken in the United Kingdom and many other countries. There is a really effective way to deal with these damaged children—adoption by a loving family. Adoption is not only much more successful than leaving children in care but far more successful—especially in the case of children who have been in care for a year or more—than sending them back to their original home. Some are sent back prematurely and unsuccessfully to their home, to be neglected and to be abused again. There are extreme cases, such as that of little Ricki Neave, who was returned to be tortured to death by his mother.
For a decade now, successive Ministers responsible for social services have spoken out strongly in favour of adoption. My right hon. Friend the Member for South—West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) made it a personal crusade. John Bowis, a former Member of the House, felt especially strongly about it and issued an excellent guidance circular. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) made it a personal crusade, and issued another excellent guidance circular, backed by some very strong words. I especially welcome the Under—Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who has kindly come into the Chamber to reply to the debate. He has shown how strongly he feels about the issue.
All these years on, there has been no progress. On a five-year figures basis, things are have actually got fractionally worse. A fortnight ago, figures were published showing that the number of children in care has just increased again, from 51,000 in April 1997 to 53,000 in April 1998. Nearly half those children have been in care for more than two years and, incredibly, almost a quarter have been in care for five years or more.
350
Five years, moving from place to place; what sort of childhood is that? Yet the number of children adopted from care during that year was a miserable 2,000, barely covering the increase, and 4 per cent. of the total.
I have no doubt that those who want to defend the social services establishment will produce excuses. Some will say that there is a desperate shortage of adoptive parents—especially for older children—in some areas. Others will argue, as they did last year and the year before, that the figures are slightly out of date and that the trend has turned up just recently.
Mr. David Davis: I apologise to my hon. Friend; I must leave the Chamber shortly. I have asked the Audit Commission whether it will investigate the issue that he has raised. It has told me that the social services inspectorate will examine the implementation of the circulars that he mentioned, and I shall meet representatives of the inspectorate shortly to ensure that the points that my hon. Friend has raised are treated properly in a new inspection this winter.
Mr. Brazier: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that firm pledge of support. I am very grateful that so many Members of the House, from all parties, have expressed support on this issue.
Among the many dire conclusions of a study completed as recently as last month at Cardiff university by Murch and Lowe is the following:
"some agencies rigidly opposed adoptions by foster carers even where the child was well-settled and had a good relationship with the carers."
Of course there are legal and administrative problems with adoption. I thank the director of social services in Durham for giving details of a case of which the Minister is aware, showing how, in certain cases, the Children Act 1989 can work against potential adoptive parents. None the less, the evidence points to the overriding need to break the anti-adoption culture among social workers in many local authorities, and the failure of elected members to supervise them.
The most striking evidence of negative attitudes emerges from studying variations between local authorities. Why do Hackney and Islington, both of which have a terrible record in some of their children's homes, score among the worst for adoptions of children in care? In a whole year, in each of those authorities, only 2 per cent. of children in care were adopted. That is barely a dozen children between them, of the hundreds that each of them have in care, yet nearby Camden and Greenwich are near the top of the league. Similarly, why does Bournemouth have quite a good rate—9 per cent.—when next-door Dorset has a miserable 3 per cent.? I receive many letters from adoptive parents, telling me that they were rejected for the flimsiest of reasons by one local authority, only to be accepted by a neighbouring one and carry out a successful adoption. We have a special duty to children in care, and we are failing to discharge it.
In spite of the excellent intention of Minister after Minister in the slot currently so well occupied by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, it is time for an end to exhortation and voluntary programmes. If the "Quality Protects" programme is to mean anything for these children, it must be given teeth. I should like to end with three short suggestions.

351
First, the current figures are voluntarily compiled, inconsistent and global. Instead, we need a central database of the name and outline details of every child in care. That would enable us to compile genuine league tables showing which local authorities—
Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brazier: I am afraid that I will not, because other hon. Members have arranged to speak.
A database would show, much better than the current figures, which local authorities are obviously dragging their feet, and it would prevent children from falling through the cracks.
Secondly, post-adoption support for parents should become the norm in all parts of the country and, in the case of the most damaged children, they should also have post-adoption allowances. Those parents are taking an enormous financial and administrative burden off our shoulders—off the state's shoulders—and into their homes.
Finally, these arrangements require some stick. The Secretary of State should give himself the power, or Parliament should give the Secretary of State the power, to remove adoption decisions from the worst local authorities and give them to a neighbouring authority or, if one is not available, to a voluntary organisation. We owe that to our most deprived children. If we continue to fail them, they will fail us and themselves, and the consequences for the future of our country will be dreadful.
12.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on his success in the ballot. His interest in adoption and the welfare of children generally is well known and respected in the House.
The Government believe in adoption. It is an important way of ensuring a better future for vulnerable children. It gives them stable, caring, loving families. We are determined to transform services for children and outcomes for children. We are determined that there will be a radical improvement in adoption services. The House should be in no doubt about that.
We want to make sure that rigid or fixed ideologies, which often relegate adoption to the bottom of the list of options, are effectively challenged at every opportunity. I shall spell out how the Government will take forward this transformation in adoption services, but first we should be clear about the statistics.
The basic facts are these: at any given time, about 53,000 children are being looked after by local authorities in England; a total of about 78,000 children are looked after by those authorities in the course of a year; approximately 2,000 looked-after children are adopted each year. The hon. Member for Canterbury mentioned that figure.
In the great majority of cases, children being looked after by local authorities do not need new families. Most will return home after a short period in care. Those
352
children, therefore, do not represent a potential harvest for prospective adopters. We need to be very clear about that point.
Work carried out recently within the Department revealed some interesting data concerning the statistical returns on adoption from local authorities. Again, the hon. Member for Canterbury referred to those. The study shows that although the number of children in care has fallen substantially over the past 20 years, the number adopted out of care has risen from about 2 per cent. to about 4 per cent.
Twenty years ago, there were about 90,000 children in care, and about 1,500 were adopted each year. Now there are just over 50,000 children in care at any time. About 2,000 children a year are adopted out of the care system. Last year saw the first rise for many years in the number of children in care being adopted. Although the rise was modest—about 100—it should be seen as a positive sign.
However, I am not complacent. I believe that some local authorities could and should be more proactive in their adoption work, and that can be achieved without its quality being compromised. Services should be better managed, and children should be adopted more quickly.
In this context the Department issued guidance to local authorities last August. The objective was to focus the attention of directors of social services and their senior managers on getting a better grip on planning for and monitoring the progress of children in their care. Since then, the Government's "Quality Protects" programme has been introduced.
The programme brings a new and challenging dimension to the overall improvement of children's services. To that end, the Government have made £375 million available to local authorities over three years in the form of a children's services special grant to assist them in implementing specific "Quality Protects" projects. The general aim of "Quality Protects" is the systematic transformation of the management of social services for children and the outcomes that they achieve.
Adoption is a key element of "Quality Protects". Its objectives include reducing the number of changes of main carers for children being looked after—the hon. Member for Canterbury referred to that chronic problem, which we are determined to address. Further objectives are to maximise the contribution that adoption can make to providing a permanent family for children in appropriate cases, and to reduce the period during which children are looked after before being placed for adoption or other suitable long-term care.
The "Quality Protects" programme was a key element in the Government's response to the children's safeguards review and will be the main focus for guiding and monitoring the improvements. It aims to maximise the use of adoption and to reduce delays while making the right decisions for individual children by bringing adoption back into the mainstream of options available for children.
Mr. Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the prime factor that must always be considered is the best interests of the child? For children who remain in

353
long-term care, we need a continuum—a range of good-quality provision, including foster care, residential care and adoption.
Mr. Hutton: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend, as everyone in the House probably would. Our concern is that there has been evidence in the past that adoption has not been given the priority that it should have been.
The aim of "Quality Protects" is to maximise adoption and to reduce delays. The performance of local authorities will be measured against performance indicators and targets, which include addressing the delay in placing children with new families. We will in future measure the performance of each local authority through indicators that will show the percentage of looked-after children being adopted each year, the average time that children are looked after before placed for adoption and the breakdown of adoption placements.
Mr. Mark Oaten: Can the Minister confirm that the indicators will be made public? Will they be independently monitored—for example, by the Audit Commission as part of its systems charter work?
Mr. Hutton: The indicators certainly will be public information, and the Audit Commission will have an important role to play in the initiative.
I can announce today that targets will be set for the maximum time between entry into care and adoption. Those will be monitored by the social services inspectorate and the Audit Commission as part of the new performance assessment framework. Poor performance will not be tolerated.
The "Quality Protects" grant follows the production and evaluation of plans whose objectives include reducing delay and avoiding children drifting in the care system. Management action plans produced as part of the "Quality Protects" programme to deal with those issues are encouraging. Many authorities are making improvements to their management information systems, which will enable them to tackle more effectively the key indicators of delay and monitoring of children in care.
The development of placement choice is the largest single component attracting "Quality Protects" funding. With that money, local authorities intend to appoint specialist social work staff to recruit more adopters and foster carers, including families from ethnic minority communities, which will make available a wider choice of suitable placements. Other specialist staff will be appointed to progress children through the administrative and legal procedures to secure placements without undue delay.
I can tell the House today that under the "Quality Protects" initiative, £30 million will be spent this year on developing better placement choice, which will include adoption. We expect significant further additional expenditure in this area in the next two years.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Government's White Paper entitled "Modernising Social Services," which was published last November, included a proposal to establish commissions for care standards, which will have responsibility, for example, for regulating and inspecting foster care services and residential homes.
354
I am pleased to have this opportunity of announcing to the House that we intend that the new commissions should have responsibility for the inspection and regulation of all adoption services, including those operated by local authorities. In this way, adoption will be aligned with foster care services. It will also provide the basis for improving standards generally within the adoption service. We hope to introduce legislation to establish these new care commissions at the earliest possible opportunity.
In addition, through "Quality Protects", we will work with local authorities and the voluntary sector to improve the adoption service. We will monitor performance, improve statistics, promote new consortiums that can help to deal with the problem of inter-agency fees, improve planning, commission research and develop training. Through the social services inspectorate we shall examine closely the progress being made.
This summer, the social services inspectorate will launch a survey of every local authority, beginning in July, to establish progress in implementing the action recommended in the circular to which the hon. Member for Canterbury referred. That inspection will be followed by a supplementary data collection exercise and an inspection of some local authorities. The exercise will provide us with a general picture of the progress that local authorities are making in taking action on the circular and turning their "Quality Protects" action plans into reality.
Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to the Minister. All the announcements that he has made are extremely welcome. As he will need legislation to introduce such a broad range of clear performance criteria, will he consider incorporating in that legislation a reserve power to enforce it in the case of recalcitrant local authorities that do not respond voluntarily?
Mr. Hutton: The performance indicators that I described do not require primary legislation. We are already developing a performance assessment framework for social services. We are also developing the objectives of the "Quality Protects" programme as we go along. The hon. Gentleman's point about adoption services and a reserve power on the part of the Secretary of State will be addressed at some time in the future in legislation on the best value agenda. The best value programme will apply to local social services, and through that process there will be opportunities to explore issues such as those that the hon. Gentleman raises.
Gillian Merron: I am sure that the House will welcome the tremendous improvements that will become apparent in the quality of adoption services. However, can we look forward to greater openness about the criteria that are used to find the right adoptive parents for children and about how decisions are reached? Decisions must be made in the best interests of children, using the pool of would-be adoptive parents to the best advantage.
Mr. Hutton: Yes, there should be openness at all stages of the process. None of the criteria that are currently used are hidden or obscured from vision. We want people who are willing to adopt children to come forward. We do not want the system to deter or

355
inhibit good prospective adopters from offering their services to help better the interests of looked-after children.
Mrs. Llin Golding: This is a very important debate. Will my hon. Friend also look at the initial cost of applying and registering for adoption? It seems to vary from circumstance to circumstance, and I know that it deters people from putting themselves forward as adoptive parents even when there is a big cry for people to adopt.
Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to her role in all these matters. I am happy to look at the issue that she has raised, and if she or any other hon. Members have any specific proposals, I shall be happy to discuss them at any point in the future, either individually or with the all-party group on adoption.
The hon. Member for Canterbury also raised one important specific point: he called for work to be done to establish a national adoption register of children who might be available for adoption. I am not sure how the details would look, but I am happy to discuss the issue with the hon. Gentleman in more detail. We shall look forward to having that discussion with him.
I congratulate all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate today because it is clear that we all share a desire to see adoption brought back into the mainstream of children's services. That is certainly the Government's view. In that way, we can help to make sure that more children in the public care system than at present benefit from the security and protection that family life can bring.
I want to make it clear to the House that we shall continue the drive to improve access to adoption. I am sure that a lot remains to be done, but we have made a positive start in the right direction. We shall keep both the practice and the law under constant review, and shall not hesitate to take the necessary action in the future to ensure that looked-after children do not become the innocent victims of misplaced theory or ideology.
Adoption will often provide the best solution for a child being looked after by a local authority. We shall work with everyone of good will who shares our ambition to achieve better outcomes for those vulnerable children. Adoption can play a hugely beneficial role in that process, which is why we are absolutely determined to ensure that adoption practices are improved quickly throughout the country.

Third-world Debt
12.53 pm
Mr. Tony Worthington: I hope that this debate will be welcomed in the context of the G7 summit, which will take place this weekend when the world leaders will meet. I am pleased that towards the top of their agenda will be a subject that should concern them greatly—the financial relationship between the richest and the poorest nations.
In previous years, that has been characterised in terms of aid—the rich giving to the poor. However, that is an inadequate picture of the interrelationship, because debt repayments or terms of trade have frequently been heavily skewed against the poorer countries. In the period from 1980 to 1994, the rich north paid Africa $278 billion less for its coffee, copper and other commodities than it would have paid had prices remained stable. In the same period, Africa's debt increased from $84 billion to $217 billion. Thus the rich north paid the poor south less and then lent it money to pay for those losses.
Also during that period, we saw a pattern of falling aid contributions—that certainly applied to this country—so that the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product became increasingly distant. We need to aim at what the Chancellor calls "the virtuous circle"—not just the reduction of debt, but increased aid flows and fairer trade policies.
It is gratifying to see that the British Government are now leading the way. Over the years, charities such as Oxfam have been critical of the British Government, and it gave me great joy recently to read in one of its publications that the best proposal on the table for relief of debt was from Britain. That is a change from the past.
The creation of the Department for International Development and the concerted action by the development and finance arms of the Government are making a real impact. Two Cabinet Ministers now work together on the issue and it is really making a difference. The work of the Select Committee on International Development in providing a focus on development issues in the House is also important. Our latest report is on the issue of debt. I commend it to the House and hope that it will influence the decisions that come out of the Cologne summit. I also hope that in future there will be a much greater concerted action between the Treasury, DFID and the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that the debt, aid and trade aspects of government are linked.
I approve of much that has occurred. I applaud the proposal to sell off International Monetary Fund gold to finance debt cancellation. I applaud the proposals to review and improve the extremely inadequate HIPC—heavily indebted poor countries—scheme, which I shall discuss in more detail later. I applaud the Chancellor's drive to create $50 billion in debt relief and, as part of that commitment, to use unspent parts of the European development fund to finance debt relief. The Chancellor's proposal for a new millennium trust fund to finance additional aspects of HIPC are welcome. His drive to set up a millennium giving scheme so that the whole nation can be involved in debt relief is another good measure.
The growing movement by countries such as Canada and Norway to cancel debt bilaterally is welcome. Third-world debt as a political issue has grown in

357
importance. I pay tribute to the Jubilee 2000 campaign, which is helping politicians throughout the developed world to raise the issue of third-world debt.
A few years ago, it would have been unthinkable to see an article such as that which appeared in The Guardian on Monday, written jointly by the President of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, and the Archbishop of Canterbury—the world of mammon and God joining together in an unprecedented way.
Mr. Brian Cotter: The thought occurred to me that, as politicians, it is important that we get the message over that many of us are concerned about this issue on humanitarian rather than political grounds. Other groups with whom we try to work on this matter sometimes feel that politicians are there only for political gain. I simply wanted to mark that card. Many of us are genuinely concerned about the issue and feel that we should link with Churches and take the same approach.
Mr. Worthington: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are human beings and this issue has captured our imagination. Several weeks ago, I went to St. Albans cathedral, which is not where I normally strut my stuff. Some 600 people had turned out to say that this issue brings together the political world and the world of the Churches in a way that allows them to play a shared role.
All those moves are welcome, but we are still in the foothills. A large number of poor countries are still being crippled by debt that they cannot possibly afford to pay back. The HIPC initiative, which was much heralded a few years ago, has been sadly inadequate. Only three countries have received help and even they were only marginally assisted. For example, Uganda's gains were wiped out by a collapse in coffee prices, which again rendered its debt unsustainable because the calculation of sustainable debt is based on the value of exports. I hope that that formula will at least be modified; calculating sustainable debt on the basis of export prices is a deeply flawed procedure and I hope that the G7 will look at that again.
It takes six years for debt relief to come through, which is hardly urgent action in the face of mass poverty, health services that do not exist and widespread illiteracy. Above all, the countries that have been through the HIPC process have gained little, because debt that was not being paid, and which could not have been paid anyway, has been cancelled. The people of those countries have received no tangible benefit from the relief of a purely notional debt.
The situation has been much worse since debt relief has had to be linked to IMF structural adjustment programmes. If one follows IMF programmes, one may receive debt relief; however, those programmes are geared not to immediate poverty relief, but to financial rectitude by bankers' standards. IMF programmes have been linked with mass unemployment as, for example, inefficient parastatals have been privatised.
The requirement for cuts in state spending on health and education has been particularly damaging, so IMF programmes have caused cuts in literacy programmes. According to the World Development Movement, the introduction of school-user fees in Ghana led to primary school drop-out rates of up to 40 per cent. How on earth
358
does one increase prosperity by increasing illiteracy? In Mozambique, health charges introduced under structural adjustment have meant that patients visiting hospital have to pay user charges, which simply means that people do not go to hospital. That is scorched-earth economics, which creates the stability of the desert.
One of the aims of the IMF is to increase per capita earning in those poor countries, but how does one achieve that by withdrawing reproductive health facilities? How on earth can a country whose population is doubling every 25 years increase its per capita earnings when family planning services are being withdrawn? That is doomed to failure. Mercifully, there seems to be a realisation that debt relief does not help poor countries unless it is linked with joined-up policies to lessen poverty. James Wolfensohn of the World Bank is recognising the importance of investment in health and education, good governance, social institutions and a worldwide drive against corruption.
If we want those countries to thrive economically, human rights issues have to come first. We have set targets, as has the world community, such as the reduction by half by 2015 of the proportion of people living in extreme poverty. Other targets, such as universal primary education by 2015, the elimination of gender difference in education, access to reproductive health services and reductions in maternal mortality, have also been set. Those targets must be at the centre of our debt relief and aid programmes.
The way to achieve prosperity and reduction of poverty is through ensuring that health and education services are expanded. In particular, we cannot have debt relief policies that do not leave countries and Governments the freedom to spend at least 20 per cent. of their revenue on health and education.
The African countries that have grown quickest are those, such as Botswana, with a good record on democracy and a relative lack of corruption. The ones that have sunk like a stone are those such as Nigeria, which have corrupt military rule and where corruption is the byword. If hon. Members want to see total privatisation, market rule and capitalism unrestricted by regulation and taken to their ultimate, they should go to Nigeria and see misery and the ultimate failure of trickle-down economics.
By separating debt relief from our aid and economic policies that support the poor we have made our debt relief policies ineffective—they have been countermanded by IMF structural adjustment programmes—so let me ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary what the Government are hoping for as they go into the Cologne summit. Will there be, alongside debt relief measures, proposals that will ensure that investment in human capital is increased? We cannot have structural adjustment programmes that increase poverty in the name of financial rectitude. How can we justify a country such as Mozambique having to pay 25 per cent. of its budget on debt servicing?
What action will the Government and their partners be taking to shorten the period in which countries qualify for debt relief? Six years is a ludicrously long time for a country to wait when it is drowning. Will the G7 change the definition of debt sustainability, as the principle of basing it on export sales seems to be seriously flawed?

359
I should be most grateful if my hon. Friend would tell me what action the Government are taking in respect of the cancellation of bilateral debt. I applaud my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for seeking to achieve movement among the whole G7 towards concerted action. We can tackle this problem only on a worldwide basis, but some countries, for the best of reasons, are going their own way. Canada and Norway are saying that they will cancel all their bilateral debt. We have a policy of cancelling debt that has been accrued on concessionary terms, but it would be interesting to know whether the Government intend to make any change in that and whether we will follow the path taken by Norway and Canada. I suspect that other countries will do so.
What will happen to increase the number of countries that will qualify for debt relief? There are many countries which we would all recognise as poor that do not qualify for debt relief. It would be interesting to know some of the detail of what is happening to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's proposals for selling off IMF gold. Have they been generally accepted in the IMF? There have been positive moves recently; the change in the position of the German Government, for example, is very welcome. Is there still an ambition to sell off IMF gold, and how much will be sold?
What response are we receiving to the proposal that unused European Development Fund money, which has not been spent and is clogged up in the morass that is development in Europe, could be used to achieve debt relief? What has happened in respect of the imaginative proposal of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for a millennium fund to aid debt relief?
The world is looking for boldness from Cologne. The biggest issue facing the world has to be the abject poverty of many of its citizens. The cost of many of those proposals is nil in effective terms. Many debts will not be paid because they cannot credibly be paid. The EDF money is budgeted anyway and the sale of IMF gold would inconvenience no one. Many of the other costs would be spread over many years. The benefits that we would gain through the increased prosperity of the developing world would far outweigh any cost.
I know that Treasury Ministers met last weekend to work out their response on third-world debt. I applaud the lead taken by the Chancellor, but he may be dragged back by other G7 participants. I hope that this weekend the Prime Minister will exercise real leadership, and will make our G7 partners see that they can make history by taking this issue forward and by building on the momentum in the world for the relief of third-world debt.
I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about our intentions and about what we have achieved as we are poised for the meeting of the Finance Ministers of the G7 countries and the leaders of the world in Cologne this weekend.
1.10 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on securing this Adjournment debate, especially given the context in which he has made his remarks. It is well known that he has been interested in these matters for many years, and he has considerable expertise. I am delighted to respond to him.
It is particularly pertinent to discuss this issue in the lead up to the Cologne summit. My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the work of Jubilee 2000, which has involved
360
many people, including the Churches and voluntary groups in our constituencies. Its campaigning work has highlighted this problem. I was pleased to be in Edinburgh on Saturday to participate in the well attended proceedings there.
The debate is timely because last Friday the Select Committee on International Development published a welcome and useful report on international debt. It strongly endorses the Government's action and proposals, and acknowledges that the United Kingdom is at the forefront of debt relief. As is normal practice, the Government will respond to the report in due course.
As I said, the debate is timely because of the discussions in Cologne. I shall address that issue in more detail, but first I want to dwell on the question of why debt is an issue. We all know why it is important to move forward on debt and poverty relief for the poorest countries of the world. We all know of countries that are weighed down by the burdens of being forced to spend more on their debt interest payments than they are able to invest in the young, the sick, the undernourished and the poor.
Debt relief is an economic issue, because a mountain of inherited and immovable debt stands in the way of economic development in Africa and elsewhere. That is why it is entirely appropriate for the Treasury and the Chancellor of Exchequer to be heavily involved in this issue, as they have been. Debt relief is also a moral issue, and I make no bones about it. The debt is a burden imposed from the past on the present. A third of the world's children go to bed hungry: 30,000 children die every day from preventable diseases and 1.3 billion people live in poverty.
What does the debt burden do? It deprives millions of people of their chance of a future. It prevents them from breaking out of the vicious circle of poverty, and it prevents investment in what really counts—health, education, and the advancement of economic opportunity. My hon. Friend was right to dwell on that.
I shall outline how the Government are constructively engaging and leading our international partners in the efforts to tackle this most important issue. I agree with my hon. Friend that the 1996 HIPC—heavily indebted poor countries—initiative is delivering too little, too late for the poorest countries. It is not helping the poorest countries to tackle their chronic poverty, and it is not helping them to invest in a foundation for sustainable long-term growth—in particular, investment in primary education and health care. That is why we have been campaigning for faster, deeper and wider debt relief.
In September 1997, we launched the Mauritius mandate, which is aimed at speeding up the process, so that three quarters of those countries should have reached firm decisions on the amounts and terms of debt relief by 2000.
At the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank last October, we secured a fundamental review of the HIPC initiative. Equally important, we secured the recognition of the developed countries—in particular our G7 partners—that the current scheme required major changes to deliver its key objectives of debt sustainability and, more importantly, alleviation of poverty.

361
Last weekend, the Chancellor secured the agreement of his G7 Finance Minister colleagues to a package that will lead to the cancellation of $50 billion of debt by 2000. Subject to minor details, final agreement is expected at the summit this Cologne weekend.
We are committed to the agreed international target of halving the proportion of people living in abject poverty. On 3 March, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development set out a comprehensive four-point plan to deliver a new contract with the poorest countries.
The plan proposed, first, that by the end of 2000 we move from only a couple of billions of debt relief, achieved in the last few years, to a cut in the debt of $50 billion. Secondly, it proposed that we increase aid—in the form of grants, not loans—flowing from the developed world to the developing world to a total of $60 billion.
Thirdly, our plan proposed that we sell the gold—$1 billion to $2 billion of IMF gold—and establish a new millennium trust fund to pay for this enhanced initiative. Fourthly, we challenged the British public to join us and to double their charitable giving to $1 billion through millennium gift aid. We know how generous people in this country are, and that they are conscious of the problem. I am sure that all hon. Members will have received representations on this matter. There is a willingness among the British public to move forward on this issue.
Last week, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development set out our proposals to translate debt relief quickly into real financial improvements for the countries concerned, and to make debt relief an essential part of poverty alleviation. We also proposed last week to shorten the timetable to ensure that the countries that have been involved in the HIPC initiative feel the benefits of debt relief after three years rather than the current maximum of six years. My hon. Friend made that point well in his speech.
We need to make real headway in regard to the large amount of aid debt that is outstanding to HIPCs. We also need to increase the amount of aid given by developed countries to poor countries and to refocus future aid, providing it in the form of grants rather than loans.
We have taken the lead on the international stage in trying to unshackle the poorest countries from their unsustainable debt burdens. We have written off, unilaterally, $5 billion of Overseas Development Agency debt; we have increased the aid budget by 28 per cent. in real terms, which means £1.6 billion over the next three years; and we have guaranteed that all future aid will take the form of grants rather than loans.
It is clear that, over time, an enhanced HIPC initiative will cost more. It is impossible to estimate the size and timing of the costs precisely, but if an enhanced initiative is to become a reality, we need a credible and robust approach to tackling them. I have already mentioned our call for the sale of gold to meet the extra costs that fall to the fund.
Last month, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development proposed the establishment of a millennium
362
trust fund, which will finance the setting up of a more ambitious framework for faster, wider and deeper debt relief. The new fund will consist of the resources of the existing HIPC trust fund, to which Britain has already pledged $71 million. We have called on the world's richest countries to increase their contribution. It is within their power to provide a better deal for poor countries, and for the world's poorest people.
Last week, in a further demonstration of our commitment, my right hon. Friends pledged another $100 million to the millennium trust fund. That took our total pledge to $171 million, which is more than any other country has committed. We now encourage our international colleagues, and possibly the private sector here, to make their donations. We have called on the European Commission to contribute resources from the European Development Fund to the millennium trust fund, and we have called for the EDF to contribute 1 billion euro, over time, to the costs of debt relief. In the coming weeks, we will press our partners in Europe to support that call.
We are convinced that such resources could make a major contribution to debt relief, and therefore to the alleviation of poverty in the poorest countries, enabling them to tackle the greatest problem of our generation: the lack of primary education and health care for the poorest and most deprived to which my hon. Friend referred. Those resources can provide the key that will unlock the door to escape from chronic poverty.
Ms Julia Drown: The Government have a very good record on both debt reduction and the alleviation of poverty, but will my hon. Friend assure us that their determination to tackle those problems will not cease until millions of children no longer die unnecessarily every year because their countries have no basic health or education services?
Yesterday I hosted a very successful meeting with Christian Aid. There was a huge response from Members of Parliament, all of whom were very concerned about the Cologne summit. They were keen to back the Government—to urge them to go to Cologne and ensure that achievements were made, and the determination maintained, until real improvements were brought about for the benefit of the millions of people throughout the world who depend on the attaining of the goals outlined by my hon. Friend.
Mrs. Roche: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point; I know that she takes a great interest in these matters.
We want to establish a new dialogue between debtors and institutions. Our commitment is essential. The IMF programmes clearly protect spending on health and education, and my hon. Friend need not doubt that we shall use our best endeavours in this regard.
Our actions have had a galvanising effect. Over the past few months, many developed countries—and all the G7 countries—have set their own proposals for reform of the HIPC arrangements. Although the emphases are different, the initiatives have a common theme: the need for a more ambitious framework that will provide faster, wider, deeper debt relief, remove unsustainable debt burdens and allow resources to be reallocated to programmes that reduce poverty.

363
In achieving those aims, we must work together. The days of unilateral action are gone. The best way forward is now through collective international effort, which means new co-operation and partnerships between donors and recipient countries. Working together, we can achieve much more than we can when working alone.
We also want debtor countries themselves to be involved in the debate on debt relief. That brings me back to a point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. The HIPC capacity building programme that we are helping to finance is working with 21 countries to improve their debt management, so that they can understand their debt position, take control of it, and adopt the right policies on new borrowing. It is important for poor countries to take the opportunities open to them to press their own agendas.
Although debt relief is important, it is not an end in itself. The United Kingdom's bilateral aid programme for HIPCs is eight times as large as the receipts of interest payments. Debt reduction must be accompanied by appropriate aid programmes and economic management. The billions saved in debt-servicing payments must not be wasted on weapons or lost to corruption; they must be invested in health, education and economic development.
The international community is placing more emphasis on the assessment of the impact of policies and programmes on the poor. Greater efforts are being made to attend to their priorities, and to build consensus by means of consultation with civil society. However, much remains to be done. That applies to all development programmes, not just those that are funded through debt relief.
Mr. Cotter: May I take up a point made by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie
364
(Mr. Worthington)? Is it not important to ensure that, after the provision of debt relief, democracy is delivered and Governments use the money wisely?
Mrs. Roche: That is a good point. We are certainly committed to achieving that end.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Will the Minister give way?
Mrs. Roche: Yes, very briefly. I have only a couple of minutes.
Mrs. Gillan rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. This is a half-hour Adjournment debate, and Opposition Front Benchers do not normally participate in such debates.
Mrs. Roche: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will give way briefly.
Mrs. Gillan: I thank the Minister. I merely wish to express the Opposition's support, to congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on raising such an important matter, and to ask the Minister to undertake to place in the Library, immediately after the summit, a report relating specifically to this part of the negotiations at Cologne.
Mrs. Roche: We make sure that all our reports are disseminated in the normal way after a summit.
I am very pleased to have been able to reply to the debate. We must ensure that this item is placed at the top of our agenda, and that is what the Government are doing.

Asthma
1.29 pm
Mr. Mark Oaten: It is often dangerous to draw too many conclusions from statistics, but I start the debate by drawing to the House's attention a few alarming statistics. In the past 10 years in this country, the number of children with asthma has doubled. In the United Kingdom, 1.5 million children now have asthma. What is deeply concerning is that that is one of the worst rates in Europe. More troubling than that is the fact that the trend appears to be rising.
Those are harsh facts. I want to look in a little more detail at some of the reasons behind the increase in asthma and to give the Minister a chance to set out the Government's response to those alarming figures.
Earlier this year, I carried out a survey of schools and general practitioner practices in the Winchester constituency to try to establish whether what individuals were saying to me in surgery and in writing was true. There was clearly a perception in Winchester that the number of children seeing GPs about asthma had increased.
I would not for a minute try to claim that my constituency office, with all its volunteers, is anything like MORI, the opinion survey organisation, or Government scientific advisers, although these days one is never quite sure, but we carried out a survey of schools and doctor practices in the constituency. Thirty-three schools and seven GP practices responded. Two thirds of the practices stated that, in just the past couple of years, there had been an increase in the number of children with asthma coming to their practice. Similar results came from schools. Over half the teachers involved claimed that there was a much bigger increase in children coming to school with asthmatic problems.
As I say, the findings in Winchester are certainly not scientific, but they appear to be backed by national research work, particularly by the National Asthma Campaign. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that, last week, the campaign revealed the results of its most recent audit; it audits asthma trends annually. It announced that a study in Leicester had found that asthma and wheezing in children under five had doubled in that location in less than a decade. In 1990, only 12 per cent. of children had been diagnosed with asthma. By 1998, the figure had risen to 21 per cent. Wheezing attacks within a 12-month period had doubled from 12 per cent. in 1990 to 23 per cent. in 1998.
The National Asthma Campaign concludes that approximately one in seven children aged between two and 15 have asthma symptoms that require treatment; that is where we draw the figure of 1.5 million children from. Although I want to concentrate purely on the effects of asthma on children, we should not forget that more than 1.9 million adults—those over 16—suffer from asthma.
All those figures and findings suggest that we have a major problem with asthma among children. I conclude that it will be in danger of getting seriously out of control if the trend goes upwards.
As well as the obvious distress and suffering that asthma causes children and their parents, the increases have other severe implications, not least the cost and
366
burden to the national health service. The total cost of asthma to the health service is estimated to be about £709 million, at today's figures. In addition, we should consider the cost involved in providing inhalers and asthma prescriptions, which is estimated to be about £500 million.
The National Asthma Campaign says that, if we go beyond child asthma and take into consideration the number of days lost and the burden on society that asthma brings, the figures increase dramatically and society has a major problem in relation to the costs involved in the health service. That, in itself, should be an argument for some urgent action to tackle the problem.
There are other hidden costs, particularly the cost to a child's education. The rising number of children with asthma means a rising number are off sick, missing school days. Having asthma is one of the most common reasons for children missing school or pre-school nursery.
In 1995, "Blue Peter" carried out an asthma survey. More than 10,000 children responded. Eight per cent. said that they had missed at least a month of school as a result of problems with asthma. A recent large study of school children aged between 12 and 14 found that a substantial proportion of adolescents had asthma symptoms that interfered with their schooling and day-to-day lives. Another concern was that many of them were not receiving treatment for that asthma. One third of the children who took part in the survey and had experienced asthma symptoms said that they were not receiving some form of medical support to back them up. That under-diagnosis of asthma and the consequential missed school days cannot be good for the children's education, or their social relationships
The most worrying factor is that we do not really know, or we do not appear to know, why all that is taking place. After we carried out the survey in Winchester, I was surprised at the findings and asked to see a Dr. Roberts, who is the asthma specialist at the Royal Hampshire county hospital in Winchester. Politicians always seek a simple answer. I just asked, "Why is it happening? What are the reasons? There must be a simple explanation."
In addition, we were involved in a battle to try to persuade the public that it would be sensible to build a park-and-ride facility in Winchester. I wanted to be able to use the asthma results to support the case for the park-and-ride facility to keep cars out of the city centre, but clearly it is not as simple as that.
The doctor explained—and my research since explains—that there are endless theories as to the cause of the big increase in asthma. Pollution and traffic are obviously the simplest arguments that people can advance, but one of the most compelling arguments that I have heard is that living in a cleaner society has an impact. In the past 10 or 15 years, facilities in homes have meant that they are cleaner. Whereas before, in a dirtier house, children had a chance to build resistance to viruses, in a cleaner society, individuals and children do not build up resistance and then are more vulnerable and susceptible to asthma.
Other theories have been put forward. Only yesterday, the World Health Organisation announced details of a study that it had undertaken in Europe, which led it to claim in the press:
"Car fumes kill more than crashes."

367
Again, it had clear evidence that there was a link between pollution from cars and increased cases of asthma.
I have heard the other argument—particularly in a rural constituency such as Winchester—that changing farming patterns are one of the causes. Of course, the most obvious link that people are making at the moment is with genetically modified crops. They are asking whether those crops will have an impact. Letters from constituencies following publicity about the survey suggested that oil-seed rape was an increasing concern.
We know that, recently, farmers have turned much more to growing oil-seed rape. Indeed, one of ways in which to decrease transport pollution is to have transport run on oil-seed rape, but by growing more of the crop we could create asthmatic problems. An organisation representing hyperactive children, which has concerns about food additives, has raised concerns to the effect that changing diets, and the things that we are adding to food and giving to children, may be a cause.
The only conclusion that I can draw from all that information is that the only thing individuals agree on is that no one really knows what the causes of the increases in asthma are. That needs to be the starting point for Government action. We need to be able to have more research to establish what exactly the cause is.
I am aware that the Government are active on the issue. I make it clear that I did not secure the debate to criticise the Government for any inaction. Rather, I should like to press the Minister for some more information about the research that is taking place.
In a written answer to me last Friday, the Minister was helpful in explaining what the Government were doing in relation to research. He said that they were supporting a major initiative on the relationship between air pollution and respiratory diseases. Will the Minister use the debate to confirm when that report and the conclusions will be made available, and if they will be made available publicly? Will he go further and explain why the link is being made between air pollution and respiratory diseases? Are the Government planning any research to look at the connection between respiratory problems such as asthma and other issues apart from air pollution, some of which I have touched on; or is it the Government's conclusion that air pollution must be the main reason—which is why they are putting energy into research in that particular area?
I should be grateful if the Minister let me know whether the Government had plans specifically to examine the number of children who have asthma. I have quoted some data and a figure, but judging by a written reply that the Minister gave me, which looked at the number of children going into accident and emergency departments and having in-patient care in hospitals, it appeared—unless I misread the data—that there had been a decline in the number of children going into hospital with asthmatic problems. There seems to be a contradiction between research done by campaign groups and some of the Government's data. Is it perhaps worth while investing additional resources in detailed research to discover whether the increases that I have described are indeed occurring?
The Government commission an annual health survey for England. According to the 1997 survey, 29 per cent. of boys and 18 per cent. of girls aged between two and 15 have been diagnosed with asthma at some time.
368
I should be fascinated to know—perhaps the Minister will write to me on it—why boys feature so much higher than girls in those figures, and how those figures compare with previous studies done by the Government on the matter.
We should certainly be reassured that the Government are taking the issue seriously, and that their programme to address it includes much research. For me, however, the critical issue is whether the scope of the research is sufficiently wide. If it is not, the research will raise more questions than it provides answers.
I should like also to consider ways in which the Government might assist those working in the public health field, and particularly in education, in dealing with some of the consequences of childhood asthma. Currently, the response of various local education authorities to the growing problems of asthma in schools is very mixed. A recent study examined specifically how LEAs were tackling the problem, by sending, in late 1998, a questionnaire to more than 200 LEAs. Although only preliminary research has been done, and the results of the study have not yet been made public, those results are a matter of concern.
One third of LEAs said that they do not have a policy on how to deal with asthma in schools, and less than half of LEAs and schools said that they had in place a protocol on what to do if a child has an asthma attack in school. To my surprise and horror, almost half the LEAs said that they did not have a commitment to a no-smoking policy in school—which is surely one of the causes of asthma attacks.
I hope that, when the study is complete, the organisation involved will send the findings to the Government for consideration. Today, however, I should like to press the Minister to have a word with his colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment, to ascertain what advice the Government are giving to LEAs. Perhaps he will also use his reply to clarify who is responsible and accountable for securing health in schools. Although I know that there have recently been Government announcements on that issue, it would be tremendously helpful if he could say who has responsibility as the lead organisation in addressing it.
I hope too that the Government, when they are considering good health in schools, will consider also the issue of asthma, and good practice across England. Some local authorities have been working with local asthma groups to establish very good practice.
Something is wrong—and it is always very troubling when one does not know the cause of a problem. Moreover, recent trends seem to be going in entirely the wrong direction. The problem has to be tackled, not only because of the uncomfortable and unpleasant nature of asthma both for children and for parents seeing their children suffering from asthma attacks, but because it is becoming an increasing burden on the health service. The problem has to be tackled also because it is affecting children's ability to have an enjoyable childhood and to play their full part in the education system.
I hope that the Government are taking the issue seriously, and that, in a few moments, the Minister will be able to assure us that the research being done is sufficiently broad to ensure that, perhaps in a year's time, we shall better understand the problem, so that we are able to reassure parents who have children with asthma.

369
Once we have a greater understanding, perhaps the Government will be able to implement policies to tackle the causes of that growing problem.
1.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on his good fortune in the ballot, and particularly on dealing with this subject today. He has done the House a good service in drawing attention to some of the concerns that he has expressed. I am also delighted that he found my parliamentary answers helpful. It is the first time that anyone has said that to me, and I am deeply grateful to him for doing so. Perhaps we shall have to go back to the Department and re-examine how we answer questions, but I am grateful to him for those comments.
The hon. Gentleman raised some specific issues on research and on the direction of the Government's research programme, and I shall try to address them later in the debate. He also raised some technical issues, on which he said that he would be happy for me to write to him. I shall certainly take him up on that, and am sure that we shall correspond on some of those technical issues.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman, and the House, that the Government share the widespread concern that he has articulated so well today on the burden resulting from asthma, particularly among children. Asthma is the most common chronic disease in the United Kingdom. It is also the most frequently reported cause of longstanding illness among children.
Children are much more likely than adults to be treated as hospital in-patients for asthma: children under 15 currently account for almost one half of the ordinary admissions and day cases for asthma. Only 2 per cent. of the approximately 1,300 asthma deaths a year in England are among children. Although each of those deaths is a tragedy, research suggests that many of them could have been prevented by better adherence to treatment.
Asthma has a considerable financial cost—to which the hon. Gentleman referred—in addition to its human cost. The national health service spends about £600 million annually in treating asthma, including £466 million on general practitioner prescriptions in the most recent year for which data are available. We should also not forget the indirect costs of asthma, including, for children, days off from school. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to mention those other costs in his speech.
The hon. Gentleman was correct also to say that there are no comprehensive data on the number of people, of any age, with asthma. However, on the basis of all the available information, it has been estimated that
"the prevalence of asthma sufficiently severe to require regular medical supervision"—
in hospital or other settings—
"is from 4 to 6 per cent. in children."
That estimate was quoted in "Asthma: An Epidemiological Overview", which was produced, in 1995, by the Department of Health's central health monitoring unit.
According to the health survey for England 1997, 23 per cent. of boys and 18 per cent. of girls aged two to 15 had been diagnosed at some time in the past as
370
suffering from asthma. Similarly, in the international study of asthma and allergies in childhood which was published last year in the British Medical Journal, 20 per cent. of surveyed children aged between 12 and 14 had had a diagnosis of asthma at some time.
The prevalence of asthma was, therefore, apparently rising for three decades, up to the late 1980s or early 1990s. Since then, hospital admissions, GP consultations and mortality rates have all been levelling off, perhaps reflecting more effective treatment and higher quality medical care. However, local studies—such as the one conducted in Leicester, to which both the hon. Gentleman and the National Asthma Campaign, in its "National Asthma Audit 1999/2000", referred—suggest that, in children at least, the prevalence of asthma may still be on the increase.
We do not know for certain what causes asthma, but it is likely that an interplay between genetic and environmental factors is an important factor. It is a commonly held belief that the rise in the prevalence of asthma must be the result of air pollution, particularly from motor vehicles. However, increasing levels of asthma have been recorded in countries such as Sweden, Fiji and New Zealand, which do not suffer from high levels of air pollutants.
The Department of Health's committee on the medical effects of air pollutants, in its 1995 report on "Asthma and Outdoor Air Pollution", concluded:
"with regard to the initiation of asthma (that is, causing the disease in the first place), most of the available evidence does not support a causative role for outdoor air pollution".
Therefore, although exposure to air pollutants can produce a worsening of symptoms in those suffering from asthma, factors other than air pollution—allergens and the role of infections, for example—are likely to have had more of an impact on the number of people suffering from asthma.
Nevertheless, air pollution is associated with asthma attacks and with other diseases of the lung and heart. We remain concerned to investigate those issues further, and also to improve air quality in the United Kingdom. In 1997, the Government published a national air quality strategy, which provides health-based standards and objectives for eight of the main air pollutants that can affect human health, including carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulphur dioxide and other chemicals. The strategy brought together existing systems for controlling pollution and introduced a new system of local air-quality management.
We have reviewed the national air quality strategy to examine how further improvements in air quality could be made more effectively and more rapidly. In January 1999, we issued the report of the review for consultation. The consultation period closed in April, and the outcome will be published later in the year.
Advice to the general public about air quality is available through Teletext and Ceefax and through the air quality helpline. The Department of Health and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions work together to determine how simple messages about the health effects of air pollutants can best be communicated to the public. A leaflet, "Air pollution—what it means for your health", was published last year.
The hon. Gentleman repeatedly raised the question of research. The Government continue to sponsor research on both asthma in general and possible links between

371
outdoor and indoor air pollution and asthma. A major £3 million research programme on outdoor air, jointly funded by the Department of Health, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Medical Research Council, has recently come to an end, and it will be fully evaluated toward the end of this year. The Department of Health intends to issue a further call for research proposals shortly, predominantly on the health effects of outdoor air pollution. A joint Department of Health/Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions £1 million three-year research programme on indoor air is currently under way, and a number of studies are examining the effects of air pollutants on people with asthma.
The Medical Research Council spends about £2 million a year on research into prevention and treatment of asthma and related matters. The National Asthma Campaign is managing, on behalf of the NHS Executive, the NHS national research and development programme on asthma management. We welcome the participation of, and the close relations we have with, the National Asthma Campaign. The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the future direction of asthma research, but perhaps he will draw comfort from the fact that the NAC plays a leading role in determining the course and conduct of the research effort. He also asked about the publication and review of research data: we always publish that information.
In the NHS, management of asthma, in children as in adults, mainly takes place in primary care. The Department of Health has provided a national framework for the provision of general medical services for asthma in the chronic disease management programme. In that programme, GPs set up and oversee organised programmes of care, with clearly understood arrangements for any care shared with the secondary sector; 94 per cent. of GPs now participate in the CDMP for asthma.
We recognise that proper management of asthma during school hours is a very real issue for children, their parents and their teachers, and the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that problem. That is why we have ensured that information about asthma has been provided on the "Wired for Health" website, which was launched in March as part of the national grid for learning and which provides teachers with health information on a range of conditions. "Wired for Health" is the Government's main communication tool for our healthy schools initiative, which is jointly funded by Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment and is a key part of our strategy for "Our Healthier Nation".
The "Our Healthier Nation" Green Paper set out the Government's philosophy on improving health in England. We proposed that our health strategy should have twin overarching aims: to improve the health of everyone, and to reduce health inequality—to narrow the gap between those with the best health and those with the worst. We proposed to achieve those aims by introducing the concept of a contract for health, whereby Government, local organisations and individuals all recognise and act on their share of responsibility for improving health.
At Government level, we recognise that we have a responsibility to tackle the underlying causes of ill health: poverty, poor housing, unemployment and pollution. Government must take the action which only they can so that local organisations can play their part and individuals
372
can make the decisions that allow them to take control of improving their own health. The "Our Healthier Nation" White Paper, which is due shortly, will set out the detail of how we envisage that happening and developing.
Returning to the subject of the "Wired for Health" website, I believe that it demonstrates the commitment to partnership which is a fundamental part of the Government's approach to health issues. It gives access to the National Asthma Campaign's own material on asthma. In respect of asthma in school, the website builds on work previously undertaken with the National Asthma Campaign on the guidance entitled "Supporting pupils with medical needs", which was issued jointly by the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health under the previous Administration, in 1996.
The NHS is making increasing use of the internet and NHSnet for posting reference material. Over the next couple of years, a number of developments should help to improve both access to and the quality of information available to the public on health and health services. For example, work is taking place to develop a national electronic library for health, to provide patients, public and clinicians with access to accredited health and health care information. The national electronic library for health will include information on healthy life styles, medical conditions, diseases and treatments, and about the effectiveness of different treatments; it will also provide a reference guide to who does what in the NHS. The library project is working in conjunction with a range of other related initiatives, including NHS Direct, which has an important contribution to make in this respect and which will be available in all parts of England by the end of next year.
I have referred several times to the National Asthma Campaign. In recent years, the Department of Health has been able to give that organisation a project grant to create a childhood asthma education officer post, as well as grants towards the costs of its asthma helpline. We also assisted the introduction of a new personal asthma card—the "Control your asthma" card—to help sufferers to manage their condition. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the sterling work that the National Asthma Campaign does to provide support and information for children and all people with asthma and their carers. We greatly value the good working relationship that we have with the National Asthma Campaign.
Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government take asthma, not least as it affects children, very seriously indeed. We shall continue to do all we can to improve knowledge of the causes of asthma and to make life as normal as possible for all those who suffer from it—perhaps I should have declared an interest earlier, for I too am an asthmatic. The Government will continue to work with medical and other health professionals, the National Asthma Campaign and all those with an interest in the field, so as to ensure that our commitment to and ambition for a first-class NHS for all the people of our country applies as much to those who suffer from asthma as to those who suffer from any other condition.
It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), until half-past Two o'clock.

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

  HIPC Initiative
  Mr. John Heppell: What plans she has to propose amendments to the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. [84973]
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: What assessment she has made of the likely progress at the G7 summit in ensuring recognition that debt repayment conditions should not entail less money being available for basic health and education programmes. [85982]
  Mr. Chris Mullin: What recent progress has been made on debt relief for the poorest countries; and if she will make a statement. [85984]
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are pressing for a revised heavily indebted poor countries—HIPC—initiative to provide at least twice as much debt relief twice as fast and for the provision of debt relief to be more tightly linked to policies that help reduce poverty.
  We are pleased that at their meeting in Frankfurt on 12 June, G7 Finance Ministers were able to agree that a substantial improvement to HIPC was required. G7 leaders will be discussing that further this week and we look forward to the announcement of a package on debt relief at the weekend. The final details of the new HIPC package will be settled at the annual meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in September. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I also announced last week that we will be contributing a further $100 million to the trust fund to help the multilateral development banks meet their share of the cost of debt relief.
  Mr. Heppell: I thank my right hon. Friend for her response. Will she join me in congratulating all the non-governmental organisations and Churches that have campaigned so magnificently to ensure that world debt is high on the agenda? Will she also join me in asking them to continue their campaign in Japan, France and the United States, which do not take the same view as this country on the subject? Will she assure me that our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will use the same determination, leadership and drive to push for the best deal for the world's poorest people as he has shown over Kosovo?
  Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I am pleased to join him in congratulating the Churches and the NGOs on their debt campaign. We have never seen anything like it—an international civil society movement that has moved the policy of the most powerful countries in the world. Soon after we formed our Government and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made his Mauritius mandate speech, saying that we wanted to speed up debt relief, he and I went to the annual
  374
  meetings of the World Bank and the IMF and could not get support. By the time that the leaders of the G7 got to Birmingham, with all those people on the streets, we had made some advances. It has been a wonderful campaign. I assure my hon. Friend that our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will take further the efforts that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made at the G7 finance meetings. The campaign must continue, because the programmes that will really help the poor will not be finalised until the annual meetings of the bank and the fund in September.
  Madam Speaker: I call Mrs. Fyfe. She is not here. I call Mr. Mullin. He is not here.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Secretary of State's response and I encourage others to back her position. She will be aware that banks do not normally lend money unless there is collateral. Are any steps being taken to support the other banks that are giving low interest rates to the world's poorest, so that they might become self-supporting and help to relieve poverty?
  Clare Short: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for standing throughout his question. I got out of synch because two hon. Members were missing. The hon. Gentleman must be referring to micro credit schemes, which offer small credits to the world's poorest. I agree that that is a fantastically important movement. It is important that the banks should not always depend on aid contributions, but should become self-sustaining small people's banks. We are trying to work with others in the international system to achieve that.
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: First, I congratulate everyone on what they are doing on the issue. I am nervous about the prospect of coming back here in 2010, if I am re-elected, and having the same conversation because we have not moved the poorest countries forward. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is confident that the World Bank and all the other agencies are really so bothered about substantial poverty. If we do not get rid of the poverty, what will we do as a nation?
  Clare Short: I agree that if we come back in 2010 and we have made no progress on the fact that one in four of our fellow human beings live in abject poverty, the world will be in considerable trouble. The population will be growing, the environment will be more degraded and we will have more war and more refugees. There is untreatable tuberculosis in Russia and forms of malaria are emerging for which we have no drugs. It would be a moral disaster as well as being very dangerous for the next generation that is growing up.
  I am confident that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are increasingly focusing on assistance to programmes that will help to reduce poverty, but that cannot be done unless the Governments of developing countries want that. In the next phase of the movement in civil society, we need the movements in the industrialised countries to link up with people in the developing world so that they can hold their Governments more firmly to account. We need good policy not only

  375
  from donors and international institutions, but from Governments in developing countries, who often serve their elite and not their poor.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the Government on their debt relief initiative in the run-up to the summit this weekend, and especially on their plan to donate £100 million to the millennium fund to replace the HIPC fund. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are not giving with one hand and taking away with the other and that the money will come out of Treasury reserves and not her Department's development budget? Will she also clarify whether the £50 million of aid to Kosovo will come from the Treasury or from her Department?
  Clare Short: Hon. Members have no idea how grateful I am to the hon. Lady for the interest that she has taken in this subject. On the £100 million that we announced, a great deal of the contributions go well beyond the period of the current comprehensive spending review, as countries qualify for debt relief year on year, so I had to reach an understanding with the Treasury that went beyond my current budget. The probably quite small commitments under current plans would come from my Department's budget, but beyond that I have an agreement in writing from the Treasury that we will both contribute. That has to be part of the next comprehensive spending review settlement.
  Of the extra £50 million for Kosovo, the first £10 million came partly from my contingency reserve and partly from money committed to the region; the second £10 million and a further £20 million came from the Treasury central reserve; and we have now agreed, because the commitment will go considerably beyond the further £50 million so far declared, that our contingency reserve, which, from memory, is about £36 million, will be put in the pot and we can then go to the central reserve, as has already happened with the extra £50 million, if there are unpredictable emergencies elsewhere in the world. That is a pretty good deal and I am pleased to have reached it.
  Mr. Andrew Reed: I join the thousands of people throughout the country who would like to congratulate the Government on their actions and the lead that they have taken on aid, and in particular on the civil action mentioned by my right hon. Friend, which has convinced other nations, such as Germany and the United States, to get on board.
  Unfortunately, the HIPC initiative falls far short of an ideal solution. Will my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister push for changes in the Paris Club agreement to allow some greater flexibility and ensure that speedier and deeper debt reduction can be achieved by 2000, in line with the Mauritius mandate proposed by the Government early in 1997?
  Clare Short: Yes, indeed. There is no doubt that we will get an improvement in the current HIPC initiative. There has been a big movement, especially with the change of Government in Germany. Japan has agreed to the sale of IMF gold and to do something about its own aid debt, and France has made a similar move. Those are big advances but we do not yet have an ideal solution.
  376
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor pushed very hard at the Finance Ministers meeting, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will press for even more at the leaders' meeting in Cologne this weekend. The final stage of the improvement of the HIPC initiative is the annual meetings of the bank and the fund. We need a more generous formula and more money on the table. The pressure will have to be kept up on everyone to ensure that we have a generous enough package.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: I add my congratulations to the Jubilee 2000 campaigners who have done a terrific job in raising the profile of this issue throughout the country this year. I also congratulate the Government on building on the solid foundation laid by the Conservative Government in the past five years on the issue of debt relief. We are delighted by that.
  Is the Secretary of State aware that, when the Prime Minister walks into the summit in Cologne at the weekend to tackle debt relief, he will carry with him the hopes and prayers of thousands of British people who care passionately about the issue? Does she agree that the key thing about debt relief is to free up funds for health care and education in the countries in question, because they are the real exit routes from poverty that we want more and more people to enjoy?
  Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity—it is slightly unusual and therefore all the more welcome. There is no doubt that the previous Conservative Government took a strong position on debt relief, but most countries say that they always argued for good formulas but never put any money on the table. We argue for good formulas and put money on the table, so that is an improvement. I agree that the Prime Minister will be pressing hard at Cologne and that the worldwide movement that has been encouraged by the British movement, which includes our Churches and faiths, is impressive and powerful. It should not be disappointed.
  I also agree that the key issue is debt relief that helps the poor. Therefore, how it is done is important. Having to wait years and then having a big stock of debt relief creates an incentive for a big new contract. A flow of debt relief that will ease Government budgets and, therefore, encourage spending on basic health care and education is what we really want, and we are arguing for that kind of change. I am pleased that there is cross-party agreement on that.

  Balkan Reconstruction
  Mr. Tom Brake: What assessment she has made of the long-term reconstruction needs of (a) Albania, (b) Montenegro and (c) Macedonia. [85974]
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are working closely with the international community to determine the development needs of the Balkan region. The major costs of reconstruction will be met by the EU and the international financial institutions.
  Mr. Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for her response. How much of the £50 million of humanitarian aid announced on Monday will be spent on health

  377
  facilities? Does she believe that the Albanian Government are playing a supportive role in encouraging refugees who are with host families to remain in Albania until the situation in Kosovo is stabilised, and how much aid will those host families receive?
  Clare Short: I am afraid that I cannot say precisely how much of the extra £50 million that we have just announced to help the refugees to return to Kosovo will be spent on health. We are dealing with a fairly chaotic situation. Currently, we are funding convoys which are taking in food and emergency medical supplies and blankets—which is a little odd because it is hot, but people have been sleeping in the open and do not have proper beds, and so on. Quite a lot of basic medical care is being supplied, so we are considering whether we can help to restore the hospitals. Sadly, dreadfully, I gather two accidents have already been caused by mines, and there will be many others, so decent hospital facilities will be required and we expect to make that a priority. I shall keep the House informed on the situation and the decisions that we make.
  It is not for us to tell Kosovan refugees when to go home; it is our job to give them as much accurate information as possible so that they can make their own decisions. Therefore, the Albanian Government should not tell them when to go. It is important that the frail and vulnerable be looked after until the fitter and younger have returned and made their homes ready. They can then send for the women, children and the elderly. The process of return will take some months. If it is like Bosnia, the young and fit will go first, repair the roof and get the homes ready, and then send for the others. Therefore, the refugees will be in Albania and Macedonia for quite some time.
  Mr. Tony Benn: What funds has my right hon. Friend earmarked for Serb families who are now becoming refugees for fear of the KLA, who have not been disarmed and who said this morning that they had no intention of giving up their weapons until the Russians submitted themselves to the American command in Kosovo?
  Clare Short: First, the agreement that has been reached internationally, the agreement that has been negotiated with the KLA, and the assurances given by General Jackson, all say very clearly to the Serbs of Kosovo that they are welcome to stay, that they have the absolute right to stay, and that every effort will be made to protect them. I want to make it clear that they are not being terrorised out of the country as the Kosovar Albanians were. We have also made it clear that provision will be made if there is any humanitarian need or disaster in Serbia. However, there will be no assistance to Serbia for reconstruction as long as Milosevic and his regime remain.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: Is not it true that much of the money given by the Secretary of State for the relief of refugees in Kosovo will have to be channelled through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the UNHCR is properly organised to handle that? Is she aware that the Select Committee on International Development wrote Mrs. Ogata a letter
  378
  nearly three weeks ago—to which she has not even replied—asking her to come and give evidence and tell us how she is organising the UNHCR to give the assistance that the refugees desperately need?
  Clare Short: I am very well aware of the Select Committee's report, and I respect it greatly. I have said before to the hon. Gentleman that some things in this crisis have not been well organised, but our priority is to keep the systems with which we have to work operating. When the crisis is over, we will have to try to correct the deficiencies that have emerged during the crisis.
  We have published a full list, which is available from the Library, of exactly how all the money that we have made available has been spent. Some of it has gone through the UNHCR, but a lot has gone through other agencies. We are using the most effective agencies, whichever they may be, but much of our support to the UNHCR has been in kind. We were able to book aeroplanes and move stuff around faster than the agency, so we booked and paid for that instead of handing over resources. Therefore, it has been more efficient to make a lot of our contributions in kind, not in cash.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Massive financial problems face the international community in dealing with the refugee crisis. Is consideration being given to the way in which funds can be raised on an international basis? If that is not possible now, will it be possible when similar problems arise in the future? One possibility is to tax international currency speculators by means of the so-called Tobin tax. Could not such an initiative, which has already been taken in relation to international debt, have a great impact in the future?
  Clare Short: I share my hon. Friend's view that the Tobin tax suggestion is interesting, but it could not be implemented until all the world agreed to it. That might take a bit longer than securing enough funding for the reconstruction of the Balkans. A campaign of ideas would have to be put in hand before we could get anywhere near to achieving what I agree is an interesting possibility.
  The reconstruction of the Balkans region will incur costs. Many of the surrounding countries suffered some disruption during the war but were not damaged. Funding was made available to cover their transition from communism. Its sources included the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the European Union also set aside funds for that purpose—so funds exist that are ready to be spent. However, additional funding has to be found for Kosovo and we have to make sure that it is not at the expense of other very poor countries.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I welcome the £50 million that the Secretary of State has announced, and I agree that long-term reconstruction is important for the peace, stability and prosperity of the whole region. How will she ensure that goods and materials are sourced locally, rather than more expensively elsewhere? That would help to rebuild the economies of the region's countries. What methods will she use to ensure that the dispersal of funds is closely

  379
  monitored? I am sure that she appreciates that large infrastructure projects always carry the possibility of fraud.
  Clare ShortThe £50 million will be spent on humanitarian and emergency help to return people to their homes and on assisting with the reconstruction of bridges and infrastructure that require immediate attention. We will disburse that money using our tight systems for ensuring that it is well spent. Matters are difficult in a disruptive region, but we are trying to do as much as possible.
  The much larger spending on reconstruction that will occur across the Balkans will not, of course, take place under our management. The European Commission will lead it and there will be a great deal of welcome analytical input from the World Bank. I agree with the hon. Lady that local sourcing should be encouraged, but we will not have complete control over that. We are doing everything in our power to improve European Commission systems as we all know that there has been much waste and that there is much room for improvement.

  East Timor
  Mr. David Rendel: If she will make a statement about the humanitarian situation and the provision of aid in East Timor. [85975]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): There is an increasing number of internally displaced people in East Timor as a result of the deteriorating security situation in the lead-up to the consultation on autonomy due on 8 August. We have contributed $1 million towards the costs of running the consultation. We are supporting a programme to strengthen the capacity of civil society organisations in East Timor, and we provided £300,000 to last year's Red Cross emergency appeal. We are continuing to monitor the humanitarian situation.
  Mr. Rendel: Is the Minister aware of reports that more than 100 people have been killed in East Timor since April by militia trained by the Indonesian police? Given the recent changes in the security sector, what contribution is his Department making to the international police force in East Timor? Will he support an increase in UN security personnel in East Timor in order to guarantee proper arrangements for the registration of voters and for the independence poll?
  Mr. Foulkes: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are concerned about the situation. Security is of course the responsibility of the Government of Indonesia, but following the killing of some pro-autonomy workers by factions in Indonesia, the Prime Minister wrote to President Habibie in April expressing our concern and urging that the armed forces should provide security for everyone. The presence of the UN mission is helping the security situation. Some 280 civil police will take part, seven of them from the United Kingdom. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the fact that the head of the mission is Ian Martin, a well respected former head of Amnesty International in the UK.

  EU Aid Expenditure
  Mr. William Cash: If she will make a statement on her Department's plans to reform the European Union's aid expenditure. [85976]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): In December 1998, we published our 18-point strategy to improve European Union development spending. This makes clear our concern that aid spending is skewed against the poorest countries and often of poor quality. We are pursuing implementation of this strategy very vigorously with the Commission and with member states, pressing particularly for more development assistance for poorer countries. The Secretary of State agreed a joint declaration on improving the EU's contribution to international development with our French and German opposite numbers in February. The Development Council approved conclusions on 21 May endorsing many of our specific recommendations. I should say—especially to this particular hon. Member—that the Government are pleased that our proposals for a single Commissioner, a single programme and a single budget for development have been adopted by President Prodi.
  Mr. Cash: Will the Minister congratulate the Conservative party on its victory in the European elections? Now, there will be greater scrutiny over fraud and corruption in the programmes referred to in my question. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that while we would welcome any improvement, the way in which to achieve it is to seek real accountability so that real questions can receive real answers?
  Mr. Foulkes: If I did as the hon. Gentleman asks, I might not answer many more questions from the Dispatch Box. [HON. MEMBERS: "You don't answer them."] No, indeed. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are concerned about fraud. The report of the Committee of Independent Experts highlighted a lack of accountability and responsibility, which has resulted in a radical shake-up of the Commission.
  If the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with and draws comfort from some 30 per cent. of the votes, on a turnout of 25 per cent., he is clutching at straws.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: All hon. Members who are interested in international development will welcome the proposal for a single European Commissioner to focus the Commission's attention on this important area. How soon is that proposal likely to be implemented?
  Mr. Foulkes: I understand that it will be implemented as soon as the new Commission is appointed next month. We are not satisfied only with a single Commissioner; we are now pressing for more money to go to the poorest countries. We have a target of 70 per cent., because at the moment only 50 per cent. of development money goes to the poorest countries. We shall press also for greater efficiency in delivering the budget. We are only just starting the shake-up that is needed in EU development spending.

  Kosovar Refugees
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: What actions she is taking to ensure that the humanitarian assistance to Kosovar refugees is of the highest standards; and if she will make a statement. [85877]
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What estimate she has made of expenditure to date on aid and supplies to assist the Kosovar refugees. [85979]
  Mr. Bill Rammell: If she will make a statement on the progress of plans to support Kosovar refugees in the region around Kosovo. [85981]
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is the internationally designated lead agency responsible for co-ordinating provision for the refugees from Kosovo and for their return to Kosovo. We have worked since the beginning of the crisis to try to support and improve its efforts. We have provided £40 million of assistance to date, and on Monday we announced a further £50 million to support the process of return to Kosovo. Details of our spending, which has been channelled through the most effective agencies, are available in the Library. Provision is being made to cater for winter conditions from October onwards.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister expand a little on the answer that she gave to an earlier question on the European Union's role in channelling funds? In what areas is she concerned about whether that is an efficient method of ensuring that the aid is provided?
  Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman will know that the European Union's efficiency in that area is very poor, so we have published a plan to try to achieve improvements and the Select Committee on International Development has published a very good report. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary just said, our criticism is being accepted and we will achieve a major reorganisation. That will not guarantee greatly improved efficiency, but it represents an opportunity to achieve it.
  The European Community Humanitarian Office—ECHO—has worked hard, under Emma Bonino, to make improvements, and has worked well to disburse funds during the Kosovo crisis. The EU will be a lead spender in the reconstruction of the Balkans, and we shall have to work hard to make sure that the money is well spent. The link with the World Bank should improve matters.
  Mr. Griffiths: We know how much work my right hon. Friend's Department has done to help the refugees during the crisis. Will she ensure that having worked round the clock, her staff will continue to get the resources that they need until the refugees have gone home?
  Clare Short:I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his praise. I have enormously dedicated staff in my Department, particularly in the conflict and humanitarian affairs department where staff deal with crises. They are under strict instructions to take some leave and not to work all hours; otherwise, they will be unable to sustain their work for as long as they are needed to help with
  382
  the reconstruction of Kosovo. As my hon. Friend said, more resources will be needed. Getting people home will be much harder than helping them to leave Kosovo. It will be a much more welcome task, but it will take time and a lot of resources. As my hon. Friend knows, we have just committed an extra £50 million to that task, but more will probably be needed.
  Mr. Rammell: I welcome the additional resources that have just been announced. They demonstrate that not only were we justified in taking military action, but we are now prepared to back up that action with much needed money to support the refugees. What will be the immediate priorities on the ground for the spending of that additional money? How quickly can we begin to spend it? How will the programme be managed on the ground by the Department?
  Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. This has been a new kind of conflict in which humanitarian disaster and military action have been absolutely entangled, rather than separate, so we have been disbursing resources from the beginning. There has been repression of people in Kosovo and refugees. Our priorities are demining and mine education. There will be terrible accidents. Families who have been driven out are returning and their children are being blown up or losing limbs. We are doing all that we can to remove mines, to survey mines and to educate refugees about the problems of mines. Beyond that, they need food, medical supplies and equipment to enable them to rebuild their houses. They will then need longer-term help with reconstruction.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: The Secretary of State will be aware of the UNHCR plan to help the refugees to go home, which appears to anticipate refugees beginning to return after three weeks of NATO going into Kosovo, with the main return following three or four months of liberation. Although I understand the need for caution and safety, is that not hopelessly out of touch with reality? Many people are already going home and, understandably, many more will wish to go home following the withdrawal of the Serb forces this weekend. Is there anything that the right hon. Lady can do to encourage the UNHCR to be more realistic and flexible, and to come up with a better plan?
  Clare Short: I agree completely—this must be an historic first—with every word that the hon. Gentleman has just said. The UNHCR has appealed to refugees not to return home for a month, but people who can see their villages across the border and who get word that things are now safe are choosing when to go home. We owe full information to the refugees so that they may make their own decisions. We expect waves of movement, as we saw in Bosnia. The fit and young are first to find out what their home is like and to start to repair it. When they have put things in place, they send for children and the elderly. People are already moving and making their own decisions, but we must educate them, especially the children, about mines because there will be terrible accidents.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also sent a message to Nelson Mandela, who steps down as South African President today. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Griffiths: An hour ago, I spoke to Besian Krasniqi—a Kosovar refugee who is in Germany with his family—whom I met on 9 April in a Macedonian camp. He praises Britain's resolution and endurance, which gave him and every other refugee hope. He knows that he will not be going home next week or next month, but will the Prime Minister ensure that every refugee is enabled to go home as quickly and as safely as possible, irrespective of ethnic background?
    The Prime Minister: I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work as chairman of the Scottish Charities Kosovo Appeal and his steadfast support of the cause of the refugees over the past few months. We are well on course for getting the refugees back. More than 26,000 Serb troops have already left; only 15,000 remain in Kosovo. There are 14,500 NATO troops now in Kosovo, including more than 6,000 British troops. However, the full horrors of what has happened to the refugees are only just coming to light. Our troops have been speaking just in the past few hours of what they have seen: attempted rapes, assassinations, shootings and, of course, the uncovering of mass graves. Thank goodness we intervened in Kosovo, thank goodness for the courage and professionalism of our troops and thank goodness for the support of the British people.
    Mr. William Hague: Now that we have all had the experience of a nationwide election under proportional representation, is the Prime Minister going to stick to his manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on changing the voting system for Westminster in this Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: I would have thought that, after the campaign, the right hon. Gentleman would have been rather more keen on such a system than I am. Our position on the Jenkins commission has not changed, and will not change. We have already explained our position on the referendum.
    Mr. Hague: Perhaps the position is so simple that the Prime Minister can explain it again. Why cannot he give a straight answer to a question about honouring a manifesto commitment? We have just had an election under a voting
    384
    system that he insisted would not allow people to choose an individual candidate, which people did not like. He justified that system last year by saying:
    "Under the system that we are proposing, we will give away seats … to the Tories—it is an act of generosity on our part."— [Official Report, 18 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 931.]
    What we did not know is that he would put the Leader of the House in charge and she would be an expert at giving away seats. If he still thinks that proportional representation is a good idea, why does he not stick to his manifesto and give people the chance to reject further destruction of this country's tried and tested voting systems?
    The Prime Minister: For the reason that we gave at the time, which is that the new system proposed by the Jenkins commission could not be introduced in time for the next general election.
    Mr. Hague: Is it not fast becoming a hallmark of this Prime Minister that he is afraid to argue the case for the few things that he actually believes in? Almost every Member of the House says where they stand on this issue—the Foreign Secretary is in favour of it, the Home Secretary is against it—except him. Why does not he have the courage either to argue the case for it or to abandon the whole crazy idea?
    The Prime Minister: For the reasons that I have given on many occasions. If we are talking about the European elections, we have set out our position on Europe, and on the single currency, very clearly, and I believe it to be the right position for the country.
    Mr. Hague: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot remember the reasons for his policy, how can he expect everybody else to remember? But if last week's elections have told him nothing about proportional representation, have they made any difference to his plans for a referendum on joining the euro?
    The Prime Minister: No, they have not, because I believe that our position on the euro, which is that the test is the national economic interest—is it good for British jobs, British industry, British investment?—is the right position, and that that is the right test. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's policy, which is to rule it out for 10 years, arbitrarily, is the wrong policy. As I said to him last week, he may well get a short-term gain, but it will be at the expense of the long-term interests of the country.
    I thought that one of the most significant moments yesterday was when the previous hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who was one of the people who had the Whip withdrawn from him under the last Conservative Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. Withdraw."] Well, let us say that he certainly was not hugely in favour of the last Government's European policy. I apologise if I mistook his protestations of loyalty to the last Prime Minister. That Member now says that he is in the main stream of Conservative policy.
    The truth is that the Leader of the Opposition has sold the pass to the Euro-sceptics; they are now in charge of his party and his policy. Whatever the short-term gain, it is a long-term disaster for him and for the country.
    Mr. Hague: Instead of saying that elections make no difference to him, should not the Prime Minister be

    385
    listening to the people of this country? They do not want their Government to be committed in principle to abolishing their currency. Should not he, on that issue as on proportional representation, either have the courage to make the case for the euro or drop his commitment to abolishing our currency?
    The Prime Minister: First, if the right hon. Gentleman asks about listening to the British people, of course we should listen to the British people. Indeed, it is unfortunate that over 75 per cent. did not vote in these elections. However, on the single currency, we have a position that is very sensible, surely—to say that the test is the national economic interest, and that what is wrong is to rule the single currency out in the next Parliament, even if it should be in the interests of British jobs, British industry and British investment to join.
    The right hon. Gentleman has made his position—[Interruption.] I am told by people shouting that his position is now to rule it out for ever. I had thought that his position was to rule it out for 10 years. What a great point of principle that is. For 10 years it is entirely wrong, but in year 11 it becomes right. That is an absurd position. The true principled position for his party actually is to rule it out—for ever, which is what a majority of his party now want—yes. But I believe that, in the British national interest, we should join if it is in the interests of British jobs, British industry and British investment, and that is the right position for the country.
    Mr. Hague: If he was listening to the British people, the right hon. Gentleman would discover that they do not want the Government to be committed to abolishing the pound. They want to be in Europe, not run by Europe. Has it not become evident in recent weeks that, on these vital issues, the Prime Minister is too scared to make his case and too arrogant to listen?
    The Prime Minister: No, for the reasons that I have given. When more than 50 per cent. of our trade is with Europe and millions of British jobs depend on Europe, to leave Europe, as a large part of the right hon. Gentleman's party wants to do, or to go so far to the margins of influence that we have no strength or power in Europe, would be a mistake. He may gain some short-term benefit, but in the long term it would be a mistake for Britain. I will not follow him down that path.
    Look at this country's position in Europe when we came into office. It had no influence, no strength and no power at all in Europe. This Government have had the beef ban lifted and the rebate preserved. We have ended up with the best deal on structural funds that the country has ever had. The true question is: in or out of Europe? The right hon. Gentleman and his party are increasingly taking Britain out of it.
    Ms Helen Southworth: Will my right hon. Friend commend Francis Wheeler, a former constituent of mine and a National Bus Company pensioner, who took the previous Tory Government before the ombudsman for pickpocketing £122 million from his company pension fund? Does my right hon. Friend agree that now, under this Government, justice is being done?
    The Prime Minister: Of course it is. The 50,000 National Bus Company pensioners will receive a
    386
    massive £355 million boost to their pensions. We said that we were determined to settle the issue, and we have done so. We will do the just thing by those pensioners, who were let down year after year by the previous Conservative Government.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: As the Prime Minister pointed out— [Interruption.] We Deputy Leaders should stick together. The Tories have got rid of one already this week. It is a bit like the lilies of the field—he toils not, neither does he spin any more.
    Does the Prime Minister recognise that with three quarters of the electorate not voting last Thursday, when it comes to a real test in a referendum about a single currency, those in all three parties who recognise how important that is for Britain must give a lead and make it clear that, by staying permanently out of the currency, we give ourselves a lethal cocktail of a high pound, high interest rates, high job losses and a loss of influence in the world?
    The Prime Minister: For a moment I thought that that was a late leadership bid.
    The sensible position is to keep the option open and to say, as we have said, that the referendum will decide the issue finally. However, we have made it clear why we believe that it is right for Britain to be part of a successful single currency, provided our economic conditions are met. That is the sensible position. The Conservative position, which is to rule out joining the single currency for 10 years or for ever, is not sensible. If it is correct that Conservative MEPs will not join the Conservative party group in the European Parliament—[Interruption.] It would be a disaster for the country if they did not do that.
    Mr. Beith: As there is something of the holding answer about that reply, I promise the Prime Minister that we will return to it.
    Will he give further thought to today's business—the Immigration and Asylum Bill? If that Bill will reduce the backlog and quickly weed out applications that are not genuine, why on earth do we need to use poverty and a voucher system as a means of deterring genuine refugees who are fleeing from torture and oppression?
    The Prime Minister: We are not consigning asylum seekers to poverty. Indeed, a voucher system already exists. However, it is important that we clean up the system. Many bogus claims are being made. It is not right that we carry on with the present system. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we inherited a mess, with a backlog of tens of thousands of claims. The new system will be fairer and faster and will deter the bogus asylum seeker.
    Mr. Christopher Leslie: What would be the effect on the British economy if Bank of England independence were scrapped, interest rates were returned to the levels under the previous Administration, and the £40 billion for schools and hospitals were also scrapped? Would not those Tory policies represent a significant threat to the well-being of everyone in the country if that lot were ever re-elected?
    The Prime Minister: The wisdom of our economic policies has been criticised at every stage by the

    387
    Conservative party, which wants to reverse Bank of England independence, reverse the new deal and reverse the national minimum wage. It also opposes the extra spending on schools and hospitals. As today's unemployment figures show, this Government have delivered higher employment. We have halved youth unemployment, we have the lowest interest rates, we have inflation under control and we have got the public finances sorted out. That is a new Labour Government in action.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Does the Prime Minister agree that many of the advantages of decentralising power to Scotland and Wales should now be available to the regions and counties of England, and that we should then move towards a federal system of government? Is not that the only answer to the West Lothian question and to fears about the possible break-up of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot agree. We have made it clear that it is important that there is greater decentralisation in the regions. The reason why we have established in the north-east the Northern development agency is precisely to decentralise Government services. However, we must proceed with care and in accordance with the wishes of local people.
    Mr. Steve McCabe: May I welcome the news that the Government are seeking United Nations support for an initiative to ease sanctions on Iraq and relieve the suffering of innocent people, especially the problems of malnutrition and infant mortality? Can the Prime Minister give any further details on that initiative and say when he hopes to see real progress?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that we can make progress soon, because it is important that we distinguish carefully between the sanctions that have been placed on Iraq to ensure that it cannot develop weapons of mass destruction, for example, and the humanitarian aid that we are giving to the Iraqi people. As I have emphasised here before, Saddam Hussein has the ability to help the Iraqi people by selling as much oil as he wants to buy food and medicine for them. He is choosing not to do so. We shall support any moves that allow more help to get through to the Iraqi people. We have no wish to increase their suffering. The ultimate cause of their suffering, however, is Saddam Hussein.
    Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Why does not the Prime Minister simply tell the House what the overwhelming majority of hon. Members and the country wants to hear, which is that he no longer supports proportional representation as a means of electing people to this House?
    The Prime Minister: For the reason that I have just given: because I believe that the Jenkins commission deserves serious consideration, and we should give it. I do not see why the Tory party is so against a debate on it.
    Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the rising tensions between
    388
    India and Pakistan, which could lead to a full-scale war and possibly a nuclear confrontation? What steps are the Government taking to diffuse the situation and to resolve the dispute over Kashmir, which is the root cause of the deteriorating relations between the two countries?
    The Prime Minister: We are urging both India and Pakistan to calm the situation down and resolve their differences. We know that the source of those differences is Kashmir, but it is important that they work out a solution in the interests of everybody. That is what we are doing, and we are also using what influence we have in international institutions like the UN to put pressure on them to do so.
    Mr. William Ross: Given that the IRA is clearly engaged in a programme of street confrontation, intimidation and murder, such as that of Mr. Downey last weekend, has it not clearly placed itself outside the terms of the agreement? Given, therefore, that the people of Northern Ireland always expected the Prime Minister to honour the commitment that he gave them on weapons last year, may I welcome his statement yesterday that we will now have to find another way forward?
    The Prime Minister: We shall have to find another way forward only if the agreement fails, and I hope that it does not fail because I believe it to be the best chance that Northern Ireland has. There are still acts of violence, although I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not mention that there are loyalist acts of violence as well. Those acts of violence are totally unacceptable.
    As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a statutory procedure for assessing what happens in the event that violence takes place, but I still urge him and others to give their help and support to make the agreement work. It has resolved the big constitutional issues of the day and, in particular, it has given the Unionists what they have been arguing for for more than 70 years since partition: the acceptance of the principle of consent, north and south.
    I believe, even at this late hour, that, when people go back to the agreement, analyse its terms and really understand what it gives to the people of Northern Ireland—a good constitutional settlement for the future—they will support it.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although there has been excellent co-operation between this country and Europe and the United States in the action in Kosovo, we seem to be slipping dangerously towards an international trade war that could impoverish all the advanced nations—indeed all the nations of the world? Will he take urgent steps, not only to discuss the trade situation between the US and Europe, but to urge a radical look at the World Trade Organisation?
    The Prime Minister: I agree. The recent difficulties between the European Union and the United States are a serious problem and we have to work hard to ensure that it is resolved. Our position as a country has always been against protectionism and in favour of reform, in the WTO and elsewhere. Europe of course has to understand that,

    389
    as a result of the WTO negotiations, we will have substantially to reform the way that parts of the EU work, so we are as well to begin on that now.
    Mr. David Rendel: As the Prime Minister knows, the Government have accepted in the High Court that the previous Conservative Government acted illegally when they failed to implement properly European directive 77/187 on employment protection. What efforts are he and his Government making to introduce a compensation package for the 2,000 people who have taken out writs against the Government and the several others—including my constituent, Mr. David Atkins—with similar cases? When will that compensation package be finalised and when will the people concerned get their money?
    The Prime Minister: This matter affects thousands of workers up and down the country and we are consulting widely with companies, unions and others on the revisions that have to be made to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. Those will be implemented in July 2001 and will ensure proper protection for companies and employees. I will of course ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to respond to the particular points that the hon. Gentleman has made when he writes to him later today.
    Jacqui Smith: On the day on which Thabo Mbeki takes over the presidency of South Africa, will my right hon. Friend outline what our Government can do to work with the new South African Government to ensure continued economic and social development in that country? Will he join Labour Members in wishing Nelson Mandela a long and healthy retirement? Does not he think that it is about time that Opposition Members, who called for Nelson Mandela's prolonged imprisonment and execution, made a public apology?
    The Prime Minister: One reason why I sent the letter of congratulation to Nelson Mandela today is that he has been an inspiration to the whole world, for his principles and his conviction during the long years of apartheid. We wish Thabo Mbeki well; I believe that he will do an excellent job for South Africa. As for our own help to South Africa, we have a substantial bilateral aid programme. In particular, we have begun to do an awful lot of work with the South African Government and the South African people in relation to AIDS, which is a huge problem for South Africa. I believe that, with the right mix of policies and the right help from the world community, South Africa has a bright future.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: What does the Prime Minister think are the implications of the recent application by the European central bank to the Council of Ministers for permission to double its reserves of gold and currencies?
    The Prime Minister: I do not believe that there are any implications in relation to the strength of the euro. The European central bank, like other central banks, is perfectly entitled to make whatever dispositions it wants. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bank of England has given us advice about gold and gold sales.
    390
    All central banks will have a mixture of currency portfolios. That is sensible, and it is only the Conservative party that sees some great conspiracy behind it.
    Laura Moffatt: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the staff and the support services at Tinsley detention centre in my constituency, who work with ministers of all faiths to create a humane atmosphere in difficult and painful circumstances? Will he assure me that, as good as those facilities are, the stay of detainees will be as short as possible and detainees will be dealt with as quickly as possible to ensure that they go through the system, and that they are not held so that they feel that no one cares?
    The Prime Minister: I know of my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in Tinsley house and the wider issue of asylum. Tinsley house is generally acknowledged for the excellence of the quality of its care and of the relationship between staff and detainees. The asylum arrangements that we inherited were a complete and total shambles, with a backlog of many years: tens of thousands of people are waiting for their cases to be dealt with. Our aim is, by April 2000, to deliver initial decisions on new asylum applications from families with children in an average of two months. I am satisfied that the changes we have recently made will allow that to happen.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Prime Minister will be aware that he and his Northern Ireland Ministers have repeatedly stated that Sinn Fein and the IRA are one organisation. In those circumstances, will he explain to the House what is meant by the suggestion that has been reported in the press that Sinn Fein might obtain its seats on the Executive by dissociating itself from its own action—with their other hat on as members of the IRA—of not decommissioning, and by expressing some regret? What is the Government's strategy on that issue?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know what press reports the hon. Gentleman refers to, but they are wrong. There is no question of that happening. Indeed, my speech yesterday made it very clear that decommissioning is part of the agreement. What I actually said was that, since it is an obligation under the agreement for people to use their best faith to ensure decommissioning, and as nobody will believe that groups associated with paramilitary groups, if they are acting in good faith, cannot achieve decommissioning, people will expect decommissioning to happen. That is the position that we have set out, and I urge the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members like him to support us. We have a critical time in Northern Ireland over the next two weeks, and whatever bits of nonsense there are in parts of the press that are, frankly, hostile to this agreement, it is the only chance of a peaceful future that Northern Ireland will get.
    Mr. Tony Benn: On Europe, quite apart from what the Conservative party does—which is a matter for that party—is the Prime Minister aware that millions of people in this country are passionately in favour of European co-operation and have no desire to separate themselves from the continent, but believe that the democratic control of our own economy is a national interest? They are, therefore, of the view that that applies

    391
    not only to Britain, but to Germany, France and everywhere else. Would my right hon. Friend take this argument seriously, because for democrats to be insulted as if they hated Europe and to be described as Euro-sceptics is offensive and wholly inaccurate?
    The Prime Minister: That is an interesting new alliance. I take my right hon. Friend's point seriously. The position that he has adopted is entirely principled: it is opposition to a single currency, full stop, for good, for ever. That is not the Conservative party's position: its position is to be principled for 10 years and to be unprincipled thereafter. My view is that, in the modern world as we move closer together, there will be a pooling of national sovereignty. However, I do not suggest that we join the single currency unless I believe that it is in Britain's interest—in the interests of our jobs, our industry and our investment. For me, that national economic interest is the test. That is a principled position; the other principled position is that of my right hon. Friend, which is to say never. Those are the two clear positions. What is nonsense, is what we have heard from the Conservative party.
    Mr. John Greenway: Is the Prime Minister aware that, following reports of cross-contamination of animal feeds in France leading to further cases of BSE, the French Government are reported to be seeking a Europe-wide ban on the use of meat and bonemeal in animal rations? When will his Government give British consumers and farmers the protection and support that they deserve, by seeking—[Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I did not hear the last sentence. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Let us be quite clear. I call the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) to repeat the last sentence of his question.
    Mr. Greenway: I asked the Prime Minister when he and this Government would give British consumers and farmers the protection and support that they need by seeking what he knows the British agriculture industry has been requesting for two years: a ban on the use of meat and bonemeal throughout Europe, and a ban on imports of meat and poultry produced by that method in other parts of the European Union.
    The Prime Minister: First, let me say that the industry has been seeking such a ban for much longer than two years. This has been going on for a very long time.
    392
    Of course we are trying to do something about it, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, we have been having our own difficulties as a result of BSE. Once we sort the problem out—which we are: as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Standing Veterinary Committee is meeting today to discuss the matter—we can ensure that we deal with the other issues as well. The course that he is urging on us is one of complete—well, I will not accuse him of hypocrisy, because that would be unparliamentary; but it does not lie in the mouths of Conservative Members to attack us over BSE.
    Mr. Chris Mullin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: I ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber quietly. This is an important point of order, which I want to hear.
    Mr. Mullin: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As you know, I tabled question 11 to the Secretary of State for International Development. I arrived in the Chamber in good time to ask my question, only to discover that it had been grouped with question 1. I had not been informed of that. I subsequently checked to find out whether a letter had been put on the board, and it had not, although I understand that one is on its way.
    May I ask you gently, Madam Speaker, to point out to Departments that, when they group questions together, the onus is on them to advise Members accordingly? Putting a letter in the internal mail and hoping that it will arrive in time is not good enough.
    Madam Speaker: I entirely sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, who certainly arrived in the Chamber in good time for his question. I believe that it is incumbent on Departments to deal directly with Members when they seek to link questions. The hon. Gentleman is quite right: it is insufficient for Departments to put a note on the board in the hope that Members will pick it up. They may enter the Chamber through other doors.
    I hope that all Departments will note what I have said.
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I entirely accept your reprimand. I am very sorry, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and I shall ensure that this never happens again.
    Madam Speaker: I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman catches my eye and gets a little favour.

House of Commons Disqualification (Amendment)
3.33 pm
Siobhain McDonagh: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow persons ordained and ministers of any religious denomination to be Members of the House of Commons.
The Bill would bring about a small and modest reform of Britain's electoral law. It would both modernise our constitution and reduce, albeit slightly, the power of the state. As such, it has the support of members of the three main parties, and I hope that it will enjoy that of the whole House—especially as it has no financial implications.
Why is the Bill necessary? The leading constitutional expert Professor Robert Blackburn has described this part of electoral law as
"incoherent, illogical and virtually impossible for anyone except a legal expert to discover".
For an answer to the simple and reasonable question, "Can a priest stand for Parliament?", we need to examine nine separate Acts, stretching back to the 16th century. Indeed, when the Select Committee on Home Affairs examined the matter 18 months ago, even very experienced and knowledgeable members were surprised at the extent of the inconsistencies in the law as it currently stands.
I shall highlight the arbitrary nature of the present position. I must warn those people who are not aware of the position that it gets incredibly complicated. Some religious officials are disqualified, but others are not. Some priests can relinquish their ministry to become a Member of Parliament, but others are unable to do so. Only certain Christian priests are disqualified, whereas ministers of all other religious faiths, such as Judaism, Islam and Buddhism, are all eligible. All episcopally ordained priests of the Anglican Church are disqualified, but not in Wales. All Roman Catholic priests are disqualified. Non-conformist clergy are not disqualified. Indeed, several Protestant clerics have served and continue to serve with distinction in the House.
It has taken a long line of statutory anachronisms since the middle ages to achieve that absurd position. That is why the legislation for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly rightly swept aside all such disqualifications.
The Bill will not make it compulsory, or, for that matter, desirable, for priests to stand for Parliament. I am sure many hon. Members will have their own views about that. My view is that it would be difficult for a parish minister to be too publicly identified with any one party. However, it is none of my business if he or she then wishes to stand for election, and it is clearly no business of the state to decide which variety of Christian minister is eligible and which not. That decision is best left to the Churches themselves. It should be up to them whether their clergy can stand. As it happens, the Church of England may agree and the Roman Catholic Church may disagree. My Bill would afford the Churches the autonomy to come to their own decisions. It is not the business of the state to allow one clerical variety, but not another.

394
If anyone is thinking to themselves, not unreasonably, "If those people want to be Members of Parliament, can they not just give up the ministry and stand?", the answer is that some can, but others cannot. Anglican clergy are able to resign their orders and stand for Parliament thanks to the clergy disqualification Act of 1870, but that does not apply to Roman Catholic clergy. Even if a Catholic priest leaves the priesthood and ceases to work or function as a priest, he still cannot stand for Parliament; British law currently does not recognise the status of ex-Catholic priests. So, although civil servants and Anglican clergy can resign their post and stand for Parliament, former Catholic priests are legally disqualified for life.
Had Bruce Kent been elected in 1992, he would not have been allowed to take up his seat, even though he had left the priesthood and married some years earlier, because the law at present allows him to stand for Parliament, but not to take up his seat should he win. If people are properly selected by their party and win a valid mandate from the voters, it is simply undemocratic that our ancient law can prevent those elected members from taking their place in the House.
It is clear that we cannot continue to draw religious distinctions in eligibility for election to Parliament. We could be found in breach of the European convention on human rights if we continue to do so. I am advised that the present position is in breach of the convention, which has three separate provisions dealing with freedom of religion, prohibition of religious discrimination and free elections.
If the Government do not tidy up blatantly discriminatory measures in ancient law, doing so could take up both time and money in the courts after the Human Rights Act 1998 is implemented. If my Bill fails, the issue may prove to be the basis of the first legal action seeking a declaration of incompatibility in United Kingdom courts, brought by individuals who have suffered and continue to suffer a sense of grievance because of those measures. I very much hope that it does not come to that.
As I said, this issue of electoral law was investigated by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. In its report entitled "Electoral Law and Administration", which was published in 1998, the Committee said:
"We therefore recommend that, with one exception, all restrictions on ministers of religion standing for, and serving as, Members of Parliament be removed".
The one exception was bishops in the other place.
The Select Committee recognised the clear need for reform, as the House did when we framed the legislation establishing the Parliament in Scotland and the Assembly in Wales, where no such discrimination applies. It is time that we ourselves left behind the arbitrary disqualifications from membership of this place imposed by current law.
Fundamentally, the rationale behind those antique statutes passed away a very long time ago, and those statutes have no place in the parliamentary electoral law of our multicultural society, with its community of religious faiths, as we prepare to enter the 21st century.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Siobhain McDonagh, Mr. Ben Bradshaw, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Paul Goggins, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mrs. Joan Humble, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. Martin Linton, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Gordon Marsden, Ms Bridget Prentice and Mr. Bob Russell.

HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION (AMENDMENT)
Siobhain McDonagh accordingly presented a Bill to allow persons ordained and ministers of any religious denomination to be Members of the House of Commons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 120].
Orders of the Day

  Immigration and Asylum Bill
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended in the Special Standing Committee, further considered, pursuant to Order [15 June].

New Clause 2

  REMOVAL OF ASYLUM CLAIMANTS UNDER STANDING ARRANGEMENTS WITH MEMBER STATES
  '.—(1) A member State is to be regarded for the purposes of subsection (2) as—

  (a) a place where a person's life and liberty is not threatened by reason of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion; and

  (b) a place from which a person will not be sent to another country otherwise than in accordance with the Refugee Convention.

  (2) Nothing in section 6 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 (protection of claimants from deportation etc.) prevents a person who has made a claim for asylum ("the claimant") from being removed from the United Kingdom to a member State if—

  (a) the Secretary of State has certified that—

  (i) the member State has accepted that, under standing arrangements, it is the responsible State in relation to the claimant's claim for asylum; and

  (ii) in his opinion, the claimant is not a national or citizen of the member State to which he is to be sent;

  (b) the certificate has not been set aside on an appeal under section 51; and

  (c) the time for giving notice of such an appeal has expired and no appeal is pending.

  (3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c), an appeal is not to be regarded as pending if the Secretary of State has issued a certificate under section 58(2)(a) in relation to the allegation on which it is founded.
  (4) "Standing arrangements" means arrangements in force as between member States for determining which state is responsible for considering applications for asylum.'.—[Mr. Straw.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Question proposed [15 June], That the clause be read a Second time.
  3.42 pm
  Question again proposed.
  Madam Speaker: I remind the House that with this we are discussing the following: Government new clause 3—Removal of asylum claimants in other circumstances.
  Government amendments Nos. 56 and 58 to 60.
  The Home Secretary has the Floor.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Last night, just before midnight, I began to deal with the points made in the debate by my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members. As I had been on my feet for only about 30 seconds, it may be convenient for the House if I were to start again.

