Sitting of 17 June 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Market Distortions
    Mr. Phil Sawford: What action he is taking against market distortions that result in consumers having to pay more for products in the United Kingdom than in the rest of the European Union. [86490]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): Before I answer my hon. Friend's question, may I say what a great pleasure it is to see the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) at her new post as spokesperson for trade and industry? I am sure that it is well deserved. She has always displayed a remarkable independence of spirit. Her views and hostility to the euro, for example, make those of her leader, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), seem Solomon-like in their measured judgment.
    To return to my hon. Friend's question, the Competition Act 1998 will provide a tough new regime for dealing with anti-competitive activities across the United Kingdom economy. The Government are committed to ensuring fair and vigorous competition in UK markets so that prices are set at competitive levels.
    We need to know, first, whether prices are so very different. Current information is inadequate. The Government will shortly announce the start of the commissioning process for a study of international price comparisons to provide robust and up-to-date evidence of international price differences.
    Mr. Sawford: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Many of my constituents in Kettering know that they are paying over the odds for many of the goods that they purchase—not just cars, but many other consumer goods. I welcome and applaud the steps that my hon. Friend is taking to give higher priority to consumers—unlike the previous Government, who talked an awful lot about market forces and competition, but failed miserably when it came to taking action in the interests of the British consumer.
    Dr. Howells: We are absolutely determined that where there has been a weakness in the supply of statistics,
    542
    it will not be filled by sometimes worthy and sometimes less worthy speculation in the press about rip-off Britain and so on. When I took on my present job, I was extremely surprised to discover that there were no mechanisms for comparing prices. We are determined to put them in place so that the people of Britain know whether, in international market comparisons, they are paying higher rates than they should for the goods that they purchase.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: Is not the major market distortion due to the extra burden of taxation and new regulation from the Government, which feeds directly through to consumer prices? Instead of hearing speeches about red tape, why do we not see some action from the Government to reduce the biggest burden on business, which is the Department of Trade and Industry?
    Dr. Howells: I am still hacking my way through the red tape that the hon. Gentleman left when he was in government. Such comments are a bit rich, coming from a party that ran this country for 18 years, during which time car manufacturers referred to the UK as "Treasure Island." The Conservative Government did very little to drive down prices or increase competition. Our Competition Act 1998, which kicks in from March next year, will ensure that there is no price fixing and that there are no cartels and no mergers that are designed to distort markets. With increased competition, we will see prices fall.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I am pleased that the Government are taking tough action on behalf of the consumer. Our achievement in getting record low inflation is the best thing that a Government can do for the consumer.
    Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that he will not allow big companies to delay and defer the process of investigation by competition authorities? The wrapped ice cream market, which for many years has given rise to concern, is currently under investigation. The major company in that market is once again doing its best to kick the investigation into the long grass. I urge my hon. Friend to make sure that that cannot happen.
    Dr. Howells: I cannot comment on the investigation being conducted by the competition authorities into the ice cream market. It is an important market and a sensitive issue. However, we have engaged in talks with the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission to ensure that there are proper time limits and that those limits are assessed and adhered to with proper rigour, so that companies are not kept waiting, jobs are not put in jeopardy and the innovative efforts of companies are not sabotaged.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: Does the Minister think that the massive increases in diesel duty levied by his Government, which have increased the price of diesel by 21 per cent. since the Government came to power, and which have added enormously to the cost of transporting food and consumer goods, have helped or hindered consumers in what they pay for products in the United Kingdom?
    Dr. Howells: I had discussions recently with a number of companies, which told me that that increase was not a

    543
    great hindrance to prices and competition. We have an extremely efficient transportation system in the UK and it is well used. Given that the previous Government introduced the fuel escalator, it is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to ask such a question now.

    Oil and Gas Industry Task Force
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: If he will make a statement on progress made by the oil and gas industry task force. [86492]
    The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): The oil and gas industry task force is making good progress. We intend to finalise our proposals in July and publish a full report in September. I am confident that the work that has been done during the past few months will make a significant impact on the future prospects of the UK's oil and gas industry both at home and in export markets.
    Mr. Blizzard: The establishment of the task force has been welcome, demonstrating, as it does, the Government's commitment to the offshore oil and gas industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that the main challenge facing us is to ensure that it remains economically viable to exploit the remaining 20 or 30 years'-worth of reserves which exist in marginal fields? Is it not important that investment continues to support jobs and the valuable storehouse of expertise and innovation that Britain has built up? To that end, will he urge the Chancellor to avoid taking a narrow fiscal view of the North sea tax regime and to ensure that we have a framework that will encourage further investment?
    Mr. Battle: I congratulate my hon. Friend on recently forming an all-party group on the oil and gas industry. Our fiscal regime is recognised as one of the most helpful in the world, particularly at a time when oil prices have been low. The task force's role is to ensure that the 30,000 people who work offshore, and the 300,000 people throughout the industry who support it onshore, remain in employment even when the oil price is low. The key to delivering that is to consider all aspects of training, the fiscal regime, regulation and licensing and, in particular, innovation and new technologies. We obtain oil and gas in the incredibly difficult circumstances of the rough terrain in the North sea and our expertise remains world class. We continue to build on that expertise in the North sea even in a low-cost environment, and that will allow us to continue winning jobs abroad.
    Mr. John Bercow: With regard to the gas industry, are the Minister and task force aware of the important fact that there is no proposed energy tax in Belgium, France, Norway or Sweden, and that that which applies in Germany carries a substantial rebate for important energy sectors? If so, will he reflect on the damage that is being done to our industry? Given that British Steel estimates that the proposed climate change levy will increase gas prices by 40 per cent. in the United Kingdom, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House when he will stop helping our competitors and start helping British businesses and British consumers?
    Mr. Battle: The climate change levy proposals are out for consultation and representations are being made now.
    544
    There is much comment on their impact, some accurate, some over-hyped. I recall the 1996 and 1997 Budgets. In 1996, the Conservative Government, without any notice, slapped an intangible cost tax on the North sea which priced out precisely the developments that we wanted. It was the hon. Gentleman's Administration who made things more difficult. We have consulted and said let it be, and the industry feels that there is a good tax regime for oil and gas exploration offshore. That contrasts markedly with the previous Administration's approach. The Opposition have somewhat short memories of the damage that they did when they were in government.

    Telephone Charges (Internet)
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: If he will make it his policy to take powers to enable him to reduce telephone charges for schools, volunteer organisations and residential users of the internet; and if he will make a statement. [86493]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): The Government's policy is to make fast and affordable internet access available as widely as possible, and competition is the best way to deliver that. It drives innovation, reduces prices and increases choice, and we are now seeing the beneficial results of that in the UK internet market.
    We accept that we need to help ensure that the advantages of this liberating and empowering new technology are spread as widely as possible to those who might otherwise not be able to enjoy them. A number of initiatives have been taken. As my hon. Friend knows, Oftel is responsible for regulating the telecommunications industry. It has negotiated with the industry reduced tariff packages for schools. I understand from Oftel today that a number of operators have now agreed, in principle, to develop similar lower-priced service packages for public libraries, further education colleges, university for industry learning centres and citizens advice bureaux. Those new tariffs should be available from next year.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I am almost lost for words, which is frustrating. I thank the Minister for that, but I hope that he will not put too much trust in competition to keep prices down. The rigorous and vigorous watching of cable and telecommunication providers should continue because, as more and more people seek to exploit the internet for recreational and learning purposes, it could be a licence to print money for those people unless there is intervention by the various agencies referred to and by government.
    Mr. Wills: I thank my hon. Friend for such a useful question and such a useful contribution to the debate.

    Business Advice Services
    Mr. David Drew: What plans he has to increase the number of business advice services in rural areas. [86494]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): In March we announced the setting up of the Small Business Service, which will provide a

    545
    strong voice for small businesses at the heart of Whitehall and help to improve the quality and coherence of the delivery of support.
    The Small Business Service will be for all businesses, including those in rural areas. We envisage enhanced support for start-ups and for the self-employed, which will have a beneficial impact in rural areas. We will shortly be issuing a consultative document and I would welcome views from anyone on the special needs not currently addressed under existing provision. I would particularly welcome views from my hon. Friend, who is an authority on rural issues.
    Mr. Drew: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks and, like me, he will welcome the launch this afternoon of the rural audit conducted by the rural group of Labour Members of Parliament, which has been well-reviewed in today's press. Among the many issues that it highlights is the need for job creation in rural areas and, although we obviously congratulate the consortium of rural training and enterprise councils on the much good work that it has done, we emphasise the need for additional resources in rural areas and, in particular, more localised help and specific assistance with IT, planning and marketing. When the Minister visits my constituency tomorrow, would he perhaps make a statement on how that assistance could be brought to bear?
    Mr. Wills: I am looking forward to my visit to Stroud tomorrow, and I welcome the findings of the report that my hon. Friend and his colleagues have put together, which I am sure will make a valuable contribution. We are deeply aware of the needs of rural areas, and we have made a specific commitment to rural regeneration. For example, there is an identified rural regeneration element in the single regeneration budget, and I am sure that we will not let down my hon. Friend and all our rural colleagues.
    Mr. Brian Cotter: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on her new post on the Opposition Front Bench.
    The Liberal Democrats are concerned not only about the rural delivery of business services, but about their delivery nationally. A lot of public money is already spent on the TECs, Business Links, regional development agencies and many other service delivery organisations. The Department of Trade and Industry could be about to add to the confusion with the Small Business Service. As part of the consultation about the SBS, will the Minister undertake to conduct a full review of all other business services?
    Mr. Wills: Of course we will do that; it is part of the process on which we have been embarked since March, when we announced the establishment of the SBS. The hon. Gentleman obviously has certain views on that and we look forward to hearing about them in more detail.
    Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: It is our experience in Northern Ireland that the rural economy has suffered significantly, particularly because of the difficulties in agriculture. Will the Department give us a commitment that it will put pressure on planners throughout the United Kingdom to facilitate change-of-use applications for redundant farm buildings,
    546
    which would make it easier to establish new businesses in the rural economy? It is our experience that people have great difficulty when applying for change of use to establish businesses and it would certainly help if the Department exerted such pressure on planners to help the rural economy.
    Mr. Wills: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We know that planning can be a key issue, particularly for small businesses. We are setting up the SBS precisely because we want to make sure that the views of small businesses on that and other issues are heard clearly in Whitehall when policy is made. When the hon. Gentleman sees the consultation document he will realise how determined we are that those issues are discussed properly in Whitehall and that all policies think small first.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: I thank both the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) for their kind words. At least, I think they were kind words. I am disappointed that the Secretary of State is not present; I understand that he is in Japan, and I hope that he is securing some British business there.
    Mr. John Bercow: He is scared of the hon. Lady.
    Mrs. Browning: I must say that, when I was shadowing the Secretary of State as an Education and Employment spokesman, we had one or two sparring matches; but if I had to come back and haunt any member of the Government, there is no one whom I would wish to haunt more than the right hon. Gentleman. I look forward to seeing him on future occasions.
    Rural businesses are very dependent on the farming community, and on its prosperity. The Secretary of State has had the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on Milk Marque on his desk since 20 April. This does not just concern farmers; it concerns the many businesses and industries that rely on them, and desperately want to be able to process milk into viable products that we can sell in this country.
    Will the Minister guarantee, on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that an announcement will be made before the next milk selling round, which will begin in July? I know that it is on record that a statement, or an announcement, will be made before the House rises for the recess, but the timing is critical for farmers. If the announcement is not made before the beginning of the selling round, many small dairy farmers will see that day on their calendars as the day when they must decide whether to stay in farming or get out.
    Will the Minister also confirm—because it is so important to rural businesses—that the announcement will be made on the Floor of the House, rather than outside?
    Mr. Wills: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new responsibilities. I am well aware of the issue that she has raised—I have received representations in my constituency from farmers who are clearly concerned about the outcome—and I can tell her that an announcement will be made shortly. As I am sure she will understand, I cannot go further at this stage, but I assure her that the Secretary of State considers the issue to be very important.

    Social Exclusion (Energy Policy)
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the significance that energy policy has in the Government's social exclusion agenda. [86495]
    The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): Given that more than 5 million households in the United Kingdom are spending over 10 per cent. of their incomes on fuel bills, fuel poverty is a serious matter. It is a crucial aspect of the social exclusion agenda, and we are tackling it. I had a meeting with the industry on 18 May to press it to take action, and to develop and pool ideas for best practice. I also pressed the regulator to present a revised social action plan to deal with fuel poverty, so that all consumers—not just those who have access to good deals by means of direct debit—benefit from competition.
    Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that Scottish Power and MANWEB—the Merseyside and North-West electricity board—have introduced pilot schemes, along with the Energy Action Grants Agency, to help low-income consumers to spread their payments and weatherproof their bills? Those organisations have distributed more than 100,000 low-energy light bulbs through Age Concern. Surely that is a serious contribution to the social exclusion agenda.
    Will my hon. Friend ensure that any legislation that is introduced places a burden on the regulator to ensure that the interests of low-income consumers are promoted and protected?
    Mr. Battle: I know of the scheme to which my hon. Friend refers. It includes not only specific packages for low-income families, but advice on benefits, budgetary advice and the supply of fuel on terms that give such families an extra deal: lower bills, along with fixed weekly payments at an agreed rate. That is a very good offer.
    If those companies can do this, why cannot others? I know that Centrica and Help the Aged, along with the gas industry, have launched a two-year plan to combat fuel poverty, but we need to widen that best practice network. In our White Paper "A Fair Deal for Consumers", we announced that we would include in any Bill on energy regulation statutory guidance for the regulator on fuel poverty, social obligation and environmental responsibilities. We may produce such a Bill in early autumn; at this stage, I merely ask the companies to get together, to anticipate the legislation and to act now. If they do so, regulation may be lighter. Indeed, ultimately we may not need it. Companies should exercise common sense in tackling fuel poverty, rather than dismissing the poor.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: One of the most dramatic ways in which to be excluded from society is to be made unemployed. Ninety-seven per cent. of goods in rural areas are transported by diesel-powered vans and lorries, and haulage businesses throughout the country are making workers redundant because of the Government's energy policies. When will they wake up to the real damage being done to real people on the ground?
    Mr. Battle: I know that the main question is on fuel poverty, but I do not mind widening the debate to a
    548
    discussion of social exclusion because I remember when we were losing a company every three minutes under the Tories. I remember unemployment escalating then, not only in urban but in rural areas. A total of 400,000 new jobs have been delivered under our Government. We have a new deal to put people back into work that reaches all Britain. The hon. Gentleman's party set up the regulation mechanism for gas and electricity, according to which only price mattered. I look forward to Conservative Members' support when we introduce a Bill on energy which acknowledges that tackling fuel poverty and recognising environmental responsibilities are important to the generation of new jobs and combating social exclusion.
    Mr. David Chaytor: I congratulate the Government on the work done so far on fuel poverty, but does the Minister agree that one of its key causes is the standing charge, because it is inevitable that low-income households pay disproportionately more for their gas and electricity than the rest of the population? Will he assure the House that he will continue to press the regulator to tackle the inequities of that system?
    Mr. Battle: I agree with my hon. Friend about standing charges. He may know that we have already asked the regulator to examine, for example, the wide regional variations in charges. Some companies do not have a standing charge, but low-volume customers can pay a high price.
    Tackling fuel poverty is complex, because it involves investing in homes to ensure that they are energy-efficient. Therefore, the energy and resources that we are putting into energy-efficiency schemes—for example, home improvement schemes—should match action to reduce fuel bills for poorer consumers.
    It is unnecessary and unacceptable that people should die from cold—what is euphemistically referred to as excess winter deaths. I do not want that to appear on death certificates in the 21st century. Our combined actions can do something to tackle that.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement about the abatement in respect of the minimum wage payable where an employer provides full board. [86497]
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): Following the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission, there is no offset allowed for the provision of board when calculating whether the national minimum wage has been paid. There is a limited offset of up to £19.95 a week allowed against the national minimum wage to recognise the benefit of the provision of accommodation.
    Mr. Swayne: Is the Minister of State aware of the thousands of seasonal jobs that are provided for young people and students by activity holidays, and of the disaster now faced by the industry? In his tour of the country, when he will reconnect with his core supporters, will he check whether he can find accommodation at £20 quid a week anywhere in the country?
    Mr. McCartney: I would be delighted to travel around the country and to talk to the 2 million people who have

    549
    already benefited from the national minimum wage. The hon. Gentleman's "let them eat cake" attitude is out of date. If someone has to remain on his employer's premises to the benefit of that employer, that person should receive a minimum wage as well as accommodation and food. That is why the recommendation is set out as it is.
    Since the hospitality industry implemented the national minimum wage, more than 100,000 new jobs have been created, most of them full time. The national minimum wage is a job creator, not a job loser.
    Mr. Jim Murphy: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the introduction of the national minimum wage faced two great challenges: one political and one in implementation. The political one was made by the Conservatives, who said that it would destroy jobs and create inflation. The second referred to employers paying the fair wage. My right hon. Friend may choose to comment on the spectacular failure of the Opposition's scare stories, but I ask him to say what efforts are being made to ensure that the fair wage is being paid and properly enforced.
    Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and assure him that we have the world's most professional and organised system of minimum wage enforcement. Before 1 April, nine out of 10 employers indicated their total support for the minimum wage, and 40 per cent. of them were already paying it. Since then, I have had to have detailed discussions with 1,200 employers about non-implementation of the minimum wage, and half of them immediately implemented it and apologised for their failure in not doing so before. About 300 of the remaining 600 employers are still being investigated. Only this week, however, a media company had to repay £750,000 to its employees in wages backdated to 1 April.
    To anyone not receiving the minimum wage, I say: "Phone up anonymously, we'll get the minimum wage for you—that's what it's there for." I also pay tribute to those employers who telephone us daily to tell us about other employers who are not paying the minimum wage. Employers are joining low-paid workers in ensuring that the minimum wage is paid.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: Why does the Minister have such a blinkered and belligerent approach to the specific question on abatement of the minimum wage when full board is provided? I have a constituent who runs an activity holiday company, and he tells me that, because of the Government's approach, he can no longer offer a job to the young people and students who usually man his United Kingdom sites, but that he is able to continue employing young people and students abroad, where the minimum wage is implemented more flexibly and realistically.
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady should know that her constituent's employees, if they are 16 or 17-year-olds, do not qualify for the minimum wage, although people who are not in training will qualify for it. The sector that she mentioned is not losing jobs, but has a shortage of potential employees—because some of the employers are absolutely miserly and want people to work for them for nothing. That is no longer possible, however, because the
    550
    Government have introduced the national minimum wage, which has been supported by the overwhelming majority of employers.

    European Space Agency
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: What assessment he has made of the scientific and industrial advances that have resulted from Britain's participation in the European Space Agency. [86498]
    The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): The United Kingdom has a world-class scientific community in several major spheres of space research, not least Earth observation. Our scientists have played an important part in the European Space Agency's Soho satellite, which has extended our knowledge of the sun's energy dynamics. Last week, my noble Friend the Minister for Science announced that ESA had selected a United Kingdom proposal to study the thickness of Earth's ice sheets as the very first mission in its new earth science research programme, living planet.
    Dr. Naysmith: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that he will agree that last week's announcement demonstrates the importance of working with our partners in Europe in the European Space Agency, and the benefit of positive leadership in Europe. However, he and other Trade and Industry Ministers will be aware that I have made representations, and even led a delegation to the Department, about closure of the site at Filton. Will he confirm the assurances that we have been given that, when the transfer is made to Portsmouth and Stevenage, every attempt will be made to ensure that none of the workers or expertise available at Matra Marconi Space will be lost, particularly in space vehicle construction and Earth observation? There have also been many assurances that every attempt will be made to find employment for those who choose to stay in the Bristol area. Will he ensure that those attempts are made?
    Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend champions the industry in the House, and knows well that ESA membership provides a very wide range of opportunity for both British industry and our scientific and technological community to develop our expertise in Earth observation, which is crucial in the practical work of tackling the challenges of environmental pollution, for example. Although, as he said, the work being done at Filton by Matra Marconi Space—which is a world leader in the design and manufacture of advanced communications satellites, and in every development in the Earth observation market—will be transferred to Stevenage and Portsmouth, the British National Space Centre has received assurances that Matra Marconi Space's expertise in Earth observation will be maintained. It is important to remember that the units are being relocated, not disbanded.
    I appreciate that some employees may choose to remain in Bristol, or have no option but to remain there. I hope that there will be alternative employment for those who cannot move—Honda recently announced 125 new jobs—and we shall work to ensure that those employees have such opportunities. Meanwhile, our job is to ensure that we remain world leaders in that science and technology, and continue to make that contribution to Earth observation.

    British Inventions
    Mr. Robin Corbett: What financial and other assistance his Department makes available to assist the assessment and commercial evaluation of inventions by British nationals. [86499]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): A large part of the Department of Trade and Industry's work is to create an environment in which good ideas can be converted into innovative products and services. We have worked closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to develop the national endowment for science, technology and the arts, known by its unglamorous acronym NESTA. One of its programmes is designed to promote invention and innovation.
    Mr. Corbett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and commend the fresh emphasis on encouraging inventors. Will he focus particularly on the local lone inventor, often working in his garden shed, who feels isolated? I am not making this up, because I have two examples in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend encourage chambers of commerce, industry and trade to offer initial mentoring services to such inventors, perhaps even before they have applied for patents, to ensure that the hundreds of thousands of inventions that are patented every year, on which people have spent a lot of time working, are given proper assessment? We do not want to let things out of the front door only to have to buy them later through the back door.
    Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend is right. Now that Business Links can deal with sole traders through its personal business advisers and innovation and technology counsellors, we have an opportunity to take up some of my hon. Friend's proposals. The NESTA programme will capture those people, and not before time.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: I am a little disappointed that the Minister made no reference in his reply to the Government's backing for the idea of an academy of inventors—which has been proposed for the purpose that he has mentioned—led by my constituent Trevor Baylis, the inventor of the clockwork radio. Is the Department investigating the role of invention promoters, which are mainly American companies that are here to take cheaply—in effect, to steal—the ideas of British inventors? Some of them are under investigation in the United States for possible criminal charges.
    Dr. Howells: Mr. Baylis, the hon. Gentleman's constituent, has met my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry several times. His proposals are being encompassed in the NESTA arrangements. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about American companies making incursions into this country looking for innovations. The problem is not just Government quangos. It has to do with private enterprise, banks and the way in which venture capital works in this country. We are not entrepreneurial or innovative enough and our financial back-up arrangements are not designed to promote start-ups as they should be.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: My question has been partly answered,
    552
    because I intended to ask about Trevor Baylis and the academy of inventors. Trevor Baylis's idea is that patenting, intellectual property rights and very expensive matters of which inventors have no experience could be provided free by the academy. Will my hon. Friend elaborate on how NESTA could help to develop that capital?
    Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry is meeting the organisation of inventors as well as Mr. Trevor Baylis to try to bring some cohesion and co-ordination to the issue. I am keen that we should begin to advertise the recent price reductions of the Patent Office in Newport. We have reduced costs for inventors and new patents by more than 18 per cent. We now have one of the most robust and least expensive patent systems anywhere in the world, and that is a great boon for British science and invention. I will ensure that the progress that has been made continues.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: The question asks about assessment and commercial evaluation. The Minister will know that when all the other questions have been asked in the evaluation of a product the last test is whether that product can be brought to market profitably. In the light of the comments in the press today about the Competition Commission, will the Minister assist me—as a new member of the Conservative Front-Bench team—and outline the Government's attitude to profitability in certain sectors? If today's reports are correct, and we are to have companies dissected in open session, will the Government eventually determine what is an acceptable profit level within business sectors? Nothing will kill innovation quicker than such a policy.
    Dr. Howells: I heard the news about the Competition Commission's proposals and I asked what they would mean. They will not mean that companies have to give up commercial information, but they will affect transparency of prices—something in which I am very interested. I would like to know why certain branded goods are sold in this country at much higher prices than those at which they are sold in comparable markets in America or the European Union. British consumers have a right to know how much the mark-up is and how much more they are paying than if they bought those products in France, Germany or America. The best companies will be glad to tell consumers why that is.
    Mrs. Browning: Depending on whether the questions are asked in open session—I do not challenge whether the questions should be asked—the consequence of the proposals must be that eventually the Government will make some public announcement about what they deem to be an acceptable profit level in an industry or sector and what they deem to be excessive. Suppose that someone has made a real breakthrough in innovation. That has happened throughout our history and it is how big moves forward happen in the introduction of products to the market: some new technology suddenly allows a new company, sometimes a very small one, to make a product that allows it to make what might be termed a big profit. Will we have benchmarks for profits? That would stifle innovation and would mean that people would go abroad

    553
    to make products that should be made in this country. The Government must have some idea how they intend to handle the information when it is available.
    Dr. Howells: There is no intention to set benchmarks for prices. I recognise the need for companies to have flexibility and targets which cannot be judged by civil servants in Whitehall, still less by politicians in this Chamber. The Competition Commission's proposals, as I understand them, will relate only—in the first instance—to its inquiry into car prices. That is a sufficiently big and controversial subject to allow such tactics to be used if the commission is to arrive at something like the truth. It will want to know about a wide range of variables in that pricing equation. The open sessions will not be mandatory and companies will not have to give up confidential, commercially sensitive information, but they will have an opportunity to put the record straight publicly. That cannot be bad for anyone.

    E-commerce
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What account he has taken of representations received from the IT industry in framing his policy on e-commerce. [86501]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): We work extremely closely with the industry in developing our e-commerce policies. Let me give just three examples: we listened to industry concerns about key escrow, and have announced that our e-commerce Bill will contain no such requirements; my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget that, as recommended by industry, he was introducing tax breaks aimed at encouraging companies to provide their employees with personal computers for use at home; and three weeks ago, following a recommendation from the IT industry, we announced the launch of a major initiative to raise the e-commerce skills of small business advisers, which we are implementing in close partnership with BT, Intel, Microsoft and Compaq.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend aware of the industry's widespread hostility to the previous Government's proposals for the compulsory registration of encryption codes, and will he confirm that the Government have rejected any such proposals?
    Mr. Wills: I can confirm that key escrow will be no part of our e-commerce Bill; I am indeed aware of the industry's widespread hostility to the proposals.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: If we are not to have compulsory registration of encryption codes, can the Minister assure us that we will find a balance between allowing people to access and do business on the internet by e-commerce and maintaining security and safeguarding the information that is available? Is the Minister following the developments of the e-commerce directive being considered by the Council of Ministers and will he ensure that there is no conflict between the Bill and the directive?
    Mr. Wills: I am happy to say that I can give an assurance on all those matters. Our proposals will be compatible with European legislation. Of course we are concerned to ensure that the needs of the law enforcement
    554
    agencies are met as well as the needs of the rapid roll-out of e-commerce, which is to the overall benefit of this country. That is as far as I can go at the moment, so I hope that the hon. Lady can wait to see the details when we publish the e-commerce Bill.
    Madam Speaker: Mr. White.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: E-commerce is underscored first by the local loop cost of a telephone call and secondly by the server technology. BT controls 85 per cent. of local loop costs and 90 per cent. of the servers are in America. If we cannot have free local calls, we cannot develop an e-commerce economy, and if the servers are in America, we cannot collect corporation tax. What does my hon. Friend intend to do about that?
    Mr. Wills: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. It has been voiced before in the House: there was recently an Adjournment debate on this very subject. Oftel has been holding consultations on precisely this issue and it will announce the results and recommendations shortly. I will have to see those before I can comment further.
    Madam Speaker: I called Mr. White and Mr. Wyatt stood up, so I shall call Mr. White again.
    Mr. Brian White: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
    My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that the speed of technological change is far outpacing the ability of the House to deal with it, and that our infrastructure is being caught up by that of countries such as Singapore and the Scandinavian countries. What does he intend to do to ensure that we stay ahead and that we have adequate skills, with programmers and developers who can take advantage of e-commerce? How are we to fill the skills gap?
    Mr. Wills: I can offer my hon. Friend comfort on all those points. We are taking steps to ensure that we are the best environment in the world for e-commerce. The e-commerce Bill is only the beginning of a series of initiatives. I will give further details in due course, when we are ready to announce them.

    Small Business Service
    Mr. John Healey: What representations he has received on his plans for setting up the Small Business Service. [86502]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): There has been a range of inquiries in response to the initial announcements about the Small Business Service by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I have had meetings with small business organisations and other interested parties. A formal consultation document will be published shortly.
    Mr. Healey: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is considerable scope for the use of information and communication technology in improving access to

    555
    information for small firms? What consideration is he giving to making forms, registration documents and contracts available through the SBS electronically, from day one?
    Mr. Wills: I thank my hon. Friend for that important contribution. It is crucial for all small businesses to get hooked up to digital networks as soon as possible. There are enormous advantages in cost and in terms of dealing with bureaucracy, as my hon. Friend suggested. That is why, in the modernising government White Paper, we have suggested a range of initiatives to help small businesses in that way. We have pledged that 25 per cent. of Government services will be available electronically by 2002, and that 100 per cent. will be so available by 2008.
    I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to make progress on these matters, and that the SBS will be tasked with doing so.

    Working Time Directive
    Mr. David Amess: If he will make a statement about the impact on seasonal workers and employers of the working time directive. [86504]
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): There has been no specific assessment of the impact that the regulations will have on seasonal workers. A regulatory impact assessment of the costs and benefits resulting from the implementation of the working time regulations has been made, a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.
    The regulations do provide flexibility, which takes account of the needs of those working in areas dictated by seasonal demands by setting a 13-week qualifying period in respect of the provision of the paid annual leave entitlement. The regulations also take into account those who employ staff in the short term.
    Mr. Amess: After Southend's verdict last week that it wanted to be in Europe but not run by Europe, is the Minister aware that many businesses there are suffering as a result of the Government's policies? The problem is so bad that I shall meet the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry shortly to try to secure assisted area status for Southend. The impact of the bureaucratic costs incurred by Southend businesses as a result of the hasty introduction of the directive means that many people are suffering. Will the Minister undertake to conduct a study into the effects of the working time directive on the viability of businesses in Southend?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is the most celebrated seasonal worker in Britain. He travels every day between Basildon and Southend.
    The hon. Gentleman surprises me. He represents a constituency whose economy is based on people's ability to take holidays and visit places such as Southend. The directive gives 2.5 million of the lowest-paid workers in Britain the absolute right—for the first time—to three weeks' paid annual holidays, which they can spend this summer in Southend. By Christmas, the right will be to four weeks' annual paid holidays.
    As well as being against the minimum wage, the Tory party is against low-paid workers having paid holiday breaks. The hon. Gentleman is mean-minded and
    556
    tight-fisted. The measure will give people in Southend and in the hotel trade jobs and opportunities to expand the industry. This is one of the most popular policies that we have introduced. For the first time, everyone in Britain is entitled to a paid holiday.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that I have not met anyone—in Basildon, Southend or anywhere else—who opposes the principle of the working time directive. Is not the absolute principle that it is wrong to force people to work for more than 48 hours in a week one that any decent, civilised society should accept?
    Mr. McCartney: I agree with my hon. Friend. Perhaps we should ask the hon. Gentleman, a part-time Tory MP running between Basildon and Southend, how many weeks' paid holiday he will take this summer. Business supports the Government in the introduction of the measure. The Government gave a commitment last year that the regulations would be allowed to bed down to ensure that they operate effectively. That is what we are doing and what we shall continue to do, but the fact remains that the Tories are opposed to paid holidays for workers in Britain.

    Diesel Engines
    Mr. Bob Russell: What plans he has to support companies engaged in the manufacture of diesel engines. [86505]
    The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): The Government are providing support to develop diesel engine technology in a number of different sectors, not least through the science budget. The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council is providing £1.15 million to fund research covering diesel engine development, and an additional £1.2 million for research into the general development of the internal combustion engine.
    Mr. Russell: I welcome that reply, as far as it goes. I draw the Minister's attention to a company in my constituency, Paxman Alstom, which is suffering because orders from the privatised rail industry and the Ministry of Defence have fallen. I urge the Minister and his colleagues in his Department and in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to implore the rail companies to invest more in new diesel locomotives. Will he also urge the Ministry of Defence to place its orders with British manufacturers?
    Mr. Battle: The Paxman division of Alstom Engines manufactures compact high-speed diesel engines for a wide variety of uses, including commercial, naval marine, high-speed rail traction, off-road, onshore and power generation applications. We are keen that its technological expertise should be enhanced and developed, and that purpose underpins our science and engineering programme. In making appropriate representations to the Ministry of Defence and other Departments on where to place their contracts, the DTI highlights technological expertise and the impact on jobs

    Libya
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to his oral answer of 6 May 1999, Official Report, column 1073, on Libya, what conclusions he has come to in relation to restoration of Government services, following the suspension of United Nations and EU sanctions. [86506]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): I am pleased to announce that within the limits of resources available, Government services to exporters to Libya are being restored following the suspension of United Kingdom and European Union sanctions. British Trade International is taking a proactive role in collating and making available market information on Libya, both on paper and through the internet, just as it does for all our other trading partners.
    Country managers have already taken part in trade events to inform UK companies about trade opportunities with Libya. British Trade International is actively encouraging UK firms to consider joining trade missions to Libya. However, the full range of export services—particularly Government financial support—will not be restored until satisfactory progress has been made on the case of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, which could lead to normalisation of bilateral relations and the re-establishment of a full commercial operation in Tripoli.
    Mr. Dalyell: I have been deeply involved in the case of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. Is not the case so complex that the time has come for a ministerial visit?
    Dr. Howells: Normalisation cannot occur while a young police officer has been murdered on our streets in uncertain circumstances. We have a duty to find out the truth of that murder and to find the guilty parties.

    Entrepreneurial Culture
    Valerie Davey: What action he is taking to promote a more entrepreneurial culture among academic scientists. [86507]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): I refer my hon. Friend to the competitiveness White Paper published last December. A number of initiatives set out in that paper will help academic scientists to become more entrepreneurial, including the £25 million science enterprise challenge, which will create up to eight university centres to equip scientists and engineers with entrepreneurship and business skills.
    Valerie Davey: I welcome that response. Will my hon. Friend congratulate Bristol university on becoming one of the 12 that have succeeded in the first round of the bid for the science enterprise challenge?
    Mr. Eric Forth: It says here.
    Valerie Davey: Does my hon. Friend agree that helping universities to develop long-term strategies for
    558
    interaction with business is good for individuals, the economy and Britain?
    Mr. Forth: Who wrote that one out for the hon. Lady?
    Dr. Howells: I congratulate Bristol university on a tremendous achievement that builds on the great reputation of the university, a reputation that does not deserve to draw heckling from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). For too long, the UK has been adept at locking away intellectual capital in our universities, rendering it commercially redundant. The Government are determined to break with the past, and to see companies spin off from our universities in the way that they should have done long ago. The indolence of the Conservative party during its long years in Government wasted many of our innovative and entrepreneurial skills. That will not happen under our Government.

    Working Time Directive
    Helen Jones: What assessment he has made of the number of people entitled to annual leave as a result of the working time directive. [86509]
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): The entitlement to paid annual leave is available to all workers, apart from those in sectors currently excluded from the working time directive—namely, those involved in transport, sea fishing, and other work at sea and doctors in training. When the regulations came into force on 1 October 1998, it was anticipated that 2.5 million workers would benefit for the first time from an entitlement to leave.
    Helen Jones: One key to implementing the working time directive fully will be to ensure that people are fully aware of their entitlements. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to see that people know what the directive entitles them to? In view of his earlier remarks, will he reassure my constituents that they will not be forced to spend their annual leave in the company of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess)?
    Mr. McCartney: I defend the landladies of Southend. I have visited Southend on numerous occasions and I would welcome the opportunity to have a few days off and a break there. Unfortunately, Ministers are not covered by the working time directive.
    As with the national minimum wage, we have put £1 million into a campaign to supply information and help to businesses and employees respectively on how to implement the working time directive and get holiday pay. We have also provided workers for the first time ever with protection against being sacked or disciplined for claiming their right to paid holiday leave. We have also provided special protection for young and night workers. It is interesting to note that, other than a few Tory Arthur Daley-style employers, employers in Britain back this proposal for good minimum standards because it means that workers will be more committed to their enterprise, will stay with it and will help to make it successful.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Sir George Young: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 21 JUNE—Second Reading of the Food Standards Bill.
Motion on the Appropriation (No 2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY 22 JUNE—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Tax Credits Bill.
Remaining stages of the Access to Justice Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 23 JUNE—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day [14th Allotted Day] (First Part). There will be a debate entitled "Proportional Representation" on an Opposition motion—no doubt in favour.
Motion on the Church of England Cathedrals Measure.
Motion on Care of Places of Worship Measure.
THURSDAY 24 JUNE—Opposition Day [15th Allotted Day].
Until about 4 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Government's Policy for Widows" followed by a debate entitled "Food and Supermarkets". Both debates arise in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
FRIDAY 25 JUNE—Debate on innovation and enterprise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week—at this time of year it tends to be particularly provisional—will be as follows:
MONDAY 28 JUNE—Second Reading of the Financial Services and Markets Bill.
TUESDAY 29 JUNE—Opposition Day [16th Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 30 JUNE—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Disability Rights Commission Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 1 JULY—Debate on armed forces personnel on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 2 JULY—There will be a debate on drugs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of the business for the following week. I welcome the announcement of an early debate on drugs, which I called for last week. That leaves outstanding the debate on the royal commission on long-term care, which I also mentioned last week. It reported three months ago and there is growing concern that the important issues that it raised are being ignored. An early debate would allay those fears. I welcome the
560
third and final debate on the services. I believe that the new structure has been well received.
Might we expect a statement on Monday from the Prime Minister after this weekend's G8 meeting? The Prime Minister has recognised that there is a crisis in Northern Ireland. As we approach the deadline of 30 June the House would welcome a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about recent developments. Might the Leader of the House facilitate that?
Wednesday's debate on proportional representation has been chosen by the Opposition because of widespread concern at the form of last week's elections, but not at the results. Can she tell the House who will answer for the Government? Might it be the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)?