  397
  The hon. Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), and some of my hon. Friends, had asked why it had not been possible to table new clause 2 earlier in the Bill's passage. As the House will be aware, sometimes, with the best will in the world, policy issues cannot be settled when a Bill is published, but have to be settled later.
  I should make it clear that there should have been no surprise that the Government have proposed the policy in new clause 2. First, we flagged up the issue in the White Paper, which was published at the end of July 1998. Secondly, and perhaps more pertinently, on 22 March, when I gave my oral evidence to the Special Standing Committee, I referred specifically to the matter dealt with in the new clause.
  I refer the House to the Official Report of that Special Standing Committee sitting, where I was asked about operation of the Dublin convention. I said:
  "The convention is causing problems and raises a very substantial issue—that of the more effective transfer of asylum seekers who have come to this country and who, if they have travelled by land and sea will almost always have travelled through other EU countries".
  3.45 pm
  I said that I was exploring the question of return with several EU Interior Ministers. I added, and this answers another point that was raised yesterday:
  "I discussed that subject with Jean-Pierre Chevènement, the Minister of the Interior in
  I continued, and this goes directly to the gravamen of new clause 2:
  "The associated issue is whether to adopt interpretations of our obligations under the 1951 convention that are similar to those adopted by, for example, Germany and France. We are examining such interpretations with care, because it does not make a huge amount of sense to use different, and in some cases, wider, definitions than those that apply in France and Germany."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 22 March 1999; c. 468.]
  The matter that I flagged up on that occasion is wider than that which is contained within new clause 2. The new clause, by our statute, would concede to France, Germany and other member states in a similar position what we all know to be the margin of appreciation—their interpretation of the convention. To be frank, their interpretation of the convention is safe, and so too are the signatories and adherents to the 1951 convention on human rights. I hope that answer helps to deal with the points raised yesterday.
  Mr. Richard Allan: For the record, the Home Secretary should be aware that, for the oral evidence-taking sittings and the written-evidence section of the Special Standing Committee, we asked all those giving evidence to stick to material that was contained within the Bill. We thought that that was sensible. It is obviously a learning exercise, and I have already told the Home Secretary that I think that the Special Standing Committee was a useful exercise. However, if we are to ask people to stick to the contents of the Bill, it is important that all matters are included within the Bill, rather than it being left to us to assume that people know about issues that have been mentioned in a White Paper.
  Mr. Straw: That is a fair point. We established the Special Standing Committee because we are genuinely
  398
  committed to wider scrutiny of Bills whenever possible, and I have put on the record my belief, which the hon. Member for Hertsmere has acknowledged, that the process has worked well until now.
  Mr. James Clappison: Guilty.
  Mr. Straw: I acquit the hon. Gentleman of all responsibility for the mess up in the Opposition Whips' Office. He can no more be held accountable for the forces of darkness that inhabit that office than we can, and I have never laid that charge against him. He is reasonable; it is those in the shadows at the other end of the Opposition Front Bench and their inability to control some of their Back Benchers who are the cause of the chaos on the Opposition Benches. However, that is another story, and I shall not detain the House by elaborating on it.
  I accept the comment made by hon. Member for Hallam about the Special Standing Committee process being a learning process. I flagged up the issues as best I could, but I accept that, when we have another Special Standing Committee, we should as far as possible give advance notice of all the issues that are being considered by the Government and that might emerge in amendments tabled at a later date.
  Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) asked for confirmation of the purpose of the new clause. Let me make it clear that the only change introduced by the new clause is in respect of transfers to member states under the Dublin convention. I propose that, in those cases, it should no longer be a requirement that I should certify that the receiving state will comply with its obligations under the 1951 convention; instead, the clause provides that that requirement shall be regarded as having been fulfilled. As I explained yesterday, the purpose of the change is to reduce the scope for unnecessary dispute over the safety of member states' asylum procedures in Dublin convention cases. There are no changes in respect of other returns, and it will continue to be a requirement in those cases that I certify that the receiving state will comply with the 1951 convention.
  My hon. Friend also asked how many appeals there had been in cases where the applicant did not have an in-country right of appeal under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, but had instead what is known as a non-suspensive right of appeal. I understand that more than 100 such appeals have been lodged since the 1996 Act came into force. I have not had time to assemble detailed information on their outcomes. Several were withdrawn before they were heard. I am aware of two appeals in which the certificate was overturned.
  My hon. Friend also asked about the enlargement of the European Union and whether the arrangements and the Dublin convention would apply to any applicant state admitted. The answer is yes. Applicant states cannot pick and choose which parts of the treaties they adhere to. It is fundamental to the process under which they accede to membership of the EU that they accede to all extant treaties and conventions, which includes the Dublin convention and any replacement of it that may come about under the Amsterdam treaty.
  Applicant states must adhere not just to the texts, but to the practice. We are heavily involved in a huge amount of work, monitoring not just the economic performance

  399
  of applicant states but their performance in terms of justice and human rights. That process receives no publicity in this country, despite the best efforts of those of us who go to Brussels to sit on the Justice and Home Affairs Council. The country is aware that there are economic criteria. They are relatively easy to monitor because they relate to statistics. It is more difficult to monitor adherence to human rights, although 1 think that it is more important.
  We are strongly committed to checking and analysing the state of the justice system in an applicant country and its subscription in practice to human rights. All the states concerned have signed up to the Council of Europe and the European convention on human rights, but we have to ensure that they follow it through in practice. We have had to go back to one applicant state—I shall not mention which—and tell it that its police service is not properly separated from its court service. Until it has a track record of an independent judiciary and a police service that is separated from the executive arm of the state, it cannot expect its application to be considered.
  Alongside the monitoring process, we are promoting the twinning of member states with applicant states to support and help the applicants. That should be examined in great detail in Committee and on the Floor of the House from time to time. Such examination would assist us, the Governments of the applicant countries and many non-governmental organisations that are pushing to raise the level of human rights in those countries.
  My final point—I say that in case any hon. Members want to raise any further points with me before I sit down—relates to the suggestion from the hon. Member for Hallam that the differences of approach in France and Germany might lead to people being returned to face serious harm, or what he called the wrong kind of persecution. The margin of appreciation—the fact that a person to whom we might grant asylum might not qualify in another member state, or the reverse, which has been true in the past—does not mean that the applicant will be returned to their country of origin to face serious human rights abuses. The argument relates principally to France and Germany, which have subsidiary provisions in their laws—which they observe—that prevent the removal of people who do not qualify for asylum but who face other threats to their life and liberty. Last year, France introduced a new concept of territorial asylum, which is designed to apply to those who do not qualify for asylum under the 1951 convention, but who qualify for protection under article 3 of the European convention on human rights.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: Just to clarify the point, is the Home Secretary saying that France and Germany have provisions that roughly parallel our exceptional leave to remain?
  Mr. Straw: I think that in practice the answer is yes. I do not for a moment have knowledge of what they call their permission, but both countries have provisions under which, even though a case is not accepted on convention grounds, the applicant is none the less given a right to reside on other grounds, typically relating to article 3 of the ECHR.
  I know that the House has been waiting to hear what the acronym OFPRA stands for. That is the office in France that deals with asylum seekers, and does it very
  400
  well. It stands for Office Français de Protection des Refugiés et Apatrides. For those whose French is not as good as mine, apatrides means stateless persons.
  Mr. Clappison: D'Hondt?
  Mr. Straw: I am glad that we have got on to d'Hondt. I could go on at great length about d'Hondt. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sure that many people would have fled and claimed asylum had Victor d'Hondt been alive. The important thing to remember about him is that he was Belgian. On that note, I commend the new clause to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

  REMOVAL OF ASYLUM CLAIMANTS IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES
  '.—(1) Subsection (2) applies if the Secretary of State intends to remove a person who has made a claim for asylum ("the claimant") from the United Kingdom to—

  (a) a member State, or a territory which forms part of a member State, otherwise than under standing arrangements; or

  (b) a country other than a member State which is designated by order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.

  (2) Nothing in section 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Appeals Act 1993 (protection of claimants from deportation etc.) prevents the claimant's removal if—

  (a) the Secretary of State has certified that, in his opinion, the conditions set out in subsection (6) are fulfilled;

  (b) the certificate has not been set aside on an appeal under section 51; and

  (c) the time for giving notice of such an appeal has expired and no such appeal is pending.

  (3) Subsection (4) applies if the Secretary of State intends to remove a person who has made a claim for asylum ("the claimant") from the United Kingdom to a country which is not—

  (a) a member State; or

  (b) a country designated under subsection (1)(b).

  (4) Nothing in section 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Appeals Act 1993 (protection of claimants from deportation etc.) prevents the claimant's removal if—

  (a) the Secretary of State has certified that, in his opinion, the conditions set out in subsection (6) are fulfilled;

  (b) the certificate has not been set aside on an appeal under section 51 or 57; and

  (c) the time for giving notice of such an appeal has expired and no such appeal is pending.

  (5) For the purposes of subsections (2)(c) and (4)(c), an appeal under section 51 is not to be regarded as pending if the Secretary of State has issued a certificate under section 58(2)(a) in relation to the allegation on which it is founded.
  (6) The conditions are that—

  (a) he is not a national or citizen of the country to which he is to be sent;

  (b) his life and liberty would not be threatened there by reason of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion; and

  (c) the government of that country would not send him to another country otherwise than in accordance with the Refugee Convention.

  (5) "Standing arrangements" has the same meaning as in section (Removal of asylum claimants under standing arrangements with member States).'.—[Mr. Straw.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

  FACILITATION OF ENTRY
  '.—(1) Section 25 of the 1971 Act (assisting illegal entry) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1), for "seven" substitute "ten".
  (3) For subsection (IA) substitute—
  "(1A) Nothing in subsection (1)(b) applies to anything done in relation to a person who—

  (a) has been detained under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to this Act;

  (b) has been granted temporary admission under paragraph 21 of that Schedule.

  (1B) Nothing in subsection (1)(b) applies to anything done by a person otherwise than for gain.
  (1C) Nothing in subsection (1)(b) applies to anything done to assist an asylum claimant by a person in the course of his employment by a bona fide organisation, if the purposes of that organisation include assistance to persons in the position of the asylum claimant.
  (1D) "Asylum claimant" means a person who intends to make a claim that it would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Convention for him to be removed from, or required to leave, the United Kingdom.
  (1E) "Refugee Convention" and "Human Rights Convention" have the meanings respectively given to them in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999."
  (4) In subsection (5), for "Subsection (1)(a)" substitute "Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1)".'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause amends section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 and sends a clear and tough message to the racketeers engaged in encouraging illegal entry—they will go to prison for longer on conviction. It increases from seven years to 10 the maximum custodial sentence that can be imposed following conviction on indictment for certain offences. The offences are: knowingly facilitating the entry of illegal entrants; knowingly facilitating for profit the entry of asylum seekers; and knowingly facilitating the obtaining of leave by deception.
  The decision to increase the maximum sentence follows comments from the Court of Appeal earlier this year. It was suggested that an increase was needed to allow an appropriate sentence in the growing number of cases in which someone is convicted in a single act of facilitation relating to the entry of a large number of people. We believe that 10 years' imprisonment is the appropriate maximum penalty.
  The offence of facilitating the entry of asylum seekers was created by the previous Government. It is not an offence to facilitate the entry of someone who intends to claim asylum when that is not done for gain or is done by someone employed by a bona fide refugee organisation acting in the course of employment. It is an offence to
  402
  facilitate the entry of an asylum applicant when it is done for gain. The offence is aimed at racketeers, not refugee groups.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: How is intent to be established? A commercial airline may bring people in for money—they paid for their tickets—who are discovered to be coming here unlawfully. Where is the distinction to be drawn?
  4 pm
  Mr. O'Brien: Clearly, an airline that is lawfully bringing someone in is acting lawfully. A racketeer who is bringing in large numbers of people without consent, without information being given to the immigration authorities and without permission to be here is clearly acting unlawfully. I am not quite sure why that should be a problem, but I hope that that clarifies the matter.
  Secondly, the new clause amends the definition of an asylum seeker to include someone who intends to claim asylum under the European convention on human rights as well as someone who intends to claim asylum under the 1951 refugee convention. That is to reflect the fact that, once the Human Rights Act 1998 comes into force, people will be able to claim under the ECHR as well as under the refugee convention. The offence of facilitating the entry of an asylum seeker would be rendered meaningless without the amendment, as someone who was prosecuted for the offence would always be able to argue that he believed that the asylum seeker in question had been going to claim under the ECHR, not the refugee convention.
  The new clause, therefore, closes that loophole and ensures that the position of those claiming asylum under the ECHR and refugee status is put on a broadly equal footing in respect of these offences. The offence does not currently apply to things done in the course of employment by a bona fide refugee organisation.
  Finally, the new clause amends section 25(5) of the 1971 Act. Section 25(5) makes it an offence for a British citizen, or a British dependent territories citizen, British overseas citizen, British subject or British protected person, who is acting outside the UK, to facilitate the entry of an illegal entrant. Subsection (4) of the new clause extends that extra-territorial jurisdiction to acts committed outside the UK by British citizens in order to facilitate the entry of asylum applicants where that is done for profit.
  It is in the nature of the offence that, in some cases, the offending actions take place outside the UK. Successive Administrations have taken the view that, where the offence is committed by a British citizen, we should have jurisdiction to prosecute the offender.
  Where the offence is one of facilitating the entry of someone who intends to claim asylum or protection under the ECHR, there will be more occasions where the offending behaviour occurs outside the UK. That is because, in most cases, the claim will be made as soon as the person concerned arrives in Britain. If we are to have the offence—I stress that it is aimed squarely at racketeers who are prepared to make a profit from trading in human misery—it makes little sense to exclude things that are done outside the UK. To do otherwise would allow,

  403
  for example, a British citizen to escape prosecution for loading people into a lorry in France or Belgium as long as he did not help to unload them in Dover.
  Taken together, the measures, particularly the first that I described—increasing the prison sentence—are a small but significant reinforcement of the present penalties available to deal with the offence of facilitation. I therefore commend the new clause to the House.
  Mr. Clappison: We support the new clause which, as the Minister acknowledges, builds on legislation passed by the previous Government. The important point is that it deals with those involved in the criminal offence of facilitating illegal entry. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) is germane. We are talking about criminal racketeers who knowingly bring people into Britain for gain. That is a serious matter. If the courts feel that it needs to be visited by a higher sentence than is currently available, it is right that we should legislate for a higher sentence of 10 years. It is worth bearing in mind that, in many cases, such criminal racketeering is on a highly organised basis.
  There is a suspicion that the scale of this activity is much greater than the number of convictions recorded for this type of activity would suggest. It can be no more than a suspicion because there are no statistics, but there is certainly suspicion that the number of convictions is relatively low in relation to the scale of activity which is probably going on. It is good to have a higher maximum sentence, but that should be accompanied by vigorous enforcement of the law by all agencies concerned, including the police.
  In Committee, the Minister said that he was engaged in co-operation with the European authorities and Europol in an effort to counter such matters. We urge the Government to take the matter seriously. We shall be looking for results from that co-operation in the form of more convictions for this type of serious offence which is very much against the public interest.
  Mr. Allan: I support the new clause. Human trafficking is disgusting, but it often gets lost because drug trafficking or illegal smuggling attract more attention. Human trafficking inflicts misery and even death on the people who suffer it. For example, people brought in on lorries have been found to he in a dangerous condition and some have perished in transit, so it is legitimate for the Government to target the problem.
  There is a difference, however, between offences under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 and those under some of the other forms of prevention of entry. Those forms include the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 and section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which offers a strict liability way to deal with people working illegally after they arrive in the United Kingdom. Both those measures share similar aims, such as to prevent gang masters bringing in gangs of illegal labourers. Strict liability offences do not require the demonstration of intent, whereas offences under section 25 of the 1971 Act do. We believe that that is often a better route to follow.
  I hope that the Government will remember that we strongly support action under section 25 of the 1971 Act to deal with people proven to be traffickers with intent and that, when we criticise some of the other strict
  404
  liability offences, they are not tempted to claim that we are soft on illegal entrants and illegal working. We want the provisions to be strengthened and used more thoroughly in the context of an intelligence-led approach to dealing with gang masters who bring people into the country illegally to work in sweatshops.
  We are worried that some of the other strict liability offences may lead to a diminution in the penalties levied against such people. The prosecuting authorities may go for strict liability offences, such as are available under section 8 of the 1996 Act or the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987—which this Bill broadens to include lorry drivers—because they are easier to prove, rather than opting for prosecution of acts of intent as defined in section 25 of the 1971 Act and which we hope the new clause will make even more effective.
  I hope that the Minister will respect the distinction that we draw between offences committed with intent and those committed under strict liability. We support the greater use of an intelligence-led approach to hitting the real target—the human traffickers who breach not only immigration controls but risk the lives of people in desperate circumstance who are drawn into a web of pain to secure illegal entry.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Human trafficking is evil, and the new clause expresses the Government's attempt to deal with the exploitation of refugees. That is to be welcomed, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify an element of the proposals that has been much discussed in the media. It has been suggested that a humanitarian who brings into this country a person escaping from oppression or torture might be found guilty of a criminal offence under the Bill. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if refugees declare themselves to be such at a port of entry and apply for asylum there, they will not be considered clandestine and that no humanitarian in such circumstances will be committing an offence?
  Mr. Wardle: I am sure that the House supports the new clause and I do not intend to detain hon. Members for more than a moment. However, will the Minister say whether the seven-year sentence has applied since the 1971 Act was introduced, or has it been amended subsequently? If my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is correct in suspecting that there has been a great increase in racketeering—that is my impression, and I believe that it may be the Minister's also—is an uplift in the sentence from seven to 10 years a sufficient deterrent to the professional racketeers that we are trying to warn off?
  Also, can the Minister give the House an idea of the number of convictions for this offence which have been secured in the past couple of years? If he cannot do so now, I hope that he will be able to in due course.
  Mr. Bottomley: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), I seek information on the pattern of sentencing and the number of convictions. That would allow us to see whether raising the sentence from seven years to 10 is a demonstration change made in Parliament or a real change on the ground.
  Secondly, is there any kind of bounty system? If some people undertake illegal commerce for gain, it is likely that others might wish to gain small amounts of money

  405
  for information that would lead to detection. It seems odd to pay large amounts for trials and to keep people in jail but not to use some imagination and some small sums of money to make people suspicious of those around them who may be involved in illegal activity.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the various Members who have welcomed the increase in sentence. Racketeering and trade in human misery is increasing, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said, and we need to ensure that the law against racketeering is vigorously enforced. We need an intelligence-led approach, and, since entering government, we have encouraged the security services to co-operate with their contacts in other European and eastern European countries so that we can increase our information from those countries. Our co-operation with various countries is improving and we continue to work hard on it. Members of the immigration service and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate have made various visits to build on contacts as well as maintaining contacts with Europol and other Governments.
  I have met Ministers from various countries and have visited countries in central Europe and I have encouraged them to take the initiative and to build on the gathering of intelligence about facilitation that takes place through their countries. In particular, much of the trade is directed through central Europe. Much co-operation is occurring, and convictions are being achieved in other European countries as a result of the exchange of information that we have generated.
  We are also trying to disrupt and discredit traffickers. It is sometimes difficult to achieve a conviction because of lack of evidence. However, we may be able to disrupt the trade, and trade is falling off in several places, although I cannot go into detail on that.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) for his welcome for the new clause. Traffickers and gang masters are a serious problem, and we need an array of laws in order to deal with them. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) asked about those who bring in refugees for humanitarian reasons, perhaps those who are fleeing for their lives. The only offence is to facilitate the entry of an asylum seeker or someone seeking refuge under the European convention on human rights if it is done for gain. It is not an offence to do so for humanitarian purposes. Provided that the asylum seeker makes a proper and honest claim as soon as he or she arrives, the person would not be prosecuted.
  The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) asked whether seven to 10 years was enough. We are advised that it is. The courts have asked for an increase because of the increasing sophistication of racketeers coming before the courts. We will monitor the sentence and, if it proves to be insufficient, we will consider increasing it further.
  4.15 pm
  There is clear evidence that because people trafficking can be very profitable, criminal gangs are moving away from dealing in drugs to dealing in people. The people concerned want to be part of the exercise, so it is easy to
  406
  get money out of them. The organisation of those trips across Europe to Britain and other European countries is very sophisticated, and large operations often involve contacts between different gangs in different countries who all take a share of the profits. We are monitoring closely the extent to which contacts are developing between those criminal gangs. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures for last year's convictions, but I shall obtain that information and write to him.
  The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) asked whether bounties were offered in return for information. I suspect that that happens on a small scale. He is right to say that there may be grounds for developing that practice, and I shall further consider that idea.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

  EEA NATIONALS
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for appeals against any decision taken in relation to an EEA national concerning his entitlement—

  (a) to be admitted to the United Kingdom;

  (b) to reside, or to continue to reside, in the United Kingdom; and

  (c) to be issued with, or not to have withdrawn, a residence permit.

  (2) The regulations may also make provision for appeals against any decision concerning the matters mentioned in subsection (1) taken in relation to a citizen of any other State on whom any such entitlement has been conferred by an agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party.
  (3) An appeal under the regulations lies to an adjudicator or, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, to the Commission.
  (4) The regulations may provide for appeals from the adjudicator or the Commission.
  (5) The regulations may prescribe cases, or classes of case, in which a person is not entitled to appeal while he is in the United Kingdom.
  (6) The regulations may make provision under which an appellant may be required to state, in such manner as may be prescribed, any grounds he has or may have for wishing to be admitted to, or to remain in, the United Kingdom additional to those on which he is appealing and for the consequences of such a requirement.
  (7) Part IV has effect subject to any regulations made under this section.
  (8) "EEA national" means a person who—

  (a) is, or claims to be, a national of an EEA State (other than the United Kingdom); or

  (b) enjoys, or claims to enjoy, an entitlement mentioned in subsection (1) because he is a member of the family of a national of an EEA State (other than the United Kingdom).

  (9) "Member of the family" has such meaning as may he prescribed.
  (10) "Residence permit" means any permit or other document issued by the Secretary of State as proof of the holder's right of residence in the United Kingdom.
  (11) "The Commission" means the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 31, 68, 71, 72 and 93.
  Mr. O'Brien: EU law regulates the admission and stay of European Economic Area nationals and their family

  407
  members. I point out, for those who are not immediately familiar with the concept of the EEA, that it consists essentially of EU member states, as well as Norway, Iceland, Andorra and Liechtenstein.
  In certain circumstances, an appeal right is required against a decision to refuse admission to EEA nationals or to withdraw a residence permit. Those rights are set out in the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994, where they cross-refer to appeals under the Immigration Act 1971. We are repealing that Act's appeal provisions, and therefore need to amend the EEA provisions.
  In the consultation paper on appeals that we published last July, we pointed out that the relationship between the 1971 Act appeals and the EEA appeals was confusing and needed to be addressed. The responses supported our proposal to separate EEA appeals. We therefore intend to provide clear, stand-alone appeal rights in line with EU law. Procedurally, however, the exercise of those rights will be integrated with any non-EEA rights of appeal to which the person may be entitled, and the one-stop system will be applied to ensure a quick and decisive outcome.
  The new clause enables us to make regulations providing for EEA appeals in the circumstances required by EU law; defines necessary terms of reference, and enables the regulations to apply the one-stop procedure and restrict access to non-EEA appeals where appropriate. I invite the House to accept the new clause.
  Mr. Clappison: This is another new clause that is being introduced at a late stage and concerns a new matter that was not subject to the Special Standing Committee procedure. The Minister echoed the earlier remarks of the Home Secretary on a similar new clause and said that new clause 5 was foreshadowed by a consultation paper last year, so those who are interested in these subjects were put on notice. I say to the Home Secretary and the Minister that those who gave evidence about the Bill—expert groups, immigration lawyers and so on—were expected to deal only with matters that were included in the Bill. It would have been difficult for them to foresee all the matters that the Bill could possibly have included, so it is a bit much to expect them to have commented on matters that were not included.
  The Minister has explained his new clause to the House. He is a fair man, and if he had been on the receiving end of that explanation, he would agree that it was not, on first hearing, clear to all concerned. It involves a certain amount of legal technicality. I think that the gist of the Minister's comments was that this is some tidying-up exercise caused by other changes to the rights of appeal, in order to bring those for EEA citizens into line.
  We still wonder why all these matters could not have been foreseen and included in the Bill earlier, so that we could have considered the changes to the rights of appeal alongside the others, and so that those who are interested in these matters, including immigration lawyers, who are far more versed in them than we are, had an opportunity to comment.
  I am not a conspiracy theorist, but if I were, I would have been awake for several nights having read the new clause. The Minister told us that the proposal to bring our legislative position on EEA nationals' rights into line with that of the rest of the European Union was included in the
  408
  Lord Chancellor's consultation paper in July, yet we did not hear any more about it—a conspiracy theorist might deem that a remarkable coincidence—until the new clause was tabled on Thursday. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I could have a field day on speculation arising from that, but I am not, so I shall simply put a question to the Minister. Are the rights of appeal of EEA nationals being dealt with in this way to meet the requirements of European Community law?
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Member for Hertsmere insists that he is not a conspiracy theorist, yet the great Tory conspiracy theory about Europe and all things European seems to have raised its ugly head in his speech on a fairly innocuous new clause.
  Mr. Clappison: I am a subscriber to the cock-up theory, which will come in very useful in later debates.
  Mr. O'Brien: Having served in the previous Government, the hon. Gentleman would know a lot about that.
  There has not been a conspiracy. All that has happened is that we have issued a consultation paper on the way in which we should deal with the need to bring provisions for EEA nationals into line with European Union requirements. There is no enormous extension of provisions to cause any controversy. The new clause merely tidies up and clarifies matters, providing a stand-alone set of rules to replace the hotch-potch. I do not say that as any criticism of the previous Government; it is just the way in which things have developed. As a result, we shall have a clear set of rules on the procedures, and those who need to access them will be able to do so. The House should support the new clause and the amendments.
  The hon. Member for Hertsmere referred to the fact that the terms of the Special Standing Committee did not extend to either the consultation paper or the White Paper. In retrospect, that is regrettable; we live and learn. The process surrounding the Special Standing Committee was new. If I remember rightly, we all considered its terms of reference and decided that they were right. It was always clear during our preparation for the Bill that all it would do was implement the legal part of the policy outlined in the White Paper, so everyone was aware of the Bill's source. There was in no sense an attempt to evade the process.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we could consider such issues and, when setting the terms of reference for any Special Standing Committee, take into account the broader context in which policy is developed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

  SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN
  '.—(1) In this section "eligible person" means a person who appears to the Secretary of State to be a person for whom support may be provided under section 80.
  (2) Subsections (3) and (4) apply if an application for support under section 80 has been made by an eligible person whose household includes a dependant under the age of 18 ("the child").
  (3) If it appears to the Secretary of State that adequate accommodation is not being provided for the child, he must exercise his powers under section 80 by offering, and if his offer is accepted by providing or arranging for the provision of, adequate accommodation for the child as part of the eligible person's household.
  (4) If it appears to the Secretary of State that essential living needs of the child are not being met, he must exercise his powers under section 80 by offering, and if his offer is accepted by providing or arranging for the provision of, essential living needs for the child as part of the eligible person's household.
  (5) No local authority may provide assistance under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (local authority support for children and their families) in respect of a dependant under the age of 18, or any member of his family, at any time when—

  (a) the Secretary of State is complying with this section in relation to him; or

  (b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that—

  (i) the person concerned is a person for whom support may be provided under section 80; and

  (ii) the Secretary of State would be required to comply with this section if that person had made an application under section 80.

  (6) "Assistance" means the provision of accommodation or of any essential living needs.
  (7) Subsection (8) applies if accommodation provided in the discharge of the duty imposed by subsection (3) has been withdrawn.
  (8) Only the relevant authority may provide assistance under section 17 of the Act of 1989 in respect of the child concerned.
  (9) "Relevant authority" means the local authority within whose area the withdrawn accommodation was provided.
  (10) In such circumstances as may be prescribed, subsection (5) dous not apply.'.—[Mr. Straw.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Straw: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 15, in clause 79, page 51, line 2, leave out 'or' and insert—
  '( ) is a child who is being looked after by the asylum—seeker, or his spouse, who is under 18 and dependent on him; or'.
  Government amendment No. 70.
  Amendment No. 1, in clause 101, page 62, line 37, at end insert—
  '(2A) Subsection 1(e), (j) and (k) of this section shall not apply to an asylum seeker who has a dependant under the age of 18, but income support shall be paid at the urgent cases rate as prescribed.'.
  Government amendment No. 3.
  Amendment No. 27, in clause 108, page 66, line 38, leave out 'may be' and insert 'are being'.
  Mr. Straw: A good deal of reference has rightly been made in our debates on the Floor of the House to the work of the Special Standing Committee and to the debate outside the House that that work generated. I have never believed in the theory that what Ministers and their officials produce and present to the House at First Reading is perfection and can never be worthy of improvement. Indeed, it would render the work of the House otiose if that were the case. Sometimes the way in which a policy is put into practice has not been dealt with satisfactorily in a Bill; sometimes the policy itself may have to be changed. That is part of the very important
  410
  work of the House. Sometimes, even if the Minister does not want to change the policy, the House decides that it does. It is for Ministers to propose and for Parliament to dispose.
  The work of the Special Standing Committee has enhanced the scrutiny of the Bill. That is very much to the credit of the system as well as to the credit of Members who served on the Committee and those who gave evidence to it.
  I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that one of the areas that came within the first category of which I spoke—where the policy, which I hope to justify to my hon. Friends, was clear, but where we accept that the execution of the policy and the words used were not satisfactory—relates to the references in the Bill to the Children Act 1989. Wider issues are associated with that, some of which will be debated now, and some later. Given the original wording of the clause that started as clause 99 and is now clause 108, there has been understandable concern about whether we are seeking to remove from the children of asylum seekers the protection afforded by the 1989 Act.
  The Government never intended to remove from asylum seekers the protection afforded by the 1989 Act. Rather, it has been our intention to transfer responsibility for providing accommodation and essential living needs from local authority social service departments to the new Asylum Support Directorate of the Home Office. There was nothing sinister in the wording of what is now clause 108, so I assure the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that there was no conspiracy.
  Mr. Allan: Or a cock-up?
  Mr. Straw: No, not even a cock-up. Sometimes, first efforts and second efforts do not amount to what is needed, so things need to be changed.
  If the House expects Ministers to come to this place and to propose amendments in light of discussion, it is important that there should be some good will on both sides, and a recognition—I make a general, not an ad hominem point—that it is easier for Ministers to do so if they are not accused of a cons`iracy or cock-up every time that they make a change in response to criticism in the House. A more accurate accusation would be that we have listened carefully to the arguments and accepted them, as is the case here.
  We have decided to replace clause 108 with new provisions which I believe express far better the intentions of Ministers, and which in particular respond to the concerns of hon. Members, especially Labour Members, about the protection that the Bill should provide for children. The new clause places on the Secretary of State a duty in respect of children—defined as dependants under the age of 18—of asylum seekers. Where the Secretary of State considers that adequate accommodation is not being provided for the child in question, or that the child's essential living needs are not being met, the Secretary of State will have a duty—not a discretion, but an obligation—to use the powers under clause 80 to offer to provide that.

  411
  4.30 pm
  The phrases in new clause 6 are drawn from equivalent phrases in the Children Act 1989. The purpose is to ensure that the assistance provided in such cases is comparable with that provided under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, of which, for these purposes, local authorities are being relieved. Where the Secretary of State's offer is accepted, he falls under an obligation to provide, or to arrange to have provided, the necessary accommodation or other living needs.
  That will address the basic needs for accommodation, food and other support of the asylum-seeking family. As at present, local authority social services departments will retain responsibility for addressing the individual needs of children that extend beyond the norm—for example, needs that arise from physical, medical or educational problems.
  We recognise the care and expertise with which social services departments have exercised those duties. The House will recognise in turn that it was never Parliament's intention when the Children Act 1989 went through the House that the Act should be used, as it has come to be used, to deal with the day-to-day living needs of asylum seekers.
  The local authorities had that duty imposed on them only as a result of a landmark judgment by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, following the previous Government's refusal to provide for any support for in-country applicants for asylum. We can debate the matter at greater length on Third Reading.
  One of the reasons why we objected so strongly to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) mentioned yesterday—I make no apology for our opposition to it—was that we believed that the 1996 Act would neither be fair nor effective. It has certainly not proved effective—which is why, three years later, we are having to introduce a comprehensive reform of asylum and immigration law—and it is also profoundly unfair.
  The 1996 Act was so unfair that asylum seekers took a number of local authorities to court on the ground that there must be some duty on someone to support children who would otherwise be destitute. The noble and learned Members of the Appellate Committee stated that, unless Parliament clearly intended to remove all measure of support from statute, in their judgment, the duty fell to local authorities under the provisions of the Children Act 1989 and, in respect of single people, of section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948.
  Members of the Appellate Committee were judicially interpreting parts of those two Acts in a way that had not been anticipated, but they did so to meet a profound social need. As I have explained and will explain again, we seek to meet that need in a different way.
  I recognise that hon. Members want to ensure that the children of asylum seekers are not treated significantly differently because of their asylum status. They will not be. Local authorities are being relieved of their support powers. Local authorities—as it happens, many controlled by the Labour party, but some controlled by other parties—in inner London boroughs and in some Kent districts pleaded with us to relieve them of the burden of supporting asylum seekers in their areas because they could not cope.
  412
  Anyone who knows the true burden that has fallen on Kent social services department, on Dover district council and on inner London boroughs including Westminster, Camden, Lambeth and Hackney, as well as Waltham Forest and one or two outer London boroughs, will understand why some of those authorities have been at the end of their tether. Fifty per cent. of all asylum-seeker families are being supported by a handful of local authorities. That burden is simply unsustainable, so we propose instead that local authorities be relieved of their support powers and that those be replaced with a duty on the Secretary of State to provide support.
  Aside from local authorities' objections about the disproportionate burden that was falling on a handful of authorities, there was also the fact that, in practice, the kind of support that was being provided by local authorities differed considerably from one authority to another.
  No authority has the power to pay any cash whatever to singles. Thus our provision for a mixture of vouchers and cash represents a significant improvement, as I pointed out on the radio yesterday. Local authorities have a power to provide some cash and some benefits in kind to families, but their provision has varied considerably. In some areas, all the provision has been made by way of vouchers, whereas in others it has been made by a mixture of cash and vouchers. I do not happen to think that that is a satisfactory arrangement, and neither do the local authorities. There is now a clear duty, which will be exercised consistently across the country.
  I understand—although I do not accept—some of the arguments that the level of support is not sufficient, but we can at least now have a proper argument about what the appropriate level of support should be. Moreover, as the regulations to underpin the primary powers in the Bill are introduced, there can be further and more detailed discussion about the precise levels of support.
  I shall now deal with some of the other amendments in the group. Amendment No. 15 follows a similar amendment that was tabled in Committee. As we made clear on that occasion, we intend that the family group to be supported under part IV of the Bill should be the same as in the substantive asylum application. I wish to make it clear, particularly to my hon. Friends who are concerned about whether the definition of "family" includes only blood relations, that that is not the case. It may include minors who are not children—blood relatives—of the principal applicant, but who nevertheless live as part of the asylum seeker's family unit, either because they have been separated from their own parents or for some worse reason, for example, because their parents have been killed. That could include children who are totally unrelated to the asylum seeker concerned, as well as those who are more distantly related, such as nephews and nieces.
  For that reason, although for the purposes of the support arrangements, a "dependant" is defined in clause 79 as the spouse and minor children of the asylum seeker or of his spouse, there is provision for regulations to be made adding to that definition, and it will be so added to. In the light of the reassurance that I have given that we intend that the family group for the purpose of the support arrangements should be the same as for the asylum application, I hope that those who tabled amendment No. 15 will accept that there is no need for it.

  413
  Amendment No. 1 seeks to exclude asylum seekers with families from the new support arrangements by allowing them access to the social security benefit system throughout their application for asylum. That would affect over 10 per cent. of all asylum seeker households. Last year, for example, some 6,000 applicants—a little more than 10 per cent.—had dependants. Altogether, those 6,000 had 13,000 dependants, so the total number of people, and the burden on the social security system, is significantly greater—it is about three times greater—than the proportion of asylum seekers with dependants to the total number of principal asylum applicants.
  To exclude asylum seekers with families from those arrangements would be to drive a coach and horses through a central part of our proposals. We are fully committed to supporting destitute asylum seekers for as long as it takes to consider their applications. We are also committed to that because to do otherwise would be to breach our convention obligations.
  Our commitment goes further in the case of families, although that point has sometimes not been understood outside the House. Such families will be supported for as long as they remain in this country. That includes families that may have lost, on their initial application, any appeal and any judicial review, and families awaiting removal or deportation. Families with children will be supported under the arrangements as long as they are here, but the whole purpose of this part of the Bill is to support asylum seekers separately from the mainstream social security system.
  There are two reasons for that. First, asylum seekers have distinctive needs which are best addressed through the new support arrangements. They generally arrive with no possessions and need help in acquiring living essentials and adjusting to living in a strange country. Secondly, for some people claiming to seek asylum, the current benefit system is a real attraction. I do not by any means suggest that that applies to every asylum seeker, but we would be naive not to recognise that factor.
  It is important in that context to get across again the fact that asylum seekers are people who are in very different circumstances. For example, the asylum seekers who last year came from Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and the former Yugoslavia were almost always able to establish a claim for asylum or for exceptional leave to remain in this country. In the case of some countries, 98 per cent. of people—singles as well as those with dependants—are able to establish a claim. Applicants from those four countries account for 70 per cent. of all acceptances of refugees or people given exceptional leave to remain.
  A group of about 14 countries—such as Turkey, Nigeria, Algeria, Iran, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sierra Leone—contributes almost all the other acceptances. The proportion of acceptances ranges from 6 per cent. for applicants from Turkey up to 82 per cent. for applicants from Rwanda. There is a mixed picture and I concede that some of those who are rejected, either for refugee status or for exceptional leave to remain, have none the less made their claims genuinely and in good faith, although they cannot establish them.
  Another 16 countries accounted last year for 14,000 applications, almost every single one of which was abusive and neither genuine nor well founded. They
  414
  include Eritrea, Pakistan, China, Poland, Lithuania, India, Romania, Kenya, Slovakia, Albania, Latvia, the Czech Republic, Bangladesh, Ukraine, Ecuador and Indonesia. In some cases, virtually none of the applicants have ever been able to establish a claim that their application is well founded.
  I turn to the number of applications that have been accepted in the past. The figure for Indonesia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia is nil, and fewer than five applications were accepted from Poland, Albania, Lithuania, Latvia, Bangladesh and a couple of other countries. The numbers are tiny, and applications from those countries are typically facilitated by criminal gangs. Such people come here partly to make use of the benefit system. No Government can readily accept that.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Allan: Will the Home Secretary clarify for the record that the largest number of asylum seekers—that is, applicants—come from the top four countries that he named: the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia? The largest national groups to whom the support system will apply will be those very groups whose asylum claims are likely to be recognised.
  Mr. Straw: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says as a matter of arithmetic, and I defend the system that we are putting in place. As the House knows—I shall put it on the record—we intend to ensure that families are dealt with under the new system within two months. If their cases are genuine and well founded, as we have adjudged them to be in the past, it is highly probable that they will be in the system for only two months, because they will then be granted refugee status or exceptional leave to remain and will not have to make an appeal.
  My hon. Friend the Minister has ensured that these cases are dealt with sympathetically and quickly, and that if we accept a case, we do not let it niggle and go to appeal.
  Ms Diane Abbott: I have listened with great care to my right hon. Friend's argument, because it is at the heart of his case for the proposed support system. For the avoidance of doubt, will he confirm that the voucher package he proposes is designed to be a disincentive? Is he content for the large number of people who turn out to be genuine Geneva convention refugees to suffer in order for the system to act as a disincentive to others who are merely economic refugees?
  Mr. Straw: I am not saying that. The proposed system is designed as a fair and just way of supporting people seeking asylum in this country. The availability of cash benefits—the provision that we are making, but by a different means—is open to abuse and is abused, as, I suggest, my hon. Friend and everyone else knows. There is no question but that there is a small industry of people coming in and seeking cash benefits at port. One of the attractions is the availability of cash benefits.
  I am clear that the support we provide will ensure that no asylum seeker remains destitute. We are using the voucher system not to disadvantage existing asylum seekers but to ensure that social security benefits, which were never designed for this purpose, are no longer

  415
  available, because that amounts to an incentive to people who have no claim whatever to come to this country and abuse the system. That is a different point.
  Ms Abbott: I hate to quibble with a colleague who is both a distinguished Home Secretary and a distinguished lawyer, but if cash benefits are an incentive and if his system is supposed to be superior to cash benefits, it must, of necessity, be a disincentive. One of the problems I have with this system is that it is quite wrong to have a welfare system that is set up on the basis of the old poor law deliberately to be a disincentive.
  Mr. Straw: I do not accept that that is what it is, but I also do not think that it is sensible policy making to set up a system that is an open invitation to fraud and abuse, as is the system of cash benefits. I remind my hon. Friend that that system is currently available only to people who apply at port. Many of the people who have more well founded applications do not apply at port, because of the way in which they have come into this country. Many of those with profoundly unfounded claims who come in clandestinely, who know the ropes and who apply at port are able to use the cash benefits system, unlike those with well-founded claims. I do not think that that is sensible.
  I also do not think that it is sensible for us to end up with a system under which some asylum applicants enjoy one type of support, whereas others enjoy a quite different one through local authorities.
  On the matter of the poor law, we do not have to look into the crystal ball or in history books to see how a system such as that which we propose would work. We know about it from the experience of local authorities, and I have not heard local authorities say that they are providing "poor law" assistance. Those that provide assistance have worked commendably hard, and on the whole the results have been good. Their problem, and ours—it is a problem in my hon. Friend's area, as it is in many other parts of inner London—is that the burden on individual authorities is far too great. That is why we need a national system.
  I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak, as do Opposition Members. [Interruption.] My Parliamentary Private Secretary, who is not supposed to say a word, asks "What Opposition Members?" In any event, it is probably sensible for me to stop speaking now, listen to what my hon. Friends have to say and respond later.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: I was trying to be helpful to my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Corbyn: I am trying to be helpful to the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Straw: As ever.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I cannot allow two Members to be on their feet at the same time, and I am trying to decide who should have the Floor. I call the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).
  Mr. Corbyn: Before sitting down, will my right hon. Friend tell us the cost of bringing back a social security
  416
  benefits system for asylum seekers, and his estimate of the cost of the system that he proposes and the system that local authorities have been operating for the past three years?
  Mr. Straw: I shall endeavour to provide those figures when I sum up the debate.
  Mr. Clappison: I shall concentrate on the new clause and on amendments Nos. 15 and 27, which I tabled along with other Opposition Members. I should add that amendment No. 27 relates to clause 108, and as clause 108 is to be taken out of the Bill, is probably redundant.
  We are dealing with an important subject which has caused considerable concern to all who have commented on the Bill—both in the House and outside—and to the witnesses who gave evidence to the Special Standing Committee. Hon. Members will have become more familiar than ever with the body known as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in recent weeks, because of its activities in the Balkans. It was Hope Hanlon of the UNHCR who described the arrangements for children proposed in the Bill as
  "fundamentally unacceptable, and even inhumane".
  Serious concern has also been expressed by a wide range of major children's charities, including Barnardos, the Children's Society, UNICEF and the Save the Children Fund, as well as by a number of religious groups and interested organisations.
  New clause 6 takes the debate a stage further. As the Home Secretary has said, it replaces clause 99, which sought to deprive the children of asylum seekers of some of the important protection afforded by the Children Act 1989. The Home Secretary says that the Government have listened to views that have been expressed. I think that they could scarcely have done otherwise, given the volume of concern expressed to them. We shall see in a moment just how much of what the Government have heard they have implemented, but new clause 6—the modified version of the Government's original intentions—is still the subject of serious concern in children's charities and other organisations, on the grounds that formerly applied to clause 99.
  The Government, however, have now retreated from clause 99. Indeed, there seems to be a wide consensus that it was a bad clause. I could say that a political spectrum is opposed to clause 99—now clause 108. Amendment No. 3 removes the clause from the Bill. It is signed by, among others, me, my right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).
  Mr. Straw: The new politics.
  Mr. Clappison: We could hardly get a wider spectrum than that. I will leave it to hon. Members to guess who stands where in the spectrum.
  Clause 99 has now become clause 108, which is to be taken out of the Bill. The key question that we need to deal with is: does new clause 6, replacing clause 108, meet the concerns that generated such widespread opposition to the original clause?

  417
  As the Home Secretary said, the Government's intention is that the needs of children of asylum seekers should be met through the new asylum support system, rather than through section 17 of the Children Act 1989, or indeed any other provisions. Quite a number of statutory responsibilities have been stripped away from various agencies by the Bill, but it is section 17 that is the most important. The Home Secretary said that the Government's intention was to transfer the responsibilities under section 17 from local authorities to the new asylum support organisation. That may be the Government's intention, but we have to ask: do new clause 6 and the transfer protect children in as comprehensive and assured a way as section 17 does and was intended to do?
  Clause 108 asserted that, if the families concerned were eligible for support under the asylum support system, their children could not be given protection under section 17. That created a problem for families who were entitled to receive support under the asylum support system, but did not, in fact, receive such support for one reason or another, which was all too possible because of the rigidities and inadequacies of the way in which the Government's asylum support apparatus is designed.
  We were concerned—and so were many others—that children could slip through the safety net that the Government were seeking to put in place and that, as a result, children and families could suffer hardship, especially children who were taken into care and separated from their families—which is undesirable and should be avoided if possible—or even worse. If children slip through the asylum support system because of its inadequacies, local authorities will not have section 17 powers to step in and to provide protection for those children and to keep them with their families.
  The Home Secretary has asserted that it was not the intention of the framers of the Children Act to cater for situations such as the one that he has outlined. That may be so, but he is wrong in one respect. The framers of the Act, which received all-party support, intended to provide comprehensive protection for children, covering all contingencies; going back to the spirit of the Act, I think that that was its intention.
  Indeed, the Opposition of the day—which was, of course, the right hon. Gentleman's party—sought and received assurances from the then Government that the Act would provide a safety net to protect children and to keep families together, even when homelessness legislation or possibly—although they did not contemplate it at the time—immigration and asylum legislation failed children. Their intention was that all children should receive comprehensive protection.
  That was the assurance that was sought by the then Opposition. That was the assurance that was given by the then Government. I give way to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on that point. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I thought that he wanted to intervene. I may have brought some twinges of recollection to his mind. He will perhaps remember the amendment that was moved by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke)—then the Member for Monklands, West—who sought to include that very assurance in the Bill.
  418
  5 pm
  Such an assurance was the basis of the Children Act 1989, which Barnardos described as
  "a landmark piece of legislation implemented with all-party support establishing the principle of acting in the best interests of the child and providing a framework for protecting and safeguarding the welfare of all children who were on British support."
  Barnardos goes on to say:
  "We are aware that the Government's intention in clause 108 is to only remove families, whose needs arise out of their being destitute, from section 17 of the Children Act. This introduces a discriminatory element into the working of the Act and violates its overarching principle that the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration."
  Back in 1989, the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston, speaking for the then Opposition, said:
  "It is to assert the paramountcy of the child's interest that we have tabled the amendment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 May 1989; c. 137.]
  Today, however, the roles have been reversed. We still support the principle of the 1989 Act—that all children on British soil should be given the same protection—and are now seeking an assurance from the Government that that principle shall continue in legislation. We want there to be a safety net for all children, because no child should go without protection. Labour Members may care to reflect on the fact that the previous Government were prepared to give such an assurance.
  Mr. Straw: I have sought to give the assurances that the hon. Gentleman is seeking. However, is he saying that he believes that the current arrangements—in which the burden falls disproportionately on a handful of local authorities—should continue?
  Mr. Clappison: The first part of the Home Secretary's intervention seemed to contradict the second part. He has been attempting to tell us that the Bill is as good as the 1989 Act and that it will provide the same protection, and we are questioning whether that is so. The matter requires examination. The Home Secretary seemed also to be saying that the Bill will not offer the same protection.
  Mr. Straw: The whole purpose of new clause 6 is to transfer the duty for asylum-seeker families that arises under the 1989 Act to the Secretary of State; but it amounts to the same duty. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that he believes that that duty should be undertaken only by individual social services departments, and that he therefore disagrees with many Conservative-controlled local authorities, such as Westminster, which say that the burden is falling intolerably on them and should not continue. Will he clarify the point?
  Mr. Clappison: The Home Secretary is meandering on to an entirely different path. The issue at stake is whether the provisions of the Children Act—which has been in force since 1989, through much of the life of the previous Government—will continue. Will future arrangements for children preserve the same duty?
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, but I need to press him on this point. We—but also Conservative-controlled local authorities—need to know whether he is saying that current

  419
  arrangements should continue, or whether he accepts the comments of local authorities—such as Westminster, but also many others—that the current burden is intolerable.
  There is common ground on the issue of the duties imposed by the 1989 Act, although who should bear those duties is a separate issue. However, the hon. Gentleman has been dodging the question that I have asked him three times. Is he saying that the current system—in which individual local authorities support asylum seekers without national arrangements—should continue?
  Mr. Clappison: It is a separate point. However, if the Home Secretary wants to move on to the matter of dispersal—[Interruption.] That is the issue exciting his colleagues from Kent—the hon. Members for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) and for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin)—and perhaps other Labour Members. The Home Secretary may be aware that, in Committee, the Opposition—unlike all his colleagues in Committee—made it clear that, in principle, we did not oppose, but supported, the Government's proposal. If Ministers look at the Committee's proceedings, they will see that that is so. We did not oppose what the Home Secretary was trying to do, but were asking about the protection of children, which is quite a separate matter.
  Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clappison: Yes, the hon. Gentleman was on the Committee and he will be able to confirm my point.
  Dr. Ladyman: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, in Kent, the burden of supporting children under the Children Act currently falls on the pocket of council tax payers. The Government's amendment would transfer the cost to the Secretary of State. Is he or is he not in favour of that transfer?
  Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman will remember that, in Committee, we supported what the Government were trying to do and that it was his hon. Friends who had difficulty. Incidentally, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has now found his voice, which was not often heard in the Committee. We made our support quite clear, even though the Government's aims are controversial in some quarters. I know that some hon. Members view the system as being one of forced dispersal, and we have some concerns about the details, but that is a separate point. My question to the Home Secretary now is whether the protection being given under new clause 6 is as good as the protection currently available under the Children Act. New clause 6 is intended to look as though it offers greater protection, but does it in fact merely draw a veil over a hole that stubbornly remains?
  The new clause is certainly complicated. Subsections (3) and (4) are its key provisions, but subsection (5) continues to deny children protection under section 17 of the Children Act. Do subsections (3) and (4) protect children by allowing for the provision of accommodation and living needs? Under subsections (3) and (4), the Secretary of State decides whether the accommodation or support being provided for the child is adequate. Many of those involved, including the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, are highly critical of the
  420
  substantial number of provisions in the Bill containing that form of test, which leaves matters at the mercy of the Secretary of State—in practice, at the mercy of officialdom.
  An even more significant issue arises when we consider how the Secretary of State is to intervene to protect those children who he decides are not being provided with adequate accommodation and living needs. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State must exercise his powers under clause 80 to offer help. The problem is that it may well be that the Secretary of State has already exercised his powers under clause 80 and that it is that exercise of powers which has created the situation in which the child is going without accommodation or support. Given the rigidity and inadequacy of clause 80 and the asylum support system, that is all too possible; and, as the hon. Member for South Thanet will remember, expert witnesses said that that might happen.
  Those expert witnesses also warned of another danger inherent in the Government's system. We all want asylum seekers to be dispersed, but the system is so rigid and inflexible that asylum seekers might well be dispersed from Kent and London, but end up drifting back to Kent and London because of the statutory prohibition on their preferences being taken into account.
  Mr. Mike Gapes: I represent a London borough in which there are many Somali asylum seekers, and I am in favour of a dispersal policy, provided there is adequate support in other parts of the country. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that people would be able to reject the accommodation and support provided in the north of England and go back to a London borough, and that it would then be for the borough to shoulder the burden of their support, even though such boroughs are already experiencing the problems that have triggered the need for a dispersal policy?
  Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee, so he may not realise that, in Committee, we explained that we were in favour of dispersal, but that we were concerned that dispersal without any opportunity to take preferences into account—the Secretary of State will be statutorily forbidden to take preferences into account—would create a far higher risk of asylum seekers being dispersed to one part of the country but drifting back to another. In short, we wanted to avoid the sort of problems identified by the hon. Gentleman.
  Let us take the case originally brought to the attention of the Special Standing Committee by the Immigration Law Practitioners Association as a critique of the original clause 99 and clause 108. I shall quote briefly from the ILPA evidence to the Committee:
  "What of the child whose destitute asylum seeking parents 'may' qualify for s74 support, but have disentitled themselves by rejecting an offer of accommodation in a far flung location? Is the child to be separated from them and taken into care for the lack of s17 powers to meet his needs within his family?"—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 17 March 1999; c. 262.]
  That scenario is all too possible, given that the Bill forbids the new agency from taking preferences into account. The Government appear to have given no ground in the new clause. They have questions to answer on the protection of children and their welfare.

  421
  The Government have ignored suggestions from the Conservatives and others that would have made the system a little more flexible by allowing some preferences to be met. Asylum seekers would still be dispersed around the country to relieve the pressure on Kent and London, but there would be less risk of their drifting back. Local authorities and others in those areas have experienced that and warned us about it in their evidence to the Special Standing Committee.
  How will subsections (3) and (4) of the new clause work in the case put in the expert evidence of ILPA? It is the parents who reject an offer. We are concerned about the welfare of children, who should not suffer under any circumstances, whoever their parents are and whatever their basis for being in the country. The intention of the original Children Act 1989 was that any child on British soil should benefit from its comprehensive protection which puts their interests first. In the case put forward by ILPA, would a different offer be made? Why does the new clause exclude any support under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, whereas the original clause excluded only support under subsection (1) of that section?
  We need to consider the Government's words to see whether they give effect to the Children Act. It is all very well talking about a transfer of responsibilities. Will the protection be as good as it is under the Children Act? In a written answer on 9 June, the Home Secretary said that the assistance to children of asylum seekers under the new clause would
  "be comparable to what would otherwise be available under section 17 of the Children Act 1989."—[Official Report, 9 June 1999; Vol. 332, c. 333.]
  He has used similar words today. The word "comparable" creates a nagging doubt in my mind. The word is often used by officialdom in such circumstances. The hon. Member for South Thanet looks puzzled. We want "comparable" to mean "as good as". We want an assurance that the protection will be not just comparable with, but the same as, that afforded by the Children Act, the point of which was to provide a comprehensive safety net for all children.
  We agree with the Government's wish for a policy of dispersal that works, although not all Labour Members do. We have tabled constructive amendments to make it work. We are afraid that the Bill increases the risk that it will not work. In all this, we want children to be protected and we want their welfare to be put first. The former Opposition sought comprehensive protection when the Children Bill came before the House in similar circumstances. The then Government gave that assurance. We are looking for the same protection. Will the Government live up to what they were seeking in opposition?
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: I shall speak mainly about amendment No. 1. Over the past few weeks, my hon. Friend the Minister has listened to the concerns that have been expressed and he announced concessions on the support system in a written answer last week. His moves are welcome, but I do not believe that we have gone far enough. Amendment No. 1 would be a reasonable compromise. Many of us have serious
  422
  concerns about the proposed voucher-based support system. Those concerns are particularly strong in respect of children. The amendment is a compromise, because it would leave others in a support system that has fundamental flaws.
  I shall deal first with the principle of the support system. Over the past few weeks, the Government have changed the way in which they talk about it. They initially talked about it purely as a deterrent. It has gradually become clear that it covers more than 70 per cent. of income support, and they have softened their approach. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that the support system was designed with the express aim of deterring abusive applicants. That is also true of other aspects of the Bill. There is a moral problem with a scheme that is designed to do that in the knowledge that it will inevitably also penalise the genuine. When some of those genuine applicants have young children, we should be concerned.
  There are also practical issues. Is the proposed system better than the alternatives? Will it work? The Government are still saying that they believe that genuine applicants will not mind whether they are helped in cash or in kind, or what their location is. I seriously question that, particularly for families with children. I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will have comments to make about the effects of a voucher system on children. Location certainly matters. It matters whether young children are in the same area as others with the same ethnic background—children they can form relationships with, play with and go to school with.
  We all agree that delivering the system with the concession that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced last week in a written answer depends on speed. At Question Time this afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister talked about targets, saying that an average decision time would be two months, or six months including an appeal. I am still confused about the meaning of the time scales. I have heard that the average length will be two months and that most cases will be dealt with within two months. That is confusing. Whether we are talking about an average or about most cases, it is not a norm that will apply to everyone. Some people will inevitably be in the system for significantly longer. That is important, particularly where children are concerned.
  I am wary of suggestions that everything will be all right if we delay the introduction of the system. Let us say that the Home Office does not meet the targets by next April and there is a delay. Some of us have doubts about the ability of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to plan for the new support system in any case, but the worst that we could do to it is ask it to plan for that system to be introduced at some unknown future date.
  One cannot expect any organisation to deliver efficiently on that basis, let alone one that has experienced serious problems—even if we are told that they are being tackled—over the past year or two. If the targets are to be met, why do families with children have to be put through the bureaucracy and complexity of the support scheme, with all the decisions about whether they will be supported, at what level and where, and all the administrative costs of the voucher system?

  423
  The key argument, which I have heard frequently and which the Home Secretary has used again today, is that cash benefits would act as a draw. Some of the evidence in support of that has been anecdotal, such as that we all know that lots of Poles or Chinese turn up, get their benefit book at the port and go off to work illegally. The only hard evidence that I have seen in any of the Home Office documents is the statement that the claim is justified by what happened following the 1996 Act.
  That Act took away cash benefits from in-country applicants. I recall that the then Government argued that any genuine applicants would claim asylum the moment they stepped off the aircraft or boat. We pointed out that 36 per cent. of the asylum claims granted by that same Government in 1994, and 27 per cent. in 1995, were to people who had applied at port; they had recognised many in-country applicants.
  The argument that any genuine applicant would apply at port was a load of rubbish; but now we are hearing almost the opposite: that a fraudulent applicant will apply at port, because that is how to get benefits. That is the logic of the argument that cash benefits are a draw. Let us examine the evidence to support that claim. It is true that after 1996 the proportion of applications at port and in country changed. Before, about a third had been at port; in 1996, that went up to 40 per cent.; in 1997–98 to 51 per cent.; and this year, so far, it has gone back down to 40 per cent.
  One might have expected that trend to develop, but one would also have expected it to be reflected in the figures for acceptance for asylum or for exceptional leave to remain. If there were real evidence that the availability of cash benefits to port applicants was a draw, one would have expected the percentage of people who were being granted asylum or exceptional leave as port applicants to start to drop away; but that simply has not happened.
  In 1998, 39 per cent. of all grants of asylum were to port applicants; that is the highest figure in the past five years. In the same year, 64 per cent. of all grants of exceptional leave went to port applicants; again, the highest figure in the past five years. The majority of the people accepted, according to Home Office statistics, had applied since 1996.
  Let us consider some of the individual countries, as the Home Secretary did earlier. It was suggested that everyone from Afghanistan is genuine; 80 per cent. of applicants from there, in each of the past four years, have applied at port. For those from Yugoslavia—also genuine applicants—the highest figure for applications at port in the past four years was 54 per cent., and this past year it was only 40 per cent. The figure for Somalia has hardly ever gone over 50 per cent.
  We are told that China generates all these fraudulent applicants. In fact, before the benefit changes, 71 per cent. of Chinese asylum applicants in 1995 were at port, declining to 60 per cent. in 1996. In 1997 and 1998, the figures were down to 26 and 25 per cent. The trend has gone the opposite way. It becomes absolutely clear when one examines the figures that there is no hard evidence to back up the simplistic claim that cash benefits act as a draw.
  The fact is that the statistics have never been analysed. I have not seen the slightest analysis of the figures from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to back up the claim. One can play with statistics in various ways.
  424
  For instance, there has been an increase in applications at port over the past few years from people from Pakistan. The best that can be said for the statistics is that they are not very clear. We should not base a significant change in policy—it is completely different from what we said in 1996, before the general election—on such dubious evidence.
  A big mistake in discussing the asylum support system is to talk about it as if it were a right, which it is not. There is a gateway, and people have to prove that they are destitute to go through it. They will not all get accommodation and support in the form of cash and vouchers. The Home Office estimates in its asylum support manual that only 70 per cent. of families will get the full package of accommodation and support.
  What happens to the other 30 per cent? It certainly cannot be pretended that they are getting more than 70 per cent. of income support to live on, because they will be getting only the cash and the vouchers and not, for example, payments for heating, light and electricity. There is no reason to suppose that they will all be abusive claimants. Where will they be? They will be living with other members of their family, with friends or with other members of their community, who will very often themselves be on low incomes. We are expecting the deprived to support the even more deprived.
  I was amazed that the Home Office asylum seekers support document said that one of the reasons for setting up the system was
  "to contain costs through incentives to asylum seekers to look first to their own means or those of their communities for support."
  I have searched in vain through all the details of the proposed support system for what the incentive for that might be—in fact, I can think of one very good one: it will keep people out of this rotten voucher-based system.
  I seriously believe that we are in danger of hurting families with children. That is the reason for amendment No. 1. I am concerned about the whole principle. We are in danger of setting up a system which is wrong in principle, which will hurt some of the most vulnerable people and, what is probably even worse, will not work in practice and will end in a shambles.
  The principle and the practice both matter, and we should not support the imposition of the system unless we are convinced on both points.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Allan: I give a small cheer for new clause 6. The Home Secretary said that he wished to see some recognition of the fact that the Government have, to an extent, taken into account hon. Members' concerns, and new clause 6 seems to go some way in the direction that we wanted. I would have given two cheers had the Government stuck simply to supporting amendment No. 3, which seeks to remove clause 108, exempting asylum-seeking children from the Children Act 1989, without then introducing the additional limited powers relating to section 80 support in new clause 6.
  I would have given at least two and a half cheers had the Government accepted amendment No. 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and his hon. Friends, which is a much better solution to the problem of families with children. I shall reserve three cheers for

  425
  when the Government scrap the entire support system and revert to the more sensible and cost-effective benefit-based system,0for which the Government argued at the time of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, but on which they seem to have changed their mind.
  The time that people, particularly families, will be on the support systems is important. The Home Secretary reached for his pen and calculator as the hon. Member for Walthamstow referred to mean and average times. I am sure that the Home Secretary could build the d'Hondt divisor in there somewhere, as he calculates whether a significant number of people will be dealt with within two months.
  As the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, if we are talking about averages, a two-month average could mean that a significant number of people were on the system for four months if another group of people were dealt with almost immediately. A six-month average would be even more worrying. If a number are dealt with at the beginning of that period, some will be on the system for 10 months, if we are talking about four months beyond the four-month average period for the appeal. Therefore, even under the Government's formula and even assuming that they meet the targets that they have set themselves we are talking about potentially considerable periods. There is widespread concern on both sides of the House, including on the Labour Back Benches, about whether they will meet those targets under current arrangements.
  In the general debate about the support system, the Government seem to want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they say that the system is expected to be a deterrent, that they have the problem of people being drawn in by an over-generous system, so they have to reduce the generosity in order to deter people. At the same time, they seem to be arguing that it is a fair and humane system. Those two arguments are fundamentally incompatible. Either it is a harsh system which will act as a deterrent, or it is a humane system which, at best, will have a neutral effect in terms of whether people will choose the UK over any other country in which to apply to claim their rights under the 1951 convention.
  Many of the arguments used by the Home Secretary when describing the support system could be applied elsewhere in the benefit system if he chose to do so. It is very much the Victorian poor law attitude; that the system must be harsh so that only those who genuinely need it will stick the rigours of the system. It is indistinguishable from the philosophy of the workhouse to argue that people who genuinely flee persecution will put up with hardship here, so it is all right to impose such hardship and it is a way of sorting out the sheep from the goats. That is an unacceptable approach to the delivery of a support system. We should be separating the sheep from the goats by processing their claims and dealing with them effectively.
  I think that I share with many hon. Members the view that the most effective way to deter people from making unfounded applications is to deal with them quickly, to demonstrate that they are unfounded and then to send the individuals back to their country of origin. It is the time factor that is critical, not whether someone is receiving 70 or 100 per cent. of income support. The difference between 70 and 100 per cent. of income support is hardship for those individuals. It makes no fundamental difference to whether they apply in the first place. It
  426
  makes a difference only to their standard of living during the intervening period and, in particular, in the context of the amendments that we are discussing, the standard of living of their children. There are deep concerns about what that may imply.
  The issue of principle is important when one considers the Children Act 1989. That Act was intended to be a principled piece of legislation. As has been said, it was intended to be applied to all children, placing children's rights at the forefront of any decision about their future and their support. It was not intended to be selected from at will. It was intended as a platform on which children's rights could be appropriately judged by the courts against any other legislation in respect of their welfare.
  As a matter of principle, it is disturbing to see any diminution of a significant and landmark Act. The fact that we are prepared to enact such fundamental standards demonstrates the paramount importance of children's rights. The Children Act has worked well. It is depressing that we should tinker around or muck about to remove a particular category of children and deal with them differently.
  We must recognise that the level of support proposed is inadequate. There will be problems. In many other areas, when considering levels of support and definitions of poverty the Government have never decided that people are adequately supported on 70 per cent. of income support. Even when one factors in additional fuel costs, and so on, nothing like an adequate level of support will be provided for families under these proposals.
  We shall discuss the actual level in detail later, but, in the context of families, there is a particular issue, which is that when calculating support payments we can already come up with a formula that discounts the cost of utilities. For families, it is about £12 a week. That factor is built in, but it does not significantly increase according to the number of children. The amount of income support does increase quite properly, because children create extra expenses, but the utilities costs do not increase incrementally.
  If we have a system as proposed here, where we end up with a proportion of income support being paid for each individual, we find that, relative to those on a regular income support system as proposed in amendment No. 1, the larger the family, the more disadvantaged they will be relatively. Each member of that family will have a proportion deducted for utilities costs in a way that would not happen for a family on standard income support.
  Liberal Democrats' preference for the Home Secretary's system of support, if it is to come into effect under section 80, is to allow it to be tested against the Children Act. That is what we argued in Committee. If, as the Home Secretary said, the system can genuinely support individuals, why not allow that to be tested? Why does not the Home Secretary have the confidence that, an asylum seeker having been offered his package of support, the courts would reject any claim for support under section 17? We do not expect people in the UK on housing benefit or income support to go the courts and say that they want section 17 support under the Children Act instead, because the court would properly rule that individuals are supported, that children are not in need, because they have a means of support through the benefit system.

  427
  If the Home Secretary is confident that his support system for asylum-seeking children under section 80 is genuinely good enough for those individual asylum-seeking children and their families, I do not see why it would ever be successfully challenged in court, and why any court would decide that somebody had to have section 17 Children Act support.
  To allow the support system to be challenged would be very much within the spirit of the Children Act. There was no intention that the section 17 provisions should be used for asylum-seeking children. Without the 1996 Act, that would never have been necessary. But if this Bill genuinely puts in place a support system for all children, we shall no longer have the problem of successful challenges under section 17. Therefore, I see no reason why the Home Secretary should break an important principle, which is that the Children Act should apply universally with the interests of the children paramount, and not be dependent on a child being in one category or another.
  Another major concern has to be that of the Secretary of State's judgment. That is not a personal comment against this Secretary of State's judgment. For us to base the entry into the system on a Secretary of State's judgment as to whether living and accommodation needs are being met breaches the principle of the Children Act in terms of removing the automatic right and the interests of the child being paramount and replacing that with something that is bound to be subjective to a degree on an individual Secretary of State's judgment, whether it be this Secretary of State or another one from whatever party who will subsequently operate the provisions. We do not know what definition future Secretaries of State will use to decide whether accommodation is adequate and meets peoples' living needs. Our deliberations in Committee left me pessimistic. We tried to find a decent definition of what would be adequate accommodation, and asked whether the normal rules for overcrowding or for people sharing rooms would apply. We were told that the Home Secretary would have his own rules on that.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Another problem with the support system is its apparent lack of flexibility. It may not be able to help a family caught up in an emergency. That is why many people in Scotland think that a serious mistake has been made in the way in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has amended section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
  Mr. Allan: I am grateful for that intervention. My colleagues in Scotland have expressed anxiety about the Bill's application there. Responsibility for matters such as social services will rest with the Scottish Parliament, but these proposals will be implemented from Whitehall by a UK-wide directorate. There is genuine scope for discussion about the interaction between the two systems.
  The Home Secretary said that he felt that local authorities were doing well in coping with the current system provided for by the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Children Act 1989. However, the evidence from Kent county council was that the relevant people there wished him luck in attempting to bring in a system that they had found to be appalling. We were told that, although the council managed it well, the voucher system was expensive and inefficient, and that it caused problems for asylum seekers and their families.
  428
  In response to the earlier comments from the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), it is important to note that local authorities are being rebated for the costs incurred by their additional responsibilities. The Government are proud of the fact that they have rebated those costs in full rather than partially, as was the case under the previous Government. The unfortunate burden imposed by the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 has been a problem for local authorities, but local people should be reassured that they are no longer losing out.
  The Home Secretary seems to be proposing to nationalise a system that has been shown to be bad at supporting children in certain areas. I do not see how that will make it any better. If the system fails, as I and the hon. Member for Walthamstow fear, local authorities will pick up the pieces. If people are not offered the appropriate support package and want to drift back to their community, they will do so. Local authorities may not have to provide vouchers, cash payments or accommodation, but they will have to deal with all the resulting social problems.
  Ms Abbott: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who did such a workmanlike job in Committee, is alone on the Conservative Benches? That shows how little the Tories care about the living circumstances of refugees and asylum seekers.
  Mr. Allan: The lively debate on this and other matters is between members of my party and Labour Members on both the Back Benches and the Front Bench. We share an approach to the solutions that we would like to find, but I praise the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) for his evident concern for the welfare of the children of asylum seekers. I wish that we could convert him to the extent that he rejects the voucher system outright. Instead, he says that Conservative Members do not oppose the system in principle, even though they consider it appalling. That position is not entirely credible.
  5.45 pm
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees gave some important evidence in the oral sessions of the Special Standing Committee, to which the hon. Member for Hertsmere referred. Its representatives accepted that the proposed system in some ways would give people the very basic level of support. Therefore, because people would not starve, they could not go so far as to say that it is incompatible with the UN convention, but they remained worried that different countries would provide different levels of support.
  Britain is a wealthy country and can give a level of support to people seeking asylum that is different vrom what other, poorer countries can provide. However, although the UNHCR may consider that the level of support provided here does not breach the convention, it was clear that its representatives believed that we could do more. They considered that we should be proud of that, and not be grudging about it.
  Dr. Ladyman: On a point of accuracy, did not the UNHCR evidence make it clear that that organisation believed that the support for genuine refugees had to be

  429
  of a particular standard? That point may be slightly pedantic, but we are talking about people seeking that status.
  Mr. Allan: I shall check the record, but my understanding is that the UNHCR is concerned to enable people to access their rights under the convention. They cannot do that without support.
  Ms Abbott: For the avoidance of doubt, the UNHCR representatives made it clear in informal meetings with Members of Parliament, if not in their oral evidence to the Special Standing Committee, that, just as there should be no discrimination between refugees and British citizens, so there should be none between asylum seekers and British citizens. Any such discrimination would render nugatory people's right to seek asylum.
  Mr. Allan: The support system is central to that right. The United Nations convention on the rights of the child is relevant to any discussion of the Children Act 1989. It is unfortunate—to put it mildly—that the Government have not taken the opportunity provided by this Bill to end the UK's reservation on that convention with regard to immigration. They opposed that reservation fiercely in opposytion, and the Bill represents an early opportunity to end it and thus demonstrate their commitment to the rights of the child and to international conventions.
  Be that as it may, there is concern that the Bill would breach article 26 of the convention, which deals with children's rights to benefit from social security, and article 27, which covers children's rights to an adequate standard of living. Regardless of the reservation that exists, I hope that the Government will aim to meet the terms of that important convention, at least in spirit.
  In conclusion, two matters arising from what the Home Secretary has said deserve examination. He said that the duty in the new clause is effectively the same as the duty under the Children Act 1989. However, two crunch questions need to be asked. The first has to do with the gateway under the support system. Clause 80 makes it clear that support depends on the Secretary of State's judgment about destitution and the suitability of accommodation. At present, the courts apply the Children Act test of levels of destitution, but new clause 6 will make it a matter for the Secretary of State to judge whether a person has access to support under clause 80. That will enable the Secretary of State to indicate that he has discharged his duties, but at what level will families be considered to be appropriate for support under clause 80? That is the first crucial question.
  Mr. Straw: I shall deal with the point in greater detail when I respond to the debate, but, in practice, local authorities exercise a gateway under the Children Act. Although they have a duty to provide essential living needs and accommodation for children in those circumstances, they have a discretion about the level that they provide, and that is based on an assessment of need. The hon. Gentleman's point, therefore, is not a strong one.
  Mr. Allan: The Home Secretary raises an interesting question. Do we trust him more than a social worker when it comes to making an assessment about children? Those
  430
  of us who sat through the Committee remain concerned about the criteria that the Home Secretary would apply in deciding whether someone would have suitable accommodation or adequate living conditions. The Under—Secretary has told us that this tough-talking part of the Bill means that access to the gateway would be difficult and that anyone who had belongings, anywhere to turn or any other support would not pass through the gateway. That is certainly my impression and I hope that the Home Secretary will offer some reassurance today.
  The second critical matter is the factors that will be taken into account when providing support or deciding whether duties have been discharged. The Children Act 1989 raises several points about the welfare of children and their access to education and their families. The decision to remove any reference to the preferences of asylum seekers is intended to avoid legal challenges, but we are concerned that access to education and so on will not be taken into account.
  As the Bill stands, a person can say that his family is in a certain place where there is an appropriate school, and the Home Secretary may take that into account. The person must not say that he would like to live there. As long as he is offering not a preference but a circumstance, the Home Secretary can take it into account. We remain concerned about how judgments will be taken about the holistic needs of children, accommodation and basic living needs. Will decisions take fully into account education, family access and other forms of support?
  I should like the Government to accept amendment No. 1 and to stop mucking the system about. They should stop tinkering with a bad system, saving Home Office staff the headache of setting up the Asylum Support Directorate. The staff have enough problems dealing with immigration work. To impose further work on them would not use most effectively resources that could be better directed. Amendment No. 1 would direct resources towards the Benefits Agency, which has experience and already has a system in place.
  The Government should save the taxpayer the additional administrative costs of going through that rigmarole. That might bring some bad headlines in the right-wing press, but it might also persuade Labour supporters to become excited again about their party and to turn out to vote.
  Ms Karen Buck: I am incredulous at the synthetic outrage that the Conservative party has expressed on immigration and asylum. Throughout the past decade, the Conservative record has been one of indifference at best and contempt at worst.
  I sat for seven years on an inner city authority that has one of the largest and most diverse communities of refugee asylum seekers. However, that did nothing to prepare me for my experience as a Member of Parliament. On my very first day, families poured into my surgery. Many—and many had children—had been waiting for a decision since 1990, 1991 or 1992. They included Iraqis, Kurds, Sudanese, Somalis and Bosnians, and the situations in their own countries made them disproportionately likely to have had a valid claim. Some of them had had the most appalling experiences, and their traumas were well documented by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture.

  431
  The paralysis placed on their lives by the absence of an effective decision-making process has made it impossible for those families to settle or to begin to recover from the psychological trauma that many of them have experienced. Every day, Labour Members see the tragedy of people whose families have been scattered across the globe in the aftermath of war and who have been unable to obtain travel documents or visit their loved ones for years.
  We have heard much about these cases, but I should like to give an example to put a human face to the problem. A young Sudanese woman came to this country as a child in 1993 with her father. She has been disabled by a fungal infection of brain and eye which is increasingly rendering her blind. Clinical opinion is that the indecision that has caused every member of her family to suffer clinical depression is a major factor in her absence of recovery. She is bright and highly motivated, as many of our asylum seekers are. This is the third year in which she must defer college entry because there has been no decision about her status for six years.
  The absence of effective decision making has blighted the lives of vulnerable people. It has also achieved the opposite, encouraging people without a well-founded fear of persecution. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) talked about the pull factor. I believe that the pull factor remains the absence of a likely swift decision. That has been the position throughout the 1990s, and it remains the case today.
  Having allowed the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to degenerate into chaos, the Conservatives introduced the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, applying the most crude and brutal deterrent by removing all forms of subsistence from families who make in-country applications and people who have lost their appeals. The courts rightly determined that families could not be left destitute, triggering extensive dependence on the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Children Act 1989. The Children Act should not be used to provide a system of mass support. It was intended to provide a safety net so that families with children in trauma could be provided for. It was never intended to be the principal means of support for families, particularly in the London boroughs and Kent.
  The 1996 Act has left people in situations such as that of a woman in my constituency. She was trapped on the 30th floor of a tower block and, because she lost her benefits after she lost her appeal, the council was unable to move her to alternative accommodation even though her severe post-natal depression led her to threaten to throw herself and her baby out of the window. Her GP and her health visitor documented her as a serious suicide risk, but nothing could be done.
  In another case well documented by the Medical Foundation, a young Arabian man, whose mother was beaten to death by Iranian police who were searching for him, slept overnight at the airport after his plane arrived late. His day-old claim for asylum left him without benefits for two years. He is trapped in a trauma-induced mental illness.
  The 1996 Act was so fundamentally dreadful that it deserves urgent review. The Conservative party bequeathed us a system that treats asylum seekers contemptuously and inefficiently. The new proposal would replace that disastrous inheritance, which has left
  432
  more than 50,000 families in temporary accommodation across London. Poor and cashless, they face a voucher system.
  I have made my concern clear to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, particularly about children. There are powerful arguments about the stigmatising effects of vouchers and the restrictions that they impose on people's ability to shop cheaply in markets or charity shops. No one disagrees that people with no genuine claim to asylum are attracted by the fact that there will be no swift decision. Even when the final decision comes, unless there are compassionate grounds to remain, removal is also not swift. That is why people exploit the system.
  6 pm
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear that he remains committed to the principles of the voucher system. I echo my hon. Friends' welcome for the fact that there has been consultation and consideration of other options. In response to representations about the need for people to have spending money, the cash element was doubled, which was necessary and helpful. I speak as the parent of a small child at a very deprived inner-city primary school who has been asked for £11.50 this week in two separate and, as it happens, perfectly reasonable requests, one of which was for a subscription to the toy library. Such facilities are all part of creating a community in which all children, understandably, want to be involved. The system must include a reasonable amount of spending money if it is to work.
  The proposed single payment system is also welcome for people who arrive in this country without so much as a change of clothing, those who do not have adequate clothing to accommodate the changing seasons and weather conditions and, of course, those with growing children, whose demands for clothes and shoes far outstrip any family's ability to keep up and to pay for them. The restoration of the provisions of the Children Act as a safety net is also very welcome. I commend my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for listening to representations about that.
  Above all, I welcome the serious commitment to investing in and speeding up the decision-making process in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. That is the absolute key to the system. I welcome the commitment not to place families in a cashless system until the IND has reached the target processing time of two months for an initial decision and four months for an appeal.
  Reference has been made to average processing times for the majority of claimants. I again ask my right hon. Friend not to activate the new system until the majority of cases—I suggest at least 90 per cent.—have been processed within the two-month and four-month periods for at least three months. We can then be absolutely confident that the IND is operating at the capacity that the Home Secretary has assured us it will have. The commitments that have been made and the promised investment are extremely welcome, but everybody is justifiably sceptical about the IND, given the years during which we had to endure unacceptable delays.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will also agree that the correct decision to give families priority in processing will mean no more than a marginal delay for single applicants. They include not only people who are highly traumatised,

  433
  such as victims of torture, but, importantly, applicants who do not have a genuine case, and they should not be able to draw out their case. Speed is of the essence for families and single people.
  In the spirit of tackling child poverty and social exclusion, I seek assurance that the total value of the support package of cash, vouchers and payments in kind, such as utility bills, will not fall below the emergency income support level, properly adjusted for family size, and does not include provision for those items that people on income support would not be expected to buy from their benefit. If that is the case, and decisions are being processed in line with the targets, people will be less fearful that asylum applicants will remain below the poverty line in a largely cashless system for months on end. That was our principal fear.
  After years and years of neglect and the introduction of the absolutely appalling Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, change was essential. If we build on the welcome changes made by my right hon. Friend, we can ensure that we shall start to build a new system that offers all applicants justice, dignity and speedy and fair decisions, including those on removal, where necessary, at the end of a failed appeal process. There must be compassion and swift progress towards a fresh start for the desperately vulnerable people who need to be able to get on with rebuilding their lives.
  Ms Julie Morgan: I support amendment No. 1, to which I added my signature to those of my colleagues, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). The amendment would remove families with children from the voucher system altogether.
  I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has introduced changes to the Bill in the past few weeks to create a support system that will make it easier for families with children who are seeking asylum to function more normally. I welcome also his clarification about the Children Act 1989. The Bill will be improved by those changes.
  I do, however, still have major concerns about the Bill, some of which have been mentioned by other hon. Members. I welcome the increase in cash in hand for asylum seekers' families, but I am concerned about the overall value of the support package. My right hon. Friend says that the package is equivalent to 90 per cent. of the support that other families receive and that 20 per cent. of it consists of payment in kind, such as the provision of electricity, water and other utilities. I require assurance that the support package totals that stated 90 per cent. The Refugee Council is concerned about whether the payment in kind genuinely represents 20 per cent. of the support package. Will my right hon. Friend clarify those costings? I know that there will be further discussion of that later in the proceedings, but we need to make it clear that the package does not cause people to fall below the poverty line. There is enormous concern about families, particularly those with children, among many Labour Members.
  Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I am not happy about the voucher scheme being applied to anyone, but the proposal in the amendment would be an acceptable
  434
  compromise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said, which ensured that families with children do not fall below the poverty line. I seek assurance that the support package for asylum seekers will work on the same basis as that for income support, and that income will not be deducted from payments if, for example, accommodation is furnished. One of my main concerns about the Bill is that it will place families with children below the poverty line.
  The Welsh Refugee Council, of which I am a member, has experience of families seeking asylum in Wales. It believes that the voucher system causes unnecessary stress and stigmatism. Wales does not have as much experience of asylum seekers and refugees as other parts of the country, but 800 asylum seekers have settled there, mainly around Cardiff, since 1997. In studies carried out by the Welsh Refugee Council in the Cardiff area, organisations invariably said that the asylum seekers and refugees with whom they work were living on the margins of society and their needs were not being met. They describe them as an invisible minority, who are often socially excluded from the community and who face institutional and personal racism.
  Children are particularly burdened because they are often the first to learn the language of the country and to speak English through going to school, so they must often guide their parents through negotiations. I am deeply concerned that we may be placing those children in circumstances where they may be stigmatised and suffer unnecessary stress because they are part of a family who must live on vouchers. We must accept that those children have often been through overwhelming, traumatising experiences and we should be doing our utmost to allow them to integrate into our society with other children in the best way possible. I cannot believe that making their families use a voucher system to meet many of their needs is the best way to achieve that. I am extremely anxious about the stigma that will result. I am therefore very pleased that, only last week, at a conference at which I spoke, the Welsh Refugee Council and Cardiff county council launched a strategy to work with asylum seekers and refugees.
  Given that, at the moment, children of asylum seekers receive a 100 per cent. allowance, issues surrounding the value of the proposed support system are very important. A drop to 70, 80 or 90 per cent. of support received by other children would be significant.
  I was reassured when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he did not intend to introduce the voucher scheme until a certain threshold of applications had been reached. I would like clarification of the six-month period; it should apply to the vast majority of families. What if we get the system up and running but there is a blip, the computer crashes or goodness knows what else happens, and that six-month period becomes much longer? What will happen to the families then? Will they remain on the voucher scheme for a much longer period? Will they be able to use the cash system?
  It would have been much easier and simpler, and much more generous and compassionate, to exclude families with children from the proposed system altogether. Although amendment No. 1 is a compromise for many of us, it would be a very good move to accept it. I still hope that such an amendment might be accepted during the passage of the Bill. We all know that the vast majority of asylum seekers are men without children or dependants.

  435
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to the number to which the proposed provision would apply; it is only a minority.
  We should recognise the specific needs of children and women. Many of the women have had traumatic experiences before coming to this country—for example, many have been raped and find it very difficult immediately to talk about such experiences on arriving here. They need access to health care and counselling. I am therefore also very pleased that, in Cardiff, we have a support group for women asylum seekers, in which they can talk about such issues. They cannot be addressed immediately—women need access to cash to get to such meetings, and they need help and support.
  The problems of everyday life that families with children experience are bound to be made worse by the provision of vouchers instead of cash. What will be the smallest amount that a voucher will be worth? Problems about not being able to get change from vouchers and having to trek across towns and cities in order to exchange them have been well aired. I know that a commitment has been made to ensure that vouchers can be exchanged in vast numbers of shops, but I cannot believe that such shops will always be accessible to families. What about markets, jumble sales and charity shops—all the places to which we are able to go to acquire the things that make an ordinary life? If one has had traumatic experiences, building such an ordinary life is essential in getting over them, but we are limiting the ways in which families will be able to do so. At the moment in Cardiff, for example, vouchers may be exchanged only at Tesco and at a halal butcher, so great difficulties lie ahead.
  6.15 pm
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for listening to the concerns of his colleagues and others in the House. I am pleased about the changes that he has made, but my fundamental belief is that all children should be treated equally. Children are children, from whatever country, of whatever race, however short a time they may be here and whatever the status of their parents. While they are in this country, they should be treated exactly the same as children who are born here or who already live here. The support system is creating two classes of children because two different systems will operate.
  I know that the voucher system has been designed to deter people from coming to this country. I accept that my right hon. Friend's changes have ameliorated the effects on families with children and that he has changed the original proposals concerning the Children Act 1989, but I am still uneasy about the fact that the Act in its entirety will not apply to asylum seekers' children. Breaking up the terms of the Children Act, which was ground-breaking legislation, in such a way is a dangerous precedent.
  Before I came to the House, I was an assistant director of Barnardos. I know that, through its work with asylum seekers' children, it is deeply concerned about the effects of the Bill—as are all the major children's charities, including UNICEF. Deep concerns have also been expressed by the Law Society and many other bodies. We have made much progress in developing the Bill over the
  436
  past few weeks, but we could do better for families and children who come to this country in deeply traumatising circumstances.
  Mr. Gwyn Prosser: On several occasions in Committee and on the Floor of the House, Members have drawn on experiences in their constituencies to highlight points. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) drew an accurate distinction between her experiences in an area where asylum seekers settle and form families, and those in constituencies such as mine—in Kent and other areas—where people come and go. Local experience changes the perception not only of the Member but of the local people.
  Many hon. Members have thanked Ministers for the concessions and changes that they have made so far, although some of the thanks has been rather mealy-mouthed. I should like to offer a lonely expression of thanks for the basic elements of the Bill, because they address many of the problems and difficulties encountered by my constituents and in east Kent in past years. I shall mention some of those problems.
  Dover district council and Kent county council were suddenly confronted with massive burdens, not just of costs but on resources, which they had never had to meet before. Real crises arose in meeting just basic human demands. The councils coped well and have adapted and set up systems, but they confronted major problems. That is why when I led a delegation from Tory Kent county council to see the Minister, it lobbied very hard for a shift from local authority to central Government spending on asylum seekers. The county council has welcomed some of the changes in the Bill.
  Problems of social tension have also arisen in the community—probably the worst problems that we have experienced. They have been caused in part by a small number of extremists—one cannot call them anything other than fascists—from the British National party and the National Front, who have marched in the streets of Dover, held demonstrations, tried, but, thank goodness, not very successfully, to recruit local people and distributed vile literature.
  Local people perceive that most of the asylum seekers with whom they have come into contact are not genuinely fleeing oppression and persecution. There are very special reasons for that perception, arising from their recent experience.
  Before 1996, we had no asylum seekers in the area; we had never really met them. Lots of people were passing through and going to other areas, but they were not settling in Dover. We had a tiny ethnic minority of less than 0.6 per cent. of the population. I suppose that, as a Welshman, I was part of a certain ethnic minority.
  By September 1997, within a single year, for reasons that we know, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people from the Czech Republic or other parts of eastern Europe, who would fail the criteria for asylum—none met the first interview criteria—settled in the area. Having failed the first interview, they used the present discredited, long-winded appeal system to spend as much time as possible in the area.
  Members might remember the infamous documentary film that was made by some Czech film makers. It was filmed in Dover and shown throughout eastern Europe.

  437
  It depicted a family of Czech people picnicking on the Dover sea front, drinking red wine and eating French sticks, and generally having a nice time. The documentary explained the ease of access to cash benefits, the means of accessing the system and the ways that the duration of stay in the United Kingdom could be lengthened. That had a definite effect. The film was almost as good as a holiday brochure and it was almost an invitation to have a holiday.
  I believe that the message has now got through that east Kent, Thanet and Dover are not part of the prosperous south-east. They are not part of the garden of England. It is not difficult to imagine that someone who lives in a rundown part of Dover—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think that I should direct his attention to the precise subject matter of the new clause and the amendments grouped with it, which is support for children. Although I understand some of the general considerations that overhang the debate, I must advise him to try to tailor his remarks to the particular question of support for children.
  Mr. Prosser: I am quite satisfied with the changes that have been made in support for children, and I would appreciate the opportunity to address some of the remarks that the Secretary of State made in opening the debate, when he talked about vouchers taking away the attraction—taking away the pull factor.
  It is not difficult to imagine that people living in difficult circumstances, in a poor part of Dover, would be resentful if they felt that their new neighbours were taking advantage of the system at their expense.
  I do not want to increase the number of myths and lies that are being circulated in Dover, partly by our local newspaper, but it is true that groups of young single male asylum seekers, who are on cash benefits and make their own arrangements for accommodation, crowd into single small houses and, by sharing the rent and by sharing—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must reflect on his words and realise that they do not fall within the terms of the group of amendments before us. He should concentrate his remarks on the type of support for children.
  Mr. Prosser: In that case, I shall stand by my support for the concessions and changes in respect of the proportion of cash versus voucher support for children, and perhaps find an opportunity to participate in the later debates.
  Ms Abbott: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on one of the aspects of the Bill that has caused most concern.
  We have been assured that, in order to encourage the Home Secretary, we should not fail to congratulate him on the concessions that he has made. As the Home Secretary is not a blushing political ingenu and needs no encouragement, I shall content myself with saying that I appreciate the fact that he has listened to the many arguments that colleagues have made, and that I especially
  438
  appreciate the increase in the cash element of the support system because, literally from the day when I saw that Ministers were proposing to give asylum-seeker children 50p a day, it was my strong belief that, whatever the issues of principle, that was unconscionable. I tabled an early-day motion, which many Members felt able to sign. Whatever else happens during scrutiny of the Bill, at least I know that asylum-seeker mothers will have a little more cash to play with each week, and I am grateful for that concession.
  There has been much discussion in the newspapers about the Government's climbdown on the system of support, especially in relation to children. I have the advantage over journalists and others who believe that there has been a climbdown in relation to the system of support in relation to children as well because, having served on the Committee, I have read the Bill many times over and I know that—as the Prime Minister was at pains to say when interviewed about the matter on the "Today" programme earlier in the week—there has been no climbdown. The system of support remains fundamentally flawed, including in relation to children.
  In an intervention on the Home Secretary, I said that it was wrong in principle that any part of our welfare system should be designed to be a disincentive. The Home Secretary responded that that was quite wrong. All I can do is quote back to the Home Secretary from paragraph 4.20 of his own document "Asylum Seekers' Support", published in March. It says:
  "The arrangements set out in this paper which are based on the principle of support in kind with a minimal cash provision are expected to have a significant disincentive effect".
  That is what the Home Secretary was saying in March, and I believe that that thinking underlies the system of support.
  I put it to the Home Secretary again that it must be wrong for any part of our welfare system to be designed to have, in his own words, "a significant disincentive effect" because that is a return to the thinking of the poor law, and it is thinking on welfare rights which this society left behind a century ago.
  Colleagues—especially Ministers—have talked about the support system as though it is merely an alternative form of income support. The argument that I have advanced against the support system, and particularly against including children within the scope of the support system, is that it is quite different from income support, as colleagues have said.
  First, the judgments that will be made by the new support directorate are entirely subjective. Clause 84 says:
  "The Secretary of State may provide … support for"
  persons
  "who it appears to the Secretary of State may be destitute."
  Hon. Friends might think that I am quibbling over words, but anyone who has battled with the social security system over a constituent's rights knows how much social security and welfare administrators can make of the precise wording of the Bill. The Bill offers no rights. It simply says:
  "The Secretary of State may provide … for"
  people
  "who it appears … may be destitute."

  439
  The support system gives rise to no sense of entitlement. It depends on a series of subjective judgments, one of which is encapsulated in clause 83, which says that the Secretary of State must take into account when persons apply for support whether there is
  "support (or assets) which … might reasonably be expected to be, otherwise available to the person"—
  not that they are in receipt of that support or those assets, but that there is
  "support (or assets) which … might reasonably be expected to be, otherwise available".
  In my view, that opens a very wide doorway for the assiduous immigration and nationality benefits clerk to deny benefits and support to persons who are currently my constituents.
  As for assets, I took care in Committee to question the Minister about what he meant by "assets". I asked him whether he meant that women asylum seekers might be required to sell their jewellery and their rings, and the Minister said that that was exactly what he meant.
  We are not discussing a system that parallels the income support system but will simply be administered by different people; we are considering a system that is subjective and discretionary, and which has a series of loopholes into which, I fear, many deserving people may slip.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish to mislead the House. I said various other things, including the fact that we were not seeking to obtain people's wedding rings or their personal jewellery. However, certain communities hold considerable wealth in jewellery and gold. If I remember correctly, I referred to someone whom I had met who had £4,000 in gold with her when she arrived. I said that she certainly should not be regarded as destitute. Perhaps my hon. Friend would wish to qualify what she said.
  Ms Abbott: The Minister is aware that he did not rule out people being obliged to sell their jewellery.
  Mr. Straw: I cannot let my hon. Friend continue. She knows that under the existing social security arrangements, someone who has £4,000 in gold or jewellery will be required to sell that. Is she suggesting that she or the House has ever suggested that those rules should be changed so that people can transfer their cash wealth into jewellery, keep it on their wrists, and thereby abuse the social security system? Is that what she is proposing? If not, there is no disagreement whatever between what she is saying and what my hon. Friend the Minister said.
  Ms Abbott: The fundamental disagreement between us about the Bill centres on the amount of discretion that it gives to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the new support system. If the Bill stated that a person with assets worth £4,000 or more—or even £3,000 or more, as the income support system stipulates—was not entitled to support, I could not argue with that. However, all the Bill states is that support can be denied to people who have
  "support (or assets) which … might reasonably be expected to be, otherwise available".
  440
  In 12 years of dealing with the social security system, I have seen deserving people denied benefits because of lesser loopholes than that.
  Mr. Allan: With reference to the social security parallel, does the hon. Lady recall that the £3,000 asset limit that exists in the social security system was proposed in the Standing Committee and fiercely rejected by the Government, with the clear implication that they intended to go well below the £3,000 limit on assets?
  Ms Abbott: Indeed. As I said earlier to the Minister, if the Bill specified the amount of assets that the Government had in mind, no one could argue with that, but the Bill merely refers to
  "support (or assets) which … might reasonably be expected to be, otherwise available".
  We are not dealing with another form of income support simply managed by a different section of Government. We are dealing with a system of support that presupposes that people should turn to their family and community, and under which support will be available only on the basis of a series of subjective judgments. The checks and safeguards built into our income support system, specifying the amount that can be held in assets which would prevent people from having to sell jewellery or assets that have personal or family significance, are not part of the Bill.
  The proposed system is not an alternative to income support in its underlying principles or in its value. Colleague after colleague has asked Ministers about the value. I wait with interest to hear what Ministers will say.
  Meanwhile, the Home Secretary's document, "Asylum Seekers' Support," which was published in March 1999, helpfully sets out the value of the support system. It states:
  "The proposed provision is set at 70 per cent."
  Even more helpfully, it explains why provision is set at only 70 per cent.—it is
  "because the interests of the taxpayer must be kept in mind."
  The same document contains a table, for the avoidance of doubt about whether people are to be given the equivalent of income support or forced to live below the poverty line. The table shows that a single adult aged 25 or more on income support receives £50.35. Under the Home Secretary's new support system, that person would get £35.25. A couple aged 18 or more on income support gets £79. Under the Home Secretary's support system, the total package in vouchers and cash would be worth £55.30. I could go on.
  For much of the debate, we have been bandying about percentages, but when we compare the cash equivalent, including the food vouchers, in the Home Office document to the income support cash equivalent, it is clear how far the support system falls short. Since the document was published, Ministers have started to row back. They argue that the sums do not take into account utilities and so forth, but the Refugee Council said that there is no way that the cost of utilities built into the housing package offered under the support system makes up the difference between the value of that and income support.
  It cannot be right that any section of the welfare system should be deliberately designed to be so humiliating to obtain and so substantially below the poverty line. The Home Secretary indicates by his body language that

  441
  he does not believe that the support was humiliating to obtain. Fortunately, with the voucher system, we do not have to look into the crystal ball—we can read the book.
  Thanks to cuts by previous Governments, there are already refugees and asylum seekers in receipt of vouchers. We know that people queueing up in supermarket queues with vouchers are stigmatised. We know that their children are called voucher children. We know that the system carries a built-in stigma.
  I also know that in Hackney or Stoke Newington, the only place where people can cash their vouchers is Tesco in Mare street, which means that they must walk from Stoke Newington to Mare street. Ministers have assured me that, under the new system, vouchers will not be so restrictive, but I would be much happier if we had more details about the running of the system. We know the current problems of the voucher system, and we know from what Ministers have stated in their document that the national voucher system that they propose is designed to be "a significant disincentive".
  As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I welcome the fact that at least asylum-seeker mothers will have a little more cash in hand to spend on their children, but it is important that the House does not lose sight of the fact that the overall value of the package has not been raised. Mothers will have a little more cash, but fewer food vouchers.
  Let us move away from the vexed question of the value of the system—Ministers are at pains to assure us that what they said in March is no longer true, in the light of insistent representations from colleagues—and consider how the system will work, and whether it will provide the sort of welfare system that we would want for our own families and children.
  Let us pause and consider who will administer the system—the people at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. They are the people who have lost passports and whose department in Croydon is in chaos. Ministers are asking the House to contemplate a support system being run by people who cannot manage the system that it is currently in their power to run. Is that designed to inspire confidence in hon. Members?
  I have raised the question with Ministers from the outset, and they always ask what I would do. Let me tell them. We had perfectly good manifesto commitments on appeal rights for visitor visas. I would have passed a short Bill to meet the manifesto commitments and spent the intervening time reforming Lunar house in Croydon. Before moving to such a huge, composite Bill and the rickety system of support, through which I am confident many people will fall, I would reform Lunar house and examine the management ethos, the training and the organisational problems in the department. Even if the Bill were not fatally flawed, there would still not be proper system support from the people who are supposed to run it.
  This support system is not appropriate for anyone as we approach the millennium, and it is certainly not appropriate for families with children. I could detain the House by discussing many of the precise features of the Bill, which, as anyone who knows anything about how our social security system works knows, set up all types of loopholes through which people can fall.
  442
  Ministers say that if they accepted the amendment, 13,000 people with children would have to go back on income support, which would be a terrible burden and abuses would occur. I cannot believe that in what is still one of the richest countries in Europe, as we approach the millennium it is too much politically and economically to offer to some 20,000 asylum-seeker families the same level and type of welfare that is currently available to British citizens.
  The support system is wrong in principle. Although I commend the Home Secretary for making concessions, they do not alter the underlying principle of the support system, which is based on subjective judgments and is designed to be a disincentive. Moreover, the system will not work because it will run side by side with a system of forced dispersal. One wonders why Ministers go to the Home Office and repeat the mistakes of their predecessors. Forced dispersal did not work with the Vietnamese or the East African Asians, and ad hoc dispersal by local authorities is not working now. Local authorities send people away from their areas, but the people scramble back because they have hardly any cash and want to be with other people they know and who speak their language. They might also want to be near their mosque.
  A system of forced dispersal together with the proposed support system simply will not work. Far from my borough of Hackney being relieved of the burden of supporting asylum seekers, it will have broadly the same population of asylum seekers, but a substantial proportion, having fled from areas to which they have been forced to disperse, will be in our midst with no proper means of support.
  Amendment No. 1, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), is excellent and I hope that, even at this late stage, Ministers will accept it. If they cannot, I hope that Members in another place reading this debate will see that the bulk of hon. Members in this House realise the dangers of the support system. Asylum seekers have no one to speak for them, but they look to the Government to make a substantial amendment to the support system to save the Government from themselves.
  Mr. Alan Simpson: Although I support amendment No. 1, I wish to pay tribute to the Home Secretary. I hope that my tribute is not regarded as mealy mouthed because my right hon. Friend has been extremely generous with his time, his attention and his willingness to engage in arguments that were at odds with the way in which he has been required to frame the Bill. I only wish that he had had the freedom to approach some of the fundamental problems that are still enshrined in the Bill in a different way, and perhaps within a different time scale.
  6.45 pm
  I shall set my comments in the context of what is happening outside this place and what has happened in my life. Although Britain has to deal with the problem of increased numbers of refugees and asylum seekers, we would be deceiving ourselves to pretend that Britain is their leading provider of succour and sanctuary. Many of our European colleagues have taken a larger share, at a greater cost, of the responsibilities that are to be borne in accepting refugees. That needs to be acknowledged.