Finally in the interests of all who work in the House, can the Leader of the House shed any further light on the summer recess beyond saying what she said last week—that she hoped it would be in August?
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the debate on drugs. Indeed, we have now dealt with a fair number of the outstanding issues, despite having all the extra debates and statements as a result of Kosovo. I am mindful of the request for a debate on long-term care; however, I know that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government are giving careful and full consideration to the recommendations before them.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming the pattern of debates on defence. I agree with him that that is an improvement—even at this early stage, the House realises that. I anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement on Monday as to the outcome of the G8 summit, which, as I said last week, is indeed in Cologne—to my relief. I will bear in mind the remarks of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire on Northern Ireland; I shall draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
At present, I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman who will open the PR debate, but it is unlikely to be my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I cannot add anything to what I said last week about the summer recess. However, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on PR, I congratulate him and his hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on the increase in their responsibilities to bring them further into line with some of mine. I invite them to be pleased that they do not undertake the full range of those responsibilities; they are not yet responsible for the Euro-elections or for the millennium bug.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to make a statement about yesterday's press release on the national health service performance indicators? In the figures published yesterday, those from the hospitals and the health authority in Nottingham were absent, although the data had been sent in. The problem

561
may be that, although I know that the data had been sent in, in order to ensure confidentiality in the transmission of electronic data, the hospitals were advised to omit the last three digits of the postcode.
It would be helpful to clarify the terms on which NHS hospitals are expected safely to contribute data for the national collection of performance indicators.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I understand that it is possible that some of the returns from Nottingham arrived a little late. However, the difficulty as to the clarification of terms that he identifies may well have contributed to any problems. I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. My hon. Friend is right to point out that to make available information that should be in the public domain is an important new initiative. It is important that we develop it and get it right.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Following on from the concerns expressed about various aspects of the national health service, may I again draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that we urgently need a statement from the Secretary of State about NHS dentistry? The situation is deteriorating in many parts of the country.
I endorse the request by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for an early statement and debate on the royal commission on long-term care. We appreciate that the Government must consider the matter carefully, but many weeks have passed since the publication of the royal commission's report and there is considerable concern about the matter.
Can the Leader of the House give us any indication of the likely timetable for freedom of information legislation? Again, there is widespread concern among many Members of the House that there seems to be a major deficiency as between the proposals in the White Paper and those currently being made. I hope that there will be an opportunity for the House to debate them sooner rather than later.
Finally, as we are now two years into this Government, will the Leader of the House give us a progress report on the election pledges on gender discrimination? Will she tell the House how many differential impact assessments have been made? Who will make statements on that matter? Is the Leader of the House directly involved in the Cabinet sub-committee on women, and how often does the sub-committee meet?
Mrs. Beckett: I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks about dentistry and about the need for a debate on long-term care—and the remarks made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire on that subject—to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall is aware, some work has been done on improving the standard of NHS dentistry, although we realise that a great deal of work remains to be done to redress the problems that we inherited.
562
At present, I can give the hon. Gentleman no further information about the timing of the Freedom of Information Bill. However, we look forward eagerly to that debate, as we do not accept that it will reveal any major deficiency; indeed, we believe that many of the criticisms made of the Bill are misplaced.
I do not have to hand the information requested by the hon. Gentleman on gender discrimination and the measurement of differential impacts. However, I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the Leader of the House of Lords, who has responsibility for the matter.
Mr. Frank Cook: Will my right hon. and compassionate Friend look at early-day motion 637?
[That this House applauds the decision of Her Majesty's Government to initiate in December 1997 a review of the causal factors related to the alleged Gulf War Syndrome and the physical state of the service personnel and civilians who allegedly suffer its ill effects; applauds the level of concern and degree of logic that led to this decision; expresses the hope that the results of this review will be published in the near future; and calls on the Secretary of State for Defence to apply the same measures of concern and logic to the equally pressing but longer running cause of the British nuclear test veterans.]
Both that early-day motions and early-day motion 659 stand in my name and have gathered considerable support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. They refer to British nuclear test veterans: one calls for a review of veterans' circumstances consequent on their attendance at nuclear tests; the other calls for the institution of a meritorious ribbon. Will my right hon. Friend try to find Government time for a short debate this side of the summer recess, so that the House can form a view that might prompt the inclusion of some sort of sensible suggestion in the Queen's Speech?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has campaigned vigorously on that issue for many years, and many have paid tribute to his efforts. The Government have made clear our recognition and appreciation of the service given by those veterans and, as my hon. Friend knows, the issue has been considered exhaustively over a number of years. However, I remind my hon. Friend that, although we did say that the arrangement was provisional, we anticipate that there will be a debate on armed forces personnel on 1 July. If he is able to catch Madam Speaker's eye, he will be able to raise such matters on that occasion.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Following the question on hospital league tables, does the right hon. Lady agree that those might require further analysis and refinement? One point is absolutely clear: the crucial importance of keeping to an absolute minimum the time between heart attack and hospital admission. Does she accept that, if the Royal Hospital Haslar in my constituency, with its accident and emergency unit, were to be closed, there is no doubt that lives would be lost on the congested road between Gosport and the remaining hospitals? Does she agree that, because of that and because of the overwhelming need to solve the crisis in the defence medical services, which the closure of that hospital would

563
make worse, we should have a debate on that subject next week?
If, for any reason, the right hon. Lady finds it difficult or impossible to provide a debate next week, will she at least ask her right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Health to respond to the request that I made a month ago for an urgent meeting to discuss the matter with both Departments?
Mrs. Beckett: I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my relevant right hon. Friends. As he knows, at least one of them has had some heavy operational responsibilities of late. We accept that there are difficulties, which we inherited, in both the health service and the defence medical services. However, the debate on armed forces personnel might give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to raise that issue from the defence angle, which I know he has pursued in the past.
Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend may have read in The Independent today that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is to publish this afternoon a report from the respected John Innes Centre on cross-pollination and other contamination of organic crops by genetically modified test crops. MAFF has confirmed to me that the report will be published at 3.30 pm. Has my right hon. Friend received any indication that there will be a statement made in the House? If not, will she make inquiries about, and give consideration to, the possibility of having a debate in the very near future on the possible need to modify the Government guidelines on distances between such crops, and on organic farming and organic food products, for which there is now clear and strong public support?
Mrs. Beckett: I have not seen the story to which my hon. Friend refers—Thursday tends to be a slightly hectic day for me—but I was aware that the John Innes Centre report was to be published shortly, so my hon. Friend might be right. I fear I cannot undertake to find time for an immediate debate on the matter, but I realise that it is one in which hon. Members on both sides are interested, and I have no doubt that they will continue to pursue it.
Mr. Robert Syms: Will the Leader of the House put urgent pressure on the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement to the House on the NHS clinical advisory committee proposals to reduce the number of cleft lip and palate units from 57 to 15 nationally, which is causing great concern in Poole? In the south-west region, units at Plymouth, Exeter and Poole would be closed, yet the Poole unit is one of the best in the country and it publishes its results. A major petition has been signed by several thousand people and a campaign is being run by that fine Bournemouth newspaper The Daily Echo to keep the unit open. My constituents believe that the matter should be discussed on the Floor of the House.
Mrs. Beckett: I will obviously have a busy correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Secretary
564
of State for Health this week. I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention. The purpose of the clinical advisory unit is to allow decisions to be made after weighing up what is in the best clinical interests of patients. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and that of his constituents—and note his advertisement for his local newspaper.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Has my right hon. Friend seen the mischievous valedictory article by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that appeared in The Guardian, in which he claims as a fact that members of the Labour Cabinet refer to the Prime Minister as "the Liberal"? Why would the right hon. Gentleman say something that we know to be untrue? Now that the leadership baton is about to be passed to the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy)—who is never here—who was reported in yesterday's press as saying that pensions reform is a suitable subject for discussion within the Cabinet joint consultative committee, is it not time to have an early debate on the role, functions and purpose of the joint consultative committee and where all of this is taking us?
Mrs. Beckett: All I can say to my hon. Friend is that I have never heard anyone so describe the Prime Minister—in the Cabinet or outside it. As for the reason behind the remark, perhaps it is because, given the Liberal Democrats' showing in the Euro-elections, the right hon. Member for Yeovil is trying desperately to claim expanded membership for his party from anywhere he can.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will it be possible to have a debate or a statement in the near future about the relationship between the territories around these islands? I have just returned from a British islands and Mediterranean Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference where we discovered that, in this era of joined-up government, there are some gaps in relations between the islands and central Government. It would be useful to explore that matter. In that context, I support the plea by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for a statement about Northern Ireland in the near future because, as I understand it, there are slippages in legislation that should be dealt with by the House.
Mrs. Beckett: I know the Government will be most interested to hear a report of the visit to which the hon. Gentleman refers—particularly if it exposes gaps in our relationships of the kind that he identifies. As for a statement on Northern Ireland, I will certainly add the hon. Gentleman's name to the list of representations to be made to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. John Cryer: Did my right hon. Friend see last month's reports of the British Medical Association's comments about genetically modified food, which appeared shortly after the Science and Technology Committee reported on GM food? Although the American giant Monsanto spends millions of pounds every year in an attempt to convince us that GM foods are nice and cuddly and that we can live with them quite happily, public opinion is moving in the opposite direction. People

565
are becoming more and more concerned about this issue and debate is increasing in the country. Is not now a good time to hold an urgent full-day debate on GM food?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. He is right to say that there is on-going discussion and debate about this matter. I wish that that discussion and debate were better informed, but it is the task of hon. Members—from whatever side of the argument they come—to inform the debate. I hope that all hon. Members will continue to do that. Particularly at this time of year when time pressures are great, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the near future, but I will certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's remarks.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Could the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Health—yet another obligation upon him—to come to the House and make a statement about the Government's plan to bring forward the ban on the advertising of tobacco products to December this year? Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the argument, the issue is significant in that it involves censoring the advertising of a legally marketable product. It would also prohibit tobacco companies from communicating with their clients via direct mail. The first that we heard about that was, as usual, in a press release and on the radio this morning. The regulations that are to be laid today are not yet in the Vote Office, so we have no idea whether they will be subject to the negative or affirmative resolution procedure. We have no idea whether regulations will be laid in August, after the consultation period, or whether the House will have any opportunity to debate the matter.
Mrs. Beckett: Discussion of the tobacco advertising ban has been under way for some considerable time. I understand that there are those who have a principled objection to such ban, but the hon. Gentleman will know that a decision has been made that a ban should be imposed across the European Union. My understanding is that there is not necessarily a prohibition on direct mail, but there is a strong attempt to try to hinder tobacco companies in using direct mail specifically to target vulnerable younger customers. I am sorry to hear that the regulations are not available, and I shall take that up with the Department of Health.
Mr. Phil Hope: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the social exclusion unit has just published a report on teenage pregnancy? Will she arrange for an early debate on that report in the House because it is an unpalatable fact that this country has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in western Europe? I am sure that she shares my concern that too many young people leave school unaware of the responsibilities and obligations of parenthood. I should seek assurance in such a debate that the report was being acted on swiftly, that young people are being made aware of how hard it is to be a parent, and that we shall achieve a substantial reduction in the number of teenagers who become pregnant.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right in identifying that serious problem, about which hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned. Although I am very cautious about drawing the attention
566
of Adjournment debates to all hon. Members—such debates are for the hon. Members who applied for them—I point out that a one-and-a-half-hour debate on that subject, in the name of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), is scheduled for Wednesday 23 June. That demonstrates that the matter is an all-party concern, and if my hon. Friend is particularly nice to the hon. Lady, she may not mind if he speaks in her debate.
Mr. Eric Forth: The Leader of the House will of course be aware that yesterday, in response to a question from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), the Prime Minister said:
"My view is that, in the modern world as we move closer together, there will be a pooling of national sovereignty."—[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 391.]
He said not that there has been but that there will be, a pooling of national sovereignty, so he obviously envisages further pooling of national sovereignty.
Does the right hon. Lady share my view that the Prime Minister's pronouncement is sufficiently momentous to justify an urgent debate so that we may hear from him what he meant by those words? I hope that the Leader of the House recognises the significance of the Prime Minister's statement and that we deserve to learn a lot more about it very soon, so that we can all make up our minds what on earth he was talking about.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: He went to Brussels and took the money.
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, who was indeed himself an MEP, no doubt in times when it was less unpopular in the Conservative party to be at all involved with Europe. However, I am afraid that I do not share his view that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said anything momentous or with an unknown meaning. Our membership of the European Union, or the Common Market as it then was, has involved a pooling of national sovereignty over the years. We have all known that since 1972, and most of those steps were, for good or ill, taken by Conservative Governments. The right hon. Gentleman's view that the idea is astonishing and new is not borne out by the facts.
Mr. David Atkinson: Anticipating the right hon. Lady's statement on the millennium bug, which is to follow, and with 198 days to go before it hits us, will she arrange for an early, full debate on that threat to our public services and the private sector and on the consequent disruption to our daily lives?
Mrs. Beckett: I have no plans to stage a debate in the near future, although if, over time, there is a demand for such a debate, I shall take it into account, as I try to take into account all other such demands. I know the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in the subject. May I remind him that we have been making quarterly statements, as I shall do shortly, and that we intend to give a progress update monthly from now on? Unless there is some dramatic new development, the House may find that that meets the demand for information—in fact, it may over-egg it.
Mr. David Chaytor: In the next couple of weeks, we understand, the Government will publish

567
their long-awaited and important White Paper on post-16 education and training. In the previous Session, the Government provided in their own time a debate on further education and training. As I recall, the then Minister gave an assurance that he would do everything possible to ensure that each year in Government time there was a formal debate on the subject. Will my right hon. Friend ensure not only that when the White Paper is published, probably within the next two weeks, there will be a Government statement to go with it, but that this important subject will be debated in Government time?
Mrs. Beckett: I will certainly take on board and draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment my hon. Friend's request for a statement on what he rightly says is an important subject. I am glad to know that Ministers at the DfEE are giving away time on the Floor of the House and saying how many formal debates there should be. That is a bad habit that Ministers in several Departments are getting into. I understand of course that Ministers in every Department think that their Department's business is so important that it should dominate the House.
I assure my hon. Friend that I shall bear in mind his request, and that I recognise the importance of his remarks, but the debates for which we can find time on the Floor are an issue for a wider range of responsibilities, including the usual channels.
Mr. Graham Brady: I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Health could be encouraged to make a statement on the serious problem of growing waiting lists for heart bypass surgery, as was highlighted in the Daily Mail on Wednesday, particularly in the light of remarks made by Mr. Ben Bridgewater, a consultant thoracic surgeon at Wythenshawe hospital, which serves my constituents, to the effect that some 500 people are dying unnecessarily every year in Britain because of over-long waiting lists for heart bypass surgery, and that the problem is worse now than it was a year ago?
Mrs. Beckett: I shall certainly draw that matter, too, to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I will not disguise it from the hon. Gentleman—I hope that I am not doing wrong by saying this, so I stress that, very incorrectly and very unusually, I am giving my personal opinion—that I have long thought it unfortunate that we cannot do more to encourage people to carry donor cards—[Interruption.] Sometimes, as the hon. Gentleman knows, organ donation is involved. I recognise the scale of the problem, as does my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: The right hon. Lady has just announced yet another day's debate for the minority parties, despite their extraordinary record in that respect recently. Has she seen early-day motion 713?
[That this House expresses its admiration and respect for the Leader of the Opposition who despite a multitude of criticism, poor opinion poll ratings and warnings of electoral disaster had the courage and determination to adopt and fight for a policy designed to prevent further
568
surrenders of sovereignty to the non-democratic institutions of the European Union; and believes that, following the election results on 13th June, with the help of the British people, he will prevent the final surrender over the single currency.]
Furthermore, does she think that it might be within her power to persuade the Liberal Democrats to debate that next week, rather than one of the motions that they have chosen? It might help them to focus on their own leadership election.
Mrs. Beckett: The amount of time allotted among the Opposition parties for Opposition-day debates is covered by tried and tested general guidance. The reason the Liberal Democrats get more debates than they may have done in the past is that they did rather better at the last general election, at the expense of the Conservative party.
Mr. Owen Paterson: May I offer my sympathy to the Leader of the House for the miserable week that she has had? She was forced to lead an election campaign under a system that she does not believe in, sundry spin doctors put about stories that she had disappeared into her caravan during the campaign, and she has since been blamed for the disaster that engulfed the Labour party when the results were announced.
It is clear that the British electorate found the PR system repulsive. It became clear yesterday that the Prime Minister did not understand that. We know that he is a busy man, but could he detain himself for half an hour after Prime Minister's questions next Wednesday to explain his personal position on the question of introducing PR for this Parliament?
Mrs. Beckett: I suppose that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sympathy, although the notion that we took a week's holiday in our caravan, which was entirely misplaced, was not, as far as I am aware, the invention of any spin doctor. If the hon. Gentleman wants my frank opinion, I suspect that it started as a newsroom joke and spread because it was too good a story to resist.
One of the most worrying things about the European elections, which should genuinely trouble all hon. Members, was the low turnout. It was not unpredicted, but it was alarming. The hon. Gentleman says that it is because of the system. It has always been a feature of the European Parliament elections that turn-out is lower than at local elections, and turn-out at the local elections this year was only 29 per cent.; so, again, that is part of the pattern. But it is a source of serious concern to all of us. One thing that we should be doing, and the Government are doing, is giving much thought to how we can make it easier, not more difficult, for people to vote. That could apply across the board.
As to the notion that the low turn-out was due simply to the voting system, given the understandably extensive coverage of the important issue of the war in Kosovo, and a range of other factors of that kind, it is, perhaps, less surprising than it ought to be. I would not myself lay the blame at the door of the system, but I am sure that all those factors will be considered. My right hon. Friend's position on proportional representation is entirely plain.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to the highly pertinent inquiry from my right hon. Friend the Member

569
for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), may we have an early statement from the Prime Minister to clarify whether he intends to lead the campaign by the federasts to abolish Britain's national currency and to hand over the running of our economy permanently to people whom we do not elect and cannot remove?
Given that only today in the Daily Mirror that newspaper's chief political commentator, Mr. Paul Routledge, has described the Prime Minister, following his risible performance yesterday, as a startled deer who limped off the stage, does the right hon. Lady not accept that it is crucial that the Prime Minister, instead of sitting on the fence and playing the role of the chameleon, which he so enjoys, should instead stand up for the principle in which he believes, argue the case to abolish our national currency and be prepared for the fact that, when he does so, this Conservative Opposition will come back at him with arguments and force infinitely greater than anything he can offer?
Mrs. Beckett: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his promotion.
Sir Patrick Cormack: It has not shut him up.
Mrs. Beckett: No, it has not. I wondered whether it might mean that we would have the pleasure of the hon. Gentleman's company less frequently, or at less length—but apparently not.
With regard to the campaign and the issue of the single currency, the Government are positive that the stance that we have taken is right in Britain's national interest; we shall therefore continue to take it.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House arrange next week for the Home Secretary to come to the House and make a statement on the progress of the Criminal Cases Review Commission?
570
Is she aware of the growing concern of a number of people about the length of time that the review board is taking in dealing with a number of cases? One particular case that I have in mind, and which the right hon. Lady may know of, is that of Stephen Downing. That has now been with the Criminal Cases Review Commission since its inception; or rather, in the first instance it was with the Home Office, but it was rightly transferred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. I have no objection to that. It was a good move to set up that board. But the fact that it is taking so long to arrive at a decision on the case is causing concern.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will know that we inherited long delays in many part of the criminal justice system. That is a source of concern to the Government, as it rightly is to the public, and we are trying to take steps to diminish those delays. That applies, too, to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Ministers are aware of and concerned about the delays, and we are considering what can be done to ease the position.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), may I also urge the Leader of the House to try to persuade the Prime Minister to come to the House to explain one or two things about the single currency? Yesterday he told us yet again that we have record employment and alluded to record low inflation and very low interest rates. Will he explain how that legacy of 18 years of Conservative government can be improved on by joining the single currency?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman's memory is a trifle faulty. The legacy of 18 years of Conservative government was interest rates and inflation in double figures and, usually, unemployment well into double figures. On the single currency, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said yesterday or to what I have said today.

Millennium Compliance
1.6 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I am announcing today the results of the sixth quarterly review of progress in tackling the millennium bug for Departments, agencies and key parts of the wider public sector. I have arranged for the completed questionnaires on which the statement is based to be placed in the Libraries of the House and published on the internet.
To allow people to see at a glance how well individual Departments and agencies are doing, I shall also be publishing tables showing their performance against a number of key criteria. There are still areas of concern, which I will highlight, but the most important message of the review is that, overall, the Government are on course to be millennium compliant well before the end of the year.
When I made the previous statement, I said that most Departments expected to have finished work on their business-critical systems by July. That remains the case, although there has been slippage in some Departments. I remind the House that completion is defined as all systems being corrected, tested and back in service. By that definition, more than 80 per cent. of government's business-critical systems are now completed. Of the programmes that are running into the second half of the year, most have already completed the bulk of their work.
That is welcome, but my principal focus in this statement, naturally, is on those Departments and agencies that plan to complete their programmes in the last quarter of the year. I am concerned that these are tight deadlines that allow little room to deal with unexpected problems.
All Departments and agencies that have planned completion dates in October or later need to pay particular attention to such planning. The target is that all Departments and agencies should have full business continuity plans in place and tested by the end of October. I am pleased to report that, already, three quarters of Departments have considered how to ease pressure over the new year period. Over the coming months, we shall be working closely with Departments to ensure that they all have appropriate management plans in place to deal with particular pressures over the new year period. These millennium operating regimes will be reported on as part of the quarterly monitoring process within government and the wider public sector and will be included in the infrastructure programme of Action 2000.
I will be writing to ministerial colleagues about the completion dates for business-critical systems of the Inland Revenue, the National Insurance Contributions Office and the Planning Inspectorate and about the slippage in the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency programme. I have asked colleagues to keep tight management control of work on the remaining systems and to ensure particular focus on business continuity planning in the time that remains.
I have also written to all ministerial colleagues to suggest that they consider whether they can ensure that key staff working on year 2000 issues in Departments and agencies should not be moved between now and the end of the critical period, in line with good practice in the private sector.
572
I am pleased to be able to report that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has made up the slippage reported last quarter, although I still have concerns because it operates in nearly every country across the world, and that poses a particular challenge in ensuring continuity of service.
The progress of the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces has been sustained, and I am particularly encouraged that some elements are ahead of schedule despite the impact of events in Kosovo. In other areas there is little room for slippage, and they will need to be kept under close review. However, the Ministry is confident that Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force front-line units will be compliant by late summer. Overall cost estimates remain relatively stable, with only a slight increase since the last review—from £420 million to £430 million. Nearly half the returns show no change in total estimates.
Key parts of the wider public sector are now subject to independent assessment as part of the infrastructure project. I shall continue to report on them here, and they will report regularly to the national infrastructure forum.
The results of the most recent health service quarterly review in England were announced on 21 May 1999, covering the period up to 31 March. The number of organisations reporting good or satisfactory progress was consistent with earlier reports, at 90 per cent. The estimated cost of their remedial year 2000 work has been slightly reduced, to about £310 million for the whole project.
All NHS organisations are required to be fully prepared, with compliant equipment or effective contingency plans, by 30 September 1999. Organisations that are lagging behind are being visited by teams from the NHS executive regional offices and the NHS year 2000 central team, and are being required to develop action plans to enable them to be on schedule. Her Majesty's fire and police inspectorates are now completing the first stages of their programmes of independent assessment of the fire and police services in England and Wales, and the results of those inspections will be made public in the national infrastructure forum on 13 July. The aim is that, by September, no risk of disruption involving the millennium date change can be identified in any force or brigade.
Summary information provided by the Audit Commission indicates that, while all types of local authority have made progress during the last six months, there is still a wide variation between the best-performing and poorest-performing authorities. The results of independent assessments of individual local authorities will be presented by Government offices to the national infrastructure forum on 13 July.
We are now fewer than 200 days away from the date change—an event which, I am sure, is now beginning to seem more real to many people as they start to make their preparations and plan their own celebrations. It is clear from the overall picture of central Government and the wider public sector that a huge amount of work has been done, and in many instances that work has been almost completed; but much needs to be done in the time that remains. Departments that plan to finish their programmes in the last quarter must ensure that they have robust continuity plans which have been tested, and we shall monitor their progress in that regard.

573
I know that the House is likely to take an increasing interest in progress on these issues. Hon. Members may find it helpful to be reminded that I intend to report on a monthly rather than a quarterly basis in future.
The hallmark of the Government's approach has been our practice of being open and forthcoming with information, and encouraging others to follow our lead. We intend to pursue that approach.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I thank the right hon. Lady for making her statement available to me earlier today.
As the right hon. Lady will know, the Government inherited a clear target: in the public sector, including Government Departments, the criteria for 2000 compliance were to be met by December 1998. It is worrying, therefore, that in June 1999 we should still be receiving reports of instances in which Government and public agencies have yet to comply with those criteria—although I accept that the right hon. Lady's report was upbeat in comparison with some of her previous reports.
I am glad that the right hon. Lady has now decided to report on a monthly rather than a quarterly basis, as we have now entered the last six months of the year, but how will that be dealt with? When the House is sitting, will the right hon. Lady continue to report from the Dispatch Box? How will the matter be handled over the long summer recess? When the House reconvenes in October, we shall be close to the target date.
Will the right hon. Lady comment on some of the concerns that she herself identified? Will she in particular respond to the concern about the Inland Revenue and National Insurance Contributions Office? There is already concern about the failure of NIRS2—the national insurance recording system—which is causing much distress to many people, particularly those who are seeking to draw their state retirement pension. Has she been able to identify how that might be compounded if that Department does not meet its target, or to make the necessary arrangements? Those who wish to claim disability benefits for the first time, often as a result of injury and accident, will be particularly distressed if that facility is under pressure.
The statement referred to the Ministry of Defence. It recognised that, despite the huge demands of the war in Kosovo, the MOD has made progress, but, in December 1998, the MOD put out a press release about RAF aircraft being mission capable. It said that the RAF would be compliant in that regard by 31 May this year. Was that target met? The right hon. Lady has expressed concern about some areas in the MOD. How will those be affected by its new commitments in respect of the continuing presence of British forces in Kosovo and the Balkans generally?
The right hon. Lady will be aware that, in the fourth report, Britain was first in the league of European countries that were already undertaking compliance preparations for 2000, but that, by the fifth report, Britain had slipped to eighth. Is she able to tell the House that the position has been restored and that the progress that she has mentioned in her statement means that we are back at the top of the league, above our competitors and partners elsewhere in the world?
The right hon. Lady mentioned that she hoped that staff in Government Departments would be retained by those Departments to see their work through, but what
574
flexibility is there in those Departments? If a particular Department needs more assistance to meet its target date, will there be some transfer of key staff to help it to do so?
I ask one additional thing—and it is relevant. The document entitled "The Millennium Bug: Facts Not Fiction", which has been distributed to every household, is easy to read and is designed to help to answer questions from consumers about domestic matters relating to the millennium bug. It gives an Action 2000 website for further information for the public. It also gives a telephone number, a helpline.
Is the right hon. Lady aware that, when members of the public telephone that helpline—0845 601 2000—there is no one to answer the telephone? The line simply refers them to the website address that is already printed in the document. Clearly, many people, particularly elderly people who are worried about a hospital operation, for example, or people who are worried about whether they should travel on an aircraft, want to talk to someone about what is happening. If they do not have access to a website, the helpline will be pretty ineffective.
Mrs. Beckett: First, I welcome the hon. Lady to her new responsibilities; I am sure that she is particularly delighted with them in respect of the millennium bug. May I take this opportunity to offer her and the new Front-Bench team a briefing on much of the detail of millennium bug matters, which I hope will be helpful to her, and which we are happy to give to all hon. Members?
The hon. Lady said that we inherited a compliance target of December 1998. That is true, but—with no disrespect to her, because she is new to these responsibilities—a target was about all that we did inherit. We inherited a rather small organisation with a very small budget of £500,000 and the job of raising awareness, but not much else.
One feature of this particular delightful issue is that, as time goes by, everyone realises that the problems caused by millennium compliance are more complex than had been anticipated. I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) is nodding, as he is very familiar with the issues.
The problems, therefore, are taking longer to deal with than had been anticipated. Moreover, people who had not shown sufficient foresight are finding that the problems are costing more to deal with than they had thought. Therefore, although we certainly hoped to meet the December 1998 target, we are doing much more than people anticipated would have to be done when the original targets were set.
I confirm that I shall come to the Dispatch Box to make the quarterly statement, unless we receive strong representations to the effect that no one wants to hear anything more about the issue. Over the summer recess, we plan to make information available, perhaps in the Library and on the internet. However, if the hon. Lady or other Opposition Members have other views on how best to make information available to Members, perhaps in a circular, I should be more than happy to listen and perhaps to take them on board.
The concern that has, quite rightly, been expressed about the Inland Revenue relates to a number of specific systems with later delivery dates. However, the majority of remedial work being done for the Revenue has

575
been completed, and much of what has been fixed is already running live. Much work has been done in addressing those issues.
NIRS2 was built to be 2000 compliant, and the work that is still being done is to test interfaces with other systems. The testing that has been done to date has not revealed significant problems, and we hope that that will continue to be the case.
Ministry of Defence front-line units are expected to be compliant by late summer, and much more work has been done in addressing compliance issues—in both the RAF and in the other services—than it was feared had been done. I believe that the hon. Lady's concerns on those issues have been dealt with.
The hon. Lady also asked about the United Kingdom's place in league table reports. I am not up to speed with the latest report—there may not yet be an updated one—but I fear that they are pretty meaningless. In many cases, international—not United Kingdom—league tables are based on what is said by those who are responsible for the matter in a particular country, and, frankly, the less they know about millennium bug problems, the more likely they are to say that they have no difficulties and the higher up in the league table they go. Therefore, such information is not terribly useful, and I cannot enlighten her on the latest results.
We are endeavouring to ensure that any problems are dealt with by using Government staff resources. Until now, we have not found it necessary to transfer people to deal with outstanding problems, and we hope and intend that it will not be necessary to do so.
The booklet helpline is intended principally to allow people to order more copies of the booklet. However, the hon. Lady has made the important point that the booklet may lead people to conclude that wider information is available. We shall give some thought to the matter. Nevertheless, I thank her for her welcoming the booklet itself.
Mr. Brian White: I congratulate the Government on the very encouraging progress made on the issue by most Departments. Nevertheless, I was worried by one comment made by the Leader of the House—about some systems being completed by 30 September 1999. The fact is that 9 September 1999 is a critical date, as it will be used by many systems to designate the end of a file. I am concerned that the issue has not been fully addressed, and hope that the next report will tell us the extent to which it has been.
Two other points were not dealt with in the report. First—I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence are here—the rusting ex-Soviet Arctic fleet had non-compliant software. It is still a major danger. Now that the war in Kosovo is over, can we renew our efforts to exchange information with the Russians to try to ensure that it is not a danger by the end of this year? Lastly, just-in-time systems are a particular problem for third-world countries. In a global economy, we are only as good as the weakest link. How has our support for third-world countries been going?
Mrs. Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in these matters. Thought has been given to
576
the impact of 9 September. People are very conscious of the problem. As far as I am aware, most organisations that have carried out testing have not encountered the range and scale of problems that had been feared. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue. Testing is taking place.
Ministers at the Foreign Office and at the Ministry of Defence continue to exchange information and offer advice and support to the Russian Government on the Arctic fleet, as do several other allies. There is excellent co-operation on that. I am sorry to say that we are by some measure the largest contributor to the World Bank's fund to provide assistance to developing countries. The scale of the problem may be less in those countries, but even on a smaller scale it could be serious for them. We continue to offer advice and financial support through the World Bank and by other means. We are giving further consideration to whether we can take other steps to help those countries to meet some of the problems.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I thank the Leader of the House for the advance notice of the statement, which shows both progress and areas of concern. When will the tables to which she referred be published? In view of her frankness about the value of the international tables, it would be worth knowing whether those at the top of her tables know the least about the problem. Will the information be available in good time for us to study it before her statement next month?
The fire and police authorities will not get the all-clear until the national infrastructure forum on 13 July. Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that there will be sufficient recovery time should that all-clear not be forthcoming? Excellent progress has been made in the national health service. Has the right hon. Lady made any arrangements for the Government to meet the additional budgeting pressures caused by achieving compliance? Should there be problems and should a recovery plan be needed, will the Government make proposals and offer the necessary funding support?
Mrs. Beckett: Our tables are not based on responses from those who may or may not know much about the problem. Like all the information that we are publishing, they are based on independent assessment in which we have confidence. I understand and expect that the tables will be out later today. If I am wrong, I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman is notified as speedily as possible.
The independent assessment of the fire and police services should be complete for the July national infrastructure forum, but not before. The hon. Gentleman talks about time for recovery. The point of the process is to identify where work remains to be done and to ensure that plans are put in place so that it is done. That is why I propose to make more frequent statements as we move towards the date change, so that I can give the House a view of progress that has been made in areas of difficulty. The point of targeting the work that still needs to be done is to meet the relevant deadline. Similarly, the NHS was among the first of the public services to begin to address the issue as far back as 1995, although—in common with everyone else—NHS staff wish that they had started earlier. They believe that their budgeting is robust. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that I said in my statement that the financing expectation has shifted slightly, by some £10 million. In the context of the

577
NHS budget, that is a marginal shift, and we do not anticipate that extra resources will be needed. It was expected that Departments would plan for the programme in their ordinary budgeting process.
Gillian Merron: I welcome the thorough statement that my right hon. Friend has made. Can she confirm that the business-critical systems in the Department of Social Security are already compliant, and can she assure the 11,000-plus families in my constituency who are entitled to the record rise in child benefit announced in the Budget that they need have no worries about getting that benefit?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is right: it is important that people realise, through the receipt of the correct benefits, that the Government have made substantial increases in, for example, child benefit. It is also very important that DSS systems work effectively for those people who are dependent on benefit. The DSS is well up to speed on its preparations, but it is making contingency plans and preparations for any unforeseen difficulties that may arise.
Mr. David Atkinson: Has not the right hon. Lady's statement confirmed the repeated warnings that she has rightly made that there is no guarantee that we will avoid problems in the new year, which is why insurance companies will not provide cover against the millennium bug? Have not the Government been unbelievably complacent in failing to use the opportunity afforded by the booklet "The Millennium Bug: Facts Not Fiction", which went out over the weekend, to give a clear warning and to urge people to take sensible precautions to avoid disruption in their daily lives? Will the Government produce further advice on the practical measures that people should take now to avoid panic later? Will the right hon. Lady also warn householders to beware bogus callers offering to make their domestic equipment millennium compliant, which is unfortunately what is happening?
Mrs. Beckett: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge and experience on this matter. He is right to say that there can be no guarantee that nothing will go wrong, because peak vulnerability will occur at a time of possible bad weather and a long and disruptive holiday.
I was a little sorry that the hon. Gentleman descended into such criticism of the Government's message and the balance of the booklet, which comprises some 16 pages of practical advice. The Government are anxious to ensure that people take what sensible precautions they can against any difficulties. The hon. Gentleman will understand that the balance of that message is difficult to get right, and the Government keep the matter continually under review. While we want people to be aware of anything in their lives that might be affected, we do not want to encourage the development of behaviour that will create problems where none need exist.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) asked about the Soviet Arctic fleet, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House talked about informal
578
advice and support. However, I put precisely the same question to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who replied:
"I am pleased to say that Igor Ivanov has accepted my invitation to visit Britain as my personal guest, and that issue will certainly be high on our agenda."—[Official Report, 14 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 30.]
Have those vital talks with the Russians been in any way injured by what has happened in Kosovo?
May I press my right hon. Friend a little further on 9 September 1999? She said that the Government are conscious of the problem. It may not be enough to be merely conscious of it, because it is desperately important.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to identify the importance of the dialogue with Russia. It is my understanding that that important exchange of information has not been affected in any way by recent events. Indeed, the recognition of such common problems has helped to hold the international community together in the face of difficulties that might otherwise have tended to drive us apart.
There is no complacency about 9 September, but Action 2000 has advised us that although people have been testing for the impact of the code, no cases have yet been found of the date causing equipment to fail, so people are somewhat less concerned than they were at an earlier stage. I assure my hon. Friend that everyone is none the less mindful of the fact that there could be problems. We continue to keep the matter under review.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Leader of the House share my concern that, although planes may not fall out of the sky on 1 January 2000, some third countries—by her own admission—have not made the preparations in air traffic control that we and other European Union countries have made? What has she done in conjunction with third countries to identify the routes that are most at risk, so that passengers from Britain and other European countries can be informed that they are not advisable to take on or around 1 January?
Some local authority services in North Yorkshire are still only on amber. Can we have an assurance that by the magic date of 9 September 1999 they will have undertaken all preparations to ensure that they are millennium compliant?
Mrs. Beckett: I myself have not taken action to chase up the issue of air route advisability; it is my job to nag those who are responsible and make sure that they do it. The international authorities have been collecting information and we are hopeful that, slightly later in the year, some useful information will come into the public domain. A great deal of work is being done and we are mindful of the fact that public confidence will be assisted by knowing broadly where people stand.
The hon. Lady is right to express concern about local authorities: the picture across local government has been somewhat patchy. We understand that there has been substantial progress both in authorities that were already doing quite well and in those that were not doing so well. The Audit Commission continues to monitor and assess that work and will publish further information towards the early part of July. As that information is published, we will seek to get authorities to identify areas where work

579
still needs to be done and ensure that they plan to do it. We welcome any pressure from hon. Members on their own local authorities to help us to get that message across.
Mr. Ben Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been misleading reports that some police forces and fire services may not be ready for the challenges of the millennium bug, creating unnecessary worry about those essential services? Does she agree that the reports were based on out-of-date information and that much work has been done, not least in Merseyside, to ensure that police forces and fire services will not only be ready to face the challenges of the bug on the due date but are on course to be ready three months before it?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to identify the fact that there was rather misleading publicity about some information that was already more than a little out of date. Fresh information about the status of individual forces and fire brigades will be available in July.
I take this opportunity to remind the House that those misleading reports stated that some police services were still classed as red—that is, that the risk of material disruption could not be ruled out. That does not mean that such forces could not operate: any deficiency in any critical part of a force's programme would mean that that force would be classified as red, as some were much earlier in the year. The whole purpose of this process is to ensure that any such deficiencies are identified and dealt with. However, other areas of a police force's work are often completely unaffected.
Mr. Derek Twigg: One of the concerns in my constituency is that the services provided by the Department for Education and Employment should be compliant and that services will continue to be delivered accurately and on time. Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Department's compliance programme has been completed? Are the business continuity plans on target and ready to be tested?
Mrs. Beckett: Yes, I can indeed tell my hon. Friend that that Department is on course and on track. We are now encouraging all Departments to give more thought and planning to their contingency preparations. That information will also be placed in the public domain.

Saville Inquiry
1.41 pm
Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In light of this morning's High Court judgment in favour of the ex-paratrooper witnesses at the Saville inquiry, have you had any request yet from Downing street about the Prime Minister coming to the House of Commons to amend the terms of reference that he inadequately gave the House? They have caused those ex-paratroopers to be scared for weeks about the consequences of their names and details being given to the inquiry. That could have led to a loss of life.
As we know from a written answer from the Secretary of State for Defence, the legal fees have cost the taxpayer more than £1 million. At a time when paratroopers are being sent by the Government to Kosovo, where they do an excellent job, it is important that their colleagues in Londonderry should be protected from an inquiry in which their names and identification will be given. Is the Prime Minister coming to that Dispatch Box to put matters right?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I must inform the hon. Gentleman that Madam Speaker has not received any word that there will be a statement.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may wish to give a written answer to this point, but the matter came to light only late this morning and I hope that you will give me some guidance about whether hon. Members can criticise Lord Saville. Two questions seem to be relevant. First, is Lord Saville covered by the protection afforded to judges against certain types of criticism, given that he is acting in the capacity of tribunal chairman rather than as a judge?
Secondly, does the question of sub judice arise? There is real concern about this judge, who has been criticised by the courts three times now and who also appears to be responsible for an administrative blunder that has put in danger the lives of five ex-paratroopers and their families. Are we able to raise the matter in the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The tribunal and the judge are covered by the sub judice rules of the House.

BILLS PRESENTED
  FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS
  Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer presented a Bill to make provision about the regulation of financial services and markets; to provide for the transfer of certain statutory functions relating to building societies, friendly societies, industrial and provident societies and certain other mutual societies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 121].
  TRAFFIC REDUCTION (AIR QUALITY AND HEALTH)
  Mr. Don Foster presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the effects of various levels of road traffic on emissions of certain gases and on health: 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 122].

  Kosovo
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hanson.]
  1.45 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I welcome the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) to his new place on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman has proved that he has the merit to earn his promotion, and I congratulate him on it. I congratulate him, too, on his good fortune in taking up his position on the first day on which the House may debate Kosovo in the confident knowledge that NATO's military campaign has secured its objectives.
  There is much still to be done. We will continue vigilantly to monitor the withdrawal of all Serb forces until the last vehicle has rolled over the border. That moment will mark not the end of our engagement in Kosovo but the start of a new stage in which we must face the civilian challenge of rebuilding its shattered economy and its fractured society.
  We are near the completion of our military objectives. The first was an end to all repression in Kosovo and the withdrawal of all Serb forces, including all army units, special police, and paramilitary forces. As the House knows, Serb forces are carrying out a full withdrawal from Kosovo. The majority of Serb forces have left Kosovo: zones one and two are mostly clear. The military agreement requires the last of them to have left zone three by Monday. Their phased withdrawal is broadly in line with the agreed timetable. On the whole, withdrawal is being accomplished without further violence, but we deplore isolated incidents that have occurred, such as the tank shells reportedly fired into a village last night.
  Our second objective was the deployment in Kosovo of an international military presence with NATO at its core. Some 16,000 NATO troops are already deployed across Kosovo. The United Kingdom provides the largest national contribution, currently double the number of troops provided by any ally. The rapid deployment of such a large number of troops with heavy equipment has been a remarkable feat of professional planning and disciplined execution. The House can be proud both of the performance of the British units and of the leadership of the whole operation by General Jackson and his team.
  Our third objective was the unconditional return of all refugees. Milosevic not only expelled Kosovo Albanians, but deliberately set out to make their return more difficult by ordering his troops to destroy all the identity papers of those who left. For a long time, Milosevic insisted that any peace plan must enable Serbia to screen refugees who were returning. He will have no such power. At British insistence, the Security Council resolution makes it explicit that only the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will have a say over the return of the refugees.
  In short, our military campaign has secured all our objectives. There has been no compromise by NATO, no concession to Belgrade and no guarantee of immunity to Milosevic or those others indicted by the International War Crimes Tribunal.
  Now that the campaign is over, I am struck by the large number of commentators who turn out to have supported it all along. It did not always seem that way during the