  443
  The personal side of this matter is that, before coming to this House, I spent more than a dozen years working in race relations and on anti-racist issues. One of my most profound experiences was when I was working with European anti-racist movements and spent a brief period working in Rostock after the four days of rioting and attacks by neo-Nazi gangs on the blocks of flats on the Lichtenhagen estate that housed refugees and asylum seekers. It was devastating to see how indiscriminate the brutality was to adults and children alike. It was perpetrated against a community that was already vulnerable and traumatised, but that, with the best will in the world, had been left isolated and stigmatised within the estate.
  That experience made me extremely cautious of any policy that separated one family from another, or one type of child from another. It is important that we retreat from that prospect whenever we can. I echo the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) that if we are genuinely committed to an inclusive society, we must start with the inclusion of all children, irrespective of race, ethnic origin and the status with which they arrived in this country.
  It is the principle of the voucher status that we propose to attach to refugee children and their families that troubles me most profoundly. I understand the arguments that underpin that: that introducing a voucher regime will make the regime tougher, have a deterrent effect and help to reduce fraud. However, the more that I have thought those arguments through, the less credible they appear to be.
  On deterrence, we must address the question of why people flee in the first place. The last thought in refugees' minds is whether they are fleeing to somewhere with a cash-based or a voucher-based system of support. The overriding reason why people flee is because they are afraid—of persecution, disaster and destitution. It is an insult to the House and to wider society if we sign up to the presumption that lurking hordes of potential refugees are hiding in the forests and on the hillsides of Kosovo, tuned into their radios waiting to hear the benefit uprating from the Secretary of State here. Do we imagine that they will suddenly shout out, "It's not enough. We're not coming", thus sending the Treasury officials into a huddle and making them agree, "Okay. We'll raise it a bit more"? Or that we then wait until they arrive and say, "See? We told you so"? That makes no sense at all.
  If one talks to families who have fled here, they tell of the trauma in their family lives and in the communities that they understood and were part of. They tell of how difficult it is to put down roots with which they feel safe. The idea that a voucher system acts as a deterrent is nonsense in terms of the causes of flight.
  On fraud, does it help the Government or society to deal with fraud in the benefit system by introducing a separate regime for refugees and asylum seekers that is voucher-driven? It is a retreat from any joined-up thinking process to say that that helps us move in an appropriate direction. There is fraud in the benefit system, but were we to suggest that we put everyone who is currently on benefits on vouchers, we would quickly realise how absurd and unworkable that was. [Interruption.] I am cautioned not to give anyone ideas, but I mentioned that only because I am convinced that we could not possibly be going down such a path.
  444
  A voucher system providing less than income support is more likely to increase fraud than to reduce it. We in the House need to remind ourselves that income support levels were calculated and defined as financial survival levels—the breadline. How can we say to people that they have to feed their children while living at 70 or 90 per cent. of the breadline level, and do it legitimately? I do not know how to explain how they are supposed to do that.
  We have defined survival level; if we ask people to live on less than that, how will they survive legitimately? The answer is that they probably do not do so. If they are to survive, they may be forced to do so illegitimately. The danger is that they will be pushed to do so by precisely the measures that we propose to introduce to meet the problem of the system being defrauded. It would be a tragedy if we ended up with a regime that ran the risk of criminalising those whom we have first stigmatised.
  Mr. Allan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the evidence that we already have of existing fraud in the voucher systems that have been set up under the National Assistance Act 1948? People are trading vouchers on the black market, so they receive less of the value and vouchers circulate in odd ways that were never intended.
  Mr. Simpson: I am aware of that and I will come on to it in a moment, but I want to address other aspects of a system that builds in new and additional bureaucratic complications. This will increase the opportunities and invitations to commit fraud. Asking the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to administer such a voucher system seems to be to be a flirtation with another disaster.
  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary because they have been directly and personally involved in trying to sort out the mess that is currently the IND. It is, however, bizarre to suggest that the IND should take on the responsibilities involved in running a voucher system. Many Members would settle for a commitment for it to run a "we will answer your letters" system. That is where we are stranded at the moment. Putting a voucher system on top of that chaos could create an awful mess.
  People retreat from any system that stigmatises them. There is already enough evidence of such stigmatisation, in the way people are treated when they present vouchers. Various Members have said, "Look, that is not the case. If you go into a supermarket today, there will be people in the queue with vouchers from the supermarket magazine and vouchers from The Sun. One more voucher will not make any difference." However, organisations that support refugee communities could tell hon. Members of the harassment and stigmatisation that refugees currently experience. We ought to be learning the lessons of the downside of this drift into vouchers and be looking for ways of reversing it, rather than looking for ways of extending and entrenching the system.
  Vouchers also create subcultures of exclusion, and in those subcultures it will be easier to perpetrate other forms of fraud. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said that there is an illicit trade in vouchers. I hope I do not shock my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, or any other Member, by pointing out that it is easier to forge a voucher than a fiver. There will be those

  445
  who feel that the value of their voucher fails to reflect what it takes to feed their family, and some enterprising souls will almost certainly produce their own vouchers.
  The Treasury regularly consults monetary indicators such as MO, and the amount of money in circulation, but we are seriously risking the prospect of having to introduce a new monetary measure—V0, the number of vouchers in circulation. If we ask people to live below the poverty line, their responsibility as parents to feed their children probably overrides all else. That will be their priority, and it will drive some into attempting to forge vouchers. If we have blocked off ways of allowing people to survive legitimately, we will not be able to detach ourselves from being responsible for pushing them into having to survive illegitimately.
  My fear is that not only will we get into a mess with the administration of the system, but the blame will be carried by the people who are already the principal victims of persecution, fear and flight. It will serve only to reinforce all the stereotypes attached to the position and treatment of refugees and asylum seekers in this society.
  I suggest that one of the most obvious abuses of the existing system is not the number of people who band together to share the costs of a house, but the massive exploitation by private landlords of people whom they can overcrowd. We went through that in the period of Rachmanism. This country faced a bigger, one-off crisis when we had to deal with the forced flight of Ugandan Asian refugees. I am old enough to have been around when we were forced to make our own preparations and calculations for dealing with those refugees, and I can tell the House what we were able to do.
  A large amount of centrally determined cash was deployed nationally, through housing associations and local authorities, to ensure that we had accommodation available that was capable of receiving the refugees. Those measures, at least in theory, recognised that we could not ask London and the south-east to carry a disproportionate burden when society as a whole should have been taking responsibility for the refugees.
  That is the other direction in which we could and should be going. We should strengthen lines of local, social accountability. We should not ask people to carry disproportionate costs or shares of the burden. We should adopt mechanisms that allow local authorities and local communities to play a constructive part in minimising the traumatic upheavals that asylum seekers and refugees have to face.
  I am saddened that the Bill almost hangs or falls on a massive error of judgment. We are in danger of pursuing a mechanism that will entrench the stigmatisation of refugees and asylum seekers and of pushing the destitute and the poorest of people into living below the breadline. That is the bottom line of the financial figures that we are being offered. It would inevitably create fears such as those that I encountered in the lives of the people who were attacked in Rostock. I fear that a playground for the far right, and a breeding ground for racist prejudices, may be created, leading to further persecution and isolation of those communities.
  We set ourselves benchmarks when we came into office. One of those of which I felt proudest was the commitment to build a genuinely inclusive and
  446
  non-discriminatory society. I simply say to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in friendship, that I do not believe it is possible to achieve this through the proposed voucher system.
  7 pm
  Ms Oona King: I begin by welcoming some of the concessions that the Government have made on the support arrangements, especially with regard to children. I tabled an amendment in Committee that provided that the support arrangements would not continue if an asylum seeker did not have his claim determined within six months. Another amendment was tabled that provided that the support arrangements would not be introduced until the Government had reached their targets. Amendment No. 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), would provide that the support arrangements should not apply to asylum seekers with children.
  The Government's compromise takes into account both those elements: the time that it takes to determine a case, and the removal of families with children from the support arrangements until the Home Office determines claims within its initial target period of two months. That throws up many questions.
  What constitutes a target? Is it an average or a mean? How can we ensure that, once the targets are in place, we do not revert to the current lamentable state of affairs in which initial decisions, instead of taking two months, take 20 months? I hope that the Government will succeed: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be successful. However, in case he is not, I should have liked an assurance that any asylum seeker—not just children—would be protected from being dealt with under a system substantially harsher than the current one until the Government have reached their targets.
  I should like to raise an issue that I mentioned in my maiden speech, about which I feel strongly. We are discussing support arrangements for children. It has always struck me as strange that, if a 17-year-old who has been appallingly treated comes to this country, we say how terrible their situation is, whereas if someone is 19, 20 or older, we tend behave as if that did not matter—and, as a result of the present proposals, such people will inevitably be put to the back of the queue while others are fast-tracked. I understand the need for that, but surely the Government could agree not to introduce these support arrangements until they meet their targets. I do not think that that is too much to ask, and I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will agree to reconsider this matter in the other place.
  My concern is that these measures, such as they are, will protect the 10 per cent. of asylum seekers who have dependants, but will do nothing for the 90 per cent. who do not. I have a great problem with that, if we take the 90 per cent. income support level as beneath the poverty line.
  I welcome the fact that the Government have significantly increased the cash component, but, notwithstanding that, there are problems relating to the nature of the voucher system. We are asking people to live on less than anyone else in the entire country, but we are preventing them from shopping in the cheapest places. If a mother has to buy some new socks for her child, she can get a pair for about £1.50 in Sainsburys in Whitechapel in my

  447
  constituency, where her voucher will be accepted. If she came out of Sainsburys and walked 20 yards across the street to Whitechapel market, she could get a pair of socks for her children for about 40p—but her vouchers will not be accepted there, so they will be worthless.
  We are expecting these mothers to look after their children at a cost that we do not inflict on other people in Britain. I hope that Ministers will think about that when they consider the other proposals—including the size of the one-off cash payment to be paid after six months so that parents can provide for their children, and so that utensils which may or may not have been provided, and clothes which may or may not have worn out, and which may or may not have been appropriate for the British climate when people arrived in this country in the first place, can be replaced.
  My understanding of what the Home Secretary said is that there will be a one-off payment of approximately £50—that would naturally be in addition—for the six months. That is about £2 per week per asylum seeker, or 30p a day. I hope that that could be at least doubled: I gather that the figure of £100 per person is also under consideration. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider that matter.
  I want to direct my remarks to the 90 per cent. income support package. I am grateful that the Government have acknowledged that the support package that they provide must be the equivalent of 90 per cent. of income support. I am delighted that the Government would not force asylum seekers to live on less than that amount, which is already below the poverty line. Given that, could my right hon. Friend give us a breakdown of that package, and explain how it has been worked out? I have been perturbed by some of the calculations used. I must admit that my maths is appalling, but even I can understand that if the estimate of how much it costs the average social security claimant to pay for their utilities is 8 per cent.—which is the figure that the Government use for other social security claimants—the figures do not add up to 90 per cent. Seventy per cent. plus 8 per cent. does not equal 90 per cent.
  The Government have said that other items will make up that amount, such as the provision of utensils. Other claimants who are put into privately rented accommodation get utensils anyway. I hope that we will not deal with asylum seekers differently from other claimants.
  The speed of the decision making is intrinsically related to the fairness of the system. I hope that the Government will consider the slogan on which we have based this legislation—fairer, faster, firmer—and will consider how to make the system fairer and faster. We should examine the discretionary element of the support arrangements. Some hon. Members have had a disturbing brush with the Home Office because of its officials' idea of discretion in other areas relating to asylum seekers. Asylum Aid referred to a decision stating:
  "You state that the men drove you to a place one and a half hours away and told you to run before they opened fire on you. The Secretary of State … considers that if the men had intended to kill you they would have done so straight away rather than give you a chance to escape".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I gently remind the hon. Lady that the subject of the new clause is support for children. She is now straying wide of the mark.
  Ms King: Thank you for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to establish a firm link between the
  448
  need for careful use of a discretion on which asylum seekers' support arrangements depend, and the fact that that discretion has been used very poorly in earlier cases.
  While we are discussing the Bill's provision for women and children, let me mention the need for gender guidelines. It has been raised before, and I trust that it will surface again in future discussions.
  The key words are "fairer", "faster" and "firmer". We can be fairer only if we are faster. Of course we must protect children first, but please let us not do so at the expense of the 90 per cent. of other asylum seekers who have no dependants. Let us not forget that our duty under the 1951 convention is to protect anyone who seeks asylum here. I trust that this Labour Government will have regard to that when making any further amendments to the Bill.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: I, too, support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), and commend the role that he and his colleagues played in Committee.
  I wish to register my concern about the introduction of vouchers. I am not speaking on the basis of constituency concerns, although I respect those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser). I consider the position of those who have fled from Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria or Sierra Leone, and ask myself a fundamental question: do I think it right for such people to be compelled to live on 70 per cent. of what is deemed to be the minimum necessary for people who live here? It is as basic as that.
  I accept that some people are not genuine refugees and asylum seekers, and I know that we must tackle that problem in areas such as Dover. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the changes that he has made. As a supporter of the Government, however, I believe that the introduction of vouchers is wrong in human-rights terms, and will backfire on them.
  The Government tell us that they have a turnaround target of two months for most asylum decisions—which I do not think is being achieved by any European country at present—and that most appeals will be completed within a further four months. They say that they intend to bring forward the target for families with children to April 2000. They also say—I want to ask the Minister specific questions about this; others have already mentioned it—that the voucher system will not be introduced for families until the Government are satisfied that the targets can be met.
  I listened to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said this afternoon. He is satisfied that those targets can be met, but I am not. What does it mean? The Government are referring not to a time when the targets have been met, but to a time when they are satisfied that they will be met. In any event, if the targets can be met, why is the voucher system necessary? If the situation can be dealt with so quickly and efficiently, we do not need vouchers. Why should we set up an alternative support system?
  7.15 pm
  I was not a member of the Committee, but I tried to follow its work and to read the evidence submitted to it, and the Government did not make their case that people

  449
  were generally coming here for cash. In comparison with other countries, we are not particularly generous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) said, we retain the illusion that we are uniquely generous and welcoming, but nowadays other countries have a better record than ours. I believe that the Government are so concerned about not being taken for a mug by the rogues that they are forgetting their duty to be decent to the genuine.
  The Government have made their case that the system they have inherited is a shambles which has not improved over the past two years; but their response to the shambles—I think my hon. Friend the Minister called it a shambles within a shambles—is a strange one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) pointed out, we are dealing with a system that does not work, and are therefore setting up a parallel organisation run by very much the same people who are not running the existing one. The Government have decided to set up an alternative bureaucracy called the Asylum Support Directorate. "Directorate" is a funny word. I could not understand why they chose it, and thought that the obvious word was "agency"—until it occurred to me that the last time we set up a support agency, it was called the Child Support Agency.
  Faced with a department, a management, a staff and an information technology system that need strengthening, we are going to set up an agency alongside that organisation: an alternative bureaucracy employing hundreds. We shall be setting up an alternative Royal Mint. The agency will administer travel expenses, and arrange London accommodation for thousands of asylum seekers. I fear that the bogus will run rings around that, and that the genuine will be caused grief. I ask Ministers to think again. After all, this alternative bureaucracy will not process a single extra application, or speed up the system.
  I also think that we should look again at the 70 per cent. income figure. Although more of it will be cash, it will still be only 70 per cent. of what is said to be the minimum. Although I welcome the increase in the cash element, I am struck by the sheer inefficiency of the voucher system. Others have produced parallels; the closest parallel that I can offer is the experience of being in a duty-free shop abroad with a currency that cannot be taken out of the country. People cannot spend their money wisely in such circumstances. I believe that it will be impossible to make the voucher system seem humane. I know of no other country that is using it, and I am concerned about its impact on those who have been deeply damaged by what they have come from.
  I am concerned about the evidence given by the UNHCR, the Refugee Council, UNICEF and Amnesty International. That formidable group of organisations has been very critical of what we are doing. I ask the Minister to think again, because I think that the proposals will severely backfire on the Government.
  Mr. John McDonnell: I will be brief. We have had an excellent debate, and, in all conscience, I merely want to put my views on record. When my children ask me what I did, I want to be able to show them what has been written down.
  450
  Earlier speakers have begun by saying what wonderful concessions have been made, and how well the Home Secretary has behaved. I endorse all that, but I think that we have reached a pretty pass when, after one Minister has consulted and produced some relatively minor concessions, there is dancing within the parliamentary Labour party. We have gained some concessions, but I hope that the clinical analysis undertaken by my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) has caused the Minister to think again, especially about new clause 6. The problem is that when the Home Secretary introduced the debate, he said that the reason why he opposed the amendment was that the provision was central to the Bill. That is why I support the amendment. To be honest, that is why I will vote against the Bill on Third Reading.
  People have mentioned the poor law. We need to put the Bill in its historical, reactionary context. It is one of the most outstandingly reactionary, racist Bills of the past two centuries. People need to remember what the poor law was about. People have mentioned it, but they need to remember how it came about. It came about because, in 1795, a group of magistrates in Berkshire, a short way from my constituency—they might still be in my general management committee—decided in all succour that people who were faced with distress should have benefits that were linked to the price of bread.
  Idiots and reactionaries such as Malthus then said that that would mean that the working class would start to procreate and that there would be overpopulation, so they introduced the system of the workhouse. As a disincentive to people claiming benefit, they introduced a system where whole families were forced into workhouses to live in poverty—and that included children.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have used the word "children" just now, but he is beginning to make a speech that would be more appropriate for Third Reading. We are specifically talking about support for children.
  Mr. McDonnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The next sentence would have clarified the matter and given you relief.
  The whole point of that system was to impoverish people to ensure that they refused to claim benefit; it was an incentive to work as well. The Bill impoverishes children to act as a disincentive to fraudsters—that is the level that we have reached. We are about to put children into poverty to provide a disincentive to people claiming cash benefits.
  People have referred to income support as the poverty line. The Government were elected to tackle poverty. The Prime Minister, wonderfully, has set a target of eliminating child poverty not just in this country but throughout the world; the target year is 2015. Now, we are taking a poverty line level that we inherited from the previous Government—which we do not accept and are trying to improve—and forcing children and families to live below that level.
  What has been said is clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow made the point clearly. He clinically took apart the Minister's argument. There is no

  451
  statistical substance—no evidence at all—that cash benefits increase fraud, or are any incentive to claim. We have been through all the figures.
  There may be an issue around cash benefits. I do not jest when I say that there may be some ideas. Why do we not apply them elsewhere, so that people can withdraw cash benefits and use them elsewhere in the social security system? There is one place in this city where all cash has been removed and people use a voucher system. It is called the City of London, and it has not in any way eliminated fraud. People in the City are raking it in. What the Government are trying to do in the Bill goes against the grain of everything that we have stood for as a party—everything that we have stood for in trying to look after children in poverty.
  If there is fraud, let us investigate it and prosecute. If there are delays in the system, let us speed up the system. That is the way in which to tackle the issue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) has referred to the position in his constituency. In my constituency, I have Heathrow. The largest number of unaccompanied children coming into the country come into my borough; the largest number come to my constituency. I see some terrible cases. All hon. Members have had such cases. Many may have read about them. Some will have them in their constituency surgeries. Children come here in the most desperate circumstances, having experienced horrors—and what are we going to do with them? Put them into poverty.
  Mr. Straw: Let me provide my hon. Friend with complete reassurance. He is talking poignantly about unaccompanied children—and rightly so—but there will be no change in the arrangements applying to unaccompanied children. I give him that absolute assurance.
  Mr. McDonnell: I am grateful for that, but, if the Secretary of State had been listening carefully, he would realise that it was one reference of several. Children with families also come into my constituency having had terrible experiences. We are going to put them into poverty. I have families living in horrific bed-and-breakfast accommodation, desperately trying to get their children back into normal life. What are we going to do to them? We are going to give them some cash; otherwise we are going to give them vouchers.
  At a meeting in my constituency, I expressed the view that vouchers stigmatise. We already see that happening. When people in a queue produce vouchers, it is not—as the Home Secretary has implied in other meetings—like someone getting out a credit card, or a leaflet, or voucher giving 2p or 3p off. Those vouchers are identifiable. Someone on the till may be a bit racist. They may refuse to accept the voucher for a purchase, or may deliberately underchange that person when he or she tries to give a bit of cash and a bit of voucher. It is happening under the existing system.
  People may not think that vouchers stigmatise. As someone said at the meeting to which I have referred, we should remember free school meals. We should remember what it was like then—something that many in the Chamber will have experienced.
  I urge the Government to think again about what they are doing with the Bill. They are trying to introduce a fairer, faster system which, I hope, will deal with all the
  452
  problems, but their proposals are tarnished by the attack on childhood, the introduction of lower benefit rates for children and the stigmatising voucher system. I deeply regret the fact that we are associating ourselves with such a measure, which I expected from the previous Government, not the present one.
  Mr. Corbyn: In such a debate it is hard to add anything new to what has already been said, so I will be brief.
  I put on record my appreciation and support for the cause of my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and for the good contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). They are right: many Members have been deeply disturbed by many of the contents of the Bill.
  I am pleased to say that the Home Secretary and Minister have been prepared to meet people, to listen, to engage in debate and to discuss—that is obviously welcome. Unfortunately, we are still faced with a fundamental problem: the principle behind the provision on the way in which children are treated.
  I have been a Member of Parliament since 1983. I was on the Standing Committee that dealt with the 1986 Social Security Bill. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), was then a junior social security Minister. I recall as plainly as yesterday asking him on what basis asylum-seeking families were entitled to only 90 per cent. of income support. I think that that was where the whole notion of an incentive came in—the belief was that, if we gave 90 per cent., there would be a disincentive for asylum seekers to come to this country. Frankly, it was a punishment for asylum seekers and on their children. That punishment has continued.
  I took an active part in the debates surrounding the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. The Labour Opposition were rightly appalled at the way in which the then Government sought to remove all benefits from asylum seekers. It was disgusting; it was outrageous. When that happened, an informal network of support grew up. Churches took to sponsoring individuals. Families who had gained settlement here shared their income support, which was only 90 per cent. of what other people received, and sought to look after other children.
  Fortunately, there was a court judgment, which meant that, under the National Assistance Act 1948—the very principle of universal benefits behind the welfare state—those families were able to receive some level of support. In my wildest dreams, I never thought that, in this Parliament, we would be introducing a Bill that not only does not end the principle of voucher systems but establishes a whole new system—this time to be called a directorate—to administer a voucher system.
  7.30 pm
  Children growing up in families on income support do not do very well, and the Prime Minister has been quite right to draw attention to the fact that about one third of all children—perhaps more—grow up in households living only on income support. Those children do badly at school, and in many other ways, because there is not enough money to go around. They have more illness and poverty, and less joy than children in wealthier households.

  453
  What on earth is the justification for expecting an asylum-seeking family with two children to exist on about £45 per week less than their counterparts who are receiving full income support? Such an arrangement would be an absolute punishment of the poorest children in the United Kingdom.
  Ms Abbott: Ministers have argued that, contrary to what they say in print, the proposals are not meant to serve as a disincentive. They also argue that they are only relieving local authorities of their duties under the National Assistance Act 1948, as local authorities have begged them to do. Clause 103, however, states that the Bill will also remove from local authorities their discretion to provide help—under the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 and the National Health Service Act 1977—to elderly asylum seekers, so as to prevent illness.
  The point about clause 103 is that, whereas Ministers claim that they are removing local authorities' national assistance obligations—because local authorities have asked them to do so—they are not even allowing local authorities to provide discretionary help to elderly asylum seekers or to prevent illness. Providing that help is entirely optional for local authorities.
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but I do want to stray too far in dealing with it, as that would take us away from the substance of new clause 6. However, the provision would remove the principle of local authorities' right to some discretion. Although I should not mind removal of that right of discretion if it were replaced by a system providing full support for asylum seekers; the only way in which that objective could be achieved would be by allowing asylum seekers the same access to the social security system as they had before implementation of the 1996 Act. If that access were restored, we would resolve the issues raised by discrimination and the incredible cost spent in administering an ineffective and inefficient system.
  We inherited from the Conservative Government an expensive, inefficient and nasty system; now, we shall establish a directorate to continue in much the same way. Although I realise that the Government have made some concessions on the amount of cash to be made available, I cannot understand why we are introducing a voucher system.
  Every teacher in a classroom knows that it is his or her job to try to educate and bring up that group of children in the best way he or she knows, providing them with security for the future. Every teacher knows that if children come from a very poor background, they might bring with them particular problems.
  Often, however, the children of asylum-seeking families have experienced all sorts of other distress. They may have witnessed violence, or have had violence meted out to them. They have may have witnessed great upheaval, and have a sense of insecurity. If those children also know—as my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) said—that their parents cannot afford the small but so important things in life, such as sweets or a school trip to the fairground, they will have been very cruelly discriminated against.
  454
  Children can be very cruel to one another. The system that we are being asked to support today will not only continue that cruelty, but exacerbate it.
  In approving the proposals, we shall also be feeding xenophobia directed against asylum seekers. We shall introduce a system that stigmatises people, impoverishes children and costs us all a great deal of money to administer. Nor will it solve the problems that it is intended to solve.
  I am with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington on the issue. It is wrong of the Labour party, which has always campaigned for the principle of universal benefits and a universal welfare state, to be involved in introducing a system that is the antithesis of a universal welfare state—a state in which the community as a whole provides for the needs of everyone, in the expectation that the community as a whole will participate for the greater good. That is what the welfare state is about; today we are walking away from it. What we are doing is wrong.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will realise the depth and strength of feeling on the issue, not only among Labour Members but among the community that we represent. I hope that he will also appreciate what is being said by those who attend churches and who work in local government, by teachers and social workers, and by ordinary people who see impoverished children in our city.
  There are 47,000 asylum-seeking families in London, which is far more than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Local authorities have done a great deal to do their very best to support those families, just as they supported them after implementation of the 1996 legislation.
  All the groups that have been lobbying us on the issue—the Refugee Council, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, the Children's Society, Oxfam, citizens advice bureaux, and so many others—have also lobbied us before. I do not think that, after the 1997 general election, any of them expected to have to write the same type of letter to Labour Members, offering the same type of advice.
  I ask the Home Secretary to reflect on what the Bill is about and on what he is doing, and to give us some encouragement that that system will not continue, and we shall return to a system of universal benefits.
  Mr. Coleman: I should like to begin as many of my hon. Friends have done, by warmly welcoming many of the Government amendments. I am especially pleased that the Government have significantly increased the cash element in the support package for asylum seekers.
  I should like also to join almost every other Labour Member who has spoken by paying tribute to the sensitive way in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the junior Minister have recognised the very real concerns of Labour Members, listened carefully and taken on board many of those concerns. Nevertheless, major concerns remain.
  I should like briefly to highlight three reasons—some of which have already been mentioned, but I do not apologise for that—why I support amendment No. 1, which would exempt families with dependent children from the proposed support package. First, however, I pay

  455
  tribute to the work done on the Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), both in Committee and with various agencies.
  I represent an inner London constituency with a very large number of asylum seekers, many of whom have children, and a significant number of whom have waited for years for their applications to be processed.
  My first reason for supporting amendment No. 1 is based on doubts and concerns—which I hope the Home Secretary will deal with today—about the Government's claim that the current support package is equivalent to 90 per cent. of income support. It is a very important point, because the Government have advised us that, added together, the voucher and cash support elements will equal 70 per cent. of income support. Ministers also say that the other elements of the support package will definitely make up the 20 per cent. difference, as the bulk of that is composed of utilities costs.
  Last week, I asked the Library to research what percentage of income support a typical family, comprising two adults and two children, would spend on utilities—electricity, gas and water. Although it is not possible to calculate a precise figure, as costs vary between different parts of the country, the Library has told me that no more than 10 per cent. of income support entitlement should be spent on utilities. There is, therefore, a significant discrepancy between that percentage and the one provided by the Government.
  One suggestion made to me by Government sources is that an element of the package is the cost of accommodation furnished with items such as saucepans and cutlery. That explanation does not hold water, and I hope that it is not the one that we shall hear later from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Anyone acquainted with the private rented sector in inner London will be well aware that almost no available unfurnished accommodation is remotely affordable for families living on income support and housing benefit. So the reality is that British families living in private sector rented accommodation will inevitably live in furnished accommodation. In other words, UK citizens do not have their income support reduced in any way as a consequence of living in furnished accommodation, and to penalise asylum seekers for providing them with furnished accommodation would be invidious, wrong and certainly open to legal challenge.
  We should also not lose sight of the fact that the package already contains an in-built cut in benefit for asylum seekers with children, even if we accept that the Government's figures add up to 90 per cent. of income support entitlement, which I do not believe. Although it is true that asylum seekers have historically received 90 per cent. of income support, asylum seekers' children have always received 100 per cent. of income support. For that reason, I believe that, if the Government refuse to accept the extremely modest amendment No. 1, they should at least be prepared to agree to the demand—made by, among others, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, Oxfam, the Refugee Council of Great Britain and the Children's Society—that the income support entitlement set for the support package must be a minimum of 85 per cent.
  The second principle behind my support for the amendment relates to the use of vouchers. Their use is offensive in principle, but I believe that there are special
  456
  and particular problems attached to their use by families with children. There is a range of practical reasons why the use of vouchers is inefficient and expensive, some of which have already been mentioned by my hon. Friends. Anyone who has shopped for food will know that there is an inevitable reduction in street spending power entailed by the use of vouchers. I live two streets away from Shepherds Bush market, where it is possible six days a week to buy vegetables, fruit, chicken and other staple dietary requirements at a fraction of the cost at which they can be purchased at the only supermarket in my constituency where vouchers are currently redeemable.
  It is true that a £1.10 bus ride away in south Fulham, where vouchers are currently not redeemable, there are cheaper supermarkets where it might be possible, under the new arrangements, to buy such items at prices similar to those offered on the street market—I doubt it, but it might be possible. However, the bus rides to and from those supermarkets will probably cost most of the asylum seekers who live in accommodation on the Shepherds Bush road, where all the bed-and-breakfast hotels are, at least one day's worth of their meagre cash allowance. We are told that the Home Office currently intends that the lowest denomination voucher will be worth 50p, thus obliging the asylum seeker either to spend in multiples of 50p, or to dip into the minimal cash allowance which, even at the increased level, is set at the huge figure of £1.43 per day.
  My main objection to the use of vouchers for families with children is that the practice is, in effect, divisive, degrading and, as many of my hon. Friends have said, deeply stigmatising. It is divisive because the non-asylum seeker does not understand vouchers; inevitably, unfounded rumours about scroungers arise and are exploited by deeply unsympathetic and sometimes racist elements in the community to spread disharmony and discrimination. Vouchers are degrading because, in a cashless system, queues form at checkout desks as asylum seekers sign their vouchers: in many cases in my constituency, vouchers are issued only in denominations of £1, so signing them all takes a considerable period of time. In addition, because it is a cashless system and no change is available to voucher users, items have to be changed at the checkout because the total bill does not add up to a round figure that can be met by vouchers.
  Finally, the system is stigmatising because a visit to any supermarket where the vouchers are redeemable will, time and again, provide a replay of the scene that I am about to paint. In Hammersmith and Fulham, the supermarket in question is located in a prosperous area where a four-bedroomed house might cost up to £500,000. However, nearby in the Shepherds Bush road are a number of bed-and-breakfast hotels and hostels, some of which are of an extremely unsatisfactory nature. Many asylum seekers have been placed in such accommodation. The head teacher of a local primary school told me the other day of the regular breaktime football kick-about matches that now take place every morning between two teams: the voucher children against the rest.
  7.45 pm
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) said far more eloquently than I can, we have already returned to the days when poor children are branded as such at school by having to wait in a separate queue to receive their free school meal.

  457
  Such an outcome is blatantly contrary to the Government's policy of social inclusion and cannot be justified by any explanations based on so-called deterrents to fraudulent applications.
  I am sure that Ministers will understand that those of us with a recent experience of dealing with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate are highly sceptical about its ability to meet the extremely ambitious targets set for dealing for applications. An initial decision at eight weeks, followed by an appeal timetable of a further 16 weeks, is simply not consistent with the IND's recent record. To meet such targets will require a truly spectacular improvement in service delivery. There is a danger that the attempt to meet the targets will result in a deterioration in the quality of the decision making involved.
  I was disturbed to learn from a written answer received from the Minister of State on 22 January that, in some cases, a decision to refuse an asylum application would be taken by an officer at administrative officer grade. Administrative officer grade might mean that a full-time member of staff earns about £9,000 a year; such staff are almost certainly inexperienced, with little or no specialist training. What measures do the Government intend to introduce to ensure that there is proper supervision of decision making by appropriately senior trained and experienced staff? If the Government are confident and determined to stand by the targets that they have set for the IND, I refuse to accept that we should continue to insist that families with children have to endure such a humiliating daily experience, even for only a short period of time. That is why I strongly believe that they must be exempted from the package.
  My next reason for supporting the amendment relates to the issue of dispersal. As a London Member of Parliament, I am acutely conscious of the huge pressure on temporary accommodation in London and other areas of the south-east, and I recognise that there is a need to relieve that pressure. I am gravely worried that the Government's current support package is doomed to failure, despite their good intentions. I am well aware that the support mechanisms for refugees—especially those with children—in my borough are among the best, if not the best, provided in the United Kingdom. They have emerged slowly, but coherently, over many years as a direct consequence of the commitment of a range of different agencies, including the local authority, the Churches and the voluntary sector.
  Those support mechanisms include an accessible and affordable translation service and a first-class free legal aid service. There is also an education service that is ready and able to cope with children from many different backgrounds: one school in my borough has children speaking 146 different languages. There are at least two experienced family projects, which provide a safe place for refugees and their children to meet, to prepare food and to eat together. There are separate Somali refugee, Iraqi refugee and Iranian refugee projects run by dedicated members of those communities who are accountable to and funded by the local authority.
  Such support mechanisms are crucial to vulnerable people, especially families with children, many of whom have already been deeply traumatised. However, even if we strip all that away, Hammersmith and Fulham would
  458
  still have friends, families and support provided by members of the different ethnic groups who have already settled well in the local community. I know that the Government intend to manage the dispersal process sympathetically and with due regard to such concerns, but I fear that for understandable reasons, the necessary mechanisms, have not yet been put in place. The academic research into the necessary support mechanisms—real research, carried out on the ground—has not been done.
  The danger is that, without support, families will not stay in the location where they have been allocated accommodation, and that some will return to London with no money to feed their children and no access to any sort of benefit whatsoever. We know the terrible consequences of such a scenario. Desperate people will be left with little or no option but to consider begging, crime or prostitution to fund their essential needs. I urge the Government to ensure that they have put in place the necessary support mechanisms before the process of dispersal begins so that we avoid the nightmare scenario of large numbers of refugee children begging in our capital city.
  The families with dependent children covered by amendment No. 1 account for less than 15 per cent. of asylum seekers. The cost of removing them from the system is not insignificant, but it is certainly not prohibitive for a country of our size and wealth. I urge the Government to reconsider their decision not to support the amendment.
  Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I had not intended to speak and I shall make only a few comments, but, like many others, I have been moved by the passionate and eloquent speeches of some of my hon. Friends.
  I join other hon. Friends in thanking my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for being prepared to give some concessions and provide a more flexible system for those seeking asylum. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who has presented his arguments with reason and statesmanship over many weeks. We are grateful to him for that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser), who is not in his place at the moment, discussed the considerable strain that his community has experienced. Hon. Members may not be aware of the pressure that he has been under and the dignity with which he has tried to find solutions to the current appalling system that has been imposed on Dover. The situation has placed a great strain on the community, which is not used to large influxes of refugees and has had to cope with any number of racist thugs and marches. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his attempts to find solutions rather than behaving like a previous Member of Parliament for the area, who had a similar name to mine. When I arrived in Parliament a couple of years ago and said, "Hello, I'm Shaw from Kent" I was greeted with considerable shock.
  I welcome the Government's measures to speed up the system, but I am still very concerned. The jury is still out on the IND. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) said that it did not reply to his letters. I doubt whether letters from asylum seekers are even opened.
  The main issues are income support and vouchers. Kent social services did not give a ringing endorsement to the voucher system in its evidence to the Special Standing

  459
  Committee. As a former social worker in Kent, and having talked to colleagues, I can tell the House that vouchers are a nightmare. We have to think seriously about whether they are a practical solution. More importantly, as some of my hon. Friends have said eloquently, vouchers will do nothing to foster community relations. They separate people and there will be more of the voucher children whom we have heard about. It does not take a great deal to imagine a mother with two children standing in a shopping queue handing over vouchers with two racist thugs standing next to her. How is she going to use the 24-hour hotline, particularly without any cash to make the call? The system will increase the racial tension in our communities that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover has done so much to try to dispel in his area.
  Income support is to be reduced to 70 per cent. for families with children. I have spent years working with families on low incomes. Even those in supportive communities often find it very difficult to make ends meet. They have the flexibility to find the cheapest goods, perhaps by buying second hand or from a boot fair. The voucher system removes that flexibility. Reducing income support payments increases the risk of more begging, more crime and more of the resentment and racism that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover has tried to address.
  The amendment is very modest. It affects very few people, but the consequences of not accepting it would be huge. I hope that my right hon. Friend will think again.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: In any consideration of the issue, we have to understand the appalling mess and shameful disgrace that the Government have been bequeathed. It is worse than the legacy of incompetence that they have faced so often. The previous Government had a venal approach to asylum seekers. It was a stupid and ignorant approach to human beings and a wicked disgrace which has demeaned this country. That is the context in which the Government have had to try to put together something embodying humanity, fairness and efficiency.
  My constituency has nothing like the scale of distress from asylum seekers that we have heard recounted eloquently by some of my hon. Friends this afternoon, but I have seen families that have fled from another country in fear of their lives and are desperately anxious about the possibility of having to go back to a country in utter turmoil. They have been faced with destitution and incomprehension in this country. Mr. Lukiden Kenyi, who is a gentleman in the full meaning of the word and who is watching this debate, has waited seven years for his asylum application to be dealt with. His life is on hold and he is unable to use his manifold talents. That is part of the appalling legacy that the Government face.
  When I saw clause 99, which later became clause 108, I was distressed that the Government were proposing amending the Children Act 1989. If the previous Government, albeit on an all-party basis, did one decent thing—and perhaps they did only one—it was to introduce the Children Act 1989, which makes the best interests of the child paramount. I felt that amending the vital section 17 of that Act was an invitation to local authorities to discriminate between families from this country and asylum-seeking families that approached them for help under that section.
  460
  8 pm
  The Children Act 1989 applies to all children. Section 17 introduced the vital concept of the entitlement of children in need. Children with disabilities, from families who have difficulty in looking after them, who have been abused or who are at grotesque risk of abuse are entitled to services under that section, which also applies to families in the most demeaning circumstances.
  We have heard descriptions of poverty and we should recognise the fact that all families living on social security and on housing benefit are living in poverty. The legacy of the previous Government was that a third of all children in this country were living in poverty. Families who have not been able to manage their incredibly limited money, and who, by misfortune, have run out, come cap in hand to social services departments, typically on a Friday afternoon, to beg a little bit of food to see them over the weekend, and that food is provided because otherwise the children would be in care. The most paltry request that I have made is that asylum-seeking families should be included under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.
  Ministers have not only listened to our arguments but have acted on them. That reflects manifold credit on them. They have made changes, and I welcome my right hon. Friend's support for amendment No. 3. I have great difficulties with new clause 6, but I understand that there has been some movement in providing slightly more in cash and less in vouchers. The speeding up of the system is very welcome, as is the commitment to the sympathetic dispersal of people around the country, which should help us to avoid some of the problems that have occurred in places such as Dover. If managed sympathetically, it should help people to establish themselves in communities where their language is known and their culture recognised.
  I recognise my right hon. Friend's determination to deal with the huge number of claims that apparently have little merit and to apply the system with humanity, responsibility, efficiency and probity. I have observed the Government's approach to the issue. I absolutely deplore the decision not to give social security to families with children, which is a modest request. Children do not come here of their own volition and I cannot see any justification for not giving their families the full range of benefits. I am terribly sorry that the Government intend to maintain their exception to the United Nations convention on children's rights on immigration and asylum matters.
  The Children Act 1989 provides the opportunity to give proper support to children, and its profound significance should be properly recognised. If my right hon. Friend can assure me that new clause 6 will not prevent asylum-seeking families with children from getting the same range of support from social services departments under section 17 as all other families, so that they will not feel the need to beg on the streets or put their children at risk, I am prepared to trust the Government's commitment and Ministers' integrity and responsibility and vote with the Government.
  That one vote does not mean very much, but my right hon. Friend should recognise the huge responsibility on his shoulders to produce an improved system that humanely and efficiently meets people's needs, enabling children of asylum seekers to be treated on the same basis

  461
  as children from this country. If that happens, and the Children Act 1989 remains unamended, I am prepared give the Government my trust.
  Dr. Godman: First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to other hon. Members, for my absence from this debate for about 40 minutes. I had a meeting with the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). I explained that to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who was the previous occupant of the Chair.
  I was only too willing to endorse amendment No. 1, for several reasons. I have always been opposed to voucher systems. I remember the necessitous clothing vouchers that we had in Strathclyde, which stigmatised children among their schoolmates, and the asylum seekers' vouchers will do the same. Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that his voucher system is immune from the pernicious activities of loan sharks? I do not know what the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) is, but I have had experience in my constituency of loan sharks holding many giro books belonging to social security claimants. I hope that we shall not see something similar with the voucher system. The voucher system is rotten. Vouchers are cumbersome and bureaucratic and, as many of my hon. Friends have said, they stigmadise those who hold them. We are dealing with children here and we must treat them compassionately and sensitively.
  I offer my compliments to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his genuine willingness to listen to the legitimate concerns raised by my hon. Friends, many of whom have much more experience than I do of asylum seekers. Those males in Scotland who have had their applications rejected—I think that they are called persons awaiting deportation—invariably finish up in the prison in my constituency.
  But here we are talking about support for children, and the voucher system is not right. The Asylum Support Directorate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said, will be cumbersome and bureaucratic.
  I am also totally opposed to putting families on 70 per cent. of income support. Many of my constituents—too many—are on income support and they are on the breadline now, so those who receive 70 per cent. of income support will be in a much worse position.
  The effect of the Home Secretary's measure will be exacerbated by what he seeks to do to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. I know that my right hon. Friend will have something to say about emergency procedures, but no one knows better than my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie just how important section 12 of that Act is for children caught up in emergencies when the social security system cannot help them. It is wrong for the House to change that Act.
  I, along with my hon. Friend, am proud that it was our old and dear friends, the late Willie Ross and the late George Willis, who put that Act through the House all those years ago, because it has helped many families. We should not deny to the children of refugees the assistance given to Scottish children in need by that wonderful Act.
  I also happen to believe that, by this measure, the Home Secretary and his officials bring us into a grey area between the competence of this place vis-a-vis reserved
  462
  powers and the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament with regard to the protection of children. If I were a Member of the Scottish Parliament—I speak as the husband of an MSP—I would be concerned about this measure.
  The Social Work (Scotland) Act is exclusive to Scotland. Its aim is to help people in need, especially families. If I were an MSP I would want to take the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council because, with respect, that very fine fellow, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—his remit runs throughout the United Kingdom—is coming into Scotland and diminishing that important Act which has helped many children in my constituency and, I have no doubt, in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere in Scotland. I have been given some indication by that fine fellow, my right hon. Friend, that he may have something to say about the 1968 Act as it is affected by the Bill.
  However, I have said that I will be brief and I shall try to hold to that promise. I am completely opposed to a voucher system. It is disgraceful that we should say that families will receive 70 per cent. of income support. In terms of helping children, the diminution of the value of section 12 of the 1968 Act is a major mistake and I hope that it can be changed. It will cause anger in Scotland.
  Some of the complaints that I have raised have been voiced to me by members of the Scottish Refugee Council and by others in social work departments and in my constituency. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will continue to listen to the legitimate concerns that I have raised in this brief intervention tonight.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Straw: This has been an important and wide-ranging debate, which has not only covered new clause 6, which clarifies the duties under the Children Act 1989 and ensures that they are effectively and seamlessly transferred to the Asylum Support Directorate in respect of children of asylum seekers, but has ranged much more widely on account of amendment No. 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), to include the whole principle of cash versus vouchers.
  In the course of the debate I have been asked many questions. I apologise if I am unable to answer all of them, but I am ready to accept interventions, and I shall ensure that answers are given in writing.
  As it turned out, the heart of the debate concerned the issue of cash versus vouchers for families. To pick up the easiest questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), asked whether the vouchers would be immune from loan sharks. I was expecting him then to buttress his argument in favour of the social security cash system against—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to answer many questions from his own Back Benchers, but he must address the Chair.
  Mr. Straw: I now turn out to be a recidivist, as I committed the same offence last night. I shall accept that as a final warning and hope to amend my ways.
  I was rather expecting my hon. Friend to come up with an argument in support of his that cash was better than vouchers. But—if I may tease him with this—his point

  463
  supports our argument rather than his. His point was that as, at the moment, loan sharks ask for social security benefit books—an entirely cash-based system—as security against a loan, what would happen with vouchers? The imagination of loan sharks knows few bounds, but precisely because vouchers will not be freely negotiable—they will be redeemable only by those who properly receive them—the opportunity for them to be used as security for loan sharks should be greatly diminished.
  My hon. Friend also asked about section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. As I explained to him in a note, we intend to move amendments in the other place, consistent with those in new clause 6 in respect of the Children Act for England and Wales, to ensure that similar responsibilities are seamlessly transferred.
  As to whether that is a reserved or devolved area, it is a reserved area; there is no question about that. There are bound to be some reserved areas. After all, this is the United Kingdom Parliament and I have no need to remind my hon. Friend, as a supporter of the Union, of the section within the Scotland Act 1998 which acknowledges the sovereignty of this Parliament. Of course, many reserved areas will involve co-operation with devolved bodies, including Scottish local authorities. We shall deal with that matter in a sensible way, and discussions are already in hand with the First Minister in Scotland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde also asked about emergency arrangements. I can assure him absolutely that they will be in place. It is not part of our policy to see children or families destitute on the streets. For the most part, emergency arrangements will be agreed with local social service departments to provide 24-hour cover to deal with the problems that concern my hon. Friend.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way, and I apologise that pressure of time has meant that I have not attended the entire debate. Is the Home Secretary aware that the chairman of the Human Rights Commission in Northern Ireland has written a letter—I am not yet sure whether it has been sent to the right hon. Gentleman or to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—pointing out some of the anomalies that will cause problems in the courts in Northern Ireland?
  I recognise that this is a reserved matter, but the measure must operate alongside Northern Ireland human rights legislation, which gives people equal rights and allows them to take the Home Secretary to court. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to reconsider the matter and perhaps table amendments in the other place?
  Mr. Straw: I was not specifically aware of the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall make myself aware of it and ensure that he is given a reply. If amendments in the other place are necessary they will be tabled, but I do not want to anticipate decisions that I may make in the light of consideration of the letter.
  I detect general approbation in the Chamber for the changes that we propose in new clause 6. They will make it absolutely clear that the benefits for children of the Children Act will not be lost if an asylum seeker and his or her family becomes the responsibility of the Asylum Support Directorate, but instead will be transferred from the relevant local authority social services department to that directorate.
  464
  To pick up a point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), if it should happen that the Secretary of State refuses to take responsibility for an asylum seeker, that person would automatically revert to being the responsibility of the local authority's social services department—unless the refusal was not made by the Asylum Support Directorate but was a wilful refusal of a reasonable offer of support by the asylum seeker.
  However, even in those rare circumstances in which a person refuses an offer that is considered to be reasonable and a reasonable discharge of the Secretary of State's duty, the children would become the responsibility of the relevant social services department. The adult who refuses such an offer, I am sorry to say, would have to look to his laurels as, under our homelessness legislation, would any United Kingdom citizen who wilfully refused an offer of accommodation.
  Mr. Clappison: The children would be taken into care.
  Mr. Straw: That would, of course, be the ultimate decision that the social services department might have to make—as it would in respect of any other child considered to be at risk under the provisions of the Children Act.
  That connects with the point that I want to make to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), in particular. The only duties under the Children Act being transferred from the local authority social services department to the Asylum Support Directorate at the Home Office are those in respect of accommodation and essential living needs. The local social services department's much wider duty in respect of the welfare of children remains continuous and is unaffected by new clause 6 or by any other measure in the Bill.
  Mr. Clappison: Is the Home Secretary aware that the same points were made in Committee in defence of the original clause 99—now clause 108—by the Under-Secretary? Is he aware also that children's organisations such as the UK committee of UNICEF have looked at new clause 6? It stated:
  "We remain of the view that it is inappropriate for asylum-seeking families with children to be excluded from obtaining accommodation".
  The same concerns exist now as existed about the original clause 99.
  Mr. Straw: I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman, uncharacteristically, has missed the point. There is no dubiety about the fact that, under new clause 6, the responsibility on a local authority to provide what amount to the Children Act provisions—accommodation and essential living needs in respect of children in need—is transferring from the social services department to the Asylum Support Directorate. The concern expressed by my hon. Friends about what started off as clause 99 was that the local authorities were being relieved of their duty under the Children Act in respect of asylum seekers' children, but that no corresponding duty was being placed on the Secretary of State and the Asylum Support Directorate.
  We have rectified that. The answers given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and me about the welfare of children other than in respect of accommodation and

  465
  essential living needs are the same, because that duty of welfare will remain with the local authority social services department. I hope that that explains the matter.
  Mr. Clappison: The Home Secretary said earlier that the local authority would still be able to care for a child who has fallen through the safety net, but the point is that it would not be able to care for that child under section 17 of the Children Act. The same points were made in Committee by the Under-Secretary, and the Government have not moved from that. The Government are taking away local authorities' section 17 responsibilities, which are intended as a safety net.
  Mr. Straw: I do not want to labour a point that I have explained three or four times. I am sure that most hon. Members in the Chamber understand it. The difference between new clause 6 and what began as clause 99 is that there is now a very clear duty imposed on the Secretary of State in respect of the obligations to provide accommodation and essential living needs that otherwise rest with a local authority's social services department. That is absolutely clear.
  Moreover, I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), but I was no clearer at the end of them whether he was supporting the arrangements for a national system of support for asylum seekers, or opposing it. It is also evident that he has received no assistance from any other Conservative Members. I do not recall one speaking either in his favour or against him, and for a large part of the debate he was alone on the Conservative Benches, apart from the occasional Whip.
  Mr. Clappison: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: Of course I will, if the hon. Gentleman will relieve our darkness and say whether he supports the arrangements in principle.
  Mr. Clappison: The Under-Secretary will confirm that we supported them in Committee. This debate is not about the arrangements, although I can understand why the Home Secretary wants to get on to that subject. It is about protecting children. We are worried about whether new clause 6 goes far enough to protect children and remedy the defects of the original clause 99. I do not think that the Home Secretary has gone far enough yet.
  Mr. Straw: I look forward to the Conservative amendments that will be tabled in the other place, but it is interesting that the hon. Gentleman's concern is not widely shared in the rest of the Conservative party.
  Mr. Clappison: That is a cheap remark.
  Mr. Straw: I think that it is entirely fair to point out that no other Conservative Member was present while such an important measure was being debated.
  Mr. Dawson: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that section 17 of the Children Act does not meet the accommodation and financial support needs of anyone in
  466
  this country? The spectre of children begging in the street has been raised. If families were reduced to such levels of destitution, even if they were being supported by the Asylum Support Directorate, will my right hon. Friend assure me that they would therefore be entitled to assessment under section 17 of the Children Act?
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Straw: I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary says that no asylum speaker has been found begging in those circumstances. I appreciate the spectre of concern, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre has great expertise as one professionally responsible for implementing the principles of the Children Act 1989. However, the purpose of the Bill, the Asylum Support Directorate and the mixture of vouchers and cash is to ensure that no child and no family are destitute while an application for asylum is being dealt with.
  The arrangements continue to apply to families even after applications for asylum have been dealt with, rejected, rejected again on appeal, and rejected by the divisional court or the High Court. They still apply when the family is waiting for removal, until those refused asylum or exceptional leave to remain exit the country. Those given asylum or exceptional leave to remain switch swiftly to the cash benefit arrangements that apply to any citizen or individual with normal residence in the UK.
  Amendment No. 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, goes to the heart of one side of the argument about whether we should have a mixed system of cash and vouchers or stick, at least for some asylum seekers, to cash alone. Some people who have heard the debate might take from it two errors. First, they may believe that asylum seekers receive social security benefits. As my hon. Friend knows, that is not the case. A good half of asylum seekers who apply in-country have no entitlement to social security benefits, but are entitled under the Children Act 1989 or the National Assistance Act 1948 to benefits in kind if they are single or to a mixture of benefits in kind and cash if they are a family.
  Secondly, and more importantly, some people may fall into the error of thinking that everyone who applies for asylum will have his or her application recognised as genuine and well-founded under the 1951 convention or the ECHR and be given refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. The UK's record is extremely good. The hon. Member for Hallam cannot have it both ways. The courts and the over-slated Immigration and Nationality Directorate have interpreted our obligations under the 1951 convention more widely than has been the case in many other countries. I want the proud tradition of this country to continue when asylum seekers meet convention criteria or the criteria set out in article 3 of the ECHR, as it has for the 4,000 refugees admitted from Kosovo.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and others mentioned incentives and disincentives. On our generous interpretation of our obligations under the 1951 convention, about 30 per cent. of the 40,000 who apply for asylum are recognised as refugees or given exceptional leave to remain, and 70 per cent. are not. The blunt truth is that a very high proportion of the 70 per cent. are wholly abusive claimants.

  467
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) mentioned advertisements in Czech newspapers—we are not talking about Somalia, from which 98 per cent. of those who apply are taken in as refugees as quickly as possible—detailing the availability of benefits in the UK and offering arrangements to travel here through criminal organisations that traffic in humankind. That stark reality stares us in the face.
  Mr. Clappison: Before the Home Secretary concludes his remarks, will he return to the unfortunate point of children being taken into care? Is he content that children should be taken into care under the circumstances that he has described, and that section 17 powers will not be available to local authorities to prevent children being taken into care? Does he know that when the Children Act was being debated a member of Labour's Front-Bench team said:
  "A child should not find himself in care as a direct result of homelessness."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 May 1989; c. 137.]
  His own Front-Bench team wanted section 17 to allow children to be taken into care.
  Mr. Straw: The duty on a local authority to consider the welfare of a child arises irrespective of background circumstances. No matter whether the child is an asylum seeker, or the child of a Conservative Member, or has some other grave impediment, that duty applies. I have made the point over and over to the hon. Gentleman that that duty is not affected by whether the child is an asylum seeker. If a child is at risk or lacks parental support, the local authority has a duty to consider whether to take the child into care. That duty is unaffected by the Bill.
  I was dealing with the argument about vouchers versus cash. One part of the reality with which we must deal is that 30 per cent. of those who apply—9,000 people last year—were acknowledged as people fleeing persecution or otherwise facing serious danger. Those people were admitted to the UK and given refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. However, more than 20,000 people had no such claim and entered the UK abusively or were already here. Those people came with the idea of gaining benefits or some other economic advantage. They entered the country unlawfully, not on grounds covered by the convention, or, having got here, they sought to evade immigration control and the provisions of their temporary permits by applying for asylum. Every hon. Member who has an immigration case load knows that such abusive asylum claimants are on the increase.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: In a moment. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Far too many private conversations are being conducted in the Chamber. Conversations should take place outside.
  Mr. Straw: I have received deputations from the Chinese community and letters from leaders of the Asian community calling for such abuse to be brought under control.
  468
  Points have been made about the incentive of cash benefits in the system.
  Mr. Allan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman a couple of times, so I shall now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), as I said I would.
  Dr. Jones: I am concerned that my right hon. Friend seems to be saying that, because people abuse the system, it is all right to make genuine refugees and asylum seekers suffer by imposing a voucher system, even though he has not addressed the arguments about whether that system deters bogus claimants at all. Will he please respond to that and also to the point, on which there is agreement, that the way to deter bogus claimants is speedily to assess their cases and to set up an effective gateway for asylum seekers?
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend anticipated the point that I was about to make. She will know—this matter is generally kept private—that I have a close relationship with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). I was writing a note to say that a genuine claimant fleeing persecution in his own country would have no interest in whether the support available in this country would be supplied in the form of cash benefits or vouchers. Uncannily, as I was writing that down, I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South make that point.
  It is, of course, true that anybody fleeing persecution such as that in Kosovo, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and many other countries has no interest whatever in whether the support available to them in a safe country such as United Kingdom is supplied as a mixture of cash, vouchers and payment in kind, such as the provision of accommodation, or as cash only, as in our social security system. That is why I say to my hon. Friends that, as long as we get right the level of support—which I accept is their next concern—there is no way in which the provision of that mixed system instead of social security benefits will deter genuine asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution in their country from coming here and availing themselves of their rights under the 1951 convention.
  We strongly believe, however, that the availability of cash benefits provides an incentive to come here for people who are not genuine claimants and who wish to enter this country not because they are fleeing persecution but because they want to claim those benefits. It is impossible to look down the list of countries from which we now accept many thousands of asylum seeker applications and not come to that conclusion.
  Large numbers of applicants come from eastern European countries, where there are no longer any human rights abuses. Perhaps just three or four people out of the thousands who come here from those countries have ever been given asylum status. I therefore say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, who said that the cash and voucher system will be a disincentive to genuine claimants, that that is simply not the case. I rely very strongly on the agreement

  469
  between my hon. Friend and myself on that point, which is that the system is intended to be a disincentive to fraudulent and abusive claimants.
  Ms Abbott rose—
  Audrey Wise rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise).
  Ms Abbott: I never said that the voucher system would be a disincentive to genuine refugees under the Geneva convention. I said that it is designed to be a disincentive across the board. I have spent many hundreds of hours—in Committee, on the Floor of the House and in private meetings—listening to Ministers talking about economic migrants and non-Geneva convention asylum claimants. Ministers harp on about the pull factor of benefits, but they entirely discount and never mention the tremendous push factors behind those waves of economic refugees. If Ministers were serious about checking those waves of refugees—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady knows that interventions should be brief.
  Mr. Straw: Of course I understand the push factors. I have never sought to criticise individuals who seek a better life here, but the natural, logical conclusion of my hon. Friend's argument—if she pursues it, and I do not think that she will—is that we should have no immigration control. Of course there are push factors. People who seek to come to Britain, including those from eastern European countries, want, on the whole, to better themselves. I understand that entirely; that is one of the reasons why, sadly, in a rather unequal world, we must have a degree of immigration control.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: I promised to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston.
  Audrey Wise: There seems to be an uncomfortable element of trial by ordeal in what my right hon. Friend is saying. We are not saying that the system is a deterrent to genuine asylum seekers. He is not answering the question why genuine asylum seekers should be put through more suffering. As well as trial by ordeal, there is an element of pre-judgment. All asylum seekers, including the genuine ones, will suffer because some are not genuine or do not qualify—but we do not know which ones they will be, do we? Will he remove this rather nasty trial by ordeal and punishment?
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Straw: I think that we are reaching a degree of consensus—[Interruption.] One understands Opposition Members wishing to laugh about this issue. It is
  470
  fascinating that the House has filled up considering that, for many hours of this debate, the hon. Member for Hertsmere was alone on the Opposition Benches.
  There is a consensus in recognition that a mixed system of vouchers and cash, which we are intending to provide, will not of itself act as a disincentive to genuine claimants. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston suggested by implication that the nature of vouchers and the overall level of the package will penalise genuine claimants, the other points that I have made notwithstanding.
  Mr. Allan: I want to tease the Home Secretary to put something on the record. He went from one extreme to the other by saying that all asylum seekers' claims are founded, and then that 70 per cent. are unfounded, and seemed to imply that they were all the type to respond to television advertisements and were setting out to be deliberately abusive. That is a dangerous characterisation, and I do not think that he has the evidence to support it. Some asylum seekers will be cynical abusers, but many others are sad and desperate people whose claims simply do not meet the 1951 convention criteria.
  Mr. Straw: Some people from some countries are of course genuine applicants but, none the less, cannot meet convention criteria. I can think of someone in my constituency whose fear was unquestionably genuine but whose claim did not meet convention criteria. As it happened, when he returned to Kenya, he did not run in to any of the problems that he had anticipated. I can think of scores of cases from my constituency—as can my hon. Friends from their constituencies—of people who have made up the application from top to bottom. In one case in my constituency surgery only last Friday, I discovered after some questioning that this chap who had submitted an asylum application had paid an unofficial immigration adviser £5,500 to make it up. I am afraid that such ripping off of people is all too typical.
  One of the uncontroversial points—at least on the Government Benches—is that we should take proper control of such unscrupulous immigration advisers. Had the Conservatives done so in response to the amendments that we tabled to the Asylum and Immigration Bill, such exploitation would not be going on.
  If the hon. Member for Hallam looks down the list of countries from which some thousands of asylum applicants are coming, and notes that fewer than 1 per cent. of them—in some cases 0 per cent.—are given either exceptional leave to remain or refugee status, he is bound to conclude, as everyone who has any experience of these matters does, that most of them come to this country without any basis for a claim and are often facilitated by criminals who are involved in the trafficking of human beings.
  Having dealt with some of the issues of principle, let me consider the issue raised by many of my hon. Friends concerning whether we should move to this system of vouchers. As I have sought to explain, the main reason for the change—there has never been any dubiety about the use of a system of vouchers with some cash—is to reduce the incentive among abusive claimants to exploit the system.
  Another reason for moving to the new system is that the locally based arrangements are not working. I listened to my hon. Friends speaking about the current

  471
  arrangements; my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman), a former leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council, acknowledged that many London boroughs were doing very good work with asylum seekers, but, strikingly, representatives of those very London boroughs have been to see me and the Under-Secretary to plead with us to end the locally based system because of the pressure on individual London boroughs.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: In a moment.
  If that locally based system is to be ended, there must be a national system, and if there is to be a national system, there must be arrangements by which the pressure on the local areas is relieved, and that means that there must be some system of national dispersal. However, as was repeatedly explained in the Special Standing Committee, it will be a sensible dispersal. People will not be scattered to the four corners of the United Kingdom, to areas with which they have no connection. We propose to develop relevant clusters.
  I can testify that in many areas outside London there are well-settled ethnic minority communities—I think of my constituency, where there is a small Bosnian Muslim one. Because of that, we are taking some people from Kosovo. The same arrangements and connections can apply under the Asylum Support Directorate arrangements, and they will, because it is not in the interests of the Home Office that we should introduce dispersal arrangements that do not work and that lead to a drift back to London.
  Mrs. Gorman: I came into the Chamber rather late, but I have been following the debate on the monitor. I notice that the Home Secretary has said that he has not received a great deal of support for vouchers. I should like him to know that, in contrast with the difficulty that some of his hon. Friends are creating for him, I certainly—and, I am sure, many of my colleagues and a lot of my constituents—support the voucher system because it helps to reduce many forms of abuse, including the supply of money to pay some of the bogus people who give advice, a practice which his hon. Friends seem to support.
  Mr. Straw: I am very pleased that I gave way. In my situation, one treasures support from whatever quarter it comes.
  On the value of the—
  Mr. Gapes: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to intervene? He knows that I represent a London constituency in which there are many Somali refugees. I support a dispersal policy, but I am worried about what might happen if people who are moved far from London choose to leave the accommodation provided by the new system and return to the London boroughs where they have relatives, before their cases have been determined. I should be grateful for my right hon. Friend's assurance that, if there is any sign that that is happening, measures
  472
  will be taken to ensure that London local authorities get support if they are faced with increasing pressures despite the new system.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention was too long.
  Mr. Straw: Let me say two things to my hon. Friend—if I can remember what they are. First, if someone was provided with accommodation somewhere in the north-west, where there was a settled Somali community, but decided of his own volition to leave that accommodation and move back to Ilford to stay with friends and relatives, he would still be able to claim the essential living needs part of the asylum support that we are providing. He would therefore receive his cash and vouchers, but his accommodation costs would not be paid. Perhaps the point has not been brought out strongly enough. That person would get that element in any event. As I keep saying to my hon. Friends, no part of the package will leave people destitute. If they chose to live with their relatives, they would get living support, but not accommodation.
  Secondly, in extreme circumstances such as my hon. Friend describes, there are reserve powers in the Bill that would have to be used. I do not anticipate that they would need to be used, but we are trying to anticipate every eventuality.
  I shall deal first with whether the vouchers and cash will be comparable, then with how vouchers can be used and the target for families. As my hon. Friends are aware and as the Special Standing Committee discussed at some length, the aim of the support package is that it should be comparable to what is currently received by families who are on a mixture of social security and housing benefit, or families who are in receipt of benefits in kind from a local authority.
  I understand the concern of many of my hon. Friends about support for children and about the fact that families can build up expenses for renewals, which would not have been accommodated under the original proposals. For that reason, we are making provision for what amount to single discretionary payments every six months. By the way, to those who say that that involves no additional expenditure, may I point out that it does involve additional expenditure and, in my view, it is right that it should, because we had not recognised the need at the beginning.
  There is not time to go into detail on the calculations now. We are providing full accommodation costs, whatever they are. The accommodation is also being provided in kind—we are providing not only pots and pans, but bed linen, which is not provided typically in furnished accommodation, still less in unfurnished accommodation—and we are paying for utilities. Broadly, the support that we are providing will be equivalent to the 90 per cent. of income support that is otherwise available to asylum seekers.
  I draw the attention of my hon. Friends to the fact that even if someone is on cash benefits and is paid income support and housing benefit, the housing benefit is paid only at the average of the rent available in that sector of accommodation in that area. That can mean that some asylum seekers pay above the level of the housing benefit that they receive.
  We have examined the figures carefully, and I accept also that for families with three or more children, the support arrangements do not meet the 90 per cent. level.

  473
  We are studying the calculations with great care. I give an undertaking to my hon. Friends and to the House that I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in the other place will be able to deal with these matters to their satisfaction when the Bill reaches another place.
  Ms Abbott: May I refer to an earlier exchange between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes)? My hon. Friend asked whether Somalis who were dispersed a long way from Ilford and came back to Ilford would still get their benefits, and the Home Secretary said yes. However, clause 83 clearly states:
  "The regulations may also make provision for the suspension or discontinuation of support"
  under circumstances in which there has been
  "cessation of residence … in accommodation provided".
  Can the Home Secretary clarify that, as I am sure that he did not intend to mislead the House?
  Mr. Straw: Of course the regulations make provision for that, as would any sensible set of regulations. It has always been part of the system that some people who had accommodation sorted out for themselves could be provided with the element of the support package that covered essential living needs. That has always been the case. Of course, if there is a wilful refusal to take accommodation or to accept support in other circumstances, that can be withdrawn.
  9 pm
  Ms Oona King: May I welcome again the confirmation that the package will broadly represent 90 per cent of current income support? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if it does not, he will make good that difference?
  Mr. Straw: I express my good intentions, because this is a matter to discuss with colleagues as well, but, as I keep saying, it is no part of our purpose to leave the children of asylum seekers short, whether ultimately the application, which is never made by children, is well-founded or not. I hope that my hon. Friends recognise that we continue to examine the calculations and the level of support with great care.
  To give further reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, may I say that provided that an individual applicant is still at his registered address, which need not be the accommodation provided but may be another address at which he has registered, he will continue to receive vouchers under the support arrangements.
  My hon. Friend went on at length about jewellery and suggested that asylum seekers would be treated less favourably under the new arrangement than people under current the cash benefit arrangement. She went on at length about the fact that there is a £3,000 floor, below which someone's capital assets are not taken into account in assessing income support. That is true, except for asylum seekers, for whom there is no floor under the existing social security benefits regulations.
  474
  My last point concerns the time that we intend that family applications should take within the new system. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has made many points, both in the House and in other meetings, about the need for speed in getting family applications through. That point has been made by many other hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck)—[Interruption.] Was that right? Oh well, it is somewhere on the District line, anyway. [Laughter.] When I came into the House there was not a single posh place in the country that we represented, and now every posh station seems to be one of ours, not one of theirs.
  We accept that one of the major problems in the system that we inherited is the inordinate delays. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North gave details of a case that had been outstanding since 1990. That is absolutely intolerable. That was supposed to have been dealt with by the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, but it was not. It was supposed to have been dealt with by the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, but it was not. As my hon. Friend knows, we intend to deal with that.
  We believe that speed is one part of the essence of an efficient and effective system. That is why we have set targets to be achieved by April 2001 for most asylum decisions to be made within two months of receipt and for asylum appeals to be dealt with within a further four months. We are determined to achieve those targets. Average waiting times for appeals are already less than four months.
  It is important to put on record, too, the fact that when we came into office, and for the two years in which the spending plans were those left to us—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) laughs, but, for the first year, the spending plans were those not only left by her Government, but set by her Government because we had already entered the financial year before the election took place. Far from increasing investment in and the staffing of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, the previous Government were cutting it. No wonder the quality of decision making and administration went down.
  We are investing an extra £120 million in the IND over the next three years, including £60 million on speeding up case work. Hundreds more staff are being deployed as case workers, including 200 who are being actively recruited now.
  Asylum decisions are currently running at 900 a week and, as I have already said, I hope that that provides substantial reassurance to my hon. Friends. We are aiming to deliver initial decisions on new asylum applications from families with children in an average of two months.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Can my right hon. Friend explain exactly what he means when he says that the target is that most initial applications should be dealt with within two months? Many of us on the Government Benches were hoping to have assurances from him that the Government would not introduce the voucher system for families until a very high proportion of asylum seekers were having their applications dealt with within two months. That would mean far more than 50 per cent.
  Mr. Straw: The undertaking I am giving is that there will be an average target of two months in which to process a claim. I should also say to my hon. Friend that that does not mean that 51 per cent. of the applications will therefore be accepted; it could easily be the case that 70 per cent. of the applications will be dealt with within that period. We are trying to get the straightforward cases through quickly—as we have been doing with those of Kosovans, for example. The harder cases, the processing of which may last for some time, will skew the average, but the formal undertaking is for the average target of two months to be met. However, I anticipate that many more than 51 per cent. of cases will be decided in that period.
  Dr. Jones rose—
  Mr. Straw: If I may, I want to answer directly the point that my hon. Friend has raised. I also want to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, which is, how will I be satisfied, before we introduce that target, that it will be met and what will happen if I believe that we cannot introduce a target? I think that she asked for satisfaction of a 90 per cent. hit rate over three months, but I ask her to accept from me that I cannot offer a mathematical target of such precision.
  I also ask my hon. Friend to accept that I will be responsible to the House, and to Members on each side of it, if the system fails to meet the target. I shall set the system running, so, before I press the start button, I shall take a very close and personal interest in whether that target will be met. It will be in nobody's interest, least of all mine, to press the start button to begin the process and then to discover that the applications are routinely not taking two months, but four. A great deal of work is going into that.
  For that reason, I also give the subsidiary but very important undertaking that, if we cannot achieve those targets for families with children, and if I am not satisfied that they can be achieved, we will not introduce those applications into the new support arrangements in April 2000. The existing arrangements will continue until we are so satisfied.
  I have spoken at considerable length in answering the questions and points that have been raised, with great seriousness, by my hon. Friends and by Liberal Democrat Members. I hope that I have satisfied or, at least, reassured them and assuaged many of their concerns.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 161.

  Division No. 209]

  [9.8 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Barron, Kevin

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Battle, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Beard, Nigel

  Alexander, Douglas

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Allen, Graham

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Ashton, Joe

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Benton, Joe

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Berry, Roger

  Barnes, Harry

  Best, Harold

  476

  Betts, Clive

  Efford, Clive

  Blackman, Liz

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fisher, Mark

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Boateng, Paul

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Borrow, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Follett, Barbara

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Galloway, George

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gapes, Mike

  Browne, Desmond

  Gardiner, Barry

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burden, Richard

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Cann, Jamie

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Chaytor, David

  Grogan, John

  Church, Ms Judith

  Gunnell, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  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)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Healey, John

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heppell, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coleman, Iain

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Colman, Tony

  Hill, Keith

  Connarty, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoey, Kate

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cousins, Jim

  Hope, Phil

  Cranston, Ross

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Crausby, David

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cummings, John

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Darvill, Keith

  Hurst, Alan

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jamieson, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jenkins, Brian

  Denham, John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Edwards, Huw

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  477

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Purchase, Ken

  Kidney, David

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quinn, Lawrie

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Radice, Giles

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rammell, Bill

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Laxton, Bob

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lepper, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rooker, Jeff

  Levitt, Tom

  Rooney, Terry

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Linton, Martin

  Rowlands, Ted

  Livingstone, Ken

  Roy, Frank

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ruane, Chris

  Lock, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McCabe, Steve

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sawford, Phil

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McDonnell, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McFall, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McNulty, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Snape, Peter

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Martlew, Eric

  Spellar, John

  Meale, Alan

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Merron, Gillian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Miller, Andrew

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stott, Roger

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Morley, Elliot

  Stringer, Graham

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mountford, Kali

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Timms, Stephen

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Tipping, Paddy

  Norris, Dan

  Touhig, Don

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Truswell, Paul

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Olner, Bill

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pearson, Ian

  Vaz, Keith

  Pendry, Tom

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pike, Peter L

  Wareing, Robert N

  Plaskitt, James

  Watts, David

  Pond, Chris

  White, Brian

  Pope, Greg

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  478

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Worthington, Tony

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wise, Audrey

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Woolas, Phil

  Jane Kennedy.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hammond, Philip

  Allan, Richard

  Harvey, Nick

  Amess, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Baker, Norman

  Horam, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Beggs, Roy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Bercow, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Keetch, Paul

  Boswell, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Brady, Graham

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brake, Tom

  Lansley, Andrew

  Brazier, Julian

  Leigh, Edward

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Letwin, Oliver

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Lidington, David

  Burnett, John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Burstow, Paul

  Livsey, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Loughton, Tim

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Cash, William

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Chidgey, David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clappison, James

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Madel, Sir David

  Collins, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Maples, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Mates, Michael

  Cran, James

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Dafis, Cynog

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Moore, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Day, Stephen

  Norman, Archie

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Oaten, Mark

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Öpik, Lembit

  Evans, Nigel

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Paice, James

  Feam, Ronnie

  Paterson, Owen

  Flight, Howard

  Pickles, Eric

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Randall, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Rendel, David

  Fraser, Christopher

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gale, Roger

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Garnier, Edward

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gibb, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gill, Christopher

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gray, James

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Green, Damian

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

  Greenway, John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  479

  Spring, Richard

  Walter, Robert

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Steen, Anthony

  Webb, Steve

  Streeter, Gary

  Wells, Bowen

  Stunell, Andrew

  Welsh, Andrew

  Swayne, Desmond

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Syms Robert

  Whittingdale, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Willets, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Wills, Phil

  Thompson, William

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Tredinnick, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tyler, Paul

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Viggers, Peter

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a brief point, which was dealt with at length in Committee, on the representations made by the United Kingdom Council for Overseas Student Affairs—representing British further and higher education institutions—on immigration advice and other technical points, and in relation to clauses 69 to 71 in the amended Bill and to clauses 63 to 65 in the unamended Bill. The only amendments tabled on Report directly affecting those clauses were one that was consequential on an earlier new clause, and one that was tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). As those amendments are not likely to be debated, our further consideration of the Bill would be assisted if Ministers would supply a letter to UKCOSA on those higher education issues, if such a letter is outstanding.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The point of order was not a matter for the occupant of the Chair, and was therefore not a point of order. However, Ministers have undoubtedly heard the comments of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), and we shall leave it at that.
  Mr. Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had a substantial debate on new clause 6, and now have two and a half hours for the Bill's remaining stages. Not many matters other than Government amendments will be dealt with, so if the Minister were able to respond to the point, perhaps outside the Chamber, it would be much appreciated.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What the Minister does outside the Chamber is entirely a matter for him, but I do not want him to respond to the point here.

New Clause 7

  REPEAL OF SECTION 8 OF THE ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION ACT 1996
  '.—Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 (restrictions on employment) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Allan.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Allan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 150, in clause 15, page 11, line 7, leave out Clause 15.
  No. 157, in schedule 14, page 141, line 35, column 3, at end insert 'Section 8'.
  Mr. Allan: New clause 7 is a straightforward proposal which seeks to repeal section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. The issue was debated at enormous length during the passage of the 1996 Act, when Labour Members expressed great concern about the potential impact of section 8. We have now been able to see how the section operates in practice, and Liberal Democrats believe that those earlier fears have been justified. We also believe that the Government should take this opportunity to honour the clear commitment that they made when in opposition to deal with section 8 and its discriminatory effects on employment prospects.
  In Committee, we gave an undertaking to determine whether we could find a formula for revising section 8 that was better than the Government's proposals, so that Ministers would be able to keep to the spirit of section 8—to prevent the illegal employment of people who have no right to work—and to ameliorate its discriminatory effects. After investigating the matter, we—like Ministers—have found no way of substantially changing section 8, leaving us with the fairly straightforward decision whether to repeal it.
  I ask Labour Members to read the debates on the 1996 Act, as the decision that we shall have to make today should be based on the precisely the same arguments. We have to determine whether the harm done by section 8—the discrimination against people from other countries in seeking employment—is outweighed by the benefit gained in deterring people from employing others illegally.
  I believe that the evidence shows that the harm done by section 8 clearly outweighs any benefit that it brings, and that experience gained since passage of the 1996 Act makes the case for the section's repeal. My primary evidence for repealing the section has been provided by the Commission for Racial Equality and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, both of which have said that they have received many inquiries suggesting that employers are misapplying section 8, causing discrimination.
  The CRE has said that it continues
  "to receive inquiries that demonstrate widespread misunderstanding and the"—
  often inadvertent—
  "application of unlawful discriminatory practices."
  Citizens advice bureaux have given similar examples of individuals who have been on the receiving end of that discrimination, who have told the bureaux about how they were refused jobs by employers who were frightened to employ them because of the provisions of section 8, which could make them liable to pay fines of up to £5,000. Since then, the better regulation task force has clearly set out in its review of anti-discrimination legislation its belief that section 8 should be repealed.

  481
  9.30 pm
  At the time when the 1996 Act was passed, the Government estimated that the increased costs to employers would total £13.5 million initially and £11.5 million in recurring costs. I should be interested to hear whether the Minister believes that those estimates have been borne out. The Government's proposals, which would impose a code of practice that is designed somehow to ameliorate the effects of section 8, might increase the costs to business. In any case, why should we believe that the new code of practice will be more effective in reducing discrimination than previous guidance issued by the Home Office?
  I got the impression from the Minister that the new procedure would work as follows: in order to avoid direct discrimination, if any applicant for a job might conceivably have an immigration status that needs to be checked, the duty will be on the employer to check the immigration status of all applicants for the job. My constituency contains a university, and I know how common it is for foreign nationals to work in universities and apply for jobs in them. However, it would appear that for university employers—this point applies to many multinational and international companies as well—the way forward now is to check the eligibility for work under immigration rules of every applicant to each job. That is a huge burden, which is not outweighed by any potential benefits.
  In respect of the benefits that could be attached to section 8, the Government's clear intention has been to send the message to employers that they should not illegally employ those who are not eligible to work. However, since section 8 came into force, there has been only one prosecution under its provisions. The Government have said that there are to be more, but it is clear that section 8 has not been used effectively.
  The people we want to catch are the traffickers in human misery—the racketeers and gang masters who bring in people to work in the agricultural sector and other sectors. A more appropriate way in which to deal with them is under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 and, at the start of Report stage, we talked about strengthening the provisions of that Act to deal with such racketeers. I believe that we can take measures to deal with employers that do not involve burdening them with strict liability when they are found guilty of employing people illegally, given that that has been clearly shown to put employers off employing anyone other than obviously British white citizens, whose employment poses no risk to the employer under section 8 of the 1996 Act.
  The CRE's verdict on section 8 is absolutely explicit:
  "There is no evidence that section 8 has proved to be an effective deterrent to illegal working or racketeering. It is likely to have increased the employment costs of good employers, and it has encouraged the unscrupulous to discriminate. For ethnic minority job-seekers it has added to the barriers which they face."
  That is a clear indictment from an expert front-line organisation which is responsible for dealing with such matters. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) will refer to evidence from the CBI and the TUC, which both regularly deal with employment issues on the front line.
  482
  The case is clear. Some of the Labour Members present tonight were involved in the debates on the 1996 Act and they will remember the case that was made at that time. It has been proved that section 8 has had a discriminatory effect and there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that we can look forward to a period in which it will not continue to have serious negative effects. The Government should respond positively to the report of the better regulation task force, accept the amendment and repeal section 8. They should concentrate on hitting human traffickers with more appropriate measures, which now carry penalties of up to 10 years' imprisonment, rather than imposing a strict liability on all employers. That only leads employers to discriminate against people, many of whom have been British citizens for years or have a perfect right to work in British companies.
  Ms Oona King: I have grave concerns about the implications of section 8. I cannot resolve the irony of a Government with a better race relations record than any before them maintaining section 8. The effects of that policy may be unintentional on the Government's part, but that will not make much difference to my constituents, many of whom may well face direct discrimination as a result of a law that we have a chance to repeal.
  The Commission for Racial Equality brought to our attention the example of an employment agency supplying temping staff that refused to accept the national insurance number of a Bangladeshi person and on that basis refused them employment. More than one third of the people in my constituency are of Bangladeshi origin. Research conducted by the University of Cambridge shows that their chance of finding a job is already five times worse than that of a white person, based on an employer receiving two identical CVs, one with a British name and one with a Bangladeshi name. It is a great shame for us not only to do nothing to mitigate that fivefold discrimination, but to encourage employers, particularly unscrupulous ones, to discriminate.
  The Government's aim in maintaining the section is to prosecute racketeers and gang masters. None of us would oppose any Government in that aim, but I cannot support the idea of encouraging employers to make checks on people whom they suspect of being unable to fulfil the correct immigration status criteria. As black people, we wear our passports on our faces. Immigrants will not be the only ones to be called to account, although that would be bad enough, because many people who have sought to regularise their stay here have a right to work. Black British citizens will also be affected. I urge the Government to reconsider the policy. I repeat that I am proud to be a member of this governing party, because we have had an excellent race relations record to date, although far more needs to be done.
  Section 8 has not achieved its objective. There has been only one prosecution. It has encouraged discrimination and added to the burdens on business. In these days of the third way and encouraging consensus, it is a shame that the Government are continuing with section 8 when the CBI, the TUC and the Federation of Small Businesses are urging them not to do so. I hope that, in this House or in another place, the Government may be able to mitigate the severe consequences of section 8 on members of ethnic minorities.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I do not intend to speak for long on the new clause, because I do not believe that it is very sensible. However, I am intrigued, because, in opposition, Labour Members promised not to implement that portion of the 1996 Act. Indeed, they inveighed heavily against it, as I well remember, because I was charged with piloting the legislation through Committee.
  At that time, Opposition spokesmen claimed that the proposal was iniquitous and that it would place considerable burdens on business. They did not seem much concerned about other burdens that they wanted to impose on business, and indeed have imposed, such as the minimum wage and the working time directive. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was then Opposition spokesman on small businesses, wrote to The Daily Telegraph—she has good reading—saying that the Act would be an imposition on small firms and that it gave them a raw deal.
  Are the Government now planning to give such firms a raw deal? In that letter, the hon. Lady calculated that the Act would cost small firms £12 million in the first year alone. Are the Government now saying that that is acceptable, which they denied in opposition, or do they have some plans that we do not know about to give financial relief to small firms?
  It was not only before the general election that the Government opposed the measure as an unnecessary burden on business and a deterrent to employing people from ethnic minorities. Since the election, the Government have several times promised that they would not implement section 8. Now they are not only implementing it but adding the further burden of a code of practice. Will they admit that they got it wrong in opposition?
  We would have been intrigued to hear about this in the Special Standing Committee, but the Minister was not present when we debated the code of practice in Committee, so this is his first opportunity to comment on it. I might not have been so ungenerous as to point that out had the Home Secretary not made much of the absence of Conservative Back Benchers in the previous debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was present throughout, and it would have been nice if the Minister could have managed the same.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: To which Committee is the right hon. Lady referring? I was present throughout—and indeed spoke in—the debate on these matters in Committee.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere that the Minister was absent for the discussion on the other code of practice, for lorry drivers, so I shall tease him when we debate that.
  Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Lady has accused me of not being present when we debated this very important code of practice and of not being concerned about another code of practice. I spent a lot of time talking to lorry drivers and their organisations and I was present in Committee when we dealt with this code of practice, so perhaps she will be gracious enough to offer me an apology.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am afraid that when it comes to the lorry drivers—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I may not be in possession of a roll call of those who were present in Committee, but I am in possession of the rules of the House. We must debate the new clause.
  Miss Widdecombe: Perhaps I should return to the new clause, and we can return to the other argument, if necessary, when we discuss lorry drivers.
  Since the general election, the Government and the Minister himself have repeated their intention not to implement section 8 of the 1996 Act. The Minister himself has repeated that intention.
  9.45 pm
  Before the Minister says that I have my facts wrong again, I refer him to the record of the Special Standing Committee. It was pointed out in column 374 that, in opposition, the Government promised to repeal section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, exactly as the Liberals have now asked them to do. But in June 1997—in case anyone needs reminding, that is one month after the Government were elected for the short period that they will enjoy in power—at a conference on the European Year Against Racism, which took place in London, the Minister said that section 8 of that Act would be repealed because it was discriminatory against black and minority ethnic people.
  That was the Minister's considered judgment. I assume that, as he was a Minister, it had to be a considered judgment. It could not be one of those off-the-cuff remarks that he might have turned out in opposition. I presume also that official advice backed up that considered judgment. The hon. Gentleman said that section 8 would be repealed because it was, in his judgment, discriminatory against black and minority ethnic people.
  At another conference in January 1998, the Minister answered a similar question. He said that the Home Office was undertaking a comprehensive review of immigration policy, and that that was one of the issues that would be considered. This year, he answered another question, and it was then, after all that review and despite all the pontification—there is no other way to describe it—on the evils of section 8, that he said he had decided that it was best after all for section 8 to remain.
  I am intrigued. I should like to know why, from a position which was clear when the Conservative Government introduced that measure; to a position that was apparently equally clear immediately after the election when the Minister was responsible for these matters; to now when we come before the House, the hon. Gentleman has decided that section 8 is a good thing.
  I am delighted. I welcome any sinner who repenteth. The Minister challenged me just now to give him an apology for confusing an absence with an occasion when he was present. I shall do that. I expect him in return, having now decided to retain section 8, to apologise for all the things of which he accused us.
  Ms Abbott: I was one of the members of the Committee which considered the Asylum and Immigration Act. I well

  485
  remember speaking at length, along with several colleagues, against section 8 and its discriminatory effects. I do not intend to speak at length today, but I could not let this debate go past without stating that my position then is my position now—section 8 is potentially discriminatory.
  I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) in saying that we see in inner London high unemployment, particularly among black and Asian young men, even where they have the same qualifications as their white counterparts. I live with and work among the consequences of those high levels of unemployment among black and Asian young men, and it is my strongly held view that if section 8 contributes even in small measure to a climate in which employers feel that they can discriminate, it should be removed.
  There is to be a code of conduct, but, as we discussed in Committee, good employers will abide by such a code and are not causing problems under section 8 anyway, and bad employers will ignore it. It is unfortunate that the Government have reversed what was a well-founded position on the issue.
  I see on the Treasury Bench the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department. When he was a Back Bencher, he pursued a long-running campaign about the number of black persons employed by the civil service and their seniority, pointing out, from the statistics that he had gathered, that black and Asian people find it hard to get promotion.
  I say again that if section 8 contributes in any way to that situation, we should remove it. We made those arguments in opposition and I do not believe that things have changed. I could not let this debate go past without putting my views on the record.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I wish to say a few words in support of my hon. Friends in connection with the new clause. My normal stamping ground is economic policy. Choices between social improvement and business costs often require a balance to be struck. However, section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 is unusual, in that it inflicts considerable social harm in the form of racial discrimination and, at the same time, imposes costs on business. That is why it has attracted such an unusual coalition of opposition.
  The opposition comes from the refugee organisations and the Campaign for Racial Equality, and from both sides of industry. Employer organisations are normally fractious bodies, but they have found an unusual unanimity in their opposition to section 7. They include the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Management, the Institute of Personnel and Development and others.
  As we have already assimilated the impact of clause 15 as a possible ameliorative step, it will useful to refer to some of those organisations' comments. Last week, having considered the balance of evidence and argument, the CBI said:
  "Since its introduction over two years ago, there is no evidence that section 8 is an effective deterrent to illegal working or racketeering. Many employers still remain confused as to what is expected of them and its main effect has been to place costly administrative burdens on good employers and increase the likelihood of discrimination against ethnic minorities."

  486
  The Trades Union Congress is an interesting and important witness to the debate, as, perhaps more than any other organisation, it is concerned with employees' conditions and the exploitation of workers. In Committee, the Minister rightly paid a good deal of attention to the exploitation of the labour force. However, the TUC, on behalf of the trade union movement, makes it clear that it
  "is astonished to read … that the Government intend to allow section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 to remain on the statute book."
  It argues that
  "the complexity of the checks required would lead to discrimination by employers against black and ethnic minority citizens."
  The hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) know better than I how racial discrimination operates in the labour force. They have probably experienced it themselves and they will be widely familiar with it among their constituents. However, it might be useful to explore how discrimination appears as a result of section 8.
  There are different types of employers. Some are genuinely conscientious, but they may none the less discriminate as a result of the complexity of section 8. About 13 different forms have to be used to perform a due diligence check on a job applicant's nationality status, and as many as 40 separate documents have to be reviewed. For companies such as Shell or Unilever and their armies of lawyers that is manageable, but small and medium-sized companies either do not follow procedures, or try to do so and make mistakes.
  I suspect that most employers are neither angels nor especially progressive, but they are not racist either. They are merely trying to avoid trouble, given that errors can land them in criminal difficulties. We know the little tricks of the trade in the labour market. A person who rings up about a job and whose accent is obviously Asian or African receives polite excuses to the effect that the job has already gone or that there are many applicants, while an application for a job from someone called Mohammed or Patel meets a predictable response.
  The Government claim that those effects can be mitigated by clause 15, but that flies in the face of 20 years of race relations legislation. Such measures are not effective. I am sure that other hon. Members have had similar experiences, but a very able young Asian man came to my advice surgery on Friday who had achieved three A grades at A-level and 7 starred A grades in his GCSEs. He had applied to five medical schools, but had not secured an interview at any of them. He knew and I knew the reason—his name is Patel. Nor are we conspiracy theorists: two days later the Secretary of the Medical Schools Association happened to confirm in the press that that practice was widespread among medical schools. If that can happen in a public and highly reputable profession, in institutions funded by the Government, it is bound to happen on a much wider scale among the small and medium-sized businesses in which such practices are almost impossible to detect.
  The Government have tried to discourage such action and have worked hard to produce a formula in the new clause. However, the Commission for Racial Equality has concluded that it will not work. I shall quote from the text

  487
  cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), which says that the new regulations will not work
  "unless non-compliance was to form part of the criminal offence (which would effectively shift anti-discrimination from a civil to a criminal offence)".
  The clause is bound to be relatively ineffective and will not outlaw discrimination.
  I do not want to exaggerate the importance of the impact of costs on small businesses. If a Bill could outlaw discrimination, it would be worth the price, and business should pay a price. It is reasonable to ask employers to be careful about whom they employ. They should take responsibility for checking that they are not employing illegal people. What is at issue is the magnitude of the administrative problem and the enormous number of checks that must be completed.
  Hon. Members who have read previous debates will know of the problem with national insurance numbers. Many people entitled to work have no national insurance number, including people who have indefinite leave to stay or right of abode. Equally, many people who are not entitled to work have national insurance numbers. There are many spare national insurance numbers, and there is a massive disparity between the national insurance numbers of the Benefits Agency and the Contributions Agency. Using national insurance as a check does not work, and passports and other documents must be used as a back-up, which makes the system onerous.
  There has been only one prosecution under the 1986 Act—of a farm in Kent—and the Government could argue that the Act is a deterrent and does not impede business operations. It clearly does affect business, however. A constituent of mine who runs a residential home was recently visited by the authorities because someone had tipped them off that asylum seekers were being illegally employed. The company was turned over and its reputation traduced in the local paper. It became widely regarded as a racketeering company, until it was eventually established that nothing wrong had been done. The African who was believed to be an illegal asylum seeker was employed perfectly legally. No explanation was received from the authorities and no apology given. My constituent is pursuing the matter with the ombudsman, but I shall not hold my breath.
  Such enforcement is starting to affect businesses. That sort of harassment, plus considerable legal compliance costs, raises problems for business. I do not exaggerate the importance of business costs; racial discrimination is the dominant issue. Encouragement of racial discrimination will continue as long as section 8 remains on the statute book. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam has said, that section is unnecessary because enforcement powers exist under earlier Acts.
  10 pm
  Fiona Mactaggart: The Bill has taught me several lessons about the realities of politics. The first lesson is that it is easier to say something in opposition than it is to do it in government. The second is that when one is faced with complex legislation, and seeks and achieves changes to it by Ministers—I am very grateful for the changes to this Bill—one must focus on the priorities. That means that, during the process of negotiation, one can end up being relatively silent on
  488
  points that give cause for concern. I have been relatively silent on the new clause, but I am concerned because I believe that the commitments that we gave in opposition and in the early days of the Government were right.
  The third lesson is that civil servants capture Ministers and tell them that something can be achieved. That is particularly ironic when it involves the civil servants responsible for the administration of immigration control, who have for many years been telling Ministers that they can speed up the system. I remember vividly commitments in 1993 and 1996 to make the system much faster, but it did not speed up.
  I believe that the commitment to a code of practice was a correct attempt to mitigate the discriminatory effects of section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. However, we should reconsider that commitment now that the Commission for Racial Equality has had an opportunity to examine the draft code of practice, and now that the better regulation task force has said, convincingly, that there will be burdens on business.
  There is more than one way to skin this cat. We could amend section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971, so that it is an offence not only knowingly to harbour a person unlawfully but knowingly to secure the unlawful employment of a person. That would be a better way to tackle the abuse, which Ministers have rightly identified, of organised racketeering, and it is right to take action against that.
  I strongly supported the Home Secretary when certain other anti-racists suggested that it is unfair for Britain to retain the right to its own immigration controls and that we should be part of a European system. I am absolutely convinced that the focus of immigration controls should be at ports of entry and that one of the advantages of being an island nation is that we have a geographical ability to administer immigration controls more effectively than mainland Europe.
  We should not try to expand the operation of controls internally. We should reduce the number of places where immigration controls operate. Those controls should not be operated by hospitals and employers but should be exercised at ports and by immigration officers who follow up people who seek to lie and cheat their way into Britain. By doing that, we could have a more effective system of control. We need methods to deal with organised rackets, but I am not yet convinced that this is the right method.
  In view of the further representations by the Commission for Racial Equality, debates in Committee and the unanimous concerns about burdens on business, Ministers might like to take the opportunity of the Bill's passage through another place to find out whether there is another way to skin this cat.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I shall make a brief contribution because, by my calculation, we should have 10 minutes for each of the other groups of amendments before the guillotine falls at midnight. I doubt whether we shall have the chance to discuss all those amendments or to have a Third Reading debate on what hon. Members on both sides of the House regard as a significant Bill. Whether or not the Government are trying to achieve something similar to the proposals of the previous Government, Government amendments and those in the names of other hon. Members ought often to be discussed at length, if possible. Perhaps when the Bill returns from another place we shall have the opportunity to do that.

  489
  I ought to say that I probably voted for section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. Having put that on record, I would like to add that some of the arguments of the Commission for Racial Equality are important. The argument that only one successful prosecution has taken place raises the question whether there are better ways of achieving the aim of section 8. Sir Herman Ouseley and others would want this House to take such arguments seriously.
  Those who tabled the new clause and the associated amendment, No. 150, suggest that we should leave out either section 8 of the previous Act or clause 15—originally clause 13—of this Bill. Did the Home Office consult the Commission for Racial Equality on clause 15, as subsection (4) would require? If it did not give Sir Herman Ouseley and the Commission the opportunity to comment on it, I would wonder why. The Government ought to be setting an example instead of waiting until legislation catches their action. It would be useful to hear from the Minister whether the CRE was consulted, what advice it gave and to what extent that advice differs from the content of the very reasonable letter that the commission sent to Members of Parliament concerning this part of the Bill.
  I turn to the totally separate university employment issues, which were raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). If overseas students seek employment in part to support themselves at university, how are they affected by clause 15? Is it one of the issues on which the United Kingdom Council for Overseas Student Affairs will have consulted the Home Office? Is it one of the issues, among others, to which the Minister might like to tell the House his response? When may UKCOSA expect to receive a reply to the letter which many hon. Members wished that they had received before Report and Third Reading?
  The issue is not politically contentious; it is a straightforward and practical question of whether people such as immigration advisers at universities will need to be registered or pay registration fees, and whether they will be brought within the scope of the Bill under the designated professional bodies, which are now cited in clause 71. That is a point of detail to which the Minister may want to refer.
  The overall point is whether we can avoid those ghastly circumstances where, in addition—possibly—to indirect prejudice in employment, all employers are required under the code of practice to undergo for all employees some of the stages stipulated under section 8 of the previous Act when some suspicion is raised. We must move forward from that.
  I look forward with interest to what the Minister has to say. He is unlikely to satisfy the whole House now, but if he does not, I believe that another place will interfere with clause 15 to try to introduce a degree of fairness, which this House, with the amount of time left available to it, will not succeed in doing.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: Let us be perfectly straightforward and honest: this new clause presents us with a practical and moral dilemma. The Government have thought very long and hard about this issue. We were initially intending to revoke section 8 of the
  490
  Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, but we have had to consider in detail the implications of doing so. We have reached the conclusion that the mischief caused by removing section 8 would be greater than that caused by its remaining, although we acknowledge that it causes discrimination. I have no doubt about that, and that is why we must send a very clear message to employers that it is unacceptable for them to discriminate through the use of section 8. The statutory code is our way of sending that very strong message.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) rightly asked whether we had changed our mind. The straight answer is yes, and we have done so after long and careful thought. She criticises us for having opposed the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. I would say of that Act—I do not know whether she would agree—that there was something of the night about it. Therefore, there were many reasons why we were right to take the view that we did.
  However, we have studied this issue with great care, taken stock of the problems associated with illegal working and the exploitation of illegal immigrants and reached the view that this provision will be a valuable tool if it is better targeted against unscrupulous and exploitative employers. We are not alone in that view. Illegal working is a growing global problem. Every other European Union country now has employer sanctions. Indeed, most countries punish the offence by imprisonment as well as fines. We have concluded that we must have a way of dealing with the problem of illegal working in the United Kingdom and the systematic abuse and exploitation of workers.
  Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who is sitting on the Back Bench, mentioned the sweatshop economy, where overstayers work, and described how some employers take on overstayers at appalling rates and in very bad conditions, often exploiting them unmercifully. Often, the working conditions are little short of slavery.
  We need to ensure that we have a mechanism for dealing with the way in which some of those employers operate. They are able to get away with it because there is almost a conspiracy between the overstayer or illegal immigrant and the employer. The overstayer or illegal immigrant does not want to come to the attention of the authorities and therefore will not report a breach of health and safety conditions or of minimum wage legislation, so those are not ways in which we can get at the employer. We have carefully considered other ways.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) candidly said that the Liberal Democrats, too, had considered the issue, and had reached a judgment that section 8 had to go. I can understand why they might have reached that judgment, but it is a difficult judgment for us to reach. We think that, by having a statutory code, we can correct the balance and convey a strong message that the discrimination that section 8 sometimes creates can be dealt with and that employers must not discriminate. However, the removal of section 8 would come at too high a price in terms of leaving many workers to be exploited.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona MactaggArt) argued that existing offences under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 relating to persons who are knowingly concerned in assisting illegal entry and

  491
  harbouring could be accommodated or used against those who facilitate illegal working. We have looked at that argument very closely, and it does not work. No doubt the Liberal Democrats have looked at it, too, and concluded that it does not work. However, the problem is one of mens rea—proof of the requisite state of mind. Employers simply say, "I did not ask, so I did not know", and unless there is an obligation for them to do some checks—the nature of which I shall discuss in a moment—it is very difficult to use section 25 against an employer who poses as a facilitator or harbours illegal immigrants. Our advice is that the need to prove mens rea makes it very difficult to convict in those circumstances, and it is not possible to create a criminal law that will enable us to deal with that.
  On the other hand, section 8 deals with the unscrupulous employer, yet affords the honest employer a defence based on a simple document check, which he must apply in a way that does not discriminate. We seek to retain that offence and want it to be further tested in tackling the growing problem of systematic abuse.
  Members of the Chinese community have met the Home Secretary. They are concerned that Chinese illegal immigrants are paying traffickers as much as £14,000 to get them illegally into Britain and into jobs. They do that not by having £14,000 in a bank in China, but by becoming bound labour. They are bound for five years or more, and they come to Britain and work at appallingly low wages and often in dreadful conditions. The Chinese community is rightly concerned at the extent of that activity, and wants it stopped.
  10.15 pm
  We also have the problem of the gang masters, who use the lump system that was used on building sites in the past. It is now used on the land. The gang master sells a gang of illegal immigrants or asylum seekers—people from Poland and Lithuania seem to have been particularly involved in this exercise—and the farmer asks no questions and gets cheap labour, which undercuts the wages of agricultural workers in the area. Section 8 at least enables us to get at the gang master. We need to be able to tackle unscrupulous employers.
  We did oppose section 8 in opposition, because we seriously feared that it would cause discrimination. That is a problem, but we need to be able to deal with exploitative employers. We say that at present section 8 is not operating properly. We refer an allegation to the prosecuting authorities after we have served an offending employer with a warning. That is because the measures were primarily designed to combat widespread abuse, not to penalise small employers who have made a simple mistake.
  We do not intend to penalise small employers who have made a mistake and do not intend to facilitate on a large scale. To date, 40 warnings have been issued, but there has been only one prosecution, which was very recent. After long and hard thought, we took a decision to implement the legislation. The reason that we have not prosecuted more is that we were considering the issue carefully. We were extremely concerned about the implications of section 8. We finally decided that we needed to take action because the extent of the abuse was so considerable.
  The recent prosecution involved the illegal employment of a number of people in the horticultural industry. Given the opportunity of mounting a defence against
  492
  prosecution under section 8, the employer was unable to do so. The company pleaded guilty and was fined a total of £4,500 and ordered to pay costs.
  Given the vast profits involved in employing cheap, exploitable, illegal labour, we must tackle the abuse. We are keen to bring more cases to court and to send a strong message to racketeers, who often employ quite large numbers of illegal immigrants, and to those who facilitate that. That is not only with a view to maintaining firm control of immigration, but in the interests of vulnerable employees, many of whom are badly exploited. Those who seek to remove section 8 would leave illegal immigrants to be exploited by unscrupulous employers in order to cut wages.
  On amendments Nos. 150 and 157, clause 15 is designed to emphasise to employers their duty to avoid racial discrimination in their recruiting practices when they seek to secure the statutory defence under section 8. We will make it part of our statutory code to apply initial checks without discrimination, and we will enforce that.
  The obligation is clear. I shall read from the current code, which is not statutory, but forms the basis on which we will consult. It states:
  "The best way to ensure that you do not discriminate is to treat all applicants in the same way at each stage of the recruitment process. You may ask for a document at any stage—but if you ask for a document from one applicant make sure you ask for a document from all applicants being considered at that stage."
  That is a clear way in which employers can make sure that they do not discriminate.
  Our code has the serious purpose of tackling discrimination where it occurs. It occurs in some employment practices. We accept that some employers might seek to use section 8 as an excuse for racially discriminatory purposes. We want to make it clear to all employers that they should not even begin to contemplate using the excuse of the statutory defence under section 8 to discriminate. We will not tolerate racism from employers.
  That is why we need clause 15 and reject the amendment, which would remove the statutory code. We want to deal with these issues firmly. Our code will give a clear and simple message to employers who may be discriminating unintentionally, or who may attempt to dissriminate. They will be unable to do so because the legislation will be enforced. Those who discriminate and use section 8 as an excuse to do so will know that the code will be used against them in the courts. It therefore provides the extra deterrent against discrimination that we need.
  As I have said throughout the debate, there are two problems that we need to tackle: first, the mischief of unscrupulous employers exploiting illegal labour to drive down wages; and, secondly, the mischief of racist discrimination being excused by section 8. We will tolerate neither. Section 8 will be used to tackle gang masters and racketeers, and those who import illegal labour. It will be used to target serious criminals without warning in a much more concerted and focused way.
  We will also use the new statutory code to tackle racism. The Liberal Democrat amendment would remove our ability to do that. The hon. Member for Hallam has been honest and open about how the Liberal Democrats have come to their conclusion, and I understand the logic of their argument. Indeed, I have a degree of sympathy

  493
  with it. However, it leaves dangerously exposed many vulnerable people, who are either overstayers or illegal immigrants, and others, who may then face exploitation. Moreover, it does nothing about the fact that illegal working drives down wages and allows some unscrupulous employers to drive down the wages of people who might otherwise be able to work lawfully.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) mentioned that Bangladeshis in her community face fivefold discrimination. We need to tackle discrimination and enforce the Race Relations Act 1976. We also need to enforce the statutory code that we are providing in the Bill. I remind my hon. Friend that her constituents also face the problem of exploitation in sweatshops. We need to deal with that, too. She said that the Government have an excellent record on race relations and race equality. We want to enhance that record. We have already said that we are examining the race equality legislation and we seek to move it firmly forward. What we cannot do, however, is allow the exploitation of vulnerable workers by the removal of section 8.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) asked whether we were still listening. My hon. Friend asked whether there was another way to skin a cat. We are still listening and if there are ways to deal with exploitative employers and to reduce discrimination, we want to hear them. This matter is still to be discussed in another place and we are more than willing to talk to the Commission for Racial Equality. I met Bob Perkiss of the CRE and discussed those matters at length. It is aware of our concerns, although it still has its views, as the Liberal Democrats and others have theirs. However, it understands that these are real issues, which the Government must address.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can the Minister answer directly the question that was put to him, which was: was the CRE consulted about section 8? Was it consulted about clause 15, which was previously clause 13, and has it put directly to the Minister, as it has to Back-Bench Members, its concerns about the present position? It has written to Members of Parliament saying that it is against it.
  Mr. O'Brien: Yes. When we were considering this matter I met Bob Perkiss of the Commission for Racial Equality, who was representing Sir Herman Ouseley, and we discussed at length our concerns about the issue. Strong representations were made to me and it was clear that there were some arguments. Like the Liberal Democrats, the CRE took the view that the balance of the argument was in favour of removing section 8. Although it accepted that there was an issue of exploitative employers, it wanted to have section 8 removed. We have reached a different judgment. We do not think that we can leave the exploitative employers to continue to exploit vulnerable people, which would be the effect of removing the provision.
  We have consulted widely. No organisation has yet come back to us to show us how we can effectively deal with both the mischiefs that we seek to tackle with the provision. We were faced with a dilemma. We have resolved it by strengthening the anti-racist provisions with
  494
  a statutory code, which we will enforce. We have had to face up to the reality that section 8 is being used to discriminate and we have had to find a way of tackling that. We believe that the statutory code will achieve that.
  The previous Government had a non-statutory code and, therefore, we needed to send a much tougher and stronger message. There is no panacea here, and this dilemma is difficult for all of us, but the hard realities have had to be faced. We have taken the view that the balance of the argument comes down in favour of retaining section 8, but improving the strength of the code by making it statutory, and making a firm commitment that the Government will take action if we find that employers are discriminating.
  Mr. Allan: We do not want to encourage illegal working or the exploitation of workers in such a situation. We do not take that view; nor do those who share our position—the Commission for Racial Equality, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry. I hope that the Minister does not characterise all of us as wishing to encourage illegal working. We are talking about the best way to tackle that without the unnecessary consequence, and it is important that we get that straight.
  I was grateful to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for intervening to point out the discrepancy—or the movement—in the Government's position. We moved on to talk about skinning cats, which took me back to a comment made yesterday by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). She characterised the staff of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate as nice people who probably love animals and go to church. I wondered whether she was recommending the right hon. Lady for a job in the IND; she seems to be eminently qualified.
  When the Minister opened the debate on Report yesterday, he said that many of the previous positions could be characterised as knee-jerk leftism, but we certainly feel that the opposition to section 8 which the Labour party showed during proceedings on the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 was not knee-jerk leftism, but a principled and rational response to what turned out to be discriminatory. We are disappointed that, once again, firmer seems to have won out over fairer in measures relating to illegal working.
  I was rather attracted to the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who said that we ought to be considering new and better ways of making section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 work. The situations described by the Minister, such as Chinese gang masters smuggling people in at great expense, should be dealt with under section 25. I should be horrified to find that such people are being dealt with under section 8 of the 1996 Act when we have a provision on the statue book under which we could sentence them to up to 10 years in jail, rather than imposing rather paltry fines under that section.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point. Facilitators are able to do such things because some employers are prepared to employ

  495
  people at low salaries and in bad conditions. We need to be able to prevent them, not the people who import the workers, from doing that.
  Mr. Allan: I do not disagree that there may be connivance and that that causes problems, but I should have thought that, because the National Criminal Intelligence Service is doing good work on such rackets and because we are taking many intelligence-led approaches, we could trace people through, take appropriate action and, if necessary, amend the 1971 Act.
  The 1971 Act deals with intent, which is the crucial element. Section 8 of the 1996 Act refers to a strict liability, and intent does not have to be shown in the same way, which is a fundamental difference. I believe that, rather than coming up with new provisions which simply cast the net wider, provide lower penalties and have a lower standard of proof because that makes it easier to prosecute, it would be far better to use existing law to show intent.
  It is not the business of government to revise the law in such a way. Rather, we should make existing law work when it is the appropriate law for dealing with the kind of the offences that we are discussing. Section 25 is the appropriate provision for such offences. If the Government were serious about tackling the racketeers, they would include in the Bill an amendment to section 25 of the 1971 Act. That would be a much better way of dealing with the problem than continuing the life span of section 8 of the 1996 Act.
  If we are to deal with this problem, section 8 must be removed. Hon. Members face a simple choice: they can vote with us to lift the burden from citizens of this country and people who are legitimately seeking appropriate work, but happen to look foreign or have foreign-sounding names, or they can sit on their hands and allow the Bill to go through unamended and let the Government off the hook. The Government are retreating from the position that they took in opposition of fighting discrimination, and are hoping that a few more prosecutions will take place.
  The code of practice that the Government have suggested as a solution would have to be operated and enforced against employers. It is difficult to see how we could seriously expect that code of practice to be enforced in an anti-discriminatory way if section 8 of the 1996 Act is not even enforced significantly. We will not move forward on anti-discrimination if section 8 remains in force. I urge Labour Members to stick to the position that they honourably took in opposition and vote with us for the repeal of section 8 of the 1996 Act.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 334.

  Division No. 210]

  [10.31 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Burstow, Paul

  Baker, Norman

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Beggs, Roy

  Chidgey David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cotter, Brian

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Brake, Tom

  Feam, Ronnie

  Brake, Tom

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Harvey, Nick

  Burnett, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  496

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Keetch, Paul

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

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Stunell, Andrew

  Livsey, Richard

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Tyler, Paul

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Webb, Steve

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Moore, Michael

  Wills, Phill

  Oaten, Mark

  Wood, Mike

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rendel, David

  Dr. Evan Harris and

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Dr. Vincent Cable.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clelland, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Alexander, Douglas

  Coaker, Vernon

  Allen, Graham

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Coleman, Iain

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Colman, Tony

  Ashton, Joe

  Connarty, Michael

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Corbett, Robin

  Barnes, Harry

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barron, Kevin

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Battle, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cranston, Ross

  Beard, Nigel

  Crausby, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cummings, John

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Benton, Joe

  Darvill, Keith

  Berry, Roger

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Best, Harold

  Davidson, Ian

  Blackman, Liz

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Boateng, Paul

  Denham, John

  Borrow, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dowd, Jim

  Drew, David

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Browne, Desmond

  Edwards, Huw

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Efford, Clive

  Burden, Richard

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ennis, Jeff

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Follett, Barbara

  Cann, Jamie

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Foulkes, George

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Chaytor, David

  Galloway, George

  Church, Ms Judith

  Gapes, Mike

  Clapham, Michael

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Goggins, Paul

  497

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Grocott, Bruce

  McIsaac, Shona

  Grogan, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gunnell, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Hain, Peter

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McWilliam, John

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Healey, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Heppell, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hesford, Stephen

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Meale, Alan

  Hill, Keith

  Merron, Gillian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hoey, Kate

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hood, Jimmy

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hope, Phil

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Mountford, Kali

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mudie, George

  Hurst, Alan

  Mullin, Chris

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jamieson, David

  Norris, Dan

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Olner, Bill

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Plaskitt, James

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pond, Chris

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pope, Greg

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kidney, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Radice, Giles

  Laxton, Bob

  Rammell, Bill

  Lepper, David

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Levitt, Tom

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Linton, Martin

  Rooker, Jeff

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rooney, Terry

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lock, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Roy, Frank

  McCabe, Steve

  Ruane, Chris

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  498

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Sawford, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Timms, Stephen

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Touhig, Don

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Watts, David

  Snape, Peter

  White, Brian

  Soley, Clive

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Spellar, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wills, Michael

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stott, Roger

  Wise, Audrey

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Woolas, Phil

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Worthington, Tony

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. David Hanson and

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 7

  REMOVAL OF CERTAIN PERSONS UNLAWFULLY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
  Amendments made: No. 28, in page 5, line 14, leave out from beginning to 'has' in line 18 and insert
  has made an application for leave to remain in accordance with regulations made under section (Treatment of certain overstayers) which'.
  No. 29, in page 5, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 29.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Clause 13

  SUPPLY OF INFORMATION TO SECRETARY OF STATE
  10.45 Pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 9, line 40, at end insert—
  '( ) the provision of support for asylum-seekers and their dependants under Part VI;'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in page 51, line 13, at end insert—
  "'Secretary of State" means the Secretary of State for Social Security;'.
  No. 19, in page 52, line 42, at end insert—
  '(12) The Secretary of State shall within one year of this section coming into effect and every year thereafter make a report to Parliament on—
  (a) the provision of support for asylum seekers and their dependants under this section; and
  (b) the length of time asylum seekers wait for—

  (i) his determination of their application; and

  (ii) appeals against his decisions.'.

  No. 153, in page 53, leave out lines 15 to 18 and insert—
  '(3) The Secretary of State may provide support under subsection (1)(a), (1)(b) or (2) above, wholly, mainly or partly by way of cash payments made (by whatever means) to the supported person or his dependants (if any).'.
  No. 154, in page 54, line 35, leave out
  ', or might reasonably be expected to be,'.
  No. 155, line 36, at end insert—
  '(3A) No personal possessions connected with marriage or religious beliefs and any other assets as are proscribed by the Secretary of State shall be taken into account under section 83(3) above.'.
  Mr. O'Brien: This group of amendments deals with part VI of the Bill. Government amendment No. 30 will enable information held by police, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the national crime squad, Customs and Excise and any person specified in an order made by the Secretary of State to be supplied to the Home Office for use in the provision of support to asylum seekers and their dependants. That will help us to identify and bring to justice those who seek to abuse the asylum support system, and allow us to receive information from other agencies, which are to be specified—such as the Benefits Agency—that we need to operate part VI of the Bill.
  Although we certainly do not envisage any great use being made of the provision, it is necessary to assist in the prevention of fraud in particular cases. As the Government have stated on numerous occasions, it is intended that the power to supply information shall be operated in a manner that is consistent with other applicable legal requirements, most notably data protection legislation and article 8 of the European convention on human rights.
  It may well be that, in tabling amendment No. 16, Conservative Members are trying to suggest that, against the background of the current and—perhaps thanks to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison)— well-publicised difficulties in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, they lack some confidence in the Home Office's ability to deliver an efficient service to destitute asylum seekers.
  Hon. Members will be well aware of the reasons for the problems faced by the IND, but those problems are being dealt with. On the latest figures, 67 per cent. more asylum decisions are being made this year than were made last year. Moreover, over the next three years, £120 million extra will be put into the IND' s budget. We shall also recruit hundreds more staff, and are currently actively recruiting 200 more staff members.
  On Monday, the long-lost Siemens computer system arrived. However, we think that it will take five or perhaps six months of testing before we are absolutely certain that it works as it was meant to when it was signed up to in 1996.
  500
  The number of cases being processed each month by the IND has started to rise again, with the target being that, by 1 April 2001, on average, decisions will be taken within two months, and that any subsequent appeal will be determined within another four months. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has given a commitment that, with effect from 1 April 2000, decisions on the asylum claims of families with children will be delivered within two months. If that cannot be achieved, they will not be brought into the new support arrangements on that date.
  Giving the Home Office responsibility for supporting asylum seekers, in addition to processing their substantive asylum claims, will create a more focused approach in meeting the needs of asylum seekers than has existed in the past, and provides an added incentive in ensuring that the targets are achieved. By placing responsibility for the new support arrangements in the hands of the Secretary of State for Social Security—as Conservative Members propose doing—that advantage would be lost. We therefore cannot accept amendment No. 16.
  One of the reasons for the growth of the backlog under the previous Government was that no one really had an incentive to deal with it, as the costs were met by the Department of Social Security or by local councils. The Home Office needed to have a vested interest in clearing the backlog, but did not have one. Under the new financial arrangements, in which all funding—including support funding—will be with the Home Office, the Home Office will indeed have a vested incentive to process cases quickly and on a sustainable basis. We shall have to employ the people that we need to ensure that that objective is achieved.
  It is important also that the arrangements provided by part VI of the Bill should be kept separate from the main social security system. The new system will be designed to provide support for limited periods and in different ways from the social security system to people who have distinctive needs that are quite different from those who are in the UK on a long-term basis.
  Amendment No. 19, tabled by the Conservatives, appears to be directed at the commitment to reduce the time taken to reach an initial decision on asylum claims to an average of two months and the average time taken to determine an appeal to four months. Despite the problems that the IND has experienced in recent months—indeed, for the past decade—action is being undertaken to deal with the backlog, and we are making progress towards reaching our targets for processing cases.
  Information on the average times in which claims are processed and appeals are determined is not published routinely, but it is in the public domain. By way of replies to parliamentary questions on the subject, which appear to be asked quite regularly, not least by the hon. Member for Hertsmere, the information can be obtained at any time by Members of Parliament. However, there is a case for the information being published on a more regular basis, and because the proposals in the amendment are not the best way of achieving that, we shall onsider other means of making the information more widely available.
  As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government now publish regular bulletins on asylum and immigration trends, so one of the means that we shall consider is inserting in that statistical bulletin a category detailing

  501
  how quickly decisions are made. That would go further than an annual report to Parliament, in that it would provide a more regular bulletin. I give no commitment now to introduce such a measure, but I acknowledge the argument for making the information more readily available and have no objection to doing that. Our intention is to tackle the issues and ensure that we hit our targets, and we are well prepared to be held accountable for that.
  The basic safety net that the new support arrangements for asylum seekers will provide assumes that the period of time an asylum seeker needs to rely on the safety net is to be kept to a minimum. However, it must be borne in mind that, under the current arrangements, many asylum seekers receive little in the way of back-up and general assistance. Under the new arrangements, the voluntary sector will be of fundamental importance, providing a considerable degree of back-up and assistance to asylum seekers. The Bill contains provisions to encourage the voluntary sector to do that. Hon. Members may be assured that the overall conditions experienced by most asylum seekers will be improved from current standards. The rather chaotic system that we inherited left a lot to be desired, and we are strongly committed to improving it.
  We went over the ground covered by the Liberal Democrats' amendment, No. 153, at some length in Committee. As I explained then, the Government's view is that the availability of cash benefits is a significant pull factor to some people, who choose to use the asylum process as a means of supporting themselves while visiting this country for reasons wholly different from a well-founded fear of persecution. I do not suggest that that is true of all asylum seekers or even of the majority, but it is true of a significant minority, and substituting vouchers for cash payments is a disincentive to those who would exploit the system.
  As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already made clear, we do not believe that people who are genuinely fleeing for their lives are likely not to flee because they would enter a system in which vouchers and cash were a combined element. That would not be a factor that influenced their decision. We propose to allow £10 per person per week by way of cash, with the balance in vouchers. On the illustrative figures that we published earlier this year, a family of two adults and two children would receive £40 by way of cash and more than £50 by way of vouchers.
  There might have been some confusion about the fact that there will be an element of choice for the asylum seekers. They will have a choice of accommodation plus support, or just the support. They may initially accept the accommodation, but decide not to continue with it after a while, perhaps because they have found accommodation with relatives. They may wish to move to London. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has expressed concern about that. Provided that we have a registered address for them, they can decide whether to accept the one-off offer of accommodation and support or just the support. Some asylum seekers may choose to live with relatives in my hon. Friend's constituency. That is up to them. Our concern is that they provide us with a registered address.
  Mr. Allan: It was not made clear in Committee whether the support provided to someone who lived with
  502
  friends of relatives would be identical to that provided to someone living in accommodation that was provided for them.
  Mr. O'Brien: The support will be paid in a different way if people are accommodated. One of the aims of the accommodation system is to provide for the heating and lighting costs, as well as other factors. Those who choose the support without the accommodation will pay their own utility costs, which will no doubt be shared if they are living with relatives. However, the offer of accommodation and support will still be open to them. They can choose whatever they feel is most appropriate.
  Mr. Corbyn: The Minister seems to be saying that there would be no impediment to the continued payment of the support system apart from the housing cost if someone chose to live somewhere other than the place that they were initially allocated. Is that correct?
  Mr. O'Brien: We shall offer an asylum seeker accommodation plus support. That will include payment of utilities bills and payments for various other temporary needs such as kettles, cutlery and the like. That choice remains open at all times. However, some may choose not to take that option and will live elsewhere, taking just the cash plus vouchers. The choice will be theirs and it will not be forced on them by us.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Home Secretary said that people who took the offer of accommodation had their utilities paid for. What happens in respect of the utilities for those who make their own accommodation arrangements? Will those people be able to uplift the standard vouchers and cash to be able to pay for their utilities themselves?
  Mr. O'Brien: They will be offered accommodation plus support. If they decide not to accept that, they will have chosen to accept only vouchers plus cash. Some may choose to go one way and others another. They may change their mind at some point in the process. That will be a matter for them.
  11 pm
  The vouchers will be exchangeable at a wide range of outlets throughout the United Kingdom and there will be no restriction on the items for which they may be used, although we would expect them to be used only by the person or household to whom they are issued. We are actively considering the possibility of their being redeemable at charity shops.
  It was pointed out in Committee—and we listened carefully—that some people may feel that clothing and other items are too expensive in supermarkets. Many people buy clothing and low-cost items at charity shops, and we are considering with the charities whether they could help by accepting vouchers.
  Our aim is that the asylum seekers will be in the support arrangements on average for no more than six months, and often for much shorter periods. If they are recognised as genuine refugees under the 1951 convention, we would want that to happen as soon as possible, within two months or less; the sooner the better, from our point of view. The only restriction is the five-day

  503
  period that we have agreed should be allowed for people to present their case, after which we will want to proceed to a decision unless there is good reason for not doing so, such as that the asylum seeker or his legal representative wants to provide further evidence.
  Audrey Wise: The big principles about the vouchers have already been well rehearsed, but a smaller point bothers me. The fact that they are in bigger units than our normal currency will almost inevitably cost people more. If the smallest unit is 50p, for example, is there any way of arranging that change could be given? It would not be a lot of cash, but it would save people losing some of their meagre resources.
  Mr. O'Brien: In due course, we will consider the detail of the regulations. Throughout our proceedings, right from the start of the consultation process on the White Paper, we have agreed to listen to representations, and we are actively considering the point that my hon. Friend raised. The units of the voucher could be as little as 25p, and we are considering whether it would be useful to have a small amount of cash in change.
  We do not want to get into a position in which people buy a newspaper to get all the cash, because that would go against the whole spirit of the exercise, but we want to take a reasonable approach. Allowing some change to be given and ensuring that the denominations are small enough is one way of trying to ensure that the system works effectively. We are continuing to listen, and I will consider the matter as we develop the criteria for the regulations.
  Mr. Corbyn: What representations has the Minister had from the supermarket chains about the use of these vouchers, and are they concerned about them?
  Mr. O'Brien: I am not aware that they have expressed concerns to us. I know that others have, particularly about the fact that the way in which the local authorities have run some of their voucher schemes has meant that the vouchers were restricted to particular supermarkets in an area. We want to set up a national scheme so that, if the asylum seeker has to move for a period, visit relatives, or whatever, the voucher can be used at any major national supermarket and, in due course, if we can negotiate the arrangements, with various charity organisations.
  The aim is to ensure that we create a system that works and we shall be discussing closely with the supermarkets any concerns that they may have about how the system might operate. We shall be anxious to listen to them and to see whether there are ways in which we can more effectively ensure that the system deals with the proper needs of those seeking asylum.
  Liberal Democrat amendment No.154 seeks to leave out the provision that would allow the new Asylum Support Directorate to make assumptions about what support might be available to an asylum seeker if he chose to seek it. We need the provision. Asylum support from the Home Office is supposed to be the last resort to prevent destitution, not the first port of call for the Imelda Marcoses or the Shahs of Iran contemplating an asylum claim.
  Without the provision, we would have difficulty in asking asylum seekers what other resources or assets might be at their disposal. They may, for example,
  504
  have relatives already established in this country who are offering them accommodation, so that they would need to rely on the ASD only for other support. In general, the ASD would not expect those relatives to provide essential living expenses, or anything like that. The purpose of the provision is not to attempt to offload responsibility onto any unwilling third party.
  Amendment No. 155 is also unnecessary. In assessing an applicant's assets, we may wish to take into account certain valuables including, if it is a substantial amount, gold or other jewellery. That represents a significant source of wealth in some communities. However, I have made it clear that we shall not be taking into account wedding rings or personal devotional objects. That is not the objective of the exercise. That will be made clear in the regulations on the ASD support system that we shall produce in due course. We shall consult on just what to prescribe in that way in due course.
  As I have already said, there are examples of people bringing in substantial amounts of gold. I have spoken to some myself. The woman to whom I spoke at Waterloo said that she was carrying the equivalent of £4,000 worth of gold. She had come from a country in some turmoil, so we usually grant asylum to its people if they apply. In many ways, it is an unsafe country. I never ask the names of people to whom I speak, so I do not know the name of the lady in question, although no doubt it would be possible to trace her. She was coming here to set up a business, but she was also fleeing from a country with a civil war; she had sold her business to come here, bringing with her the proceeds of that sale.
  Someone with £4,000 is not destitute. We would expect to be able to take that into account. To exclude whole classes of objects in primary legislation, as the Liberal Democrats propose, rather than on the basis of a more detailed test, which we can consider when we produce the regulations in due course, would be wrong. This is the wrong time and the wrong legislation for such an amendment. If Liberal Democrats have a view about this, we can discuss it when the regulations come before the House.
  Mr. Clappison: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 19 and 16. As has been correctly anticipated, amendment No. 19 is designed to introduce a much-needed element of accountability into the new system. Amendment No. 16 deals with a different point: it explores the wisdom of giving responsibility for the new asylum support system to the Home Office.
  The Government propose the creation of a brand new administrative arm of the Home Office for the management of asylum support. Given that there is no tradition of Home Office experience in such matters, and that the administrative machinery will be wholly new, the background is hardly propitious. The backlog of cases being managed by the asylum determination system, which is a Home Office responsibility, is now reaching record levels. It rose from 64,000 at the end of last year to 76,000 at the end of April, and is still growing.
  I shall not go further into those figures, although the Under-Secretary of State has referred to my interest in such matters. Indeed, we are very familiar with each other's speeches on them, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said yesterday. To be fair to the Under-Secretary, he was good

  505
  enough not to give us the full version of his speech, in which he sets out his perception of responsibility for those issues.
  However, we could reach common ground. The system has got much worse—I shall resist the temptation to say that that has happened in recent months—and the backlog is at a record high. The waiting times for asylum determination appeals taken together are miles away from the Government's targets. The evidence given in the Special Standing Committee shows that hardly anyone seriously believes that the Government will achieve their targets. The officials who naturally said that the Government would achieve those targets did so with a knowing look or a wry smile.
  I recently received a letter from the Under-Secretary about the current state of the passport system. Members of the public who want a passport so that they can go on holiday abroad this summer are facing long delays. The letter states:
  "I am sorry that the current arrears are resulting in calls to MPs' offices."
  That is not entirely surprising, but the wording seemed rather familiar. In my file of letters from the Minister, I found one on the subject of the backlog in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. The long queues of people wanting to stay in this country prove that there is no discrimination in the Government's policy: backlogs are affecting people who want to leave the country and those who want to stay in.
  That earlier letter stated:
  "One final category of work that is causing problems in Croydon results from MPs' letters chasing progress on particular cases. On 12 January, I asked colleagues to forward only the most urgent enquiries … Nonetheless, it is disappointing to note that the number of enquiries from MPs has risen over the recent period by a factor of 25 per cent."
  How very disagreeable it is of Members of Parliament to have the temerity to write letters to Ministers, let alone to expect answers.
  Mr. Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clappison: No, as I am just about to conclude my remarks.
  If he is fair, the Minister must agree that the background to the matter is hardly propitious. After all the Government's broken promises, it would take a brave man to say that they will achieve their targets. We might have more confidence in predicting that it is highly likely that, in the end, the British taxpayer will be asked to pick up the bill.
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Allan: I am pleased to hear that the Siemens computer system has been delivered, but if there is a five-month testing period, it will come on-line on about 1 January 2000, which may not be the best of ideas. The system is so delayed that it may calculate people's vouchers in pounds, shillings and pence. While that may be proper money, it would not be useful to asylum seekers to receive vouchers for half a crown or three bob and sixpence. [Interruption.] I shall not rise to remarks about matters European as, if I did so, I should stray well away from the amendments.
  506
  Amendment No. 153 seeks to assist the Secretary of State by offering him a "Get out of jail free" card if administrative problems arise. It does not prevent him from using vouchers, but allows flexibility to choose whatever balance he wants between vouchers and cash payments. The Bill limits him to paying up to 49 per cent. in cash and a minimum of 51 per cent. in vouchers. It states that he must not provide wholly or mainly by means of payments.
  The amendment reverses that provision, saying that the Secretary of State can provide wholly, mainly or partly in cash. I have to ask why the Secretary of State, who is so keen on flexibility elsewhere, is unwilling to have it in this area. If the Asylum Support Directorate works out as we suspect, I fear that the Bill will, in 18 months' time, prevent him from replacing the vouchers with cash, even if that appears to be the most sensible decision and the best deal for the taxpayer. The Government have admitted that the voucher system will be expensive. The more we explore the system, the more concerned we become about its implications and expense and the hassle of running it.
  Amendment No. 153 is not an aggressive attempt to divert the Government from their path, but an effort to help by giving additional flexibility to the Secretary of State, who has virtually pinned his political future—or, perhaps, the career of the Minister of State—to the success of the Asylum Support Directorate.
  The Under-Secretary has failed to answer our questions about people in accommodation of their own choosing who will not be supported. Clause 18 makes it clear that if other accommodation is available for someone, the Secretary of State will not provide accommodation, but will judge whether that person already has adequate accommodation. Sometimes, people will have chosen their accommodation, but sometimes they will not. If people are living with relatives, the Secretary of State will be able to say that he does not need to give them accommodation.
  In either case, the critical point is not the individual's choice, but the rate paid. Will people receive the same 70 per cent. as those in accommodation provided by the Secretary of State? Or will they receive 70 per cent. plus a small uplift to pay the utility costs that would not arise in supported accommodation? I hope that the Minister knows how he intends to handle that point, particularly as accommodation may not be a matter of personal choice. Clause 80 makes it clear that if a person has friends or relatives, he may be required to stay with them if the accommodation is deemed to be adequate.
  The final two amendments arose from concerns about comments made in Committee by the Under-Secretary. He has since moved on, and we appreciate his reassurances that some of our fears will not be realised. However, assets remain a grey area. The Government must flesh out their proposals, perhaps when the Bill proceeds to the other place. They cannot simply leave matters to regulations. People want a clear idea of what assets will remain to them. It is not as simple as saying that someone who has £4,000 in gold should have it taken away and that he can start again from scratch once his claim has been recognised.
  The Minister referred to an individual with £4,000 who wanted to start a business. If that person was given refugee status, the public interest would arguably be

  507
  served if he retained his assets and started a business rather than being a burden on the public purse because he had no means of supporting himself.
  We recognise that argument in social security legislation, which provides for a £3,000 floor: we enable people to keep their last £3,000-worth of assets because we hope that at some point they will no longer need social security benefits and will play an active role in our economy. There is no justification for stripping away asylum seekers' assets until they are left with next to nothing if we have a realistic expectation that they will be recognised as asylum seekers.
  The Minister will have to flesh out that provision. It is not an issue that we shall press tonight, but the hon. Gentleman will run into further trouble with people who share my concerns if he is unable to clarify exactly what level of assets the Government intend to specify in the regulations for deciding whether to declare someone destitute.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I want to speak to amendment No. 19 in support of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). Producing a report would be extremely valuable because there is no doubt that the two issues with which the report would be concerned are very important, but a report is a report is a report, and it is not enough. I say to my hon. Friend that his amendment should have provided for a debate. If the Bill is debated in another place, there will be an opportunity to provide that the report should be debated.
  There are two issues, both of which were touched on by my hon. Friend. The first is that the Bill provides a new form of social support, and it seems to be wholly right that, on a periodic basis, the House—whether this Chamber or another—should debate that. The second and quite different issue is the appalling delay associated with applications by asylum seekers. Incidentally, I admit that the delay is no worse than that for passports. The report would have much greater force if the amendment specified that the Government should provide time for a debate on the report. Although I support the amendment, it does not go far enough, and I hope that if a similar amendment is tabled in another place, it will make provision for a debate so that the House will have to be given an opportunity to discuss issues that I, for one, deem to be important.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I want to make a couple of points about amendment No. 30, which relates to the collection and sharing of information. I am concerned about the significant powers in clauses 13 and 14 to collect and pass around information. Clause 13 states that the information may be used for
  "the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences",
  and
  "such other purposes as may be specified."
  Many asylum seekers are concerned about providing information that may be significant to the determination of their case if they think that there is any risk of its reaching their national authorities, which may, in the past, have treated them as criminals. I am certain that there is no intention to pass on information in a way that might
  508
  put an asylum seeker at risk, but we need more clarity about what organisations could receive that information and what controls exist for confidentiality.
  I seek an assurance that the Minister shares my concern about confidentiality and that he will speak to the Refugee Legal Centre and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association—I know that he spoke to them during discussions on the Bill—to find out whether public assurance can be given to ensure that asylum seekers feel free to give information. They must feel confident that it will not be used, for example, by being passed through the European criminal detection system in a way that might, if their asylum claim failed, put them at risk in their country of origin.
  My second point relates to the amendment in the name of Opposition Members which provides for a report on the length of time in which decisions are made. I am pleased that decision making has been speeded up, although I used figures on current outstanding cases to calculate that, even at the improved rate of decision making and even if there were no extra applications, it could take us two years merely to get through the backlog.
  I am pleased that the Minister is putting extra investment into ensuring that the backlog is reduced, but I am concerned that we are seeing a false picture of progress on present decisions. In April, under the announcement that the Minister made some time ago, there was a backlog of 960 cases. The decisions on those cases will be made quickly. In addition, a very large number of them concern Kosovans. The very low number of refusals is an indication of the number of backlog cases and the number of Kosovans. I am concerned to be able to discover the quality of decisions being made.
  Rather than using a ritual reporting system, perhaps the Minister can make a couple of statements that would help to reassure us on the progress that is being made on speeding up decisions. The first is some assurance about avoiding the danger of forcing quick decisions on difficult cases once the easy decisions have been made. I am concerned that there might be a risk—I, more than many, have argued for speed—of making a quick and easy decision and leaving the matter to be sorted out on appeal, which may prolong the case for the individual. Will the Minister reassure us about what quality control mechanisms he will be using to ensure that there are no refusals that cannot be justified, which will lead to successful appeals and thereby create delays?
  As well as speeding up the average time to make a decision to two months, which is the Minister's target, will he consider managing a system a little like that for health service waiting lists? The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has often repeated the mantra that the length of time, rather than the number of cases waiting, is significant. Will the Minister assure us that if, for example, following the achievement of his target average, a family case up to initial decision takes six months, he will institute some mechanism to ensure that the Home Office's administrative procedures are not adding to the length of such cases? I am sure that such a statement would reassure a number of people about the way the system would work in practice.
  Dr. Cable: I should simply like to make a few additional comments on amendment No. 153 and the issue of flexibility. We have already had a very important debate on the principles of vouchers, and the Minister has already said that the regulations will take care of much of the technical detail. I shall ask some specific questions about the principles that will govern the voucher system and its administration.
  What principles will govern the determination of which outlets will manage the scheme? This important issue was touched on by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who asked a question about the supermarket system. When the Home Secretary described what he saw as the integrity of the voucher system, he said that it will work because the people who are given the vouchers are the only ones who can redeem them. That means that supermarket check-out assistants will be the last defence of the voucher system; they will have to enforce it.
  I imagine that only the large supermarkets will have the capacity to impose the system. Presumably, therefore, supermarkets will be given a large national captive market as a result of the operation of scheme. Supermarkets are almost certainly the least appropriate outlet for many forms of ethnic cooking, and for the foodstuffs that many refugees will seek. Charity shops are relevant for clothes, but we are talking about food. There is a continuum of possibilities between large supermarket chains and the variety of outlets that are needed for flexibility. Where on that scale will the balance lie? Who will take that decision?
  11.30 pm
  A second question is: what approach will the Government take to the so-called black market in vouchers? Perhaps as a result of my economist's background, I take a very charitable view of black markets; in many cases, they represent the triumph of the human spirit over bureaucracy. A black market gives flexibility, enabling people to trade their real needs in the market—but how will the Government deal with a black market in vouchers? Will there be strict enforcement? Will the emergence of a black market cause great concern, or will the Government allow flexibility?
  The third question concerns the link between vouchers and dispersal. Many communities will be relatively small. One dilemma that I encountered many years ago, when I was in local government and involved in an original dispersal policy for Ugandan Asians in Scotland, was that many of the areas where council housing was available were extremely poorly served by retail outlets. Will a directorate in London decide which shops in Scottish towns are appropriate avenues for the distribution of vouchers?
  The system is highly inflexible and highly inequitable. Surely it would be much more sensible to build flexibility into the legislation, by saying that, at certain times, or in certain parts of the country, cash should be used instead of vouchers, to allow flexibility.
  Mr. Allan: It emerged in Committee that this business of the package of accommodation seems to suggest that the people in London who are negotiating with shops in Scotland will also have to negotiate with landlords in
  510
  Scotland to change light bulbs and do all the other little things around the accommodation that the asylum seekers, unlike everyone else, are not being given cash to cover.
  Dr. Cable: I thank my hon. Friend, and conclude by emphasising our basic point. We are not, in this debate, trying to rehearse the basic issues of principle, but we suggest that, now that the Government are proceeding with a voucher system, for their own protection in the long term they must build sufficient flexibility into the law.
  Mr. Wardle: Before the Minister responds to the debate, I want to endorse what the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said. She has a long and impressive track record in this field. I emphacise that it is crucial to the efficiency and effectiveness of the asylum screening process that asylum applicants have confidence in the integrity and the confidentiality—the secrecy—of the information gathered and assessed. If they are to impart their knowledge of what is happening in their home country, it is vital that that confidence exist.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) alluded to backlogs in the asylum process, as well as at Lunar house generally, because of the attempted switch to information technology. He mentioned the problems in the UK Passport Agency. They are all indicative of a clogged system. If the Minister wishes to introduce fairness to the system, he must persuade the Treasury to spend the money to sweep out the whole queue, so that phoney applicants for asylum are not attracted and do not say, "We can come and there is a queue, so we can stay in the queue." That is the best way to serve the genuine applicants, who have a well-founded fear of persecution under the Geneva convention.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I shall respond to the points that were raised, although perhaps not in the order in which they were put to me.
  First, I give my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) an assurance that I share her anxiety that any information about the identity of an asylum seeker, genuine or not, should not get back to their home country, where it might prejudice their future. Obviously, in some countries, even the simple knowledge that they have claimed asylum may prejudice them. I will therefore speak to the Refugee Legal Centre and others, and discuss how best we can ensure that use of the power does not compromise information that we, too, wish to keep secret.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—rather unfairly, I thought—reprimanded the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) for the inadequacy of his amendment. I do not want to intrude on private grief, but let me defend the hon. Member for Hertsmere. He did very well. He got a commitment from me that we would consider how more information could be brought forward. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham was extremely unfair to his colleague.
  Let me deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). Amendment No. 153 is not needed. There are powers to suspend or repeal the voucher powers in clause 81 (4) and (5). Accordingly, I ask him not to press the amendment to a Division.

  511
  We do not intend to force people on their relatives. That would not be practical. Vouchers and cash will be paid at a standard rate. The utility costs will not be met as an addition. We assume that if the relatives are willing to provide accommodation, they will also be willing to meet the marginal extra costs of utilities while the asylum case is considered.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) spoke about the black market in vouchers—
  Mr. Gerrard: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: May I not give way? I know that a number of hon. Members want to deal with points in subsequent debates. I have been generous in giving way up to now, and I want to make some progress.
  The black market in vouchers is a matter of concern to us. We will discuss with supermarkets how to deal with it. We will need to deal with it during the course of the regulations. I can tell the hon. Member for Twickenham that we want to ensure flexibility.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Slough asked whether, if a case took longer than six months, we would ask why. Yes, we will want to know why. There will be some cases that take more than six months because there are legal backlogs for various reasons. If the delay is due to some failure on the part of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, we will want to know that and rectify it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Slough and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) rightly spoke of the need for fast decisions and sustainable decisions. The legal cost of making unsustainable decisions is too great. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that we need to get the Treasury on board. I am glad to say that we have the Treasury fully on board with regard to the Bill. The Treasury will commit extra resources—more than £100 million—to the IND over the next three years to ensure that we can employ the hundreds of extra staff whom we need to clear the backlog.
  I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman that the backlog is a major impediment to creating a system that works. The best deterrent to abuse of the asylum system is fair, sustainable and quick decision making so that people know that if they do not have a right to be in this country, they will quickly be removed.
  On the points made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere, the recovery at the IND is slow, but it is sure. Asylum decisions are up. We will hit our output targets by April 2000 and April 2001. The problem is that the IND never recovered from the increase in asylum claims that took place after 1988. By 1991, the number was up to 45,000. Since then, the backlog has grown and the problems have got worse. In our view, the previous Government ignored them. This Government are determined to sort out the mess that we inherited.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the UK Passport Agency. I shall not dwell on that, but I share his concern about the temporary problems. They are temporary problems—nothing like the situation that we inherited at Croydon. Although the processing of non-urgent applications is taking longer than usual, the Passport Agency is prioritising applications to meet
  512
  urgent and declared travel dates. It is meeting travel dates in 99.9 per cent. of cases, and expects to continue to do so throughout the summer. The agency is recruiting 300 extra staff to reduce the arrears. The work is seasonal, and intake falls from July onwards. That fact, and the new staff, will enable the agency to bring turn-around times down to 10 days by September. I hope that that gives some reassurance to hon. Members.
  I hope that the Government amendment will be supported and the other amendments in the group will not be pressed.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17
  DUTY TO REPORT SUSPICIOUS MARRIAGES
  Amendment made: No. 31, in page 13, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 36.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
Clause 18

  PROVISION OF FACILITIES FOR IMMIGRATION CONTROL AT PORTS
  Amendments made: No. 32, in page 13, line 38, after 'a' insert 'control'.
  No. 33, in page 14, line 3, after first 'a' insert 'control'.
  No. 34, in page 14, line 6, after first 'a' insert
  'control port which is a'.
  No. 35, in page 14, line 13, at beginning insert "Control'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Clause 19

  DECEPTION
  Amendments made: No. 36, in page 14, line 21, leave out from beginning to 'leave' in line 22 and insert—
  '(a) he obtains or seeks to obtain'.
  No. 37, in page 14, line 23, after '(b)' insert
  'he secures or seeks to secure'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Clause 20
  FALSE STATEMENTS
  Amendment made: No. 38, in page 15, line 10, leave out from beginning to 'or'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
Clause 22

  CODE OF PRACTICE
  Amendment proposed: No. 39, in page 16, line 21, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 9, in page 16, leave out lines 24 to 27 and insert—
  '( ) The code shall not come into operation unless a draft of the code has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 40 and 41.

  513
  No. 11, in clause 24, page 17, line 37, at end insert—
  '(8A) If a person on whom a penalty notice is served or who is treated as having had a penalty notice served on him, admits that he is liable for one or more, or all, of the penalties specified in the penalty notice but considers that there are grounds for mitigating all or part of the penalty, he may give written notice of such grounds to the Secretary of State.
  (8B) Notice under subsection (8A) ("a notice of grounds of mitigating the penalty") must be given before the end of such period as may be prescribed.
  (8C) If a notice of grounds for mitigating the penalty is given before the end of the prescribed period, the Secretary of State must consider such grounds and determine whether to mitigate all or part of the penalty.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 42 and 45.
  Miss Widdecombe: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in moving the amendment formally. I therefore do not intend to elaborate on amendment No. 9, but I wish to push it to a vote.
  Amendment No. 9 simply provides for the laying of the code before the House before the implementation of Government amendment No. 39. Amendment No. 11 provides only for mitigation.
  Mr. Hogg: I wish to speak on this amendment, because the code is important. It goes to the heart of whether or not an offence is committed. One sees from the Bill that the onus is cast on the carrier to establish that there has been a good defence. One of the considerations that arise is whether the provisions of the code are satisfied. The code is therefore relevant to whether the carrier can establish a defence. It seems wholly unsatisfactory that a code can be established other than by an affirmative resolution of the House. [Interruption.] I see that the Whip has come to sit in front of me. I am afraid that it makes no difference at all.
  We have a right to determine in this House whether matters that are relevant to establishing a defence are debated by this House. I hope, therefore, that the relevant code will indeed be laid before the House and approved only by affirmative resolution. If not, people's legal rights could be affected without a positive vote of this House. I regard that as very unsatisfactory.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed: No. 9, in page 16, leave out lines 24 to 27 and insert—
  '( ) The code shall not come into operation unless a draft of the code has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.—[Miss Widdecombe.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 326.

  Division No. 211]

  [11.44 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Allan, Richard

  Boswell, Tim

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Brady, Graham

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brake, Tom

  Baker, Norman

  Brazier, Julian

  Ballard, Jackie

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Beggs, Roy

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Bercow, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Burnett, John

  514

  Burstow, Paul

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Butterfill, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Madel, Sir David

  Cash, William

  Malins, Humfrey

  Chidgey, David

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Clappison, James

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Collins, Tim

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Cotter, Brian

  Moore, Michael

  Cran, James

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Norman, Archie

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Oaten, Mark

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Day, Stephen

  Ottaway, Richard

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Page, Richard

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Paice, James

  Evans, Nigel

  Paterson, Owen

  Faber, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Fabricant, Michael

  Prior, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Randall, John

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Flight, Howard

  Rendel, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Sanders, Adrian

  Fraser, Christopher

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Garnier, Edward

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gill, Christopher

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

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Spring, Richard

  Gray, James

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Green, Damian

  Streeter, Gary

  Greenway, John

  Stunell, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Syms, Robert

  Hammond, Philip

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Harvey, Nick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hawkins, Nick

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Tredinnick, David

  Horam, John

  Tyler, Paul

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Viggers, Peter

  Hunter, Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Wardle, Charles

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Webb, Steve

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Wells, Bowen

  Keetch, Paul

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Whittingdale, John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Lansley, Andrew

  Willis, Phil

  Letwin, Oliver

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Lidington, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Livsey, Richard

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Loughton, Tim

  Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Barron, Kevin

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Battle, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Beard, Nigel

  Alexander, Douglas

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Allen, Graham

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Benton, Joe

  Barnes, Harry

  Berry, Roger

  515

  Best, Harold

  Efford, Clive

  Blackman, Liz

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fisher, Mark

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Boateng, Paul

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Borrow, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Follett, Barbara

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foulkes, George

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Galloway, George

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gapes, Mike

  Browne, Desmond

  Gardiner, Barby

  Buck, Ms Karen

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burden, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cann, Jamie

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chaytor, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Church, Ms Judith

  Grogan, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Gunnell, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hain, Peter

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clelland, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clwyd, Ann

  Heppell, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Coleman, Iain

  Hill, Keith

  Colman, Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoey, Kate

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cousins, Jim

  Hope, Phil

  Cranston, Ross

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Crausby, David

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cummings, John

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hurst, Alan

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Darvill, Keith

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dawson, Hilton

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Denham, John

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Drew, David

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Edwards, Huw

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  516

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kidney, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Radice, Giles

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rammell, Bill

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Laxton, Bob

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Lepper, David

  Leslie, Christopher

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Levitt, Tom

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rooney, Terry

  Linton, Martin

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ruane, Chris

  Lock, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McCabe, Steve

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sawford, Phil

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McDonnell, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McIsaac, Shona

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Snape, Peter

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  Martlew, Eric

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Spellar, John

  Meale, Alan

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Merron, Gillian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michael, Rt Hon Alan

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Miller, Andrew

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stott, Roger

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stringer, Graham

  Morley, Elliot

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mountford, Kali

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mudie, George

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mullin Chris

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Timms, Stephen

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Touhig, Don

  Norris, Dan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Olner, Bill

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pearson, Ian

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pendry, Tom

  Watts, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  White, Brian

  Pike, Peter L

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Plaskitt, James

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pond, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Pope, Greg

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  517

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Woolas, Phil

  Wills, Michael

  Worthington, Tony

  Winnick, David

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wise, Audrey

  Mr. David Hanson and

  Wood, Mike

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being Twelve o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [15 June], to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 23
  DEFENCES TO CLAIM THAT PENALTY IS DUE UNDER SECTION 21
  Amendment made: No. 40, in page 17, line 2, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Clause 24

  PROCEDURE
  Amendment made: No. 41, in page 17, line 18, after 'steps' insert '—

  (i) that P must take if he objects to the penalty;

  (ii)". —[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 26
  EFFECT OF DETENTION
  Amendment made: No. 42, in page 18, line 39, leave out '56' and insert '84'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Clause 28

  CHARGES IN RESPECT OF PASSENGERS WITHOUT PROPER DOCUMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 43, in page 20, line 39, at end insert—
  '(4A) No charge is payable by a train operator, or by the owner of a road passenger vehicle, in respect of a person ("A"), if he shows that—

  (a) he had in place satisfactory arrangements (including, where appropriate, arrangements with other persons) designed to ensure that he did not carry passengers who did not, or might not, have documents of the required kind;

  (b) all such steps as were practicable were taken in accordance with the arrangements to establish whether A had the required document or documents; and

  (c) all such steps as were practicable were taken in accordance with the arrangements to prevent A's arrival in the United Kingdom where—

  (i) A refused to produce the required document or documents to a person acting in accordance with the arrangements; or

  (ii) for other reasons it appeared to that person that A did not, or might not, have the required document or documents.

  No. 44, in page 20, line 40, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsections (4) and (4A)'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 30
  POWER TO DETAIN VEHICLES ETC. IN CONNECTION WITH CHARGES UNDER SECTION 28
  Amendments made: No. 45, in page 22, line 15, leave out '56' and insert—'84'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Clause 31

  INTERPRETATION OF PART II
  Amendments made: No. 46, in page 22, line 26, at end insert—
  '"aircraft" includes hovercraft;'.
  No. 47, in page 22, line 31, after 'Wales,' insert 'the county court or'.
  No. 48, in page 22, line 32, after 'Scotland,' insert 'the sheriff or'.
  No. 49, in page 22, line 33, after 'Ireland,' insert 'the county court or'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 43
  ADJUDICATORS
  Amendment made: No. 50, in page 30, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 11.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Clause 55

  CLAIMS FOR ASYLUM
  Amendments made: No. 51, in page 36, line 7, leave out 'a special' and insert 'an'.
  No. 52, in page 36, line 13, after second 'decision' insert 'to an adjudicator'.
  No. 53, in page 36, line 21, leave out 'a special' and insert 'an'.
  No. 54, in page 36, line 28, leave out 'a special' and insert 'an'.
  No. 55, in page 36, line 32, leave out 'a special' and insert 'an'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 57

  REMOVAL OF ASYLUM CLAIMANTS TO SAFE THIRD COUNTRIES
  Amendments made: No. 56, in page 37, line 38, leave out
  '2 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996'
  and insert
  '(Removal of asylum claimants under standing arrangements with member States) or (Removal of asylum claimants in other circumstances)'.
  No. 57, in page 37, line 41, leave out 'a special' and insert 'an'.
  No. 58, in page 37, line 42, leave out from beginning to 'was' in line 43 and insert
  'applicable to that certificate was not satisfied when it'—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 58

  MISCELLANEOUS LIMITATIONS ON RIGHTS OF APPEAL
  Amendments made: No. 59, in page 38, line 2, leave out from beginning to first 'the' in line 3 and insert
  'Unless a certificate issued under section (Removal of asylum claimants under standing arrangements with member States) or (Removal of asylum claimants in other circumstances) has been set aside on an appeal under section 51 or 57 or otherwise ceases to have effect,'.
  No. 60, in page 38, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 and insert—
  '(2) A person who has been, or is to be, sent to a member State or to a country designated under section (Removal of asylum claimants in other circumstances)(1)(b) is not, while he is in the United Kingdom, entitled to appeal—

  (a) under section 51 if the Secretary of State certifies that his allegation that a person acted in breach of his human rights is manifestly unfounded; or

  (b) under section 57:'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 60

  DUTY TO DISCLOSE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
  Amendments made: No. 61, in page 39, line 10, leave out 'has a right of' and insert
  ', while he is in the United Kingdom, is entitled to'.
  No. 62, in page 39, line 17, leave out 'has a right of' and insert 'is entitled to'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 62

  "ONE-STOP" APPEALS: ASYLUM CLAIMS
  Amendments made: No. 63, in page 40, line 27, leave out 'special'.
  No. 64, in page 40, line 34, leave out 'special'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 63

  "ONE-STOP" APPEALS: OTHER CASES
  Amendments made: No. 65, in page 41, line 1, leave out from 'against' to end of line 2 and insert '—

  (a) a decision to refuse an application for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom;

  (b) a decision to vary, or to refuse to vary, any limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, which has the result mentioned in section 60(2)(a).

  No. 66, in page 41, line 5, leave out from 'decision' to '; and' in line 6.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 64
  TRANSFER Of APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS
  Amendment made: No. 67, in page 41, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 35.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Clause 69
  PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION SERVICES
  Amendment made: No. 68, in page 45, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 27.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Clause 80

  PERSONS FOR WHOM SUPPORT MAY BE PROVIDED
  Amendment made: No. 69, in page 52, line 42, at end insert—
  '(12) Schedule (Asylum Support: interim provisions) makes temporary provision for support in the period before the coming into force of this section.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 83

  SECRETARY OF STATE'S SCHEME
  Amendment made: No. 70, in page 54, line 45, at end insert
  '(including circumstances in which the Secretary of State would otherwise be under a duty to provide support).'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 101

  EXCLUSION FROM BENEFITS
  Amendments made: No. 71, in page 62, line 42, leave out 'an EEA national' and insert
  'a national of an EEA State'.
  No. 72, in page 63, line 7, leave out beginning to end of line 9.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 108
  THE CHILDREN ACTS
  Amendment made: No. 3, in page 66, line 29, leave out clause 108.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Clause 118
  ENTRY AND SEARCH OF PREMISES FOLLOWING ARREST
  Amendment made: No. 74, in page 74, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 42.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Clause 120

  SEARCHING ARRESTED PERSONS
  Amendments made: No. 75, in page 76, line 17, leave out
  ', glove, footwear or headgear'
  and insert 'or glove'.
  No. 76, in page 77, line 9, leave out
  ', glove, footwear or headgear'
  and insert 'or glove'.
  No. 77, in page 77, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 33.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 124

  EXECUTION OF WARRANTS
  Amendments made: No. 78, in page 84, line 6, at end insert—
  '(bb) if issued by a justice of the peace in Scotland, to the clerk of the district court for the commission area for which the justice of the peace was appointed;'.
  No. 79, in page 84, line 8, leave out 'or (b)' and insert
  'must be retained for 12 months by the justices'
  chief executive.
  (10A) A warrant issued under subsection (9)(b) or (bb)'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 125

  INTERPRETATION
  Amendment made: No. 80, in page 84, line 28, at end insert—
  '( ) In the 1971 Act, in Schedule 2, after paragraph 25D insert—
  "25E. Section 28L applies for the purposes of this Schedule as it applies for the purposes of Part III."'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 127

  FINGERPRINTING
  Amendments made: No. 81, in page 85, line 26, after 'officer' insert
  'on his arrival in the United Kingdom'.
  No. 82, in page 86, line 20, at end insert—
  '( ) No fingerprints shall be taken from A if the immigration officer considers that A has a reasonable excuse for the failure concerned.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 134

  CONTRACTING OUT OF CERTAIN DETENTION CENTRES
  Amendment made: No. 83, in page 90, line 4 at end insert';
  (g) section 14 of the Conveyancing Act 1881;
  (h) the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1892;
  the Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 144

  ABOLITION OF CERTIFICATE BY LICENCE
  Amendments made: No. 84, in page 94, line 36, leave out '"twenty-one" substitute "15"' and insert
  '"said period of twenty-one days" substitute "waiting period in relation to each notice of marriage"'.
  No. 85, in page 94, line 37, at end insert—
  '( ) In section 31 of the 1949 Act, after subsection (4) insert—
  "(4A) "The waiting period", in relation to a notice of marriage, means—

  (a) the period of 15 days, or

  (b) such shorter period as may be determined by the Registrar General under subsection (5A) or by a superintendent registrar under any provision of regulations made under subsection (5D),

  after the day on which the notice of marriage was entered in the marriage notice book.'".
  No. 86, in page 95, line 2, leave out ',(2) and (4)' and insert 'and (2)'.
  No. 87, in page 95, line 4, leave out 'references' and insert 'reference'.
  No. 88, in page 95, line 4, leave out '75(2)(d) and (3)(a) are' and insert '75(3)(a) is'.
  No. 89, in page 95, line 5, leave out 'references' and insert 'a reference'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 149

  REGULATIONS AND ORDERS
  Amendments made: No. 90, in page 98, line 32, after '82(3),' insert—
  '( ) section 130,'.
  No. 91, in page 98, line 35, at end insert—
  '(3A) No regulations are to be made under—

  (a) section (Treatment of certain overstayers), or

  (b) section 60(3),

  unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
  No. 92, in page 98, line 37, after '(3)' insert 'or (3A)'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 150

  INTERPRETATION
  Amendments made: No. 93, in page 99, line 9, at end insert—
  ' "EEA State" means a State which is a Contracting Party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area signed at Oporto on 2nd May 1992 as it has effect for the time being;'.
  No. 94, in page 99, line 32, at end insert—
  ' "port";'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 153

  SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
  Amendments made: No. 95, in page 100, line 5, at end insert—
  '(1A) Section 80(1) comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint and section 101 comes into force with it.'.
  No. 96, in page 100, line 8, after 'Act' insert
  ', except section 7 and paragraph 6 of Schedule 13 (which come into force in accordance with section (Treatment of certain overstayers)),'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

New Schedule 1
  ASYLUM SUPPORT:INTERIM PROVISIONS

    Support before the appointed day
    1.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring prescribed local authorities to provide support, during the interim period, to asylum-seekers and their dependants who are destitute.
    (2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), in Northern Ireland, a Health and Social Services Board established under Article 16 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 is to be treated as a local authority.
    2. The regulations must provide for the question whether a person is destitute to be determined by the local authority concerned.
    3. Subsections (3) and (5) to (8) of section 80 apply for the purposes of the regulations as they apply for the purposes of that section, but for the references in subsections (5) and (7) to the Secretary of State substitute references to the local authority concerned.
    4. The regulations may prescribe circumstances in which support for a destitute person—

    (a) must be provided; or

    (b) must or may be refused.

    5. The regulations may provide that support—

    (a) is to be provided in prescribed ways;

    (b) is not to be provided in prescribed ways.

    6. The regulations may make provision for—

    (a) the determination by the Secretary of State of the maximum number of asylum-seekers to whom a local authority is required under the regulations to provide support; and

    (b) the referral by one local authority to another of a claim for support made to it under the regulations if the referring authority is providing support to a number of asylum-seekers in excess of that maximum number.

    7.—(1) The regulations may make provision for the referral of a claim for support made to the Secretary of State to such prescribed local authority as he may specify in a direction.
    (2) A direction may not specify a local authority which is providing support to a number of asylum-seekers in excess of the maximum number determined in accordance with provision made by virtue of paragraph 6(a).
    (3) The regulations may make provision for the payment by the Secretary of State of any reasonable travel or subsistence expenses incurred as a result of a referral made by him as a result of provision made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1).
    8. The regulations may make provision requiring prescribed local authorities or other prescribed bodies to give reasonable assistance to local authorities providing support under the regulations.
    9. The regulations may make provision for the procedure for making and determining claims for support.
    10. The regulations may make provision for a person who has received, or is receiving, support from a local authority under any other prescribed enactment to be taken to have been accepted for support under the regulations by a prescribed local authority.
    11. A person entitled to claim support under the regulations is not entitled to claim support under any other prescribed enactment.

    Definitions
    12. "The appointed day" means the day appointed under section 153(1A).
    13. "The interim period" means the period beginning with day on which paragraph 1 comes into force and ending on the appointed day.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  Schedule 2

    THE IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
    Amendments made: No. 97, in page 102, line 6, after 'of' insert
    'legally qualified members and of other'.
    No. 98, in page 102, line 8, leave out 'qualified for appointment only' and insert 'legally qualified'.
    No. 99, in page 102, line 15, after 'one' insert 'legally qualified'.
    No. 100, in page 102, line 16, after 'another' insert 'such'.
    No. 101, in page 103, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 and insert—
    '( ) The jurisdiction of the Tribunal may be exercised by such number of members as the President may direct.
    ( ) A direction may be given in relation to a specified case or category of case.
    ( ) A specified number of members may include a specified number of legally qualified members.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

  Schedule 3

    ADJUDICATORS
    Amendments made: No. 102, in page 103, line 16, at end insert—
    'Deputy Chief Adjudicator and Regional Adjudicators
    .—(1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint one of the adjudicators as Deputy Chief Adjudicator.
    (2) The Lord Chancellor may appoint as Regional Adjudicators such number of the adjudicators as he may determine.
    (3) A person appointed under cub-paragraph (1) or (2) is to have such functions as the Chief Adjudicator may assign to him.
    (4) If the Chief Adjudicator is temporarily absent or otherwise unable to act, the Deputy Chief Adjudicator may act on his behalf.'.
    No. 103, in page 103, line 16, at end insert—

    'Qualification for appointment
    . A person is qualified for appointment as an adjudicator only if—

    (a) he has a 7 year general qualification, within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;

    (b) he is an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least 7 years' standing; or

    (c) he is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland of at least 7 years' standing.'.

    No. 104, in page 103, line 42, at end insert—
    '( ) The Chief Adjudicator may direct that, in a specified case or category of case, an appeal to an adjudicator is to be heard by such number of adjudicators as may be specified.
    ( ) "Specified" means specified in the direction.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

  Schedule 4

    APPEALS
    Amendments made: No. 105, in page 104, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 32.
    No. 106, in page 105, line 24, at end insert—
    '( ) In this Schedule "rules" means rules under this paragraph.'.
    No. 107, in page 105, line 24, at end insert—

    'Practice directions
    .—(1) The President of the Tribunal may give directions as to the practice and procedure to be followed by the Tribunal in relation to appeals and applications to it.
    (2) The Chief Adjudicator may give directions as to the practice and procedure to be followed by adjudicators in relation to appeals and applications to them.'.
    No. 108, in page 106, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 12.
    No. 109, in page 106, line 14, leave out
    'on any of the grounds mentioned in subsections (1) to (5) of'
    and insert 'under'.
    No. 110, in page 106, line 19, leave out 'or (4)' and insert
    ', (4), (4A) or (4B)'.
    No. 111, in page 106, line 21, leave out 'special'.
    No. 112, in page 106, line 30, after 'claim' insert 'under the Refugee Convention'.
    No. 113, in page 106, line 35, at end insert—
    '(4A) This sub-paragraph applies to a claim under the Human Rights Convention if—

    (a) it does not disclose a right under the Convention; or

    (b) it does disclose a right under the Convention, but the claim is manifestly unfounded.

    (4B) This sub-paragraph applies to a claim if—'
    No. 114, in page 107, line 2, leave out from 'under' to end of line 6 and insert
    'the Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Convention'.
    No. 115, in page 109, line 10, after second 'appeal' insert
    'other than an appeal under section 57'.
    No. 116, in page 109, line 45, leave out '(1)(d)' and insert '(1)(c)'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

  Schedule 9

    DETAINEE CUSTODY OFFICERS
    Amendment made: No. 117, in page 122, line 5, leave out
    ', glove, headgear or footwear'
    and insert 'or glove'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

  Schedule 11

    ESCORT ARRANGEMENTS
    Amendment made: No. 118, in page 126, line 18, leave out
    ', glove, headgear or footwear'
    and insert 'or glove'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

  Schedule 12

    CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    Amendments made: No. 119, in page 127, line 30, leave out 'and'.
    No. 120, in page 127, line 31, at end insert
    '; and
    ( ) in subsection (6), for "either" substitute "each".'.
    No. 121, in page 129, line 10, at end insert—
    '( )In subsection (3), for "twenty-one" substitute "15".'.
    No. 122, in page 130, line 5, leave out from second 'for' to end of line 6 and insert
    'from "(not being" to "book" substitute "before the expiry of the waiting period in relation to each notice of marriage";'.
    No. 123, in page 130, line 8, at end insert—
    '( ) After subsection (2), insert—
    "(2A) In subsection (2)(d) "the waiting period" has the same meaning as in section 31(4A)."'.
    No. 124, in page 132, line 15, leave out 'did not have' and insert 'had'.
    No. 125, in page 133, line 36, leave out from 'in' to end of line 38 and insert
    'order to provide accommodation under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999'.
    No. 126, in page 134, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 22 and insert—
    'power, or under an arrangement, to provide accommodation under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
    526
    ( ) A tenancy mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) becomes a secure tenancy if the landlord notifies the tenant that it is to be regarded as a secure tenancy." '.
    No. 127, in page 134, line 35, after 'asylum—seekers' insert 'or dependants of asylum—seekers'.
    No. 128, in page 135, line 3, after 'asylum—seekers' insert 'or dependants of asylum—seekers'.
    No. 129, in page 135, line 37, at end insert—
    'The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41)
    .—(1) The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 is amended as follows.
    (2) In Schedule 10 (judicial and other appointments), omit paragraph 34.
    No. 130, in page 136, line 16, at end insert—
    'The Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (c. 8)
    .—(1) The Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 is amended as follows.
    (2) In Schedule 1 (offices which may be qualifying judicial offices), in Part II, for "Chief, or any other, immigration adjudicator under the Immigration Act 1971" substitute "Immigration Adjudicator".
    (3) In Schedule 6 (retirement date for certain judicial offices), omit paragraphs 37 and 38.'.
    No. 131, in page 136, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line and insert—
    '. Omit section 3 (fingerprinting).
    . Omit sections 4 and 5 and Schedule 1 (housing of asylum—seekers and their dependants).
    . Omit section 7 (curtailment of leave).
    . Omit sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 and Schedule 2(which relate to appeals).'.
    No. 132, in page 136, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 and insert—
    '. Omit section 12 (carriers' liability).'.
    No. 133, in page 136, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 32 and insert—
    '. The Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 is amended as follows.
    . Omit section 7 (power of arrest and search warrants).
    . Omit section 9 (entitlement to housing accommodation and assistance).
    . Omit section 10 (entitlement to child benefit).
    . Omit section 11 (saving for social security regulations).
    . Omit Schedule 1 (modifications of social security regulations).
    . In Schedule 2, omit sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 1, paragraph 3 and paragraph 4(2) (which are spent as a result of this Act).
    . In Schedule 3, omit paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 (which are spent as a result of this Act).'.
    No. 134, in page 137, line 14, leave out 'a special' and insert 'an'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

  Schedule 13

    TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
    Amendments made: No. 135, in page 139, line 8, after '28K(9)(a)' insert 'and (10)'.
    No. 136, in page 139, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 26.
    No. 137, in page 139, line 28, at beginning insert
    'Section 15 of the 1971 Act,'.
    No. 138, in page 139, line 31, leave out
    'that section by this Act'
    and insert 'those sections'.
    No. 139, in page 139, line 31, at end insert—
    '6.—(l) Sub—paragraph (2) applies if, on the coming into force of section 7, sections 15 of the 1971 Act and 5 of the Immigration Act 1988 have been repealed by this Act.
    (2) Those sections are to continue to have effect in relation to any person—

    (a) who applied during the regularisation period prescribed under section (Treatment of certain overstayers), in accordance with the regulations made under that section, for leave to remain in the United Kingdom, and

    (b) on whom the Secretary of State has since served a notice of his decision to make a deportation order.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

  Schedule 14

    REPEALS
    Amendments made: No. 140, in page 141, line 21, at end insert—

    '1993 c. 8.

    The Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993.

    In Schedule 6, paragraphs 37 and 38.'.

    No. 141, in page 141, line 33, column 3, at end insert—
    'Section 2.
    Section 3.'.
    No. 142, in page 141, line 49, at end insert—

    '1997 c. 68.

    The Special

    Section 7(4).

    Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997.

    In Schedule 2, paragraph 5.'.

    —[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 41.

    Division No. 212]

    [12.2 am

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Borrow, David

    Ainger, Nick

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Allen, Graham

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Browne, Desmond

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Barron, Kevin

    Burden, Richard

    Battle, John

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Bayley, Hugh

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Beard, Nigel

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Campbell—Savours, Dale

    Benton, Joe

    Cann, Jamie

    Berry, Roger

    Caton, Martin

    Best, Harold

    Cawsey, Ian

    Blackman, Liz

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Chaytor, David

    Blizzard, Bob

    Church, Ms Judith

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Clapham, Michael

    Boateng, Paul

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    528

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Healey, John

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Heppell, John

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Clelland, David

    Hill, Keith

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hinchliffe, David

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Colman, Tony

    Hoey, Kate

    Connarty, Michael

    Hood, Jimmy

    Corbett, Robin

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Hope, Phil

    Cousins, Jim

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cranston, Ross

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Crausby, David

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cummings, John

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Hurst, Alan

    Dalyell, Tam

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Darvill, Keith

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jamieson, David

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Denham, John

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Doran, Frank

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Dowd, Jim

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Drew, David

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Edwards, Huw

    Khabra, Piara S

    Efford, Clive

    Kidney, David

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Ennis, Jeff

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Fisher, Mark

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Flint, Caroline

    Laxton, Bob

    Follett, Barbara

    Lepper, David

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Foulkes, George

    Levitt, Tom

    Fyfe, Maria

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Galloway, George

    Linton, Martin

    Gapes, Mike

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Lock, David

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    McCabe, Steve

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Godsiff, Roger

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Goggins, Paul

    Macdonald, Calum

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    McIsaac, Shona

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McNulty, Tony

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Grocott, Bruce

    McWalter, Tony

    Grogan, John

    McWilliam, John

    Gunnell, John

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hain, Peter

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Marshall—Andrews, Robert

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Martlew, Eric

    529

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Sheerman, Barry

    Meale, Alan

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Merron, Gillian

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Miller, Andrew

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Snape, Peter

    Morley, Elliot

    Soley, Clive

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Spellar, John

    Mountford, Kali

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mudie, George

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Mullin, Chris

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Stott, Roger

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Norris, Dan

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Stringer, Graham

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Olner, Bill

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    O'Neill, Martin

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Pearson, Ian

    Temple—Morris, Peter

    Pendry, Tom

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Pike, Peter L

    Timms, Stephen

    Plaskitt, James

    Tipping, Paddy

    Pond, Chris

    Touhig, Don

    Pope, Greg

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Purchase, Ken

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Wareing, Robert N

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Watts, David

    Radice, Giles

    White, Brian

    Rammell, Bill

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Rooney, Terry

    Wills, Michael

    Rooney, Terry

    Winnick, David

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wise, Audrey

    Ruane, Chris

    Woolas, Phil

    Ruddock, Joan

    Worthington, Tony

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Mr. David Hanson and

    Sawfort, Phil

    Mr. Clive Betts.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Chidgey, David

    Allan, Richard

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Baker, Norman

    Cotter, Brian

    Ballard, Jackie

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Brake, Tom

    Harvey, Nick

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Burnett, John

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Burstow, Paul

    Keetch, Paul

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Livsey, Richard

    530

    Llwyd, Elfyn

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

    McDonnell, John

    Stunell, Andrew

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Moore, Michael

    Tyler, Paul

    Oaten, Mark

    Webb, Steve

    Öpik, Lembit

    Willis, Phil

    Rendel, David

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Sanders, Adrian

    Dr. Evan Harris and

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Mr. Don Foster.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.
    Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I raise with you the consequences of the guillotine motion that has been applied? You will appreciate that there remain outstanding eight groups of amendments; the last group of amendments, relating to the code of practice, were debated in about one minute; moreover, there was no debate on Third Reading. The cause of all that was the guillotine motion. The result is that a substantial part of the Bill has not been debated on Report. I recognise that you are bound by the guillotine motion and that I cannot complain about that. However, I can point out—and I do point out—that one of the reasons why time was eroded was that, yesterday, a statement on the London underground was made by the Deputy Prime Minister—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is an experienced Member of Parliament and I think that he recognises that the answer to his point of order lies in what he has already said. The Chair is indeed bound by the terms of yesterday's guillotine motion, as is the House. What he has said so far is a matter of comment and debate, which should have been said at the time of the guillotine motion. It is not a matter for me.
    Mr. Hogg: I am coming to my substantive point. I was laying the background. One reason why the debate has been truncated tonight is the statement that the Deputy Prime Minister made yesterday about the London underground. The practice is for a Minister to inform the Speaker of his intention to make a statement. The consent of the Speaker is not required, even though the Minister always begins with the phrase, "With permission, Madam Speaker". However, it is within the discretion of the Speaker to seek to dissuade the Minister. Furthermore, it is certainly within the discretion of the Speaker to ensure that the question and answer session that follows is kept very short. My point of order is that when there is a guillotine motion the Speaker should seek to ensure that there is not—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should resume his seat when I have risen to my feet. He is getting dangerously close to criticising the decision of the Chair. If there was a moment to do that it was yesterday, not now.
    Mr. Hogg rose
    —
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I have heard sufficient in two bursts from the right hon. and learned Gentleman to know that this is not a matter on which I can rule now. It relates to the decision of the Chair that

    531
    was taken yesterday. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to pursue that matter, it will have to be on a substantive motion criticising the Chair.
    Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not in any way criticising the Speaker. I am bringing a point to your attention so that you can have an opportunity to discuss it with Madam Speaker. When there is a guillotine motion that constrains debate, the Speaker should seek to consider whether—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is little that I can add to the point of order that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to make, because he is implicitly criticising the decision taken by the Chair yesterday. The Speaker must be presumed to be aware of all the relevant matters. If an hon. Member wishes later to challenge a decision taken by the Speaker, it must be done on a substantive motion.
    Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I acknowledge that the Government went to considerable lengths this evening to ensure that we had a vote on amendment No. 9, but that was achieved only by sacrificing any debate on an important subject. There were other important issues to be debated on Report, as well as a tranche of other matters that could have been addressed on Third Reading but were not scheduled for debate on Report. Those subjects were guillotined out of debate not as a result of any lack of progress on the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which was conducted in an exemplary manner, but because of a perceived lack of progress on another Bill. As the guardian of Back-Bench rights and the rights of debate, does the Chair have a view, or will you be taking a view, on the use of a guillotine to curtail not the debate in question, but a separate debate?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question whether there is a guillotine and the terms of it are not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for debate on the substantive motion put down by the Government and the decision of the House on it.

    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),

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
    That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
    That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
    That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Functions) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
    That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Functions Exercisable in or as Regards Scotland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
    That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (Adaptation of Functions etc.) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
    That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) (No. 2) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
    That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Border Rivers) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.—[Mr. Clelland.]
    Question agreed to.

  PETITION

    Medicines Control Agency
    12.19 am
    Mr. Brian Cotter: I present a petition on behalf of 682 constituents. The petitioners request that the House of Commons urge the Department of Health to reconsider its proposals regarding the Medicines Control Agency and introduce an
    immediate moratorium preventing the MCA from declaring these safe products to be medicines, except on grounds of illegal claims or safety, and, further, to introduce new legislation appropriate to the special needs of safe natural health products.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Flooding (Lewes)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
    12.20 am
    Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome the opportunity to raise the problems of flooding in my constituency and especially in Seaford. Each problem is different, but there is a common thread: lines of responsibility are not clear, so action that everyone agrees should be taken is left undone. My central call to the Government will be: please acknowledge the problem; please undertake to rectify it; and, in the meantime, please knock some heads together to ensure that the very real problems are not allowed to drag on any further.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: Is my hon. Friend aware that we have also had serious flooding problems in Montgomeryshire? Does he accept that the issues that he is raising call for a strategy across the United Kingdom, including Wales?
    Mr. Baker: I certainly agree that we need a national strategy.
    Let me deal first with the problems in Cliffe high street, Lewes, which is one of the town's main shopping streets. Regular flooding occurs, with water invading private properties and the church of St. Thomas à Becket, the oldest church in the historic town. The cause is an ancient culvert that has silted up and for which no body will accept responsibility.
    I have had sight of correspondence initiated by my constituent Mary Chandler, who is church warden at St. Thomas à Becket. It will be instructive to run through it. In October 1993, she wrote to the highway authority, East Sussex county council, after flooding to the church had occurred. It told her a month later, having investigated the matter, that it was the responsibility of the National Rivers Authority—which has now been superseded by the Environment Agency—and its agent, Lewes district council.
    In December 1993, Lewes district council wrote to say that the county council was wrong and it was a matter of surface water drainage, which is the responsibility of Southern Water. Sensibly, my constituent suggested that the NRA, Southern Water and the two councils should get together to sort the matter out. No such meeting took place at that point, but, throughout 1994, the church continued to flood, the NRA continued to maintain that it was a matter for Southern Water, and Southern Water continued to maintain that the culvert was not a public service water sewer and therefore not maintainable at its expense, suggesting that the district council use its powers under the Land Drainage Act 1991 and the Public Health Act 1936.
    By May 1995, the district council was suggesting that it might be a matter for the riparian owner. The various bodies were by now talking to each other and some without prejudice work had been done by both the county council, in respect of the culvert, and the NRA, in respect of the discharge point into the River Ouse; but the church was still flooding.
    By the beginning of 1997, the Environment Agency and the two councils had appeared to conclude that Southern Water was responsible, and I understand that a letter to
    534
    that effect was sent by the agency to the company on 17 April 1997; but the position was not accepted by Southern Water in its reply of 25 July. Meanwhile, the church flooded again on 23 June and on 8 October 1997.
    Some basic work was done on 9 October by Southern Water to alleviate the problem. Meanwhile, Ofwat had been dragged into the matter and declared that it was unable to resolve the issue. The matter was brought to my attention on 4 July 1998, when Mary Chandler attended one of my surgeries. I immediately wrote to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and received a reply from the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), offering sympathy and telling me that there was a difference of opinion between Southern Water and the Environment Agency. I think that I had already worked that one out.
    The two sides met again shortly after the Minister's letter and agreed on a closed circuit television survey of the channel in principle, but they could not agree who should pay for it. Meanwhile, the church continued to flood, including on Christmas day 1998.
    I then tried writing to the chairman of the Environment Agency, Lord De Ramsay, who, in his reply dated 25 February this year, gave me some interesting and useful information about the history of the culvert, but could offer no real solution.
    I am also indebted to another of my constituents, Bruce Yorke, for the valuable historical information that he has been able to give me. He makes a reasonably convincing case that the county council might be responsible. I shall be happy to send the Minister a copy of his letter if that would be helpful.
    What is the latest position? East Sussex county council has written to me this week and it says:
    "The County Council sought legal opinion in 1996 regarding responsibility for the culvert. This indicated that there was enough evidence to show that it was a public sewer and not the responsibility of the then Southern Water Authority."
    The Environment Agency, in a note to me dated 11 June, denied that it is responsible and suggested that Southern Water should pick up the responsibility. But it also offered to work with various parties—Southern Water, the district and county councils—to share responsibility and clear the culvert.
    However, Southern Water does not take that view. It says:
    "a Queen's Counsel has advised that the problem culvert is still a land drainage channel, probably the responsibility of the Environment Agency."
    It concludes:
    "it would seem appropriate for Lewes District Council and East Sussex County Council to join in"
    efforts to solve this matter.
    Meanwhile, the church continues to flood, most recently earlier this month. Not only has the church been affected; local residents have suffered too. One lady tells me that her property is now badly affected by damp and that her valuable grand piano is at risk.
    The problem has gone on for at least six years, with continual flooding of an historic church, damage to other properties and numerous calls to East Sussex fire brigade, which has been superb, as always. Public money has been spent, not least as a result of all the fire brigade call-outs,

    535
    but six years on we still have no solution—not for technical reasons, but because of a demarcation dispute. We are little further on than we were in 1993.
    This really must be sorted out. In the short term, will the Minister intervene to knock heads together and to require that the problem be solved without any further delay? I hope that he will do that. Let the parties argue afterwards about who should pay. My constituents have suffered long enough.
    I have spent a long time on that specific example because I owe it to my constituents and because I suspect that if this is happening in Lewes, it must be happening elsewhere as well, and be a problem for other hon. Members.
    I come now to the second and in some ways potentially even more serious problem which I raised during another hon. Member's Adjournment debate on 24 February 1999, since when nothing has happened to deal with the problem that I then identified for the House.
    I refer to two connected issues in my constituency. The first is also in Lewes, also, as it happens, in Cliffe high street, albeit at the other end, and also caused by unsatisfactory and muddied lines of accountability and responsibility. It relates to the banks of the River Ouse, which flows through the centre of Lewes and which is marked in Lewes by the lovely Cliffe bridge.
    The Environment Agency has identified work which needs to be undertaken urgently and has warned that if it is not done the river walls are at risk of collapsing. Those walls are right in the middle of town, abutting listed buildings. Were they to collapse, the effect would be serious, not just for the property owners but for the town itself.
    I visited properties abutting the river on Monday in the company of Peter Midgely, the area manager of the Environment Agency. He impressed on me yet again his concern and that of the Environment Agency about the position.
    The second matter relates to the sea defences at Seaford. That work has been undertaken every year by the Environment Agency, but this year it is not taking place. A press release issued by the Environment Agency on 9 December 1998, said:
    "essential maintenance will halt. The Agency will be unable to carry out work at Seaford which it considers is essential to the security of the Ouse Valley."
    It is also essential to all those properties along Seaford sea front that have now been left defenceless and at the mercy of the waves.
    The problem has arisen because the Environment Agency is the specialist body responsible for identifying works, but local flood defence committees fund them—or not, as in this case. So essential sea defence works at Seaford have simply been stopped. The start date of the works at Lewes, far from being accelerated because of the condition of the walls, were already late and now have been put back a further year.
    In a letter dated 15 February, Lord De Ramsay, chairman of the Environment Agency, wrote:
    "We have an overall shortfall of some £4 million in the funding which flood defence committees have made available for 1999–2000 … Under current arrangements for funding flood defence the agency has no powers to interfere in the democratic process whereby Flood Defence Committees approve their levies."
    536
    So the Environment Agency blames the flood defence committees, while East Sussex county council, which supplies some of the committee's members, blames the Government and says that levies from external bodies should be ring-fenced and taken into account in the Government's funding and capping decisions. I hope that the Minister will address that point in his reply. That is a ludicrous arrangement. The Environment Agency has responsibility without power, while the flood defence committees have power without responsibility.
    I shall repeat a point that I made on 24 February, to which the Minister on that occasion did not have time to respond. Either the flood defence committees should be abolished and their work passed to the Environment Agency, or they should take on the relevant responsibilities that rest with the agency. The present arrangements are a hotchpotch and do not work. There is also a need to clarify the respective powers of the Environment Agency, the county councils and the district councils. I spent some considerable time last year trying to sort out another flooding problem in my constituency, in Plumpton. It dragged on for far too long, mainly because of the unclear legal position of the three bodies involved.
    However, I return to the problems in Lewes. What happens if the river wall collapses? Who is responsible? I raised this matter with John Crawford, chief executive of Lewes district council and a qualified lawyer. In a letter dated 1 March, he said:
    "It is still not clear to me what specific obligations arise if a local flood defence committee refuses to levy for the amount of money required to fulfil the Environment Agency's recommendation to them that certain works must be done to avoid flooding."
    I hope that the Minister will deal with that point also.
    The situation becomes even more complicated when private frontages are involved. Peter Midgely, Sussex area manager of the Environment Agency, wrote to me on 3 September 1998 about this matter. In respect of the position in Lewes, he wrote:
    "The necessity for flood defence in this area is clear, but the legal position is not."
    If two such key people, both of whom I hold in high regard, are unclear about matters as basic as that, we have a mess—in terms of accountability, responsibility and legality. That mess threatens the basic river defences in the county town of East Sussex in the middle of my constituency, and all the listed buildings that abut that river. It is a mess that means that essential sea defence works are not being carried out at Seaford. A similar mess has allowed the St. Thomas à Becket church to flood regularly for six years. While the various bodies fiddle, Lewes floods.
    There is a very clear role for the Government if they will take it. In the short term, they need to bang heads together and twist the arms of the various bodies to force them to do the work that has to be done and which can be done with no great technical problems. In the medium term, the lines of accountability and responsibility for flooding matters must be recast, so that the incidents that I have described cannot happen again.
    I know that the Minister will respond sympathetically to the points that I have raised, and I hope that he will promise me some action.
    12.34 am
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on securing the debate and raising an important matter of concern to his constituents. I appreciate the problems that they have faced and shall try to deal with them.
    It may help if I run through some general responsibilities. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has policy responsibility for flood defence—that is, measures to reduce the risk of flooding from rivers and the sea—and we provide substantial grants for approved capital projects. Responsibility for maintaining flood defences generally remains with those whose property fronts the river or the sea—a point relevant to Lewes. The defence does, after all, protect their property and if they gain the most benefit, it is difficult to see that the costs should be met by the taxpayer. That is one of the difficulties arising over ownership and responsibility.
    In many areas, a more collective approach to flood and coastal defence has been adopted and responsibility for making and maintaining defences has been taken on by one of the flood defence operating authorities, particularly where defences provide benefit to the wider community. The largest operating authority is the Environment Agency, which may take on flood defence works on designated main rivers. Local authorities may act on ordinary watercourses, as may internal drainage boards where such bodies have been created in areas of special drainage need. However, in reply to the hon. Gentleman's point about legal responsibility, I must stress that flood defence legislation is permissive. There is no obligation on the operating authorities either to take on defences or to maintain them to a particular standard.
    The Environment Agency is required to carry out its flood defence responsibilities through statutory regional or local flood defence committees. The committees are responsible for agreeing the programme of flood defence works to be carried out in their area, based on a business plan provided by the agency. The committees provide the majority of funding for the flood defence programme through levies on constituent local authorities. To reflect these funding arrangements, local authority representatives form a majority on flood defence committees.
    I understand the hon. Gentleman's criticism of that system. However, the present arrangements contain an important measure of local democratic input, requiring those who represent the local community to determine appropriate levels of flood defence service and provide requisite funding. Nevertheless, in response to a recommendation in last year's report by the Select Committee on Agriculture on flood and coastal defence, MAFF and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are carrying out a joint review of the funding mechanisms. That will provide an opportunity to examine some of the hon. Gentleman's points and to see whether the current funding mechanism is appropriate, effective and delivering all that it is intended to. I regularly meet representatives of the Local Government Association and flood defence committee chairmen to discuss these matters, and I shall raise the hon. Gentleman's concerns, particularly over spending.
    The hon. Gentleman discussed the blocked culvert in Cliffe high street. I understand the frustration that can be caused where problems with flooding are left unresolved
    538
    because of what may seem to be eternal wrangling between different bodies. The hon. Gentleman will understand, however, that those bodies are anxious not to incur expenditure that does not properly fall to them. I understand that a long culvert takes water run-off from various sources including roads, roofs and gardens. The culvert is prone to blocking and overflowing, particularly during storms.
    Responsibility for maintaining the culvert is disputed, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is the core problem. Without prejudice to the final resolution of where responsibility lies, or the possible need for longer-term work, the Environment Agency is attempting to put together a plan to clear the culvert, in partnership with Southern Water and local authorities. I welcome the agency's efforts and encourage others to support its initiative. I shall take a personal interest in the progress of the project.
    The culvert probably goes back to Victorian times. Originally, it was maintained by the local commissioner for sewers—a grand-sounding title. He was the forerunner of the Environment Agency and, to some degree, of Southern Water and the local authorities. There was no clear transmission of responsibility when the various agencies were set up. There is anecdotal evidence of maintenance in the dim and distant past by the agency's predecessor, by the water company and by the local authority.
    In theory, maintenance could be partly the responsibility of the owners of properties that lie above the culvert line, which confuses matters a little more. By accident of history, the culvert system has not been taken over by the agency, water company or local authority. Conflicting legal views about maintenance therefore remain to be resolved.
    The main culvert is now badly silted and will not pass storm flood flows. After heavy rain, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, there are floods, particularly around St. Thomas à Becket church. I understand that Southern Water is trying to alleviate the problem by temporary chamber pumping. The structural state and, indeed, parts of the culvert line are uncertain. However, as I said, without prejudice to the final resolution, the agency is putting together a jetting exercise to clear the culvert. The agency's partners will be Southern Water, which has agreed to the proposal, and possibly the local authority. The cost is estimated to be around £30,000. If the project goes ahead, work could commence quickly, which would certainly help the situation in the short term. In the longer term, the issues of ownership must be resolved.
    The hon. Gentleman referred also to flood defence in Lewes generally. I explained the relationship between the Environment Agency, which develops business plans for flood defence, and the regional and local flood defence committees, which are responsible for determining the level of service and providing the funding. I explained also that maintaining flood defences generally remains the responsibility of riparian owners, unless that responsibility is taken over by an operating authority such as the Environment Agency. One of the problems in Lewes is that there is very little agency ownership of the town's walls and the buildings abutting them. The majority of them are in private, riparian ownership.