  583
  dark hours that inevitably occur in any conflict. Nevertheless, we can declare an amnesty, if not in Serbia at least in Britain. I am happy to welcome support for the campaign from all who now welcome its outcome.
  I hope nevertheless that a representative of the Scottish National party will turn up to take part at some point in the debate. I regret the fact that no SNP Member is here. Perhaps, now that the title of the debate is being shown on the annunciator screens around the Palace, one of them will hurry in to recant on the SNP leader's denunciation of our campaign as "unpardonable folly". As recently as 1 June, the party's defence spokesman talked of
  "NATO stumbling inexorably towards military defeat in Kosovo".
  Two days later, on 3 June, Milosevic capitulated. Events have proved that it was not the strategy of NATO that was unpardonable folly, but the powers of prediction of the SNP.
  Even those of us who supported the campaign from the start, however, cannot fully grasp the scale of the relief and joy of those who have endured the past three months within Kosovo. The warm and enthusiastic welcome for our troops from Kosovo Albanians who have showered their tanks with flowers testifies to the dark horror from which we have liberated them.
  Yesterday I had a phone call from Pristina from Veton Surroi, the publisher of the leading Albanian newspaper, Koha Ditore, and a principal figure in the peace talks at Rambouillet. Veton Surroi has been in hiding in a succession of flats in Pristina since the middle of March. He described it to me as "one long night". The greatest strain had been the knowledge that he brought with him the threat of death to those who hid him. Had we faltered in our resolve and abandoned our military campaign, Veton Surroi would surely have been hunted down and killed, like Fehmi Agani, his colleague in the Rambouillet delegation.
  As it is, Veton is now able to join us in the reconstruction of Kosovo. His first priority is to get Koha Ditore back on the streets again. Today I can announce to the House that the Foreign Office will provide a grant of £50,000 to help him to repair the damage to the offices and printing presses of the Albanian newspaper and get it back into production. Access to a free media is a fundamental condition of the democracy we are now able to build in Kosovo.
  Mr. David Winnick: Before my right hon. Friend develops the point about the reconstruction of Kosovo, as all the broadsheets today lead on their front page with some of the horrifying atrocities that were committed during the last months of the Serbian regime, will he again consider the point that I made to him earlier this week, namely, that a White Paper on the atrocities should be presented to Parliament? I realise that a war crimes investigation will continue and, hopefully, prosecutions will occur.
  Mr. Cook: I am considering how I can best respond to my hon. Friend's point. I am not sure that a White Paper would necessarily be the best way forward, but we have placed in the Library details of the atrocities of which we are aware to date. Certainly I shall consider what further document we can make available to Parliament and the public.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: On the point about press freedom and encouraging the forces of
  584
  democracy within Kosovo, will my right hon. Friend consider what help might be given by the World Service of the BBC, for which there is enormous respect in the region, not only in terms of reaching right into the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, beyond the leaders, but in training journalists in that area?
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The House will be aware from previous debates that the broadcasts from the BBC World Service to the region have greatly increased throughout the period of the conflict, and that is one of our tools for making sure that we get the truth past the poisonous wall of propaganda built by President Milosevic. If, over the coming months, we can establish a real, free democracy in Kosovo, with a real, truly open media, it will provide inspiration and encouragement to Opposition forces in Serbia who will see Kosovo enjoying freedoms denied to the people of Serbia.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) anticipated what I was about to say about the victims of war crimes within Kosovo. In some ways, Veton Surroi is among the lucky ones. He has survived, while more than 10,000 others have been murdered. I want those who ordered the murders, the brutality and the tortures to know that we shall spare no effort in bringing them to justice.
  One of the toughest negotiations over the text of the Security Council resolution related to the reference to the International War Crimes Tribunal. Throughout those negotiations Britain insisted that there must be a strong, clear commitment to the work of the tribunal. By the end of the negotiations, we had secured a demand for full co-operation with the tribunal by all concerned. Britain will lead the way in providing that full co-operation. The first task falls to our troops in KFOR to identify the sites of war crimes. In village after village that our troops have entered to provide security, they have been confronted by the most harrowing evidence of the atrocities committed against the people of Kosovo.
  Only 10 miles into Kosovo at Kacanik, our troops came across the freshly dug earth and the putrid smell of a mass grave. Local villagers have given evidence that about 100 people were killed in April, including the women and children of the village. In Pristina this week, the Parachute Regiment uncovered a regional police headquarters that had clearly been used as a torture centre. In a building with five floors and a cellar, British forces found knives, rubber and wooden batons, baseball bats with Serb slogans carved into them, and drugs, presumably used to sedate the victims. Outside the building, a trail of charred paper led to an incinerator—as the Serb forces left, they appeared to have tried to burn any documentary evidence of their crimes. However, the instruments of torture left behind tell their own story. Investigators for the International War Crimes Tribunal are now visiting the scene.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before we leave Kacanik, I do not doubt that those terrible things occurred—
  Mr. Winnick: That is good of you.
  Mr. Dalyell: I think my hon. Friend might wait.

  585
  Will my right hon. Friend examine the circumstances at the end of February, in which the Serb police inspector, Bogulduk Staletovic, who was trying to bring together the ethnic Albanian community and the Serbs, was murdered, together with several of his friends? Does my right hon. Friend accept that both sides were involved in brutalities—in some areas, one side was more involved than the other? If there is to be an investigation, the full truth should be revealed.
  Mr. Cook: As I told my hon. Friend on Monday, when he put a similar point to me, the remit of the International War Crimes Tribunal is without regard to ethnic identity or nationality. The tribunal will resolve for itself which war crimes it pursues. In Bosnia, the tribunal has already proved that it is blind to ethnic identity when it comes to examining a war crime.
  I must rebut my hon. Friend's closing statement. It is wholly false to imply that there is any kind of equivalence between the isolated, occasional examples of violence against the Serb population and the wholesale, co-ordinated, premeditated, pre-planned deportation of a whole people at the point of a revolver, and under pain of brutality and systematic rape. Yes, of course we shall also pursue those responsible for crimes against the Serb people, but I do not think that my hon. Friend—for whose wisdom and intelligence I have great respect—should blind himself to the wholly different character of the sustained brutality launched by Belgrade against the people of Kosovo.
  I was about to assure the House that Britain has committed a 15-strong team of police officers experienced in investigating scenes of crime. Those officers are already deployed at Kacanik. Theirs will be the grisly and unpleasant task of exhuming the mass graves and recording the cause of death. Their forensic skill and professional commitment will make a vital contribution to bringing to justice those responsible for the atrocities that have been committed in Kosovo.
  If we are to discourage the survivors from taking the law into their own hands and seeking revenge, we must convince them that the international community means business when it offers a legal remedy against those responsible for the atrocities. Reconciliation will not be easy after the horrors of the past year, or of the ethnic cleansing of the past three months. However, we are determined to make every attempt to create a pluralist, multi-ethnic Kosovo. Our objective was to reverse the ethnic cleansing. Having fought that campaign to halt the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians, we will not now tolerate the ethnic cleansing of the Serb population in Kosovo, nor of any other ethnic minority. The Balkans do not need another tragic round of revenge killings. We must break the cycle of violence that perpetuates ethnic hatred and fear.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Long before Rambouillet, in response to a question I put to him, my right hon. Friend gave the House an assurance that, in any settlement, he would ensure that the human rights of the Serb minority were protected. The idea that Kosovar Albanians and Serbs can live together in peace is something of a pipe dream. We find it hard enough to persuade Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland to
  586
  live in harmony, and what about the divided island of Cyprus? Might we not have to accept some form of partitioning, even if only in the short run?
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the true tragedies of the Serb population of Kosovo. Some of them have complained that Milosevic betrayed them when he abandoned them; in truth, he betrayed them when he failed to sign up to the Rambouillet peace accords, which would have provided that Serb population with full protection and with their own elected national community leaders to protect their culture, their language, their religion and their customs. That opportunity was lost by Milosevic, and that was the great betrayal of the Serbian population of Kosovo. I agree that it will not be easy to persuade people to face the future without feeling the bitterness of the past, but there can be no long-term future of stability, peace and prosperity for the Balkans if we try to sweep every ethnic group into its own pure cantonment where it has no contact with any of the many other ethnic groups of the Balkans region.
  I intend to visit Kosovo next week. Throughout the crisis, I have consulted almost daily with my colleagues, the Foreign Ministers of our major allies, and on behalf of us all I will deliver in Pristina two clear messages to the peoples of Kosovo. To the Serb population I will say, "KFOR is there to protect you as well." The Security Council resolution makes it clear that the obligation relates to the security of Albanian and Serb citizens alike. We ask those Serb residents now fleeing Kosovo to turn back and to contribute to a multi-ethnic Kosovo that respects the human rights of every citizen, irrespective of ethnic identity or religion. To the Albanian population, I shall say that anyone who takes the law into his own hands undermines the opportunity for Kosovo to become an open democracy based on the rule of law. I understand the appalling emotional distress that must be experienced by those who have lost husbands or wives, fathers and mothers, but to pursue revenge for the past will only make it impossible to secure a future without violence for their children.
  We have now secured one of the two military priorities set out in the Security Council resolution: an agreement for the withdrawal of all Serb forces. To guarantee the ceasefire throughout Kosovo, it will now be necessary to make progress on the other immediate priority: demilitarising the Kosovo Liberation Army. At Rambouillet, the KLA accepted the principle of demilitarisation in the context of a NATO security force. We are now negotiating the practical arrangements for observance of the ceasefire by the KLA, and we hope soon to have its signature to an undertaking with KFOR for demilitarisation. I hope to speak later today with Hashem Thaqi, the leader of the KLA, to urge an early signature to the undertaking.
  By early next week, we expect KFOR to have fulfilled its planned deployment throughout Kosovo. That is based on five sectors, led by Britain, France, Germany, Italy and the United States. Other allies, such as the Dutch, Belgian and Canadian forces, are already contributing units to one or other of those sectors. Today, the United States hopes to reach agreement with Russia on the basis for a Russian participation in KFOR. Madeleine Albright and Bill Cohen will report tomorrow to a meeting of NATO Foreign and Defence Ministers. We might then be in a position to finalise the arrangements whereby the Russian

  587
  contribution can play its part in the command structure within one of the allied sectors. Only a fortnight to the day from the date when President Ahtisaari secured the capitulation of President Milosevic, we are already on the way to making a reality of the peacekeeping military presence in Kosovo with NATO leadership.
  However, it will take much longer to undertake the immense task of civil and economic reconstruction in Kosovo. It will take the full commitment of all available international agencies to measure up to the task, which will not be over until the last refugee has returned to his or her village and we have ensured that all refugees have the shelter they need for the next winter. When she winds up the debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will speak more fully about our contribution to the return of the refugees and to the urgent task of providing emergency relief to all those who have been trapped hiding among the hillsides and forests of Kosovo for the past terrifying three months.
  The objectives we set for the campaign were not ones we drew up to suit ourselves. We did not demand the withdrawal of all Serb forces for the convenience of NATO, nor does NATO have any wish to occupy Kosovo. The driving reason behind the objectives of our campaign was that they should create the conditions necessary for the refugees to know that they could return in safety. We have secured those conditions, and we will not halt until we have completed the task of repopulating Kosovo with the people whom Milosevic tried to deport.
  The defeat of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo has an impact that goes far wider than Kosovo itself. It has given hope to the whole of the Balkan region that the rest of Europe will not tolerate aggression or ethnic violence anywhere on our continent. The Government promised that we would make the conflict in Kosovo a turning point for the whole of the region. We could not have reached this successful outcome without the support and the solidarity of all Serbia's neighbours. Each of them understood only too well why it was important to them that Milosevic and his poison of ethnic hatred were defeated.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he seems to be concluding. When he made his statement two days ago, I asked about the political reconstruction of Kosovo. It is plain that NATO and the other allies will have to assist with the creation of representative bodies and political structures in Kosovo. It would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman could give us a flavour of the intentions in that regard. Perhaps he intended to cover that ground in his speech, but there has not been much sign of it.
  Mr. Cook: The basis on which we will reconstruct political institutions in Kosovo is set out in the Rambouillet peace accords, which, if I recall correctly, are in the Library. If they are not, I shall ensure that they are placed there for future reference. Those accords provide for an elected assembly of the Kosovar people and for an executive drawn from it.
  As to the immediate future, I must say frankly to the House that the task of civil government in Kosovo will be in the hands of the United Nations, with the assistance
  588
  of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Union, the World Bank and the UNHCR. However, I hope that in a year or more one of the urgent priorities of that civil government, drawn from the interim international administration, will be to transfer its powers to elected representatives of the Kosovar Albanians and to ensure that we maintain the spirit of the Rambouillet peace accord, which provided for maximum decentralisation to the local regions of Kosovo so that communities would have maximum room to settle their own security matters and the future of their own public services. Much of that work has yet to be done, but the Rambouillet peace accords were the result of a lot of hard effort by the international community and they give us a good staging post.
  I was about to turn to the neighbours of Serbia and Kosovo, without whom we could not have achieved what we have, and to each of whom we owe a debt. To Bulgaria and Romania, we owe a debt for their co-operation with the sanctions regime and their agreement to overflight by NATO. To Macedonia and Albania, we owe a debt for the extraordinary burden they shouldered from the dramatic tidal wave of refugees, and for willingly giving access to their territories for the deployment of advance NATO forces. To Montenegro, we owe a debt for the great courage President Djukanovic and his Government showed against intimidation by Belgrade, and the open home that they provided for refugees from Kosovo and dissidents from Serbia.
  In the immediate future, we must repay our debt by helping those countries to regenerate their economies, which have been badly disrupted by the conflict. In the longer term we must accelerate their ties with the European Union and NATO to ensure that their freedom is underpinned by prosperity through trade with the wealthy markets of Europe, and their security by the guarantee of NATO. In the case of Montenegro, we have already prevented any further build-up of troops by Milosevic by insisting that all forces from Kosovo withdraw to Serbia and none to Montenegro.
  We want the people of Serbia also to benefit one day from the strengthened relationship that we are forming with all their neighbours, but we cannot embrace Serbia in the modern Europe until Serbia itself embraces the values on which that modern Europe rests: a belief in the equality of all citizens, respect for the human rights of minority groups and the recognition that a country is strengthened, not weakened, by containing a diversity of ethnic cultures. Nor can Serbia hope to join the international community as long as it is led by a Head of Government who dare not set foot outside its borders in case he is arrested as an indicted war criminal.
  Milosevic claimed that he was defending Serbia's heritage. It is hard to think of a more authentic voice of the true Serbian heritage than the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church, yet on Tuesday it demanded that Milosevic resign. It declared that
  "every sensible person has to realise that the numerous internal problems and the isolation of our country on the international scene cannot be solved or overcome with this kind of leadership".
  It called for the Government to be replaced by
  "new people, acceptable to the domestic public and the international community."
  Milosevic fools nobody—except, possibly, himself—when he goes on state television to announce that he has just achieved victory. Increasingly, as the news seeps back

  589
  from Kosovo, his people will realise that the pain and damage that his confrontation with NATO brought upon them was for no useful purpose. After immense cost to his people and his economy, Milosevic has been compelled to accept a peace deal on worse terms than he could have got if he had settled through dialogue at Rambouillet.
  There will be a time in the future, when the immediate pressure of urgent priorities has lifted, when the House can reflect on some of the wider consequences of the success in Kosovo. I put to the House four positive consequences of what we have achieved. The first is that NATO is healthier and more united. The alliance has come through a testing time, but despite all the gloomy predictions that its resolve would weaken or that its unity would crack, the alliance remained robust and resolute until we secured all our campaign objectives. That can give the House new confidence in the security that our membership of the alliance brings to our nation. We can also take satisfaction in the valuable role that Britain played throughout the crisis in promoting cohesion between the European and American pillars of the alliance.
  Secondly, we have opened a new chapter in the relations between western Europe and the Balkan region. We now have the opportunity to close the chapters of Balkan history that are written in blood and to make the region's countries our partners in trade and our equals in freedom.
  Thirdly, we have halted the backward-looking nationalism of Milosevic and comprehensively defeated the evil policy of ethnic cleansing. For 10 years, Milosevic has terrorised his region and brought violence to the peoples of the former Yugoslavia. If he had previously been faced with the same resolve and made to experience the same clear defeat without compromise, he might never have visited such brutality on Kosovo. As it is, he will now think long and hard before he attempts it again.
  Finally, we have delivered not only a military victory but a victory for our values. The real winners in Kosovo are our values of human rights, ethnic equality and humanitarian law. We did not fight this conflict for territorial gain or strategic advantage. We fought out of principle. The many people across the alliance and in the wider international community who have contributed to the successful outcome will always know that in Kosovo they struck a blow for human decency. It is those people, who have given their all in working on the military or diplomatic track, whom the House should thank. It is to them that we owe an outcome that will make it possible for us to return the refugees to their homes and to begin the task of bringing freedom and peace to Kosovo.
  2.15 pm
  Mr. John Maples: I thank the Secretary of State for welcoming me to my new role. In foreign policy, there is a great deal of consensus between the Government and the Opposition, and I hope that it will continue. Even in areas of consensus, however, difficult issues have to be addressed and difficult questions must be asked. I shall ask some of those questions today. There are also areas of considerable disagreement between us; mainly, I suspect, concerning Europe and the future of the European defence identity and whether that should be developed within NATO. There will be very robust debates on those issues.
  590
  I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who by any standards has had a distinguished political career. He spent 12 years in the Government, eight years in the Cabinet and three years as Home Secretary. That is a series of posts for which almost any hon. Member would settle. It is interesting for Conservative Members to see so many of the reforms that my right hon. Friend introduced as Home Secretary, which were anathematised by the then Opposition, now being put into practice by his successor. There is irony in that.
  I turn now to Kosovo. The Foreign Secretary is right to say that NATO and the Government have been very successful in the first phase, and they deserve our congratulations. As he said, there were many doubters, and indeed some said that the task would be impossible. However, it looks as though by Sunday night NATO will have succeeded in getting the military out of Kosovo. It has been an impressive performance. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the solidarity of the alliance has been enhanced by the experience. There are those who wavered, but the alliance came through unscathed.
  As the Foreign Secretary said, Kosovo's neighbours have behaved very well. Two in particular have behaved magnificently. Albania and Macedonia have taken in an enormous number of refugees. Macedonia did so at considerable risk to the stability of its own fragile ethnic balance. The Secretary of State for Defence invited me to accompany him to Albania, and it was truly impressive how the people of that country opened their hearts and, literally, their homes to people whom they regarded as brothers. People in Albania said to us, "There is no limit to the number of refugees we can take. They are our brothers." Such practical humanitarian concern is very impressive.
  Military lessons must be learned from the experience. We are seeing encouraging and rewarding television pictures of columns of Serb military vehicles leaving Kosovo for Serbia. However, those columns seen to contain an awful lot of tanks and armoured personnel carriers, which I understood we had destroyed. Much of the Serb armour in Kosovo seems to have survived the air attacks. Now is not the time, but at some stage we shall have to consider in more detail whether we knew that that was the case, or whether we truly believed that our figures for the destruction of tanks were correct.
  As the Foreign Secretary said, British troops—first the Air Force and now the Army—have played a valuable role in Kosovo. It is good to see them at the forefront of operations, displaying their usual competence. Another of today's ironies is that the troops of whom we hear most are the Parachute Regiment, and soldiers from a former generation of that battalion are under investigation in the Saville inquiry in Northern Ireland. We should reflect on how much we owe to that regiment's courage and training and its commitment in Kosovo, and, in retrospect, how much we owe to those who were in Northern Ireland 20 years ago. It is within the Government's power to alter the inquiry's terms of reference to ensure that the lives of those troops and their families are not endangered.
  Despite the success of phase 1 of the campaign, Kosovo is still, for various reasons, not safe for the refugees to return to, and nor is its future secure. Two factors contribute to that. The first is the presence of the Russians at Pristina airport, and the second is the future position of the KLA. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State