    539
    In setting its flood defence levy for the current year, the Sussex flood defence committee did not agree the full increase sought by the agency. As a result, the agency's business plan has had to be adjusted and the committee decided that the greatest priority should be given to sea defences. However, there are plans to carry out a strategy study of the flood defences in Lewes in 2001–02. Dependent on that, work on the town walls might start a year or two later. Funding of any such work will clearly be an issue for the local flood defence committee and may need to reflect the respective benefits of the work to the private owners of the town walls and to the wider community. Some contribution from private owners may therefore be appropriate.
    The agency cannot normally maintain private frontages if, in a cost-benefit analysis, no clear benefits can be attributed to the wider community. There will therefore have to be an assessment of who will benefit from the work.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to Seaford sea defences, which I know he is concerned about. He is right to say that funding by the Sussex flood defence committee this year has been insufficient to fund further work on recycling shingle. However, I can reassure him that the beach frontage is currently in good condition, and provision has been made for low-level maintenance such as reprofiling the beach. I accept that the Sussex flood defence committee will have to deal with that issue, and I emphasise that it must realise that it has responsibilities to the local community to fund such work. The standard spending assessment has been considerably increased in this financial year to assist local authorities with their levy.
    I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman an indication of what action is being taken. The issues are complicated by the confusion about ownership. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that no agency or local authority wants to commit expenditure when it is not absolutely clear that it is its responsibility to do so. Having said that, there are issues that need to be resolved,
    540
    and I have outlined the action that is being taken on those. I shall certainly raise with the chairs of the regional flood defence committees the wider funding issue, and I shall take an interest in the progress that is being made on raising the money for the work.
    Mr. Baker: Will the Minister reply to my question about what will happen if a local flood defence committee refuses to levy for the amount of money required to fulfil the Environment Agency's recommendations that certain works must be done to avoid flooding?
    Mr. Morley: I am not a legal expert on this point. I may have to take some advice on it and write to the hon. Gentleman in order to give him a definitive answer. I return to the point that flood defence powers are not statutory but permissive responsibilities. I therefore suspect that, if the funding that the Environment Agency considers necessary is not forthcoming, there are no legal powers to require such provision.
    I would stress, however, that I am a great believer in local democracy. The hon. Gentleman has heard me say that before when debating the strategy for providing flood and coastal defence. I believe that local authorities have a very important role to play. On balance, the structure that involves local authorities in determining the level of service and raising funds towards financing it from a precept is the right one. If local authorities do not take their responsibilities seriously and reflect the needs of local people, whom they are ultimately supposed to serve and represent, the argument for a review of the operation of the funding and local authorities' role is strengthened.
    As I have said, we have given a commitment to review the structure and funding in the light of the Select Committee report, and we will certainly give consideration to that.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to One o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Macedonia
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he initiated steps to remove controls on the export to Macedonia of all-wheel drive utility vehicles, heavy duty recovery vehicles and drop-sided trucks; and what assessment he has made of the effect this ban has had on relief efforts. [86734]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The controls set out in Group 3, Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 prohibit the export of certain vehicles to the Republic of Macedonia without an export licence. These controls do not constitute a ban. We do not believe that they have had a significant effect on the current relief effort in Macedonia.

  We began the process of lifting these controls in April 1999 in order to assist relief organisations working in Macedonia. Since then we have fast tracked relevant licence applications to allow the speedy export of vehicles for relief work in Macedonia.

  Register of European Commissioners' Interests
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the Register of European Commissioners' Interests to be deposited in the Library. [86736]

  Ms Quin
  The register of European Commissioners' Interests is a public document which is regularly updated. It can be found on the Internet at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/commissioners/interests-en.htm.

  Nuclear Plant (Turkey)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning Turkey's plan to build a nuclear plant at Akkuyu Bay; what assessment his Department has made of the potential risks of this project; and if he will make a statement. [86849]

  Ms Quin
  We have received representations from the Greek Government on the matter of the proposed nuclear power plant in Akkuyu. They have drawn attention to their publication, "Risks Associated with the Construction of a Nuclear Power Plant in Akkuyu, Turkey".

  We are aware that Turkey has been considering this project for some time as part of a wider strategy to increase energy production. Turkey is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has a full scope safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA). Any nuclear power plant in Turkey would be subject to full scope safeguards by the IAEA. Turkey has also recently applied to join the
  134
  Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and the Zangger Committee, the international nuclear export control regimes.

  We understand that the Turkish authorities are still evaluating bids for this project. We will continue to monitor its development.

  EU-Japan Summit
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the latest agenda for the EU-Japan summit of 17 June, prior to the meeting. [86830]

  Ms Quin
  The provisional agenda for the EU-Japan Summit on 20 June 1999 is:

  1. Opening remarks (including new developments in EU-Japan relations)

  2. International situation

  Kosovo

  Russia

  Korean Peninsula

  Indonesia

  East Timor

  Macau

  3. Economic, trade and co-operation issues

  Macro-economic development in Japan, Asia and Europe

  Bilateral economic co-operation

  business dialogue

  deregulation

  Mutual Recognition Agreement

  WTO related issues (new round, accession)

  Peaceful use of nuclear energy

  Antarctic Environmental Treaty Secretariat
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the Antarctic Environmental Treaty Secretariat to be established; how many signatory states have ratified the Treaty; and if he will make a statement. [86893]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Issues relating to a possible Antarctic Treaty Secretariat were discussed at the recent Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, held in Peru in May. Both Argentina and Australia reiterated their offer to host the Secretariat, but no consensus was reached on either bid. The UK looks forward to a resolution of the matter and will continue constructive dialogue on it with other Treaty Parties.

  Forty-four countries have now ratified or acceded to the Antarctic Treaty, 27 of which have Consultative (voting) status; 37 countries have signed the Environmental Protocol to the Treaty; and 28 countries have either ratified or acceded to the Protocol.

WALES

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact upon small businesses of the flat rate levy to fund the new Food Standards Agency; and if he will make a statement. [86345]
  135
  Mr. Hain
  The Government have responded to the views put forward in the public consultation and have decided not to place a levy on retailers and caterers.

  Voluntary Services (Social Exclusion)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the role of the voluntary services in tackling social exclusion; and if he will make a statement. [86347]

  Mr. Hain
  The voluntary sector has a key role to play in helping to tackle social exclusion and will be a key partner of the Assembly in taking forward its social inclusion work. The voluntary sector successfully leads numerous initiatives and projects to counter social exclusion at local level and across Wales. The Wales Council for Voluntary action makes an important contribution to policy making through its membership of our Advisory Panel on social exclusion.

  In March, my right hon. Friend announced additional funding of £1.5 million from the Social Inclusion Fund to support volunteering initiatives to encourage people to participate in their communities through joining in the work of local voluntary sector initiatives.

  Following the transfer of functions this will be a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Climate Levy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the world climate levy upon industry; and if he will make a statement. [86344]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The climate change levy will make a significant contribution to meeting the UK's legally-binding target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions set under the Kyoto Protocol and our domestic commitments to further reductions. It will entail no increase in the overall burden of tax on business, since it will be accompanied by a 0.5 percentage point cut in the main rate of employers' National Insurance Contributions. This will reduce the cost of hiring workers and encourage employment opportunities. Business will also benefit from an additional £50 million a year for schemes aimed at promoting energy efficiency and additional support for renewable sources of energy, like solar and wind power.

  The impact of the climate change levy on any one industry, firm or plant will depend on the tax rates set for different sectors. The Government are well aware of the need to protect the competitiveness of British industry and intend to set significantly lower rates of tax for those energy intensive sectors that agree targets for improving their energy efficiency. A number of energy intensive sectors are involved in these negotiations.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions under what 136
  Article of the Treaty consents for growing genetically modified crops are issued; when the relevant substantive resolution was agreed in each House of Parliament relating thereto; and what amendments have subsequently been made. [86236]

  Mr. Meacher
  All consents for the deliberate release into the environment of Genetically Modified Organisms are issued on the basis of the procedures laid down in Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990. The legal basis of the Directive is Article 95 (ex Article 100a) of the Treaty establishing the European Community. The Regulations implementing the Directive, detailed in the answer of 22 March 1999,Official Report, column 41, were adopted by negative resolution. The Directive was adapted to take account of technical progress by Commission Directive 94/15/EC of 15 April 1994.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the antibiotic marker genes, and the antibiotics to which they convey resistance, that have been used in the genetic modification of plant crops. [86321]

  Mr. Meacher
  The antibiotic marker genes and the antibiotics to which they convey resistance, that have been used in the genetic modification of plant crops released for research purposes in the European Community are listed in the table:

  Gene

  Antibiotic

  nptII

  Kanamycin

  bla

  Ampicillin

  hpt

  Hygromycin

  aad

  Streptomycin

  tet

  Tetracycline

  aad

  Spectinomycin

  nptIII

  Amikacin

  gen

  Gentamycin

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what baseline studies of biodiversity in genetically modified crop test site areas are required to be carried out prior to genetically modified crops being planted. [86886]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 15 June 1999]All applications for consent to release a genetically modified plant must include a pre-planting environmental audit including details of the release site ecosystem including climate and fauna, details of any sexually compatible wild relatives or cultivated plant species present and the proximity of officially recognised biotopes or protected areas. Specific baseline studies of biodiversity at test sites are not required.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what permissions have been granted to grow genetically modified food at Blunsdon, near Swindon; and if he will make a statement. [86413]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 11 June 1999]No consent to release a genetically modified crop has been issued in respect of Blunsdon, Wiltshire. The only such consent in Wiltshire relates to the release of GM spring oilseed rape at Lushill Farm, Hannington, Wiltshire, consent number 98/R19/18.

  West Coast Main Line
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the upgrade of the west coast main line is on schedule. [86854]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is a matter for Railtrack. Railtrack has entered into both contractual commitments and licence undertakings in respect of the upgrade of the west coast main line. Ministers expect Railtrack to deliver on its obligations.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what effect the failure of Railtrack to complete the capacity review on time has had on the schedule for the upgrade of west coast main line. [86855]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand that Railtrack has assured the Rail Regulator and its customers and funders that delay in completing those strategic capacity reviews which it undertook to provide as part of its licence obligation will not delay the upgrade of the west coast main line, or compromise the ability to proceed with any of the enhancements explored in those studies.

  Lead Shot
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to lay before Parliament a Statutory Instrument on the use of lead shot in wetlands. [86417]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 14 June 1999]I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 10 June 1999,Official Report, columns 374–75.

  Cycle Routes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the length of dedicated cycle routes in(a) Greater London and (b) each London borough, (i) currently and (ii) in 1997. [86894]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 3 March 1999,Official Report, columns 737–38, about the length of the London Cycle network at April 1998. While it is anticipated that the London Cycle Network grew to some 800 miles in 1998–99, lengths on a borough basis are being collected at the present time. Therefore, I will write to my hon. Friend setting out the figures for April 1999, with comparable April 1997 data, as soon as they are available.

  Bletchley and Bicester Railway Line
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to receive plans for the re-opening of the Bletchley and Bicester railway line; what level of expenditure on this line is planned by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [86895]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The East-West Rail Group, a consortium of local authorities, have proposed re-opening this section of line as part of their proposal for opening up an East-West rail route which would extend from Oxford to Ipswich via Bicester, Bletchley, Bedford and Cambridge. I understand they have arranged for Railtrack to carry out a feasibility study which is expected to be 138
  completed in a few weeks. Subject to the outcome of the feasibility study it will be for the consortium to seek sources of funding for any plans it decides to pursue. The Department will consider any proposals that may be put to it.

  Barking to Gospel Oak Line
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the electrification of the Barking to Gospel Oak railway line; what proposals he has received for the opening of a station at Tufnell Park; and if he will make a statement. [86896]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are no current plans to electrify the Barking to Gospel Oak railway line and no proposals have been received for a station at Tufnell Park.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has received from the train operating company for new services to different destinations on the Barking to Gospel Oak line in the last 12 months. [86899]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about his policy on calling in planning applications under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. [87392]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend's general approach, like that of previous Secretaries of State, is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so. Parliament has entrusted them with responsibility for day-to-day planning control in their areas. It is right that, in general, they should be free to carry out their duties responsibly, with the minimum of interference.

  There will be occasions, however, when my right hon. Friend may consider it necessary to call in the planning application to determine himself, instead of leaving the decision to the local planning authority.

  His policy is to be very selective about calling in planning applications. He will, in general, only take this step if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, for example, those which, in his opinion:

  may conflict with national policies on important matters;

  could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality;

  give rise to substantial regional or national controversy;

  raise significant architectural and urban design issues; or

  may involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments

  However, each case will continue to be considered on its individual merits.

  Passenger Movements (Stansted)
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make a decision on the application to raise the passenger air transport movement limit at Stansted. [87394]
  139
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  After careful consideration of BAA plc's application for an increase, and the responses to the consultation that was held on it, I have today laid before the House an Order allowing 120,000 passenger air transport movements at Stansted between August 1999 and February 2000, and increasing, from 1 March 2000, the annual limit from 120,000 to 185,000 per annum. The new limit should allow Stansted to expand to around 15 million passengers a year (mppa)—a limit for which it has had outline planning permission since 1985 and for which detailed planning approval was given in March.

  The purpose of the passenger air transport movement limit is to ensure that the development of Stansted does not outpace the ability of local infrastructure to cope with it. The Government are satisfied that the growth in road and rail traffic that will be generated will be satisfactorily accommodated, and that the overall effects of a 15 mppa airport are properly reflected in local development plans.

  Commission for Integrated Transport
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the remaining appointments to the Commission for Integrated Transport; and if he will make a statement. [87395]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have today appointed Bill Bradshaw, Lawrence Christensen, Nicky Gavron, Stephen Joseph, David Leeder, Lilli Matson, Bill Morris, John O'Brien, Veronica Palmer, Mike Parker and Nick Reilly as members of the Commission for Integrated Transport.

  They will be joined by four ex officio members: the Chair of the SRA (Sir Alastair Morton), the Chairman of the CAA (Sir Malcolm Field), the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency (Lawrie Haynes) and the Chair of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (Jane Wilmot).

  I am pleased that the new Commission is now able to start work. We have brought together a strong and balanced team with the experience to provide practical and constructive advice on making integrated transport a reality. The ex officio members will bring the expertise of their own organisations, but we have otherwise appointed members not as representatives of particular interests but as individuals with a breadth of knowledge of transport and its impacts.

  The 17-strong Commission will be a fresh and creative force in helping Government deliver the clean, safe, fair and efficient transport system the country needs. The Commission must build on the consensus established around last year's Transport White Paper, and I and my ministerial colleagues very much look forward to working with it.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Mrs. Rosemary Nelson
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what period after 15 March, the Royal Ulster Constabulary telephone hotline number which any potential witnesses to the murder of Mrs. Rosemary Nelson were urged to call was unstaffed; and for what reasons. [85453]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 25 May 1999]A contact line was established in March. A separate hotline was set up on 9 April following the arrival of Mr. Port. I understand that, where possible, it is manned during office hours, which are normally 0900 to 1700. The line is answered by non-RUC officers. Outside these hours the hotline works on an answering machine.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the involvement of officers of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in respect of the inquiry into the murder of Mrs. Rosemary Nelson. [85451]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 25 May 1999]The RUC have advised that, on the day Mrs. Nelson was murdered, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary contacted the Director of the FBI, who agreed to offer the Bureau's investigative expertise. As a result, a number of experienced agents arrived from the United States of America. They brought expertise in investigating acts of terrorism, including major case management. As the FBI's Legal Attaché, John Guido said on 12 April:"The FBI arrived fully prepared to provide as much assistance as they could by offering suggestions on investigative strategy, evidence collection and data management. Frankly, we found the RUC to be well prepared to handle the investigation."

  They were in Northern Ireland from 20 March to 16 April and noted that a very dedicated and professional inquiry team had been assembled to bring the killers of Mrs. Nelson to justice. Mr. Guido also said that the FBI had confidence that all appropriate lines of inquiry were being pursued and that the greatest chance of success lay with the RUC continuing the investigation. The FBI continue in an advisory role and there is regular contact with Mr. Port's team.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if the European Union Directive on landfill of waste will be taken into account when current planning applications are being decided; [85922]

  (2) what arrangements are in place to take account of the views of objectors and their public representatives when deciding on contentious planning applications; [85919]

  (3) from what date the European Union Directive on landfill of waste will be applied to planning applications in Northern Ireland. [85921]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The emerging draft European Directive on landfill of waste is, and will continue to be, a material consideration in the assessment of planning applications. The weight to be given to the draft Directive will be influenced by its status at any given time. Greater weight will, of course, be attached when the Directive has been adopted. As regards taking account of the views of
  141
  objectors and their public representatives when deciding contentious planning applications, all representations received, whether in favour of or against a proposal, are considered fully before a decision on an application is reached. If necessary, a public inquiry can be called.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of her Special Advisers travelled to Washington and New York on 15 March; and if she will list the meetings which her Special Advisers held with members and officials of the United States Government during this visit, the dates and locations of each meeting, and the names of the US ministers and officials at each meeting. [86288]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I met Mr. S. Berger and Mr. J. Steinberg, the National and Deputy National Security Advisers at the National Security Council in Washington in March 1999. I also participated in other meetings including with Senators, Congressmen and the press. Mr. Warner accompanied me to these meetings.

  The New York leg of the visit was cancelled because of developments in Northern Ireland.

  Violent Incidents
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of incidents of assault, attacks on houses and other property and intimidation reported to the RUC in the Fountain Estate/Wapping Lane area of Londonderry for the period from 1 April to the latest available date. [87037]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 June 1999]Records indicate that there were eight incidents of assault in the Fountain Estate/Wapping Lane area of Londonderry from 1 April to 10 June 1999. No reports have been received by police of any incidence of attack on houses or other property nor of intimidation in that area during the period.

  Social Need Initiative
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she has reached a view on the priorities for the promoting social inclusion element of the new targeting social need initiative; and how these will be taken forward. [87560]

  Mr. McFall
  Following extensive consultation with a range of voluntary sector and other interests the Secretary of State has decided that the first four strands of work to be tackled under the Promoting Social Inclusion will be:

  action to alleviate the needs of Travellers

  a strategic approach to the needs of minority ethnic groups

  the problems of teenage parenthood

  strategies for making services more accessible to minority groups and others at risk of social exclusion—focusing firstly on how information can be presented and distributed in ways appropriate to their needs.

  Working Groups will now be set up to examine each of these areas and to recommend effective ways of tackling social exclusion.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland in 1999–2000. [87562]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  For 1999–2000 the following key performance targets have been set for the Agency:

  Output:

  1. To dispatch 96 per cent. of registration books for new vehicles in 16 working days from receipt.

  2. To dispatch 96 per cent. of refunds of vehicle excise duty in 10 working days from receipt.

  3. To dispatch 96 per cent. of vehicle excise licences in five working days from receipt of postal application.

  4. To dispatch 96 per cent. of duplicate vehicle registration books in six working days from receipt of applications.

  5. To dispatch 92 per cent. of all driving licences in nine working days from receipt of applications.

  6. To dispatch substantive replies to 97 per cent. of written inquiries for information from the drivers and vehicles registers in three working days from receipt.

  Efficiency:

  7. To limit maximum waiting time at Local Vehicle Licensing Offices so that 96 per cent. of customers are attended to within 22 minutes during peak periods (the first eight and the last two working days of each month) and within 10 minutes at other periods.

  8. To meet an overall efficiency gain of 2.5 per cent.

  Financial:
  9. To reduce the unit cost per vehicle excise enforcement case by 0.5 per cent. in real terms compared to 1998–99.

  Quality:
  10. To limit the error rate (errors on any item sent out by the Agency) to a maximum of 0.5 per cent. of total Agency output.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland in 1999–2000. [87563]

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

  Financial Performance
  To meet the challenge of managing the Agency's workload by:

  a) implementing the results of staff grading review so as to achieve a 3 per cent. efficiency gain while coping with a 4 per cent. increase in on-site public use of PRONI.

  b) Ensuring that expenditure is within the financial limits approved by the Department.

  Output

  To appraise at least 4,500 linear metres of records, including the reappraisal of records so as to eliminate low-grade material.

  To list and index at least 550 linear metres of records, including ensuring that 100 per cent. of all new "open" material is processed within one year of receipt.

  143
  Quality of Service

  To maintain the extra 4 hours opening per week beyond the standard 37½ hours.

  With the help of the computerised document request system, to improve the speed of on-site production to the public by reducing waiting time from 34 minutes to 30 minutes or less in 90 per cent. of cases.

  To process customer queries within 10 working days of receipt in 90 per cent. of cases and within 14 working days in 96 per cent. of cases, thus maintaining PRONI's Citizen Charter commitment.

  To ensure by 31 December 1999 the smooth completing of the annual release for 2000—c.2,000 records—as well as the on-going release of identified blocks of records at earlier than 30 years.

  As part of a 10-year storage improvement programme, to survey the conditions in which 10 per cent. of 33,360 metres of records are stored, and, in a related exercise, to take remedial action on upgrading, c.1,800 linear-metres of records as presently stored on mobile shelving or in plan cases in Balmoral Avenue so as to bring them up to defined standards of archival protection.

  To complete remedial conservation treatment (assessed overall as of medium technical difficulty) of at least 3,000 archive units, mainly from Grade 1 archives.

  To provide standards of service which ensure that the number of unsatisfied customers does not exceed 2 per cent. as reflected in signed customers satisfaction questionnaires.

  Efficiency
  To reduce by 3 per cent. (from £198 to 192), PRONI's composite Unit Cost in the areas of selecting and accessioning, records listing, records storage, document production, reader services. correspondence, outreach, public photocopying conservation and security microfilming.

  Industrial Research and Technology Unit
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Industrial Research and Technology Unit for the financial year 1999–2000. [87564]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Industrial Research and Technology Unit is an Agency within the Department of Economic Development. Its prime strategic target is to raise the level of industrial R & D in Northern Ireland and in addressing this target the Agency also aims to operate efficiently and effectively and provide a quality service. Against this background the following key targets have been set for the Agency:

  To achieve new user participation in the COMPLETE Programme of 20 per cent.

  To increase the average industry contribution to projects funded under the COMPLETE Programme by 1 per cent.

  To achieve an increase in R & D projects under the START Programme of 20 per cent.

  To achieve full cost recovery for Scientific Services.

  To maintain UKAS Accreditation for Scientific Services.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answers of 16 April 1999,Official Report, columns 364–65, if she will (a) estimate the cost of commissioning a study on the application of information technology across the field of equal opportunities monitoring in order to (i) assist employers in complying with monitoring requirements, (ii) assist analysis of monitoring returns, (iii) assist analysis of the operation of complaints mechanisms and (iv) assess the effectiveness of measures taken to address equality of
  144
  opportunity, (b) list publicly funded research studies of relevance and (c) estimate the cost of a literature search in this field. [87171]

  Mr. Ingram
  A major benefit of the new single Equality Commission will be to enable more effective monitoring across the whole equal opportunities field. We are committed to greatly increased use of information technology in all aspect of government and I would expect that the new Commission will see the development of appropriate computerised monitoring systems as a priority. I have no way of making an informed estimate of the cost of a study.

  I am not aware of any relevant publicly funded research studies or of any previously completed literature search. I am not able to make an estimate of the cost of the latter.

  Policing and Justice Review (Costs)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the financial estimates for(a) cost to completion and (b) the monthly breakdown of running costs and programme expenditure by main spending items since April 1998 for (i) the Independent Commission on Policing and (ii) the Review of Criminal Justice. [87168]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table shows the spending profile of the Criminal Justice Review from April 1998 to March 1999. In effect the cost of the Review for the 1998–99 financial year is £390,262. The budget from April 1999 until the completion of the Review is £572,000, bringing the total cost to £962,000.

  Costs of the Criminal Justice Review

  £

  Costs from April 1998 to March 1999

  Month

  Running costs

  Programme costs

  Total

  April 1998

  0

  0

  0

  May 1998

  0

  0

  0

  June 1998

  109

  0

  109

  July 1998

  8,094

  20,593

  28,687

  August 1998

  306

  26,640

  26,946

  September 1998

  81

  2,181

  2,262

  October 1998

  1,990

  44,468

  46,457

  November 1998

  8,438

  28,224

  36,662

  December 1998

  270

  6,048

  6,317

  January 1999

  2,827

  56,723

  59,550

  February 1999

  10,658

  25,940

  36,598

  March 1999

  20,106

  126,566

  146,671

  Totals

  52,881

  337,380

  390,262

  Note:

  Totals may differ as a result of rounding

  With regard to the Independent Commission on Policing, the cost to completion is £2.874 million. The following is a table showing the breakdown of running costs and programme expenditure per month:

  £

  Month

  Running costs

  Programme costs

  Total

  June 1998

  14,382.85

  27,790.83

  42,173.68

  July 1998

  50,202.37

  113,647.89

  163,850.26

  August 1998

  22,178.71

  93,594.02

  115,772.73

  September 1998

  33,341.14

  56,252.76

  89,593.90

  October 1998

  34,478.57

  113,645.15

  148,123.72

  145

  £

  Month

  Running costs

  Programme costs

  Total

  November 1998

  61,520.10

  44,798.52

  106,318.62

  December 1998

  33,592.72

  89,111.74

  122,704.46

  January 1999

  30,459.07

  179,083.51

  209,542.58

  February 1999

  34,608.66

  145,632.27

  180,240.93

  March 1999

  54,679.21

  113,035.06

  167,714.27

  Totals

  369,443.40

  976,591.75

  1,346,035.15

  Equality Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will(a) place in the Library the written submissions to the Equality Commission Working Group meeting under Dr. Joan Stringer, (b) list the recommendations of the Working Group and (c) give the Government response to each. [87167]

  Mr. Ingram
  My officials are writing to those who made submissions to the Equality Commission Working Group and subject to their agreement I will place the submissions in the Library. The recommendations of the Working Group are listed in the Executive Summary of the Report, which is available in the Library. Many of the recommendations will be for the new Commission itself to consider and it would be inappropriate for Government to make a response to these. The recommendations that fall to Government are those that relate to appointments, induction training and resources. Appointments and induction training are being progressed and I will be monitoring the position on resources carefully to ensure that the new Commission is properly resourced to fulfil the current statutory obligations and implement important new responsibilities.

DEFENCE

  Homosexuality (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy on employment of homosexuals in the armed forces. [86369]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The current policy is that homosexuals are excluded from the armed forces. As I have already made clear, the issue of homosexuality will be reviewed during this Parliament and there will be a free vote in Parliament on the subject.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the value of technology developed by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which has been made available to British industry by way of(a) licensing and (b) joint venture for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [86370]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, DERA, does not assign a capital value to technology when transferred to industry. Instead, moneys are recouped by way of a running royalty over a number 146
  of years, sometimes as many as twenty. Details of the total licence income from UK industry for each of the last five years is detailed in the table:

  Financial year

  £000

  1994

  450

  1995

  1,205

  1996

  1,419

  1997

  1,300

  1998

  1,468

  The figures include income from non-equity joint ventures. DERA has been permitted to engage in equity joint ventures only since April 1999 and, so far, there has been no income from this source. Technology required by industry for government purposes is transferred free of charge; records are not kept of its theoretical value.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes to pension arrangements for existing staff are planned if the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency becomes a public and private partnership; and if he will make a statement. [86670]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 11 June 1999]As the hon. Member is aware, we are currently conducting a consultation programme on proposals for a DERA Public Private Partnership. We hope to be in a position to make an announcement on DERA's future later in the year.

  Only after this will we be able to assess future pension arrangements for DERA staff.

  HMS Chatham
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the forecast cost of the refit of HMS Chatham and its planned completion date; and if he will make a statement. [86385]

  Mr. Spellar
  The refit for HMS Chatham is due to be completed in late 1999, at a planned cost of £19.6 million. It is not possible to say whether additional unforeseen work, which may affect the final cost, will be required.

  HMS Campbelltown
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) delays and (b) cost over-runs there are in respect of the refit of HMS Campbelltown; what is the cost of the refit; when she will be ready for operational duties; and if he will make a statement. [86371]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Campbelltown is now fully operational. The refit, which was completed in December 1998, required some unforeseen additional work, which resulted in a delay of just over seven weeks. The final cost of the refit will not be known until all contractual aspects have been finalised but is expected to be about £23 million, which is within the overall budget.

  HMS Southampton
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the refit of HMS Southampton will be completed; and at what cost. [86450]
  147
  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Southampton is currently on Sea Trials following her refit and will return to operational service in Autumn this year. As is normally the case, the sea trials will be followed by a period of defect rectification work. Expenditure to date is about £37 million, but the total project cost will not be known until any additional work is complete.

  Army Cadets (Safety)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received of the Coroner's inquest into the death of army cadet Claire Louise Shore; and what arrangements he will make for his Department to respond to the findings of the inquest. [86354]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Coroner's inquest into the tragic death of Cadet Claire Louise Shore took place at the Coroner's Court Basingstoke, between the 17 and 20 May 1999. The inquest jury returned a verdict of "accidental death" and no specific recommendations were made by the Coroner. A Board of Inquiry (BOI) will however, now be held by my Department, to investigate the circumstances surrounding the accident and to make, where appropriate, any necessary recommendations to ensure that a similar incident does not reoccur. A copy of the BOI report would be made available to the family if they wish.

  Paternity Leave
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what paternity provision is available for members of the armed forces(a) as a general right and (b) when there is medical advice that the health of the mother and baby, pre or post natal, requires the presence of the father. [86735]

  Mr. Spellar
  There is currently no national legal requirement to provide paternity leave and my Department has no policy to provide special leave for Service fathers. However, as a good employer, the Services seek, whenever possible, to grant a serviceman annual leave (or compassionate leave if appropriate) before or after childbirth. Operational commitments may, on occasions, make it impossible for every serviceman to be released from his duties.

  Harpoon Missiles
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to upgrade the Harpoon missiles fitted to HM ships to give them Block II land attack capability. [87001]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are currently no plans to upgrade the existing Harpoon missiles fitted to HM Ships to Block II land attack capability.

  Block II Missiles
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to fit Block II land attack missiles to HM ships. [87002]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are currently no plans to fit HM ships with Block H Harpoon land attack missiles.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what advice will be given to returning Kosovan refugees and what precautions will be taken to protect them from contamination from depleted uranium in the region consequent on its use in ordnance and missiles; [86743]

  (2) what special equipment has been issued to service and other personnel in the former Yugoslavia to minimise the risk of contamination from depleted uranium; what other precautions were taken; what guidance was given to commanders; and if he will make a statement. [86741]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 14 June 1999]The UNHCR is the lead agency responsible for the return of the refugees to their homeland. It will be for them to provide such advice as they judge to be necessary on the hazards which returning refugees may face.

  Although we believe that the health risks to our personnel from the use of depleted uranium ammunition in the Gulf War were very small we are making available to the UNHCR the March 1999 paper produced by the MOD's Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit in respect of testing for the presence of depleted uranium in UK veterans of that conflict. This contains detailed material which we believe may be of use to the UNHCR.

  As far as Service personnel are concerned, appropriate guidance is given to them on dealing with any potential hazards from depleted uranium which they might encounter in Kosovo. As a precaution, this guidance includes advice to wear respiratory protection and gloves when contact with vehicles damaged by depleted uranium ammunition is unavoidable. UK forces in theatre have been issued with the appropriate range of NBC clothing and equipment.

  "Costing the Earth"
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has obtained a tape of the entire BBC Radio 4 programme, "Costing the Earth", broadcast on 7 June to which the Minister of State for the armed forces contributed. [86742]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 14 June 1999]We do on occasion tape programmes, particularly those to which we make a contribution. We did not on this occasion as there are various ways of obtaining a tape should it be required.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what epidemiologically valid trials have been conducted on service people who were exposed to depleted uranium debris in the Gulf War. [86951]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 15 June 1999]The Ministry of Defence's portfolio of research programmes into Gulf veterans' illnesses matters currently comprises two major epidemiological studies looking at the health of UK Gulf veterans, a neuromuscular symptoms study, an independent review of research literature, and a programme to investigate possible interactions between the medical countermeasures which were used during the 1990–91 Gulf conflict. The Ministry of Defence is also supporting
  149
  a further epidemiological study of UK Gulf veterans which is being funded by the United States Government. However, none of these programmes, epidemiological or otherwise, is specifically aimed at investigating the health effects of depleted uranium.

  Nevertheless, all three teams conducting epidemiological research are well aware that depleted uranium is one of many possible exposures in the Gulf which have been put forward as a potential cause of Gulf-related illnesses, and they have and will continue to, take this into account in their studies. Possible exposure to depleted uranium at the time of the Gulf conflict was included in the questionnaires which the teams have sent, or are sending, to random samples of Gulf veterans and control groups.

  One of the epidemiological studies—that being conducted by a team from King's College, London—published their initial results in the Lancet in January. Of the 30 different exposures reported by those veterans who completed the survey, depleted uranium was the fourth least frequently reported.

  The need for further research work is kept under regular review by the Ministry of Defence and the Medical Research Council (MRC) which advises the Government on its overall strategy for Gulf health issues. So far, however, the MRC has not recommended that the Ministry of Defence commission any specific depleted uranium related research.

  Gulf veterans who are concerned that their health has been adversely affected by service during the Gulf conflict, including by possible exposure to DU, are entitled to seek a referral to the Gulf veterans' Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) for a full medical assessment. During this assessment, veterans receive a standard set of tests and are asked by the examining MAP physician to provide detailed information about possible factors, including depleted uranium, to which they may have been exposed during the Gulf conflict. Any further tests which are considered clinically appropriate by the examining MAP physician, including those to detect the presence of depleted uranium, are also arranged.

  Army Training and Recruiting Agency
  Mr. Dennis Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the key targets are for 1999–2000 for the Chief Executive of the Army Training and Recruiting Agency. [87565]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Chief Executive of the Army Training and Recruiting Agency has been set the following Key Targets for 1999–2000:

  1. To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for 620 commissioned officers.

  2. To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for 610 officers qualified for service in Field Force units following successful Special to Arm training.

  3. To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for the professional development training of 6,714 officers.

  4. To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for 10,831 regular soldiers qualified for service in Field Force units following successful Basic and Special to Arm training.

  5. To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for professional development training for 52,458 soldiers.

  6. To achieve a 3 per cent. annual aggregate improvement in ATRA efficiency measured on the ATRA Efficiency Index.

  Gulf Veterans
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlie recent trends in the number of referrals to the Gulf veterans' Medical Assessment Programme. [86224]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Gulf veterans' Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) was set up by the Ministry of Defence in 1993 to provide as full a diagnosis as possible to Gulf veterans who are concerned about their health, or provide reassurance if no illness is found. It will continue for as long as it is needed.

  So far during 1999, a weekly average of five new patients have been referred to the MAP. The comparable figure for 1997 is about 19 and for 1998 is 12.

  The Ministry of Defence has made no assessment of the factors underlying this trend but has taken a number of steps over the last two years to highlight the MAP's existence and its purpose. Most recently, for example, the Department of Health's Chief Medical Officer's May Update highlighted the existence of an information pack to provide GPs and other health professionals with information they may find useful in dealing with Gulf veterans' health concerns. This pack includes a section on the MAP.

  As of 15 June, my Department had sent 176 copies of the information pack in response to requests from doctors. The pack is also available on the Ministry of Defence's Gulf veterans' illnesses webpage (http://www.mod.uk/policy/gulfwar/index.htm) and was highlighted in the memorandum "Current Activity relating to Gulf Veterans' Illnesses" which I published in April. Copies have also been sent to various Parliamentarians and placed in the Library of the House.

  Army (Re-enlistment)
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel who retired from the Army in the last 24 months have been persuaded to re-enlist; and if he will list the main places where they are now serving. [86146]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The number of Officers and Other Ranks who have left the Army within the last 24 months, and who have subsequently re-enlisted is as follows:

  Rank

  Numbers re-enlisted

  Officers

  2

  Soldiers

  597

  Some 84 per cent. of those who have re-enlisted are currently serving in Great Britain and Northern Ireland with a further 12 per cent. in Germany and theatres in the former Yugoslavia. The remaining 4 per cent. are serving in a variety of posts and theatres worldwide. These figures exclude mobilised Territorial Army (TA) and Reserve personnel.

  MOX Fuel Shipment
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he had with other departments regarding the shipment of MOX fuel to Japan. [86738]
  151
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 11 June 1999]I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 2 March 1999,Official Report, column 663, and the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on the same day, Official Report, column 692.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Compliance
  Helen Jones
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her answer of 18 May 1999,Official Report, column 285, when she will publish the latest results of the market research tracking public perception of the millennium bug. [87248]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [pursuant to her reply, 15 June 1999, c. 71]I have placed copies of the Executive Summary of the April tracking research in the Libraries of the House.

  The results are broadly consistent with those for March, showing that concern among the public on this issue is still low.

  The results of the May tracking research will be published in the next few weeks and I will place copies of the Executive Summary in the Libraries of the House as soon as it is available.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Racial Attacks
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many racial attacks for which people were prosecuted took place in London, broken down by police district,(a) in total, (b) per head of population and (c) per head of the ethnic minority population, in (i) 1998, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 1993. [85688]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that data on the number of prosecutions for violent racial crime are unavailable. The Metropolitan Police Service do not currently record information on the number of such crimes which were prosecuted in the courts.

  However, data are available on the number of charges and summons for violent racial crime, by police district and per 100,000 head of residential population for the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99. Data are also available on the ethnicity of the victims of violent racial crime, per 1,000 head of resident ethnic population for those years. This information, provided by the Commissioner, is set out in the tables:

  Charges/summons for racial violent crime per 100,000 head of residential population; financial year 1997–98

  Area/division

  Division total

  Residential population estimate1

  Per 100,000 head of population

  Area 1 (Central)

  Belgravia

  2

  50,361

  4.0

  Notting Hill

  3

  64,407

  4.7

  152

  Charges/summons for racial violent crime per 100,000 head of residential population; financial year 1997–98

  Area/division

  Division total

  Residential population estimate1

  Per 100,000 head of population

  Chelsea

  0

  99,637

  0.0

  West End Central

  0

  4,817

  0.0

  Charing Cross

  1

  5,707

  17.5

  Marylebone

  1

  56,460

  1.8

  Paddington Green

  0

  94,954

  0.0

  Fulham

  0

  66,644

  0.0

  Hammersmith

  1

  90,277

  1.1

  Total

  8

  533,265

  1.5

  Area 2 (North West)

  Hampstead

  0

  85,791

  0.0

  Kentish Town

  5

  80,991

  6.2

  Holborn

  1

  22,905

  4.4

  Holloway

  1

  90,326

  1.1

  Islington

  3

  86,455

  3.5

  Harrow

  5

  210,900

  2.4

  Wembley

  0

  133,707

  0.0

  Kilburn

  2

  115,844

  1.7

  Hertsmere

  1

  193,623

  0.5

  Barnet

  4

  226,274

  1.8

  Ealing

  1

  162,175

  0.6

  Southall

  3

  136,702

  2.2

  Hornsey

  3

  109,710

  2.7

  Tottenham

  4

  110,091

  3.6

  Total

  33

  1,765,494

  1.9

  Area 3 (North East)

  Shoreditch and Hackney

  3

  85,567

  3.5

  Stoke Newington

  0

  106,102

  0.0

  Limehouse

  6

  84,409

  7.1

  Whitechapel

  4

  95,425

  4.2

  Barkingside

  1

  170,783

  0.6

  Chingford

  1

  119,572

  0.8

  Ilford

  3

  133,305

  2.3

  Leyton

  2

  99,851

  2.0

  Havering

  5

  230,222

  2.2

  Forest Gate

  1

  111,700

  0.9

  Barking and Dagenham

  3

  153,755

  2.0

  Plaistow

  2

  116,826

  1.7

  Edmonton

  2

  146,905

  1.4

  Enfield

  1

  175,602

  0.6

  Total

  34

  1,830,024

  1.9

  Area 4 (South East)

  Southwark

  2

  61,895

  3.2

  Peckham

  0

  105,873

  0.0

  Walworth

  0

  62,732

  0.0

  Catford

  7

  134,530

  5.2

  Lewisham

  2

  106,863

  1.9

  Bromley and Orpington

  2

  297,567

  0.7

  Plumstead

  6

  107,440

  5.6

  Greenwich

  2

  106,183

  1.9

  Bexley

  7

  217,216

  3.2

  Croydon

  1

  120,034

  0.8

  South Norwood

  3

  215,574

  1.4

  Epsom and Sutton

  0

  290,639

  0.0

  Total

  32

  1,826,546

  1.8

  Area 5 (South West)

  Heathrow Airport

  0

  685

  0.0

  Brixton

  0

  89,380

  0.0

  Streatham

  0

  91,168

  0.0

  Vauxhall

  1

  84,624

  1.2

  Spelthorne

  0

  208,828

  0.0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1

  88,998

  1.1

  Hounslow

  10

  183,774

  5.4

  153

  Charges/summons for racial violent crime per 100,000 head of residential population; financial year 1997–98

  Area/division

  Division total

  Residential population estimate1

  Per 100,000 head of population

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  5

  213,940

  2.3

  Battersea

  3

  183,438

  1.6

  Wandsworth

  3

  114,398

  2.6

  Hillingdon

  5

  151,101

  3.3

  Merton

  8

  249,437

  3.2

  Total

  36

  1,659,772

  2.2

  MPS total

  143

  7,615,101

  1.9

  Charges/summons for racial violent crime per 100,000 head of residential population; financial year 1998–99

  Area/division

  Division total

  Residential population estimate1

  Per 100,000 head of population

  Area 1 (Central)

  Belgravia

  11

  50,361

  0.22

  Notting Hill

  10

  64,407

  0.16

  Chelsea

  6

  99,637

  0.06

  West End Central

  9

  4,817

  1.87

  Charing Cross

  5

  5,707

  0.88

  Marylebone

  7

  56,460

  0.12

  Paddington Green

  21

  94,954

  0.22

  Fulham

  13

  66,644

  0.20

  Hammersith

  27

  90,277

  0.30

  Total

  109

  533,265

  0.20

  Area 2 (North West)

  Hampstead

  2

  85,791

  0.02

  Kentish Town

  25

  80,991

  0.31

  Holborn

  9

  22,905

  0.39

  Holloway

  14

  90,326

  0.15

  Islington

  12

  88,455

  0.14

  Harrow

  15

  210,900

  0.07

  Wembley

  4

  133,707

  0.03

  Kilburn

  6

  115,844

  0.05

  Hertsmere

  3

  193,623

  0.02

  Barnet

  11

  226,274

  0.05

  Ealing

  18

  162,175

  0.11

  Southall

  16

  136,702

  0.12

  Hornsey

  8

  109,710

  0.07

  Tottenham

  7

  110,091

  0.06

  Total

  150

  1,765,494

  0.08

  Area 3 (North East)

  Victims of violent racial crime per 1,000 head of resident ethnic population financial year 1997–98

  Ethnicity

  Per 1,000 head of resident ethnic population

  Sum of COUNT crime Area/division code

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  Unknown

  Grand total

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  Area 1 (CENT)

  Belgravia

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0.00

  0.00

  0.63

  0.00

  Notting Hill

  2

  3

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0.04

  0.47

  0.00

  0.00

  W.E. Central

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  5

  0.00

  0.00

  19.46

  0.00

  Charing Cross

  1

  1

  3

  0

  0

  5

  0.20

  0.33

  12.82

  0.00

  Marylebone

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0.02

  0.46

  0.00

  0.00

  Paddington Green

  1

  4

  1

  2

  0

  8

  0.01

  0.38

  0.20

  0.22

  Fulham

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  3

  0.02

  0.21

  0.00

  0.41

  Hammersmith

  1

  6

  1

  0

  0

  8

  0.01

  0.55

  0.33

  0.00

  1 total

  7

  16

  11

  3

  0

  37

  0.02

  0.43

  0.70

  0.10

  154

  Charges/summons for racial violent crime per 100,000 head of residential population; financial year 1998–99

  Area/division

  Division total

  Residential population estimate1

  Per 100,000 head of population

  Shoreditch and Hackney

  24

  85,567

  0.28

  Stoke Newington

  17

  106,102

  0.16

  Limehouse

  19

  84,409

  0.23

  Whitechapel

  9

  95,425

  0.09

  Barkingside

  3

  170,783

  0.02

  Chingford

  10

  119,572

  0.08

  Ilford

  3

  133,305

  0.02

  Leyton

  3

  99,851

  0.03

  Havering

  9

  230,222

  0.04

  Forest Gate

  11

  111,700

  0.10

  Barking and Dagenham

  16

  153,755

  0.10

  Plaistow

  9

  118,826

  0.08

  Edmonton

  11

  146,905

  0.07

  Enfield

  8

  175,602

  0.05

  Total

  152

  1,830,024

  0.08

  Area 4 (South East)

  Southwark

  19

  61,895

  0.31

  Peckham

  9

  105,873

  0.09

  Walworth

  13

  82,732

  0.16

  Catford

  32

  134,530

  0.24

  Lewisham

  21

  106,863

  0.20

  Bromley and Orpington

  15

  297,567

  0.05

  Plumstead

  32

  107,440

  0.30

  Greenwich

  21

  106,183

  0.20

  Bexley

  14

  217,216

  0.06

  Croydon

  15

  120,034

  0.12

  South Norwood

  29

  215,574

  0.13

  Epsom and Sutton

  6

  290,639

  0.02

  Total

  226

  1,826,546

  0.12

  Area 5 (South West)

  Heathrow Airport

  7

  685

  10.22

  Brixton

  7

  89,380

  0.08

  Streatham

  16

  91,168

  0.18

  Vauxhall

  11

  84,624

  0.13

  Spelthorne

  8

  208,828

  0.04

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  19

  88,998

  0.21

  Hounslow

  53

  183,774

  0.29

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  15

  213,940

  0.07

  Battersea

  16

  183,438

  0.09

  Wandsworth

  13

  114,398

  0.11

  Hillingdon

  18

  151,101

  0.12

  Merton

  33

  249,437

  0.13

  Total

  216

  1,659,772

  0.13

  MPS Total

  853

  7,615,101

  0.11

  155

  Victims of violent racial crime per 1,000 head of resident ethnic population financial year 1997–98

  Ethnicity

  Per 1,000 head of resident ethnic population

  Sum of COUNT crime Area/division code

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  Unknown

  Grand total

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  Area 2 (NW)

  Hampstead

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0.00

  0.22

  0.30

  0.00

  Kentish Town

  16

  5

  22

  3

  0

  46

  0.24

  1.03

  4.63

  0.72

  Holborn

  6

  1

  3

  0

  0

  10

  0.35

  0.70

  1.20

  0.00

  Holloway

  2

  2

  3

  1

  0

  8

  0.03

  0.16

  0.86

  0.21

  Islington

  14

  10

  13

  12

  0

  49

  0.19

  1.49

  4.75

  3.12

  Harrow

  10

  4

  11

  6

  0

  31

  0.08

  0.51

  0.30

  0.57

  Wembley

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0.04

  0.13

  0.00

  0.00

  Kilburn

  6

  5

  6

  1

  0

  18

  0.09

  0.20

  0.42

  0.12

  Hertsmere and Barnet

  8

  2

  14

  6

  0

  30

  0.02

  0.16

  0.47

  0.27

  Ealing

  1

  2

  4

  0

  0

  7

  0.01

  0.17

  0.40

  0.00

  Southall

  4

  7

  8

  0

  0

  19

  0.05

  0.72

  0.17

  0.00

  Hornsey

  5

  3

  0

  3

  1

  12

  0.06

  0.29

  0.00

  0.53

  Tottenham

  1

  8

  4

  4

  1

  18

  0.01

  0.30

  0.52

  0.52

  2 total

  76

  52

  89

  36

  2

  255

  0.06

  0.35

  0.43

  0.34

  Area 3 (NE)

  Shoreditch and Hackney

  13

  14

  11

  6

  0

  44

  0.23

  0.70

  2.43

  1.50

  Stoke Newington

  6

  4

  3

  1

  0

  14

  0.09

  0.17

  0.40

  0.16

  Limehouse

  31

  14

  46

  1

  0

  92

  0.50

  1.82

  4.33

  0.26

  Whitechapel

  21

  3

  13

  1

  0

  38

  0.39

  0.58

  0.39

  0.35

  Barkingside

  1

  0

  10

  0

  0

  11

  0.01

  0.00

  1.30

  0.00

  Chingford

  4

  2

  3

  1

  0

  10

  0.04

  0.26

  0.43

  0.29

  Ilford

  1

  0

  7

  2

  0

  10

  0.01

  0.00

  0.27

  0.43

  Leyton

  8

  1

  6

  0

  0

  15

  0.13

  0.06

  0.38

  0.00

  Havering

  2

  3

  13

  1

  0

  19

  0.01

  1.39

  4.39

  0.46

  Forest Gate

  9

  6

  29

  2

  2

  48

  0.17

  0.31

  0.84

  0.38

  Barking and Dagenham

  5

  7

  22

  2

  0

  36

  0.03

  1.96

  4.42

  1.08

  Plaistow

  4

  9

  22

  2

  0

  37

  0.05

  0.66

  1.28

  0.32

  Edmonton

  8

  0

  2

  4

  0

  14

  0.07

  0.00

  0.22

  0.67

  Enfield

  3

  3

  9

  2

  0

  17

  0.02

  0.66

  2.54

  0.72

  3 total

  116

  66

  196

  25

  2

  405

  0.08

  0.45

  1.06

  0.43

  Area 4 (SE)

  Southwark

  5

  10

  1

  7

  0

  23

  0.10

  1.51

  0.56

  3.35

  Peckham

  4

  3

  1

  2

  0

  10

  0.05

  0.13

  0.39

  0.12

  Walworth

  2

  5

  6

  1

  0

  14

  0.04

  0.43

  3.95

  0.37

  Catford

  11

  9

  0

  1

  1

  22

  0.10

  0.58

  0.00

  0.26

  Lewisham

  6

  5

  2

  0

  0

  13

  0.08

  0.21

  1.01

  0.00

  Bromley and Orpington

  7

  4

  2

  2

  0

  15

  0.02

  0.80

  0.48

  0.37

  Plumstead

  11

  16

  8

  4

  0

  39

  0.12

  2.19

  1.25

  0.93

  Greenwich

  7

  5

  2

  2

  0

  18

  0.07

  1.12

  0.79

  0.69

  Bexley

  6

  11

  8

  1

  0

  26

  0.03

  5.25

  1.42

  0.33

  Croydon

  4

  2

  0

  0

  0

  6

  0.04

  0.49

  0.00

  0.00

  South Norwood

  1

  2

  8

  1

  0

  12

  0.01

  0.09

  0.51

  0.11

  Epsom and Sutton

  0

  1

  6

  0

  1

  8

  0.00

  0.32

  1.13

  0.00

  4 total

  64

  73

  44

  21

  2

  204

  0.04

  0.57

  0.61

  0.39

  Area 5 (SW)

  Brixton

  10

  6

  2

  0

  0

  18

  0.18

  0.22

  0.99

  0.00

  Streatham

  4

  2

  1

  0

  0

  7

  0.06

  0.15

  0.20

  0.00

  Vauxhall

  3

  2

  1

  0

  0

  6

  0.05

  0.12

  0.38

  0.00

  Spelthorne

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0.01

  3.08

  0.00

  0.00

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  3

  3

  6

  1

  1

  14

  0.02

  2.14

  1.62

  0.21

  Hounslow

  11

  16

  27

  6

  0

  60

  0.07

  2.73

  0.75

  0.64

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  6

  4

  8

  4

  1

  23

  0.03

  2.39

  1.47

  0.50

  Battersea

  2

  8

  0

  2

  0

  12

  0.02

  0.49

  0.00

  0.45

  Wandsworth

  2

  9

  9

  2

  0

  22

  0.02

  0.71

  1.04

  0.29

  Hillingdon

  6

  7

  19

  1

  1

  34

  0.03

  1.72

  0.94

  0.15

  Merton

  7

  13

  27

  3

  0

  50

  0.05

  1.21

  2.74

  0.31

  5 total

  55

  71

  100

  19

  3

  248

  0.04

  0.64

  1.00

  0.30

  Grand total

  318

  278

  440

  104

  9

  1,149

  0.05

  0.49

  0.79

  0.33

  156 157

  Victims of violent racial crime per 1,000 head of resident ethnic population financial year 1998–99

  Ethnicity

  Per 1,000 head of resident ethnic population1

  Sum of COUNT crime Area/division code

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  Unknown

  Grand total

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  Area 1 (CENT)

  Belgravia

  7

  29

  7

  1

  1

  45

  0.16

  15.83

  4.40

  0.35

  Notting Hill

  10

  15

  18

  9

  1

  53

  0.19

  2.37

  13.66

  1.92

  Chelsea

  6

  20

  14

  10

  1

  51

  0.07

  6.88

  6.28

  1.38

  W.E. Central

  9

  23

  4

  6

  2

  44

  2.25

  203.54

  15.56

  13.70

  Charing Cross

  14

  11

  11

  3

  2

  41

  2.83

  91.67

  47.01

  7.50

  Marylebone

  20

  13

  17

  23

  0

  73

  0.44

  5.98

  6.00

  3.70

  Paddington Green

  29

  36

  17

  31

  1

  114

  0.41

  3.40

  3.34

  3.41

  Fulham

  27

  33

  34

  15

  0

  109

  0.47

  6.77

  25.11

  6.22

  Hammersmith

  59

  65

  31

  20

  3

  178

  0.83

  5.91

  10.15

  4.10

  1 total

  181

  245

  153

  118

  11

  708

  0.41

  6.13

  8.52

  3.08

  Area 2 (NW)

  Hampstead

  9

  11

  11

  1

  0

  32

  0.13

  2.44

  3.28

  0.15

  Kentish Town

  49

  67

  84

  20

  1

  221

  0.73

  13.84

  17.70

  4.83

  Holborn

  29

  17

  20

  6

  1

  73

  1.67

  11.95

  8.03

  3.63

  Holloway

  27

  30

  38

  12

  1

  108

  0.39

  2.47

  10.84

  2.53

  Islington

  29

  48

  46

  28

  1

  152

  0.40

  7.16

  16.82

  7.27

  Harrow

  31

  41

  85

  20

  2

  179

  0.20

  5.18

  2.33

  1.91

  Wembley

  13

  30

  30

  5

  0

  78

  0.19

  1.91

  0.79

  0.44

  Kilburn

  19

  31

  33

  13

  3

  99

  0.28

  1.25

  2.31

  1.60

  Ealing

  35

  47

  59

  14

  1

  156

  0.27

  4.08

  5.88

  1.30

  Southall

  14

  27

  67

  9

  1

  118

  0.19

  2.78

  1.46

  1.17

  Hornsey

  21

  26

  19

  9

  2

  77

  0.24

  2.54

  3.26

  1.58

  Tottenham

  35

  42

  32

  18

  8

  135

  0.52

  1.56

  4.19

  2.35

  Hertsmere and Barnet

  74

  61

  106

  32

  4

  277

  0.21

  5.01

  3.57

  1.45

  2 total

  385

  478

  630

  187

  25

  1,705

  0.29

  3.22

  3.08

  1.78

  Area 3 (NE)

  Shoreditch and Hackney

  52

  64

  30

  32

  2

  180

  0.91

  3.18

  6.63

  7.99

  Stoke Newington

  34

  43

  32

  18

  0

  127

  0.49

  1.87

  4.23

  2.94

  Limehouse

  82

  29

  101

  8

  0

  220

  1.32

  3.77

  9.52

  2.10

  Whitechapel

  73

  38

  43

  4

  0

  158

  1.35

  7.30

  1.29

  1.39

  Barkingside

  18

  18

  28

  5

  0

  69

  0.11

  6.14

  3.63

  1.43

  Chingford

  20

  21

  31

  6

  0

  78

  0.20

  2.75

  4.46

  1.74

  Ilford

  26

  18

  27

  1

  0

  72

  0.27

  2.50

  1.06

  0.21

  Leyton

  29

  41

  34

  7

  1

  112

  0.47

  2.42

  2.13

  1.41

  Havering

  20

  20

  52

  7

  1

  100

  0.09

  9.29

  17.57

  3.24

  Forest Gate

  42

  39

  58

  6

  2

  147

  0.80

  2.03

  1.69

  1.08

  Barking and Dagenham

  23

  46

  55

  22

  2

  148

  0.16

  12.90

  11.06

  11.87

  Plaistow

  33

  63

  96

  6

  4

  202

  0.41

  4.61

  5.59

  0.96

  Edmonton

  35

  23

  32

  22

  0

  112

  0.29

  1.93

  3.58

  3.66

  Enfield

  20

  26

  32

  23

  0

  101

  0.12

  5.75

  9.03

  8.30

  3 total

  507

  489

  651

  167

  12

  1,826

  0.35

  3.36

  3.54

  2.88

  Area 4 (SE)

  Southwark

  38

  88

  20

  26

  1

  173

  0.74

  13.25

  11.19

  12.44

  Peckham

  30

  53

  12

  1

  2

  98

  0.40

  2.28

  4.68

  0.21

  Walworth

  26

  49

  22

  5

  1

  103

  0.55

  4.20

  14.48

  1.86

  Catford

  37

  78

  30

  13

  0

  158

  0.33

  4.99

  12.73

  3.32

  Lewisham

  48

  68

  40

  24

  2

  182

  0.63

  2.87

  20.29

  4.39

  Bromley and Orpington

  39

  43

  31

  19

  2

  134

  0.14

  8.55

  7.52

  3.55

  Plumstead

  42

  113

  64

  21

  0

  240

  0.47

  15.45

  10.11

  4.86

  Greenwich

  64

  80

  44

  11

  1

  200

  0.66

  17.90

  17.48

  3.79

  Bexley

  24

  23

  49

  7

  0

  103

  0.12

  10.98

  8.69

  2.34

  Croydon

  41

  36

  47

  10

  2

  136

  0.38

  8.78

  10.09

  2.29

  South Norwood

  45

  47

  62

  8

  1

  163

  0.27

  2.21

  3.96

  0.89

  Epsom and Sutton

  11

  20

  50

  18

  0

  99

  0.04

  6.48

  9.38

  2.67

  4 total

  445

  698

  471

  163

  12

  1,789

  0.28

  5.44

  8.65

  2.99

  Area 5 (SW)

  Heathrow

  7

  4

  10

  3

  1

  25

  14.46

  173.91

  83.33

  52.63

  Brixton

  29

  32

  14

  3

  0

  78

  0.52

  1.19

  6.93

  0.64

  Streatham

  26

  45

  17

  7

  0

  95

  0.38

  3.28

  3.45

  1.78

  Vauxhall

  45

  60

  31

  8

  2

  146

  0.73

  3.61

  11.74

  1.95

  Spelthorne

  7

  6

  21

  3

  0

  37

  0.08

  18.46

  12.62

  2.90

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  19

  34

  42

  12

  0

  107

  0.11

  24.27

  11.31

  2.46

  158 159

  Victims of violent racial crime per 1,000 head of resident ethnic population financial year 1998–99

  Ethnicity

  Per 1,000 head of resident ethnic population1

  Sum of COUNT crime Area/division code

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  Unknown

  Grand total

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  Hounslow

  77

  88

  202

  38

  0

  405

  0.49

  15.00

  5.64

  4.03

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  35

  35

  80

  24

  1

  175

  0.18

  20.88

  14.73

  3.00

  Battersea

  36

  59

  36

  5

  5

  141

  0.41

  3.59

  7.62

  1.13

  Wandsworth

  36

  56

  54

  10

  3

  159

  0.29

  4.43

  6.26

  1.43

  Hillingdon

  23

  49

  122

  11

  2

  207

  0.11

  12.07

  6.06

  1.66

  Merton

  38

  58

  75

  15

  1

  187

  0.25

  5.38

  7.62

  1.55

  5 total

  378

  526

  704

  139

  15

  1,762

  0.27

  4.76

  7.06

  2.18

  Grand total

  1,896

  2,436

  2,609

  774

  75

  7,790

  0.31

  4.25

  4.65

  2.42

  1 1997 mid-year estimate based on 1991 census.

  Note:

  Victims are not necessarily resident in the division where the offence took place.

  UK Passport Agency
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he made of the performance of the UK Passport Agency before deciding that the agency should administer the new Criminal Records Bureau. [86336]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The decision to ask the United Kingdom Passport Agency (UKPA) to manage the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) was taken for a number of reasons. The work of the Bureau involves similar business processes to those which the UKPA, notwithstanding its current temporary operational difficulties, has a good track record in providing. The Agency also has experience of procuring information technology using public-private partnership arrangements which will be appropriate for the setting up of the CRB, and sound financial management systems.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what this year's performance targets are for the UK Passport Agency for dealing with applicants by(a) telephone, (b) post and (c) personal attendance; and what assessment he has made of the UK Passport Agency's performance against each of these targets in the current year. [86351]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am awaiting proposals from the United Kingdom Passport Agency's Chief Executive on targets for 1999–2000 which take account of the Agency's decision on the full introduction of the new computerised issuing arrangements to all of its six passport offices. In the meantime, the Agency is working to its 1998–99 targets for dealing with applicants by telephone, post and personal attendance. These are set out in the Annexe to the Agency's 1998–99 Business Plan, copies of which are in the Library.

  As I have explained in my letter of 10 June to hon. Members, the Agency has encountered some teething problems in piloting new computerised passport issuing arrangements at its Liverpool and Newport offices. Productivity has been below expectations and arrears of work have developed. In addition, the Agency is dealing with high seasonal demand for passports.

  Because of the backlog of work, and recent media attention the Agency has been swamped with telephone and written inquiries, and large queues have formed
  160
  outside each of the offices. Although the position is now improving, the Agency is not yet meeting its performance targets.

  My letter indicated what action the Agency is taking to improve its performance.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to reduce delays and improve the service to members of the public in dealing with the Passport Agency; what plans he has to compensate customers for loss arising from failures in the Agency's service; and if he will make a statement. [86475]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As I have explained in my letter to hon. Members of 10 June, the United Kingdom Passport Agency is taking a number of measures to improve its service to customers, and reduce delays in processing passport applications.

  It is prioritising applications by its customers' declared travel dates, and is meeting those dates for 99.99 per cent. of passports issued. 300 additional staff are being deployed, examination processes are being streamlined, and the Agency is working extended hours. In order to clear quickly straightforward renewal applications, certain existing passports are being extended for two years. Current delays will reduce as a result of actions being taken, and the seasonal nature of the Agency's work. The Agency's total work arrears are less than one months normal output.

  As regards compensation, the Agency's policy, where it has clearly been at fault and provided unsatisfactory service, is to compensate customers for reasonable additional expenditure incurred. Each case is considered on its merits.

  Schengen Information System
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the restrictions proposed to be placed on Court of Auditors auditing powers over the Schengen Information System. [86448]

  Mr. Straw
  It is for the Council of Ministers, as composed of the 13 Schengen States, to decide unanimously on any provision which would ensure that Court of Auditors auditing powers would apply to those
  161
  budgetary arrangements which do not form part of the European Community budget, and are not therefore subject to European Community budget rules. They have done so in relation to expenditure on, inter alia, the installation and functioning of the "Help Desk Server" of the Schengen Information System Management Unit, where such a provision was required.

  National Front
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the follow-up to the March 1998 police report about the arrest in Ealing of a National Front member with alleged association with a serving police officer; and if 1 Area TSG was advised. [86970]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that inquiries were carried out to establish the extent of any connection between the suspect and any police officer and that no such connection was discovered. The management of the then Number One Area Territorial Support Group were informed of these inquiries at the time.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the suspect classified as CRO No. 108485/74A, born in August 1953, Ealing Police Station Custody Record 755/98, was charged with an offence; if the extent of his relationship with police officers was established; when his house was searched and how many officers were involved; and what was the nature of his work in an Islamic centre. [86968]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that the Crown Prosecution Service was consulted about this case and that they declined to prosecute as they considered the evidence available was insufficient; no relationship between this suspect and any police officer was established; the suspect's house was not searched and the police are not aware of any connection with any Islamic centre.

  Ealing Racial Equality Unit
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations were conducted into the racist hate-mail and graffiti directed at the Ealing Racial Equality Unit; and with what results. [86969]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that on 27 April 1999, three National Front stickers had been fixed to the front door, over a 'Blair Peach' poster, at the Ealing Racial Equality Centre. Forensic examination proved to be impracticable because of the way in which the stickers had been removed before police officers were present; and examination of Closed Circuit Television tapes produced negative results.

  Behavioural Orders
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the extent of the use to date of the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 relating to(a) child curfews, (b) anti-social behaviour orders and (c) parenting orders. [86921]
  162
  Mr. Boateng
  The child curfew provisions were brought into force on 30 September 1998. Local authorities wishing to impose them must consult locally and seek the Home Secretary's approval. No applications have yet been received. They are available to form part of integrated local action to reduce crime and disorder, and local authorities will wish to take into account the wider crime and disorder reduction strategies currently being developed under the provisions of the Act.

  The anti-social behaviour order provisions were introduced on 1 April 1999. One order has been made so far. It is for the police or local authority to decide whether to apply for one. We plan to review their use and effectiveness, and the extent to which they have been used, during their first two years.

  Parenting orders have been available since 30 September 1998 and introduced progressively since then in nine youth justice pilot areas. By the end of May 1999, 67 orders had been made—a significant level of use for a pilot scheme. The results of the piloting, due to run for 18 months, will inform the process of national implementation and help to identify good practice.

  Rapparee Cove, Devon
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the status of the human remains found at Rapparee Cove, Devon, in 1997. [86856]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The remains, consisting of a small number of bones, were removed on the authority of a Home Office licence. They are currently subject to scientific examination at the University of Bristol, where further tests to determine the origin of the remains are being planned.

  Inside Out Trust
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the Inside Out Trust with prison inmates. [86847]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave her on 14 June 1999,Official Report, column 59.

  Trial By Jury
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of defendants charged with either way offences he estimates will obtain legal representation to argue the matter(a) before the magistrates and (b) on appeal before the Crown Court; and what is his estimate of the change in costs of the proposed procedure. [86778]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave him on 15 June 1999,Official Report, columns 96–97.

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Middle Way group of hon. Members on the subject of fox hunting; and what meetings he has had with them. [86776]

  Mr. Straw
  I have met a variety of groups to discuss the subject of fox hunting. I met the Middle Way group on 8 July 1998.

  Passports
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make temporary arrangements to enable children who have reached the age of 16 years to continue to travel on a parent's passport until the current backlog of passport applications has been processed; and if he will make a statement. [86844]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have no plans to make temporary arrangements for children who have reached the age of 16 years to continue to travel on a parent's passport. It is common international practice to require children who have reached 16 to have their own passport. This has been the very long established practice of the United Kingdom and it would be very difficult to ensure the acceptance by immigration officials throughout the world of a United Kingdom passport where a child having reached 16 remained on a parent's passport. Families could experience difficulties at exit and entry points with the relevant authorities questioning the validity of passports. Also, the numbers of children reaching 16 who are included in passports and wish to travel urgently would be relatively small and seeking to introduce temporary measures to deal with these would not be effective in easing current operational pressures.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will place on the internet, the change in instructions to staff at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate on dealing with applications from people whose children have been living in the United Kingdom for seven years, announced on 24 February. [87008]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The instructions to staff relating to the handling of deportation and illegal entry casework are being reviewed with a view to publishing those parts which are not operationally sensitive. This review will take some time to complete. I have, therefore, asked for this particular instruction to be dealt with separately and for a copy to be placed on the internet as soon as possible.

  Fire Safety Legislation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding proposals for a new Fire Safety Act; and if he will make a statement. [87166]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 17 May 1999,Official Report, column 264. We have received a number of representations from fire service interests and others. We
  164
  will bring forward legislation to consolidate and rationalise fire safety law when parliamentary time permits.

  Young Offenders
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish figures for 1998 on the average time taken from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders. [87561]

  Mr. Straw
  Figures on how long it took to deal with persistent young offenders in 1998 will be published on Thursday 17 June. Copies of the press notice announcing the figures, and of the statistical press notice issued by the Lord Chancellor's Department detailing the method of calculation of the figures, will be placed in the Library.

  Immigration Policy
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce the outcome of his review of immigration policy in relation to the unmarried partners concession. [87566]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It has been decided that, in order to demonstrate a commitment akin to marriage, it is not necessary to demonstrate a prior cohabitation period of four years, and the prior cohabitation period has, therefore, been changed to two years. The probationary period before settlement may be granted has been increased to two years, which means there will be a four year cohabitation period before the grant of settlement. Where applicable, these new arrangements will be taken into account when deciding whether or not to initiate enforcement action.

  The other provisions of the concession remain unchanged.

  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce the outcome of his review of immigration policy in relation to overseas spouses who suffer domestic violence in the first 12 month probationary period. [87593]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have decided to introduce a concession, which will be outside the Immigration Rules, 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. In order to benefit under this concession, the overseas national will need to provide objective evidence that he or she has been the victim of domestic violence. This is essential if such applications are to be dealt with swiftly and with fairness and consistency.

  The concession will come into force with immediate effect. An applicant whose marriage breaks down during the probationary year as a result of domestic violence may be granted indefinite leave to remain exceptionally, outside the Immigration Rules, provided the domestic violence occurred while the marriage was subsisting and the applicant is able to produce one of the following forms of evidence that domestic violence has taken place: an injunction, non-molestation or other protection order (other than an ex parte or interim order); or a relevant court conviction; and full details of a relevant police caution.

  165
  Where a prosecution is pending against the sponsor the applicant may be granted further periods of six months limited leave to remain, subject to the same conditions, until the outcome of the criminal prosecution is known. Where a hearing seeking an injunction, non-molestation order or other protection order is pending, a decision on the application will be delayed pending the outcome of that hearing.

  In addition to helping victims of domestic violence, we have decided, in the interests of compassion and fairness, that where an applicant is widowed during the probationary period he or she may also be granted indefinite leave to remain exceptionally outside the Immigration Rules, provided that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the marriage was subsisting at the time of the sponsor's death.

  These arrangements will also be applied to those who have been admitted to join a person settled here under the unmarried partners concession which I announced on 10 October 1997.

  Overstayers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of persons subject to immigration control who (i) have overstayed for seven years or more since the expiry of their leave to remain and (ii) have otherwise overstayed for seven years or more. [87139]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As at January 1999, the number of overstayers against whom deportation action had been initiated, but not completed, stood at 20,700. Some of these cases are subject to legal challenge.

  There is no reliable estimate of the number of overstayers against whom enforcement action has not yet been initiated, nor of those who have overstayed for seven years or more.

  Probation Service Computer Programme
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to overcome the weaknesses in the computer programme newly set up for the Probation Service. [86147]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The roll out to the 54 Probation Services in England and Wales of a new national Case Record Administration and Management System, (CRAMS), started in March 1997. CRAMS is designed to enable services to handle and communicate on a wide range of information relating to offenders at all stages in the criminal justice process. It is currently in operation in 37 services and a further six services are undergoing training.

  Work to develop the system is on-going. Work currently in progress includes: an upgrade to make it more user friendly, to enhance reporting facilities and meet the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and a link to police criminal records.

  Northern Ireland Service Review Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what ruling was provided by the Northern Ireland High Court in response to his application 166
  for judicial review of decisions taken by the Northern Ireland Sentence Review Commission; if he will place a copy of the court ruling in the Library; and what is his estimate of costs incurred in this legal action. [87157]

  Mr. George Howarth
  A copy of the ruling of 23 March 1999 of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland in the matter of an application by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department for judicial review of four determinations made by the Northern Ireland Sentence Review Commissioners has been placed in the Library.

  The legal costs incurred by the Secretary of State in these proceedings are estimated to be £5,000. The Secretary of State was also ordered to pay the costs of the applicants. These have yet to be finally determined. I will write to my hon. Friend when this information is available.

TREASURY

  EU Directive (Taxation of Interest)
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made, for the purposes of the draft EU directive on the taxation of interest payments, of the percentage of Eurobond holders who are individuals resident in the EU. [85834]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No reliable estimates exist, but it is known that a very large proportion of Eurobonds are held by institutional investors rather than individuals.

  VAT
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what external legal advice he has received regarding the VAT treatment of(a) speculative and (b) supportive foreign exchange transactions following the judgment of the European Court in the First National Bank of Chicago case (Case C-172/96). [85676]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As is usual following European Court decisions, external legal advice was not sought. Internal legal advisers are on hand and the legal finding of the Court is clear.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise Business Brief 16/98, what representations he has received with regard to VAT on foreign exchange transactions following the judgment of the European Court in the First National Bank of Chicago case (Case C-172/96). [85677]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Following Customs' Business Brief 16/98, representations have been received from one interested trade body and one firm of Accountants.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 25 May; and if he will make a statement. [85827]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor and the Paymaster General attended the Economic and Finance Council meeting in Brussels on 25 May 1999.
  167
  Seven draft reports from ECOFIN to the Cologne European Council were considered:

  (i) the 1999 BEGs were approved with a few amendments, including a revision to the text on Italian public finances to reflect the possibility of lower growth impacting on Italy's deficit;

  (ii) the European Employment Pact was briefly discussed ahead of the joint SAC-ECOFIN meeting which followed ECOFIN;

  (iii) the report on Implementation of the Framework for Financial Markets: Action Plan, and draft Council conclusions were approved without amendment;

  (iv) the progress report on reinforced tax policy cooperation was agreed subject to amendment of a paragraph on energy taxation to make clear that the Presidency's compromise proposal was discussed but not agreed;

  (v) the report on the International Financial System was approved without amendment;

  (vi) an oral report from the Chairman of the Economic and Finance Committee on the HIPC initiative set out the areas of agreement and remaining difference among EU member states. It was agreed that the Cologne Conclusions should record where there was agreement;

  (vii) the Commission report on Financing Investment in Infrastructure was discussed. It was agreed that further study was required after the Cologne Council.

  Eight tax items were discussed:

  (i) the Paymaster General presented the second interim report of the Code of Conduct Group to ECOFIN. The report was welcomed. The Group will present its final report to ECOFIN in November;

  (ii) on the taxation of savings, the Chancellor said the UK would submit a paper on international bonds to a working group in June;

  (iii) the draft Council conclusions on the taxation of interest and royalties were adopted without amendment;

  (iv) ECOFIN requested that Coreper re-examine the Energy taxation dossier in light of the Presidency's compromise text and the views of Ministers;

  (v) the Presidency's compromise proposal on tobacco excise duties was agreed;

  (vi) the consensus necessary to reopen the issue of the abolition of Duty Free was not reached;

  (vii) the proposal for a reduced VAT rate on labour intensive services was remitted back to Coreper for further discussion with a request for a list of eligible services;

  (viii) Spain put forward a proposal for a high level group on tax fraud. The Presidency asked Coreper to look at the detail of the proposal.
  The necessary regulations and decision relating to the establishment of a European anti-fraud office by the Commission on 1 June were approved. The Council thanked the Commission for its progress report on the Sound and Efficient Management initiative (SEM 2000) and welcomed the contribution made by this initiative to improving financial management. The Presidency and the Commission urged agreement in the Finnish Presidency of the renewal of the EIB's external lending mandates.

  ECOFIN was followed by a joint session of the Social Affairs Council and ECOFIN. The joint Council discussed the proposal for a European Employment Pact.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the ECOFIN Council held in Luxembourg on 14 June; and if he will make a statement. [87286]

  Ms Hewitt
  There was no meeting of ECOFIN on 14 June. The next meeting of ECOFIN is scheduled for 12 July. Under the standing arrangements, the agenda 168
  will be made available to the Clerk of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee when determined by Coreper, approximately one week before the meeting. Copies of the agenda will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in his Department and its associated bodies and agencies have benefited from the introduction of a national minimum wage. [86092]

  Ms Hewitt
  Approximately 1,700.

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason a European Commissioner is entitled to be present at the meetings of the Governing Council of the European central bank; what means will determine which Commissioner will be present; if he has voting rights; if he is remunerated; what rules of confidentiality apply to him; and if he will make a statement. [86731]

  Ms Hewitt
  In accordance with Article 113 (Ex 109b) of the EC Treaty, a member of the European Commission may participate, without having the right to vote, in meetings of the Governing Council of the ECB. The participation of the Commission in the Governing Council contributes to the process of inter-institutional dialogue. In line with this provision, the Commissioner for monetary affairs has attended meetings of the Governing Council, but has not received separate or additional remuneration for so doing. The participation of the Commission in meetings of the Governing Council is subject to the confidentiality regime outlined in Article 10.4 of the ESCB Statute (Protocol No.3 to the EC Treaty).

  European Commission
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the pay rates of Cabinet staff of European Commissioners. [86728]

  Ms Hewitt
  Members of Cabinets in the European Commission are either permanent Commission staff, or employed as 'temporary agents'. If they are permanent staff, they are paid in accordance with the Commission Staff Regulations, with rates determined by their grade. If they are temporary agents, they are appointed in accordance with the Staff Regulations, their position on the pay scale being determined in line with their age and experience according to strict guidelines that apply to all community appointments. Rates of pay for individual Cabinet members are a matter for the Commission and the individual concerned.

  Withholding Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 18 May 1999,Official Report, column 338, if he will make a statement on developments at the 25 May ECOFIN Council on the withholding tax. [86770]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The ECOFIN Council conclusions recognise that the treatment of international bonds as provided for under the draft Directive on the taxation of
  169
  savings in its present form could adversely affect the competitiveness of EU financial markets, in particular wholesale markets. It is clear that the Council and the European Commission now accept our case that this problem must be resolved.

  Climate Change Levy
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the percentage by which manufacturing industry's costs would increase as a result of his proposals for a climate change levy, in respect of changes in the cost of(a) electricity, (b) coal and (c) gas. [86771]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government believe that all sectors of the economy will need to play their part in helping to meet the legally-binding target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions set under the Kyoto Protocol and our domestic commitment to further reductions. The climate change levy is expected to save around 1.5 million tonnes of carbon a year by 2010, thereby making a significant contribution to meeting the Government's targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

  The climate change levy will entail no increase in the burden of tax on business as a whole, since the revenues will be fully recycled to business via a 0.5 percentage point reduction in the main rate of employers' National Insurance Contributions. Business will also benefit from additional £50 million for schemes aimed at promoting energy efficiency and support for renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind power.

  The final incidence of the levy on particular sectors will depend on the rates set for different sectors.

  The Government recognise the need for special consideration to be given to energy intensive industries given their high energy usage and exposure to international competition. We intend to set significantly lower rates of tax for energy intensive sectors that agree targets for improving their energy efficiency. Negotiations are currently underway with the main energy intensive sectors.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from glasshouse growers concerning the proposed climate change levy; and if he will make a statement. [86392]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor has received a number of responses from glasshouse growers in the course of the consultation on the climate change levy. These will be considered along with the other responses to the consultation.

  Counterfeiting
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of how secure plastic bank notes are against counterfeiting; if they were considered as a replacement for the current £20 note; and if he will make a statement. [86649]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Bank of England continues to monitor carefully polymer (plastic) substrates for banknotes. In terms of security against counterfeiting, these type of banknotes are incompatible with certain traditional and well-proven security features (eg thread and watermark).170
  However, the Bank are continually assessing the effectiveness of the different type of security features polymer offers.

  The polymer substrate was considered for the £20 variant, but was discounted because of incompatibility with the theme of the current (Series E) note designs. The new £20 note is a variant within the existing series and is not the start of a new series of notes. It contains a number of additional security features which offer enhanced protection against counterfeiting and will cause less confusion to the public than an entirely new type of note.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the problem of cyber-laundering of money and assets; what proposals he has for(a) national and (b) international measures to combat it; and if he will make a statement. [86857]

  Ms Hewitt
  (a) The Government are determined to tackle money laundering in all its forms. The obligations under the Money Laundering Regulations 1993 to report all suspicious transactions, to keep records, to train staff and to establish the identity of customers apply irrespective of whether the business is carried out electronically or otherwise. The Government will be looking at whether additional measures are needed to tackle the laundering of money by electronic means in the course of discussions with other member states on a possible Second EC Money Laundering Directive. Meanwhile the Financial Services and Markets Bill will enhance the powers of the Financial Services Authority to combat money laundering carried out through financial institutions, including those offering services over the internet.

  (b) The UK chaired a meeting of anti money laundering experts from the member countries of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in November 1998. That meeting discussed, among other things, the threat from cyber-laundering and shared experiences in combating it. A report on that meeting was published by the FATF in February 1999 and is available on the FATF's internet website.

  The Government are committed to the prevention of cybercrime as a whole. To this end, it is participating in the negotiation of a Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention. Domestically, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) chairs a tripartite forum with government officials and the Internet Service Providers to develop measures for law enforcement and protection of internet users.

  Offshore Betting
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the potential loss of revenue from offshore betting; what plans he has to prevent such loss; and if he will make a statement. [87104]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keep the revenue yield from General Betting Duty under constant review. The transfer offshore of a single telephone betting business will have a minimal effect on government revenues.
  171
  The extent of overseas bookmaking operations is constrained by a prohibition on them advertising in the United Kingdom. The scope of this prohibition is the subject of an impending challenge in the High Court. The Government will take the outcome of this case into account when deciding on appropriate courses of action to safeguard the revenue.

  Greater Manchester Transport Submissions
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what timetable he is proposing for the announcement of decisions on allocations in the financial year 1999–2000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund with respect to the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive submissions. [87003]

  Mr. Milburn
  I will announce decisions on first round bids from the Capital Modernisation Fund shortly.

  Royal Mint
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the policy of the Government that the Royal Mint should be able to restrict the availability of special coinage to personal visitors to the Millennium Dome; and if he will make a statement. [87108]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 June 1999]The United Kingdom £5 Millennium coin will be struck at the Royal Mint in Llantrisant and in the Millennium Dome. Coins struck at the Royal Mint will be made generally available in line with normal practice for commemorative coins. Coins struck in the Dome will bear a special mintmark and will be available only to visitors to the Dome. No restrictions will be placed on the number that can be minted at the Dome.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to take action against the avoidance of capital gains tax through the purchase of trust losses. [87559]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is mounting evidence that the tax rules which provide for capital losses realised within trusts to pass to beneficiaries in certain circumstances are being widely abused for the purpose of avoiding capital gains tax. Avoidance schemes are being set up and marketed specifically to take advantage of these rules by enabling people to purchase interests in trusts with losses. In some cases very large losses are being manufactured within trusts to exploit these rules. If successful, these schemes could lead to a very significant loss of tax revenue.

  The Government are not prepared to tolerate this sort of avoidance activity which undermines the integrity of the tax system and creates unfairness between taxpayers. A new clause will shortly be tabled for Report to tackle this abuse. The new Clause will restrict the circumstances in which losses accruing to trusts can be transferred to beneficiaries and the use which beneficiaries can make of such losses.

  The Inland Revenue are today issuing a Press Release giving details of the new Clause.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since 15 April; and what percentage of them received a substantive response on that day. [87328]

  Ms Hewitt
  74 of the 121 named day questions (61 per cent.) tabled since 15 April have been answered substantively on the due day. 78 per cent. of such questions were answered within two days of the named day.

  Income Tax Form
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the Inland Revenue has introduced Income Tax Form SA106/BMSD12/98. [87137]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Income Tax form SA106/BMSD12/98 was introduced as part of the Self Assessment tax return to enable taxpayers to declare foreign income and claim tax credit relief.

SCOTLAND

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the responsibilities of each Scottish Office Minister after 1 July. [86845]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 25 May 1999,Official Report, column 98.

  Dover House
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the uses that Government departments, other than his Department, will make of Dover House after 1 July. [86836]

  Dr. Reid
  Scottish Executive Ministers and their officials will have access to Dover House when they have official business in London.

  Scottish Executive (Travel Expenses)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the estimated cost of travel expenses for the new Scottish Executive for the period up to 1 July. [86917]

  Dr. Reid
  It is not possible at this time to make a reliable estimate of such costs during the period in question.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Scottish Parliament
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the
  173
  arrangements for the transfer of responsibility for the new Scottish Parliament to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body; [86903]

  (2) if he will list the contracts for work on the (a) construction, (b) design and (c) preparation for construction and related matters for the new Scottish Parliament Building, indicating when each contract was signed, which are still under negotiation and at what stage those negotiations are; and if he will make a statement. [86904]

  Dr. Reid
  Legal and financial responsibility for the new Scottish Parliament building at Holyrood transferred from Scottish Office Ministers to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body on 1 June 1999. Requests for information on the Holyrood Project should in the first instance be made through the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Overseas Aid (Fraud)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proposals she has to ensure that opportunities for fraud in respect of the overseas aid budget are reduced. [85980]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have strong and clear control systems designed to ensure propriety and value for money in the expenditure of our budget. Our internal auditors keep these under review and they are regularly updated.

  Debt Relief
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the likely progress at the G7 summit in ensuring recognition that debt repayment conditions should not entail less money being available for basic health and education programmes. [85982]

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent progress has been made on debt relief for the poorest countries; and if she will make a statement. [85984]

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will support proposals to link the relief of indebtedness in developing countries to measures to invest in primary education and health care. [86001]

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proposals her Department has for developing new mechanisms to ensure a greater linkage between debt relief and poverty reduction. [85972]

  Clare Short
  We are pressing for a revised Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative (HIPC) to provide at least twice as much debt relief, twice as fast, and for the provision of debt relief to be more tightly linked to policies which help reduce poverty.
  174
  We are pleased that, at their meeting in Frankfurt on 12 June, G7 Finance Ministers were able to agree that a substantial improvement to HIPC is required. G7 Leaders will be discussing it further this week and we look forward to the announcement of a package on debt relief at the weekend. The final details of the new HIPC package will be settled at the annual meetings of the World Bank and IMF in September. The Chancellor and I also announced last week that we will be contributing a further $100 million to the Trust Fund in order to help the Multilateral Development Banks meet their share of the cost of the HIPC debt relief.

  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to raise at the forthcoming G7 summit proposals to strengthen the linkage between debt relief and the 2015 international development targets; and if she will make a statement. [85987]

  Clare Short
  We anticipate that the discussion on debt at the G8 Summit in Cologne will build on the Communiqué from the World Bank's Development Committee in April, which noted the need for faster, deeper and wider debt relief and emphasised the link to poverty reduction. It is essential that debt relief leads to more resources being invested in programmes to eradicate poverty and achieve the international development goals. We are taking every opportunity to press this issue with our international partners.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with representatives of non-governmental organisations concerning debt relief; and if she will make a statement. [86000]

  Clare Short
  I have had many meetings with NGOs to discuss debt relief. Most recently the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I met Comic Relief and the Director of the NGOs which form the British Overseas Aid Group (BOAG). We discussed the UK objectives on enhancing the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative. We are seeking agreement to lower the debt to export ratio to 150 from 200 per cent. and the fiscal ratio to 200 from 280 per cent. We believe that this will provide heavily indebted poor countries with a permanent exit from their debt problems. We are also pressing for debt relief to be provided in a way that will free up resources for poverty eradication in the early years. We made clear the important contribution made by the Churches and NGOs in their international campaign for improved debt relief.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the aid made available to Afghanistan in the last two years. [85983]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have made available more than £11 million in humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan over the last two years.

  The assistance has been provided through agencies such as the International Red Cross and the United Nations for emergency medical assistance, demining and refugee

  175
  protection. In addition, we have provided funds to non-governmental organisations working in rural development, health/sanitation and the education sector.

  Humanitarian Aid
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has for humanitarian aid for the states of the former Yugoslavia. [85985]

  Clare Short
  We are committed to respond to humanitarian needs wherever the need exists in the states of the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere. Our objective is and remains to enable the refugees from Kosovo to return to a safe and secure environment.

  An emergency assessment team is currently in Kosovo making an evaluation of the most urgent humanitarian needs. We will continue to work closely with the UNHCR and other international organisations and donors.

  Millennium Volunteers Programme
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussion she has had on proposals to include volunteers on overseas aid projects in the Millennium Volunteers Programme. [85986]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development provides £26 million support for the volunteers working on overseas development projects. Experience has taught us all that such volunteers should be skilled and experienced. This makes overseas volunteering largely inappropriate for the Millennium Volunteers Programme but final decisions have not yet been made.

  Women's Education
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what priority she gives to the education of women in poor countries in the distribution of her aid budget. [85988]

  Clare Short
  Our education policy is focused on the achievement of the internationally agreed target of universal primary education by 2015 and gender equity in primary and secondary education by 2005. These are the two major benchmarks against which we will measure our progress.

  Education is a basic human right for all children. There is also clear evidence that the education of girls, and women, leads to major improvements in family health, child survival and overall economic development.

  Nigeria
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to assist the newly elected Government in Nigeria with(a) economic reconstruction and reform and (b) debt relief. [R][85989]

  Clare Short
  We recognise the many problems facing the newly elected Government, in particular the scale of poverty which has been increasing in Nigeria for many years. President Obasano has pledged a new approach to economic issues but has yet to announce his programme.176
  Alongside the IMF, World Bank, European Union and other partners, we are ready to support the process of economic change and rebuilding government capacity.

  We are helping Nigeria rejuvenate its moribund debt recording and management system in order to reconcile its external position with creditors. The next step will be for the Government to complete the current IMF programme so that detailed discussions can begin on dealing with Nigeria's debts.

  Kosovo (Environmental Consequences)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to her oral answer of 12 May 1999,Official Report, column 303, concerning the organisations which will pay for clearing up the Danube, what discussions she has had with (a) the European Commission, (b) EU member states, (c) the International Monetary Fund, (d) the World Bank and (e) regional banks on this matter. [85991]

  Clare Short
  We are working closely with the European Commission, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and other EU member states to determine the reconstruction needs in the region, which will include environmental matters. We expect the costs for this to be assumed by the IFIs, EU and other donors, together with the countries of the region.

  I met yesterday with Klaus Töpfer the Head of United Nations Environment Programme which is taking lead responsibility for urgently reviewing the environmental conditions of the condition of the Danube. He informed me that claims of large scale oil pollution were not substantiated.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has to assist in the environmental clearing-up in Kosovo and the surrounding region after the end of hostilities. [85998]

  Clare Short
  I met yesterday with Klaus Töpfer Head of Environment Programme which is the lead UN agency responsible for the environment. He is taking urgent steps to review and report on the environmental consequences of the conflict in Kosovo and Serbia.

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the impact of genetically modified foods in developing countries. [85992]

  Clare Short
  We are planning to commission a study of the costs and benefits to the livelihoods of poor people in developing countries arising from so-called "terminator" gene technologies. We are helping to fund an assessment by the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics of the risks to biodiversity of introducing transgenic pigeonpea cultivars into traditional cropping systems in India and are also funding an analysis of the impact in the Philippines of genetically male fish (tilapia).
  177
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received on the recent report by Christian Aid on food and genetic engineering. [85993]

  Clare Short
  I have not received any representations on the recent report by Christian Aid on food and genetic engineering. I have received a number of letters from the public expressing concerns about genetic engineering.

  My officials recently held a consultation meeting with representatives from 10 non-governmental organisations, including a representative from Christian Aid, on our policy on GMOs and developing countries. This provided an opportunity to clarify the approach outlined in our published briefing note and to emphasise that the principle which guides all our activities is poverty elimination. The discussions were very constructive and helpful.

  Hurricane Mitch
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's actions to help with reconstruction in the Central American countries affected by Hurricane Mitch. [85994]

  Clare Short
  Our contribution to the initial phase of reconstruction has totalled £4.2 million. In addition to immediate emergency assistance, we have provided grants to the United Nations Children's Fund for emergency repairs to water and sanitation infrastructure and to restore primary health and education services. We also provided funds for a programme of emergency repairs and rehabilitation to rural roads and bridges, and a cash for work incentive targeting particularly neglected municipalities. Regionally we have given grants to the Pan-American Health Organisation to support national health authorities, particularly for epidemic control, and to the United Nations Development Programme to support co-ordination.

  Following our recommendation, the World Bank set up a Trust Fund to help countries affected by Hurricane Mitch meet their debt service payments to international financial institutions. We committed £10 million to this purpose. Bilateral Governments have also agreed to forgo debt repayments for the next two years.

  In the long term we plan to spend some £6 million in the region over the next two years on measures to help with the long term reconstruction. This will include projects in health, capacity building and disaster prevention.

  Banana Crop (Caribbean)
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the economic position of small farmers in the Caribbean who are dependent on the banana crop. [85995]

  Clare Short
  We fully recognise the considerable uncertainty and concern among banana farmers in the Caribbean as a result of recent World Trade Organisation ruling. We are collaborating closely with the European Commission and other member states to try to identify new trading arrangements which, with the endorsement of the different parties involved, will hold out the prospect of a viable future for a restructured Caribbean banana 178
  industry. This exercise is complex, given the range of different interests involved. We are continuing to consult closely with Caribbean Governments in the search for an acceptable solution. We are also actively involved, with the EC, in encouraging and supporting the necessary local restructuring of the banana industry to enable it to compete under a new regime.

  Developing Countries (IT)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to extend awareness of information technology in developing countries. [85996]

  Clare Short
  We are promoting awareness and the effective and appropriate use of information technology in developing countries as an integral part of many of our mainstream development projects, especially in the fields of education and governance. We also play an active role in the key multilateral initiatives addressing this issue.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of future prospects for the Commonwealth Development Corporation in Cuba. [85997]

  Clare Short
  The Commonwealth Development Corporation has been working in Cuba since 1996, and we expect it to continue to do so. The focus of its work will continue to be on its financing business, undertaken as a joint venture with a local bank, which is expanding its activities. CDC will also look for equity investment opportunities on a selective basis.

  IMF
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the role of the IMF in leading the international community's efforts to help poor countries meet the 2015 international development targets. [85999]

  Clare Short
  Following last year's review of the IMF's Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility, it was agreed that the IMF should take more account of the social impact of their programmes, consider the quality of Government expenditure and protect budgets in high priority areas such as health and education. We are encouraging the IMF to work more closely with the World Bank to ensure that, in designing structural adjustment programmes, they take account of the impact on the poor. Following proposals put forward by the UK, the World Bank is developing good practices of social policy, in consultation with the IMF. We envisage that these principles will be drawn upon by the World Bank and the IMF in the design of programmes. We continually emphasise the need for the IMF to build consensus for reform programmes, through discussion and consultation with civil society, so that they lead to economic growth which benefits the poor.

  Porta Farm, Harare
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial or other
  179
  assistance has been provided by her Department for the Porta Farm Development near Harare, Zimbabwe. [85990]

  Clare Short
  Through our Small Grants Scheme, we have provided £3,700 for construction of classrooms for pre-school and primary school children, and improved water and sanitation facilities at Porta Farm.

  Kosovar Refugees
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has for provision for the Kosovar refugees during the winter; and if she will make a statement. [85978]

  Clare Short
  The UNHCR is the internationally designated lead agency responsible for co-ordinating provision for the refugees from Kosovo and also for the return of the refugees to Kosovo. We have worked to try to support and improve their efforts. We have provided £40 million of assistance to date and on Monday we announced a further £50 million to support the process of return to Kosovo. Details of our spending which has been channelled through the most effective agencies are available in the Library. Provision is being made for the advent of winter conditions from October onwards.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sportsmark
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those schools which have received(a) a Sportsmark and (b) an additional Gold Star award since May 1997. [86694]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I am very pleased to say that over a thousand schools have now achieved a Sportsmark or Sportsmark Gold award. A full list of successful schools has today been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to extend the Sportsmark scheme to primary schools. [86693]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  We have no plans to extend the specific Sportsmark scheme to primary schools. However, Sport England are currently working on an Activity award for primary schools. The scheme will give national recognition to schools offering a quality programme of physical activity. They hope to introduce the award during the autumn term 1999.

  Tourism
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the net effect on the balance of payments of British visitors going abroad and overseas visitors coming to the United Kingdom in(a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998. [86697]

  Janet Anderson
  The Office for National Statistics has estimated, using data from the International Passenger Survey and other sources, that the direct contribution to the UK balance of payments arising from tourism activities is as shown in the table. This is not a full account of the balance of payments effects of tourism,180
  which would need to include, for example, overseas trade in tourism goods and the international investment flows of tourism companies.

  £ million

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Exports: earnings from overseas visitors to UK

  13,770

  13,805

  14,432

  Imports: expenditure by UK residents going abroad

  16,729

  17,402

  20,008

  Balance of trade in services

  -2,959

  -3,597

  -5,576

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics 1996, 1997, 1998.

  Holiday Statistics
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many British individuals took holidays abroad in the first three months of(a) 1998 and (b) 1999; and what their estimated expenditure was in these two periods. [86696]

  Janet Anderson
  The estimates currently available from the International Passenger Survey, conducted by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), are shown in the table. A breakdown of 1999 visits by main purpose of visit, to reveal holiday visits, is not yet due to be published by ONS.

  January-March 1998

  January-March 1999

  Total number of visits abroad by UK residents

  9.1 million

  10.3 million

  Total expenditure of which:

  £3.7 billion

  £4.2 billion

  Holiday visits abroad by UK residents

  5.1 million

  n/a

  Holiday expenditure

  £2.1 billion

  n/a

  Source:

  International Passenger Survey, Office for National Statistics

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps have been taken to involve communities across the UK in the Millennium Experience. [87393]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company has established a series of initiatives, as part of their National Programme of events and activities, which reaches across the UK. This includes McDonald's Our Town Story which invites towns everywhere to tell their story locally and to the world on the Our Town Story stage at the Dome during 2000. A list of all participating education authorities and library boards was placed in the Libraries of the House on 19 May.

  Sport England
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the percentages of Sport England's grant-in-aid which was spent on(a) staff costs, excluding national centres, (b) administrative expenses,
  (c) publicity, promotions and communications, (d) grants to national governing bodies, (e) grants to the National

  181
  Coaching Foundation, (f) sports science, (g) sports medicine, (h) national centres, (i) grants to other national sports bodies, excluding NGBs and (j) regional support in 1998–99. [86695]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The information the hon. Member requested on Sport England's grant-in-aid expenditure is included in the following table.

  Sport England grant-in-aid expenditure

  Actual 1998–99 percentage

  rrRegional Field Staff

  12

  National Field Staff

  5

  Public Information/Communication/Research

  3

  Corporate services (Finance/IT/Audit/Human Resources/Office Services)

  5

  (a) Total Staff Costs

  25

  (b) Administrative Expenses Rent/Rates/Running costs

  11

  (c) Publicity/Promotion/Communications Communications Programme

  4

  (d) Grants to National Governing Bodies Complementing grant-in-aid provided by UKSC

  16

  (e) Grants to National Coaching Foundation Complementing grant-in-aid provided by UKSC

  5

  (f) Sports Science/Sports Medicine

  (g) Complementing grant-in-aid provided by UKSC Sports Medicine

  1

  (h) National Centres Total net costs

  10

  (i) Grants to other National Sports Bodies excluding NDB's

  Includes the following:

  Central Council for Physical Recreation

  Sports Aid Foundation

  Commonwealth Games Council for England

  Community Sports Leadership Award Scheme

  Youth Sport Trust

  English Federation of Disability Sports

  National Youth Games

  Panathlon Foundation

  7

  (j) Regional Support

  Includes the following:

  Regional Grants

  Facility Planning and Development

  Equity (including Disability Grants)

  Volunteer and Community Development Work

  21

  Total

  100

SOCIAL SECURITY

  "Support in Bereavement"
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide an analysis of responses made to the "Support in Bereavement" consultation document (Cmd 4104). [86126]
  182
  Angela Eagle
  A summary of responses to the consultation document "A new contract for welfare: Support in Bereavement" is available in the House Library, together with a list of those organisations who responded to the consultation paper.

  Copies of responses are available on request from The Widows' Benefit Consultation Team, 3rd Floor, The Adelphi, 1–11 John Adam Street, London, WC2N 6HT.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the level of earnings which would be defined as gainful employment for the purpose of claiming invalid care allowance if it had been increased in line with inflation in each year since the last increase; and what the additional cost to public funds would have been in the current year. [86852]

  Mr. Bayley
  The level of weekly net earnings below which it could be possible to be eligible for Invalid Care Allowance would currently be £59 if it had been increased in line with inflation since the last increase. It is not possible accurately to estimate the level of additional public expenditure which would have been incurred as a result.

  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the level of earnings which is defined as gainful employment for the purpose of claiming invalid care allowance was last increased. [86851]

  Mr. Bayley
  The level of earnings defined as gainful employment for the purpose of claiming Invalid Care Allowance was last increased on 12 April 1993.

  Benefit-related Mail
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects every local authority to have an agreement with the Post Office for preventing redirection of benefit-related mail. [86902]

  Angela Eagle
  Our aim is for all local authorities to operate the "do not redirect" service. The Department has written to every authority strongly encouraging them to take up this initiative but it is a matter for individual authorities to decide whether to take part based on local circumstances. To date, 90 local authorities have signed up to the service and a number of other authorities are in the process of doing so. If the current take-up rate were to continue we would expect the majority of local authorities to be operating the service within 12 months.

  Earnings Top-Up
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements have been made for renewing awards when the Earnings Top-Up pilot ends. [87594]

  Angela Eagle
  Earnings Top-Up (ETU) is a three-year pilot which was introduced in October 1996 to explore the effects of an in-work benefit for people without dependent children. The pilot was designed to run from 8 October 1996 to 4 October 1999 in eight areas and full evaluation findings will be available during 2001.
  183
  When the pilot was first set up, the plans included three renewal awards for people receiving Earnings Top-Up when it closed down. However, since May 1997, a range of new initiatives to help low paid workers has been introduced. Measures already introduced include the National Minimum Wage and Tax and National Insurance Contribution changes. In view of this, ETU renewals at the end of the pilot will be restricted to a single six month award.

  Companies the Government have made payments to for consultancy regarding the computerisation of the Benefits Agency in the last three years

  Project

  Contract dates

  Contract award value (£)

  Successful company

  Current status

  Programme Accounting Group (PAG)—Consultancy Support

  12/11/1996 to 31/12/1996

  36,450

  KPMG

  Finished

  Programme Accounting Group/Programme Accounting

  21/10/1996 to 21/12/1996

  63,508

  SEMA

  Finished

  Computer System (PACS)—Consultancy Support

  21/10/1996 to 31/12/1996

  138,300

  KPMG

  Programme Design Authority (PDA)—Implementation Group Support

  —

  135,000

  Andersens

  Finished

  Card Access Payment System (CAPS)—Programme and Card Payment Delivery Review

  11/11/1996 to 28/2/1997

  122,800

  Ernst & Young

  Finished

  Card Access Payment System (CAPS)—Migration Conformance Manager

  1/4/1997

  78,000

  PA Consulting

  Finished

  Programme Accounting Group (PAG)—IT Consultant

  1/4/1997 to 30/6/1997

  31,500

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  Finished

  Card Access Payment System (CAPS)—Consultancy Support

  9/6/1997 to 8/6/1999

  19,767,220

  Andersens

  Ongoing

  613,662

  A.S.E.

  Ongoing

  Financial and Management Information System (FAMIS)—Study of Private Sector Partnership potential

  20/5/1997 to 27/6/1997

  34,900

  KPMG

  Finished

  Card Access Payment System (CAPS)—Migration Strategy

  3/2/1997 to 31/3/1997

  263,221

  Andersens

  Finished

  Programme Accounting Group

  12/2/1997 to 28/3/1997

  29,750

  KPMG

  Finished

  Audit Trail Analysis System (ATAS)—Tool Development

  17/3/1997 to 11/4/1997

  30,000

  ICL

  Finished

  Programme Accounting Group (PAG)—Consultancy Support

  14/7/1997 to 31/1/1998

  63,000

  KPMG

  Finished

  Programme Accounting Group (PAG)—Technical Architect

  15/9/1997 to 30/4/1998

  135,240

  A.S.E.

  Finished

  Banking and Accountancy Branch (BAB)—Implementation Management

  3/2/1998 to 31/3/1998

  76,150

  SEMA

  Finished

  Review of BA IS/IT Strategy

  11/8/1998 to 4/9/1998

  16,500

  PA Consulting

  Finished

  Card Access Payment System (CAPS)—Review of Change Management

  2/2/1999 to 8/3/1999

  18,800

  Admiral

  Finished

  Banking and Accountancy Branch (BAB)—IT Consultant

  15/2/1999 to 26/3/1999

  29,023

  PA Consulting

  Finished

  BA Decision Making and Appeals Implementation Programme

  8/6/1998 to 30/11/1999

  360,000

  Andersen Consulting

  Ongoing

HEALTH

  Health Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the outcome of the Health Council held in Luxembourg on 8 June; and if he will make a statement. [86639]

  Ms Jowell
  I attended the Health Council on 8 June in Luxembourg, on behalf of the United Kingdom.

  The Council reached political agreement on the draft Recommendation on limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields. This will be adopted at a future Council, subject to the lifting of the UK's Parliamentary scrutiny reserve. The Council also adopted Resolutions on antibiotic resistance and on future Community action in the field of public health and held an initial exchange of views on priorities and resources for the latter. It also adopted Conclusions on health protection requirements in Community policies. The Commission reported on the progress of the European Union—United States Task Force on Communicable Diseases and on the Community's own communicable diseases surveillance network. The Commission also presented a paper on health and enlargement, following which the Council

  Benefits Agency (Computerisation)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to which companies the Government have made payments for consultancy regarding the computerisation of the Benefits Agency in the last three years; how much was paid to each company; what the current status of the project is; and if he will make a statement. [85437]

  Angela Eagle
  [pursuant to her reply, 8 June 1999, c. 306–07]The information is in the table.

  went into an informal session to which Health Ministers from the accession candidate countries had been invited. They identified common health problems, particularly increased levels of communicable diseases, smoking, and drug and alcohol misuse.

  In formal session again, the Commission said that publication of its report on the state of migrants' health in the Community would be delayed to include the health needs of refugees, in the light of the Kosovo crisis. Both the Commission and Belgium gave an oral update on the current situation following the contamination of food with dioxins in Belgium. After an oral report from the Commission on Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies in the Community, the UK updated the Council on the number of cases of variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease in the UK. The Council also stated its support for the World Health Organisation's "Tobacco Free Initiative".

  Gynaecologists (North Yorkshire)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures are in place for the recruitment of consultant gynaecologists in North Yorkshire NHS trusts; and if he will make a statement. [86476]
  185
  Mr. Denham
  The standard National Health Service recruitment procedures are in place.

  Central Public Health Laboratory
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the present recruitment and retention position at the Central Public Health Laboratory; and if he will investigate the feasibility of bringing medical laboratory staff within the pay and conditions arrangements of the Pay Review Body structure. [86920]

  Mr. Denham
  Medical Laboratory Scientific Officer staff at the Central Public Health Laboratory are employed by the Public Health Laboratory Service Board. Their recruitment and retention is a matter for that body.

  These staff are employed under the Professional and Technical Staffs B Whitley Council terms and conditions, which apply to all similar staff within the National Health Service. The management side of the Whitley Council has made a pay offer for 1999–2000 based on issues specific to these staff, including recruitment and retention, affordability, NHS output targets and the economic context.

  We are also discussing with all NHS unions proposals to modernise the NHS pay system published on 15 February 1999 in "Agenda for Change".

  St. Dunstan's
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons he has refused the application for financial assistance from St. Dunstan's Charity for Service War Blinded under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. [86923]

  Mr. Hutton
  No application for Section 64 funding has been received from St. Dunstan's in relation to its own work of providing training and long-term care for men and women who lost their sight while serving in the armed forces. However the Diana Gubbay Trust for the Blind, which is administered by St. Dunstan's to provide care to former members of the armed forces and the civilian forces whose blindness is not attributable to service, has applied for core funding in each of the last two years.

  The funds available under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 are finite and many more applications are received from voluntary organisations than it is possible to meet. We considered both applications from the Diana Gubbay Trust very carefully, but concluded that other applications were stronger.

  DTP Vaccine
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the batch of DTP vaccine withdrawn by the Bath and West Community NHS Trust was(a) whole cell or (b) acellular vaccine; which pharmaceutical company supplied the vaccine; and when the vaccine batch was manufactured. [86862]

  Ms Jowell
  This batch was a combined diphtheria/tetanus/whole cell pertussis vaccine manufactured by Behring and distributed in the United Kingdom by Wyeth Vaccines. It was manufactured on 18 June 1998.

  Calendar Packs
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the practice among pharmacists of dispensing calendar packs instead of the doses prescribed by doctors. [87014]

  Mr. Denham
  Calendar packs are typically produced for medicines taken over long periods or for defined course lengths. Because the days of the week are printed alongside the tablets, splitting the packs could result in patients receiving partial strips of tablets labelled with confusing and inappropriate assortments of days of the week. It is long-standing practice, as permitted by their terms of service, for community pharmacists to dispense the nearest number of complete packs or sub-packs in situations where the quantity prescribed differs from the quantity in the pack and where, in their opinion, it was not the intention of the prescriber that only the exact quantity be dispensed. We have had no reports that this has caused any clinical difficulties.

  NHS Pensions Agency
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the key targets for 1999–2000 for the NHS Pensions Agency. [87398]

  Mr. Denham
  We have agreed the Agency's key targets for 1999–2000, and have placed copies in the Library.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since 15 April; and what percentage of them received a substantive response on that day. [87330]

  Ms Jowell
  Since 15 April 1999, 172 parliamentary questions have been tabled to this Department for answer on a named day. Of these 151, or 88 per cent., have been answered substantively on that day.

  Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors and (b) nurses there were in the Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust Area on 31 March (i) 1997 and (ii) 1999; and what was the capital spending in the Trust area in (1) 1996–97 and (2) 1998–99. [87045]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Year

  Doctors

  Nurses

  Capital spend (£ million)

  1997

  1240

  11,310

  12.0

  1999

  2—

  2—

  7.3

  1 Data are for 30 September 1997 as the census is taken each year at 30 September. Data for following years are unavailable because they have not yet been published, or, in the case of 1999, not yet collected.

  2 No data available.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost to his Department for each year since 1996 of support for asylum seekers who are not eligible for social security benefits. [86891]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has paid grants to local authorities in respect of support for asylum seekers under the Children Act 1989 and National Assistance Act 1948 in 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99. Details of the total amounts paid are shown in the table.

  £ million

  Grant paid

  1996–98

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Unaccompanied children

  3

  1.587

  20.157

  Families with children

  4.137

  28.440

  80.074

  Single adults

  5.627

  39.577

  89.813

PRIME MINISTER

  Kosovo
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what measures he is planning as part of a general settlement on Kosovo, to encourage displaced persons to return to their homes. [86367]

  The Prime Minister
  NATO's KFOR is helping to create a secure environment in which refugees and displaced persons can return home. The United Kingdom is working closely with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to facilitate such returns, including by helping to carry food and other essential supplies into Kosovo.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if he proposes to discuss the issue of Kashmir at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in November. [86993]

  The Prime Minister
  The draft agenda for the next meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government has not yet been circulated. We are not aware of any plans to discuss Kashmir.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Links
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total income of Business Links nationally broken down by(a) his Department's grants, (b) EU and other public funding, (c) charges to customers and (d) grants from Business Link national partners for (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99; and what estimate he has made for 1999–2000. [86637]

  Mr. Wills
  The total amount of funding provided for the Business Links programme by the Department in the periods 1997–98 and 1998–99 were £129.2 million and £121.1 million respectively. For 1999–2000, the Department has earmarked £139 million for Business 188
  Links programme funding, which includes an element of funding specifically for developing services of the new Small Business Service.

  Business Links are private, independent organisations and the Department does not collect statistics on income from EU and other public funding or on grants from Business Link national partners. But we estimate that total Business Link company fee income from customers to be of the order of £21 million in 1997–98, £31 million in 1998–99 and £36 million in 1999–2000.

  Information Society Local Support Centres
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many departmental Information Society Initiative Local Support Centres have been established; and how many more are planned. [86635]

  Mr. Wills
  Eighty Information Society Initiative (ISI) Local Support Centres have been established. A further 20 are planned and these should be open by the end of 1999 to give a UK wide network of 100 Local Support Centres.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from industry concerning the proposed climate change levy. [87031]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department is having extensive discussions with business on the impact of the climate change levy, and the accompanying reduction in employer National Insurance Contributions (NICs), which were announced by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget, 9 March 1999,Official Report, columns 173–90.

  Tax forms part of the Government's strategy on climate change. However, we have said that we wish to implement the climate change levy in a way which minimises any adverse impact on the competitiveness of UK business. The Government will continue to listen to the views of business and as raised in response to HM Customs and Excise's consultation on the levy, which ended on 28 May. Final decisions on the design of the levy, including its rates, will be taken for inclusion in the Finance Bill 2000 in the light of these representations.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact on jobs of the proposed climate change levy. [87032]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department has received many representations from business on the impact of the climate change levy, some of which have raised concerns about its impact on employment.

  The levy will form part of our strategy on climate change. We are also developing negotiated agreements and emissions trading as means by which business can contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We want to give business the chance to develop the cost-effective solutions to emissions reductions and to make the most of the new business opportunities which should flow from climate change in the years to come: new markets and new goods and services, which may have positive implications for employment.

  Benefit Swipecard
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the reduction in revenue to post offices under the proposed swipecard. [86929]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 14 June 1999]The Horizon platform, which is planned to be installed throughout the Post Office network by 2001, is compatible with both magnetic swipecard and smartcard technology.

  As announced on 24 May 1999, Official Report, column 21, the project will no longer incorporate the magnetic swipe benefit payment card. Existing paper based methods of paying benefits in post offices will continue until 2003 after which the Benefits Agency intends to move over a period of two years to a more modern and efficient way of paying benefits using the existing automated credit transfer system. This will enable payments to be made into bank accounts. A number of banks already allow access to personal accounts at post offices, and the period to 2003 will allow the Post Office to develop its relationship with the banking industry and the range of services it offers to personal customers.

  The contractual arrangements between the Post Office and its banking partners for providing access to bank accounts at post offices will remain a commercially confidential matter between the parties.

  Company Law
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the need to amend company law to provide for the validity of meetings and their subsequent decisions conducted by tele-conferencing and related technology. [87135]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The DTI's view is that the general law already provides for general meetings of shareholders to be held in more than one physical site, provided that these are appropriately linked. Subject to the company's Articles, meetings of directors may be conducted in a medium the directors think fit, for example, by telephone or by video conference.

  In March 1998, the DTI launched a fundamental review of company law which is being taken forward by an independent Steering Group. The Steering Group is considering all wider policy issues surrounding the role and place of the general meeting of shareholders and the mechanisms for company decision making, including the implications of modern technologies for statutory rules for meetings.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since 15 April; and what percentage of them received a substantive response on that day. [87325]

  Mr. Battle
  Between 15 April and 15 June, 126 questions for answer on a named day were tabled to this Department, 49 per cent. of these received a substantive answer on the named day.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures his Department has taken to increase co-ordination between the various regional development agencies following the implementation of devolution. [87046]

  Mr. Wills
  The Chief Executive of the Invest in Britain Bureau (IBB), which is jointly managed by the DTI and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, continues to chair the Committee on Overseas Promotion (COP). The role of COP is to co-ordinate UK promotion of inward investment and avoid unnecessary duplication of effort by publicly funded promotional bodies. Members include representatives from the agencies for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the eight Regional Development Agencies in England and London First Centre. We are also encouraging the Regional Development Agencies in England to continue to explore and build on closer collaboration on overseas marketing and representation with neighbouring regions.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans the Government have to integrate the grant for reducing infant class size into the rate support grant to local education authorities to enable this funding to be provided through the local management of schools formula. [86682]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 14 June 1999]We are providing specific grant funding to enable Local Education Authorities to meet our pledge to limit the size of infant classes to 30 or below by September 2001. No decisions have yet been taken on the mechanisms for funding smaller infant class sizes beyond 2001–02 but revenue funding will continue to enable schools to continue to employ teachers taken on as a result of the class size policy.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 21 May 1999,Official Report, column 474, on the New Deal for Young People, when he expects to be able to provide the number of New Deal trainees in various sectors of industry. [85559]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]Improved information on the number of New Deal job starts by employers should be available by October, depending on progress on upgrading the Labour Market System. For the longer term, the Employment Service is working with its IT supplier to enhance further the full range of its management information systems.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the(a) median and (b) average length of time spent on the Gateway of the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds by those for whom no eventual destination is known. [85863]
  191
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  For the period ending March 1999 the median length of time spent on the New Deal Gateway by those young people who leave for an unknown destination is 71 days. The mean average length of time is 85 days.

  Secondary Schools (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each secondary school in Leicestershire for the academic year 1999–2000(a) its official pupil capacity, (b) the number of pupils actually at the school, (c) the average cost per pupil and (d) the number of (i) teachers and (ii) full-time equivalents employed. [86641]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information for individual schools is not published centrally. Information for 1999–2000 has not yet been collected. The most recently available information is shown in the following table.

  LEA maintained secondary schools only. Leicestershire Local Education Authority area. Academic Year 1997–98

  Numbers

  Total pupil capacity

  43,224

  Total number on roll

  38,981

  Average cost per pupil

  1£2,296.70

  Total number of teachers

  2,695

  FTE number of teachers

  2,279.9

  1 Provisional data

  Employment Action Plan
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will place copies of the United Kingdom's Employment Action Plan in the Library. [87396]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Copies of the UK Employment Action Plan, which sets out the Government's policies for implementing the 1999 Employment Guidelines agreed at the European Council held in Vienna in December 1998, have been placed in the Library. The Plan contains the latest information on policies for employment, encouraging entrepreneurship and labour market adaptability, lifelong learning and equal opportunities.

  European Union Youth Council
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Youth Council meeting on 27 May. [87397]

  Mr. Mudie
  I attended the Council of Youth Ministers in Brussels on 27 May 1999.

  The Council adopted common positions on the Commission's proposals to establish a new Youth programme, and the next phase of the Daphne programme of measures to combat violence against women and children. Council also considered a Presidency Memorandum stressing the importance of addressing youth issues in the context of employment policy, and noted that the Commission will adopt a Communication on implementing measures to combat child sex tourism.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Broiler Chickens
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many broiler chickens were dead on arrival at UK poultry slaughterhouses in (i) 1997 and (ii) 1998. [86207]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is as follows:

  Total throughput

  Dead on arrival

  1997

  Great Britain

  709,291,374

  1,350,338

  Northern Ireland

  60,270,049

  172,701

  1998

  Great Britain

  713,047,348

  1,128,655

  Northern Ireland

  61,774,233

  115,176

  Please note that the total throughput figures provided for Great Britain for 1997 and 1998 are not directly comparable, owing to the method for collecting these data having changed slightly.

  BSE (USA)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to investigate reports of the presence of BSE in the USA. [86872]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 14 June 1999]We have asked the United States Government to comment on the recent reports of the presence of BSE in the USA. The United States has not reported any cases of BSE to the international veterinary organisation, the OIE.

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the antibiotic marker genes, and the antibiotics to which they convey resistance, that have been used in the genetic modification of crops from which genetically modified foods available in the United Kingdom have been produced. [86318]

  Mr. Rooker
  Of the GM foods available in the UK, the npt II gene which confers resistance to kanamycin is present in the tomatoes used to produce tomato paste, but is not detectable in the paste itself. There are no ARMs in Monsanto's GM soya bean. The GM maize developed by Ciba Geigy (now Novartis) contains the ampr gene, which confers resistance to ampicillin, although the gene is degraded and thus no longer capable of functioning when processed into food ingredients.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what food safety tests were carried out on Monsanto's genetically modified Round-up Ready soya bean after spraying with Round-up herbicide; what was the nature of the tests; what data has been supplied
  193
  by Monsanto; and on what date the information was supplied; [86320]

  (2) what tests have been conducted to assess the safety of feeding genetically modified Round-up Ready soya beans to animals; who conducted the tests and when; and what data has been supplied on the feeding of Round-up Ready soya bean following spraying of the crop with Round-up. [86319]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes considered data provided by Monsanto on its genetically modified Round-up Ready soya bean, including that obtained from feeding studies on animals, over the period 1994–96. The information that was assessed also encompassed the results of proximate analysis, including an analysis of phytoestrogen levels, on seeds obtained from field trials of GM soya which had been treated with the herbicide Round-up.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if all foods on sale which contain genetically modified soya beans have had those soya beans subject to safety testing after being sprayed with the herbicide they are designed to resist; and if he will make a statement. [86747]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 15 June 1999]Yes. In 1996, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes considered data supplied by Monsanto on its genetically modified Round-up Ready soya bean after spraying with Round-up herbicide and, contrary to recent reports in the press, found that levels of phytoestrogen were comparable to those in conventional soya beans. The data have been deposited in the British Library (SUP No.11093).

  Dairy Farmers
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures the Government are taking to assist dairy farmers who are suffering as a result of low milk prices. [86437]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 15 June 1999]Apart from the operation of the Common Agricultural Policy, the price milk producers receive for their products is a commercial matter.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since 15 April; and what percentage of them received a substantive response on that day. [87322]

  Mr. Morley
  One hundred and five. Of those eligible for answer on or before 15 June 1999, 51 per cent. received a substantive reply on the named day.

CABINET OFFICE

  Monsanto
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the trips, facilities, gifts and other offerings of a financial value provided by Monsanto to civil servants since 1 May 1997. [85962]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The information requested in respect of all civil servants is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. As far as I am aware, since 1 May 1997 no civil servant working in the Prime Minister's Office or the Cabinet Office and its agencies, has accepted any trips, facilities, gifts or other offering provided by Monsanto.

  Archway Tower
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what is the total expenditure on the refurbishment of Archway Tower, Junction Road, N19 over the past three years; what rental income has been received over that period; and what rental income is expected for the duration of the current lease; [86897]

  (2) what expenditure has been made on rent for Archway Tower, N19, in each year since 1995; and what rent he expects to pay for the remaining period of the lease. [86898]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. John Locke, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from John C. Locke to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 16 June 1999:

  The Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office, Peter Kilfoyle, has asked me to reply to your questions about expenditure and rental income on Archway Tower.

  Further to my letter of 4 March 1999 I can advise that capital expenditure from 1 April 1998 to date now totals £4.3 million. Refurbishment work to ten floors was completed in April 1999 and PACE have recently let the contract for the final phase of work, following competitive tendering.

  In my previous letter, I outlined the impracticality of re-using the building until after completion of the first phase of refurbishment. There was therefore no income during this period. However, there are now ten floors available for sub letting and our agents DTZ Debenham Thorpe are currently marketing them on our behalf. These floors total 4,210 sq m (45,230 sq ft) for which PACE are seeking a rent of £134.56 per sq m (£12.50 per sq ft). The floors are being offered to Government Departments as well as the private sector with the aid of brochures, advertisements, mail-shots and distribution of CD Roms. Once the final phase of five floors (1,684 sq m 18,092 sq ft) is complete and the building fully let, the total rental income should amount to £791,525 pa. This level of income should be achievable for the duration of the Secretary of State's Lease, which is subject to rent review.

  Rental expenditure for each year since 1995 has been £884,000 pa for the building, with an additional £29,400 pa for 49 car parking spaces. The Secretary of State's Lease is subject to two further rent reviews at 25 December 1999 and 25 December 2004. At the next review, the landlord may seek an uplift in rent and Property Consultants, DTZ Debenham Thorpe are currently advising PACE on rental value for the review. The expectation is that the current rent paid of £884,000 pa should not increase, but it is not possible to forecast whether there is likely to be an increase from the rent review in December 2004.

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

Child Maintenance:Parental Responsibility
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a parent with parental responsibility for a child aged 16 or 17 who is no longer living at home is liable in law to provide for board and lodging for that child.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg):My Lords, as I have said before, the noble Lord is a champion of the family and in particular disadvantaged families and children. However, the short answer to his Question is "No". There is no specific statutory obligation on a parent to provide board and lodging for a child who has reached 16 or otherwise to provide for the child's maintenance.
Lord Northbourne:My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that clear Answer. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that this is a most unsatisfactory position in so far as young people aged 16 and 17 may have no form of support although they have the possibility of access to training? Training courses often last only six months and the period from the 16th to the 18th birthday is 24 months.
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that it is time for the Government to make it absolutely clear that parents are responsible for the support and maintenance of their 16 and 17 year-old children subject always to a safety net of government support if they are unable to do so?
The Lord Chancellor:My Lords, ministerial responsibility for the Children Act 1989 is divided between the Lord Chancellor in the private law sphere and the Secretary of State for Health in the public law sphere. The provisions on parental responsibility fall within my ministerial responsibility. But any amendment to the definition would also affect local authorities. They share responsibility with the parents of a child who is in public care. However, in the light of the points that the noble Lord makes, not merely as regards this Question but on previous occasions in your Lordships' House, I can say that for my own part I am minded to consider a review of the law on the specific and important point that he raises. However, I would first have to enter into discussions with my ministerial colleagues, and that I undertake to do.
Lord Borrie:My Lords, am I right in thinking that if we were talking about Scotland, the noble and learned
278
Lord's answer would have been "Yes", rather than "No"? Does the noble and learned Lord agree that it would be better if English law were to follow Scottish law in this respect?
The Lord Chancellor:My Lords, under Scottish statute law a child has the right to aliment. which is Scots for maintenance, from both father and mother, and for the purposes of the relevant statutory provision in Scotland that includes a person under the age of 18. So the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is: yes, under Scots law.
The grant of aliment is, however, discretionary and the court takes into account the needs of the child and the means of the parent. Too much must not be expected beneficially to result from a new statutory duty. However, in the light of today's discussion, I have indicated that I am minded to consider and recommend a review, and that one of the considerations in the review would be whether the Scots statutory obligation, or some variant of it, might be adopted in England.
Earl Russell:My Lords, if the parents are not responsible for the provision of aliment for 16 and 17 year-olds in England, who is?
The Lord Chancellor:My Lords, a local authority has a duty to provide accommodation for any child in need within its area who has reached the age of 16 and whose welfare the authority considers likely to be seriously prejudiced if it does not provide the child with accommodation. I could elaborate on the definition of need, but it is complex statutorily, and I shall. write to the noble Lord.
The local authority also has a discretionary power, but not a duty, to assist a care leaver between the ages of 16 and 21. Those provisions, however, would also fall to be considered under any review.
Baroness Young:My Lords, I welcome what the noble and learned Lord said about looking again at the present provision. I think that he will agree that it is extremely unsatisfactory. A number of departments are involved and therefore it is a complicated administrative arrangement. Will the noble and learned Lord consider not only the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, but also the difficulty that many students experience when their parents fail to contribute the part of the maintenance grant which they should, and those young people are unable to support themselves?
The Lord Chancellor:My Lords, I have already indicated that I am minded to consider a review, which I should have to recommend to my Cabinet colleagues, of this area of the law. I refer to support for children between the ages of 16 and 17 living away from home, as focused on by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I have no doubt that the review would extend to the issue raised by the noble Baroness.
However, expectations in this area must be managed. We must not exaggerate the effects of a statutory duty. Some parents may not be in a position to maintain the child. Parents and children may have no contact with

279
one another and they would be unaware of their whereabouts. A parent may be in prison or abroad. Other parents may be ill or unable to exercise their parental responsibility. Therefore, we must not look for too much from a statutory obligation on parents, but in my judgment it is well worthy of consideration.
The Earl of Halsbury:My Lords, I am a little confused as regards the syntax of the Question. I do not know whether it is a confusion in the law. Is it right that a child cannot be 16 or 17, but he can be under 17?
The Lord Chancellor:My Lords, I dare say that that is right, but I do not believe that anyone is confused by the terms of the noble Lord's Question.
The Earl of Listowel:My Lords, when at Monday's conference on youth homelessness, the Director of Shelter says that he is absolutely confident that the Minister for Housing is determined to address the problem, and when the leader of the national development unit of Centrepoint says that he has seen a sea change in the Home Office since the arrival of the new Minister, is the noble and learned Lord proud? Do his colleagues plan to take off their suits and put on their jeans, go out to meet the young people with mental health problems and problems with drug addiction and alcohol, and talk to them about their experience so that they will be fully informed about this parlous situation for many young people?
The Lord Chancellor:My Lords, I believe that full information is already available within government about these tragic problems. We certainly intend to maintain and enhance our information on these subjects and address solutions. The Government's record thus far in relation to rough sleepers, for example, is very good. All these matters are under consideration.

Income Support and Rent
2.45 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they remain committed to the principle of the Social Security Act 1986 that income support is not meant to cover rent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham):My Lords, we are reviewing housing policy and housing support and aim to publish a housing Green Paper by the end of the year. We remain committed to the principle that the benefit system should help people on low incomes to afford decent housing at reasonable rents.
Earl Russell:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. She is probably familiar with the Centrepoint survey of the effect of the single room rent in Devon. Is she aware that the findings of that survey are those of a vast body of research that, where limits are placed on
280
housing benefit, the landlord does not reduce the rent, but either stops letting to tenants, or goes out of the private rented market, or requires tenants to pay the rent out of income support? Do the Government learn anything about the nature of the market from that information?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham:My Lords, I entirely accept the noble Earl's analysis. Like him, I was warning the then government of the implications of the deregulation of private rents that occurred in the late 1980s. No doubt, the then government had the wistful hope that landlords might invest in their properties. Instead, all they did was pocket the profits. The problem that we now face is that about two-thirds of all private tenants do not receive housing benefit that fully covers their rent. If it did, we would sustain landlords in being able to ask for any rent they chose, as they have been doing since the late 1980s.
The noble Earl's point about the single reference rent is right and we are examining that as part of the housing review.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes:My Lords, will housing benefit in general be considered in the review? Is the noble Baroness aware that in central London many people receive housing benefit of many hundreds of pounds a week? Does she not believe that it is time to consider a ceiling on the amount of benefit?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham:My Lords, we do have a ceiling on housing benefit. Either the rent officer must determine what is a reasonable rent or it must be determined by reference to the local reference rent. The noble Baroness is right that there is a huge disparity in rents between, say, London and the north-west and north-east where 20 to 25 per cent of rented stock is difficult to let. One of the difficulties in finding an adequate response to housing benefit is precisely to take into account those regional variations. But, yes, we need to review housing benefit.
Lord Dholakia:My Lords, does the Minister accept the findings of the National Audit Office that 30 per cent of the cases classified as fraud are wrongly classified?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, yes, that may well be so. As regards housing benefit, there are many mistakes on both sides. As noble Lords will know from press reports and so forth, in a few cases there is systematic abuse of the housing benefit system by landlords who claim for fictitious tenants. The payment of housing benefit is directed to the landlord rather than to the tenant, and when the tenant moves on often the landlord continues to pocket the cheque. Every pound that is spent fraudulently, particularly to landlords, is a pound not available for housing benefit to other needy families.
Lord Evans of Parkside:My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in too many local authorities an applicant for housing benefit often enters a bureaucratic nightmare? Will the review look at the performance of

281
local authorities and ensure that every local authority is encouraged to streamline the process of accepting, receiving and dealing with applications for housing benefit?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham:My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. That was one of the serious criticisms of the administration of housing benefit raised by the latest NACAB report entitled Falling Short. We take that on board. The NACAB solution is to transfer housing benefit to the Benefits Agency. We believe that the right solution is to achieve best practice among local authorities. We are sending out guidance and working with local authorities to achieve what my noble friend suggests.
Lord Higgins:My Lords, while the review is welcome, it will clearly be some time after the Green Paper before any legislation is brought forward. Arising from the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, in relation to delays, in advance of the review could we not eliminate one or other of the two forms which are required at present: one goes to the Benefits Agency and the other to local authorities? It does not seem to me to need too much of a review to simplify the form filling which I know from my own constituency experience causes problems.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham:My Lords, that is an entirely fair point. In the pilot areas for the single work-focus gateway, we are looking at the matter to which the noble Lord referred; namely, that one sort of information comes from the applicant which can then be shared by local authorities and the DSS If we go down that road, I hope that I shall not be criticised by the noble Lord for sharing information with other authorities which did not originally collect it.

European Elections: Polling Figures
2.51 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the turn-out in the European elections, they will institute an inquiry into the operation of the closed list system of election.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn):My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in another place on Monday, we shall be conducting a review of the electoral arrangements, as we do after every election. That review will cover all aspects of last Thursday's elections.
The Earl of Northesk:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does the noble Lord accept that one of the arguments advanced by the Government in previous debates was that the use of PR and the closed list should be accepted by the party on these Benches because it would work to our electoral advantage? However, is it not as a result of that attempted spin that
282
use of the system has saved the Government and the Liberal Democrat Party from an even more crushing defeat than they would have suffered had first-past-the-post still been in place?
Lord Williams of Mostyn:My Lords, even at the time of the discussions in your Lordship:;' House, I marvelled at the selflessness of Her Majesty's Government, and events have proved me to be right.
Lord Shore of Stepney:My Lords, does my noble friend recall that this House turned down the closed list system not once but five times? That is an unusual situation but for once this place was right and the Commons got it wrong. When he examines the matter, as I hope he will, will he bear in mind also that the mass abstention of the British people reflects something far deeper than even their distaste for the system of election; that is, their profound distrust and lack of respect and affection for the European Parliament and the other associated institutions?
Lord Williams of Mostyn:My Lords, I well remember the largely repetitive discussions we had on a number of occasions. My noble friend is right. The system was turned down five times in this House. But the purpose of the new regimes in Scotland, Wales and in the context of the European parliamentary elections has been to ensure a more proportionate and inclusive result. If one bears in mind what happened in Wales and Scotland, the Conservative Party did benefit. As I said on many occasions, we knew that that was likely to happen. We wanted to have inclusive assemblies in consequence.
Lord McNally:My Lords, is the Minister aware that on these Benches we should welcome a government-funded inquiry into low turn-out at all kinds of elections? I remind the Minister that on the same day as the European elections a parliamentary by-election was held by first-past-the-post with another deplorable turnout. However, will the Minister take note also of the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that, if the European elections had been held by first-past-the-post, there would have been 66 Conservatives going to Strasbourg? God only knows what members of the Flat Earth Party, xenophobes and others would have gone in that bloated and distorted delegation. Instead, is the Minister aware that there will be 13 more Labour MEPs than would have otherwise been the case and 10 Liberal Democrat MEPs, including my noble friends Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne and Lady Ludford? To adopt the cry of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, is that not cause for us to rejoice, rejoice?
Lord Williams of Mostyn:My Lords, I cannot for the life of me understand why the noble Lord draws a distinction between the Conservative Party and the Flat Earth Party. If first-past-the-post had produced the deplorable consequences which the noble Lord identified, it seems to have been a blessing that we

283
did not use first-past-the-post. The truth is that the by-election, which was the result of the death of my colleague Derek Fatchett, had a very poor turn-out. In my opinion, that has nothing to do with first-past-the-post or any other system. In many ways, a large number of people in this country have had rather too much of elections. That is a purely personal view. It may be that we should do away with elections altogether as a significant element of your Lordships' House believes.
Lord Cope of Berkeley:My Lords, whether that was a prediction for the House of Lords Bill, we shall have to wait and see. Has not the low turn-out shown convincingly, among other things, that the British people prefer to vote for people rather than parties? However, is it not the case that the British people have very wisely elected my noble friends Lord Inglewood, Lord Bethell and Lord Stockton to the European Parliament? I am sure they will serve with distinction.
Have not the Liberal Democrats every reason to be satisfied with PR? After all, if it had been a general election, they would have only one Liberal Democrat MP south of Inverness?
Lord Williams of Mostyn:My Lords, I shall answer the question, if your Lordships wish. By and large, as a party, I agree that the Liberal Democrats are self-satisfied, if I heard the question properly. It is not quite as simple as the noble Lord proposed. It was a vote for an individual in the Leeds by-election and the turn-out was very low. Historically, and lamentably, local election turn-outs are very low in this country. If my recollection is correct, in the United States, which has a democratic system, the turn-out for presidential elections is often less than 50 per cent. There are important questions here about whether the menu—and I put that generally—which we offer to the electorate in different contexts and different sorts of elections is sufficiently interesting and important to them. Recent experience shows that we have not got it entirely right. That is not solely a governmental responsibility. It is a matter of important political consequence.
Lord Merlyn-Rees:My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I represented an inner-city area of Leeds for 30 years? I lived in that area. I did not just visit it on polling day. Is he aware that in the by-election which took place last week, which was largely in the area I represented, there was the factor of the list system used for the European elections on the same day? As my noble friend pointed out, the turn-out for first-past-the-post poll was equally low. There are many reasons for the problem of low polls. One is a hearty dislike of politicians, whether they take the name of a party or call themselves "independent." My friends tell me that, sometimes, to call oneself "independent" makes it worse. It is important that we should be concerned about these issues, and not just on polling day. There are real problems in these areas
284
that have to be faced, and nobody cares. Doctors come in like missionaries; teachers do not live in the area. With the best of intentions, they are good people but there is something radically wrong.
The political system, and your Lordships' House in particular, is supposed to pick up problems when they arise. How often does this House concern itself with the inner-city areas except by remote control? If people bother to watch, the laughter heard today would not appeal and would add to the dislike of politicians.
Lord Williams of Mostyn:My Lords, I do not think that what the noble Lord says is different from what I said earlier. Low turn-outs act as a reproach and cause us to question whether we have got right the electoral arrangements. It causes us to ask, "Have we got the questions right?", "Are referendums run properly?", and "Do we need as many elections as we have?" These are all important political questions. They are not necessarily limited to, although they do include, the causes indicated by my noble friend. We need to look carefully at how we educate children at school. I pay tribute, for instance, to the work done by the Citizenship Foundation with which, to my certain knowledge, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has been engaged for many years. It is not as simple as saying that people will not turn out for people who do not live in the constituency. Occasionally, people do become tired of elected politicians. They never become tired of non-elected hereditaries.
Lord Renton:My Lords, was not the result a great disappointment to the Government and the Labour Party? Would not the abandonment of the closed list system be more democratic, give greater freedom of choice to the voters and be more satisfactory to the Government and the Labour Party?
Lord Williams of Mostyn:My Lords, as I indicated earlier, we are holding a review about this election. The June survey to be conducted by the Office for National Statistics will study the matter. Home Office officials will liaise closely—I hope the noble Lord will think that helpful—with all political parties and electoral administrators. We shall have the assistance of professional polling organisations to see what lessons may be learnt. For my part, I believe there are lessons to be learnt. We need to wait for the research to establish the answers.
The Earl of Carlisle:My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the closed list system was a factor in the low turn-out? Does he recall that on 12th November he repeated in this place the promise of the Home Secretary that there would be a review? Will the Government publish the review when it is completed in six months' time? Can the Minister assure us that this House will debate the matter?
Lord Williams of Mostyn:My Lords, I recall the undertaking. I referred to it as being the object of what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said on Monday. Certainly, I believe that the results of the

285
review should be published. As the noble Earl will accept, the question of whether this House debates the matter is for the usual channels. In my opinion, the greater the publicity given to the findings, the better.
Lord Jenkins of Putney:My Lords, is it not the case that those of us who have discussed this matter among ourselves are widely of the opinion that people simply do not like voting for lists of people they do not know? The view is widespread. I hope it will be taken into consideration in the review which my noble friend says will take place. I sympathise strongly with that view. People dislike the idea of being presented with a list which they have had no hand in forming and being required to vote for a group of people they have not met and are unlikely to meet. It is very unpopular. I hope that that view will be given proper consideration.
Lord Williams of Mostyn:My Lords, I am happy to reiterate that we shall be carrying out the review. I expect that one of the questions will focus upon the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. I recognise that, certainly within your Lordships' House, that view has substantial support and favour. Whether it is right, we shall have to wait and see.
Lord Harris of Haringey:My Lords, have not there been too many reviews by Home Office officials of the mechanics of the electoral system? Surely, it is now time that steps were taken—perhaps the ministerial boot might be helpful in making something happen—to bring forward proposals for a rolling register so as to improve the quality of the register and produce pilot schemes for electronic voting, voting on days other than Thursdays and at different times, and for telephone voting.
Lord Williams of Mostyn:My Lords, that is already in hand. There is a working party on electoral procedures. It is chaired by my honourable friend Mr George Howarth at the Home Office. It is looking at ways to modernise electoral procedures including the introduction of a system of rolling electoral registration and the piloting of innovations such as weekend and electronic voting. If I remember rightly, the working party started work in January 1998 and has already had eight meetings. So the work is well in hand.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon:My Lords, does it not ill behove the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to talk about xenophobes and "flat earthers" when the electorate showed quite clearly on Thursday that they do not believe in Liberal Party policy but are demanding that this country should be governed by its own elected government and parliament? They showed that they do not want a single currency or a European army. Indeed, they made that so clear that they virtually wiped out the Liberal Party in the south west. Will the Government take this question seriously and reconsider a voting system, especially before there is any chance of repeating it in a general election, which loses for Labour the Rhondda, Islwyn and Llanelli all at the same time? That cannot be good for the Labour Party.
Lord Williams of Mostyn:My Lords, I can agree with the last proposition. I did not think that when the
286
noble Lord, Lord McNally, spoke of "flat earthers" and xenophobia he was using them as terms of abuse but that he was intending to be descriptive. I repeat, I think for the fifth time, that the review promised by Jack Straw will occur. When those results are available, as far as I am concerned they will be published.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report
3.07 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham):My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 65).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. Record Copies of Acts
The Committee recommends that the record copies of Acts of Parliament, kept in the House of Lords Record Office, should be printed on archival paper instead of vellum, with effect from the first Act of the year 2000. With the agreement of the Master of the Rolls and the Keeper of the Public Records, the production of the second record copy of each Act for the Public Record Office should cease.
When the Parliament Rolls of Acts of Parliament were discontinued in 1849, it was resolved by both Houses that two copies of every Act, whether Public or Private, should be printed in vellum, one to be stored in the Record Tower (now the House of Lords Record Office) and the other with the Master of the Rolls (now the Public Record Office). The former copy is authenticated by the Clerk of the Parliaments as the official authority for the published text of an Act. In 1956 vellum was replaced by archival paper for Private Acts. The increasing scarcity and expense of vellum and the printing restraints which it imposes have now led to the proposal that Public Acts should be similarly treated.
On the advice of conservation experts at the British Library, archival paper has been identified with a proven life expectancy of 250 years and a probable life expectancy exceeding 500 years in good archival conditions. It is superior to vellum for print quality, is less bulky, and avoids the use of animal products. The value of the potential saving is about £30,000 a year.
Resolutions of both Houses would be needed to give effect to this recommendation. The Committee has been informed that a comparable recommendation is being made by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons.
2. Smoking in the House of Lords
Following the Report of the Informal Group on Smoking (copies of which are available in the Printed Paper Office and the Library of the House), the Committee makes the following recommendations:

(i) Smoking should be banned in lavatories and telephone kiosks;

(ii) Smoking should be banned in Committee rooms, unless, at a private meeting of a Committee, that Committee specifically gives permission at the time.

3. Lords Reimbursement Allowances
The Committee was informed that from 1st April 1999 the motor mileage allowance had been increased by 1.1 pence to 51.2 pence for the first 20,000 miles for the period to 31st March 2000 Further mileage in this period would be payable at a rate of 23.6 pence per mile.

287
The Committee was further informed that from 1st April 1999 the bicycle allowance had been increased by 0.1 pence to 6.5 pence per mile.
4. House of Lords Families Room
The Committee welcomes the provision of a room for the use of immediate family members of Peers. The Room is not intended to be used as a work or meeting room. It is to be a no smoking area.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe:My Lords, perhaps I may briefly return to the theme I have pressed before; that is that there is not enough information in these reports to encourage us to make decisions about passing them on. Your Lordships may recall that I have raised in the past the question of lack of information about the car park and the £2.5 million. I shall not embarrass the House by detailing the quite spontaneous public support I had from all quarters in correspondence and calls about this matter. Indeed, I believe I showed great restraint. A number of messages were given to me to pass on to the House authorities and I felt that they would be much better without them. We do not receive enough information.
Previously we discussed the Offices Report on 17th December. That was simply the membership of the various sub-committees. May 25th is the latest report and there is not a great deal in it. However, when I look at the minutes of the meeting, which is the substance of the report, I find that the first item is:
"Report from the Administration Works Sub-Committee enclosed".
It says that the sub-committee approved the three-year programme of works for the period beginning April 2000. It does not say what happened to the report; what the committee did with it and what it was told about it. But there must be an enormous amount of money involved in this. We can see the work going on all the time. But because it is a rolling programme it is difficult at any stage to see where we are going. We are being asked to approve matters time after time without proper detail. When trouble arises and extravagance is exposed, we are told that the House approved it on a specific date. It is not fair to the House and I shall be grateful for the Lord Chairman's comments.
The Chairman of Committees:My Lords, I shall certainly bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, said. One of the considerations when putting forward a report from the Offices Committee is not to burden your Lordships unduly with a great deal of material and to concentrate on the essential matters. In any event, it is open to noble Lords in all parts of your Lordships' House to raise matters in other ways quite apart from when we discuss reports from committees.
The issue of car parks does not arise in this report and therefore does not fall to be considered on this occasion. The works programme is of course thoroughly considered in your Lordships' committees, but I must remind your Lordships that it was as a result of the Ibbs review some years ago that specific responsibility for executive action in relation to financial matters was placed on the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee of the Offices Committee. That needs to be borne in mind.
288
In conclusion, bearing in mind the need for reasonable brevity so as not to overburden your Lordships' House, I will certainly take into account what the noble Lord said and if it seems appropriate to add one or two matters, I shall invite the committee to do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Relations Bill
3.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury):My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Simon of Highbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 3 [Blacklists]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 234:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert—
("() Regulations under this section creating an offence may not provide for it to be punishable—

(a) by imprisonment,

(b) by a fine in excess of level 5 on the standard scale in the case of an offence triable only summarily, or

(c) by a fine in excess of the statutory maximum in the case of summary conviction for an offence triable either way.")

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 234, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 280 which is grouped with it. I shall then afford the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, an opportunity to speak to her amendments to our amendment before I respond to what she says.
Clause 3 gives the Secretary of State the power to introduce regulations to prohibit the blacklisting of trade union members and activists. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee made a number of observations about this clause. In particular, it asked that we should set down in the Bill the maximum limit for penalties regarding any criminal offences which the regulations might create. Amendment No. 234 sets down the Government's proposals for such penalties. They are based on the equivalent criminal sanctions in the Data Protection Act 1998.
The penalties are proportionate to the nature of the offences. They will not involve imprisonment. That would be too strong a penalty for an offence of this nature. Instead the amendment sets maxima for the fines that can be imposed. Those are the same as those provided for by the related legislation of the 1998 Data Protection Act.
Amendment No. 280 responds to a similar recommendation in the committee's report dealing with the power to create criminal offences under Clause 17, which deals with discrimination against part-time

289
workers. Again, the committee recommended that the maximum penalty for any offence created under order-making power in Clause 17 should be specified on the face of the Bill. Again the Government propose to give effect to that recommendation by means of this amendment.
Any offences so created will only be for summary trial and will only be punishable by a fine up to level 5 on the standard scale; in other words, £5,000. That will be in line with offences under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We expect that the power to create offences will be used sparingly, if at all. The Government are of the opinion that, given the disability precedent, this would be an appropriate maximum penalty for any offence created under this power. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 234, Amendment No. 234A:
Line 5, leave out ("5") and insert ("4")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 234A, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 234B and 280A which are amendments to Amendment No. 234 to which the Minister has just spoken.
As we have heard, both the government amendments are to the same effect though slightly differently worded. They both provide for penalties in the form of fines for offences under Section 3. The insertion of a penalty on the face of the Bill was at the suggestion of the scrutiny committee, to which the Government rightly acquiesced. However, the level proposed is the maximum permitted. In their haste to table their last-minute amendments in time for your Lordships' Committee, they may not have considered totally the implications of the level they proposed.
The level of the fines imposed is at level 5. At current rates, as the Minister said, that is up to £5,000. That is the same level as for driving while disqualified, driving with excess alcohol, stealing, possession of drugs, criminal damage, violent disorder and causing grievous bodily harm. I do not detract in any way from the seriousness of blacklisting. Nor has anybody accused me of being soft on crime, especially not when I sat in the magistrates' court. Indeed, in the early clays of opening my businesses in Germany and in Australia I was subjected to attempts by competitors to have me boycotted by suppliers. Although I defeated the attempts, it would have been a lot easier if there had been redress available such as is now proposed.
However, I feel that the maximum level of fine proposed is too high, considering the other offences in the same bracket I mentioned. Level 4—a fine up to £2,500—would be a sufficient deterrent considering that the perpetrator will end up with a criminal record. Looking at the other offences dealt with at level 5, the fine would be disproportionate. Proportionality is now supposed to be the criterion for criminal sanctions.
Finally, I turn to the second part of the amendment to Amendment No. 234, which is the deletion of paragraph (c). That may be a mistake by the draftsman. It repeats
290
paragraph (b) because I understand the statutory maximum in case of summary conviction in cases triable either way in any event is level 5. However, as the Government omitted that subparagraph from Amendment No. 280, I assume that they noticed it and can probably manage without it in Amendment No. 234. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy:I wish to ask two questions of the Government and one of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. First, if we cannot send the offenders to prison, what happens if they persistently do not pay? Secondly, what is the statutory maximum? I do not believe the Minister told us. The provision says,
"by a fine in excess of the statutory maximum".
He told us that level 5 was £5,000. What is the statutory maximum? Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, did not tell us what level 4 was.
Lord Monkswell:Perhaps I can speak in this debate, first, to correct the noble Baroness, Lady Mill I believe she said that the maximum penalty for GBH was a £5,000 fine. I can assure the Committee that one can actually go to prison for GBH, so that needs to he corrected.
My noble friend also raised the question about imprisonment. We are talking about two separate categories. One is in regard to Clause 3 where we are talking about blacklisting. We probably all recognise that the risk of blacklisting will probably not come from a company; it will come from a rich individual who has some curious views on industrial relations and the way to help them, which would be counter-productive to the good climate of industrial relations we are trying to engender. The idea of levying a £5,000 fine on a rich individual who happens to hold some curious views is risible.
I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter and insert the possibility of a term of imprisonment at the next stage. It does not have to be a very long term because the fact of someone being sent to prison is a significant marker in society. It would be a restraint to any individual who intended to set up a blacklisting organisation.
Amendment No. 280 is concerned with discrimination against part-time workers by a company or groups of companies. If the discrimination continues for a significant period of time, if companies underpay their part-time workers and do not give them pension provisions, there can be a lasting economic effect, beyond retirement. Again, this is a significant problem, and I ask the Government to reconsider the option of a limited term of imprisonment as a salutary marker.
The Government were right to respond positively to the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Scrutiny Committee by including the limits to penalties. Bearing in mind that this matter has only arisen since the report by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, have the Government been in consultation with the

291
TUC, with the employers' organisations and the Institute of Personnel Development to ascertain their views on the penalties that could be included in the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey:The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in introducing the amendment, appeared to think that the Government have considered these matters in haste. I can assure the noble Baroness that we had time to give very full consideration to the penalties which should be on the face of the Bill after receiving the report of the Deregulation and Delegated Powers Committee. We did so by analogy with the most appropriate other offences. While blacklisting, however deplorable it may be, is presumably not a violent offence, the noble Baroness gave analogies of other violent offences which attract fines up to the level 5 maximum as an argument against the decision we have made. We have based our proposals in Amendment No. 234 on the Data Protection Act, 1998. There are strong similarities between the two Acts: both relate to the processing and misuse of data; both provide protection to individuals against abuses which can arise when information about them is compiled by third parties. That is why we thought that the analogy with the Data Protection Act was the correct analogy.
In reply to the point made by my noble friend Lord McCarthy, the figures that have been quoted are for £5,000 at level 5 and for £2,500 at level 4, which are the statutory maximum penalties. They can be changed by legislation and uprated in line with inflation.
We have given all the consideration that is necessary to reach a proper conclusion. We have continuously consulted the CBI and the TUC throughout the preparation of the Bill. We have raised matters with them and they have raised matters with us, and there has been no problem about consultation. I am not sure whether we have specifically consulted the Institute for Personnel Development, but I am sure that our consultations were wide enough to include that organisation if it had been felt appropriate.
In response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, about what happens if the fine is not paid, I give the standard answer which applies in one case in the law of England and Wales and in the other case in the law of Scotland. In England and Wales the court may order the sum owed to be recovered from the offender's assets by means of constraint. Ultimately, in England and Wales, someone who deliberately fails to pay a fine may be imprisoned for a failure to pay rather than for the original offence. My noble friend Lord Monkswell thought that we were not being fierce enough and that we should be prepared to send people to prison. However, these are criminal offences and appear on somebody's record, and we should not underestimate the seriousness of that matter.
In regard to Amendment No. 280A, we have looked for the most appropriate analogy, which we have decided is discrimination as defined in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Unless noble Lords can suggest any closer analogies, I believe that the Government have come to the right conclusion both in
292
terms of the severity of the penalties and in answering the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee.
Amendment No. 234B appears to be aimed at ensuring that criminal offences created under the blacklisting regulations cannot be triable either way. I assure the noble Baroness that the difference between Amendment No. 234 and Amendment 280 is deliberate. We do not agree with her that there should be no possibility of trial by jury under any circumstances. She said that she agrees with the Government that blacklisting is a serious matter because it has grave consequences for the blacklisted individual and for the reputation and standing of organisations accused of compiling blacklists. We take the view that we should not rule out the possibility of cases being tried before a jury, and that defendants should not be denied that right.
In the light of what I have said about the level of penalties and the need, where appropriate, for the opportunity of trial by jury, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendments.
Baroness Miller of Hendon:I have listened very carefully to the Minister and I agree with him in relation to Amendments Nos. 234A and 280A. I will read what he said about Amendment No. 234B. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 234A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 234, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 234B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 234, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 234 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey:moved Amendment No. 235.
Page 2. line 18, at end insert—
("() In this section "list" includes any index or other set of items whether recorded electronically or by any other means.")
The noble Lord said: When we last discussed this part of the Bill on 7th June we amicably agreed to separate Amendments Nos. 235 and 235A from the earlier grouping, I think because the noble Baroness could not find her notes. However, I am sure she has them in front of her now.
Amendment No. 235 is clarificatory. It provides a fuller definition for the type of list that can be prohibited by regulation. Information can be stored and circulated in many ways these days, and paper records are becoming less and less important, although the amount of paper used does not seem to be diminishing. Electronic and digital technologies have created many more means of conveying information. We want to ensure that the clause reflects the multimedia age and is elastic enough to cope with the future development of information technology. The amendment is phrased in a way to capture a wide range of possibilities. Perhaps the noble Baroness would care to speak to Amendment No. 235A before I make any comments on that amendment. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon:Before I speak to my amendment, I have to say that the Minister was extremely courteous last time. He is absolutely right. I pretended one thing. The truth was that I could not find the wretched notes.
Clause 3 prohibits the blacklisting of workers by their employers in retaliation for their engaging in trade union activities. We have already indicated our general acceptance of this provision. However, we believe that there is another side to the coin: it is the process that the unions call "blacking", which is short for blacklisted. Apart from the strike on an employer's premises, a union engaged in a dispute may proclaim goods or services made or provided by that employer as "black". Members of the union in dispute and members of other unions are often encouraged not to handle them. For example, goods manufactured before the dispute begins may get held up in the docks or at the employer's warehouse; retail shops carrying those goods may be picketed; and firms who supply goods and services to the business in dispute may also find themselves picketed or their customers intimidated by aggressive leafleters, or their own businesses threatened with blacking if they do not desist from dealing with the firm involved in the dispute.
Blacking has been extended to disputes in which the union itself is not even involved but is acting in support of a foreign union by refusing to handle goods coming from abroad. This blacking does not always end when the dispute is settled, as almost inevitably is the case, by agreement between the parties. The blacking, despite the unusual "no reprisals" clause in a settlement, is often only observed by the employer. Goods made by an employer during a strike with the assistance of non-union labour, or by another firm, may continue to be blacked indefinitely. This amendment would prohibit those activities. The proposals are reciprocal to the anti-blacklisting provisions that the Government have introduced into the Bill as a criminal offence.
The Bill began life as the White Paper, Fairness at Work. The Minister's response to this amendment will be a clear measure of how seriously the Government take their claim that the Bill is a "measure for partnership." Many provisions in the Bill lean over backwards to be fair to employees. However, as I see it, there are not quite so many which favour employers or which are even-handed. If, as we all agree, there should be no blacklisting of employees involved in a dispute, or those who engage in legitimate union activities, then similar economic activities against employers should also be banned.
As a result of the trade union legislation introduced by the previous government, union rights and privileges are protected as well as being regulated. That is why the Labour Party manifesto said:
"The key elements of the trade union legislation of the 1980s will stay—on ballots, picketing, and industrial action".
Blacking is no less industrial action than mass picketing. We now have industrial tribunals with wide powers to protect and enforce employees' rights. There can be no justification for what can be described as "overkill"
294
when a union tries to pursue a claim. If the Government will not accept this amendment. I am sure they will tell us why. Perhaps they will also tell us whether they have an alternative provision which would give a measure of even-handedness and justice to employers. I believe that the purpose of my amendment can be summarised in two words: fair's fair. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey:I am afraid that the noble Baroness has misunderstood the role of the blacklisting amendments in this legislation. She made a delightful speech; indeed, it took me back to the great days of, "I'm all right Jack", Red Robbo, and so on. It was nostalgic in the extreme. However, I believe that the noble Baroness misunderstands the reason why we have the blacklisting amendments in the Bill and why we have not interfered with so much of the legislation of the past 20 years—a good deal of it passed by the previous government—which deals with industrial action. We have had to introduce the amendments on blacklisting because the blacklisting of individuals is the issue here, an issue inadequately provided for in legislation.
In seeking to prohibit lists of employers, the noble Baroness is going back into the whole area of legislation about industrial action, which covers both employers and unions. If the noble Baroness is seeking an analogy of fairness between both sides on the industrial/employment relations front, she should be looking at the legislation which covers employers and unions rather than comparing the legislation on employers with the proposed legislation here about individuals. The legislation on industrial action is very detailed and contains many protections, as I believe the noble Baroness acknowledges, for employers and unions alike. We have made it very clear that we will keep the key elements of the law in this area. The balance will still need to be held, notice will still need to be given, and secondary action will remain unlawful.
As our proposals in this area make clear, we are committed to providing a fair balance between the interests and freedoms of individuals and their employers. Our proposals are aimed at modernising the law and redressing the current imbalance that exists in relation to individuals. I am afraid that the noble Baroness's amendment could tilt the balance back again. I am not convinced that this is a major problem. I believe that the analogy which the noble Baroness draws is a false one. I am confirmed in my view that this is not a major problem by the fact that we have not received any representations from employers to amend the law in the way proposed. In those circumstances, I suggest that the legislation of the previous government on secondary action already achieves the protection that the noble Baroness is seeking and that her amendment is both unnecessary and inappropriate.
Lord McCarthy:If a union was in the course of an industrial dispute, as my noble friend the Minister said, surely to engage in the activities set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) would be secondary action. Indeed. if it were secondary action, it would be unlawful under the terms of the 1992 Act. I do not know what the noble

295
Baroness is complaining about, unless she is talking about individuals. However, if this were to be done collectively as part of a dispute, the noble Baroness must admit that it would be secondary action and, therefore, unlawful.
Baroness Miller of Hendon:I heard very clearly what the Minister said: he liked my speech but saw no need for it. Perhaps he is right. I certainly think about things in the context of "fair's fair". However, I shall take the matter away and read most carefully in Hansard what the Minister said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 235A not moved.]
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Ballots and notices]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 236:
Page 59, line 36, after ("possession") insert ("or which is ascertainable by it after reasonable enquiries")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 238, 241, 243 and 245. All these amendments affect Schedule 3. This is a small group of amendments relating to information to be supplied to employers in relation to ballots conducted under the Bill, plus one item relating to information which should be given to employees. None of them reduces the amount of information to be provided; on the contrary, the amendments call for the information to be fuller, clearer or more explicit. I shall take each of the points item by item. Paragraphs 3(2) and 9(2) reduce the liability of the union to provide detailed information about employees entitled to take part in a ballot. Instead, the union has only to give such information as is in the union's possession. We believe that that makes life too easy and that it provides a simple excuse for the union not to be too diligent in supplying the information that the employer needs and is entitled to have.
Amendments Nos. 236 and 243 require the union to make reasonable inquiries to find any information which it does not have. I personally do not believe that this puts any undue burdens on the unions. Similarly, Amendments Nos. 238 and 245 would substitute new sub-paragraphs for those printed in the Bill. The Bill qualifies the obligation to provide information by saying that the rules apply,
"if the union possesses information as to the number, category or work-place of the employees concerned",
and so on. The amendments would oblige unions to provide the information without the excuse of saying that they do not know. I find it totally inconceivable that a union claiming to represent a group of workers can do so without knowing how many there are, what they work at, or where they work. The amendments prevent obstruction by the unions. If they are genuinely launching a ballot without knowing who they are representing, then, in my view, the very least the unions must do is bestir themselves and find out. Having done
296
so, they should then pass that information on to the employer. It is axiomatic in English law that a person involved in a dispute should know in advance the case against him; and, indeed, that he should know who is making the claim.
Amendment No. 241 deals with information to be given to an employee in connection with a strike ballot. The information will be required by the Act to be printed on the ballot paper. I wish to read a slightly shortened version of the text which appears in full on page 60, lines 18 to 21 of the Bill,
"if you are dismissed for taking part in strike or other industrial action which is called officially…the dismissal will be unfair if it takes place fewer than eight weeks after you started taking part".
The text continues,
"and may be unfair if it takes place later".
There is an omission which makes this particular phrase misleading and may encourage a worker to continue in a prolonged strike and expose himself to dismissal. It is no use arguing that the words "may be unfair" should alert the worker to the fact that it could equally be fair. With no disrespect to anyone, the majority of the workers receiving the ballot paper will neither be professors of semantics nor Chancery lawyers.
If the notices are intended to tell the workers their rights they should be clear and unambiguous. They should not contain theoretical fine print, or in this case require the worker to have to read between the lines. Amendment No. 241 simply alters the notice to read,
"and may be fair or unfair if it takes place later".
I would like to assume that the Government will accept all five of these amendments—perhaps I hope that in vain—in the interests of full information being available to everyone involved in a ballot. I beg to move.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton:My noble friends and I have tabled an amendment to the same schedule as the amendment we are discussing but which in no other way supports the noble Baroness in what she has just said. I hope that my noble friend will resist these amendments. However, as I have an amendment in the group we are discussing it behoves me to explain the seemingly small change that we called for in Amendments Nos. 237 and 244 as regards the notices to be given by the trade union.
This is an area of great practical importance because the legislation of the 1980s left us with a provision to give notice to the employer, first, of the strike ballot paper, and secondly, of the forthcoming action if there was a majority in the ballot. However, in both those cases among the matters which had to be revealed was a description of all the employees in the union who were included in the industrial action. The relevant words are printed rather usefully on page 59 of the Bill in Schedule 3; namely, that among other things, the union must describe the employees entitled to vote. The union must state who those workers are to enable the employer readily to define them. That phrase gave rise to great ill will. It was interpreted by some people and some employers to mean that the union must give names or even names and addresses in respect of the two sets of notices.

297
Recently the Government made it plain that they did not want to have such an obviously discriminatory provision. There were cases where workers' names had to be revealed in the sense that they could only readily be described if some identification were made which made it clear who they were. Whether one regards the right to take industrial action as a right or as a liberty, it is rather unattractive to add to it the requirement that the union has to give suitable and sufficient description of those concerned which in many cases will enable them to be identified.
We strongly support the Bill in respect of paragraph 3 on page 59 of the Bill and the other notice provision because that provision is now knocked out. However, in its place comes what I can regard only as a quite extraordinary provision; namely, that the union must give vital information, including that which would help the employer "to make plans". If one is to talk about employers, unions and employees as partners, one has to rub one's eyes to believe that when the partnership is in trouble such that one side or the other is party to a dispute, the law will say to one of them, and one only, "You must give to the other partner the information which is required to help him to make plans". Perhaps I should express that in a different way. The Bill as it stands means that in a trade dispute the union must give to the employer information to help him to make plans. In the middle of a dispute situation where notices are to be given by one side or the other, the employer can make his plans not only on the basis of information which he can normally obtain but also on the basis of what the union must give to him. That is not as bad as requiring identification of individuals among the workforce as it will not make any kind of discrimination so easy. However, from the point of view of the union and the majority of the employees it is surely quite absurd to require them unilaterally to give to the employer the information which will help him to "make plans.' in the context of a dispute.
Our real objective in the amendment I am proposing is to ask my noble friend to look again at the wording of the provision. If the provision comprises making plans about a particular matter there may be a justification for it. But this is a case of making plans generally in the context of a dispute where both parties are otherwise acting lawfully. However, one of them must give specific and unrivalled information to the other. I speak to Amendment No. 237 and to Amendment No. 244 in the hope that my noble friend will reconsider the matter as I believe the wording I propose is similar to the wording that it seeks to replace. People used to say that the requirement concerning names and addresses would never happen and that an employer would not demand them. Most employers did not demand them but there were cases where that provision gave rise to extreme ill will. I believe that if this provision is not at least rephrased it will give rise to disputes which need never occur.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Committee for agreeing to discuss these amendments
298
to Schedule 3 together. They are not of course the same and they certainly do not go in the same direction but it is useful to consider the whole issue at one time.
I start with Amendments Nos. 238 and 245. The Bill specifies that if the union possesses the information the notices should include at a minimum a description of the number of employees involved, the broad kinds of job they perform and their workplace. The unions will be required to describe as accurately as they possibly can the broad occupational characteristics of their members, their workplace, location and the number of their members involved. But, inevitably, the unions will be limited by the information at their disposal. There may be rare occasions when they will be unable to provide in full the details required by the notice provision. These amendments seek to require unions to provide the information regardless of whether or not it is in their possession.
In most cases, unions should have the necessary information to hand. In the rare cases where they may not, the amendments would, inevitably, require unions to undertake special exercises to collect the information. We have repeatedly said that we will retain the key elements of the law on industrial action—including the requirement on unions to give the employers concerned advance notice of both the ballot and of any official industrial action which may result. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Baroness will agree that it would not be right to require unions to undertake special exercises to collect information in addition to those obligations.
My hope is immediately dashed when I look at Amendments Nos. 236 and 243. These amendments seek to require the unions to make additional enquiries to collect information for the notice other than that already in their possession. We do not want to require unions to do that. We want to reform the law on industrial action ballots in order to reduce the very large administrative burdens on unions. The amendments would serve only to provide additional burdens on unions which would delay or frustrate the organisation of the industrial action.
As the noble Baroness will recognise, that does not mean that we are in favour of industrial action. All are agreed that industrial action is a last resort. But if there is one thing worse than industrial action which takes place according to efficient procedures and as soon as it can once those procedures are gone through, it is industrial action which is threatened and delayed because of administrative procedures and the need to obtain additional information.
The amendments are unnecessary. In general, the notice provisions will mean that employers will receive much the same information as they do now, short of naming the members involved. In all circumstances employers will be able to communicate with their workers by issuing a general letter to all those potentially involved. I hope that the noble Baroness will, on reflection, consider that that is sufficient and IA ill not press the amendments.

299
Before dealing with my noble friend's amendment, perhaps I may turn to Amendment No. 241, which deals with the wording of the statutory statement which all voting papers must contain—the "health warning", as the noble Baroness quite rightly referred to it.
There is general agreement that the existing wording is inadequate because it fails to reflect the new protections against the unfair dismissal of strikers contained in Schedule 5 to the Bill. We have come forward with proposals in paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 which add new wording to the health warning describing the new protections. The wording is intentionally short. A voting paper is not the place to write a detailed account of the new protections. If it contained such an account, people would not read it. Our proposed wording gives an accurate summary of the main protections against dismissal. The amendment seeks to add further wording. I know that it is only two words but, nevertheless, the amendment seeks to draw particular attention to the possibility that dismissal after the first eight weeks of a strike could be fair.
The amendment is unnecessary. Under our proposals the health warning would state that dismissal in this period "may be unfair". I hope that the noble Baroness will concede that the wording already conveys the notion that dismissals could be fair or unfair. That is why we say "may be unfair". I know that the noble Baroness anticipated this argument, but it is still correct. There is no need to complicate the statement by adding the further wording she proposes.
I shall now turn to Amendments Nos. 237 and 244. The fact that these amendments have been grouped does not imply any support for the Opposition amendments. I am glad to have my noble friend's welcome for the changes proposed in the Bill. I agree with him in his criticisms of the previous wording.
The Government believe that the notices are useful to employers, enabling them to act responsibly when faced with the threat of industrial action. However, they are not designed to provide the employer with the information for its own sake. Nor are they designed to enable an employer to victimise the individual employees concerned. The Bill explicitly defines the purpose of the notices. They are to enable the employer to put his side of the argument to his workforce, for them to take into account when participating in the ballot or responding to the union's call to take action; and they are to help the employer to make plans to minimise the adverse effects of possible industrial action on his organisation, on his customers and on the general public. These are sensible objectives and are two justifiable reasons why employers need this information. However, the amendments would seek to remove the latter purpose—that is, the purpose of making plans—from the face of the Bill.
I am sure that my noble friend had in mind the scope of information that unions will be asked to provide in order to enable an employer to make plans but—unless the Committee were unwise enough to accept the Opposition amendment—all the union has to do is to provide information in its possession. There is nothing sinister about this.
300
Let me give as an example the case of a further education college. My noble friend will know the case of Blackpool and Fylde College v. NATFHE. I seldom get an opportunity to quote cases against him. I choose this case because it concerned a college which confirmed that the current law requires the union to provide names. The management knows that a number of lecturers will be called out on strike on a certain day. Unless the union provides the information, the management has no way of knowing which lecturers or where. So they cannot warn students whose classes will be cancelled. But unless the union tell the management, "We are calling out 50 lecturers in the English department and 30 in chemistry" or "There will be 200 lecturers at site A and 100 at site B", the college cannot give its students some warning of the scale of the action.
Perhaps I may give another example—the London Underground. If a union in calling a strike intends to target, say, the Central Line, it is only fair that it should tell London Underground that that is what it is going to do in order that the public using the line can be warned and have the chance to make other arrangements, while users of other lines should know that they will not be affected. Businesses and all organisations depend on their customers, the users of their services. It is in the interest of workers as well as that of management that customers are given as much warning as possible of the likely effects of industrial action. Otherwise they will take their custom elsewhere and they will not come back. The public reaction to a number of public transport strikes is evidence of that.
It may be that this information will reduce the impact of industrial action. I hope that all unions have moved beyond trying to make industrial action as damaging as possible, regardless of the effect on the long-term survival of the business. We are trying to promote a long-term partnership approach. During a short-term dispute, it is important not to lose sight of the overriding common interest of workers and employers in the success of the business.
No additional kind of information will be required to be provided; only that information already in the possession of the unions. We will not place any further burden on unions by requiring them to collect information they do not already hold; and employers cannot insist on receiving information which the unions do not have. The changes we are proposing—including the ability to make plans—are in the interests of employers, unions and workers. They give greater clarity about the nature and purpose of the information to be provided by the unions and they protect workers from having their union membership disclosed to their employer against their will. I believe that we have reached the right balance. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lords who have tabled these amendments will either withdraw them or not move them.
4 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My noble friend talks in terms of the unions having to give virtually all the information that they have to employers to reduce the impact of a dispute on the employer. What is the quid pro quo? Will

301
there be a similar requirement on the employer to provide all the information that the employer has to the union in order to ensure that there is a balance?
My noble friend gave the unfortunate impression in speaking to these amendments that industrial disputes are solely caused by unions. That is not the case. I know of a high-profile national dispute that was engendered by the employers in order to discontinue the production of goods with which there was a problem. The employer engineered a strike in order to stop production, effectively at no cost to itself. I was slightly concerned at the tone of my noble friend's remarks and his suggestion that the cause of industrial disputes lies solely with the trade unions. That is one of my reasons for asking that question.
There is a more significant reason. If trade unions and workers are prevented from having an effect on employers if they are engaged in a dispute they will find some other way of impacting on employers. These are practical issues relating to day-to-day industrial relations. They need to he taken on board. I revert to my original question. Is there a quid pro quo? Will employers have to provide unions with all the information that they have in order to balance the requirement on unions to provide all their information?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In the course of a short speech my noble friend has managed to impute to me words that I certainly did not say and motives that I certainly do not have. First, he said that the Bill states that unions have to give all the information in their possession to the employers. That is not what the Bill states, and it is not what I said. The Bill spells out very clearly the information that has to be provided. It is information that is in the possession of the unions. It cannot include the names and addresses of those who will be involved in the proposed industrial action, and it is defined by the purpose for which it is to be used.
My noble friend went on to suggest that I implied—he does not think that I said—that all strikes are caused by unions and not by employers. I am aware of the word "lock-out" as well as he is. I am aware that there are, and have been, employers who choose to provoke strikes in order to promote their own interests. The law as proposed in the Bill is deliberately and conscientiously even-handed. It has been, as my noble friend knows well, the result of consultation with the TUC as well as the CBI.
My noble friend returned to his first question: what is the quid pro quo? There is already a reciprocal duty, in so far as employers are obliged to disclose information, to recognise unions for the purposes of collective bargaining.
Lord McCarthy: I must stress that we are trying to help. At the same time we are trying to understand. I am not sure that I do understand. Perhaps I may turn the Minister's attention to paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 3 to the Bill. The Government are amending the situation in which in the past an employer could ask for names.
302
As I understand it, the Government want to end that situation. It is stated on the face of the Bill:
"In subsection (2)(c) (notice of ballot must describe employees entitled to vote) for 'describing (so that he can readily ascertain them)"—
that is the present situation—
"the employees of the employer' substitute 'containing such information"—
these are the new words—
"in the union's possession as would help the employer to make plans".
I had assumed that the kind of information that would now have to be supplied to enable the employer to make plans, whatever it might be, would not include names or information that would enable the employer to ascertain names. That was the point of the amendment to the Bi11.
But I understood the Minister to indicate in the examples he gave that it might be possible, under the provision of "making plans", for an employer to demand names or information through which he could readily ascertain names. If that is the case, I do not see that the amendment does anything. That cannot be the case, can it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No. I made it entirely clear that there are no circumstances under which a union can be required to give names and addresses.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I understand what the Minister is saying in regard to Amendments Nos. 236, 238, 243 and 245. I still feel that it is inconceivable that a union would act for employees in the matter of a ballot without knowing for whom it was being done. However, I shall leave that aside for the present.
I am absolutely amazed at Amendment No. 241. I was delighted to hear the Minister agree that the wording was not correct. However, I knew that he would say that "may be unfair" meant that it also "may be fair". I anticipated his remarks. But since the Minister and the Government are concerned that the matter should be clear—which is why they redrafied this section—I cannot see why, even in this small part, the words cannot be "fair or unfair". That would indicate exactly the meaning given by the Minister. However, I shall not press for a Division. As I plead every time, I should like the Government at least to find one small part that makes all the hours that I spend on these speeches worth while. Since the Minister says that "may be unfair" also means "may be fair or unfair", why he cannot simply give in and say, "You can have it, because that is what it means", I know not—which makes me wonder if that really is what it means. But at this stage—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let me look again at that issue before Report stage, without any commitment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: That is most generous of the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 238A:
Page 60, leave out lines 13 and 14 and insert—
(""(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2), the union may state on the ballot paper that relevant action is industrial action short of a strike.
(2B) In subsection (2A) "relevant action" means an overtime ban, a ban on contingency or contact arrangements, a call-out ban, and forms of discontinuous action within subsection (6) of section 234A below.").
The noble Lord said: This is a substantial amendment. The Committee will see in Schedule 3 that the issue addressed by this amendment, and now Amendment No. 242, goes to the central features attending the legality of official industrial action. It is spelt out in paragraph 5 on page 60 that,
"For the purposes of subsection (2) an overtime ban and a call-out ban constitute industrial action short of a strike".
It is important for the Committee to note that this is a statutory prescription as to the character of two types of industrial action which would not normally be regarded as full strike action—but only two.
In order to have industrial action which is legally acceptable, the union is required to put to the members involved either or both of two permitted questions; namely, whether they will strike or whether they will register a view regarding industrial action short of a strike. Many people think that action short of a strike is either a go-slow or an overtime ban or other action of that kind. I must make it clear to the Minister that much of this is not the Government's fault. This has long been a problem, but we submit that it is made worse by the part of the Bill to which I have referred. To explain why, the union must get the voting question right. Members are asked whether they want to take strike action or industrial action short of a strike. If the majority vote for action on one of the questions but the union calls for action on another, the legality is lost. These are very severe limits on the British so-called right to strike. On this technicality (as most people see it) many cases have been taken to court, many by employers who are the obvious plaintiff. To be even remotely fair, the law must give the union and employer a clear definition, as far as possible, of what is a strike and what is action short of a strike.
There are a number of difficulties, three of which I mention. First, the formula as to what is a strike and what is industrial action short of a strike applies not only here but also to a situation in which the employer faces a claim that dismissals in a dispute are improper because they have occurred in the course of industrial action. We come to that in Schedule 5. A strike is defined in Section 246 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 as,
"any concerted stoppage of work".
That is about the least helpful definition that anyone has ever put in a statute about labour law. It does not even say what the purpose is. Students are always quick to note that a concerted stoppage of work would cover those who went off to a football match. Obviously, by implication it means that there is some kind of dispute by virtue of which the stoppage takes place. But the statute does not say so. A stoppage of work can include
304
a stoppage of two minutes, two weeks or two years; it leaves it open to a total stoppage, a go-slow or an overtime ban.
The Court of Appeal faced this problem squarely for the first time in December 1998 in an action in which a rail company, Connex South East, sought an injunction against the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. The case is to be found in Industrial Relations Law Reports [1999]. A new judicial answer was given to the problem. A ballot was taken of some 230 conductors employed by Connex who were asked, "Are you prepared to take strike action?" After that, having gained a majority in the ballot, the union called on members to impose a ban on overtime and rest-day working. Most people thought that perhaps the court would regard that as industrial action short of a strike and therefore that the strike did not count because members had taken part in action short of a strike. Not a bit of it.
Noble Lords may well be surprised that I rather approve of this decision. Connex, which, in hours, went to the High Court, as our procedures allow, and then to the Court of Appeal, had its claim for an injunction turned down. The Court of Appeal said that the definition of a strike—a concerted stoppage of work—left open the possibility of the union imposing an overtime ban from the very beginning. Whereas that might look like an inconsistency, here it was not. The concept of industrial action short of a strike might therefore have a different customary meaning in various industrial sectors. Worse, even at this point the Bill makes the 1992 Act appear self-contradictory. Section 246 of the Act defines "strike" in the way that I have outlined, but the Bill now by law insists on a special meaning according to the provisions in Schedule 3 which it has never had before.
What is more, if your Lordships look at the provision in respect of a strike and industrial action short of a strike, you will see that it now says that an overtime ban and call-out ban constitute industrial action short of a strike. I make no complaint about the Bill overturning a decision of the Court of Appeal. Very often one feels that the sooner it is done the better, but in this particular case one cannot but feel that the provisions on overtime and call-out bans and their mandatory status as industrial action short of a strike relate to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Connex case that such bans are to be looked at in this context, if it allows, as strike action.
This becomes a little more complex. I seek to avoid some of the complexities. The Bill will make obligatory under terms of employment what may not be, in any sensible terms, a contract of employment and therefore a breach, as was said in the Connex case. The Connex case looked at whether those workers should have been working an overtime ban and said that they had and that went to feed the notion that it was a strike.
By this time the law has turned so many circles that one hesitates to add more, but there are more. In the words of one of the judges of the Court of Appeal, to regard an overtime ban as a refusal to work certain periods of time required under a contract of work makes the Bill rather odd. If that is the normal case for workers

305
of this union, then why should the Bill suddenly say that an overtime ban constitutes industrial action short of a strike?
What is more, not only is it a question which the union must put, even if it and its members believe that what they are doing is taking strike action in the linguistics and semantics of that particular area, but the reported judgments also suggest that whether it is a strike or industrial action short of a strike is a matter to be determined in the context of the bodies concerned: the employer perhaps; the union certainly; the employees who are members of the union, and so on.
What the Bill seeks to do is to remove the decision in Connex, which is a perfectly proper thing for a legislature to do, in regard to Section 229 voting papers. There is the subsidiary point that the Bill changes matters only in respect of voting papers. There are other issues, such as the unfair dismissal of a group of workers who take action, where a different meaning may be given, although I cannot easily see a court saying that it should be. However, it is definitely limited to notices and ballot papers for the purposes of the industrial action.
The Committee may believe that this is a matter of interest to employers, workers and present and former trade union leaders, who are now represented in this House, although not as well as they should be. Now that the issue has been raised and there are at least four sets of contradictions arising from various legal statements, would it not be a good idea to take the opportunity at Report stage to make sense of this area of the law? People's rights depends upon this. I refer not only to the rights of employees and trade unions but also rights of employers in the context of unfair dismissal.
In trying to cut down the matter it is in no one's interest to do less than justice to the extraordinary state of the law. I note that my noble friend has an interest at least. It is no radical ambition to ask the Government to look again at this matter, which is an amendment to the existing law—that is to say, paragraph 5(2)(2A). I would like to know why that was included. Why did the Government suddenly decide on all overtime matters, whether or not they were contractual? The Government know as well as I that some workers are on contractual overtime and some are on voluntary overtime. There are different parts of the spectrum in between. Why did they suddenly launch this bombshell? Why was it kept to overtime and call-out bans? Our amendment suggests a few others. But, if a proper job were to be done, our amendment would have to be reworded and cover a much greater area.
But there is a matter which is much more important than that. Have the Government understood the difficulties which employers, trade unions and employees will be in? If a union has always talked about an overtime ban as a right to strike, which was the case in Connex, why should it be prevented? It is in no one's interests for it to be prevented from giving to the members a ballot paper which says that, our action has been a strike and everyone knows about overtime bans. But the Bill says that one cannot say that. Not only cannot one do it, but one cannot say it without losing
306
all one's rights in industrial action of an official kind. I plead with the Minister to take us at least one-tenth of the way and say that a small area of this amendment will be looked on with favour. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As always, I Lim grateful to my noble friend for his critique of the previous legislation which this legislation seeks to amend. When he used the phrase "concerted stoppage of work" and said that it could last for two minutes, two days or two months, I was tempted to ask him whether the two minutes' silence on Armistice Day would count as a concerted stoppage of work for the purposes of the legislation. I shall not ask for an answer because I sure that he would have to charge me.
I remind the Committee that we are dealing with a voting paper. That is what this part of the legislation is about. We should not go wider than the issue of what should appear on it. The Government propose to amend Section 229 of the 1992 Act which sets the legal framework within which unions must operate when designing the voting papers that they use in industrial action ballots. It provides that the union must describe the proposed industrial action on ballot papers as either a strike or action short of a strike. Clearly, it is important to have that distinction from the point of view of being sure that those being asked to vote know how serious is the issue. Despite the final words of my noble friend, it is not important in terms of rights being lost. I here are no rights being lost as to whether it is a strike or action short of a strike.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Whether or not one calls it a right is a matter of taste. But if one asks the wrong question and the court says that one has asked one kind of question instead of another, then one loses one's "right" to pursue an industrial dispute.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I thought that the noble Lord was suggesting that there were more rights for action short of a strike than for a strike itself. If there is a misdescription, then it is clearly important that the union should get it right, and that is our intention in this legislation.
We recognise that the term "strike" can be used in a variety of ways. Some occupations and industries give it one meaning and in others it is used differently. But we believe that most workers and employers are likely to consider that a strike is occurring when it involves the withdrawal of labour during normal working hours. That is the basis on which we have framed Schedule 3 and on which we have said that overtime and call-out bans constitute action short of a strike. I shall return to the Connex case in a moment when discussing Amendment No. 242. That is the definition of the term that we shall use to assess the amendments which my noble friend has tabled.
I begin with Amendment No. 238A. My first worry about it is that it says,
"the union may state on the ballot paper that relevant action is industrial action short of a strike".