  591
  have said on many occasions, and we entirely agree, that the ultimate test of success in the operation will be the return of all the refugees to all parts of Kosovo. Partition in any form is not an acceptable outcome.
  There is clearly still a major Yugoslav army capability in Serbia and Montenegro. The buffer zone was reduced in the negotiations from 25 km to 5 km, but the withdrawal of the troops looks as though it is on schedule to end on Sunday night. Then NATO, the Governments and the international organisations can turn their attention to the future of Kosovo.
  One aspect that has received less attention than the military aspects is the civil power that the UN Security Council resolution called for—UNMIK, as I suppose we will come to know and love it. That is being set up. As I understand it, one of the Deputy Secretary-Generals is in charge of it and is in Kosovo.
  I hope that the process is moving fast. The military is performing tasks that should be handed over to a civilian authority as soon as possible. Such an authority will have some responsibility for the security of the population of Kosovo, which will be vital to a long-term settlement.
  Paragraph 11 of the UN Security Council resolution calls for the deployment of an international police presence. When the Secretary of State for International Development winds up, perhaps she will tell us what progress is being made on the establishment of an international police presence. The KLA clearly wants to be the police in Kosovo, and no doubt many KLA members will have a role to play in that regard, but they cannot be allowed simply to turn themselves into the Kosovan police force.
  Bosnia sets a reasonably good example of an international police force gradually incorporating more and more local people, but initially the police force in Kosovo will have to be under the control of the United Nations. We cannot allow the KLA to turn itself into the police force.
  The Secretary of State spoke about the atrocities. That is what the campaign has been about. The Government's policy and NATO's has been to defeat that. I spoke at length on the telephone this morning to a journalist who is in Kosovo. She told me that in every village there is a mass grave, and that every garden seems to have a grave in it. We see the appalling scenes on television, as evidence of the mass slaughter is discovered. It is clear from the stories and the mass graveyards that that was worse than anything that I imagined, and we do not yet know the full scale of it.
  The Secretary of State mentioned the discovery of a torture chamber at Pristina police station. It is good news that UK investigators are involved in helping the UN war crimes tribunal. We must make sure that as many as possible of the people responsible for those crimes are brought to justice, or a large part of the positive effect of NATO's operation in Kosovo will have been lost. If we cannot bring home to people like Milosevic the fact that they face the serious risk of prosecution for war crimes, they will not be as discouraged as we want them to be.
  It is a sad fact that the atrocities continue as the Serbs withdraw. We see them leaving a scorched earth policy behind them. People are killed and their houses destroyed even as the Serb military forces are withdrawing.
  592
  As regards the Russians, whatever gloss we put on the matter—I understand why the Government and General Jackson have to say that it is not much of a problem, but it is—they continue to hold the airport, and their presence there will disrupt the establishment of the northern or the French zone.
  We were collectively outwitted by the Russians. They cooked up a plan with the Serbs, and we should expect to see more of that. I do not think that Milosevic has run out of tricks. On Wednesday 9 June, late at night, the military agreement was signed. The plan, as I understand it and as was reported, was for NATO troops to enter Kosovo at 4 am on Friday. According to reports in The New York Times and elsewhere, those plans were postponed by 25 hours on Thursday night. The press briefing was postponed as well. As we all know, in the end the NATO troops went in at 5 am on Saturday.
  There was some speculation in the press about whether that was at the request of the United States, to enable its troops to be in the forefront of the deployment, but that always seemed an unlikely explanation, because the United States already had 1,700 troops in Macedonia. I do not think that it was planned that they should be among the first troops to enter Kosovo, but they would have been there and gained whatever publicity was needed.
  The truth came out when a NATO officer was reported as saying that the Serbs were having difficulty in withdrawing. They were suffering from a shortage of fuel and could not get out on schedule. It appears that that was a subterfuge cooked up by the Russians and the Serbs to give the Russians time to move.
  One must ask why that was not foreseen by NATO. Russia always wanted a zone. Its amour propre had clearly been damaged during the process, despite its part in the peace negotiations. The wording of the UN Security Council resolution is slightly ambiguous in this regard. It authorises member states to establish the international security presence, whereas it empowers the Secretary of State—I mean the Secretary-General of the UN; the Secretary of State has many responsibilities, but not that one—to establish the civil authority. That creates an ambiguity and was presumably designed to get over the difficulty of Russian involvement, but it gives the Russians some basis for arguing that they are entitled to a presence.
  Reports of the movement of Russian troops in Bosnia went out on Serb radio at 10.30 am on Friday. There must have been some evidence of it earlier. Two hundred troops and their vehicles cannot have been moved out of the American zone in Bosnia without anyone noticing. During the morning, Secretary of State Albright spoke to her counterpart, Ivanov. She has said in public—and the Vice-President of the United States has said the same thing—that she was assured by Mr. Ivanov that the Russians would not move into Kosovo until their role in KFOR had been settled.
  NATO could presumably still have moved at that moment. There are some questions as to why it did not. The airport is important. Because we do not have control of the airport, the roads are heavily congested, which makes it difficult to resupply NATO forces and provide food for refugees. We are now planning air drops, which were not planned originally. Not only does NATO need the airport, but it would have been a good idea to deprive

  593
  the Russians of it. The fact that they hold it gives them a means of bringing in reinforcements, which they did not have before.
  Could NATO have moved during that period? If it had done so and denied the Russians the airport, our position would be considerably easier than it is. The Russians did not move into the airport until 2 am on Saturday. NATO deployed at 5 am on Saturday, which of course was too late.
  As I said, it seems to me that that was a plan cooked up by Milosevic and the Russians. The Russians behaved in extraordinarily bad faith. I know that the Secretary of State must be more diplomatic in dealing with the matter. It shows extraordinary bad faith on the part of the Russians that they should have played a part in brokering a peace deal; assured the US Secretary of State that they would not move; and then moved in the middle of the night in a way that they knew would create considerable difficulties for the peacekeeping operation in Kosovo.
  We should expect more of that. The Russians have 1,700 troops with SFOR in Bosnia. There are reports of more troop movements around Bjielina. Apparently troops left their barracks in Lopare and Ugljevik on Saturday for the airport at Bjielina, and on Sunday Bosnia radio reported 150 Russian troops leaving Bosnia across the Bjielina bridge for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I assume that those troops are still in Serbia.
  Russia made efforts last week to reinforce its position at Pristina airport from the air. Fortunately NATO moved quickly, and Russia was denied the overflying rights that it would have needed. That clearly was part of Russia's plan.
  I know that yesterday and today negotiations have been going on between Secretary of State for Defence Cohen and his counterpart, Sergeyev. Progress was reported yesterday, but it has also been reported that Yeltsin has told Sergeyev that the Russians will not settle for anything less than a Russian zone. I hope that the issue will be resolved over the weekend at the G8 meeting or early next week at the European Union-United States meeting. I gather that President Clinton will be at both. It is important to resolve the matter as soon as possible.
  Russia has wanted its own zone all along. According to press reports in The New York Times and elsewhere, it has been offered a zone of operation within the French sector. We must not create a Russian zone. The Secretary of State has said that he will not allow an east German solution to be implemented in Kosovo, or to be effected on the ground. A Russian zone of occupation, or a Russian zone in the KFOR sector, will become a Serb zone and will effectively mean the partition of Kosovo.
  We need something along the lines of what is happening in Bosnia, where the Russians are deployed within the American sector, but do not have a particular zone to themselves; they are assisting in various areas. In that way, they can be valuably involved in the peacekeeping process, but without the risk of creating a zone within a zone, which may be as bad as a zone of their own.
  That unforeseen problem has created a great deal of difficulty and distraction. I hope that it can be resolved soon because it is making NATO's operations much more difficult than they would otherwise be. When this is all over, we would like it looked into. A few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the
  594
  Prime Minister for an inquiry when the war was over, a request which was rather cavalierly rejected. There were inquiries after the Falklands war and the Gulf war. I am sure that the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office will conduct their own internal inquiries into how well they did during the conflict, but there are lessons to be learned and they should be learned publicly. All the secure details of military intelligence need not be disclosed but there are lessons to be learned which should be available to the public and future Governments.
  The Government of whom the Secretary of State is a member, and the previous Government, of whom I was a member, took Britain to war without needing the approval of the House of Commons to do so. They did it under prerogative powers. When one does that, there is an even stronger argument for taking a close and objective look after the event at the circumstances leading up to that military action. I should like such an inquiry to consider the diplomatic background, the military advice and the political direction of the military, which has been one of the difficult aspects of NATO's control and has made the military operations more difficult than they would otherwise have been.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: Does my hon. Friend agree that the inquiry for which he calls should include all the circumstances leading up to the intervention in Kosovo, right from the time when the EU, and the Federal Republic of Germany in particular, began to persuade the international community unilaterally—without agreement—to recognise Croatia and Slovenia as independent states, as well as the conduct of the international community's relationships with Yugoslavia? [Interruption.] Yes, both Governments.
  Mr. Maples: I did not have in mind quite such a wide remit. If we want to go back to 1989, the inquiry will be very long.
  There are two schools of thought about whether all this was started by the precipitate recognition of Croatia and Bosnia. I think that it was all started by the rise of the completely unreasonable Serb nationalism, generated, fostered, its flames fanned, by Milosevic. Had it not been for that, these issues, albeit not easily settled, could have been peacefully settled. The real cause was the aggressive, narrow Serb nationalism of which Milosevic's policy was the apogee.
  Mr. Winnick: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the reasons for the conflict which broke up the former Yugoslavia, but would it not be right to say that the removal of autonomy from Kosovo played a leading part both in the burning resentments of so many people there and in the creation of the KLA?
  Mr. Maples: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. It was in Kosovo that Milosevic discovered his talent for stirring up this kind of trouble. The removal of Kosovo's autonomy and Vojvodina's autonomy was part of his process of gaining control of the Yugoslav federal presidency, enabling him to perpetrate the horrors that he perpetrated in Croatia and Bosnia.
  Mr. Robin Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us the opportunity to consider the historical perspective. Before he presses too hard for the

  595
  wide-ranging inquiry that he seeks, I should warn him that one episode on which such an inquiry must undoubtedly properly focus is why it was that the western Governments agreed to Milosevic's insistence that Kosovo be kept out of the Dayton settlement.
  Mr. Maples: The Secretary of State is right that that is a question that has to be answered. I was not there and I do not know the details of what happened. But, in retrospect, if Kosovo could have been included, we would not be facing many of our present difficulties. I suspect that the Dayton agreement was difficult enough to get without trying to settle the Kosovo problem at the same time. But if the right hon. Gentleman says that he will set up the inquiry as long as it can consider that question, he has a deal.
  I said that two big problems currently face NATO in Kosovo—the Russians and the KLA. I now come to the KLA. It is a big problem. It is moving in and taking over. It is creating something of a myth that it was the KLA that liberated Kosovo. No doubt many KLA members were performing extremely brave actions on the ground during the last three months or so. But we now see them patrolling the streets and they have taken over Pristina police station, or at least they had yesterday. They control the Morini border crossing and they seem to have about 90 per cent. of the German sector under their patrols in one form or another. If they are not themselves guilty of reprisals against the Serb population, I suspect that they are at least allowing them to happen. That cannot be allowed to go on.
  One thing that is reinforcing the KLA in its position is its claim that the Russian presence is illegal. I understand that it refuses to disarm while that presence continues. But the KLA cannot be allowed to run things within Kosovo, and that must be made clear. It is creating a potentially extremely dangerous atmosphere.
  The Secretary of State referred to that and said that he hoped that an agreement would be reached. Yesterday, there were news reports that such an agreement had been reached, but, as I understand it, it has not been signed. This morning, NATO's Secretary-General said that he expects to see the KLA disarmed within, I think, 120 days.
  Mr. Robin Cook indicated dissent.
  Mr. Maples: That was the report that I read. I am glad to hear that it is wrong. We should be talking about a few days.
  I realise that the process is difficult and that it may not be possible completely to disarm people. But the KLA, to the extent that its people will function in the role that they see for themselves, must be part of a civil power, supervised by that power and responsible to it in a proper and clear way. We must do that quickly.
  There is some confusion—presumably brought about by the difficulty in the diplomatic negotiations—in that the Rambouillet agreement calls for the disarming of the KLA and the United Nations Security Council resolution calls for its demilitarisation. One could argue that, for diplomatic purposes, that means the same thing, but I am sure that it does not mean the same thing to the KLA.
  596
  At some point we need some clarification, if only for ourselves, of what that means, how it will be done and how long it will take.
  I appreciate the difficulties, and the last thing that we want is to start a conflict between NATO and the KLA in Kosovo, but NATO will not be able to control, redevelop and stabilise Kosovo in the way that we want while the KLA still has that degree of presence and control.
  The return of refugees from Albania and Macedonia is premature. I gather that 1,000 an hour are crossing at Morini. No doubt that is reasonably welcome to Macedonia because it will at least remove the instability that those refugees created, but it presents some problems. First, the refugees are clogging up the roads which NATO would otherwise be using for the deployment of its troops. Secondly, the mine clearance operation is not yet under way. As we are not yet in most of Kosovo, and will not be in all of it until Monday, it obviously cannot yet have been done. Will the Secretary of State for International Development tell us something about mine clearance—whether the Serbs have honoured their part of the military technical agreement to identify minefields and booby traps and to help to clear them, and what progress is being made in that? Are we having difficulty in supplying the basic necessities of life, such as food, water and some limited medical facilities to refugees at the rate at which they are returning?
  Another sad consequence of what has happened is that we now see another group of refugees. Serbs are now leaving with their cars, tractors and trailers loaded up with their personal belongings in the same way that Albanians left a few weeks ago. We must confirm in practical terms to the Serbs in Kosovo that we will protect them and that they are entitled to continue to live there and to conduct their lives, businesses and farms there.
  It is encouraging that the Secretary of State mentioned the reaction of the Orthodox Church. I think that the Patriarch has announced that he will return to Pec as a sign of encouragement or of solidarity with the Serbs who live there. I hope that that is the spirit in which it is being done. We must take that position not just for humanitarian reasons, but because, if the 200,000 Serbs who live in Kosovo all become refugees in Serbia, they will help Milosevic to feed the anti-NATO sentiments and dissatisfaction of the Serbs, and their characterisation of themselves as a victim nation.
  Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I think the hon. Gentleman said that the Serbs are leaving in the same way as the Albanians, but they are not leaving in quite the same way. Does he accept that the Albanians were leaving while looking down the barrel of a gun and that the vast majority of the Serbs are leaving out of fear, whether it is justified or not?
  Mr. Maples: I accept that, but almost everybody who left did so out of fear of what might happen to them. When I talked to refugees in camps at Kukes, they almost all said that they had left because of what had happened in the village previously or because of what they had heard.
  I agree with the Secretary of State; there is no equivalence. There has been an organised campaign of atrocities—genocide, dare one say—against the Albanians in Kosovo. That is not happening against the Serbs, but they clearly fear for their lives and safety, and some of

  597
  them have already been killed. Nothing worse than that can happen, but appalling things have certainly happened to them and it would be a sad outcome if we succeeded in helping the Albanian Kosovans to return to Kosovo, but all the Serbs left.
  Looking to the future, what is happening inside Serbia is a closed book to most of us, but it is important because we will not be able to settle the region in a stable and peaceful way while Milosevic is still in power. I understand that Seselj has left his Government, but I do not know whether that is good or bad, because I suspect that he would have been a lot worse than Milosevic. Zoran Djindjic, the leader of the Democratic party, has called on Milosevic to resign, but he at present resides in Montenegro, and has been there for the whole of the war, so that call will not carry a lot of credibility.
  As the Secretary of State said, the Orthodox Church has called on Milosevic to step down, but we have to recognise that we are dealing with an old-style communist regime. Milosevic controls the army, the police, the media—just about everything. I do not expect an answer from the Secretary of State, although it would be nice to have one, but do we think that a coup could succeed—or is a civil war needed to get rid of Milosevic? We have to address that problem in some way because it will be difficult to settle the issues while Milosevic is still in power. What other levers do we have? Will the chance of the stability pact applying to the whole of south-east Europe, except for Serbia, exercise any leverage over him?
  There could be problems in other parts of the Balkans—Macedonia, Vojvodina, Sanjak and, perhaps most obviously, Montenegro—and there is danger that NATO will be sucked into them. I hope that we have a policy and that we have thought through some of those questions, particularly in respect of Montenegro. The Serbs have, as recently as yesterday, started to accuse Djukanovic of conspiring with the United States to organise a coup against Milosevic in Belgrade. That sounds like the building of an excuse for intervening in Montenegro in some way.
  At the same time, various groups of Montenegrins—academics, business men and the opposition—are demanding a review of their status as part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. There are 20,000 troops of the 2nd or the 3rd VJ army in Montenegro and yesterday Belgrade prevented two Montenegrin aeroplanes on a flight from Italy from landing at an airport in Montenegro. The Secretary of State praised Djukanovic, who is the only democratic leader in the region with clean hands, and we have to ask ourselves how we can prevent a Serb coup in Montenegro.
  Similar things are perhaps brewing in Vojvodina. The leaders of the Hungarian community are asking for their autonomy to be revived, because they lost it at about the same time that Kosovo lost its autonomy. There are issues to be addressed there, and Milosevic is capable of stirring up trouble in Macedonia and perhaps even in Bosnia again. We need to make sure that we have considered the longer-term problems.
  The longer-term stability of Kosovo depends in part on a long-term political settlement. The Rambouillet agreement called for an international meeting within three years
  "to determine the mechanism for a final settlement … on the basis of the will of the people".
  598
  To many people, that seemed to imply a referendum, but the United Nations Security Council resolution, under which we are operating in Kosovo, reaffirms the sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It talks a lot about "autonomy" and "self-administration … pending final settlements". The only reference to the long-term future is in paragraph 11(e), which talks about
  "facilitating political process designed to determine Kosovo's future status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords".
  That is very vague, and I imagine that it was difficult to achieve any agreement on what the resolution would say, but we have a problem to address.
  The Rambouillet accords allowed the possibility of independence for Kosovo. The United Nations Security Council resolution does not explicitly do so, but it makes that reference to the Rambouillet accords, which the Serbs never agreed to or signed in the first place. Is independence a possibility or not? If not, the Kosovans will be stuck with Yugoslav passports, being called up to serve in the Yugoslav army, paying Yugoslav taxes and having to go through Yugoslav-controlled border posts and over borders across which those same Yugoslav forces were driving them in the most inhumane way a few weeks ago.
  I have to ask myself whether autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a viable future for Kosovo. I do not expect an answer today, but I hope that the Government are addressing that issue.
  Mr. Hogg: At the time of the Rambouillet accords, it was contemplated that there would be sizeable Serb minority in Kosovo and, in those circumstances, devolved status within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia made sense. If the Serb minority flees Kosovo and goes to Serbia, as appears to be happening, the intellectual justification for the autonomous status of Kosovo will disappear entirely.
  Mr. Maples: I take my right hon. and learned Friend's argument, but the United Nations Security Council resolution refers to the Helsinki Final Act and there are difficulties in opening up the question of border settlements. However, from a practical point of view, I do not see how autonomy will be enough, either to provide long-term security or for the KLA, which, however it is demilitarised, will not demilitarise entirely.
  The stability pact is a great document and a great plan, but it will need money to back it up. I do not think that the numbers appear in it—if they do, I missed them—but considerable economic aid will be needed to help to redevelop the region and bring it into the European mainstream. There are also many unsettled matters in the Balkans outside Kosovo and they cannot be left in the air. If they are, Milosevic will stir them up. He is very good at stirring up trouble and I do not suppose that we have seen the last of his tricks.
  The first phase of NATO's operation has been successful—more successful, and perhaps quicker, than any of us dared hope. The Serb military is leaving and NATO is taking over. Refugees are returning and the atrocities are being investigated by the war crimes tribunal. All that is excellent news, but in many ways the difficult phase is just beginning.
  There are the immediate problems of the Russians and the KLA, and I hope that they will be soon resolved, but there will be plenty more. Milosevic has not yet run out

  599
  of tricks and while he remains in power, we should always plan for the worst. Our long-term objective must be to bring peace and stability not only to Kosovo but to the whole of former Yugoslavia. That was never going to be easy, and it is no easier now, but we will support the Government wholeheartedly in pursuing that objective.
  We hope that the difficult questions that we have posed have been thought through and that plans exist to deal with the long-term and short-term difficulties. In the end, success will be measured by the return of all the refugees to all parts of Kosovo and a settlement that creates a secure and stable environment for all its citizens.
  2.48 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: I welcome the new Opposition team. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) had a reasonably good war. In his speeches, he made the same criticisms as his colleagues who speak on foreign affairs without appearing to want NATO not to acquit itself well. I wish him the best of good fortune in his new post.
  I welcome this further debate on Kosovo. The Government have sought to explain—and succeeded in explaining—what they were doing, not only to the House of Commons but to its various Committees, and they were prepared regularly to expose themselves to criticism from Labour and Opposition Members. I am delighted that the Foreign Secretary is going out to Kosovo next week. Perhaps he will take up the seats in the aircraft that members of the Defence Committee were going to take, and perhaps he can persuade his colleagues that, once the Executive have gone to see what has happened, the Defence Committee visit organised by the Ministry of Defence can soon be reactivated. I look forward to him coming back with good news.
  The House and the country must be relieved that the worst aspect of the crisis is over, following the success of NATO's operations and the progressive and fairly speedy withdrawal of Serb forces, which is well under way. If I may amend slightly what was said by the Duke of Wellington, however, there is only one thing worse than a battle lost, and that is a battle won.
  The Foreign Secretary described some of the problems that NATO, the OSCE, the UN and Governments would have to face following our success. For instance, those organisations must consider how—if it is possible—to integrate Russia in the post-war environment. Last week, both the Defence Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee received a delegation from the Duma's international relations committee. Rumours that I had instructed the police to stand guard at the entrance to the House in case the Russians made a sudden and dramatic push to occupy the Chamber proved to be only partly well-founded.
  In the short term, those who return to their own territory will not find that entirely welcome. They will be returning to a ravaged country, and will encounter the danger of stepping on land mines as well as massive problems of reconstruction. The Foreign Secretary spoke of his commitment to bringing to trial those indicted of war crimes, and of the problems of the government of Kosovo. He also spoke of the difficulty of deciding what to do about the KLA, about security in the Balkan region and
  600
  about the role of international political and economic institutions such as the OSCE, the UN and the World Bank.
  I trust that we shall witness the demise of Milosevic. The Serbs have not yet forgiven the Ottoman empire for what happened in the 14th century, but I hope that they will wipe the events of the last few months from their minds earlier than in the middle of the next millennium.
  I cannot adequately express the pleasure and joy that I experience when I see pictures of Kosovans returning home—pictures that show their euphoria, and the sheer spontaneous pleasure of their greeting of their liberators—and note, in the same newspapers, the professional way in which NATO forces that were waiting in Macedonia moved so swiftly into Kosovo, where they are now providing security. There were one or two hiccups, of course.
  Like others, I hope that the Serbs will decide to remain in that country. We do not want another war over ethnic cleansing, if ethnic cleansing happens again in a rather different way.
  I think that we should congratulate all who have helped NATO to succeed in its campaign. I do not deny the right of hon. Members on either side of the House to oppose its action: I respect those with pacifist leanings—those who, in their dreams, sing "We'll keep the Serb flag flying here." I do not, however, respect those who argue that the conflict in the Balkans was nothing to do with us. I do not respect those who espouse the view that hundreds of thousands of people can be destroyed for the sake of maintaining the sanctity of what they believe international law should be. I do not respect those who quietly, surreptitiously and snidely—although apparently supporting what NATO and the Government were doing—hoped that both NATO and the Government would fall on their faces.
  Many people advanced the argument—based largely on what the so-called experts were saying—that air power would never succeed. I hope that they will do the same as John Keegan, who admitted that, despite his great expertise, he had got it entirely wrong. I will not join, for instance, the manic Norwegian television broadcaster who, after his country defeated England, rattled off a series of names including Lord Nelson, Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill; but I could certainly do so. My list would include a number of Members of Parliament, as well as journalists, academics and alleged experts. I hope that the people to whom I have referred will at least have the decency to admit that they were wrong in expressing with such certainty the view that NATO would fail.
  One of my colleagues on the Defence Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] Some are here, and I admire them for being here. Others have wisely got out of the way. The colleague to whom I refer, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), has gone to Russia. If he were here, I would have mentioned this to him. In one speech, he managed to make so many mistakes that I thought he must have missed the lecture at staff college. He said, prematurely, "Our strategy has failed". He also called for the resignation of the Chief of the Defence Staff in the middle of the war, which I do not regard as very sensible. The only crime of the Chief of the Defence Staff was that of supporting the Government, which I consider a rather bizarre reason for demanding his resignation. The hon. Gentleman added:

  601
  "Two months later, as the ground option evaporates, we urgently need an exit … It is clear that our allies want a way out … We have fundamentally misread the nature of the conflict … Having broken international law in attacking Yugoslavia, let us now stand up for the principle of self-determination."—[Official Report, 18 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 944–46.]
  I can only say that I am delighted for the Opposition that the purge that has taken place has not yet given the hon. Gentleman a position on the Front Bench, although that may come later.
  The alliance held together—it actually held together, although there were those who hoped against hope that it would implode; and, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, it will emerge strengthened by its experience, and by the criticism from both external and internal opponents.
  There were those in the alliance whose enthusiasm was less than total. I am thinking, for instance, of an interesting article that I read only this week in a publication of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies, and of the less than extreme enthusiasm of the Czech Republic, although the President can be exempted from that criticism. The Greek Government did what had to be done, although I cannot express the same admiration for the media there or for public opinion.
  I was delighted when the Foreign Secretary said that the efforts of Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania and Montenegro during the war deserved to be properly rewarded. I hope that they will not be rewarded by some long-term commitment to consider their application to join NATO. When it came to the crunch, they delivered. I understand that the Bulgarians are offering to send troops to work alongside British experts in mine clearance, and I feel that we should express our thanks and admiration.
  May I pick up a point raised by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon? Over the years, Parliaments and royal commissions have had ample opportunities to examine wars won and occasionally, if not wars lost, then battles lost. My favourite example is a wonderful inquiry that was undertaken in the early days of the failure of the British, the French and the Turks to capture Sebastopol. The Jameson raid, the Boer war and Gallipoli all produced great opportunities for royal commissions and Parliaments to identify what went right and, more important, what went wrong.
  I think it entirely right to identify this rather smart move by the Russians in evading our intelligence services. I certainly advise the hon. Gentleman to look at the events that led to the invasion of the Falkland Islands, when the Argentines were able to move far more than the Russians. They were able to attack the islands, and, I believe, to purchase 500 maps of them from The Stationery Office. I had a copy, but the last Government denied that they existed. The map is stamped by the military governor of Argentina and by the civil commissioner, Rex Hunt. The Argentines managed to move out of this country a vast quantity of their financial resources, and to get on to a war footing without alerting intelligence, and without the Cabinet committee realising what was happening.
  When there is any move to criticise an alleged failure, perhaps one should look at other failures. If he is still alive, Lord Franks can perhaps be revived and brought to do an inquiry, which will certainly exonerate NATO and the United Kingdom. I hope that that will be done, if he is still available for the commission.
  602
  The Defence Committee has a long tradition of inquiring into wars. We did three inquiries into the Falklands war; all were good reports. We did two reports on the Gulf war. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon will not have seen the press release that the Defence Committee issued last week, which said:
  "The Committee has reconfirmed its commitment to undertake an inquiry into the lessons of Operation Allied Force following the conclusion of any peace settlement in Kosovo and once the situation there has begun to stabilise. Previous Defence Committees undertook substantial inquiries into the lessons of the Falklands conflict and the Gulf War.
  More detailed terms of reference for the Committee's initial interim inquiry will be published at the appropriate time, but the inquiry is likely to focus on the lessons of the Kosovo crisis for NATO's force structure, decision-making processes and strategy development. It is also likely to consider the effectiveness of the Alliance's intelligence, surveillance, targeting and reconnaissance capabilities. The performance of UK weapons systems and their interoperability with those of other Allies will also be examined as the evidence becomes available.
  Further announcements will be made in due course."
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: The inquiries that the Select Committee has undertaken into earlier conflicts have been extremely valuable. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they are taken seriously in the Ministry of Defence. Will he consider including in the early part of his inquiry the difficult—I mean no political ill will by saying it—and tortuous negotiations on the diplomatic and political front before the conflict began, which would normally concern the Foreign Affairs Committee? The Defence and Foreign Affairs Committees might consider doing that part of the inquiry jointly, thereby adding even more weight to their conclusions.
  Dr. Godman: That is a good idea.
  Mr. George: It might be a good idea, but I should like first to liaise with the Foreign Affairs Committee. I was a great reader of its report on Sandline International and Sierra Leone. I would prefer to liaise, as opposed to co-ordinating. Our remit is defence and security. It is important that we do not trespass too far into any other possible inquiries.
  Mr. Wells: May I make a suggestion? The Select Committee on International Development report on Kosovo and the humanitarian crisis might be a starting point for the inquiry of the hon. Gentleman's Committee and that of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. George: I have read that report. Having been to Kukes—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's Committee got as far as Kukes—we were able to form our own opinion. I have also read his speeches. Again, it would be far better if he pursued his own inquiry, rather than merging it—if he pursues it—with that of the Defence Committee.
  Over the past 12 months or so, the Defence Committee has undertaken two substantial inquiries: one into the NATO summit and the future of NATO, the second into the strategic defence review. Both the inquiries will have to have a Kosovan dimension. We will be able to see the extent to which the SDR—although it has not yet fully unfolded—has been affected by events in Kosovo.

  603
  I digress slightly. Although I accept the Government's views on the Reserves, I was delighted to see that one of the heroes of the early days of the entry into Kosovo was a member of the German reserve. That German officer defused a major crisis between the Albanians and the Serbs. The gentleman, a major I believe, was a professor of oriental languages—oh, that our own Reserves had such an opportunity of proving their military competence. [Interruption.] I do not think that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), should mock the lack of language abilities. I heard him speaking Hungarian three months ago; it had to be translated into English. I am not attempting to be hostile.
  The two inquiries that we have done could have the added dimension of Kosovo. It will not be a negative inquiry. Mistakes were made; of course they were. I am not yet aware of any war that has been fought perfectly, although Milosevic claims that his war was. He obtained the same victory as Custer at Little Big Horn and Napoleon at Waterloo. I can imagine Custer down to his last three men and saying, "We really whacked them this time, didn't we?"
  Leaving aside the claims of Milosevic, most other wars have their mistakes, but we must learn from our mistakes. We must see what we did well; we did much that was good. Let us hope that we can avoid such crises in future.
  I congratulate not only the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development, but the Secretary of State for Defence, who, I understand, is in the Ukraine. Without being seen to be seeking a knighthood or anything further, I should like to compliment the Prime Minister as well. It has been said, "Keep your head while others behind or opposite you are losing theirs." What he did was absolutely right. He can be rightly proud of his contribution.
  3.7 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I, too, welcome the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) to his first foreign affairs debate. He has moved smoothly from defence to foreign affairs. He will discover shortly that the only difference between them is that, thankfully, in foreign affairs, we do not place such reliance on impenetrable acronyms as appears to be necessary in defence.
  Rightly, the hon. Gentleman paid generous tribute to his predecessor, who has enjoyed a distinguished parliamentary career. I, too, shall miss him, not least because he has been an ever-present example of the strength of the adversarial system in contemporary politics.
  The debate is something of an interim report. I expect that we shall have more such debates from time to time. As others have said, much has been achieved, but much more remains to be done.
  If one passage in the Foreign Secretary's speech attracted virtually unanimous support, it was his powerful account of the importance of dealing properly with those who have been guilty of war crimes. He will, of course, be aware that the extremely powerful and professional chief prosecutor, Louise Arbour, has, in recognition of her
  604
  considerable talents, been appointed to the supreme court of Canada, which means that, after September, the effective leadership that she has been able to give will no longer be available.
  It is obviously essential to ensure that Louise Arbour is replaced by someone of equal merit and personal courage. The House may remember that, on one occasion, she went to Kosovo but was turned away at the border. The strength of the International War Crimes Tribunal clearly depends on the quality of the leadership available. I hope that the Government—the Foreign Secretary is nodding in recognition of my point—will ensure that a suitable successor is found.
  These occasions, shortly after the end of a conflict, are sometimes seen as an opportunity to draw lessons from a successful military action. When a military action has been a failure, the lessons to be drawn are often much more obvious and provide a readily understood basis for the necessary remedies. When a military action has been successful, however, it is often too easy to draw invalid conclusions, not least if they are hasty and informed only by contemporary evidence.
  In recent time, the most obvious illustration of that is the belief—almost ineradicably lodged in the mind of the public after the Gulf war—that so-called smart weapons are in all cases capable of pinpoint accuracy, and that so-called surgical strikes can be effected without risk to anyone or anything other than the designated targets. Those have, to some extent, become myths of our time.
  We are at some risk of repeating that flawed approach in precipitate judgments to the effect that air power on its own succeeded in this case, and that it will provide a universally valid approach in future conflicts in which NATO countries, with proper regard for the sensibilities of their citizens, expose their forces to no more risk than bombing from, say, 15,000 ft. I believe that it is much too early to reach such conclusions from the military action that has just been terminated. Moreover, the evidence that is so far available would not justify that conclusion.
  What apparently succeeded in this case was a combination of three elements: first, intensive air operations; secondly, strenuous diplomatic efforts, in which Russia's role was significant, even if its motives were not entirely laudable or even always understandable; and, thirdly, the credible threat of ground action, with the accompaniment of NATO's demonstrable willingness to impose its will by the use of its massive war-fighting capability. That raises, at least for consideration, the very substantial probability that, if air operations had begun at the right tempo and intensity, if diplomatic efforts had been sufficiently strenuous initially, and if the threat of ground action had been credible from the beginning, the Milosevic regime might have capitulated earlier.
  Never before has such a large-scale military action been undertaken to prosecute a policy of attempting to prevent ethnic cleansing and to secure basic human rights. However, we should realise that the legacy of the action will be an expectation among those who are ethnically repressed around the world, or at least within NATO's range, that NATO will intervene in their plight. The expectation cannot be justified, and there are bound to be occasions of deep disappointment. The intervention that occurred in this case was made because of an almost unique assembly of factors that are unlikely to be repeated.

  605
  The first factor was the sustained intransigence of a dictatorial leader. The second was the proximity of that leader, and the evil that was sought to be prevented, to several newly joined and aspirant NATO countries. The third was the possibility of uncontrollable instability in the region. The final factor was ethnic repression on a scale unseen in Europe since the second world war, but the effects of which were daily seen on our news bulletins. The unique combination of those elements created a climate in which NATO action, if not inevitable, was virtually so.
  If we ever doubted the legitimacy of our actions, NATO forces are daily finding a catalogue of horror that is indescribable. I do not know if others have felt this way, but I have certainly begun to feel that language is inadequate to convey the depths of the depravity to which the paramilitary and military units of the Milosevic regime have sunk. They have systematically terrorised and brutalised the defenceless people of Kosovo. This was no episode of savage war fighting between equals, but rather a cowardly, despicable and cynical abuse of defenceless men, women and children, with women and children deliberately targeted.
  We have been concerned about the Russians' unilateral action. We should be concerned not only about that action, but about the length of time that it seems to be taking to reach an agreement, despite discussions between President Yeltsin and Mr. Clinton. Let us suppose that no agreement can be reached, and that the extent of Russia's intransigence on the matter—driven by domestic considerations—may be unfathomable. If that is so, what then? Was there—I asked the Defence Secretary this question the other day—no intelligence assessment of the risk of that type of Russian adventurism? If there was no such assessment, why not?
  The template of Bosnia is available, against which all this should be judged. At Tusla, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and I saw for ourselves a practical illustration of the special arrangements that could be made in Bosnia. But what if such arrangements cannot be made in Kosovo? What then? I do not know the answer to those questions, but we should at least be asking them, in the hope that we may be able to provide answers.
  Mr. Dalyell: Apparently there is a Serb military refusal to leave the village of Mitrovica unless the Russians are prepared to stay there.
  Mr. Campbell: I do not understand that to be any part of the United Nations resolution. If there is such a refusal, it raises in my mind a suspicion that the Serbs who refuse to leave are doing so because they believe that, once they have left, NATO forces might find evidence of their activities, which might make them feel extremely uncomfortable. Those who do not want to go, or want only the representatives of a particular nation to be present when they leave, seem—on the face of it—to have something to hide.
  As today's speeches have made clear, the commitment to protect and to secure the human rights of the people of Kosovo has not ended with the cessation of bombing. Military strategists and politicians previously called for—if I may borrow a phrase—a permissive environment to precede the possible entry of ground troops. Now we have to have create a permissive environment to which the
  606
  refugees feel that they can return in safety. However, as earlier speakers have recognised, we are right to acknowledge that there is an enormous potential for a return to conflict, motivated by revenge and the political aspirations of the Kosovo Liberation Army, and that, for peace to last, an extraordinary degree of commitment and resolve will be required.
  NATO's resolution of the stand-off with Russia in Pristina; demilitarisation of the KLA; safe return of the refugees; and the future of the Kosovar Serbs will all provide key tests of the agreement's workability. There are some unhelpful signs. We have already witnessed revenge attacks by KLA and Kosovar Albanians on Kosovar Serbs. The attacks may increase as more refugees return to their own homes, and NATO must deal with them even-handedly and protect the Kosovar Serbs, whose fear of reprisals has led—as hon. Members have said—to another wave of refugees. As many as 37,000 Serb civilians, so far, are said to have retreated with the Yugoslav army.
  As hon. Members have also said, some elements of the KLA have threatened to use force against Russian troops. NATO must make it clear that an attack on any part of the international force will be regarded as an attack on the whole force and will bring an immediate and unconditional response.
  Self-evidently, too, the campaign's long-term effects will be felt outside of Kosovo. Macedonia and Montenegro will require sustained western guidance and support, whereas relations with Russia are probably at their most delicate since the end the cold war. It is said that Macedonia is on a knife edge. Certainly, there is potential for ethnic tension to escalate into violence. International organisations and foreign Governments must provide Macedonia with the substantial long-term assistance that it needs to deal with the economic consequences of the Kosovo conflict. It has long been feared that Milosevic would turn his attention to Montenegro, although thus far Serbian efforts to replace Mr. Djukanovic have failed. We must be committed to protecting Montenegro from any attempted invasion by Serbian forces.
  We must not underestimate the influence of the Russians during the negotiations. The frequent shuttle diplomacy by Mr. Chernomyrdin was of pivotal importance in securing a peace deal, but the unilateral actions of the military, obviously at odds with the Russian Foreign Ministry, in seizing Pristina airport, have left us embarrassed and have left Russia a hollow short-term victory, the repercussions of which have yet to be fully realised. The Russian peacekeepers must be given an explicit outline of their responsibilities and their relationship with NATO in Kosovo. It must be made clear that the Russians will not be given a zone in which to constitute de facto partition and that they will have to work alongside NATO troops in one or more zones.
  Only the safe return of the refugees to their homes will demonstrate that the settlement has worked. Repatriation has to be voluntary. It is correct to maintain the temporary refugee status that we have accorded to those who have left Kosovo, but there can be no question of forcibly bussing refugees back into Kosovo before adequate preparations have been made for their safety. We cannot prevent the spontaneous return of refugees, but no one should be left in any doubt about the risks.

  607
  The rebuilding programme will require unparalleled determination on the part of the people of Kosovo, who have suffered a horror unimaginable to westerners. The mental, and all too frequently physical, scars of recent times will not heal quickly, but let us hope that a successful programme of long-term reconstruction by the west will help to create a peaceful environment for future generations to live and flourish in.
  One of the more pressing tasks is the restoration of the rights and assets of the refugees, who have been stripped of their identity. Restoring their property and civil rights will be a task of epic proportions which must be handled with considerable delicacy. The legal framework for the issue of new documents will be problematic. Will they be Former Republic of Yugoslavia documents or will they be temporary protectorate documents? Will the refugees accept temporary protectorate documents or will they be looking for something else? Will such documents be acceptable if they want to travel throughout the world?
  It will inevitably fall to the European Union and the United States to cover the greatest proportion of the costs. If my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) is fortunate enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, she will want to concentrate on refugees and on whether the aid from Britain will come from the budget of the Department for International Development or from the contingency fund. My hon. Friend has already had some exchanges with the Secretary of State for International Development on that. It is entirely right that the right hon. Lady is here to wind up the debate, because we have moved on from the military, through the political, to the issue of aid, development and refugees.
  When NATO action against Kosovo began at the end of March I said that it was a bad business that might turn out to be a bloody one. I have been proved right. The decision to risk the lives of young men and women in war is the hardest that any Prime Minister has to take. That has been true of past conflicts, it is true of the present conflict and it will be true of future conflicts. The United Kingdom has fortunately escaped casualties so far, but we should not be blind to the risks even if we have enjoyed good fortune on this occasion. NATO has achieved what many thought impossible, securing peace with the threat but without the need or costs of a ground invasion. A ground invasion in the face of opposition would have involved much greater casualties.
  I began by saying that the hard work was still to do. I fear that there are horrors aplenty still to come. We should acknowledge in the aftermath of the victory that the refugees will continue to be our responsibility long after they have returned to their homes. Long-term peace in the Balkans will depend largely on the durability of the current agreement.
  3.25 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I shall have to leave before the end of the debate owing to a long-standing engagement.
  We are considering the murder of thousands of Kosovans, the killing and injuring by bombing of thousands of Serbs and the suffering of 800,000 refugees. I expected
  608
  some trivialisation from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, but I was saddened that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who holds great office, felt it appropriate to indulge in political point scoring at the expense of another party and individuals who disagree with his point of view.
  Mr. Winnick: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. MahonNo.
  Mr. Winnick: She has mentioned me.
  Mrs. Mahon: I did not.
  Mr. Winnick: Yes she did; the hon. Member for Walsall.
  Mrs. Mahon: I am sorry, I meant my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George).
  Anyone who has seen today's headlines and the horrendous dots on the map in The Independent showing where the atrocities took place realises that this is a terrible situation. I remember taking a petition to Downing street after the gassing of 8,000 Kurds at Halabja. We have seen such horrors before. I also remember visiting a camp in Afghanistan. During the mid-1990s, I condemned the killing of 30,000 Kurds by a NATO country. Sadly, we have seen horrendous atrocities all too regularly.
  It is no secret that I opposed NATO's war on Yugoslavia. I have always believed that it was illegal and immoral. Even more tragic is the fact that as we study the agreement of 3 June, it appears to have been unnecessary. The illegality is clear. That opinion has been expressed by people with far more knowledge of the law than I have. NATO broke its charter, which pledges its signatories to refrain from the threat or use of force inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. It also explicitly recognises the primary responsibility of the Security Council of the UN for the maintenance of international peace and security. In bypassing UN approval for the bombing of Yugoslavia, NATO violated its basic obligation.
  I warn those who have had a good war and are now indulging in offensive attacks on others that a grave precedent has been set that could threaten world peace for many years to come. If NATO can arrogate to itself the role of world policeman outside any framework of international law, the message to the rest of the world is that only force counts.
  The bombing of Yugoslavia could not be justified on the basis of humanitarian concerns. Unlike NATO, the international peace movement has repeatedly condemned ethnic cleansing by all sides in Yugoslavia, whether the victims are Kosovars, Croats, Serbs or Bosnian Muslims. I want those responsible for perpetrating such horrendous crimes to be brought to justice just as much as anyone else in the Chamber does. There is no place in a civilised society for people who commit such crimes.
  Early in the break-up of Yugoslavia, the United States and some other NATO countries chose to demonise one of the groups of people who were suffering. In Croatia and Bosnia, between 1991 and 1995, the media—directed by the USA and others—focused on Serb crimes and played down those committed by Croats and, in some