307
It does not say that it has to mention one or the other. The second problem is the phrase "contingency or contact arrangements". My noble friend's knowledge of employer relations is far greater than mine. I am not familiar with the phrase and I do not really know what it means.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am very grateful to my noble friend. We can deal with the matter very quickly without going into all the details. They are phrases used in unreported decisions which are in the Connex judgment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to my noble friend for that. As it is unreported it means that I do not know about it. I might even have a justification for not knowing.
The effect of the amendment is to give unions the discretion to describe a wide range of potential forms of action as "action short of a strike". In effect, only an all-out strike would have to be categorised as a strike. The intention of the amendment is to require a form of action to be described as "action short of a strike", but that is not what it says. Two kinds of problems arise. First, it seems to give the unions the discretion of describing the actions as a strike or action short of a strike. It could describe an overtime ban as a strike on one occasion, but action short of a strike in an identical case. That would create confusion for both employers and union members. There would be no consistency and people simply would not know what they were voting for.
Secondly—and this applies whatever the intention of the amendment—I am unhappy about the categorisation of all discontinuous industrial action as action short of a strike. It would mean that a strike on certain days of the week need not be described as a strike on the ballot paper. I doubt whether many workers would share that understanding of the meaning of a strike. For them, any non-attendance at work during normal working hours would be seen as a strike. So describing it as action short of a strike, which would be permitted by the amendment, would be seriously misleading and would potentially subvert the purpose of the ballot.
The current wording of the schedule is the right way ahead. It clarifies the status of overtime bans and call-out bans. It ensures that the various forms of industrial action are categorised on ballot papers in ways which most union members would readily understand.
I turn now to Amendment No. 242. In introducing both these amendments my noble friend referred to the judgment of the High Court in Connex v. RMT. That was clearly an important ruling and it helped to remove the uncertainty about the status of overtime bans. As my noble friend reminded the Committee, the court ruled that overtime bans should be treated as strikes.
We studied the High Court judgment when the schedule was drafted. We took the view that although the judgment had largely removed the uncertain status of overtime bans, it had nonetheless placed the bans in a category which would make less sense to those voting
308
in industrial action ballots. Overtime bans are outside normal working hours and selective in their effect. Most workers would not normally classify such bans as strikes. Indeed, the Court of Appeal accepted that that was the case. Workers tend to see strikes as events which affect normal working in a non-selective way. We therefore decided to classify overtime bans as "action short of a strike", thus ensuring that the law reflected the general understanding of the term. I believe that that will limit the potential for misunderstanding among union members.
However, there is potentially a tension between the wording in Section 246 and the definition of an overtime ban as "action short of a strike" for the purposes of Section 229. Amendment No. 242 seeks to remove that possible tension. As such, it serves a useful purpose and I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing it to my attention.
We are not entirely sure that the exact wording of the amendment is ideal and would like to consider the matter further. Nevertheless, my noble friend has skilfully drawn an important issue to our attention and I assure the Committee that the Government will return on Report with an amendment of their own to deal with this matter. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: In view of his last remarks, I am sure that my noble friend will expect me to say a few words. We are grateful to my noble friend for reconsidering the definition. That is what Amendment No. 242 seeks to achieve.
Perhaps I may make a twofold prediction. First, if one changes the definition by reference to Section 229, it will be found necessary to refer to the main section with regard to what the ballot paper must provide. In doing that—this is my second point—I predict that the Government will be driven to certain results if they do not want certain provisions on the statute book, although I add that these are not necessarily worse than those which preceded them. Those earlier provisions were characterised by hostility to workers.
In trying to find a new definition, I predict that the Government will find that they really should seize the moment. There are very few moments when such a question may be raised. It has been raised by the Connex case. Indeed, the Government raised it in paragraph 5(2). I did not raise it; the Government did. If they are raising the issue, surely they are obliged to look again at the usage of the terms "strike" and "industrial action short of a strike". Even if their conclusion goes against me, I ask them to do that. I beg leave to—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, I have already said that I should like to meet him to discuss the matter between now and Report. I hope that he will put this on the agenda.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I should be delighted. It is always a delight to meet my noble friend

309
and it will be even better with the agenda with which I shall provide him! I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 239 and 240 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 241 to 245 not moved.] Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Training]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 245A:
Page 2, line 36, after ("must") insert ("if required to by the decision of the Central Arbitration Committee")
The noble Baroness said: Purely in response to the Minister's generosity, I do not intend to move this amendment or the other two amendments in the group. I know that he has undertaken only to "consider" Amendment No. 241, but I shall take away these three amendments in the same spirit and shall reconsider them at home.
[Amendment No. 245A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 245B and 245C not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Maternity and parental leave]:
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the B ill?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): Clauses 7 to 9 bring into effect Parts I to III of Schedule 4, concerning maternity and parental leave and time off for domestic incidents, together with the consequential amendments. I shall cover these in more detail when we come to Schedule 4. I commend the provisions to the Committee.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Leave for Family and Domestic Reasons]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 246:
Page 62, line 40, leave out ("permit") and insert ("require")
The noble Baroness said: This is a minor amendment to avoid a possible over-reaction to what may be a very commonplace situation. The Bill states that an employer shall not permit an employee to work during a compulsory maternity leave period. This simple amendment alters the wording to, "An employer shall not require an employee to work during a compulsory maternity leave period". As the late Professor Joad used to say, it all depends on what you mean by "work".
If an employer telephones a secretary and asks, "Where is the Bloggins file?", technically when she replies, that is working. There is much non-arduous work, especially of a clerical nature, that can be done at home these days, in the employee's own time and at the employee's own convenience. I do not categorise as non-arduous the
310
drafting of amendments to Bills or of the speaking; notes to deal with them! If the secretary can assist her employer, especially if it is a small firm which cannot afford a temporary replacement, by doing some word-processing, or if a book-keeper can just as easily do the weekly wages at home on the dining-room table, or if a sales person can maintain her all-important personal contact with her customers during her absence from the office, why not allow her to do so, if and providing she wants to do so? I stress, if she is willing to do so.
I am sure that the Government will argue that that absolute prohibition will prevent pressure being placed on an employee to do some work. However, I do not believe that that is a valid argument. The revised wording is absolutely clear. If an employer asks an employee to help him out with some task or other, the employee is absolutely entitled to refuse. The employer cannot, under the amendment, require her to do so. However, it is absurd that the making of a simple telephone call asking the employee where the keys of the stationer,' cupboard are means that the employer is committing an offence under these provisions, rendering him liable to a fine of up to £5,000.
Once the right to maternity leave is incorporated into our law and into the relationship between employer and employee, I do not dispute the need to protect employees from exploitation or from being subjected to pressures by an employer to avoid or evade it. However, I think that in the clause as presently drafted the Government are using a shotgun and are taking no regard of what the employee may think is reasonable or proper. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: I hope that the Government will resist this amendment. If it were accepted, it might reasonably be called the "It's up to you" amendment. if the law states that an employer shall not permit an employee to do something, it is the responsibility of the employer to ensure that it does not happen, and if it does happen, that is the employer's responsibility. An employer cannot say to an employee, "It's up to you. If you would like to help me and to be co-operative, you will come in on Sunday". That is not what the noble Baroness wants. She wants the Bill to state that an employer "shall not require". In other words, the employer can say, "I don't require you to do this, but it would be very nice if you did". That is the same as saying, "It' s up to you". Those who know anything about the balance of power between, for example, employers and their secretaries know exactly what pressures employers put on secretaries when they say, "It's up to you". So I sincerely hope, if this is to mean anything, that the Government will not accept the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Amendment No. 246A is grouped with these amendments. The amendment sets out to define what is meant by the word "remuneration". It would include childcare vouchers, luncheon vouchers and holiday stamps. This amendment has been suggested to me by the Law Society of Scotland. It is a probing amendment and has the aim of soiling out the ambiguity over which employee benefits constitute

311
pay and which do not. Absolute parity on this issue will be essential for those who have to implement the provisions of this Bill when enacted.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: These amendments relate to different aspects of maternity provision and so I will take each of them in turn. Amendment No. 246 relates to compulsory maternity leave. I am somewhat surprised by the concern which this provision has generated both here and in the other place. The compulsory maternity leave provision was put in place by the previous administration to give effect to the Pregnant Workers Directive which required member states to introduce a period of compulsory leave for women around the time of childbirth.
In 1994, when the directive was implemented, this requirement was translated into a ban on women working during the two weeks following the birth, coinciding with the period when most women would be on maternity leave. I doubt whether many women are keen to return to work within two weeks of having a baby, but if the onus is on the employer to ensure that the employee does not return to work within this period, the employee cannot be pressurised to return to work immediately after childbirth and cannot be forced to bear any additional strain of having to assert her rights at such a busy and stressful time.
We do not intend to change this safeguard. It is a health and safety provision, applicable in circumstances where there is a real risk to women's health. We believe it is entirely right that women should be afforded the maximum protection during this time.
Amendment No. 246A seeks to ensure that a partial definition of "remuneration" is included in the Bill itself. The right to remuneration is the element of a woman's terms and conditions of employment which will continue during ordinary and additional maternity leave only if her contract provides for it to continue during this period. It is generally regarded as the monetary element of a woman's wages or salary, the element which is normally replaced by statutory maternity pay or maternity allowance.
The definition of "remuneration" is not easy, especially given the wide variety of remunerative benefits available to the workforce in a modern economy. The amendment lists three possibilities: childcare vouchers, luncheon vouchers and holiday stamps. I am sure that others would suggest more along similar lines, and we would be very reluctant to put such a precise definition on it at this stage, if at all. However, we are committed to consulting on this issue and will be in a better position to judge what the definition should be at the end of the consultation period. I hope I have clarified our thinking on these two issues, and in doing so, I hope I have persuaded the noble Baroness and the noble Earl to withdraw their respective amendments.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I will accept the Minister's suggestion, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 246A not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 247:
Page 64, line 17, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall make regulations entitling an employee to leave when a child is lawfully placed with that employee for adoption for periods and on terms and conditions (including remuneration) equivalent to those to which an employee would be entitled in the event of maternity.")
The noble Lord said: In paragraph 5.23 of the White Paper, Fairness at Work, the Government recognised that parents who adopt a child have no statutory right to take leave from work. They also recognised that adoption is valuable for society and also that adoptive parents have as much need as others to spend time with their children. In the same paragraph, however, they went on to say that the Government did not intend that adoptive mothers should have the same maternity rights as birth mothers. Other countries in Europe do provide paid leave for adopters and indeed a few firms in this country also do so. Presumably those employers who allow paid adoption leave recognise the importance of retaining staff who want to take time off for adoption purposes and recognise that only very few will wish to take advantage of the benefit offered.
They must also be taken to recognise the wider social value of adoption to the community, not to mention the cost benefits of taking children out of care and into permanent families. Apparently the Government's reason for distinguishing between maternity provision and adoption is simply that maternity provision exists to protect the health and safety of mothers and babies, which does not apply in respect of adoption. While it is true that there are health considerations underpinning maternity rights and benefits, that is a limited and insufficient justification, I suggest, for excluding adopters' equivalent rights. By the use of the word "equivalent", I do not argue for identical rights, but prospective adopters should not be discriminated against. Both natural and adoptive parents have to give that most valuable of all commodities to the children for whom they become responsible; namely, time.
The process of adoption is hazardous and demanding, even though the hazards and demands are not the same as those of maternity and natural parenthood. A successful adoption requires skilled preparation and prospective adopters have to go through rigorous procedures. Even if the adoption is uncontested, there is the requirement for a child to be placed with them for a minimum of 13 weeks. They are scrutinised, assessed and reported upon by specialist social workers and the child's guardian.
At the end of this process and transition period, they have to attend a court hearing. They may then need post-adoption support. Above all, they have to bond with the child and to settle and integrate him or her fully into their own household and family. There may be residual difficulties with the child's natural parents to contend with. In every case the adopters will have to devote time and energy to meeting a child's individual needs and to forming the attachment which is needed to make the placement work. If it does not work, not only are the adopters profoundly disappointed but the child is let down yet again.
In this country there is a serious shortage of families willing and able to adopt. particularly those able to take on the children who are most in need of a stable placement within an adoptive family. They make considerable sacrifices to enter a long-term commitment with sometimes damaged children who have been let down by other adults, who all too often have been moved around within the childcare system. Some adopters do not always take on just a single child but may be prepared to take on siblings M order to give them a chance of being brought up together. The child or children they take on may have been abused and neglected, and will almost always be insecure after disruptive lives that most of us can only try to imagine.
It will help to encourage prospective adopters if those who are employed know that, apart from other sacrifices they may willingly make, they will not have to risk financial stress at an anxious time for the prospective adopters and at a critical time for the child concerned.
Adoption, as distinct from fostering, does not produce an automatic financial allowance. Suitable adopters are a precious and scarce resource. At present the adoption rate is falling and too many children remain in homes until released before they are adults, deprived of the family security which adoption would have provided.
This whole area of the Bill proceeds on the basis that loyalty to an employer need not conflict with loyalty to the family, while recognising that each can make demands on time and energy which have to be balanced and reconciled. Even if the adoption rate picks up, the proposal in this amendment will not affect many employers or employees. Those who would need or wish to take advantage of it will be far fewer than those who will claim the improved maternity rights given by the Bill. Those employees who make these sacrifices and commitments should not have to do so on unpaid leave or at the risk of losing their job. This amendment, or something like it, could do a great deal of good at minimal cost. The Government expressly claim to support families. By accepting the thrust of this amendment they will justify their claim. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I believe that adoption is valuable to society, and adoptive parents and their children of course need time to bond and adapt to their new circumstances. I recognise the situation the noble Lord describes, but we come from a slightly different direction.
The Bill marks a significant step forward by making it possible to establish for the first time a statutory right to parental leave for adoptive parents. The noble Lord suggests that natural and adoptive parents should be given parity in terms of maternity leave and pay. The maternity rights are designed to meet the specific needs of new and expectant mothers; they are special provisions, predicated on health and safety considerations specific to women who are about to give or have just given birth and for that reason are permitted under European equal treatment law.
The health and safety rationale does not apply in the case of adoption. Extending the rights beyond pregnant women, however deserving the case of an adoptive
314
mother of a young baby, could be discriminatory if men were excluded, and to cover fathers as well could raise other issues. I think that that highlights that the two situations are not directly comparable. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. Meanwhile, we shall continue with our consultation on the parental leave regulations which we can tailor to the special circumstances of adoption which he mentioned.
Lord Meston: I am glad to hear the Government reiterate the recognition that adoption is extremely valuable and that time is needed for a successful adoption. I also accept that the parental leave provisions give some opportunity which does not exist at present. But parental leave, as I understand it, is not to be paid leave.
I sought to suggest that the health and safety rationale which underlies maternity leave—I do not pretend that it is comparable with the requirements for adoption—nevertheless is an insufficient reason for discriminating against those who wish to adopt. I do not seek to repeat those reasons.
In opposing the amendment I suggest that the Government underestimate the difficulties facing adopters and the value of adoption at this time when more and more children are being retained in the care system. Looked at from the point of view of the wider good of society, this amendment, or something like it, should be given serious consideration. I do not propose to press the amendment at this stage, but reserve my position for later stages of the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 248:
Page 64, line 23, at end insert ("who is related to the employee as either a natural or adopted child or grandchild or stepchild or whom the employee has been appointed to foster or of whom the employee is otherwise in loco parentis,")
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 249, 250 and.51A to 254. This group of amendments relates to that part of Schedule 4, principally paragraph 76, dealing with parental leave, which the Government describe in the notes as "new". That is why it requires some tidying up.
The amendments can be explained simply. Amendment No. 248 inserts a definition at the end of paragraph 76(1)(b) of what constitutes a child. It includes a child who is related to the employee in very broad terms: a natural or adopted child; a grandchild or a stepchild; a child whom the employee has been appointed to foster; a child to whom the employee is in loco parentis. Those definitions cover every item which could come within any reasonable definition of a child. The last one, someone to whom the employee is in loco parentis, would take care of special cases coming within a well defined legal concept. It ensures that an employee cannot take advantage of the limitless definition contained in the Bill as drafted. For example, temporarily looking after a sister's child while she goes off on holiday, or a next-door neighbour's child while

315
she is in hospital, may be commendable and neighbourly but not at the employer's expense and inconvenience and possibly to the detriment of his business.
Amendment No. 249 makes clear that the parental leave is unpaid. This follows the assurance from the Government in the Explanatory Notes, on page 39 at paragraph 160, that,
"the employment contract will continue in existence during parental leave and the terms and conditions of employment, other than remuneration, continue to apply".
That is stated in the notes. The amendment clarifies the provision in the Bill.
Amendment No. 250 alters sub-paragraph (4). Paragraph 76 states that the Secretary of State shall make regulations regarding the operation of parental leave. Paragraph 76(2) states that the regulations "shall" include provision about entitlement to parental leave and when it may be taken. Paragraph 76(3) states that the regulations "shall" contain certain provisions in the employee's interests. The word "shall" appears in all three cases. However, when we turn to the important sub-paragraph dealing with when the leave may be taken, it is entirely permissive as to whether there is reference to the child's age or on what date or event the entitlement starts. I believe that it is pointless to allow the starting date to be left up in the air. Unless the age or event is specified, someone could claim leave when their child is already in full-time schooling, or later. I shall return to that possibility later. As the earlier parts of the paragraph are mandatory, I believe that the short descriptive paragraph must be consistent, and likewise must be mandatory.
Amendment No. 251A has been slightly altered since it was first tabled as Amendment No. 251. It originally stated:
"not extending beyond school leaving age".
That was due to a slip of the pen (or perhaps more accurately a slip of the keyboard) for which I apologise. The amendment now reads,
"not extending beyond the child's 5th birthday unless the child has special needs".
Clearly, unless we put some cap on the closing date for parental leave, we may find that people try it on and attempt to take leave when the child is quite old enough to look after himself or herself to a certain extent. Why should an employer be burdened with parental leave when, for example, the child is 10 years old? The directive on parental leave puts a cap at the age of eight years. There is no reason why the Government should not follow suit unless they are planning to do even more gold plating—to which we shall come later.
I believe that it would be safer if the Secretary of State had some constraint in the Bill. In paragraph 159 of the Explanatory Notes the Government claim that sub-paragraphs (2)(b) and (4) will,
"enable the regulations to set the maximum age … in respect of [when] parental leave may be taken".
Why should the Secretary of State not bite the bullet and tell us now what he may have in mind?
Paragraph 159 of the Explanatory Notes states that the maximum age,
"could be below 8 years, the upper limit specified in the Parental Leave Directive".
The phrase is "could be" rather than "will be." Since the Government appear to indicate that they might go for an age lower than eight, I take the liberty of suggesting a figure. That is why I propose the age of five. I think that eight is more in line with the school starting age for children on the Continent. If it is reduced in that way, I believe that it would reduce the burden on small and medium-sized enterprises.
Amendment No. 252 alters sub-paragraph (5)(e) so that as well as specifying the minimum period of parental leave, the regulation should specify the maximum. There can be no case for an open-ended entitlement. The Committee will have noted that sub-paragraph (5) is permissive. The Secretary of State may refer to various qualifying matters relating to parental leave, so there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to stipulate a minimum period of leave. However, if he does so, he should also specify the maximum. Fair is fair, as I said on earlier amendments, especially when the Government have claimed that they will be even-handed.
Amendment No. 253 is self-explanatory. When making his regulations, the Secretary of State should have regard to the needs of the employer and his business as well as to the wishes of the employee. That is no more than is allowed in the directive, as I shall mention on a later amendment. There is no reason why the Secretary of State should tie his hands or deprive himself of the right to take a very relevant factor into consideration when the directive unequivocally gives him some direction.
Finally, in this group, Amendment No. 254 modifies paragraph 79(1)(b), which empowers the Secretary of State to require employers to keep records. It does not say records about what, but I have to assume that it means when an employee has taken parental leave. I have proposed that records maintained for tax and other statutory purposes may be made use of. They may not be entirely sufficient on their own, which is why in my amendment I have simply stated "made use of'.
What we do not want is to have a requirement for another lot of form filling to be imposed on businesses, which is often a burdensome requirement for very small businesses. When I proposed a similar provision in the National Minimum Wage Bill as it passed through your Lordships' House, it was vigorously shot down by the Minister in charge. but, nevertheless, the regulations made under that Act specify that tax records may be used for the purposes of establishing the hours worked and the wages paid.
It is clear that the Government will follow the course proposed in the amendment sooner or later, so I believe that they could save a lot of time and make the change now. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: I am minded to support my noble friend in these amendments. I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee by reiterating the arguments she made, but I wish to raise two issues which do not appear to he clear. I say "appear to be clear" because the Bill is enormously complex. That is because it is an intrusive Bill and many Members of both sides of the Committee believe that there is a degree of complexity, perhaps driven by the draftsmen and the lawyers, to bottle up every conceivable variation of circumstance and noble purpose. But, of course, they will fail. Sooner or later, someone will find something in this.
My question relates to the leave, which I understand is to be unpaid. How does it affect the employer's liability to contribute to pension schemes? Does the employer have to continue to make contributions? Where the employee's leave is unpaid, is he eventually at a disadvantage in the pension scheme if he does not make the contribution, despite the fact that he is not being paid during the period off work? How does it affect the entitlement to annual bonuses? Is it to be expected that the employer will be under some obligation to pay a full annual bonus to those who are taking leave under the provision of this Bill, which is unpaid? It would be helpful if the Minister could give us. as best he can, the answers to those questions.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: This group of amendments focuses on the details of parental leave. I am pleased to have an opportunity to set out our thinking on these issues.
Of course, there is always a balance to be struck between clarity, for which we are striving, and covering the aspects in proper detail. In this regard, we have tried to meet the issue by establishing the principle and covering the more detailed aspects in regulations. However, I agree that it is always necessary to try to hold that balance.
I know that the noble Baroness raised many of these points out of her concern for the regulatory impact upon business. I can assure her that we take these matters seriously. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has decided to take a new approach with the parental leave regulations. He intends to operate with a light touch and to place emphasis on encouraging employers and employees to agree between themselves the arrangements which best suit them.
The Bill reflects this approach by providing for collective and workforce agreements to "opt out" of the details of the regulations. Our intention is to set out the basic right to parental leave in the regulations and to provide a fall-back arrangement which will automatically take effect if employers and employees cannot agree on, or do not wish to make, their own arrangements. This approach has gained the support of both sides of industry. We shall be consulting further on the details of the fall-back scheme.
I now turn to some of the detail raised. What should be covered is a key question. Amendment No. 248 suggests that natural and adopted children, grandchildren, stepchildren, foster children and children
318
placed with other adults who are in loco parentis could and should benefit from those responsible for them being able to qualify to take parental leave. In doing so, it highlights the various family circumstances in which children grow up and underlines just how important parental leave could be to a large slice of the workforce involved in bringing up the next generation.
We are considering these matters very carefully. Our intention is to cover those responsible for caring for a child and for the Secretary of State to use the power set out in the Bill to specify what counts as such responsibility in the regulations. We need to arrive at a definition which is effective, but simple for employers to operate.
Amendment No. 249 is concerned to ensure that employers are free of any doubts that parental leave is to be unpaid. We are absolutely clear, and have been from the outset, that there will be no requirement for employers to pay parental leave. The Bill provides for that.
Unlike new Sections 71 and 73 of the Employment Rights Act, which appear in Chapter I of Schedule 4 to the Bill and relate to maternity leave, new Section 76, relating to parental leave, does not itself confer a right to leave. It provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations which will in turn provide for a right to parental level.
New Section 77, which appears on page 65 of the Bill, requires that these regulations should provide for an employee's terms and conditions of employment to continue to apply while the employee is on parental leave, although only to such extent as may be prescribed in the regulations. That covers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, as to the balance between remuneration and other aspects of terms and conditions which will there be specified.
Further down the page, subsection (2)(b) of new Section 77 states that the terms and conditions that are to continue—except to the extent that regulations do not exclude this—do not include terms and conditions about remuneration. Accordingly, there is no provision for employees to continue to be paid during parental leave. Any requirement for employers to provide paid parental leave would require new primary legislation.
Broadly speaking, Amendments Nos. 250, 250A and 252 deal with matters relating to how and when parental leave should be taken, and I will cover them together. The Bill enables regulations to be made setting out how and when parental leave can be taken. For example, we can provide for parental leave to be taken before the child reaches a certain age, for it to be taken flexibly or in blocks, spread out over a period of time or concentrated in a shorter spell, the intention being to arrive at a scheme which will be manageable for employers while still giving sufficient flexibility to employees. There is power in the Bill for regulations to allocate the amount of parental leave which can be taken to a given period and to require it to be taken as a single block.
I am aware that some employers do not want leave to be taken in dribs and drabs of a day or two at a time. Others would have difficulties if a key employee wished to take

319
the whole three months at once. The important thing is that employers will have freedom to come to agreements with the workforce about these matters, either through collective, workforce or individual agreements.
On the specific matters raised by these amendments, our current thinking is to link entitlement to parental leave to the child's age or to a specific period of time starting, for example, from the adoption of a child. We do not envisage going wider than the criteria in subsection (4) of new Section 76 which Amendment No. 250 seeks to make mandatory. However, we believe that it is undesirable to rule out any option of doing so when we have not yet consulted on our proposals.
The Bill also allows for different provision to be made in different cases and we have been consulting the relevant agencies about the merits and drawbacks of varying the provisions in circumstances such as adoption or where there are special needs.
Amendment No. 252 would allow the regulations to prescribe a maximum period which may be taken as part of a period of parental leave. I have reflected upon that and consider that it could give us some useful additional options when drawing up the regulations. However, as drafted, it would require the regulations to set both minimum and maximum periods, which may not be desirable. We should at least consult on that. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. This is the moment she has been waiting for. We accept the amendment in principle. The noble Baroness may miss her great moment if she is not careful. While she was talking, I was in principle accepting the point about the maximum. However, I made the point that we need to consult on the matter. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will enjoy the moment and will withdraw her amendment so that the Government can bring forward a revised version on Report.
Amendments Nos. 253 and 254 seek to ensure that, in drawing up the regulations, we take account of the needs of business and, in particular, minimise the burden of record-keeping. The amendments set out important and sensible principles and I have described what our approach is to be.
Of course, we need to produce a set of fall-back regulations which are workable for both employers and employees. That is why we have worked closely with employers, including small employers, from the very beginning. The White Paper specifically sought views on the particular difficulties which small employers may face and how to alleviate them. Ministers have met representative employer organisations and will take careful account of their views. Employers have told us that they want record-keeping requirements to be kept to a minimum and we agree that it is a matter of good practice and common sense for them to draw on existing records where possible.
In particular, there are a number of provisions which will take account of the needs of business. For example, employers will be able to postpone parental leave where there are operational or business reasons for doing so. We shall ensure that the notice periods are adequate for the amount of leave requested; we shall aim to ensure that
320
record-keeping requirements, if any, are not unduly burdensome; and employers and employees will be able to make arrangements which are particularly suited to their circumstances.
We are giving a great deal of thought to the wide range of views on those issues. We shall use the scope provided in the Bill to produce a fall-back scheme which is simple, flexible and workable for both employers and employees and which can be followed where they do not agree different arrangements. We shall consult on our proposals. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Tebbit for tapping me on the shoulder at the appropriate moment so that I did not miss the very good news about Amendment No. 252. I have had two good pieces of news today, although I know that one of those is not necessarily set in stone. That is too much for me to ignore.
I shall read carefully what the Minister said about Amendment No. 249. If I understood him correctly, it appears that there may not be a problem. The Bill may already provide that it is "unpaid." In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 249 to 250 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 251 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 251A to 255 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 256:
Page 67, line 18, leave out from ("hours") to end of line 19 and insert ("on grounds of force majeur for urgent family reasons in case of sickness or accident making the immediate presence of the worker indispensable")
The noble Baroness said: I am slightly confused. In the circumstances, as my notes are together. I shall not move this amendment. I may return on Report to some of the amendments which have not been moved.
[Amendment No. 256 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 257 to 258A not moved.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 258B:
Page 70, line 5, leave out paragraphs 12 and 13 and insert—
("12. In section 88(1)(c) (notice period: employment with normal working hours) after "childbirth" insert "or on parental leave".
13. In section 89(3)(b) (notice period: employment without normal working hours) after "childbirth" insert "or on parental leave".")
The noble Lord said: I hope that by making that small concession we have not totally upset the noble Baroness's afternoon. However, we are grateful for the speed with which we have dealt with those amendments.
This group of amendments deals with some small technical but complex changes to the Bill. The first amendment in the group remedies a small defect in the current drafting. Under existing provisions, an employee who has given notice while on maternity leave is entitled to be paid during the minimum statutory notice period,

321
whether or not she was otherwise being paid while on leave and whether the maternity leave itself was statutory or contractual. That is in line with the treatment of notice in other cases where an employee may be on unpaid leave, such as sick leave. It ensures a minimum level of protection for an employee whose job is terminating and so underlines the purpose of the statutory notice provisions.
In line with that purpose, in Part III, paragraphs 12 and 14 of Schedule 4 are intended to extend the protection to employees who may be absent on parental leave during a notice period. In doing so, however, they have inadvertently narrowed the protection to those on statutory, as opposed to contractual, maternity leave. The amendment rectifies that defect.
Amendments Nos. 259 and 298 are related, so for simplicity I shall take them together. These are small technical amendments which take into account an amendment made to the Employment Rights Act 1996 by the Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998 which we had missed. Paragraph 21(2) of Schedule 1 to the 1998 Act inserted into Section 1 18(1)(b) of the 1996 Act a reference to a new Section 127A. This amendment takes account of that insertion in removing from Section 118(1)(b) the reference to Section 127, which the Bill repeals.
Section 127 deals with compensation due where a woman who qualifies for the statutory right to return during the period of 29 weeks after the end of her maternity leave is unfairly dismissed at or after the end of her maternity leave. The section is being repealed in consequence of the repeal of the other provisions of the Employment Rights Act relating to the right to return.
Amendments Nos. 260 and 299 are also related. Paragraph 46 of Schedule 4 provides for the omission of Section 227(4)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the word "but" immediately following it. However, that is already achieved by means of Clause 31(1)(a) and so is unnecessary. Amendment No. 260 therefore omits paragraph 46 from the Bill.
As regards Amendment No. 299, the previous amendment left out paragraph 46 from Schedule 4 to the Bill because Clause 31(1)(a) already achieves the same effect. Lines 13 and 14 of page 90 of the Bill reflect paragraph 46 of Schedule 4 and are also unnecessary, hence Amendment No. 299 to remove them. Amendment No. 260A removes an inconsistency in the Bill. The Government gave an assurance in the other place that the regulations would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure to allow further opportunity for proper scrutiny and debate, and the Bill was amended accordingly. However, the powers relating to detriment and dismissal remain exercisable subject to the negative resolution procedure. By making these powers also subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, we are ensuring that all the powers relating to family leave can be exercised in a single instrument so that users of the regulations can find them all in one place.
I commend the amendment to the House on the grounds that it aids both consistency and simplicity. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 259:
Page 71, line 8, leave out from ("general)") to end of line 9 and insert ("omit ", 127"")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 260 and 260A:
Page 72, line 25, leave out paragraph 46
Page 72, line 29, leave out paragraph 48 and insert—
("48.—(l) Section 236 (orders and regulations) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(a) after "order" insert "or regulations".
(3) In subsection (3)—

(a) after "and no order" insert "or regulations",

(b) for "72(3), 73(5), 79(3)," substitute "47C, 57A. 57C, 71, 72, 73, 76, 81, 99,", and

(c) for "or order" substitute ", order or regulations"")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Right to be accompanied]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 261:
Page 5, line 11, at end insert (", and
(d) is to he permitted to take a written record of the hearing")
The noble Lord said: This is the beginning of a large group of amendments. I therefore wish to speak first to Amendment No. 261. Clause 10 provides for a worker's right to be accompanied in certain circumstances. The limits of that right will be discussed in relation to other amendments.
Clause 10(2) specifies that a person accompanying may address the disciplinary or grievance hearing and that he or she may confer with the worker during that hearing. The amendment modestly proposes that it should also be expressly stated that the companion may take a written record. The amendment is the product of too many hours in employment tribunals arguing about or seeking to establish what was or was not said during a disciplinary or grievance hearing.
These hearings can turn out to be of considerable significance in subsequent proceedings. Given the fallibility of human memory, there is no substitute for a good contemporaneous record. I recall one case in which a line manager would not allow an employee to take any sort of note of a critical meeting. I recall many more in which the employers had someone present taking a record which was later typed up and, later still, sent to the employee for agreement or comment even though that note was plainly inadequate. For example, a disciplinary hearing which lasted for well over an hour was reduced to a few short, inaccurate paragraphs. Yet that may be the only written record for appeal or tribunal proceedings which may take place months or even years later. The amendment would therefore add the taking of a written record to the list of the minimum things the worker's companion may do.
Perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 266 within this group which stands in my name. The amendment provides that:
"The provisions of sections 10 to 12 of this Act are without prejudice to the ability of an employment tribunal when appropriate in the circumstances of a case to hold that a worker has been unfairly treated—

(a) if he was not permitted to be accompanied at any hearing by some other suitable person (whether or not a person mentioned in section 10(3)); or

(b) if his employer failed to provide any, or any sufficient, disciplinary or grievance procedure."

Clause 10 is based on a number of assumptions which do not always apply in practice. First, it assumes that there is a disciplinary or grievance procedure established or adopted within the meaning of Clause 13(4). Secondly, it assumes that there is a union official or fellow worker who is willing and able to accompany the employee. Thirdly, it assumes that an official or fellow worker is the appropriate person to be there in the circumstances.
The new clause may be misunderstood as suggesting that in other situations it will not be necessary, or even desirable, for employers in the interests of fairness to allow other people to accompany the employee. In reality there may be situations in which the employee wishes or prefers to have present an interpreter, a relative or some other outside adviser. To give examples, in a non-disciplinary context when a dismissal on health grounds is being considered there may be a medical adviser who could be there. A disabled employee may want a carer to be there. Another employee may need to discuss or explain personal difficulties and he or she may reasonably not want those known about by other colleagues, but instead may want the moral support or practical assistance of a close friend or relation.
In other cases, if a disciplinary charge involves an allegation of criminal behaviour, a legal adviser may be appropriate. Even in the non-disciplinary context of potential redundancy, a legal or other adviser may be appropriate. I particularly remember a tribunal case involving a large employer intending redundancies who interviewed the potential candidates for redundancy. What the employees did not know was that the employers had a team of lawyers listening in the next room and, from time to time, one of the employment team would go outside and take advice. There may not be anything particularly sinister in that but it did not seem fair or open towards those whose jobs were in jeopardy.
The purpose of the amendment is to emphasise that there may be other situations outside the limits defined in Clause 10 and 13 in which it would be fair to permit the employee to be accompanied.
I recognise that the government amendment, Amendment No. 267, makes some changes to Clause 13. However, the word "directly" remains in the clause and I wonder what that word adds. I should also like to ask, if I may anticipate Amendment No. 267, whether internal appeals, after the initial disciplinary hearing, are
324
covered by the new wording. If so, would it not be better to say so clearly, and if they are not intended to be covered, why not?
I am also conscious that Amendment No. 266A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie, also proposes a different version of Clause 13(4). In that context and in anticipation of what the Government might say, perhaps I may ask the Government: what is the basis for restricting the subject matter of a grievance as presently defined in Clause 13 to the performance of a duty by the employer to the employee? That is likely, in many cases, to be the problem, but the grievance will inevitably be defined by the aggrieved employee. It may not strictly concern the performance of a duty, especially if that phrase is to be narrowly construed. It may often concern the way in which the employer exercises a discretion. such as a grading, promotion or a location. Surely it would be sufficient to limit it to any grievance relating to the employment. Having said that, relative to several amendments, I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 262 to 265 and Amendment Nos. 268 and 269 in the same group. The first four amendments relate to the same subject; namely, the right of an employee to be accompanied at a grievance or disciplinary hearing. Clearly, that is only right and proper. However, the provisions of the Bill produce a number of undesirable situations. A number of lobbying briefs I have received from employers' organisations show a considerable concern on the employers' side—not that their employees should be accompanied, but that they should be accompanied by a person with some trade union status or a colleague from the same firm.
Amendment No. 262 stipulates that the trade union official who may accompany the employee shall be a full-time union official. That does not exclude a shop steward employed by the same employer, who will be qualified as,
"another of the employer's workers",
under subsection 3(b). The Bill as drawn enables a shop steward employed by one employer to accompany an employee employed by another employer. It is then not too much of a stretch of the imagination to find a shop steward who has gained a reputation as a successful advocate on behalf of employees being in constant demand to represent other employees. One might ask: what is wrong with that? Perhaps the employer of that shop steward will find himself constantly having to give him time off as a travelling advocate. As the Bill is currently drafted, that shop steward (or other person) may not suffer any detriment or be dismissed on account of his frequent absences from his workplace. That is a consequence of the wording,
"whether of the same employer or not",
which Amendments Nos. 264 and 265 seek to rectify. Otherwise an employer will find himself having to subsidise this travelling advocate and possibly having to employ someone else in his place.

325
In fact, the provision about not suffering any detriment contained in Clause 12(1)(a) is in direct contradiction to what the Government said in paragraph 184 of the Explanatory Notes, which says,
"An employer will not, however, be required to pay his employee for time taken off to accompany another employer's worker".
The Government have not implemented that promise. As drafted, the Bill would prevent the uninvolved third party employer from docking the advocate's pay for time taken off. My two amendments rectify that position.
Amendment No. 263 inserts another paragraph at the end of Clause 10(3). It provides that the union official shall be a member of a union actually recognised by the employer, if there is such a union. It deals with the problem which arises if the employer has recognised one union and then another union tries to get in on the act. The broad definition of,
"an official of a trade union",
contained in Clause 10(3)(a) would pennit one union to attempt to intervene in a matter affecting a member of another union. That kind of attempted poaching can cause all sorts of inter-union strife, as we used to see in the past. We would not want the employer to be caught in the cross-fire.
I understand that a number of unions are equally concerned about this potential disruption to existing employer-employee relations and arrangements where an employer has reached a single union agreement giving a trade union exclusive individual and collective representation rights within what is called a "bargaining unit", as provided for by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
I anticipate that the Minister may ask who may accompany an employee if no trade union official is available within the same workplace and there is no union recognised by the employer. In that case any union may he utilised by the employee. That is the difference. There is no reason why the employee should be left without an adviser if that is what he wants, but it means a totally uninvolved employer—an innocent bystander—would be drawn into a dispute involving another firm and possibly a competitor. The Bill provides for employees not to suffer detriment as a result of a grievance hearing, but in this Bill there is nothing to prevent an employer not involved in the dispute from suffering a detriment. That is another example of the imbalance of the Bill to which I have referred many times.
Before I speak to Amendments Nos. 268 and 270 I should like to comment on Amendment No. 261 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I support his amendment. The employer can have whomsoever he wishes with him and may even have a tape recording of the meeting. Obviously, therefore, the employee's representative must not be inhibited over any reasonable steps taken on behalf of the employee.
The Government's Amendment No. 267 is practically the same as our Amendment No. 268. They simply seek to ensure that the proceedings involving an employee at which he seeks to exercise his right to be accompanied at proceedings relate to a serious matter and not to some
326
trivial matter. I can certainly accept the Government's amendment, but for one fact. There is a reference to "a" worker and not to "the" employer, even though that distinction appeared in the original clause. I should like to be assured that we are not talking about the possibility of a formal hearing being demanded by one worker on behalf of another who may not even want to complain.
Amendment No. 269 is reciprocal to the Government's Amendment No. 267. If there is to be a hearing about some grievance of the employee against the employer, it has to be clear that it shall be in respect of some serious matter and not something petty. We and the Government both agree about the issues covered by Amendments Nos. 267 and 268. That being so I trust that the Government have no difficulty at all with Amendment No. 269. We have no objection to Amendment No. 270.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: Clause 10 of the Bill seeks to put into statute part of the ACAS recommendations that have been used for a number of years. The Code of Practice: Disciplinary Practice etc (1977) states that, "Disciplinary procedures should", and lists a number of issues. The one to which I want to draw attention is (g), which states,
"Give individuals the right to be accompanied by a trade union representative or by a fellow employee of their choice".
Reference was made to that when the Bill was being debated on 9th February in another place when the Secretary of State, Mr. Stephen Byers, said,
"All individuals—regardless of the size of organisation for which they work—will be able to have someone of their choice represent them at a grievance or disciplinary hearing".—(official Report, Commons, 9/2/99; col. 132.)
My concern with these amendments is that they seek to restrict that right. Amendment No. 262, as the noble Baroness explained, seeks to insert the words,
"who is a full time paid official of a union".
Amendment No. 263 further restricts it by saying that if the company recognises a union, then the full-time paid official must be employed by that trade union. Amendments Nos. 264 and 265 seek to take away the possibility of other employees representing someone who is in the middle of either a grievance procedure or a disciplinary procedure.
An employee who is subject to a disciplinary procedure or is pursuing a grievance will need the most effective representation that he or she can obtain, particularly if it is a disciplinary issue where hi s or her livelihood is at stake. It is not necessarily a full-time paid official who will be the best person to represent that employee. In my experience it is often the local branch secretary or a lay official of the trade union who is far better equipped to represent an employee who is subject to a disciplinary procedure.
Many trade unions have very few full-time paid officials. They depend upon their lay elected officials to represent their membership when they go through either disciplinary or grievance procedures. Also, speed is important, particularly if it is a disciplinary process. I am bound to say that the availability of full-time officials is sometimes not immediate and so one has to

327
rely upon lay officials. There are circumstances where neither a fellow worker nor a full-time official would be the most appropriate person to represent an employee who was subject to disciplinary action or who was pursuing a grievance.
I can think of a number of circumstances, which are quite usual these days, where a manufacturer has a number of contractors on site who are there virtually permanently. The employee is often not represented, but he wants speedy assistance and will often go to the shop steward, the convenor, of the host site.
My objection to the amendments is that they restrain the right of an employee to be accompanied and represented at disciplinary and grievance procedures.
Lord Tebbit: I find myself in the slightly odd position of having to agree with an amendment put forward by the Liberal Benches. However, we have had a few concessions from the Government Front Bench, which makes it a kind of holiday, so we may as well double it. I support the sentiment behind Amendment No. 261, although I have some concerns about it.
I recollect saying when I was a lay official in my trade union, in a moment of irritation when we came to consideration of the minutes of the previous meeting which had been provided by the employer's secretariat, that the minutes of a meeting should represent the lies which were actually told and not the lies which people subsequently wished they had told. I carried that thinking through to my days as a Minister. I would frequently insist, before people left my office after a difficult meeting at which we thought conclusions had been reached, that the conclusions should be written down in an aide mémoire, and that we should all read them and agree that that is what we thought we had agreed before the meeting finally broke up. It is important for the avoidance of unnecessary future disputes.
Amendment No. 261 only refers to a written record of the hearing, and it might be implied that Parliament did not intend it to cover an electronic recording of the hearing. I should like to hear from the Minister whether that is likely. I have always found that lawyers say that if you include one bit of detail, there is an implication that the other bits, which might have been there but were not, are specifically excluded.
I also agree with the intention behind the other amendments, but I hope that they cannot be held to exclude a lay member of a union accompanying the person who is the subject of the disciplinary action.
I am still a member of the British Airline Pilots' Union. That union has very few paid officials. Most of the work is done, and done in my view much better, by lay members. I would not want to see in the legislation a situation whereby they were not allowed to represent and support a member who is appearing in disciplinary proceedings.
As I listened to noble Lords, it went through my mind that we should thank the Lord that the Government are not putting into law the marriage service. My goodness; just imagine the length of the schedules, the
328
amendments and the discussions as to the meanings! Indeed, it has worked rather well on the whole, and I do not think it would have worked any better if it had had 75 pages of legal jargon stuck on the end of it; nor will the Bill.
Lord McCarthy: It may be working very well, but it is being used less and less.
I hope that the Government will accept Amendment No. 261. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, stated, frequently there is no agreed record of tribunal proceedings and no right of the representative of the employee to compile an independent record. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, read from a 1976 document, but that does not state that an individual worker has a right to a representative and that that representative has a right to write, nor is it found in a more recent publication, the employment handbook of ACAS. Most people with any real experience and feel for this subject would never deny the right of a worker to have a representative, nor would they deny the right of that representative to write and give their account. Perhaps the authors of these handbooks assumed that it was a natural thing. It is time that it was put into the law, and I hope that the Government will do that today.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I have sat for 20 years in an industrial tribunal. In theory, I agree that it is a good idea that the representative should take a note. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that it would be helpful to the tribunal to have those notes.
However, a major problem is that if someone is slowly and laboriously scribbling away it will inhibit the proceedings and the flow and interchange. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, suggested a tape recording which could later be transcribed. That is a good idea. In a number of hearings, verbatim reports have been prepared from tape recordings and there has been no argument about it. Where, however, people have different notes, very often those notes do not agree.
In my capacity as chairman of a charity, a case was brought against the charity which was very interesting because it was a very different experience from sitting and hearing cases. In that instance the employee flatly refused to sign any text of any meeting that we produced. She was very much a loner and refused to have anyone with her. We asked her to sign the note to say not that she agreed with it but that it was a correct record of the meeting. She would not sign anything because someone had told her not to sign anything. It was an impossible situation.
The most difficult situation occurs before commencement of the disciplinary or grievance procedure, for example when someone is called in for a general discussion about their affairs and is asked if they would like to bring someone with them. They automatically think that it must be really serious. Very often, what begins as a consultation between the two parties progresses to either a grievance or a disciplinary procedure. In those circumstances the meeting should be suspended and the resources that are set out here should

329
be offered. The transition between a general discussion on employment and the formal procedure is not fully covered in the Bill.
No matter how much detail you put down to cover these things, they never quite work in the way intended. Although every detail is here, there will still be something which will be defective. I would be worried about people taking notes in such a slow and laborious way because it would hold up proceedings. That is why I was hoping that there might be some agreement for having tape recordings, which could be transcribed later.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Underneath many of the comments made by Members of the Committee is the question whether there must be a grievance or disciplinary procedure. As I understand it, the Bill does not go that far. Nevertheless, because we discussed this last year during the proceedings on the previous Bill on dispute resolution, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will know that there is authority in the courts. I believe that the latest effusion was in 1995. However, it is possible that the Minister has some other authority or that he wants to get rid of it. I have in mind the case of Goold v. McConnell. According to the head-note, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the authority was,
"an implied term in a contract of employment that the employers will reasonably and promptly afford a reasonable opportunity to their employees to obtain redress of any grievance".
There are also remarks about disciplinary procedures, but the case is not concerned with them directly. However, if that be right and, if, in a general sense, there is an implied term that the employee has a right to a grievance procedure, it is likely that the courts will go a little further. Indeed, at the end, the judgment says:
"The breach [of the contract] is the failure to provide or operate a proper procedure",
and that was a continuing breach. There is talk about proper procedure and, obviously, in the next case one might predict that the nature of a proper procedure would be looked at by the court and that questions such as keeping a record would have some impact in that respect. I can imagine a case where a number of the elements of a grievance procedure addressed today might be taken further as a matter of implication in the contract of employment.
I am neither advocating nor speaking against this at the moment. I simply ask the question: will the new Bill operate side by side in the perspective of the Government, and indeed of other noble Lords who have spoken, with a set of clauses which assume that there is some kind of grievance procedure? Perhaps I may express an opinion and say that I do not believe that that is the most sensible way to proceed. We would perhaps have fewer clauses and paragraphs if we had a short section in the Bill which stated that there should be such procedures. Of course, that is a personal view, which the Government may well have considered and rejected. However, if they had rejected it, did they want in any way to obstruct the precedents, which are now bound to follow the Goold case of 1995?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: As the last two speakers both touched on the substance of Amendment
330
No. 266A, which is tabled in my name, perhaps I ought to speak to it now. This is another amendment brought forward by the Law Society of Scotland and it has been trailed, with approval, by my noble friend Lord Meston.
The amendment sets out to clarify and extend what the Bill implies about disciplinary and grievance hearings. As presently drafted, the Bill would allow an employer who does not have a disciplinary or grievance procedure, or an employer with an informal procedure, to avoid responsibility under Clause 10. The amendment redrafts the Bill so that art employer who invites an employee to a meeting or to a hearing with the purpose of resolving a grievance or adopting a disciplinary procedure qualifies for Clause 10 purposes, irrespective of how the meeting was formally described. I believe that there is ambiguity here which needs to be removed from the Bill.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I should like to begin by thanking all Members of the Committee for agreeing to the grouping of these amendments, which has been most helpful. The right to be accompanied, a most important individual right, is tackled through Clauses 10, 11, 12 and 13, and we have been able to link all the issues involved.
However, perhaps I may make two or three points in introduction to the issue of the right to be accompanied. As noble Lords on both sides of the Chamber have stated, this is a crucial individual right and I am not suggesting in any way—nor, indeed, are the Government—that procedures within companies do not exist. In fact, about 90 per cent of companies do have procedures for grievances and disciplinary matters which permit accompaniment at hearings. We are talking about the minority which do not and the fairness of that position.
I should also mention that there is a very good provision already included in the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary practice and procedures in employment. I believe that the code works well for both employers and employees. It is a good balance and it is easy to follow. The effect of the clause is to give the code the force of law and extend it to cover grievances about serious issues. Although I am not strong on case law, I should like to point out to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn that I believe the code of practice runs in parallel with the Bill so that procedures exist which are parallel to the legal structures for actually sorting out matters, if I may put it in layman's terms. However, we may return to that debate.
I should also like to point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that we have taken care in these clauses to avoid imposing unnecessary burdens on employers. We are certainly not going to permit trivial or minor issues to come under the scope of the new right. Moreover, I should like to make it clear that there is no obligation on chosen individuals who are trade union representatives to accompany workers to disciplinary or grievance hearings. However, those who choose to do so and who are employed by the same person as the worker who is to be accompanied will have the right to be paid for time off in line with the existing provisions of the 1992 Act. There is no right to paid time off if the

331
accompanying person is employed by another employer. That is absolutely clear. We are staying with the terms of the 1992 Act, with which Members of the Committee are very familiar.
Perhaps I may speak, first, to Amendments Nos. 261 to 266. Amendment No. 261, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, seeks to add to the permitted functions of the accompanying person set out in Clause 10(3); in effect, to permit the accompanying person to take a note of the hearing. That was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller.
I can see that the Committee is anxious to ensure that the rights and responsibilities of individuals are made clear. There is nothing on the face of the Bill to prevent either party to a hearing from taking a written note of the proceedings. To do so is good practice. I dare say that there are cases where the record is neither totally honest nor totally complete but that is a matter of good or bad practice, if I may say so. We believe that the taking of a written record is a good practice. I dare say that it is practised at the majority of hearings already. We want to encourage the practice. However, I am sure the Committee will agree that the correct place to foster such practice is not on the face of the Bill but in the code of practice on this right. I refer to electronic recordings in this regard. The amendment, as drafted, would not cover that situation and that would entail us in a discussion of what exactly comprises a record. I do not believe it is right to discuss that on the face of the Bill although I readily concede that the objective that is proposed is a good one. We shall include it in the code of practice and give the appropriate advice. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that this is the best way forward and, on that basis, will withdraw the amendment.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 262 and 263 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. The remaining amendments in this group seek to curtail the right of individual workers to exercise their right to be accompanied by their chosen companion—the word "chosen" is important—in matters serious enough to affect their livelihood. Under our proposals a worker can be accompanied by a fellow employee or a trade union representative employed by another organisation. As the noble Baroness made clear, Amendment No. 262 seeks to limit these outside trade union representatives to full-time officials only. The amendment, however, permits legal representation.
This issue has been debated in another place. I am glad of the support of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, and other colleagues. It remains the Government's view that such an amendment seeks to curtail a worker's right to be accompanied by his or her chosen companion. Few trade unions will have the resources to assign a full-time official to accompany every worker who wishes to be accompanied. Therefore, if there is no local lay representation—the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, made a strong point with regard to lay representation—a union member would be unable to draw on the services of his union to help him. Both the employer and the worker stand to lose as a result because—as I think the noble
332
Lord, Lord Tebbit, implied—they would lose the experience and expertise that a union representative would normally bring to a hearing. It is important that that flexibility is conserved.
I know that the noble Baroness will probably say that she had a choice in mind; namely, a lawyer. While we are keen to provide good work for lawyers and to establish the right representative to accompany a worker in the situations we are discussing, I am worried about an increasing tempo of legalism in this area. We are trying to keep the matter as open and as flexible as possible. I know that it could be in the worker's interest to be accompanied by a lawyer but—
6 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: There is no mention of a lawyer. Amendment No. 262 states,
"who is a full time paid official of a union".
Lord Simon of Highbury: We are discussing Amendment No. 263.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I refer to Amendment No. 262.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I beg the pardon of the noble Baroness if I have the wrong amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: There was an amendment on the matter which was withdrawn. There is nothing about a legal representative.
Lord Simon of Highbury: That just shows how much I was "scarred" by the thought of having legal representation when that was unnecessary. I am extremely pleased that the noble Baroness has put me right.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Does my noble friend agree that such research as has been carried out shows that involving a lawyer in a procedure does not increase the amount of legalism? On the contrary it is lay people in many cases who are suggested as being the culprits—if they are culprits—in these situations.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I am now disinclined to give an opinion because I was talking to an amendment that has been withdrawn. Perhaps this is a rabbit hole down which I should not go at the current time. However, I shall be happy to debate it at a later stage.
Lord Meston: Before the noble Lord continues I should say that in a sense I partly jumped on the bandwagon when I suggested that there were a few circumstances in which a lawyer might be appropriate, particularly where the employee concerned is charged with a serious criminal matter which is dealt with, first, in the employment context but is likely to proceed to a criminal court. In those limited circumstances there may

333
be scope for him or her to be accompanied by a lawyer rather than someone else. I hasten to say that I do not seek extra work for my profession.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I thank the noble Lord for those comments. I think we can all agree that none of us wants lawyers to become involved unless that is absolutely de rigueur.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Simon of Highbury: I am sorry; I withdraw that remark. Before I completely alienate a whole sector of this great community, I pass hastily on to Amendment No. 263. In tabling Amendment No. 263 I believe that the noble Baroness seeks to place further constraints on the category of permissible trade union representative. The amendment seeks to limit representation to a union recognised by the employer pursuant to this Bill; that is, under Schedule 1.
The amendment would deny many union members the right to be accompanied by an official of their own union and probably by any union official. One of the employment relations changes introduced by the previous government, which we have not sought to amend or repeal, is the right to belong to a union of one's choice. Members of the Committee opposite will know that simple membership of a union confers certain rights and services. Therefore, the right for individual workers to be accompanied in disciplinary and grievance hearings by a fellow employee or trade union representative of their choice underlines an important aspect of union membership.
It is frankly a little odd for the party opposite to seek to undermine that legislation—legislation with which this Government fully agree—by saying that where a worker is a member of a union, which is not the recognised union, that worker may not be accompanied by a representative of his or her own union. It is not realistic to expect that worker to be accompanied by an official of another union. The worker may not wish that official to accompany him or her and the recognised union may be unwilling to support workers who are not its members. Therefore, the net effect of the amendment is to take away potential support. The amendment seeks to limit the category of union membership available in terms of support in these circumstances.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. In many ways I am inclined to agree with much of his argument, particularly that part which he does not wish to pursue which may tread on the corns of those in the legal profession. However, that is another matter.
As regards the matter we are discussing now, a number of employers now have single union agreements. They have been encouraged so to do by governments. What happens if there is a single union agreement and an employee wants to bring in someone from an outside union? Is that conducive to good industrial relations? I should have thought it was likely to cause dissent and concern.
Lord Simon of Highbury: The right we are trying to enshrine in the Bill is the choice of the employee. Normally, if a single union plant is involved, I imagine the employee would choose one of his own union members and that person would be a fellow employee or a full-time union official. However, I do not think that we should remove that choice. The matter is in the eye of the beholder. I think back to the complexity of the noble Lord's earlier argument and how he approved of the current form of the Marriage Act. It is a wonderful Act but I believe that there is still some concern about whether the word "obey" comprises a stand part clause. All of us will view the word!, that are used in different ways.
Lord Tebbit: This is another consequence of a Bill which intrudes so deeply into the workplace in legislative form. We may be setting up here something which is in conflict with what has previously been regarded as a rather good way of managing industrial relations; namely, to have a single union representing all members of the staff. I draw that danger to the attention of the Minister. I do not expect him to say that the Government have thought of a way round that, but I think there is a problem here.
Lord Simon of Highbury: We shall consider that point. However, essentially this is a hypothetical case and we must think about what happens in practice. I hope that codes of practice, good practice and the partnership between employers and unions, particularly in single union plants, will enable people to resolve these problems efficiently.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 264 and 265. The noble Baroness continues to direct her attention to the matter of the trade union representative and how to confine that, as it were. It is often the case that a worker's trade union representative is not employed by the same employer as the workers he represents even though there are single union plants in many areas.
Union branch structures are often very complex, covering more than one employer. So are corporate structures. Many employers can work from tie same premises as separate employer divisions of a particular company. It is therefore possible that a worker and his lay representative do not have a common employer. As I said earlier in the debate, the lay representative—perhaps a branch secretary—may be the obvious and best choice as the accompanying person, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, underlined in his valuable contribution. The Bill enables such individuals to perform this function if they wish without fear of detriment or victimisation.
These amendments seek to remove the certainty of such protection. In effect, Amendment No. 26.4 opens the way for employers to penalise workers who help others in exercising a statutory right. Rather more difficulty attends Amendment No. 265 because it opens the way for employers to dismiss such workers. Both amendments allow employers to penalise individuals for carrying out their legitimate trade union functions.
Both amendments reduce the likelihood of workers being accompanied by experienced trade union officials. In our view, that is not likely to help either the

335
employers or the employees and is likely to lead to more cases going to tribunals. I urge the noble Baroness to consider that matter and to withdraw her two amendments.
Perhaps I may now turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, Amendment No. 266. This amendment would insert a new clause into the Bill after Clause 12. The clause would enable employment tribunals to hold that a worker has been unfairly treated if he was not permitted to be accompanied at any hearing by some other suitable person, regardless of whether he falls within the provisions of Clause 10(3) as written. The clause will also allow a tribunal to deem that a worker has been unfairly treated if his employer failed to provide any disciplinary or grievance procedure.
Although I believe the amendment has a supportive intent, I fear that far from supplementing and clarifying the provisions on the right to be accompanied, a clause of this kind would at best cast doubt on the clear existing provisions of Clauses 10 to 13; at worst it would probably present tribunals with a very real interpretative problem. The amendment is widely drafted and can have only one effect, which is to contradict the provisions of Clauses 10 to 12 by forcing every employer to establish a grievance and disciplinary procedure and to allow accompaniment at any hearing, whether or not the matter related to employment and regardless of how minor or trivial. It would also give power to tribunals to ignore the provisions of Clauses 10 to 13 and to decide on a case-by-case basis whether accompaniment should have been permissible.
Far from having a clear guide to their obligations under law, employers, workers and tribunals would be placed in a state of some confusion. That is undesirable as an outcome. At present the core aspects of the right to be accompanied are very clearly defined on the face of the Bill. The Government have made clear, both here and in another place, their intention to supplement the Bill's provisions in this area with a code of practice.
It is not the Government's intention to force employers to establish procedures. Neither this Bill nor the Employment Rights Act require an employer to have a disciplinary or grievance procedure—although, in a company with more than 20 employees, the latter requires that the employees have the right to be informed of any disciplinary rules and procedures in their initial statement of employment particulars. But there is no necessity to have an official procedure. Nor does the legislation require an employer who has a procedure to follow it and to invite workers to hearings.
If the noble Lord's concern is that employers who do not adopt procedures will be able to treat their workers unfairly and get away with it, I can assure him that his concern is unfounded. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that tribunals take a very dim view of employers who do not try to resolve disputes internally. Employers who do not operate any procedures—I have said already that, from our consultations, we believe that 90 per cent do—may be much more vulnerable to claims of unfair dismissal and the infringement of other employment rights. Happily, most employers operate grievance and
336
disciplinary procedures. Both sides of the House agree that that is very good employment practice. In framing this legislation, it is the Government's intention to build on good practice.
The effect of the Bill as currently drafted will be to encourage the further expansion of written procedures, but I am not sure that we will go as far as the breadth of this amendment. I hope that having heard my reply, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw it.
Perhaps I may now turn to Amendments Nos. 266A, 267, 268 and 269, which are concerned with the subject matter of disciplinary and grievance hearings. I will deal first with the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. This amendment has one simple aim: to ensure that the right to be accompanied applies to all disciplinary and grievance hearings without limitation. The result would be that precious few circumstances would be left where workers could not insist on accompaniment.
I do not know whether the noble Earl believes that workers should be able to insist on accompaniment at counselling interviews or exploratory meetings to discuss what are potential performance or disciplinary issues. We believe that that would cause disruption and inconvenience for managers. Having to permit and arrange accompaniment every time they wanted what I used to call the "Would you like to drop along to the study for a quiet word about this problem" meeting would make things a lot more difficult to organise. We all know that meetings along the lines of "A quite word" or "A word in your shell-like" are quite commonplace. I am sure we would all agree that it is a sensible way for managers, following ACAS advice, to deal with problems effectively at an early stage. I do not think that there is a need for the law to regulate every encounter.
The Bill achieves a sensible balance by ensuring that the right will apply only where a hearing could lead directly to an action taken against the worker. We have taken a similar approach in circumscribing the kinds of grievance that would fall within the scope of the right. We need to think through the consequences of widening it into more trivial or minor issues. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that once we open up the definitions from the very tight ones in Clauses 10 to 13, a situation which is difficult to manage could develop.
It is not our intention to oblige employers to permit accompaniment hearings which do not form part of a procedure; we do not want a free accompaniment system; it is not our intention to permit accompaniment at hearings without the immediate threat of disciplinary action; nor is it our intention to permit accompaniment at grievance hearings where no statutory or contractual duty exists. Therefore, having framed it in as tightly and balanced a way between employers and employees as we can, I would ask the noble Lord to reconsider the matter and withdraw his amendment.
Perhaps I may turn now to Amendment No. 267, which I will move subsequently. The Government's point was made earlier when it was mentioned en passant by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, when he was speaking to Amendment No. 261. The Government have looked again at the wording of subsection (4)(a) of the

337
clause which sets out the disciplinary hearings to which the right is to apply. We now come to the point of "directly" and "appeal". The right is to apply to hearings which,
"could result directly in the employer administering a formal warning to a worker or taking some other action in respect of him".
The Government are concerned that that wording might not permit a worker to be accompanied to appeal hearings. At the very least, we believe that it would open the way in its current form for lawyers to argue that it did not in certain circumstances allow appeal to be valid. The Committee is aware that appeals often occur after the disciplinary action has already been taken against a worker, and the appeal concerns upholding the decision to discipline the worker.
In those circumstances, it does not necessarily follow that the action will be taken as a direct result of the appeal hearing. Consequently, disputes might arise as to whether the appeal hearing met the criteria laid down in subsection (4)(a), and hence our changing of the clause to remove what I believe is an unwelcome ambiguity from the face of the Bill. For that reason I shall subsequently move the amendment.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 268 and 269. They relate respectively to the meanings given by the Bill to disciplinary and grievance hearings. The rights will apply taking account of Amendment No. 267, to disciplinary hearings. That is the point of the words,
"confirmation of a warning issued or some other action taken".
That wording is clear and precise. It ensures that the right extends only as far as oral hearings in the course of disciplinary procedures at which the individual worker is required to be present and which could result in action being taken against the worker. In other words, counselling interviews and exploratory talks are excluded, as are trivial matters. I think it can be said that this amendment now handles the position of appeal and that it speaks in many ways to the issues put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, relative to her own submission on that point.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 269. I am sure that it was the noble Baroness's intention in tabling such an amendment to add to the clarity of the face of the Bill by expanding on the form of words in subsection (4)(b). No doubt the noble Baroness believes that the existing wording is too wide and too vague and wishes to narrow the scope of the right considerably.
The form of words that we have used on the face of the Bill ensures that the right to be accompanied at a grievance hearing applies only to legal duties owed by an employer to his workers; that is, to his statutory, contractual or other legal duties, including potentially tortious duties. It does not involve any loose or informal obligation that the employee might feel is owed to him, such as the use of a particular space in the company car park—although in my experience that takes up a great deal of time. I believe that our wording achieves that purpose. I hope that the noble Baroness will be happy that our redefinition covers Amendments Nos. 268 and 269.
338
That brings me finally to Amendment No. 270, which is concerned with contracting out of the rights conferred by Clauses 10 to 13 of the Bill. We have had many discussions on the issues. I am sure that we are all agreed that the right to be accompanied is a very important individual right. Indeed, my noble friend Lard Monkswell underlined that at Second Reading, when he referred to Clauses 10 to 13 as, "the parts of the Bill that will bite most effectively". I am grateful for his support in those terms.
But it is precisely because of the importance of this right to individuals that the Government consider it necessary to protect the right from restrictions on contracting out. The right to be accompanied is one of the few stand-alone rights in the Bill. In other words, unlike the majority of the Bill's provisions, Clauses 10 to 13 do not amend either the 1992 or the 1996 Act. Both Acts contain sections which effectively prohibit persons from opting out of their provisions or from waiving their rights to bring proceedings thereunder. The Government believe that it would be wholly undesirable to leave this key right unprotected from such restrictions on contracting out. We must ensure that individuals, especially the vulnerable, do not inadvertently or by coercion sign away their rights under these clauses.
The purpose of Amendment No. 270 is to close off that possibility. It does so by inserting a new clause into the Bill to ensure that this key individual right attracts the appropriate protections. The new clause achieves that by tying Clauses 10 to 13 of the Bill to the provision in the Employment Rights Act 1996 which limits the ability to contract out. I beg to move.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: Before my noble friend sits down, will he clarify a remark that he made? I understood him to say that 90 per cent of employers had disciplinary and grievance procedures, and that that had been established by consultation. I am bound to say that, given the experience that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and I have had on employment tribunals, on the Employment Appeal Tribunal and in industry, it is a very surprising figure. I am interested to know where it came from.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I thank my noble friend for his interest. First, I hope that Hansard will be right, in that I said 90 per cent of firms have established procedures. We have discovered that through consultation—not by consultation. In other words, the procedures are not achieved by the process of consultation; they may be, but that is not what I said. We believe, through consultation—talking to the CBI, looking at surveys, talking to union representation—that the level is something like 90 per cent representation of those procedures within companies. But if there is an element of doubt in my noble friend's mind, I am happy to give him the basis on which I made that statement. I have usually learnt to trust my officials when I speak at this Dispatch Box and I am not going to desert them now.
Lord McCarthy: Before the Minister sits down, the Government have said several times during the course

339
of the passage of the Bill that there will be a code of practice. What kind of code will it be? There is the 1977 code of practice on discipline, and there is the 1987 ACAS advisory handbook, Discipline at Work. Will the code of practice cover the whole of discipline, both in this Bill and in other legislation; will it replace the 1977 code; or what?
Lord Simon of Highbury: The intention is to enhance the existing ACAS code on disciplinary matters.
Lord Meston: It is my intention to withdraw the amendment. We have had a useful debate on the rather slender back of Amendment No. 261. In the course of that debate, I have obtained a remarkable achievement in securing the support not only of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, but also the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, altogether.
The amendment was based on a practical consideration, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, identified; namely, that if it is at all possible there should be a prompt, accurate, agreed note of what takes place during these important hearings. I should not wish to stop electronic tape recordings being used as a matter of good practice. The purpose of the amendment is to suggest a minimum rather than a limiting factor. Of course, that will not rule out, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said, the sort of squabbles with which she and I are all too familiar, even if there is a tape recording. I have taken part in a case in which the authenticity of a tape recording was the subject of lengthy squabbles. The Minister said that there is nothing to prevent a note being taken, but there is nothing to permit a note being taken either. It is important that it is laid down either on the face of the statute or in guidance.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, suggested that it is possible to legislate too much and that the Marriage Act would be overburdened by too much prescriptive legislation. I spent a great deal of my professional life considering the validity of marriages. The noble Lord is right that one can legislate too much. The English Marriage Act provides that a man may not marry his grandmother; the Scottish Marriage Act provides that a man may not marry his great-grandmother, which suggests that perhaps the Scots are either very cautious or adventurous. I am not sure which.
My amendment was not in any way intended to constrain the important new provisions in Clauses 10 and 13. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, spoke about amendments to constrain. I hope that he did not include my amendment in his remarks.
As to Amendment No. 266, I understood, as I believe did the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that the provisions were intended to give only partial statutory effect to the case of Goold. As the Minister said, the right to be accompanied can be absolutely crucial. I did not intend in Amendment No. 266 to cast any doubt on the utility of Clauses 10 and 13 or to force employers to have a procedure where one does not exist, although we all agree that it is good practice to have it. Towards the end of his remarks the Minister said what I thought
340
he would say; namely, that in effect Amendment No. 266 was unnecessary. On that basis, I certainly do not intend to press it. However, I suggest that, although the Government have sought to improve Clause 13 and its width of application to disciplinary proceedings, there is still a case for some extension of the scope of the grievance hearings to be covered. That is perhaps something to which we need to return at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 261.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 262 and 263 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Detriment and dismissal]:
[Amendments Nos. 264 and 265 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 266 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 266A not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 267:
Page 7, leave out lines 40 and 41 and insert ("administration of a formal warning to a worker by the employer, the taking of some other action in respect of a worker by the employer or the confirmation of a warning issued or some other action taken, or")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 268 and 269 not moved.]
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 270:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—

Employment Relations Bill

  CONTRACTING OUT AND CONCILIATION
  (". Sections 10 to 13 of this Act shall be treated as provisions of Part V of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for the purposes of—

  (a) section 203(1), (2)(e) and (f), (3) and (4) of that Act (restrictions on contracting out), and

  (b) section 18(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (conciliation).")

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Razzall Lord Razzall moved Amendment No. 271:
  After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—

  DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORK-PLACE ON GROUNDS OF AGE
  (".—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of prohibiting, in relation to any employment matter, discrimination by an employer against another person on grounds of that person's age.
  (2) In subsection (1) "employment matter" includes—

  (a) the offer or refusal of employment;

  (b) the termination of employment;

  (c) terms and conditions of employment;

  (d) the provision of training or skills development opportunities;

  (e) promotion and career progression.

  (3) Regulations under subsection (1) may—

  (a) specify the types of action, or failure to take action, which are to be taken to constitute discrimination for the purpose of this section;

  (b) confer jurisdiction (including exclusive jurisdiction) on employment tribunals and on the Employment Appeal Tribunal in relation to cases brought under this section;

  (c) provide for penalties to be imposed or, as the case may be, compensation to be awarded in respect of offences committed under paragraph (a) above;

  (d) specify exceptional circumstances in which, in any proceedings arising under this section, it would be a defence for an employer to show, having regard to the nature and commercial viability of the business or undertaking in question, that—

  (i) it was reasonable for him, in deciding to treat one employee differently from another in relation to an employment matter, to take account of the respective ages of the relevant employees, or

  (ii) age was not a significant factor in any decision to treat one employee differently from another in relation to an employment matter.

  (4) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.")
  The noble Lord said: Noble Lords will be aware from the behaviour on these Benches on the first day of the Committee stage and today that, by and large, the Liberal Democrats support the Bill and its purposes. Apart from the occasional interjection, which is intended to help, we have not chosen to replicate or duplicate the arguments advanced by the Government because, by and large, we agree with them. However, Amendment No. 271 reflects the first of three amendments that go to what we regard as a fundamental flaw in the Bill; namely, the failure to take the opportunity to do something about discrimination in the workplace.
  By way of introduction, I refer noble Lords on the government side to what I believe is mandatory reading; namely, the Labour Party manifesto in the 1997 election. Page 35 speaks in glowing terms of the equal rights of the citizen and states:
  "We will seek to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists".
  The first area of unjustifiable discrimination which we anticipated the Government would seek to end is age discrimination in the workplace. I shall not bore the Committee by rehearsing examples of significant age discrimination. I believe it is common ground on all sides of the Committee that age discrimination exists as a serious problem in the workplace in regard to both existing and prospective employees who seek jobs. For the record, I commend to any noble Lords who are uncertain about the subject the work of Professor Smithers at the University of Liverpool, which demonstrates entirely effectively that age discrimination is a significant problem in the workplace for existing and prospective employees.
  We on this side of the Committee are somewhat surprised that the Government have failed to take the opportunity afforded by this Bill to legislate against age discrimination. I refer particularly to a speech made by Mr McCartney, a shadow Minister in another place, on a Bill introduced by the Tory government in 1996:
  "The Labour Party's position is quite clear … an incoming Labour Government will introduce comprehensive legislation to make age discrimination in employment illegal".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/96; col. 618.]
  Listening to noble Lords opposite, I had understood that this Bill was their flagship legislation in which they intended to deal with the remaining questions in their mind in the field of employment legislation. I repeat the words of Mr McCartney in 1996:
  "The Labour Party's position is quite clear … an incoming Labour Government will introduce comprehensive legislation to make age discrimination in employment illegal".
  No doubt the answer of the Government is that they have changed their minds and want to introduce the new voluntary code of practice to tackle age discrimination at work which they announced just in time for the Committee stage of this Bill on 14th June. I do not believe that any member of the Committee wants that voluntary code of practice to fail. We all hope that the code which has been negotiated and discussed with the relevant representative bodies, such as the TUC and others, will work. But if the code does not work we want the Government to have the legislative framework in place so that they can legislate to ensure that age discrimination, if it is not dealt with voluntarily over the next year or two, is covered by legislation in the form of the regulations provided for in the amendment. That can be done without the necessity to come hack to Parliament and find the legislative time for primary legislation. On that basis, I beg to move.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Can the noble Lord who is to respond to this amendment or the noble Lord who moved it make clear whether employers would still retain an official retirement age? Is it the intention to outlaw it so that one can simply go on for ever? This is a very important matter in terms of pension schemes and so on.
  Lord Monson: I congratulate the supporters of these three amendments on being both principled and consistent. So often in the past, "anti-discrimination" legislation and proposed legislation has been highly selective and thus inconsistent. Having said that, even if one endorses the coercion inherent in such legislation, which I have never done, surely inserting clauses like this into the Bill, giving the Secretary of State Henry VIII powers incapable of amendment, is not the right way to go about introducing legislation of such importance. Among other things it would lead to a massive extension of the alarming litigation culture which is doing so much harm to this country.
  I was very pleased to hear the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Simon, say just over half an hour ago that he opposed the introduction of excessive legalism into the Bill. I endorse that. Each of these proposals, if

  343
  pursued, deserves a separate Bill to allow both Houses of Parliament the maximum opportunity for detailed discussion and amendment.
  Lord Meston: I speak briefly in support of this amendment. Older employees are vulnerable to discrimination by being denied opportunities, denied promotion or through selection for redundancy. It is clear that age discrimination in employment takes place as the Government's own consultation report last year accepted. Unlike Australia and the United States, we do not have specific age discrimination legislation and so we oblige the older worker to resort to the less straightforward provisions of sex discrimination or the unfair dismissal statutes.
  As my noble friend said, it is generally perceived that the Government have now watered down their commitment to outlawing age discrimination, simply encouraging employers with a voluntary code without any clear legal status. It is on that basis that I support Amendment No. 271. I take up the point very properly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. It is generally understood that no legislative provision for age discrimination could or should override a proper retirement age.
  Lord McCarthy: I support the amendment particularly since it does not merely say whether and in what way action should be taken against non-discrimination, but it specifies in some detail the exceptional circumstances. I refer to subsection (3)(d) which states,
  "in any proceedings arising under this section, it would be a defence for an employer to show".
  It then spells out what the circumstances would be. That is done quite broadly in ways which are similar to exceptions set out in sex and race discrimination; and in the case of sex discrimination, single-sex accommodation and establishments including decency, privacy and so forth. The same applies to race. It is a very reasonable and well thought-out amendment.
  I make this point, although it refers to an amendment which has not yet been moved. It contrasts with the amendment as regards discrimination in the workplace on grounds of sexual orientation. There is an even wider discrimination in the workplace with a general prohibition where there are no specifications concerning exceptions at all.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I wish to underline that the Government's position on discrimination is clear. We said in our manifesto:
  "We will seek to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists".
  We shall deliver on that part of our manifesto, as on all the others. I therefore have considerable sympathy with the concerns which have led to this amendment, along with the proposed Amendments Nos. 272 and 273.
  That said, for reasons I am about to explain, I ask the Committee to reject these new clauses. As regards Amendment No. 271, the Government believe that
  344
  unfair age discrimination in employment is bad for the individual, bad for business and bad for the country. Promoting age diversity and tackling age discrimination in employment is a key part of the Government's strategy of building a country where everyone, whether young or old, can play their full part. The question is one of how best to achieve that goal.
  The use of legislation has not proven itself to be the best way forward in this complex area. One has only to consider the position on jobs. France and Spain, for instance, both have age discrimination legislation but their older worker employment rate is lower than in this country. In Canada, which also has legislation in this area, the economic inactivity rate among 55 to 64 year-olds is higher than in this country.
  It became clear during a year-long consultation carried out by my honourable friend the Minister for Employment that effective legislation covering age discrimination raised very complex issues, not least that raised here of whether the retirement age itself is discriminatory. On the basis of listening when one has consultation, the Government are taking a measured approach, taking forward a range of initiatives that will help older people and bring about cultural change and using the lessons learned from those initiatives to inform future plans.
  We need to change attitudes. Employers need to believe that people can and do add value to their business regardless of age. The results of the consultation published last year pointed to a non-statutory code of practice as being the best way to encourage the process of change. The Government have been working to develop a draft code with some key partners, including the TUC, the CBI, the Employers Forum on Age, Age Concern, the Institute of Personnel and Development, the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services and the Institute of Management. Members of the Committee will be aware that the code was issued last Monday. A copy is in the Library. We believe that the code will bring real benefits in promoting good recruitment and employment practices irrespective of age. It will cover all aspects of employment practice from recruitment through training and promotion to redundancy and retirement. It will be backed with more detailed guidance and illustrative case studies.
  The effectiveness of the code will be fully evaluated by February 2001. The groundwork that will be necessary is being put in place. We have commissioned an independent organisation to carry out the necessary large-scale research project. The results of this evaluation will help inform future plans for legislation. This will include the approach the Government take to proposals for EU directives or regulations under Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. The treaty, which recently came into force, allows the European Commission to bring forward proposals to counter discrimination on a wide range of grounds including age and sexual orientation. I shall come to the latter when responding to Amendment No. 272.
  In carrying out the evaluation we shall look in detail at employer policies and practices in recruitment and employment and the impact that these have on age

  345
  diversity in the workforce. In order to provide a base line against which to measure changes in attitudes, practices and policies, an initial survey of employers and older people is also being carried out prior to the publication of the final version of the code. In addition, we shall publish each June key indicators showing the position of older workers in the labour market.
  I hope that I have managed to reassure the Committee that the Government are far from inactive in this area and that they share the commitment of noble Lords to action against unjustified age discrimination in the workplace. Where we differ is over the means. We do not believe that the time is right for a legislative measure such as that proposed. I hope that I have satisfied the Committee with my description of what the Government are doing in this area and that therefore the amendment will he withdrawn.
  Lord Razzall: As the Government have only recently changed their mind from the position that they took only two years ago when in opposition, I had not anticipated that in the first round of the discussion. I would be able to persuade them to change their mind again. On that basis, and with the intention of referring to it at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Razzall Lord Razzall moved Amendment No. 272:
  After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—

  DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORK-PLACE ON GROUNDS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION
  (".—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of prohibiting, in relation to any employment matter, discrimination by an employer against another person on grounds of that person's sexual orientation.
  (2) In subsection (I) "employment matter" includes—

  (a) the offer or refusal of employment;

  (b) the termination of employment;

  (c) terms and conditions of employment;

  (d) the provision of training or skills development opportunities;

  (e) promotion and career progression.

  (3) Regulations under subsection (1) may—

  (a) specify the types of action, or failure to take action, which are to be taken to constitute discrimination for the purpose of this section;

  (b) confer jurisdiction (including exclusive jurisdiction) on employment tribunals and on the Employment Appeal Tribunal in relation to cases brought under this section;

  (c) provide for penalties to be imposed or, as the case may be, compensation to be awarded in respect of offences committed under paragraph (a) above.

  (4) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.")
  The noble Lord said: As was indicated earlier, this is the second of the anti-discrimination measures that I am proposing should be inserted into the Bill by way of amendment. The position with regard to discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, which this amendment is designed to cover, is somewhat different
  346
  from the position that we covered on the previous amendment which dealt with discrimination on the ground of age.
  In these days of quite extensive anti-discrimination legislation, it would probably come as a surprise to many people to know that as the law currently stands neither lesbians nor gay men have protection in the workplace in any of the following areas. To decide not to appoint someone because of their sexuality is not currently unlawful. To treat someone less favourably in the workplace because of their sexuality is not currently unlawful. To harass someone in the workplace because of their sexuality is not unlawful. To pay someone less because of their sexuality is not unlawful, and it is not per se unlawful to dismiss someone because of their sexuality. I suspect that Members of the Committee would regard that as a surprising state of affairs in the current context of our anti-discrimination legislation in other areas.
  The Government's position on this is fairly straightforward. In June 1998 when we considered the Bill on sexual orientation and discrimination—that Bill did not become law because although passed in this House it did not have time to complete its passage through another place—speaking for the Government, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, stated:
  "At this stage … promise that the Government are committed to giving serious consideration to the issues raised by this Bill".—[Official Report, 5/6/99; col. 657.]
  I do not want to detain the Committee long on this amendment because at Second Reading the Minister explained that this was not a matter for the DTI. which is sponsoring the Bill, and that another department, the Department for Education and Employment, would be dealing with these issues. I regard that as slightly strange given that we are led to believe that this is a period of "joined up" government, to adopt the phrase used by several noble Lords and Ministers. Nevertheless, I look forward to the Minister's reply and to hearing when we can expect at the very least a voluntary code of practice to bring this into line with the anti-age discrimination code which is already in place. I should like to know what action the Government propose to take. For all the same reasons that the previous amendment was moved and could be justified, I should have thought that there is a case for putting on the statute book the power for the Government to legislate in this area if a voluntary code of practice does not prove to be sufficient.
  On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, there is a distinct difference between the difficult areas of age discrimination and the necessity to include the defence for which we provided in the previous amendment and the question of legislation on the ground of sexual orientation where the issues are likely to be much more clear cut and the protection need not therefore be provided for employers. I beg to move.
  Baroness Young: I wonder whether the noble Lord intends his amendment to apply to two areas. I refer to the Armed Services and to the whole of the education service. A number of people, particularly in education, would be concerned if the provisions of the amendment applied to schools, given that that might affect very

  347
  small children and children up to the compulsory school leaving age. It would be helpful to have this point clarified and to hear the Government's view on both matters.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I am very well aware that in comparison with measures to prohibit discrimination on grounds of sex, race and disability, there is a gap in the protection that we offer some individuals. The Government deplores discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and the treatment which some gay men and lesbians experience.
  That said, we do not believe that this Bill is the appropriate vehicle for this large new topic. It would be a radical step away from the intentions which we set out and on which we consulted in the Fairness at Work White Paper, and would clearly require extensive consultations in its own right. As has been said, the amendment raises substantial issues in several areas which require careful consultation, particularly with regard to the Armed Services and education.
  We shall want to consider the issue further in the context of wider European developments. I have already referred to new Article 13 in the Amsterdam Treaty. Now that the new treaty is in force, the Commission is able to bring forward recommendations and we expect it to take a positive interest in doing so. It may address the problems which concern the noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Meston, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the Government, although clearly we cannot commit ourselves at this stage to accepting each and every measure that the Commission may propose.
  As noble Lords are aware, the Equal Opportunities Commission formally presented to the Government last November its recommendations following a review of sex equality legislation. Those included a proposal that there should be specific legal protection for lesbians and gay men. The Government, particularly the Department for Education and Employment which leads on the policy, are carefully considering this and the EOC's other recommendations. We strive to achieve joined-up government, but that is no reason to have a confusion of responsibilities with regard to which department leads on such legislation.
  We are also considering the suggestion from the Better Regulation Task Force of a non-statutory code of practice. The task force is generally in favour of making current legislation work better. It also points out the importance of evaluating a code of practice before taking any further steps.
  I have shown that it is too early to be clear whether a legislative measure would be the appropriate way to proceed. However, I reassure the Committee that we want to be sure that in removing injustice, we are doing so thoughtfully and in full knowledge of the impact of the legislation. That would require full consultation with many relevant parties such as industry, the forces and the Churches.
  For that reason, I regret that the Government cannot support the new clause. I hope that those proposing the amendment are reassured of our commitment to act in
  348
  this area. Our differences are over the means rather than the objectives. I trust that the amendment will be withdrawn.
  Earl Ferrers: I am glad that the Minister said that there were problems with this amendment. I do not think that he need regret too much the fact that he is unable to accept it. I am glad that he referred to education, following the comment made by my noble friend Lady Young. Perhaps I may declare an interest as a Fellow of Winchester College, which is a single-sex school. If someone applied to be a master there and the headmaster was obliged not to refuse that applicant on the ground that he was a homosexual, the position would be intolerable. Although it may be perfectly reasonable to protect those of different sexual orientations, it is essential to protect young people, particularly at school. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not forget that matter when he considers this in greater detail.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I hope that I made it clear that before we proceed on this, we shall consider carefully all the important issues which the amendment raises.
  Lord Razzall: I think that there has been some misunderstanding on the part of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Earl in relation to the purpose of this new clause. In moving the amendment, it was never my intention (or that of my supporters) to suggest that the issues raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Earl were not matters on which the Government should consult extensively before bringing forward legislation in the form of the regulations provided for by my amendment. There was no doubt at all about the fact that that must take place. The issues raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Earl are clearly complex and need to be subject to consultation.
  If, following the passage of this comprehensive Bill, it is thought necessary, rather than relying simply on voluntary codes of practice, to introduce regulations to deal with these complex issues, the Government should take the necessary powers. However, on the basis of the progress that I think we have made in discussion with the Minister, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage—
  Earl Ferrers: Before the amendment is withdrawn, the noble Lord said that these are complex issues; but some of them are absolutely straightforward and simple.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Razzall Lord Razzall moved Amendment No. 273:
  After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—

  DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORK-PLACE (GENERAL PROHIBITION)
  ("—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of prohibiting, in relation to any employment matter, discrimination by an employer against another person on grounds specified in the regulations.
  (2) In subsection (1) "employment matter" includes—

  (a) the offer or refusal of employment;

  (b) the termination of employment;

  (c) terms and conditions of employment;

  (d) the provision of training or skills development opportunities;

  (e) promotion and career progression.

  (3) Regulations under subsection (1) may—

  (a) specify the types of action, or failure to take action, which are to be taken to constitute discrimination for the purpose of this section;

  (b) confer jurisdiction (including exclusive jurisdiction) on employment tribunals and on the Employment Appeal Tribunal in relation to cases brought under this section;

  (c) provide for penalties to be imposed or, as the case may he, compensation to be awarded in respect of offences committed under paragraph (a) above.

  (4) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.")
  The noble Lord said: This is the third and final amendment we are proposing from these Benches, very much along the lines of the other two amendments. I do not want to delay the Committee. I make one very simple point on the case as to why we believe legislative power should be taken by the Government at this stage. I have set out the two examples of age discrimination and sexual orientation.
  I say in reply to the Government's likely response that I would anticipate that were legislation in any of these areas to be brought before the Committee for approval as primary legislation, there would be one short clause to say that the Government should take power to legislate in the following areas in accordance with Schedule 1. Schedule 1 would set out a resolution of the kind I am suggesting here. I doubt whether those who argue that primary legislation would need to be brought back to the House would actually get any primary legislation different from the clause I am suggesting here. On that basis, I beg to move the amendment.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I shall be brief. The amendment urges the Government to take a power to prohibit discrimination on the basis of whatever grounds the Secretary of State may specify in regulations. It is puzzling to have such a broad and unfocused power proposed, particularly when the Government have been criticised for taking much more specific powers where we were clear about what they would be used for.
  As noble Lords will know, discrimination in employment—this is to repeat a point—is largely a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. However, the DTI has responsibility for some aspects; for example, discrimination on the grounds of trade union membership or non-membership. If noble Lords have in mind further specific situations where there is clear evidence that individuals are suffering unjustified discrimination in employment, the Government of course would he happy to consider them. We would not wish to have such sweeping powers as are proposed in the amendment.
  350
  If there are specific problems of discrimination, for example, on grounds of age, sexual orientation or protection for whistle-blowers, we should debate them, discuss the policy options and then decide whether to act and, if so, how. Legislation is not the only option. as we have shown on age discrimination, but it may he appropriate, as on whistle-blowers. However, it would be wrong to take powers without having the slightest idea about how they might be used. I do not think that would be a good precedent; I hope therefore that the amendment will be withdrawn.
  Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether I might try to help solve the puzzlement which he refers to. It has been established statistically that good-looking people, be they male or female, have much better employment prospects and have much higher lifetime salaries than those who are physically less favoured. This is a fact, established, I understand, both in the United States and in this country. I suspect that that is probably one of the discriminatory aspects which the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, had in mind.
  Lord Razzall: That is undoubtedly the case, as everybody looking around this Chamber would testify. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Schedule 5 [Unfair Dismissal of Striking Workers]:
  [Amendment No. 274 not moved.]
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 275:
  Page 73, line 40, at end insert—
  ("() It shall be for the employer to prove that the dismissal is not unfair by virtue of the reasons set out in subsection (4), (5) or (6).").
  The noble Lord said: There are various ways of protecting workers against dismissal. There is of course no more serious fate that can overcome someone than to be improperly dismissed. Two of those ways may be said to be the following. The first concerns a law which permits the employer to dismiss an employee by reason of the employee taking industrial action. The Committee will remember that we had some discussion about the nature of different forms of industrial action on an earlier amendment. I mentioned dismissal where the worker is taking part in industrial action as being a further area which needed definition and consideration.
  In the area of dismissal for industrial action a legal system may look at it by saying that the employer may dismiss an employee by reason of the activity of the employee, either for industrial action generally or in some cases for out-and-out strike action, or a mixture of these. That I would call the subjective procedure. Alternatively, there is the objective procedure where an employee may be dismissed at the time of taking industrial action. Curiously enough, our system, looked at as a whole, has permitted the employer to dismiss, or rather to find that the industrial tribunal, or the employment tribunal as I must now call it, has no

  351
  jurisdiction in the matter if the employee is dismissed at the time of the industrial action, where he is one of a minority, or not the whole number, with his colleagues, in taking the action.
  There is a case for an objective test; that is to say, where the employee is taking industrial action at the time the employer is found to commit a wrong or, in our system, to make an unfair dismissal. I would point out that despite the increase in the limits of the compensation that can be claimed, this is not a very strong remedy. The remedy, other than a very large amount of compensation, does not usually compare with the loss of the job where the unfair dismissal has occurred.
  Many commentators have argued that the subjective test produces great difficulty for the employee. This is not a case which can be compared with dismissal for maternity or pregnancy reasons, and so on. I make no attempt at trying to compare those dismissal grounds. But where a dismissal has taken place and the test is whether or not the employer can be shown to have dismissed an employee by reason of participation in industrial action, the employee is in very great difficulty. The cases which illustrate the situation very clearly—for once, I shall not cite them to your Lordships—are those in which it is alleged that the employer has dismissed the employee by reason of participation in trade union matters. That would be much improved by this Bill.
  However, in the cases that have occurred, until now it has been shown to be difficult for the employee to know what the employer's reason is. Therefore the objective test, whether or not the employer has dismissed the employee during the course of industrial action, in participation of which the complainant stands, is one which is simpler. In effect it puts a very heavy burden on the employer. Nevertheless it can be found in a number of western European systems.
  Weighing the matter in the way I have described, my noble friends and I felt that it would be absurd to seek to shift from the subjective system to the objective system. Goodness knows what agreements and deals that would cause to be upset. Also, it would hardly be a sensible amendment to the Bill because the Bill is based upon the subjective system: where the employer dismisses by reason of the industrial action. I shall not read to the Committee the remainder of the section. That is the nub of the matter. We did not think it right to move amendments to change that.
  However, we believe that we should find a reasonable balance between the two systems. I assert that industrial action is a right of workers provided they go through the necessary procedures. But, given that, a half-way balance should be found. That half-way balance would be to put the burden of proof on the employer that the dismissal was not unfair in terms of sub-paragraphs (4), (5) and (6). Sub-paragraph (4) applies to the first eight weeks. It would not be that onerous a proof. But if he wishes to prove that the dismissal was not by virtue of industrial action taken by the employee, he can prove that. The employer will have all the facts within his knowledge.
  I do not whether I am attracting the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. I do not aim my argument at her. She will have considered whether she supports the amendment. As usual, I aim my rather slender argument at my noble friends on the Front Bench. What is the argument for not putting the burden of proof on the employer? It is a half-way house system. If the employer is clear that he has not dismissed by reason of industrial action, why will he not give evidence to show that? That is easy for him; it is not difficult. It is difficult for the employee who is dismissed to do so.
  The strength of my argument to my noble friends on the Front Bench is that the burden of proving the reason for his action is put upon he who should prove the matter. If the employer cannot do that, it is clear that the employee should be able to convince the employment tribunal of the first part of his case.
  I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench—I say this in comradely friendship—will not simply read me a transcript which was organised before my argument was put. I see my noble friend looks confident that his transcript will meet the arguments I have put forward. There is a case here. The provision will stop injustice to employees who have been dismissed during the course of industrial action, or afterwards by victimisation. The employer will be guilty of unfair dismissal only when he cannot show clearly on the burden of proof that that was not the reason for his action. I beg to move.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My noble friend has given me a difficult task. He has told me that I cannot read my speaking notes. However, he has helped by saying that his arguments are slender. I shall have to steer a path between those as best I can.
  This is the first amendment to be debated on Schedule 5. I think that it is necessary to remind the Committee that the proposed amendment refers to dismissal after the period of eight weeks into industrial action. The Bill provides that dismissal within the first eight weeks of industrial action is automatically unfair dismissal. Therefore we must consider the situation after eight weeks in that light.
  Our proposals give employees the right to claim unfair dismissal if they are dismissed after the first eight weeks of industrial action and the employer has failed to take reasonable procedural steps to resolve the dispute.
  As with most unfair dismissal claims the tribunal will be asked to determine whether in the circumstances the employer acted reasonably. In his amendment my noble friend seeks to place the burden of proof on employers to show that the dismissal of strikers is fair if taking place after the first eight weeks. It will be the responsibility of the tribunal to make the finding having heard all the evidence and having considered all the circumstances. The amendment seeks to place the burden of proof on the employer. But—I believe that this is the crux of the matter for my noble friend—the way in which the Bill has been drafted means that the new Section 238A will be construed as one with Part X

  353
  of the Employment Rights Act, including Section 98 which places the burden on the employer to show the reason for dismissal and that the reason was a permissible one. It will be for the tribunal to determine whether that reason was the true one and whether his action was reasonable. It will also be for the tribunal to decide whether the employer took all reasonable steps. The Government consider it unnecessary and inappropriate to make special provision for these purposes.
  In assessing whether employers have taken sufficient action to resolve a dispute, the tribunal will be asked to consider whether respect was shown for dispute procedures, whether reasonable steps were followed to reopen negotiations after the action began, and whether reasonable steps had been taken to involve ACAS or other third parties in helping to resolve the dispute through conciliation or mediation. The tribunals will be able to draw on direct hard evidence of the behaviour of the parties before reaching a decision. There should be relatively little difficulty for the tribunal to establish what steps have or have not taken place. What is more, the legislation has been drafted to ensure that the onus is placed on the behaviour of both parties. I am sure that noble Lords on both sides of the Committee will agree that that is the right approach. If dismissals are to be avoided, and clearly they should be the last resort, both sides must be encouraged to find a settlement. The legislation specifically states that tribunals must equally take into particular account whether the union has made or accepted overtures to resolve the dispute.
  In view of the way in which this legislation is read in with the Employment Rights Act, I hope that my noble friend will not think it appropriate to press his amendment.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend knows well that it is not our intention to press any of the amendments that we move today. On the other hand, I was a little unhappy about the nature of his argument—I shall not call it slender. Of course I agree that new Section 238A forms part of Part X of the Employment Rights Act. It is true that the employment tribunals must look for the true reason of the dismissal. There will be conciliation, I agree. There will be a situation where legal dismissal is the last resort. Those points which he made, with respect, do not go to my amendment.
  However, when my noble friend says that the employment tribunals will have little difficulty in deciding the matter, that raises the crucial issue. Most people who have been to a tribunal or any other court know that the case is often won or lost, first, according to where the burden of proof lies in fact and in law; and, secondly, how easy it will be to obtain facts for the complainant before the tribunal or court so that it can make its decision on the full argument.
  There is no full discovery procedure and even if there were, I would not change my argument. It rests on a simple point which my noble friend, with great respect, did not meet. It is very different when a complainant asks a tribunal for a remedy against a defendant whose reason you have to prove. Let us take my noble friend
  354
  as the complainant who has to prove to the tribunal that my noble friend on his right, who was his employer, had got rid of him by reason of any situation you like. Certainly, where he got rid of him by reason of industrial action my noble friend will not know where to turn, although he will be quite certain that he was pushed. He will talk to his colleagues in the shop who will know that he was pushed out. If he is a militant, it is highly likely that he will be pushed out.
  How will the complainant prove that? It is rare for the subjective test to be easily proved in a case where the defendant does not have to go to the burden of proof. I appreciate that it is difficult for my noble friend to take all these matters away and come back on Report when we shall hear many new things, but I ask him to look at this again. It goes to the matter of justice by complainants who are forced to prove someone else's reason.
  When it is a serious matter, such as the loss of a job, surely it should be the other way around. The employer can say that he was dismissed because he was slow at the work and he can show that. He may say, "He was no good at this, that and the other". That is the end of the case under my amendment, as under any other. But where it is a question of the complainant needing to show that he was dismissed by reason of the industrial action, surely we should shift the normal burden. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 5 agreed to.
  Clause 15 [Collective agreements: detriment and dismissal]:
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 276:
  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 noble Baroness said: This amendment is designed to implement statements made by the Government in paragraph 4.20 of their White Paper, Fairness at Work, reinforced by Annex 1, paragraph 8, of the same White Paper, both of which I should like to quote. In paragraph 4.20, the Government state:
  "As under existing law, individual employees will continue to have the right, should they wish, to agree terms with their employer.".
  That seems plain enough. But just to make it clearer, the Government state in Annex 1:
  "The terms of agreements resulting from collective bargaining are normally incorporated into individual employees' contracts either explicitly or by custom and practice and thus set the minimum terms and conditions for all employees in the bargaining unit".
  The minimum terms, my Lords.
  The annex goes on:
  "Under the existing law an employee and an employer can agree different terms if they wish. Since the current law works well, the Government sees no reason to change it".
  That is equally plain, but changing the law is precisely what Clause 15 is intended to do, as the Government admit in paragraphs 110 and 111 of the Explanatory Notes.
  The issue in this clause arises from the landmark 1995 decision by noble and learned Members of your Lordships' House in the cases of Associated Newspapers Limited v. Wilson and Associated British Ports v. Palmer and Others. A decision of the Court of Appeal was overruled by their Lordships, who held that not paying the same wages to an employee who declined to sign an individual contract was not action against those who did. In other words, not doing something was not action.
  Their Lordships ruled that not doing something was an omission which was not prohibited by the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, as amended. In paragraphs 4.24 and 4.25 of the White Paper, contradicting what they had said only four paragraphs previously about the rights of employers and employees to agree their own terms, and in contradiction of the statement in Annex 1 which I have quoted, the Government stated:
  "The Government therefore propose to make it unlawful to discriminate by omission on the grounds of trade union membership, non-membership or activities.".
  The White Paper, at paragraph 4.25, makes it clear that the intention would be to overrule or reverse the law as determined by this House and the two cases to which I have referred. Paragraphs 110 and 112 of the Explanatory Notes make it equally clear that that is the intention. Clause 15(1) as drafted does not spell out in precise words what the Government are getting at. And the Secretary of State is seeking powers in subsection (2)(a) to make regulations in what the Bill refers to as "specified classes of cases" without openly saying what the Government currently have in mind.
  During the Second Reading in your Lordships' House on 10th May, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, when winding up for the Government, said that,
  "employers and employees will remain free as they are now,
  and I emphasise the words "free as they are now",
  "to conclude individual contracts if they wish to, even where collective bargaining arrangements exist. We have no intention of changing that and the Bill does not do so.".—[Official Report, 10/5/99; col. 1045.]
  That is exactly what the Bill does do. As the law currently stands, following the two rulings in the Associated Newspapers and Associated British Ports
  356
  cases, an employer is permitted to give an inducement to an employee not to sign a collective agreement because that is not a positive detriment against an employee who will not enter into a personal contract.
  As the Bill stands, an employee who does not receive the inducement because he does not sign a personal contract could now claim that he has suffered a detriment. That is despite the fact that the employee who does not accept the collective agreement will also be offering something in return, apart from not signing the collective agreement. He might be willing to work more flexible hours, to have more flexible working arrangements, more flexibility in multi-tasking or whatever. The Government are now proposing that the signatories to the collective agreement shall receive the extra benefits in return for nothing.
  In Committee in the other place, the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, admitted talking about an employee who had refused to sign a personal contract, stating:
  "The employee may … think that it is unreasonable of the employer to … give the employee a pay rise, but that is the employer's right.".
  We agree with that. An employer and an employee should always be free to make their own bargain. Where there is a collective agreement affecting the firm, as the Government state in the White Paper, those should be the minimum terms. We believe that an employer should be fully entitled to pay more to employees who do what an employer considers to be more valuable to him.
  The Minister in the other place agreed that the Government would look at the clause again. As they have not done so, we have tabled the amendment to clarify the point beyond any possible ambiguity. I invite Members of the Committee to look at my carefully drafted amendment. It relates only to a benefit in the form of extra money—and just money. It makes clear that a different rate of pay between those who sign an individual contract as distinct from a collective one, and those who decline to sign such a personal contract, is not to be treated as a detriment.
  There are two important conditions. The first is that the individual contract must not inhibit the worker from nevertheless joining the union, and, secondly, that the additional payments and benefits shall be a contractual right of the employee and not merely something at the discretion of the employer. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, pointed out in the lead judgment in two cases that a union is able to offer its members what he described as,
  "other and important valuable services",
  apart from the collective negotiating facilities over their terms and conditions of employment. Indeed, they can and do. In return for a small weekly subscription, some unions offer cheaper car, holiday and medical insurance, cheaper mortgages, representations in disputes with their employer and discounts on a whole range of goods and services.
  This amendment does not prevent the employee from enjoying those and any other benefits as a member of any union which he chooses. But the point is that in a Bill which the Secretary of State described in the other

  357
  place at col. 130 on 9th February 1999 as containing measures for a partnership based on rights matched by responsibilities, it must be right that if unions are entitled to offer workers all sorts of inducements to join a union, then an employer should be entitled to offer employees an inducement to accept different terms of employment from that negotiated in the collective agreement.
  That is especially so when those different terms will be such as to enable the employer to receive greater benefits from the efforts of the worker. As I said, those may be in the form of multi-skilling, flexibility over duties, hours of work and so on. What the amendment does not do, apart from not preventing an employee from being a member of the union, is that it does not permit an employer to refuse to promote the dissenting worker on those grounds; it does not permit an employer to give the dissenting employee all the worst tasks or worst places of work in the premises. It does not permit the employer to harass or wrongly dismiss the dissenting worker. It does not permit the employer to take any other sanctions against the dissenting worker. All those wrongful things, and any others that he can think of, can be legislated against by the Secretary of State under paragraph 2. It does not permit the employer to give and withhold any extra contractual benefits capriciously or arbitrarily. There is to be no discretion. There can be no question of the worker being forced to sign an individual contract, which is what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested might happen. He is not forced to take the inducement of extra money in his pocket. The worker who enters into an individual contract is to receive that as part of his contractual rights.
  The amendment merely entitled the employer to continue to pay the dissenting worker the wages that the union had already negotiated as being fair and reasonable for the job. The clause as drawn is intended to do the opposite of what the Government paid lip service to in part of the White Paper and in the ministerial speeches to both Houses, which I have quoted; namely, the freedom of employer and employee to negotiate between themselves whatever terms they think fit.
  It has another sinister effect. By compelling an employee to accept a collective bargain against his will and in that way increase the power of the union over him, the Government are attempting to reintroduce the closed shop by the back door. I repeat that this would reintroduce the closed shop by the back door. That is something which the Labour Party promised it would not do. This amendment simply ensures that workers enjoy one of the most fundamental of employment rights; namely, to negotiate their own individual pay if they can strike a better bargain with their employer, possibly by being more flexible than an entrenched egalitarian position of a union. I beg to move.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Crickhowell: My name is to the amendment. I do riot intend to repeat what I said on Second
  358
  Reading or the interest that I declared then. I thought I had then received an encouraging response from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I hope that I shall hear an encouraging response to the amendment.
  The simple point I want to make is that we are talking about the good industrial relations which have existed in the ports industry over the past eight or nine years, in marked contrast to the shambles which existed before then. Those relations are good and are a transformation from the past. I hope that by their response to the amendment, the Government will ensure that those good industrial relations can continue.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I sincerely congratulate the noble Baroness both on the care which she has clearly taken in drafting the amendment and on the evident passion with which she moved it.
  I think that I can assure her that we can achieve substantially the objectives which she wishes to achieve. As my noble friend Lord Simon explained in his letter of 10th May, in response to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, the Government hoped to replace the power in Clause 15 with a substantive provision and we hoped to bring forward an amendment in Committee. The noble Baroness referred to that in her speech. I am sorry that we have not been able to do so, but I am confident that we shall be able to produce an amendment on Report which will, in a sense, go further than that of the noble Baroness because, instead of adding to the regulatory power, which is what her amendment does, it will produce a substantive content in Clause 15 instead of a purely regulatory power.
  I assure the noble Baroness that our substantive proposal will address the point that she is getting at with this amendment. I should like to be clear on this point. I can give her more information about what our amendment will provide than we have been able to give in the past when we have given only indications. Workers should be protected against detriment or dismissal for refusing to give up the terms of the collective agreement which applied to them. That has not changed. But as I made clear on Second Reading, the existing law allows employers and employees to conclude contracts on terms which differ from collective agreements. I do not have the attention of the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister should know and be certain that I am listening to every word that he says.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In the White Paper, we promised that that would continue. Obviously, in order to do so, we must be clear that the fact that one worker benefits from better terms under an individual contract does not constitute detriment for those who remain covered by the collective agreement. However, it will not be permissible for employers to offer better terms on condition that workers leave or do not join

  359
  a trade union. That would be contrary not only to this Government's intention but contrary also to Section 146 of the 1992 Act.
  The noble Baroness referred to the Wilson and Palmer case. There is the possibility of some misunderstanding in that regard. The majority of the Judicial Committee said that offering different terms did not constitute discrimination on grounds of TU membership in the cases of Wilson and Palmer. The employer's intention was to change bargaining arrangements and not to deter trade union membership. The noble Baroness must not confuse those two issues. We are ensuring that an omission intended to deter trade union membership will be unlawful, but we shall maintain the right to change bargaining arrangements where there is no intention to prevent or deter union membership.
  I repeat our apologies that we have not been able to produce the substantive amendment which we wished to introduce in Committee. I wish to respond also to the noble Baroness's claim that we are introducing the closed shop by the back door. That simply is not the case. The closed shop is about compelling people to be union members. Nothing in this Bill affects the right of people to choose whether or not to join a union. Many non-members of unions are covered by collective agreements now. Equally, many trade unionists currently work in places where there is no collective bargaining. I think it could be said that most members of the Government are in that position. No doubt that will continue to be the case. Recognition has nothing to do with the closed shop.
  Despite those two misunderstandings between us, I hope that with the assurances and details I have given about the substantive amendment which we propose to introduce on Report, the noble Baroness will realise that we intend to introduce something which is along the lines of what the noble Baroness wants, but it will be more effective by being on the face of the Bill rather than by being a constraint in regulations. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord McCarthy: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he realises how much he is worrying some of us? The amendment moved by the noble Baroness would reinforce all the discriminatory aspects of the Ullswater amendment. It would make it even simpler for employers not to make threats but to offer bribes, the object of which is to induce people to leave the union and to fragment recognition and collective bargaining. That was the object of the Ullswater amendment and it is the object of this amendment. If the Government say at this point that they want to go even further, I am very worried.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I make it clear that I have not announced a change of policy; I have spelt out in more detail what has already been said by Michael Wills in another place and what I said at an earlier stage of the Bill. We have always said that there is a role for individual contracts but that the use
  360
  of individual contracts or discriminatory provisions in contracts either to discourage trade union membership or to make trade union membership impossible was not acceptable. There is no change in policy here. We are spelling out in a little detail, but not of course the full detail, the way in which we propose to fulfil the undertakings we made at earlier stages of the Bill.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I repeat that I believe this to be a closed shop through the back door, simply because all that is left for employers and employees to negotiate, apart from union rights, is the matter of extra pay, flexible hours and so on. If that is taken away, there is no purpose at all. There would be no reason why anybody should negotiate with an employer because there would be nothing to achieve.
  I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I accept that the Government would have come back with something but have not been able to do so. Knowing how passionately I felt about the matter, I believe they should have dealt with it quicker. However, bearing in mind the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I believe that it may not come back in a way that would be suitable for us. I feel I must test the opinion of the House. It is always open to the Government, if they feel they can bring back something better, to deal with it in that way.
  7.42 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 276) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98; Not-Contents, 78.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Aldington, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Anelay of St. Johns, B.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Elton, L.

  Arran, E

  Ferrers, E.

  Astor, V.

  Fookes. B.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Attlee, E.

  Garel-Jones, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Geddes, L.

  Berners, B.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Biffen, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Blaker, L.

  Harding of Petherton, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Henley, h. [Teller]

  Burnham, J. [Teller.]

  Higgins, L.

  Byford, B.

  Hogg, B.

  Cadman, L.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Home, E.

  Carnock, L.

  Howe, E.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Coleraine, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Kingsland, L.

  Courtown, E.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Cranborne, V.

  Leigh, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Cross, V.

  Luke, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Lyell, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

  Denham, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V

  361

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Rowallan, L.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Ryder of Wensum, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  St John of Fawsley, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly

  Montgomery of Alamein, V.

  Seccombe, B.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Munster, E.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  Naseby, L.

  Strathclyde. L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Tebbit, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Nunburnholme, L.

  Tugendhat, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Westbury, L.

  Onslow of Woking, L.

  Wise, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Wynford, L

  Renton, L.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Ahmed, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Alli, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Amos, B.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Bach, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Barnett, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  McCarthy, L.

  Blease, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Bragg, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Brookman, L.

  McNair, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Carlisle, E.

  Meston, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller.]

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Davies of Coity. L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Desai, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Dholakia, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B

  Shore of Stepney, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Simon, V.

  Goodhart, L.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Grenfell, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Thurso, V.

  Hampton, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Walpole, L

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage on this Bill be resumed not before 8.50 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

Tourism and the Working Time Directive
7.52 p.m.
Lord Cadman Lord Cadman rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the effect of the introduction of the Working Time Directive on the well-being of the tourist industry.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the outset let me thank all noble Lords who are to take part in this debate this evening, as I shall not have an opportunity to do so at the end. Also, I thank the Minister in advance for his reply, which I am sure will be both informative and sympathetic.
The tourist industry generates expenditure of £53 million a year and accounts for some 5 per cent of our gross domestic product. It is our largest invisible export and provides employment for 1.75 million people. In an era of declining manpower needs, both in manufacturing and agriculture, it is tourism, especially in rural areas, which has been the greatest provider of alternative employment. The industry depends on an infrastructure of a range of accommodation to cater for all tastes and pockets.
One specific sector with which I am closely involved caters for touring caravans. My involvement is that I am both a practitioner and a member of the Caravan Club. I am also a member of the council of that club. which is the largest user group of touring caravans in the United Kingdom and probably in the world. As such the club owns and operates the largest network of sites—203 of them—for touring caravans in this country. Operating a site network is a manpower intensive business. Indeed, for the club's network it is necessary to employ a total of 640 people on a variety of contracts to meet all needs throughout the season for warden service.
The usage of sites is a succession of unpredictable peaks and troughs because touring caravanners enjoy the ability to react flexibly to short-notice, to changes in the weather and the occurrence of events and sporting fixtures among other things, for which they will use their caravans as a base. Therefore sites are manned to cover all possible peaks, including the likelihood of people travelling through the night and arriving at all hours. This element includes the important group of caravan as who are incoming tourists from overseas. They arrive by ferry, often in the middle of the night and then drive to a site relatively close to the ferry port where they will start their holiday.
The warden workforce, prior to 1999, was happy to live in their caravans, on their sites, throughout the season, being available to members when required, including for emergencies during the night and taking their own free time when slack periods happened to occur. However, with the imposition of the Working Time Directive, that approach is no longer possible. The club is required to prescribe working hours to the wardens to ensure that the maximum is not exceeded over the reference period allowed. While it is true that some individuals might opt out of the working time directive, that cannot be relied upon and contracts have to be drawn up that recognise that all wardens have

363
statutory rights covering maximum hours, rest time during the day, rest days during the week and paid holidays.
The matter cannot be divorced from the associated legislation to impose a national minimum wage. Wardens might be prepared to forego their rights under the Working Time Directive, but none can opt out of the minimum wage. And of course, stipulating the minimum at which the least onerous job must be paid forces up the rate at which those with greater experience and those with greater responsibility must be paid.
The Caravan Club has found that if it was to provide in 1999 the same level of service at its sites as in 1998, it would involve employing more people to cover the hours and paying many of them at higher rates. The result would have been a 60 per cent increase in the wardens' salary bill alone. That was unacceptable, so a compromise solution has been adopted whereby the level of service on sites has been degraded by ordering wardens to institute practices which mean that no service of any sort is available at certain times. Even so the salary bill has increased by 30 per cent—£600,000 a year. That increase has not been passed on in increased site fees in 1999 and so the site network will run at a loss. Clearly, that must be rectified for future years and the club will be providing a lower quality service at greater cost. That is not a recipe for success in a service industry such as tourism.
The customers of the tourist industry who sustain economies of so many rural areas use discretionary money. The facts of life in 1999 are that people have less money to spend at their own discretion, especially those likely to come to the UK from overseas. My noble friend Lady Anerley of St. Johns, in a debate on 12th May last, made reference to the British Activity Holiday Association, which also has resident staff, but as part of its community. There are many such organisations. I wonder whether the Government realise how many problems are being caused to these bodies in trying to cope with the introduction of this directive.
The industry is having to deal with other directives, such as parental leave, part-time workers and works councils. To those in due course will be added the minimum wage regulations, the provisions of the Employment Relations Bill and, in the case of the hospitality industry—an important part of tourism—the impending Food Standards Bill. The regulations are seen by many in the hospitality industry as unhelpful and expensive to implement. Far from providing protection in employment, which seems to have been the Government's reason for their introduction, the result has been bureaucratic complication and expense. Remember the previous government negotiated an opt-out, so this is not something imposed on us by Brussels.
The British Hospitality Association has seen fit to offer its members—300,000 establishments—a 60-page pack to help them through the implementation of the directive. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on the user-friendliness of it all.
To what extent will the devolved administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland be able to assist those members of the tourist industry in their areas, bearing in mind that they are taking up many of the regional functions of the English Tourist Board?
All of this is in stark contrast with the practice abroad where tourism, despite the adoption of additional working and wage regulation, seems to be much better protected from the worst aspects of such directives by the various agencies set up by the other member states.
The directive seems to pile complicated problems on to possibly fragile businesses that they could well do without. That view was confirmed in an article in the Daily Telegraph business section on 10th June which highlighted the widespread ignorance of what the directive is about; the need for both employers and employees to keep better records and look forward to increased litigation in the future. That is hardly an exciting prospect for future industrial relations.
This centrally driven burden of unnecessary regulations is being imposed on the tourist industry to its detriment. Prescribing working hours contractually to ensure that maxima are not exceeded and wage bills are contained, in an industry where peaks and troughs of activity cannot be forecast, is not a sensible management practice. The working time directive, associated with the national minimum wage, is inimicable to the best interests of the tourist industry and certainly to the sector in which I am involved.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, on the bicentenary of the French Revolution I happened to be on business in Beijing. At a reception, a very senior Chinese official was asked what had been the effect on China of the French Revolution. He thought for a few moments, and then he said: "I think it is too early to say."
I think it is too early say what the effect of the Working Time Directive has been on tourism. I do not think that in one season its intricacies and flexibilities have been fully understood or experienced by British business. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, for providing me with this opportunity to say something about the tourism industry.
I live in Richmond, Surrey, and my local FE college, Richmond College, is one of our leading establishments for training people for the tourism industry. It seems that there are two parts to the industry: the hospitality side and the travel and tourism side. The head of the department, Mr Alan Crossthwaite, tells me that there are plenty of people who want to join the travel and tourism course, but that it is a struggle to find people for the hospitality and catering courses.
He explains this as a matter of image. Travel and tourism has an exciting and progressive image, whereas hospitality seems to be a poor relation. The hospitality sector has an image of working long hours, with a reputation for low starting pay and the lack of a proper career structure. But this is changing with more and more companies introducing straight shift work into the kitchen and hotel so that people can work regular 40 to

365
45 hour weeks. Obviously, not enough information is provided to schools and colleges for students to make an informed choice.
New hotels are opening all the time and the tourism industry is expanding. There are no problems in placing qualified students; indeed, the opposite is the case. Some are tempted to take up full-time work before they are qualified because there is such a demand for their skills.
It is becoming a more skilled industry. There are important skills to be learned in hospitality and service, skills to enable the industry to increase productivity. Things do not stand still. With these additional regulations comes the new technology, the new equipment and ways of increasing people's productivity. People in every industry are having to adapt in this way; that is what competitiveness is all about.
As it becomes a more skilled industry, so the old practices become more outdated. Surely, tipping is one of these outdated practices? The tipping system must deter some recruits. Apart from here and the United States, most countries seem to have got rid of tipping, and in my view quite rightly. As the industry becomes more skilled, so people's pay should become less dependent on the idiosyncrasies of tipping. I think it is demeaning that a skilled person should have to depend on tips.
Therefore, I do not think that the, problem is the Working Time Directive. If I may say so, it may just be a little bit of anti-European prejudice. The problems for the industry date from well before the introduction of the Working Time Directive. Instead of blaming the directive, has the noble Lord considered how tourism can benefit from the New Deal? How effective has the industry been in persuading personal advisers and employment service staff working with New Dealers that there are interesting, exciting and rewarding possibilities for work in the tourism and hospitality industry?
All industries are competing to attract young people. They have to make themselves attractive to young people in schools and colleges. They have to offer reasonable starting pay and good career prospects. The hospitality and tourism industry has to make itself attractive to those who like working with people or who are keen on developing their social skills. Schools should also emphasise these features and the fact that hospitality can be as exciting and as varied as travel and tourism or any other industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Cadman, told us how important the tourism industry is, and he is right; it is important to the nation's economy that it should be successful. However, I say to the noble Lord that the problem is not the Working Time Directive; the industry should look to the way it is organised so that it can then solve its own problems by making itself much more attractive and competitive and offering better prospects to today's young people.
8.7 p.m.
The Earl of Stair: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, has brought before noble Lords a very important question. I must first declare an interest in that
366
I run a small tourist enterprise in south west Scotland, and it gives me great pleasure to be able to speak on this subject, which is a matter reserved from the devolved Parliament.
The directive is aimed at protecting the rights of all workers. It does not, however, specify between temporary or seasonal workers and those that are employed full-time.
With the ongoing agricultural crisis and with no obvious sign of improvement, the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, highlighted how the tourist industry is becoming increasingly more vital to rural areas in the United Kingdom.
The working time directive is in principle, like the minimum wage, not a bad thing. I support any legislation that will help to protect exploited workers. However, this directive has, I believe, been badly handled by both recent governments. There was initially plenty of time for the last government to sensibly prepare for this directive to be implemented. It could have been properly discussed and all businesses could have planned for its implementation. The approaching general election gave the prospective Labour Government the opportunity to play the manifesto card yet again, promising to implement the minimum wage and the Working Time Directive as soon as possible.
The directive was implemented at very great speed, with plenty of good intentions, but sadly with not enough attention to detail. It was originally put before Parliament on 30th July and was due to be implemented after the recess at the beginning of October.
The directive can be easily implemented by tourist enterprises that are open for the majority of the year because they operate in similar ways to standard businesses. The enterprises that are particularly affected are small tourist businesses which rely on seasonal help and which are open only for a short time of the year but for more than the 13 weeks at which the entitlement to holiday pay cuts in. Because these enterprises are only seasonal, there is plenty of time for workers to take holiday when required. The directive is designed to protect the rights of full-time workers to ensure that they are able to take their full entitlement to holiday in a full year.
The directive is aimed at protecting the rights of the worker, not the employee, and is therefore trying to cover a very wide field of employment in one sweep.
The record-keeping that is now required, followed by the calculating and paying of holiday entitlement, will create an extra burden for many, often niche, enterprises, as well as increasing their overheads through extra administration costs, the result of which can only lead to less profitability and consequently put pressure on the viability of the smaller enterprise. For example, this year a seasonal enterprise open for approximately six months is likely to have its overheads increased by approximately 6 per cent, in a season which is already showing every indication of being worse even than last year.

367
As we are rapidly approaching the end of the first year of the effectiveness of this directive, can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will review the working time directive in the light of the effects on particularly small rural tourist enterprises?
8.10 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, both the noble Earl, Lord Stair, and my noble friend Lord Cadman spoke with authority about an industry with which they are directly involved. I approach this from a slightly different angle—with a non-pecuniary interest—in that I am the honorary patron of the Restaurant Association. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will remember that I have spoken about this industry on a number of occasions and he has always been extremely helpful.
The restaurant business is a very large one; indeed, there are something like 100,000 establishments now in this country, of which more than 90 per cent—about 93,000—are businesses which employ fewer than 10 people. So they are essentially very small businesses. Interestingly enough, within those small businesses there is a huge number of part-time workers. The 1998 Labour Force Survey revealed that 60 per cent of restaurant employees work part time. It is a service industry and such small industries, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, can easily become overburdened with legislation, of which there has been a large amount lately. They also become burdened with bureaucracy which they find difficult to deal with.
As these impositions come forth from government, they impose a burden on the industry and reduce its flexibility. Essentially, service industries have to be intensely flexible. If employers in the restaurant trade are required to extend benefits, incentives, health schemes, and so on, to part-time employees, they will find it very difficult and may well decide that they have to reduce employment; and that would have exactly the reverse effect of what the Government are trying to achieve.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred to skills. He is quite right to say that the college to which he referred has done a great job in introducing people into an important industry and training them for careers. He is equally right to talk about tipping, although that is a slightly different issue and one which I have brought before the House on various occasions. I did so particularly during the time of the previous government, but we were not able to make any progress on the subject. So that is another issue to which we need to return on another occasion. The fact is that skill shortages do exist in this industry. If greater burdens are placed on the industry and if those burdens become more complicated, it will be very difficult for progress to be made.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is well aware of the fact that this is an industry in which there are huge employment opportunities. These are particularly available to part-time workers and I understand that the Government are very keen to
368
encourage part-time workers. The problem is that the tone of the report which has been issued is rather heavy-handed. I feel that it would perhaps have been more acceptable generally within the industry if it had had a somewhat lighter touch. Therefore, I look to the Government to try to be more flexible in the way that they approach these impositions. Perhaps they could have more detailed consultations and listen more carefully to what the industry has to say on this matter. The people who work in it are very articulate and have a great opportunity to provide information on a wide front. I believe that that would be helpful to the Government in coming to conclusions about the imposition of additional burdens on a industry in which the employment opportunities are so great; in which the career possibilities are enormous; and in which there is much social mobility, with people starting from very small beginnings and becoming very successful. It is an industry in which all you need is talent and drive to succeed. That is something which the Government should be encouraging, rather than imposing burdens which may make it difficult for this to happen.
8.15 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by congratulating noble Lords on the brevity and lucidity with which they have contributed to the debate. The Minister and I are sharing in the proceedings on the legislation both before and after the debate and we may yet be able to snatch a sandwich. We are indeed grateful.
I declare my interests in the hospitality and tourism industry. I am patron of the HCIMA, as well as being a fellow. I am also the patron of the Academy of Food and Wine Service, and I have served on committees with the British Hospitality Association. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, received some briefing from the association because it kindly sent me a copy. In addition, I am of course working in the industry.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, for bringing forward this short debate. He has cast a rather wide net because he threw in the minimum wage, the employment Bill that we are currently discussing, together with various other things. He has chosen a very interesting word in the title of the Question which refers to the "well-being" of the tourist industry. It does not refer to the profitability, the cost, or anything else; it concentrates on the well-being of the industry. Indeed, we could have a short debate discussing what he actually means by that.
Perhaps I may correct the noble Lord on one small piece of history, as I understand it. Perhaps the Minister will be able to confirm this. The noble Lord stated that the previous government had negotiated an opt-out. So far as I am aware, that is not the case. There was an EU directive concerning health and safety which the previous administration refused to accept. The European Court of Justice ruled that the previous government were not correct, and the directive was sent back to this country to be implemented. Therefore, so far as I understand it, in implementing the Working Time Directive the current Government are merely doing something that the previous government would have been obliged to do had they not lost office.

369
It seems to me that there are two broad matters to consider—the principles and the practicalities. Perhaps I may, first, briefly address the principles. Essentially, as I understand the argument, if you cannot operate without making people work more than 48 hours a week or paying them less than £3.60 an hour, your business will not work. I have fought my entire management life in the tourist industry on the basis that we should have quality employees and that those employees should have a right to decent working conditions and a decent wage.
Over many years, we have demonstrated in our industry that we are not in a position to deliver that collectively. I have always believed that the reason for that is that the fragmented nature of our industry makes it impossible for the workforce to organise in a collective manner in such a way as to enable it to obtain a reasonable wage; and that has rebounded on us. As the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, pointed out, we have a reputation for poor pay and poor conditions, which is thoroughly undeserved today. In our industry these days we offer pay and conditions that are equal to those in many other industries. Therefore, whenever I can, I shout loud to try to persuade people to go into our industry. I certainly say to them that they will be as well paid and as well looked after as in any other industry. I reject the idea that the only way in which our industry can survive is by offering poor pay and conditions.
However, having said that, there are clearly difficulties when it comes to the practicalities. As the noble Earl, Lord Stair, said, it is a question of attention to detail. As I wish to be even-handed, I shall give two examples. First, I refer to my own business, Champneys, where I rushed to implement the Working Time Directive as soon as I possibly could, having already implemented the minimum wage two years before it became law. We carried out an audit and to my horror I discovered that my chefs were being paid for a certain number of hours but were working a great deal more. Apparently someone had decided that that was the only way to implement the measure. Therefore, although I thought I was a good employer who was doing everything properly, I was in practice not doing everything right. It is interesting to note that in putting the situation right we discovered that, with a little organisation, we could implement the measure with the same number of people. I mentioned this to the BHA when I telephoned it in order to obtain its brief on the matter. The gentleman I spoke to told me that I was not alone as regards my experience. He told me that there is an extremely well known London five star hotel where the head chef told the general manager that if the measure was implemented in law he would need five more chefs in the kitchen. As one can imagine, the general manager decided to consider the matter further. By applying some sensible process engineering, it was discovered not only that there was not the need for five extra chefs but that the number could be reduced by two. Therefore, in that instance, the Working Time Directive cut employment.
I come here this evening after speaking at the Institute of Management Services of which I am also patron. We launched today an index for measuring productivity in the service sector. There is an interesting lesson to be
370
learnt here; namely, that if we learn how to be more productive we can satisfy both sides of the equation. We can pay more and maintain our service standards. Certainly, the detail of the statutory instrument is extremely complicated. Schedule 1 on workforce agreements is an absolute minefield. I have great sympathy with people who are trying to plough through it. The BHA issued a 60-page booklet on the matter. I believe that there are four cases currently going through the courts to test various areas of the law. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, made the best comment when he said that it is simply too early to make a judgment on the measure. If we were debating this subject a year down the track, it would have far more relevance. We would know the results of some of the court cases and the industry would have had more experience of implementing the measure and would be able to demonstrate where the true problems lie.
I ask the Government to consider carefully the genuine problems that exist. Bigger businesses., such as mine can usually survive, but smaller businesses with fewer employees may experience difficulties, not with the principle of the legislation—that is, that people should not be made to work excessive hours—but with its implementation. Some of the detail of the legislation has led to grave difficulties. I hope that the Government will listen sympathetically to what the industry has to say. We need to find solutions to help the industry to comply with the detail of the measure without violating its principles. I certainly support those principles strongly, as I am sure do the Government.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Cadman for introducing this debate and for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important matter. I also thank him for giving us such an interesting insight into caravanning and its apparently many problems.
The tourism industry in Britain is the fifth largest in the country and accounts for some £53 billion a year, as my noble friend Lord Cadman said. It accounts for 5 per cent of our gross domestic product and 8 per cent of all consumer spending. It employs some 1¾ million people which is 7 per cent of the total workforce. In recent years it has been responsible for one in six of all new jobs. It comprises some 150,000 businesses of which the great majority are small. Yet the industry has the potential to create even more jobs, generate even more wealth and provide the means and will to rejuvenate run-down areas and resorts. Unfortunately, this potential has been seriously threatened by the raft of new regulations introduced by this Government. As my noble friend and other noble Lords have pointed out, the Working Time Directive seriously affects the well-being of the tourism industry. In the Government's strategy document Tomorrow's Tourism it is recognised that,
"Poor regulation is particularly damaging for small businesses, who have fewer staff to implement, and are less able to absorb the costs of regulation".
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, mentioned that point.

371
Despite this, the Government have introduced no fewer than 2,400 new regulations across commerce and industry since 1st May 1997, many of which bear hardest on the tourism industry which we are discussing tonight. The number of regulations is significant. However, it is not just a matter of the overall number but also of their nature and impact. Those introduced by the Government have already had a measurable adverse impact on the tourism industry. One has only to talk to people running tourism businesses to know that.
It is indeed serious for tourism that the Working Time Directive has been introduced. Tourism, almost above any other industry, needs a flexible labour force, as my noble friend Lord Montgomery said. Large businesses can absorb extra costs. However, they do not want to do so as the measure will cost them many millions of pounds. The measure will result in fewer jobs—as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso said—but the larger businesses can accommodate those costs. However, as I have said before, the majority of the industry is made up of small businesses which are not in a position to afford the extra costs of bureaucracy. The fixed on-costs of compliance in terms of extra clerical work, computer systems and so on are much the same whether a business is turning over £50 million or £500,000, but the burden is correspondingly greater on smaller businesses.
The Working Time Directive is having a particular impact on the way in which businesses can manage shift patterns for employees such as night porters in hotels. The compliance costs are significant. Most often the directive concentrates on the 48 hour maximum, but the real problem lies in the rigid shift patterns and break requirements that the directive imposes. This industry often operates on a 24 hours per day basis. The Working Time Directive approaches issues from the point of view of what is needed for those who work on a production line in a factory. It ignores the reality of work practices for the majority of people in the United Kingdom working in a modern, diverse economy.
An additional problem is identified in issue 99 of the journal of the Tourism Society. The directive itself appears to be flawed. A solicitor writing in the journal points out that even though the regulations became United Kingdom law on 1st October 1998,
"there are all sorts of grey areas on which we will have to wait for decisions from the courts and industrial tribunals before knowing whether the regulations apply. Key unknowns are, for example, whether employees are working if they are on call, or where a large part of their job involves attending industry functions. Do the regulations apply to workers abroad, such as holiday representatives or employees who travel a lot with their work? There are several categories of employees within the tourism and travel sector such as: air, rail, road and sea transport, to whom the regulations do not apply. Anyone whose job involves travel, such as a pilot or cruise manager, is not covered by the regulations. However, anyone based at an airport, harbour or railway station is subject to them-a curious and illogical distinction: it will be interesting to see how it works in practice".
It is unfair, damaging and derogatory to the tourism industry to have to be taken to court and tribunals to discover what the working time regulations really mean. The tourism industry does not normally whinge; it gets on with its job. It copes with its extra burdens and it
372
plans for the future. However, it is deeply concerned about the impact of the Working Time Directive on its future.
The Minister for Tourism said in another place on 5th May that the issue will be considered at the tourism summit. However, this will not be held for another year and the industry is suffering now. What will the Government do to change the operation of the Working Time Directive so that its impact on the tourism industry is not so damaging?
8.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government, too, are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, for introducing the debate. It gives us an opportunity to say something about the progress of the Working Time Directive in general in addition to how it applies to the tourism industry.
I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Cadman and Lord Luke, about the importance of the tourism industry to our economy and to our labour force. In particular, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, about the career opportunities available in the tourism industry and the proportion of jobs created within the tourism and hospitality industries in the past few years.
The noble Lord, Lord Luke, referred to the Government's Tomorrow's Tourism strategy. It was of course published by the Government earlier this year. It is a strategy developed in close collaboration with a very wide range of leading people in the tourism industry, who share responsibility for it and the views expressed in it. Tomorrow's Tourism states very clearly that the tourism industry needs a well-trained, well-motivated, well-rewarded workforce. My noble friend Lord Haskel and the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, have referred to the issue of training; the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, referred to the issue of rewards; and motivation in the tourism industry was a theme which was, if not bubbling to the surface, apparent throughout the debate.
We must have that sort of workforce to contribute towards creating more satisfied customers and more profitable tourism businesses. Having said that, like other noble Lords, I rather like the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, who referred to the "well-being" of the tourism industry. That is a proper way to look at it; it clearly shows concern not only for those who work in the tourism industry but who benefit from its services—in other words, the customers. In turn this will make Britain more attractive and competitive as an inward and domestic tourist destination. So let us all be in accord about the importance of the tourism industry.
I shall now turn to the Working Time Directive in particular. My noble friend Lord Haskel said that it is too early to say after one season. But, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, reminded us, we have not yet had one season. It only came into force in October of last year and the full tourist season is yet to be completed—I nearly said endured. In saying that it was too early to say, my noble friend reminded me of the Oxford college bursar who criticised his college's investment policy on the grounds that the last 200 years had been wholly exceptional.

373
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the status of the Working Time Directive. The noble Lord, Lord Cadman, said that it was an opt-out; the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, rightly told the House that it was not an opt-out; it is a treaty obligation and, as we know, we ate two years late in implementing rt. We had some difficulty in getting away with delaying it for that time. It should have been implemented by the previous Government.
Having said that, it is important that when we are talking about regulations—and I hear the noble Lord, Lord Luke, repeating the canard about 2.400 regulations, which is actually a reduction on the annual figure of the previous Government—we recognise that the issue is the quality, not the number.
Noble Lords should have paid attention to the speech of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Stephen Byers, to the British Chambers of Commerce in Glasgow on 3rd June. He said that we have got things wrong with the Working Time Directive to a significant extent. We could have done better, particularly with the guidance that we gave and the explanations that we issued. We have been listening carefully to what business has had to say about the complexity of the working time regulations. We recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, said, that the worker friendliness of the regulations is not at all what it should be.
In the next few weeks we will be publishing revised and improved guidance on the regulations and we will ensure that it is in plain English. It will be in the form of what is described as "frequently asked questions". Those familiar with the Internet will know that "FAQ" is a common way of introducing people to new subjects on the Internet. That is the way we plan to approach the matter.
The noble Earl, Lord Stair, referred to the difficulty of record keeping. For the vast majority of British businesses their existing documentation and systems already meet the record-keeping requirements of the regulations. I know that tourism-related employers have expressed concern about this matter, but the majority of businesses are doing enough already. If the regulations did not make that clear, so much the worse for the regulations. The directive does not require elaborate new record keeping.
The new guidance will also clarify some of the other grey areas that have been referred to. It will answer the questions that have been asked most frequently since the regulations came into force. For example, it will include a sample assessment questionnaire for night workers, plus additional guidance on who is covered by the regulations and what is meant by "working time". It will cover the issues referred to in the debate about the definition of work and the coverage of the directive. There are particular problems with transport industries associated with tourism.
The debate gives me an opportunity to explain rather more fully the extent to which there are flexibilities in the directive and in the regulations which can be
374
beneficial to employers in the tourism industry. The noble Earl, Lord Stair, asked me to give a commitment to review; I can certainly give that. However, before I do that, I should say rather more about the flexibilities incorporated into the directive and the regulations.
The Government's aim is that workers should not be required to work more than an average of 48 hours per week over a 17 week period. That is not every week but over a 17 week period. In many tourism industries a 17 week period of continuous work is a long period. Those who wish to work more should not be prevented from doing so. An individual worker may choose to agree to work more than a 48 hour average weekly limit. I should imagine that a seasonal worker, such as someone who runs a caravan park, might well agree to that on the basis that he will take his well-earned rest outside of the season. I am sure that happens all the time. I have a cousin whose only occupation is a fire watcher on top of a mountain in Oregon. He works virtually 24 hours a day for four months in the year; then he does not work for the rest of the year. It is a reasonable deal which would be allowed for under the Working Time Directive.
The additional guidance, which the Government will publish soon, will contain sample opt-out forms. In addition there are a number of flexibilities available where there is a "foreseeable surge of activity". The noble Lord, Lord Cadman, referred to "unforeseeable" surges but a lot of the seasonality of tourism is foreseeable. Tourism, where the pattern of activity is often seasonal, is specifically suggested in the directive as an example of this. The noble Earl, Lord Stair, appeared to think that that was not the case. In such circumstances, the reference period, where the average 48-hour limit has been complied with, can be extended to 26 weeks instead of 17 weeks. It may be extended to up to 52 weeks, as in the example of my cousin, by a collective or workforce agreement. In addition, workers' entitlements in relation to night work limits, rest periods between each working day and in-work rest breaks, all of which have been contentious, may he modified under these circumstances.
I do not think that it is widely known how far the flexibilities within the Working Time Directive can work to reduce or eliminate problems in the tourism industry. I do not think it is realised how well the Working Time Directive goes with the tourism strategy set out in Tomorrow's Tourism. Our approach to the Working Time Directive is entirely consistent with Tomorrow's Tourism. We seek to prevent the exploitation of workers without imposing unnecessary or excessive new burdens on business. That is good for all of us.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.40 to 8.50 p.m.]

Employment Relations Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 16 [Agreement to exclude dismissal rights]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 277:
Page 9, line 11, at end insert—
(" (6) Section 197(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 does not prevent Part X of that Act from applying to a dismissal which is regarded as unfair by virtue of section 99 or 104 of that Act (pregnancy and childbirth, and assertion of statutory right).")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 277 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 300 and 301.
Clause 16 will ensure that employees on fixed-term contracts will no longer be able to sign away their rights to unfair dismissal protection at the end of the contract. Our Amendment No. 277 to the clause addresses an omission in the current provisions, and has an effect upon waiver clauses already agreed before the Act comes into force. The amendments to Schedule 8 (Amendments Nos. 300 and 301) are consequential on the abolition of dismissal waivers.
We shall deal with other transitional arrangements in the commencement order for the clause. We intend to ensure that waivers agreed prior to abolition do not extend beyond their originally envisaged term, or any extension of the term already entered into by the time the clause is brought into force. Some employees could otherwise be locked into waiver clauses, perhaps for many years after their abolition, by the repeated extension of a fixed-term contract containing a waiver entered into beforehand.
The Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that fixed-term employees who have waived their right to claim unfair dismissal are nevertheless protected, in the majority of cases, if they are dismissed for specified reasons which are regarded as automatically unfair. This is achieved either by disapplying the waiver provisions or by enabling employees to complain that they have suffered a detriment if they are dismissed for these reasons, although for other purposes detriment does not include dismissal.
However, there are no such arrangements in connection with two of the reasons for dismissal which are regarded as automatically unfair. These are the reasons set out in Sections 99 and 104 of the 1996 Act which protect employees against dismissal on grounds of pregnancy or maternity, or because they have asserted a statutory employment right. This is a defect in the legislation. The result is that employees who have entered into unfair dismissal waivers cannot seek redress if their fixed-term contracts are not renewed for these reasons. With the abolition of unfair dismissal waivers this will generally cease to matter, since in future employees will not be able to waive their rights, whatever the reason for their dismissal. However, employees who have already entered into waivers before the abolition is brought into force will remain at a potential disadvantage unless specific provision is made for them.
The amendment to Clause 16, therefore, disapplies the waiver provisions as far as concerns the reasons set out in Sections 99 and 104 of the 1996 Act. It will ensure that employees who have entered into waivers before abolition will nevertheless be entitled, after that date, to bring a claim for unfair dismissal if their contracts are not renewed on grounds of pregnancy or maternity or because they have asserted a statutory employment right. It is clearly right that they should be protected in this way, and I urge the Committee to rectify the defect in current legislation by accepting these amendments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Amendment No. 277A, which stands in my name, is part of this group of amendments. Its provenance is the Law Society of Scotland. The amendment removes any doubt about whether the effect of the clause is retrospective. Contracts entered into before the commencement of this Act would not be affected if this amendment were accepted. Parliament should not retrospectively alter contracts negotiated and entered into freely by two consenting parties. The amendment will ensure that the new provisions will apply only to new contracts negotiated after commencement. Only after commencement can negotiations take full account of the current law.
Lord Birkett: My Amendment No. 277B also falls within this group of amendments. It arises out of concerns that I expressed at Second Reading, which I shall not weary the Committee by repeating tonight. I simply remind noble Lords that they relate to the theatre, in particular long-running shows often, but by no means exclusively, in the West End. Musicals can. and happily often do, run for years. To ensure the freshness of those shows the management usually gives fixed-term contracts of a year or so. Those contracts contain precisely the waiver referred to a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. By that waiver the employee, the stage performer, agrees not to claim unfair dismissal in the event of his contract not being renewed for a further period. Sometimes those contracts are renewed but by no means exclusively.
This arrangement is entered into quite freely with the agreement of unions, management and the performers themselves, and it works very well. But the Bill as now drafted would make such a waiver clause impossible. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave it as his opinion that the mere failure of management to renew a contract at the end of a fixed-term contract could not of itself be construed as unfair dismissal. Although I absolutely agree with that opinion, which has the uncommon virtue of common sense, the noble Lord's words cannot be construed as having any legal force. In case anything should go wrong I have tabled this amendment which, stated simply, gives the Secretary of State power to alter the situation should he think it beneficial to do so.
Regardless of how the Committee views the amendment itself, I should like to make two tiny points before sitting down. In many industries, including the

377
theatre, it is very sensible in complicated and small matters of this kind for the profession concerned to make very clear its policies, procedures and practices for the benefit of employers, employees and unions. It is very important that those matters are set out more clearly than they have been in the past.
The second matter which I believe will be very important after the passing of this Bill is that wherever there are conciliation procedures already in place within an industry it is very important that those, as it were, domestic procedures should be followed through before cases come to official tribunals. Both those matters will help the situation in the future considerably.
9 p.m.
Lord Meston: I support the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, in what I suppose he might call "The Mousetrap" amendment or the "Les Miserables" amendment. The existing provisions of Section 197, which the Bill will remove, have been described as an uneasy compromise between the need to prevent abuse of the fixed-term contract to avoid legislative protection and the legitimate need for short-term employment and flexibility.
The trouble is that our law does not distinguish between those situations in which the employer has a genuine and good reason for offering short-term contracts and those who may wish to exploit the potential for abuse by keeping a workforce without statutory protection through repeated extensions of short-term contracts with waiver clauses. That is the potential abuse which the Court of Appeal has identified and which the Government are alive to and wish to remove.
In fact there are two real mischiefs. First, the employer and the employee contract out of the protection which Parliament intended most employees to have. Secondly, where in reality the employment relationship will be continued by renewal at the end of the fixed period, the ability to contract out of statutory rights by waiver and to offer a new contract to the same person gives that employer a lever which can be unfairly used and which can create stressful uncertainty in the mind of the employee. Those are the two mischiefs and I fully understand why the Government wish to deal with them.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, that there may be cases where the genuine fixed-term arrangement is justified. That is certainly recognised in continental jurisdictions. Therefore, it may be that something along the lines of the noble Lord's amendment should be considered. Most of the case law in this area has been generated for some reason by the BBC. We do not know why, but it appears that the BBC favours that particular contractual arrangement and then—dare I say it?—gets it wrong and ends up in court. There are also academic bodies and even, I believe, government departments which in the past favoured these arrangements, and possibly for perfectly good reasons.
378
While I entirely support the general thrust of getting rid of Section 197 as it stands, there may be an argument for preserving some sort of discretion to allow it in entirely appropriate situations such as the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, suggests.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I shall deal first of all with Amendment No. 277A. We intend to ensure, in the commencement order for Clause 16, that it does not apply to waivers entered into before commencement. This is the effect sought by the noble Earl's amendment. Therefore, I invite him to withdraw it.
Amendment No. 277B would introduce powers to specify classes of employment in respect of which unfair dismissal waivers could be agreed. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh explained at Second Reading, the abolition of unfair dismissal waivers will restore a fundamental right to fixed-term employees. I firmly believe that all such employees are entitled to that right. The amendment suggests that waivers can be of mutual benefit to employers and employees. That is not my view. I do not believe it is ever of benefit to employees to be asked to give up the right to seek redress if they are treated unfairly. I see no case for allowing waivers to continue in any field and the power sought by the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Of course, the Government have no wish to harm the theatre industry. On the contrary, we want to see it continue its great success and the enormous contribution it makes to the economy and to the national culture. But we do not consider that there is any danger of that from Clause 16. We do not consider that there would be any harm. Theatrical employees clearly have just as much right not to be dismissed unfairly as employees in other fields. If their employers are concerned that they may find themselves in difficulties if they decide to dismiss them when their fixed-term contracts expire, the remedy is in their own hands. The abolition of waivers will not prevent them from not renewing the fixed contracts of employees. It will simply mean that they must be carried out for a fair reason and in a fair manner. On that basis I see no reason why "The Mousetrap" should not continue indefinitely and give pleasure to our grandchildren in the future and be renewed constantly with new people. That process simply has to be done in a fair and reasoned manner. I believe that policies and procedures could be developed to make certain that that is done properly and, therefore, employment tribunals will not have to be significantly involved.
That is something which the law requires of all employers. If one begins to make exceptions many more exceptions could be made for similar kinds of arguments which ultimately do not stand up. I am sure that the noble Lord does not wish to suggest that theatrical employers should be free to act less fairly than others. I urge him to withdraw his amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 277A and 277B not moved.]
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Part-time work: discrimination]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 278:
Page 9, line 15, at end insert ("unless such unfavourable treatment is reasonably justified.")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 279 and 281 to 283. As regards Amendment No. 278, I would not like it to be thought that I am in favour of anybody being treated unfavourably. But under this Government's egalitarian philosophy, as contained in the Bill—for example, in the provisions in Clause 15—any distinction between one employee and another is regarded as a detriment even if there are valid reasons for that distinction.
In this clause, the Government propose to give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to secure that part-time workers should not be treated less favourably than full-time workers. However, although subsection (2)(c) states that the Secretary of State may specify whether circumstances do or do not constitute less favourable treatment, we believe that that is a bit vague and that it is a blank cheque. We agree that there can be circumstances where less favourable treatment may be justified. It seems that the Government, by the wording of paragraph (c), concede that that is correct. However, nowhere in that enabling paragraph is there any requirement for the concept of reasonableness to be inserted. In various Bills, the Government seem to resist that concept, but in this case it is essential. This clause enables the Secretary of State to create new criminal offences.
At this time of night I do not want to get into discussions about when it may be reasonable for an employee to be treated unfavourably compared with another. Each case must depend on individual circumstances. That is why a test of reasonable justification is required.
The Secretary of State will obviously have to decide his detailed exemptions for himself. I cannot think of examples at this stage although I could, if pressed. Indeed, I could give a very simple example from my former business. Because of a lack of public transport on the industrial estate on which my factory was based, the manager used to pick up and deliver employees to and from the main road at the beginning and the end of the day in my minibus. There was no possibility of doing that during the middle of the day because he was far too busy. If we had had a part-time worker who had to cover the half-mile each way on foot, that might have been regarded by some official as "unfavourable treatment" compared with that given to other employees.
There is a danger in legislating in a way that makes it more expensive and more difficult to employ part-time workers. Employers simply use more full-timers. "What is wrong with that?", some of your Lordships may ask. The result would be that many working mothers and many disabled people would find it that much harder to be self-supporting and to have the dignity of working. If the Government make it much too hard to employ part-time workers, they will damage the very people whom this Bill is trying to help and protect.
Amendment No. 279 is necessary because it creates an absolute criminal liability on someone who may innocently commit an act which regulations made under this Bill will criminalise. A junior employee may very well technically "aid" the commission of an offence simply by doing something he is instructed to do, which on the face of it is perfectly normal but which under some subjective test is later deemed to be "less favourable" to a colleague.
Once again, I find it hard to give an example, but I cannot imagine why the Government seek to introduce into the relationship of employer and employee the concept of criminal liability with regard to matters that ought to be dealt with by the civil courts or the employment tribunals. In my view, it is just intimidation of employers and does nothing to further "employment relations", which is what this Bill is supposed to be about. However, if the magistrates' courts are to be involved, the least that can be done is to permit the defences that are available for many other, far more serious, offences. I refer to the concept of a guilty mind, or mens rea as it was called before the recent abolition of legal Latin.
Amendments Nos. 281 and 283 are identical and relate to the regulation-making powers conferred on the Secretary of State under Clauses 17 and 20. Clause 17 deals with discrimination in the case of part-time workers. Clause 20 is a very wide-ranging power to confer rights on,
"any individuals who are of a specified description".
Under Clause 20, the Secretary of State can deem that an individual is a party to a worker's contract, who the employer is deemed to be, and, having done all that, he can modify it as regards any individuals.
Rightly—I give them full credit for having done so—the Government have made the regulations under the two clauses subject to positive resolution of both Houses. However, I do not think that that goes quite far enough. The regulations under both clauses are so far-reaching, give such extensive and so far unspecified powers, and may affect so many persons—employees and employers alike—that it is vital that no regulation is even drafted before the Government have consulted widely. In some ways, that will assist the Secretary of State to convince Parliament to approve the regulations.
Amendment No. 282 is an administrative amendment, affecting part-time workers. Such workers are often those most in need of work. I refer, for example, to single parents; to older workers who may not want, cannot obtain, or may not be able to undertake, full-time work; and to disabled persons who are not physically able to work full time. We suspect that over-regulation of this sector of employment may very well make it uneconomic for employers to take on part-time workers. The same would apply to over-bureaucratic regulation. An employer may decide that, taking everything into consideration, including the national minimum wage and the working time directive, it is in his own interests to employ a full-time worker.
The purpose of the amendment is to point out to the Government that we are worried that the regulations may very well destroy jobs. If the Government are

381
confident that we are wrong, they should be prepared to prove it by publishing a report on the effect of Clause 17 after its first two years of operation. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Perhaps I may deal with Amendments Nos. 278, 279, 281, 282 and 283. As your Lordships will be aware, the provisions in this clause provide a power under which the Government intend to fulfil their obligations under the part-time work directive. The directive sends a powerful message that part-time work is not second-class work. Rather it is a valuable tool in the labour market which can be of enormous benefit both to businesses and their employees. As such, part-time workers have a right to be treated on the same basis as others. They should not suffer worse treatment simply because they work fewer hours.
That is the fundamental principle lying behind the clause and the directive. However, it does not mean equal treatment whatever the circumstances. The directive recognises that there may be objective justification for different treatment just as, for example, employers may be able to justify a requirement which impacts more heavily on women than on men if there is good reason for the requirement which is unrelated to the employee's sex.
The clause also recognises the need to provide for such justification. In particular, the powers in Clause 18(1) allow for regulations to be made to provide for no less favourable treatment for such purposes and to such an extent as the regulations may specify. This power will be used to ensure that those who have objective justification for offering different terms and conditions to full and part-time workers will be able to do so. I am therefore entirely sympathetic with the principles behind the amendment, but it is unnecessary since the ability to justify differential treatment will be spelt out in the regulations.
It may also be misleading. The wording in the directive allows for objective justification. While this will most likely be reasonable as well, there is a clear definition in European law of what constitutes objective justification. To use a different phrase in the Bill, as the amendment proposes, could lead to confusion as to employers' obligations. We shall be consulting fully on the regulations, and this will provide an opportunity for those who may be affected by them to comment on the provisions. I can assure your Lordships that the debate we are having today will inform the drafting of the regulations.
We are not legislating to require employers to offer part-time work. We wish to encourage that, but the statute will not require employers to find part-time jobs where it is not an economic viability. It will simply require that where such jobs exist the employees should have no less favourable treatment than colleagues doing equivalent work full-time. As I said, the regulations will allow employers to justify any less favourable treatment if that can be done objectively.
Before looking at Amendment No. 279, I should make it clear that if we use the power to create a criminal liability at all we envisage a very limited use,
382
reflecting the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Under that Act, someone who knowingly aids an unlawful or discriminatory act will be treated as himself discriminating unlawfully unless he reasonably relied on a false or misleading statement by another person that the discriminatory act would not be unlawful. The person who made that false or misleading statement will be committing a criminal offence if he or she knowingly or recklessly made it.
Your Lordships will see that the criminal offence is very narrowly defined. It is not intended to use the powers in Clause 17 to create extensive criminal offences. However, to avoid any confusion we intend to have all the data on the operation of any offences, including any necessary definitions, together in the regulations. The draft regulations will be subject to wide consultation, and so it is not possible at this stage to say exactly how this or any other power would be used. However, I can assure the Committee that the regulations will reflect the spirit of this amendment; namely, that the power to create offences will be used sparingly and with restraint.
Turning to Amendment No. 281, the Government recognise the importance of consulting widely on the details of the regulations that we are proposing in the clause. It is an important general principle that the people who are affected by regulations should have a chance to comment on what the Government are proposing. As I have mentioned, the Government intend to consult widely on the detail of the regulations. The directive does not have to be implemented until 7th April 2000 and so there will be time available for full consultation to take place. We shall want to hear from all interested parties. I can assure noble Lords that all views expressed in this House on the subject will he taken into account. It is quite unnecessary to make this a legal requirement. We are committed to the procedure and will carry it out.
Furthermore, the amendment would impose a requirement to consult before any revisions to the regulations were made. In most cases the Government will want to do so. But there could be occasions when the Government needed to make rapid and purely technical revisions, for example, to close a loophole which had been discovered and which prevented the regulations fulfilling the purpose that Parliament intended. In that case there would be neither the time nor the need for consultation. In order to maintain this flexibility for government, I must oppose the amendment. However, all regulations under this power will be subject to affirmative resolution, as has been made clear, and your Lordships will have the opportunity to scrutinise them properly.
These comments apply equally to Amendment No. 283, and I must oppose it also as unnecessary arid inappropriate. However, I am happy to reaffirm the commitment given in another place that the Government will carry out full public consultation on detailed proposals before exercising this new power. Again, arty order will be subject to affirmative resolution.
Amendment No. 282 would commit the Secretary of State to reporting on the impact of the regulations on the level of part-time working in the economy. Although

383
I agree that in general there should be an effective monitoring of all legislation, there are a number of reasons why the amendment is unnecessary and indeed ineffective in this case. First, this measure is not solely concerned with increasing the number of part-time jobs. At least as important will be the effect it has on the status of part-time work and hence the quality of the available jobs. It also aims to open up the wider range of part-time opportunities, especially in areas which may be thought currently to be unsuitable for part-time work. A simple measure of the level of part-time work will not pick up those important changes and so will underestimate the effect of the regulations.
Secondly, we are not aiming at a quick fix with the provision. With these regulations we are aiming for a long-term effect on workplace culture and on perceptions of part-time work. There is unlikely to be concrete evidence of significant change within the first two years, and it would not be worth conducting a study so soon.
Thirdly, as anyone who has worked in the retail trade will know, there has been a long-term trend towards an increase in the level of part-time work in the economy, but the rate of growth has not been constant. Also, over recent years the workplace culture has been changing, for example, as employers recognise that they may be unlawfully discriminating on grounds of sex if they discriminate against part-time workers. Thus we do not expect the regulations to cause a revolutionary change, but rather to reinforce existing trends and provide clarity for workers and employers.
It is almost inevitable that the level of part-time work in the economy will change in the future regardless of government action. However, it would be difficult to untangle the effects of all the factors I have mentioned and to establish accurately to what extent any change was due to the regulations or to other economic and social factors.
Having said that, I assure noble Lords that the Government have every intention of monitoring the effects of the legislation they put in place. We shall be keen to review the success of part-time work provisions but we shall take a wider view than the amendment contemplates. Part-time work is already regularly monitored in statistical surveys and we shall consider carefully what else needs to be done to assess the wider effects of the new legislation.
This amendment would add nothing to the Bill and would involve government researchers in work which would not give us any useful information. I hope the noble Baroness will be convinced by the assurance I have given in discussing the amendments and so will be persuaded to withdraw them.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I took comfort from the Minister's assurances that my amendments were unnecessary. I shall read carefully what he said. I was somewhat more perturbed when he said he thought some would be ineffective. However, at this stage, I accept what he says in good faith and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 279 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 280:
Page 10, line 17, at end insert—
("() Regulations under this section which create an offence—

(a) shall provide for it to be triable summarily only, and

(b) may not provide for it to be punishable by imprisonment or by a fine in excess of level 5 on the standard scale.")

The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 234. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 280A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 280, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 280 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 281 and 282 not moved.]
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Power to confer rights on individuals]:
[Amendments Nos. 282A and 283 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 284:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—

Employment Relations Bill

  EMPLOYMENT OUTSIDE GREAT BRITAIN
  (". For section 196(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 there shall be substituted—
  "(2) The provisions to which this subsection applies do not apply to employment where the employee does his work for the relevant employer wholly or mainly outside Great Britain.".").
  The noble Lord said: This is a somewhat technical amendment prompted by the recently reported decision of the Court of Appeal in Carver v. Saudi Arabian Airlines. The existing Section 196 of the 1996 Act excludes the unfair dismissal jurisdiction where under the employee's contract of employment he ordinarily works outside Great Britain.
  That phraseology is to be compared with our discrimination legislation, which does not refer to the contract but rather lays down the test of whether the employee does his work mainly or wholly outside Great Britain. The problems which are occasionally caused by Section 196 derive from the first case to reach the Court of Appeal, back in 1977, which decided that great importance should be attached to the words "under the contract": one has to look at the contract and not at what happens later.
  Despite the efforts of the late Lord Denning in another case shortly after that first decision to alter what has become known as "the contract test" to a function test, the Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that it is bound by the contract test. So in the case of Carver, the appellant, who had been based in London for some considerable time, was deprived of protection from unfair dismissal.
  I suggest that there are a number of reasons for altering the statutory wording, as is proposed in the amendment. First, it is rather artificial to emphasise the contract of employment if that means having to disregard what actually happens to the employee later on.
  Secondly, there is scope for abuse. An astute multinational employer could summon prospective employees to, say, Denver, or some other exotic location outside this country, in order to sign the contract and to receive some initial training. However, the company could ensure that the contract provided for the employees to work in Denver or elsewhere as it may direct and then send them all back to London to work. The probable result of the contract test is that unfair dismissal jurisdiction is excluded.
  Thirdly, as the Carver case demonstrates, there can also be the peculiar result that the same employee who is deprived of unfair dismissal claims may have rights under the discrimination statutes because of the slightly different wording.
  Finally, in addition to introducing some desirable consistency between the different statutes, the wording proposed in the amendment is workable as a simple mathematical test which cannot be manipulated by clever contractual subtleties. In Clause 16, the Government have stood firm and decided that the ability to contract out of the unfair dismissal jurisdiction should be removed. It is in the same spirit that I beg to move this amendment.
  Lord Simon of Highbury: This is an interesting proposal about the application of certain employment rights in the Employment Rights Act: to employment outside Great Britain. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, not only for raising it but for writing to me about his concerns in putting forward the amendment.
  I understand his concern that the Act as currently worded does not adequately protect certain individuals whose contracts require them to work abroad, even though they work almost entirely in the UK. I understand that the recent Appeal Court ruling in Carver (née Mascarenhas) v. Saudi Arabian Airlines illustrates the point in question.
  Not wanting to detain the Committee on the details of the case, I confine myself to saying that it has some unusual features. The amendment put forward in its wake would perhaps provide some additional employment protection to a small group of people. However, I am not totally convinced that it is necessary. Clearly, Mrs. Carver had ample redress for her plight, as the noble Lord explained, through the Sex Discrimination Act.
  That may be an unusual feature. I appreciate that there will not always be a sex discrimination angle to such cases. I am willing to look at the workings of Section 196 of the Employment Rights Act and the application of certain employment rights to employees with employment outside Great Britain. If noble Lords will allow me, I shall come back to them on Report on this issue and I shall keep in contact with them in the meantime as to how we are developing our thoughts.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Meston: I am most grateful to the Minister for that indication. In the same spirit, I shall not detain the Committee further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 21 agreed to.
  Clause 22 [CAC: proceedings]:
  [Amendment No. 285 not moved.]
  Clause 22 agreed to.
  Clauses 23 to 25 agreed to.
  Schedule 6 [The Certification Officer]:
  [Amendments Nos. 286 to 288 not moved.]
  Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 289:
  Page 85, line 39, at end insert—
  ("23. After section 256 there shall be inserted—
  "Vexatious litigants.
  256A.—(1) The Certification Officer may refuse to entertain application or complaint made to him under a provision of Chapters III to VII of Part I by a vexatious litigant.
  (2) The Certification Officer must give reasons for such a refusal.
  (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to an application under section 41.
  (4) For the purposes of subsection (1) a vexatious litigant is a person who is the subject of—

  (a) an order which is made under section 33(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and which remains in force,

  (b) a civil proceedings order or an all proceedings order which is made under section 42(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and which remains in force.

  (c) an order which is made under section 1 of the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1898, or

  (d) an order which is made under section 32 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978.

  Vexatious litigants: applications disregarded.
  256B.—(1) For the purposes of a relevant enactment an application to the Certification Officer shall be disregarded if—

  (a) it was made under a provision mentioned in the relevant enactment, and

  (b) it was refused by the Certification Officer under section 256A(1).

  (2) The relevant enactments are sections 26(8), 31(7), 45C(58), 56(8), 72A(10), 81(8) and 108A(13).").
  The noble Lord said: I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 289. It has in common with Amendment No. 286, which was not moved, a shared objective to provide some protection for the certification officer against vexatious litigation. I imagine that the noble Baroness opposite has not moved her amendment because the issues in it are covered by this amendment. Therefore, I shall briefly explain the amendment.
  Amendment No. 289 inserts another safeguard to provide some protection for the certification officer against persistent and vexatious litigants. At present, people who are declared vexatious litigants by the courts or by the Employment Appeal Tribunal cannot take a case to the courts or tribunals unless they obtain special leave to do so. That protection does not apply to the certification officer. In other words, at present there is

  387
  nothing to stop vexatious litigants from making complaints to the certification officer which he must determine.
  Amendment No. 289 closes that loophole in relation to all the certification officer's complaints jurisdictions. It allows the certification officer to refuse to determine a complaint brought by a vexatious litigant, although it does not compel him to do so. When he refuses a case, he must give reasons to the individual. That seems fair and means that the certification officer must give some limited consideration to those applications.
  Provisions contained in the schedule prevent a person from applying to the courts if he has applied already to the certification officer on the same matter. We feel that they should not apply where the certification officer refuses to entertain an application from a vexatious litigant. That will ensure that vexatious litigants can go on to seek special leave from the courts to have their cases heard by them if the certification officer turns them down. Again, that seems fair and proper in the circumstances.
  Our proposals comply fully with the European Convention on Human Rights. They do not close off all possibility that vexatious litigants can have their cases heard by the certification officer or the courts. If there are good grounds for the case to be heard, then the case can proceed.
  I should add that the amendment does not give the certification officer the power to declare individuals to be vexatious litigants. That is a powerful sanction when it is applied. The certification officer has a very specialised role. He has no existing powers to impose penalties on individual union members. It would sit uneasily with his important but limited role if he were to have a wider power to declare individuals to be vexatious litigants. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 26 [Partnerships at work]:
  Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 290:
  Page 13, line 43, at end insert—
  ("() For the purposes of this section, "employees' representative" or "employers' representative" shall not include any trade union, trade association or political party.")
  The noble Lord said: I hope I shall not detain the Committee long with these amendments. I should like to explain, lest it be not clear, the purpose of the amendments. Amendment No. 290 would provide that neither trades unions nor employers' organisations should qualify to receive moneys under this part of the Bill. Amendment No. 291 would limit expenditure to £100,000 per year except by the consent of Parliament. I notice that it has been announced by the Secretary of State that the sum of £5 million is to be made available in total.
  Amendment No. 292 would require recipients to provide proper accounts of how any money which they had received had been spent. Amendment No. 293
  388
  would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the use of the money and who had received it.
  For much of today we have been appealing to what one might describe as the industrialist and employers' wing of New Labour to ask them to consider some of these amendments in the light of their own experience as employers and industrialists. I think that these amendments appeal to what one would call "the Treasury wing" in that they are primarily concerned with the proper use and accountability of public money.
  It seems to me that "partnerships" is the in-word for what we are dealing with in much of the Bill, particularly in relation to these amendments. However, "partnership" does not have the meaning we normally give the word. It does not mean an arrangement in which people come together and share joint responsibility for the costs involved and the consequences of what is agreed.
  These partnerships are ones which would put legal obligations not upon trades unions but only upon employers, and by statute rather than agreement. So, "partnership" is the wrong word. We are talking about contractual undertakings which are binding as usual in this world of industrial relations upon only one side.
  Nonetheless we have to face the size of the Government's majority and the reality of it. However, I would state in passing that New Labour really does seem to have made some changes in this world. In the days of Old Labour it was Conservatives who lost amendments during Ascot week. Now it appears that it is New Labour who cannot maintain a House in a majority during Ascot week. That is probably welcome. It shows a degree of social change which I am sure we would all welcome. However, I think we will be lucky not to have some of these amendments turned over again in the other place after Ascot week.
  We have to try to take Ministers at their word, that the Bill is designed to lower costs, reduce regulation and make industry and commerce more competitive. In the press release issued by the DTI on 24th May (P/99/438), I notice the words:
  "Light touch regulation will help artnerships,—Byers".
  It goes on to explain—I think we will all smile at this:
  "That is why, in implementing our plans, we shall introduce light-touch regulation to enforce the entitlements we are providing".
  It is a light touch of enforcement, but enforcement nonetheless. It continues:
  "Instead of detailed and prescriptive regulation"—
  I thought we had quite a lot of detailed and prescriptive regulation here in the Bill this evening—
  "we shall look for agreement achieved through a genuine partnership".
  So it continues. But, if public money is to be handed out, we have a duty to see that it is used properly, for the purposes which Parliament intended, and that it is properly accounted for. Hence these amendments.
  I notice in the same press release in the Notes for Editors that the point is made that the matching funds of at least 50 per cent from non-public sector sources will be required for successful projects. I believe they

  389
  mean for successful applications to finance a project rather than for successful projects. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, shakes his head, but I like press releases to say what they mean and not confuse matters.
  We have to ask ourselves why that is a requirement. The requirement is there essentially to ensure that there is additionality; that this money does not come 100 per cent from public sources, but that we expect other sources of finance will be perhaps from employers, trade unions, in some circumstances perhaps from academic institutions or the like. If that is so, then we have to ask why it should go to organisations which are essentially rich. On the whole, the employers likely to seek this money will be organisations which, if they thought the project was worthwhile, would finance it themselves. Certainly the same is true of trade unions, which are, in general terms, also rich.
  I might say in passing that I hope the Minister, when he responds to this debate, will tell us a little more about the restriction that the money should come from non-public sector sources. Does that exclude money from a public sector employer such as, for example, London Transport—while it remains in the public sector, which I understand may not be for much longer? We still have some nationalised industries about, though probably not for much longer. Will they be regarded as employers, or will they be regarded as public sector financiers in the terms of this Bill? If we are to seek additionality, then we should not give this money to rich organisations.
  I note also from the Notes to Editors—it is an intriguing press release in that the most interesting bits are the Notes to Editors and not what the Minister actually said—that the point is made that in order to demonstrate additionality it has to be established that these projects would not go ahead or would go ahead more slowly on a smaller scale without support from the fund.
  There is also an interesting section under the heading, "How will bids be assessed?". There are some sensible points made in that regard, but there is nothing in the press release as to how they will be reviewed; how it will be decided whether or not they have been successful and what lessons should be drawn. If we are to be able to assess whether or not these projects have been successful in their use of public money, the key elements are that proper accounts should be kept; that those accounts should in some way be presented to Parliament; and that at all times we should restrict the amount of money until we are sure that the projects are having the effects which were intended. To that extent these amendments are not intended to obstruct the purpose of the Bill, but rather to reinforce it. I hope they will be viewed in that light. I beg to move.
  Lord McCarthy: While I support much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, my main problem—I am sure he will agree that we take this series of proposals as one—relates to Amendment No. 290 which affects Amendment No. 261. I understand the noble Lord is not against giving employers money, or
  390
  employees. In fact, he would not have tabled the amendment if the clause had read:
  "The Secretary of State may spend money or provide money to other persons for the purpose of encouraging and helping employers … and employees … to improve the way they work together".
  He simply does not want to give money to "their representatives". He has not explained why that should be. Managers, after all, are the representatives of employers. He is saying he does not mind giving money to Rupert Murdoch, but not to his managers. The case with trade unions is different: representatives need not be employees, but they might very well be. He is saying that you cannot give money to lay representatives who are employees. It is an odd breakdown.
  It all turns on one's view of partnership. If 'the noble Lord thinks that it has a representative element, or if he thinks it is about collective bargaining, which I know he does not like to think about and certainly not this late at night, or if he is thinking about representing the views of Rupert Murdoch and the views of the union membership collectively, then these people would be required. However, I cannot go along with this rather strange amendment.
  Lord Tebbit: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord. I would not be particularly anxious for Rupert Murdoch to be the personal beneficiary of this money. It would probably be quite difficult to demonstrate additionality, even in the sum of £5 million in his case. I would object if it were to go to the newspaper proprietors' association, the collective of newspaper proprietors.
  I have no worries about the money going to organisations of workers, as long as they do not fulfil the function of a trade union which, to my mind, is a similar function to that fulfilled by collectives of employers, for example the Engineering Employers' Federation. I do not object to the money going to organisations of workers, but it should not go to wealthy collectives.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I always enjoy listening to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, in his jocular mood. He enjoys taking this kind of stance in the House. Then, when you read what he says in the News of the World on Sunday, you realise that behind his remarks is seething indignation against all the things that he is prepared to laugh about when he is in your Lordships' Chamber.
  The noble Lord has done his homework. He has read the press release and the note to editors issued on 24th May when the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade an Industry spoke at the TUC partnership conference. I suspect, knowing him, that he has probably done his homework and read the speeches as well, but I doubt whether he has really understood what is behind the partnership fund that is set up by Clause 26.
  As I said at Second Reading, we do not need statutory authority for this partnership fund because the £5 million is being found from DTI resources and it can be spent at executive discretion, subject to scrutiny by Parliament in the normal way, particularly by Select Committees and the National Audit Office. However,

  391
  we have chosen not to do that; we have chosen to seek statutory authority for it because we believe that the partnership principle pervades this legislation. I do not expect the noble Lord to agree with me. He is deeply cynical about these things and, with his history, I can understand it.
  We wanted to show that not only were we prepared to put legislative provisions in the Bill to encourage partnership by making sure that neither one side nor the other could indulge in exploitation, but that we were positively encouraging partnership by putting a small amount of taxpayers' money, not government money, to encourage partnership schemes and initiatives in order to progress the thinking of the Government and, in general, the employers and trade unions. The noble Lord seems to think that this research fund would impose legal obligations on employers only and that it would produce statutory results. That is not the way I see it; indeed, it is not the way the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State saw it. We are using a statutory method for declaratory purposes, if you like, to do something which is certainly non-statutory and which would, in our view, contribute to the cause of partnership in industry.
  I do not need to repeat what the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have said or what the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, repeated to the Committee. He has rightly said that there is a fund of £5 million over five years; that there is a limit of £50,000 on any one project; and that 50 per cent matching funding is required for any one project. He also rightly advocated proper financial scrutiny and control over any expenditure under this heading.
  I turn now to deal with the noble Lord's amendments. The partnership fund which we intend to set up under this authority will be designed to promote new partnerships at work and develop a new non-confrontational approach to employment relations. Amendment No. 290 would exclude trade unions and trade associations. The amendment refers to trade associations, but the noble Lord referred to employer organisations. I take it that there is no difference in his mind in that respect, although there is in mine. That would completely undermine the purpose. If you cannot have employers involved in these projects and if you cannot have organised employees involved in them, who is left? Who will actually be involved?
  The amendment also refers to political parties. Of course, there is no question of providing funding for political parties or for anyone else for political purposes. Amendment No. 291 would restrict the funding to £100,000 a year without a resolution of both Houses. Parliament is already burdened with secondary legislation requiring either negative or affirmative approval. Therefore, we would be seeking parliamentary authority for relatively small amounts of money.
  The sum of £5 million has been allocated from within the existing budget of the Department of Trade and Industry. It is an appropriate sum of money which will ensure that the fund can make a real contribution to developing partnerships based on employment relations in the United Kingdom. We will of course be putting
  392
  into place clear rules and criteria governing the operation of the fund in order to ensure value for money. Recipients of funding will be required to demonstrate that their project offers value for money. The department will monitor and evaluate all funded projects. That does not just mean monitoring them as they proceed but evaluating whether they have achieved their objectives—a very proper consideration and one to which the noble Lord referred.
  The department will also require recipients of funding to provide all the information necessary. Any scheme that is set up will have terms and conditions attached to any offer of grant, which will include the requirement to provide all appropriate monitoring and financial information. Requiring this information to be audited in every case by an external accountant qualified to do so, pursuant to the Companies Act 1985, as required by the amendment, would be disproportionate and burdensome.
  The proposal for a new subsection (5) is disproportionate. The offer of any grant under the partnership fund will include standard procedures for ceasing to pay and for clawing back the money if conditions have been breached or if it has been used in contravention of the conditions of the programme. We will ensure that there is full financial accountability in the case of the partnership fund and any subsequent programmes. The department publishes each year its expenditure in its expenditure plans report. An annual report will also be published in respect of the partnership fund. I can assure the noble Lord that that will include the results of monitoring and evaluation.
  There is no reason to include a provision for an annual report and, as I have indicated, there is no reason to impose the particular restrictions on the fund which these four amendments would introduce. However, I understand that the noble Lord's objection to the fund is much more fundamental. As far as he is concerned, it is an issue of confidence. I do not hope to gain his confidence but I hope to gain his recognition that his amendments are undesirable.
  Lord Tebbit: I am grateful, as always, to the noble Lord who has responded to my amendments in a most excellent and constructive way in so far as he is able to do so. I think I must be getting naive in my old age because I had not realised from reading the press release that this was not new money. I suspect that it was not the intention that those who read the press release should realise that it was not new money. It is just another little bit carved off the DTI's money which has already been allocated to this matter. It has either been taken from some other programme or it is money that the department had spare. In my day at the DTI we did not have spare money. We were rather parsimonious. However, that is another matter.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I remind the noble Lord that during the first two years of the Labour Government—or, as he would describe it, the New Labour Government—we have operated under the revenue budgets inherited from the previous

  393
  government. If there is anything to spare, it has come from the allocation that the previous government provided.
  Lord Tebbit: I accept entirely the tribute which the noble Lord pays to the generosity of funding on the part of the previous administration. However, although the global sums are the same, the purposes for which they are used may not be. However, we shall not argue one way or the other about the odd £5 million in what is a quite substantial budget.
  The noble Lord may have misunderstood my remarks about partnerships. They were not particularly directed to partnerships in the sense in which they are referred to in this section of the legislation. I can see that there is a case for both sides of industry—if we may use that expression—coming together and coming together with outside bodies (possibly academic and research bodies) to carry out work in this area to see whether we can increase the efficiency of the use of labour in British industry. I spoke in a rather more general manner, in what one might call a Second Reading manner. It was certainly not my intention—nor do I believe it would be the effect of the amendments—to disqualify employers as such from participating in the scheme. It is organisations of employers—not Joe Bloggs Engineering Limited—such as the Engineering Employers Federation that I wanted to cut out. I may differ slightly from the noble Lord in that I regard those collectives of employers as being the equivalent of the collectives of employees; that is, the trades unions. We may differ slightly as regards how we look at these matters. However, I shall read carefully in the Official Report what the Minister said before deciding whether to bring back these amendments at Report stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 291 to 293 not moved.]
  Clause 26 agreed to.
  Clause 27 agreed to.
  10 p.m.
  Schedule 7 [Employment Agencies]:
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 294:
  Page 86, line 11, at end insert—
  ("Provided that regulations made under this section shall only be made with the purpose of protecting employees' rights and not otherwise to interfere with the commercial relationship between such agencies or businesses and employers.'"')
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment deals with a matter of considerable importance. seeks to limit the extent of the regulations that the Government are considering making to govern employment agencies business. The amendment was drafted before the publication of the Green Paper, The Regulation of the Private Recruitment Industry. The draft regulations now revealed are possibly worse than was previously rumoured. If carried into effect, they will tear the heart out of the industry and will damage it beyond the possibility of continuing as a viable operation. This
  394
  possibly will come as no surprise and will not be regretted by many on the Benches opposite. As long ago as 1983 the Labour Party published an election manifesto which was so left wing that it was described by the right honourable Member for Manchester Gorton, a senior member of the party, as "the longest suicide note in history." That suicide note said:
  "We will take urgent steps to abolish private employment agencies".
  Those urgent steps were high on the list of priorities had the electorate been so misguided as to return the Labour Party to power.
  What was the reason for that manifesto objective? Unashamedly, it was,
  "to ensure that the Manpower Services Commission developed a national job centre network".
  That would have been nationalisation through the back door. In that case it would have been nationalisation without compensation. I hope—no doubt the Minister will reassure us—that new Labour has foresworn that ambition. I am prepared to assume that it has simply not understood the destructive nature of its proposals.
  If it claims that it does not know, it is not for want of being warned by the industry and my honourable friends in the other place, even in advance of the draft regulations. It is difficult, if not impossible, in practice to amend regulations after they are laid before Parliament, even under the positive resolution procedure. It is therefore essential that Parliament draws a demarcation line limiting the parameters of those regulations before the government's views become absolutely set in concrete.
  There are three major areas where the industry has major concerns that the regulations the Government propose would be totally destructive to the industry. At the same time the regulations will do nothing to improve the employment prospects of those employed directly by agencies or who normally expect to obtain work through them. On the contrary. They will also do nothing to help employers to find temporary or permanent staff. On the contrary.
  I accept that some of the Government's proposals are for increased clarity, promotion of flexibility in the labour market, protection of employment agencies' clients, the curbing of payment abuses and the safeguarding of clients' money. To those objectives the Opposition obviously subscribe. I have also had a letter from one of the leading employment agencies in the country assuring me that not only does it support the general direction of these objectives but that it and the majority of the industry already voluntarily meet the standards the Government are seeking.
  As I said, there are three major areas in the draft regulations which cause the industry major concern. The first concern relates to the process of what is called "Temp to permanent", where a temporary worker gets on so well with the hiring firm that it offers him or her a permanent job. Agency contracts provide that in such circumstances it should be paid the usual finder's commission for introducing new staff. The Government's argument against this is that some employers do not like paying the commission. Who does

  395
  like paying bills? But without this right to be paid for temporary staff who move to permanent status, the employers would poach the temps for nothing. Approximately 50 per cent of temporary workers find permanent work through temporary employment. That is why the proposed regulation on its own would be very destructive for the industry. The high percentage of temporary workers who find permanent jobs makes nonsense of the argument that it somehow puts temporary workers at some disadvantage in the labour market. If it did, there would not be so many of them converting to full-time employment. Again I say, on the contrary.
  The second destructive proposal in the draft regulations is that the production of time-sheets by the worker as a condition of the worker being paid is, in future, to be prohibited. This is unnecessary nannying. In my time I have employed dozens of temps. At the end of the week they produce a time-sheet to confirm that they have attended from, say, nine to five on five days. How else will the agency know what to pay the temp, who is usually paid on an hourly basis? How will the agency refute an argument from an employer that the temp did not show up until 10 a.m., or went home early, or did not come in at all? In what way is a timesheet any different from the clocking-in system used in many factories? The prohibition of this common-or-garden device used throughout industry will leave the agencies open to abuse and fraud and is equally destructive of the viability of their industry.
  The third major problem that the Government are causing the industry, for the benefit of no one except, in this case, possibly the Treasury, is a complicated one. Draft Regulation 7 requires agencies to supply temporary workers only as a contractor, not as an agency. There may be some advantage in doing that, so as to make sure that the agency takes responsibility for the health and safety of the temporary workers that it supplies. But the regulation will also have an uncalled-for effect. It means that the agency would have to charge VAT on the whole of the sum billed to the employer instead of only on its commission. The wages of the worker are of course exempt from VAT.
  Many employers will not be affected by the requirement as they will offset the VAT against their own liability. However, there are many VAT-exempt organisations which rely on temporary workers: schools, hospitals and some charities. This additional cost to tax-exempt organisations inevitably means that they will employ fewer temps and reduce job opportunities to many people who need to work as temps or part-time for a variety of personal reasons. The protection of temporary workers as regards health and safety can be achieved by a more carefully drafted and specifically targeted regulation stating explicitly what is meant.
  I am sorry to have burdened the Committee with points that might have been made when the regulations become final. They may yet need to be repeated. However, I believe that these problems need to be nipped in the bud now, before it is too late and the Secretary of State's mind becomes set, notwithstanding the consultation.
  I referred to my understanding of the standards that the Government are trying to achieve—strangely, not by what should have been a Bill on its own, but by the regulations authorised by another Bill. In reaching those standards, what the Government must not do is over-regulate.
  As recently as 3rd June, the Secretary of State, in a speech to the British Chambers of Commerce, recognised that the burden of regulation falls most heavily on small business. Not all employment agencies are small, but many of them are. The Secretary of State admitted that there had been a tendency to introduce overly detailed and prescriptive regulations which were often far from user friendly. He also said that Whitehall had paid too little attention to the cumulative effect and burden of regulation. I agree with the Secretary of State in all of those remarks. This is not a political point. Every government have been guilty in this respect, and every Secretary of State has promised to do something about it—usually without any success at all. I wish the present Secretary of State luck.
  To help him in that objective, I have proposed an amendment that will ensure that in producing his regulations under the present Act he does not, by over-regulation, do incalculable damage to an important industry which provides a vital service to employers and workers alike. I beg to move.
  Lord Tebbit: Although I agree with much of what my noble friend said, I hope that she will not at this time press these amendments to a Division. If we could hold back the process just a little, it would be enormously helpful. It was announced in the recent Honours List that Sir Dennis Stevenson would become a life Peer. As I understand it, he will probably sit on the Government Benches. He will be a most useful ally to my noble friend in dealing with matters concerning employment agencies, as he will probably know more about the subject than any other Member of the House. It would be helpful to await his wisdom.
  Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that preview of yet another star being recruited to our Benches. That is very good news for all of us. More power to their elbow, say I. However, I cannot agree that the noble Baroness's amendment will leave us in a good position to look at this important question. I follow much more the view of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that it would be wise, not merely to hear from a further good mind on the subject than those already available in this place, but to take time for the consultations. They will attempt to distinguish, in examining this case, between good and bad regulation. The noble Baroness is often inclined to regard regulation as a burden on small industry, as if we can make regulation go away. We cannot. What we must do is ensure that it is good and effective for the purposes that government choose.
  What the amendment seeks to do in its one-sidedness is to limit the scope of the Government to make very important changes to modernise and improve the regulatory framework governing the private recruitment

  397
  industry, which is a very important one. We have set out our proposals in the consultation document and shall consider the results of that very carefully.
  But the amendment that has been tabled provides that regulations made under Section 5 of the Employment Agencies Act,
  "shall only he made with the purpose of protecting employees' rights and not otherwise to interfere with the commercial relationship between such agencies or businesses and employers".
  It is very important that we import certain wider safeguards into the relationship. Those who look for temporary employees, for example doctors or lorry drivers, have the right to know that the bureau supplying them has checked their qualifications. That is part of the commercial relationship which would not be covered by this amendment. Certainly, that is one matter that the regulatory process should examine and ensure.
  If we use this regulatory process it also allows us to improve some very bad practices that have grown up in the 22 or 23 years during which the current law governing employment agencies has remained unchanged. Certainly, the market-place during that time has changed in many ways due to measures, some good and some bad, implemented by the previous government. There is a requirement for change; one cannot say that the market is static.
  I shall not go through a whole list of these matters because that is what the consultation is about, but I wish to deal briefly with the term "temp to perm" fees so that there is no misunderstanding. As the noble Baroness said, these are the fees that the hirer must pay to a bureau if he decides to take on a temporary worker permanently rather than continue to hire him through the bureau. Clearly, it is the case that these fees are being used to deter hirers from engaging permanently the temporary staff supplied to them. Whatever statistics the noble Baroness quotes, we want to convert more people from temporary to permanent employment if possible, assuming that is their wish.
  Some in the industry admit that they use "temp to perm" fees to stall that process. The existing measures to ensure that workers are not prevented from working for other employers are being undermined by terms in the contract issued to hirers which provide for huge transfer fees to be paid in those circumstances. What we are looking at in draft regulation 8 in the consultation document is not a proposal to control the level of fees but to restrict the circumstances in which fees may be charged so that they are not used to restrict workers' ability to take jobs. After all, in a well functioning labour market employers and work-seekers require to be able to contract with whom they choose. Draft regulation 8 provides that "temp to perm" fees should be limited to cases where workers are subject to a current contract with the bureau under which the latter undertakes to find work for those workers.
  The proposals allow the bureau to protect its legitimate interests while ensuring that "temp to perm" charges are not used to limit labour market flexibility or act against the interests of workers and hirers. I submit that that will basically enhance flexibility in the labour market, which is one of the matters that the Benches
  398
  Opposite—certainly the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—always tell us that we must do. We must have more flexible labour markets, as we tell our European colleagues all the time. The regulation seeks to create greater fluidity in the market-place. I believe that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness would stop that. That is why I wanted to make that point very strongly.
  I turn briefly to Amendments Nos. 29.5 and 296. I do not wish to ignore the points made on VAT, which I am sure that the Treasury will be looking at carefully, as will the employers. Nor do I wish to duck the issue of timesheets. But those are matters on which I am sure we shall obtain good answers from industry in due course. There is no need to give the final answers at this stage.
  As regards the two amendments, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. during Report Stage of the Bill in another place, said, in response to an Opposition amendment, that Le would consider making regulations under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
  Members of this House will know that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation recommended that this should be done. The Government indicated in their response to the committee's report that it concurred with its recommendation. Amendment No. 295 before the Committee this evening takes forward that commitment and makes regulations under Sections 5 and 6 of the 1973 Act subject to the affirmative procedure.
  Amendment No. 296 alters Section 13(7)(i) of the 1973 Act. A lacuna in the wording of that section provides that orders cannot be made to exempt particular bodies in respect of part only of their activities. If they are exempted they must be exempted entirely. That was subject to comment by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in 1984. The purpose of this amendment is to allow orders which will, for example, enable membership societies to be exempted in so far as they provide services to their members, but to remain subject to the legislation as regards services provided to non-members. I commend Amendments Nos. 295 and 296 to the Committee. I urge the noble Baroness to consider flexibility in the labour market and to withdraw her Amendment No. 294. I hope that that concludes dealing with employment agencies for the moment.
  10.15 p.m.
  Lord Tebbit: Perhaps I may intervene again very briefly. The Minister has left me rather less happy than I might have been. Over the years I have frequently used temporary staff from employment agencies. Wearing that hat I have found pretty unpleasant the charges which I have listed made for persons supplied as temps. However, if I put on a different hat, which I wore at one time during my involvement with an employment agency, it seems clear to me that temporary staff are an asset of the agency. To say that they are unable to charge when they lose such an asset and the revenue stream attached to it, having found an employee for an employer, seems a little hard.

  399
  I appreciate, as the Minister said, that it does not apply where the agency guaranteed work on a full-time basis. But in all reason the burden on agencies, particularly some of the smaller ones, would virtually put them out of business. It is not an easy matter. As an employer of agency staff from time to time I believe that some of the agencies make an excessively high barrier. I understand that the Government would not wish to regulate the size of the fee but making it impossible for an agency, particularly a small one, to charge a fee of that kind would result in the elimination of a number of small agencies. It would probably not unduly damage the Manpowers of this world, but I believe that small specialist agencies would be extremely hurt. I hope that the Minister will look again at what he has said and reconsider it.
  Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the appropriate answer at this stage is that I have no doubt that the position which the noble Lord has made clear to us will also be made clear by the agencies as we go through the consultation process. We have already made the points that I have tried to make this evening. They are contained in the draft regulations about which we are consulting. I am sure that this point will reappear. I take note of what has been said. We shall consider it seriously as we go along as it is a good and clear point.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Minister is always extremely courteous when he replies to me, as indeed are both the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Sainsbury. They have all treated my amendments with great courtesy, which I very much appreciate. However, notwithstanding that, and even notwithstanding the earlier intervention by my noble friend Lord Tebbit, for whom I have the highest regard especially in the whole area of industrial relations, I must point out that I have been lobbied extremely hard by the employment agencies. For the three reasons that I have given, they have told me that this provision will put them out of business. I am concerned to ensure that that does not happen. Only as recently as yesterday morning, I was asked to table an amendment to delete the whole of Schedule 7. That is how strongly the employment agencies felt about this. Noble Lords opposite will understand that I am not taking this view lightly.
  The Minister referred to losing flexibility in the job market. I do not think that that would be the result of my amendment. It states that the regulations shall be made only with the purpose of protecting employees' rights. It does not state anything else. Over half of temporary workers take up full-time employment. The Government's provisions would tear the heart out of the whole business of supplying temporary staff. In those circumstances and despite the great courtesy shown it to me by all the Ministers opposite, I feel that I must test the opinion of the Committee.
  10.21 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 294) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 51.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Anelay of St.Johns, B.

  Kingsland, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Luke, L.

  Arran, E.

  Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Berners, B.

  Northbrook, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Northesk, E.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Parkinson, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Rowallan, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Seccombe, B. [Teller.]

  Harris of Peckham, L.

  Tebbit, L.

  Henley, L. [Teller.]

  Torrington, V.

  Home, E.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Alli, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Amos, B.

  Lockwood, B.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Bach, L.

  McCarthy, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

  Burlison, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller.]

  McNair, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Peston, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Desai, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Dixon, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Simon, V.

  Goudie, B.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B

  Hacking, L.

  Thurso, V.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  10.31 p.m.
  Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 295:
  Page 88, line 33, at end insert—
  ("Regulations and orders
  . For section 12(5) (regulations and orders: procedure) there shall be substituted—
  "(5) Regulations under section 5(1) or 6(1) of this Act shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
  (6) Regulations under section 13(7)(i) of this Act or an order under section 14(3) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament." ")
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No, 296:
  Page 88, line 36, at end insert—
  ("Exemptions
  . For section 13(7)(i) there shall be substituted—
  "(i) any prescribed business or service, or prescribed class of business or service or business or service carried on or provided by prescribed persons or classes of person." ").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 28 [Unfair dismissal: special and additional awards]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 297:
  Page 14, line 12, at end insert—
  ("(3) In section 14 of the Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998—

  (a) subsection (1) shall cease to have effect, and

  (b) in subsection (2) for "that Act" substitute "the Employment Rights Act 1996."")

  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 297 repeals Section 14(1) of the Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998. This is necessary because Section 14(1) amends Section 117(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 but that section is being repealed by Schedule 8 to this Act as a result of the rationalisation of the existing system of special and additional awards provided by Schedule 8. Because Section 14(1) is being repealed, this amendment substitutes the words "the Employment Rights Act 1996" for the words "that Act in Section 14(2) of the dispute resolution Act.
  Amendment No. 302 reflects Amendment No. 297. It repeals Section 14(1) of the Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998 which is made redundant by this Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 29 to 32 agreed to.
  10.35 p.m.
  Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 297ZA:
  After Clause 32, 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 regulations may 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).")
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I shall not move Amendment No. 297ZA standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Simon. As the Committee will be
  402
  aware, the Government have received a request from the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee not to move the amendment at this stage. This is in order to enable the committee to consider the amendment at its meeting next week so that its comments may inform your Lordships' debate.
  We are pleased to accede to the noble Lord's request. The Government will be submitting a supplementary memorandum to the committee, copies of which will of course be placed in the Library. We shall return to the matter on Report with the benefit of the committee's comments.
  [Amendment No. 297ZA not moved.]
  Clause 33 [Orders and regulations]:
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 297A:
  Page 16, line 3, at end insert—
  ("(3) Where regulations are made or are laid before Parliament for approval under this Act for the purpose of implementing any European Union Directive in United Kingdom law, the Secretary of State shall simultaneously in each case publish a statement seeing out where those regulations go beyond the minimum requirement of the directive.
  (4) A statement under subsection (3) shall also give estimates of—

  (a) the cost to business which will arise from the regulations, and

  (b) the cost which would have arisen from implementing the minimum standards permissible under the directive.")

  The noble Baroness said: I shall speak to these amendments briefly. Where the Secretary of State makes regulations because of any fee directive, Amendment No. 297A requires him, first, to make clear to Parliament the way in which any regulation goes beyond the requirements of the directive. We have already seen an example of gold plating in the parental leave regulations which have gone far beyond what the directive requires.
  This amendment will make the Minister think twice before imposing additional burdens on British business that are not suffered by our competitors in the EU. It will also be clear notice to Parliament about what the Secretary of State has done.
  Amendment No. 297B has its inspiration from a speech to the British Chamber of Commerce on 3rd June by the Secretary of State. He said that he might be sunsetting some future regulations. I remember a story that London taxi drivers were, at one time, required to keep a bale of hay in the backs of their cabs for their horses, because someone forgot to repeal the order when motor cabs replaced the Hansom cab.
  I do not know whether the story is true or apocryphal, but it is a good illustration of the need for sunset clauses. I want to take an early opportunity to assist the Secretary of State in his commendable project of constantly keeping regulations under review. This is a probing amendment, but I invite the Secretary of State to demonstrate his seriousness by accepting it. It sunsets all the regulations made under this Bill after five years unless renewed; just as he was proposing.
  Amendment No. 297C requires the Secretary of State to publish a detailed report to Parliament of the workings of this Bill. If it is the success he claims it will be, he will doubtless want to trumpet it from the top of the Clock Tower. If things go wrong, he should be prepared to admit it.
  As I pointed out to his predecessor in connection with the National Minimum Wage Act, the alternative will be to extract the same information from him by a series of questions, so I hope that he will agree to provide the information as part of this very important Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Government are very sympathetic to the thinking behind the amendments. We share the concern to avoid unnecessary burdens on business. As regards Amendment No. 297A, we are committed to ensuring that there is a rigorous and thorough assessment of the risks, costs and benefits of any new proposals. We consider a range of policy options in order to identify the best course of action. When we are implementing an EC directive, we examine options which go no further than the terms of the directive, but we also examine options which go further since they might provide better value for money.
  We ensure that details of the costs and benefits are set out in the regulatory impact assessment. In respect of this Bill, the RIA gave an analysis of the reasons for and the costs of increasing the current period of statutory maternity leave from 14 to 18 weeks. The increase which went beyond the requirements of the EC directive was widely welcomed in the consultation. It reduces the confusion which many employers and workers experience as a result of the discrepancy between the current 14 weeks and maternity leave right and the 18-week maternity benefit period. Amendment No. 297A simply calls for a regulatory impact assessment which focuses in a blinkered manner on costs alone. Our regulatory assessment covers costs and benefits and we think it is preferable to the amendment.
  Amendment No. 297B is about sunset clauses. As the noble Baroness recognised, Stephen Byers told the British chambers of commerce in Glasgow on 3rd June that he is attracted by the idea. We have sympathy with it in principle. In practice, this particular amendment causes us some difficulties. There is not a one-size-fits-all approach. We need to consider each regulation case by case. It may be relevant when there is a particular problem which is of short duration. But the problem here, in particular, is that it is implementing an EC directive, which is a continuing obligation. We should be in breach of the directive if we were to allow our implementing of regulations to lapse in accordance with a sunset provision of the type which is proposed here.
  Amendment No. 297C addresses a serious point. We need to have a thorough cost-benefit analysis. It is clearly no less important that we should be aware of the impact which legislation has once it is in place. That is why the regulatory impact is supposed to examine ways of monitoring the impact of regulation.
  404
  It may help the Committee if I recall the ways in which the RIA said that the impact should be monitored and evaluated. We shall monitor and evaluate the take up of parental leave and changes in maternity rights. The Employment Tribunal Service will continue to monitor the numbers of applications made, the outcomes and awards. ACAS and CAC will monitor the number of requests for their involvement in trade union recognition matters. The CAC will monitor the number of applications under the statutory recognition procedure.
  In addition, we shall consider the case for a further round of the regular Workplace Employee Relations Survey, which I personally welcome greatly since I was involved with the design of the first one a number of years ago. We shall certainly trace changes resulting from that and other employment regulation. That is a more flexible and yet effective approach from that proposed in the amendments.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am grateful to the Minister for the courteous, helpful and understanding way in which he answered this group of amendments. We are not too far apart. As regards the point made about gold-plating, I had tabled many amendments which gave examples of that. However, I did not move them this evening. Therefore, I shall return to them on Report. That will give me an opportunity to deal in more detail with that matter and will no doubt give the Minister the opportunity to tell me why he thinks I am wrong. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 297B not moved.]
  Clause 33 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 297C not moved.]
  Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.
  Schedule 8 [Repeals]:
  Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendments Nos. 298 to 302:
  Page 89, line 30, at end insert—

  ("In section 118(1)(b), the word ", 127".")

  Page 90, leave out lines 13 and 14
  Page 90, line 24, at end insert—

  ("1992 c. 52.

  Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

  In Schedule A1, paragraph 122.")

  Page 91, line 3, at end insert—

  ("1999 c. 00

  Employment Relations Act 1999.

  Section 16(6).")

  Page 94, line 17, at end insert—

  ("1998 c. 8.

  Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998.

  Section 14(1).")

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 36 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 302A not moved.]
  Clause 37 [Extent.]
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 303:
  Page 16. line 17, at beginning insert—
  ("(1) Any amendment or repeal in this Act has the same extent as the provision amended or repealed.
  (2) Subject to subsection (1),")
  The noble Lord said: I should like to move Amendment No. 303 and speak also to Amendment No. 304. These are technical amendments dealing with Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 303 ensures that where the Bill amends or repeals part of employment legislation which applies exceptionally to Northern Ireland, the amendments and repeals will apply to Northern Ireland.
  The subject matter of the Bill is intended to be a transferred matter under the Northern Ireland Act. We had been assuming that devolution in Northern Ireland would have occurred by the time of Royal Assent and it would have fallen to the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide the extent to which measures equivalent should be put into effect. It seems likely that the Bill will be granted Royal Assent before devolution in Northern Ireland and we have sought to ensure that if devolution has not occurred, the provisions in the Bill can be achieved within a similar timescale to the rest of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 304:
  Page 16, line 17, at end insert—
  ("() 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 any of the purposes of this Act—

  (a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(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.")

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 38 agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

HFC Bank Bill
Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  European Court of Human Rights: UK Obligations
  European Court of Human Rights: UK Obligations
  Turkish Straits: Annulment of Navigation Regulations
  Turkish Straits: Annulment of Navigation Regulations
  Agent Orange
  Agent Orange
  Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order
  Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order
  Health Council, 8 June
  Health Council, 8 June
  NHS Pensions Agency Key Targets
  NHS Pensions Agency Key Targets
  Palliative Care
  Palliative Care
  Duty Free Sales
  Duty Free Sales
  Smoke Detectors
  Smoke Detectors
  Withholding Tax
  Withholding Tax
  Meat Contamination in Slaughterhouses
  Meat Contamination in Slaughterhouses
  Meat Hygiene
  Meat Hygiene
  Polish Import Duties
  Polish Import Duties
  The Tote
  The Tote
  Extradition Conventions: Ratification
  Extradition Conventions: Ratification
  Prisoner Statistics
  Prisoner Statistics
  Probation Officers Seconded to Prisons
  Probation Officers Seconded to Prisons
  Pentonville Prison
  Pentonville Prison
  Wales: Planning Appeals
  Wales: Planning Appeals
  Sex Offences Review: External Reference Group
  Sex Offences Review: External Reference Group
  Kairos-APAC Trust Prison Programmes
  Kairos-APAC Trust Prison Programmes
  Foreign Nationals in UK Prisons
  Foreign Nationals in UK Prisons