  609
  cases, Muslims. There was no moral indignation in the media or from western leaders when 300,000 Serbs in Krajina were driven out of their homes by Croatian forces directed by President Tudjman, who should also be indicted for war crimes. I hear no outcry for that to happen, so I will not hold my breath.
  During the past four years nothing has changed. The Serbs as a people are demonised in an increasingly racist way. That dehumanisation makes their suffering count for less. In the past few days, more than 30,000 Serbs have been forced to leave their homes in Kosovo. It has been claimed that that is different because the ethnic cleansing was directed by a Government, but the Serbs are leaving through fear. That is a subtle difference, and the Serbs feel just as bad.
  For thousands of the Serbs in Kosovo who are leaving in their tractors in those sad little columns, it is the second time that they have been ethnically cleansed and had to leave. Many Serbs from Krajina settled in Kosovo. I hear little sympathy from the media or from our leaders, in some cases.
  I watched a BBC News 24 programme last night in which the Secretary of State for Defence dismissed the Serbs' plight by saying that if they were innocent of war crimes, they could stay in Kosovo. There were pictures of young children on buses that were being stoned. Kate Adie appeared in the same piece, hugging an Albanian child. There was a little Serb child peering from a bus as stones were being flung at him. I found the icy indifference to the Serb child chilling. I do not like to pick out reporters individually for criticism, but that was an appalling scene to witness.
  We need more assurances and more detail about the role that the KLA will play in Kosovo. I have a sad feeling that we are seeing a mass exodus of Serbs from Kosovo and we will end up with an almost completely ethnically pure Kosovo, just as we have an almost completely ethnically pure Croatia. The Serbs—Europe's untouchables—will be driven back once again.
  I said at the beginning that NATO's first humanitarian war would quickly become a humanitarian disaster. I think that I have been proved right. As it became clear that NATO was willing to kill by bombing from 15,000 ft, it was also clear that many innocent civilian casualties—Serbs and Albanians alike—would be inevitable. It also became clear that the real bombing strategy was to make life intolerable for the civilian population of Yugoslavia, and that was revealed by the commander of the air strikes.
  Some 1,500 Serbs have been killed and 5,000 injured, 30 per cent. of them children. That in itself is a war crime under the Geneva convention, which clearly outlaws the targeting of civilian facilities and people. NATO deliberately killed journalists, a make-up girl and civilians when it bombed the television studio, and our leaders described it as a legitimate target. They were wrong, and that bombing was a war crime.
  Mr. Soames: Many of us have admired the hon. Lady's principled stand, even if we do not agree with her, but none of us could accept that NATO deliberately killed civilians. It did not ever deliberately kill civilians. It is an unfortunate fact that attack from the air, even with
  610
  precision-guided weapons, is bound to lead to casualties. To suggest that NATO deliberately killed journalists is an outrageous and terrible thing to say.
  Mrs. Mahon: It happens to be true. NATO spokesmen and members of my own Government said that those journalists were a legitimate target. That is on the record. NATO also destroyed electricity and water supplies to the civilian population, as well as bombing their roads, bridges, railways and factories. NATO took away from the Serbs the means of earning a living. It also caused massive structural damage in Kosovo, the country they were saving for the Albanian refugees.
  I wish the BBC and others would stop referring to the dangers of unexploded ordnance. Land mines laid by retreating Serb military are a vicious and unacceptable weapon of war, aimed more at civilians than at retreating armies, and so are unexploded NATO cluster bombs. They are mines dropped from 16,000 ft. Some of those bombs have killed civilians, including women and children, in Serbia. In Surdulica, 11 children were incinerated or blown to bits by NATO bombs—I have the pictures from Reuters and other news networks. Do those children's mothers feel any less grief than the Albanian mother who saw her child mown down by a machine gun? I think not. They, too, have dead children to mourn and grieve.
  Much has been said about the environmental damage inflicted by NATO's bombing. When I visited Yugoslavia, I witnessed at first hand the damage to the Danube. The bombing of bridges is blocking the river, destroying trade with neighbouring countries and damaging the economy. The bombing of petrochemical and nitrate fertiliser plants in Pancevo and other areas has released considerable quantities of toxic chemicals into the Danube and into the atmosphere. The Danube, the Sava and other water courses have also been polluted by sewage treatment works. In Novi Sad, which was bombed continuously, the sewage works are damaged beyond repair and the drinking water has gone. That will cause health problems for a long time. Who will pay for the reconstruction—or do those Serbs not deserve a clean water supply because they happen to have an evil, wicked leader? Are we going to leave them as we left the victims in Iraq?
  The settlement of 3 June shows that the entire war, with its thousands of deaths and massive suffering, and its destruction of an entire country, was unnecessary. NATO went to war to impose the Rambouillet ultimatum, which demanded the occupation of Kosovo exclusively by NATO troops who would have impeded access to Yugoslavia, including all ports, airports, roads and railways and been immune from all legal process. That is now well known. However, the ultimatum also provided for the secession of Kosovo after three years.
  The 3 June settlement is a significant retreat from NATO's demands at Rambouillet, because the United Nations is now involved. Russia played a large part in helping to bring about the peace. It should be included in the peacekeeping, and I am glad that people have asked questions about that. If NATO had been prepared to make those compromises at Rambouillet, the whole war might have been avoided, because the sticking points for the Serbs were occupation and secession. The Yugoslav Parliament made it clear that it would accept an international force under the United Nations.

  611
  Had we had negotiators who really wanted a negotiated settlement, we would have got one. George Kenny, a former Yugoslav desk officer at the US Department of State, has pointed out that the US wanted to bomb Yugoslavia and wrote the Rambouillet ultimatum conditions in a form that no country would accept. Kenny quotes press sources close to the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, as being confidently briefed that the intention was to set the bar higher than the Serbs could accept, in order to justify the bombing. That will all come out in time, and when it does it will mark a shameful phase in our history.
  I believe that the price to be paid for the war will be incalculable, first for the people of the area and, secondly, for our relations with the rest of the world. We who were against the war have nothing to apologise for except to say that we are sorry that there have been any victims. That is a good thing to say. It would have been far preferable to reach a settlement at the beginning, before we ruined a country, killed so many people and unleashed the madness that we have seen in the newspapers today.
  I do not apologise for criticising NATO's actions. It took sides in a civil war which, like all civil wars, was bloody and terrible. I once again apologise for its victims, but they are not on my conscience.
  I think that there will be an ethnically pure Kosovo. I do not think that the KLA is a stable force; it was certainly not elected by its people. It is taking up positions, and we know that in Prizren, for example, it has declared itself as the police force. I have read of only one instance—it involved the Americans—in which NATO forces have disarmed KLA members. They are not an organised force and they could create even more chaos for their people.
  We need seriously to consider what role there is for the Russians and the United Nations. We need more international people who are not members of NATO to go to Kosovo, and we definitely need an international police presence. I want to know who will help the people of Serbia, and especially the children. There are 10.5 million Serbs who are not called Slobodan Milosevic; many of them demonstrated against him and would dearly like to see the back of him. Do we seriously want to make them even greater victims than they are now?
  We have sent a dangerous message to the smaller nations that might be called rogue nations. They know that they cannot take on a super-power. I never thought that NATO could be defeated. How could the biggest military alliance in the world, with all that new technology, be defeated by a small country? The smaller nations know that they cannot beat a super-power and NATO, so they might turn their attention to non-NATO nations. Those nations have nuclear weapons. Israel has disregarded a peace accord for five years; and Belarus—an unstable nation—has already asked whether nuclear weapons can be resited on its soil. The smaller nations will want to become nuclear powers themselves and will develop weapons of mass destruction.
  3.43 pm
  Sir John Stanley: My view of the recent conflict is diametrically opposed to that of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), but at least her contribution demonstrates that freedom of expression is alive and well in the House.
  612
  The war has gone through the remorseless progress of all previous wars, with a prelude, a conflict and an aftermath. The conflict began and ended in the air, and in my judgment it was won from the air. The media coverage showed an extraordinary concentration on what went wrong in the air campaign, but the real story was how much went right.
  Over 78 days allied air crews of a multinational force engaged in extraordinarily complex air operations under a materially dangerous surface-to-air threat and in weather conditions that were for much of the time unfavourable, none the less achieving levels of accuracy and precision that are wholly unprecedented and unparalleled in any previous air conflict of this scale. We cannot praise too highly those in the air forces who were responsible for that achievement.
  The Foreign Secretary, wholly understandably, displayed loyalty to his NATO political colleagues, but from my perspective the quality of the civil leadership during the conflict was pretty uneven. Among the European members of NATO, too many leaders and senior politicians were too ready to clutch at every available propaganda straw offered by Milosevic in order to bring the bombing campaign to a premature conclusion.
  On the other side of the Atlantic there was a distinct impression of presidential wavering whenever it seemed possible that offensive ground operations might have to be engaged in. In striking contrast, the Prime Minister has shown an unwavering resolution and a total readiness to contemplate all options necessary to bring victory to the NATO forces. In doing so, he performed over the past two and a half months a signal service for NATO's future credibility.
  The Foreign Secretary said:
  "One of the real tragedies for Kosovo and for Serbia is that President Milosevic did not accept the package offered at Rambouillet, which would have given Serbia a better result than it now has"—[Official Report, 14 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 29.]
  I wish I could believe that to be the case. I have an unhappy feeling that if Milosevic was given the option to sign up to United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 or to the Rambouillet terms, he would sign up to resolution 1244, which gives him substantially more wriggle room; and we know how dangerous it is to give Milosevic wriggle room.
  There are two substantial points on which NATO has given material ground to Milosevic in order to bring about the settlement. The first was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples). In the Rambouillet terms there is a clear statement in paragraph 3 of chapter 8 that after three years,
  "an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for the final settlement for Kosovo, on the basis of the will of the people".
  That commitment is tacked into UN resolution 1244 only on the basis of being taken into account. The significance of that paragraph—I think that it was the single most important paragraph in persuading the Kosovo representatives to sign up at Rambouillet—is that it opened the door to the possibility of an independent Kosovo. I was very grateful to the Prime Minister for the answer that he gave me, confirming that that passage in the Rambouillet terms would indeed have opened the door to the independence of Kosovo.

  613
  The Prime Minister said:
  "Independence for Kosovo was not part of the Rambouillet accords, although the idea of having a later conference to determine the matter was."—[Official Report, 8 June 1999; Vol. 332, c. 474.]
  I fear that the concession to Milosevic has taken the possibility of independence for Kosovo off the negotiating table. As we have seen on television, since the end of the war Milosevic has been crowing that he has safeguarded the continuing incorporation of Kosovo in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
  Mr. Dalyell: If the right hon. Gentleman is right, as I believe that he may well be, does he see the KLA meekly surrendering its arms?
  Sir John Stanley: That question is at present unanswerable. However, my judgment is that, although the KLA may stop displaying arms in public, I should be immensely surprised if large numbers of arms were not secreted in various parts of Kosovo.
  The second concession that should arouse great concern in the House is the wording of paragraph 8 of appendix B to chapter 7 of the Rambouillet accords. I shall read the key sentence because it is so crucial. There was a requirement that
  "NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters."
  That paragraph is profoundly important and should be retained. It should be taken together with what is said in paragraph 21, which states:
  "In carrying out its authorities under this Chapter, NATO is authorised to detain individuals and, as quickly as possible, turn them over to appropriate officials."
  The significance of those paragraphs is to be found in the context of what is being done to bring the war criminals to justice. As we know all too well from the bitter experience of what happened in Bosnia, where Karadzic and Mladic and the other leading war criminals are still free, the sending out of scene-of-the-crime investigators, the painstaking collection of evidence and the issuing of indictments against individuals for war crimes have no value whatever in the absence of arrangements for international powers of arrest in the locations where the war criminals are.
  I was profoundly depressed by the passage in the Foreign Secretary's speech in which he said that Milosevic dare not set foot outside Serbia's borders for fear of arrest. That implies that, as long as Milosevic maintains his position inside Serbia's borders, he is absolutely free from the possibility of arrest and of indictment for the war crimes for which he is due to be charged.
  The Foreign Secretary also said that no effort would be spared to bring the war criminals to justice. I totally support that sentiment, but we cannot ignore the absence of the crucial last link in the chain—the link beyond the indictment to the arrest. I hope that the Secretary of State for International Development, when she winds up the debate, will say how it is proposed that the people indicted for war crimes in Kosovo will be arrested. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will intervene to clarify that matter, because all the provisions in appendix B of the Rambouillet accords, which previously were the subject
  614
  of a clearly stated NATO position, have effectively been dropped as part of the loose incorporation of the accords into UN resolution 1244.
  Mr. Robin Cook: The right hon. Gentleman is building a very large house on stilts on the proposition that the Rambouillet accords have somehow been abandoned. They have not been abandoned. They are referred to specifically in the UN resolution as the instruction, not to Milosevic on this occasion, but to the civil administrator, who will operate under the direct instruction of the United Nations and report to the Secretary-General. We have a firmer, more hands-on international basis to implement Rambouillet in Kosovo than we had before.
  The right hon. Gentleman's earlier point that independence for Kosovo had been ruled out is false. Neither Britain nor any of our allies favour independence for Kosovo. That was not an objective of the campaign. However, none of the options laid out at Rambouillet has been taken off the negotiating table by the Security Council resolution: indeed, paragraph 11(a) of the resolution specifies that what the international civil administration does in carrying out the Rambouillet accords will be "pending a final settlement". The option of that final settlement after the interim period is present in the Security Council resolution with every bit as much force as it was in the Rambouillet accords.
  Sir John Stanley: I am glad to hear what the Foreign Secretary has said. I can only rest my remarks on the text of the resolution.
  Mr. Cook: That was the text.
  Sir John Stanley: The text speaks of taking the Rambouillet accords into account, which is a very tenuous matter. Although I do not want to delay the House by developing this into a long exchange, will the Foreign Secretary give the House a clear assurance that the provisions for NATO forces to enter any part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and to exercise their powers to detain individuals, as stated clearly in the Rambouillet accords, will be carried into effect at an early date?
  Mr. Cook: First, the oft-quoted passage on the right of NATO to travel through the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a standard element of all similar status-of-forces agreements, including the one signed by Milosevic—without much murmur—in relation to Bosnia. The identical language was included in the annexe to Rambouillet. I was at Rambouillet, and I can tell the House that the Serb side raised no objections to that usage at the time. Moreover, in the military-technical agreement it is made clear that there will have to be a status-of-forces agreement of that character.
  On the question of arrest, the right hon. Gentleman should join the real world. There is no immediate prospect of our being able to enter Belgrade and arrest Milosevic in the face of the 200,000 VJ troops in Serbia. That has always been one of the facts of the matter. However, the right hon. Gentleman should not understate the Government's commitment to effecting the arrest of war criminals wherever possible, nor the effectiveness of

  615
  British troops in achieving that. That is why, only last week, we carried out the arrest of another war criminal in the British sector in Bosnia.
  Sir John Stanley: I think that the Foreign Secretary's response exposes the deficiency that I have highlighted. I am grateful to him for making it clear that there are no prospects, in the near term or possibly ever, of bringing the indicted war criminals to justice. I strongly support all the Foreign Secretary has done to promote international courts and the concept of international criminal justice. However, if that concept is to translate into reality, there can be no safe haven for indicted criminals.
  The third part of my speech relates to events before the conflict broke out. Amid the euphoria of peace and the moving mass return home of the refugees, I realise that questions about what happened before the conflict may not seem appropriate. However, I make no apology for asking those questions. During the past 10 weeks, thousands of people have been brutally murdered and hundreds of thousands have lost all but their lives. Expenditure has run into billions of pounds, and billions more will doubtless be spent to repair the damage incurred. It is proper to ask, therefore, whether the horrendous humanitarian disaster in Kosovo might have been averted.
  In his recent evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Foreign Secretary put interesting new information into the public domain, making it clear that the Government had had knowledge of an impending humanitarian disaster in Kosovo. On 14 April, at paragraph 109, the Foreign Secretary said that
  "it has been reported in the press (and I can confirm it is true) that there was a plan developed in Belgrade known as Operation Horseshoe which was for the cleansing of Kosovo of its Kosovo population."
  In paragraph 111, he continued:
  "The spring offensive was planned; we knew it was coming; we knew it would be accompanied by ethnic cleansing."
  If we knew that the spring offensive would bring ethnic cleansing and barbarity unprecedented in post-war Europe, did the NATO countries do all that they reasonably could to deter Milosevic from giving Operation Horseshoe the go-ahead? I should like to explore the issue of deterrence using both ground forces and the air threat.
  Serious questions arise over the use of ground forces, particularly for the Americans. In the weeks or months before the air campaign, when Milosevic was presumably deciding whether he could get away with his infamous operation, even a modest deployment of the United States rapid reaction force—the marines—into the border areas of Kosovo could have had a profound impact on his calculations. No such deployment was made. In fairness to the Americans, I must point out that no European NATO country made an advance deployment of rapid reaction forces. A major deterrent opportunity was therefore missed.
  That error was compounded by what was said in public about the use of ground forces. NATO countries, including our own, made it clear at the outset that no ground forces would be used for a forced entry into Kosovo. This matter is too important for party politics,
  616
  so I must point out that the same position was taken by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. We must ask whether a different position might have had a material impact on Milosevic. I believe that if he had known in January or February that all options, including forced entry, remained open—the position ultimately adopted by NATO 10 weeks later—Operation Horseshoe might not have been given the go-ahead.
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that compromise is necessary if a 19-member alliance is to move. Was it good that NATO acted, even if some undesirable things had to be said about ground troops? Or would it have been better not to act at all?
  Sir John Stanley: I have entirely supported NATO's military action since the conflict began, but I take the Secretary of State's point. Movement by unanimity means movement according to the lowest common denominator. However, our position was similar to that which we faced in Iraq. It was open to a limited number of NATO countries to state their positions on ground forces and it was open to individual countries to make forward deployments of ground forces into Macedonia or, conceivably, Albania.
  Mr. Bradshaw: I had intended to make the same point as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, but as the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned a build-up of troops, does he agree that if we had substantially built up our forces while negotiating in good faith at Rambouillet, we would have given a great deal of propaganda ammunition to Milosevic, who could have accused us of negotiating in bad faith?
  Sir John Stanley: It seems clear that Milosevic had wholly given up on Rambouillet by January or February and was making his barbarous plans for the comprehensive ethnic cleansing of Kosovo. On the suggestion that he may or may not have believed that we were acting in good faith, I shall again quote the Foreign Secretary's remarks to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 14 April, which I found profoundly disturbing. He said that
  "we had a very clear impression that President Milosevic did not believe that we would take military action and, because of that, was not willing to participate fully in the peace process."
  That remark implies a serious failure among the NATO countries to demonstrate adequate deterrence to Milosevic.
  On the air side, there was a similar error to that committed over ground troops. We made it clear at the outset that the target would be Serbian military capability. I do not believe that Milosevic was likely ever to be impressed by a NATO air threat couched in those terms alone. President Tito had an obsession with the survivability of his armed forces against the likelihood—as he saw it—of a Warsaw pact attack, and he had nearly 40 years in which to indulge that obsession.
  The television-watching British public may have been somewhat surprised at the end of the campaign. Having been treated, night after night, to statements from NATO spokesmen to the effect that we were successfully degrading Serbian military capability in Kosovo,

  617
  they may have been shocked to see mile after mile of unscathed armoured vehicles pulling out of Kosovo. That does not come as any surprise to those of us who have watched over the years how the Yugoslav armed forces are deployed and how they protect themselves. Milosevic was never going to be hugely impressed by threats to his military capability.
  The air war was turned by substantially widening the target list so that we ended up attacking the main sinews of Milosevic's grip on power. That certainly significantly undermined the confidence of the civilian population in his leadership. We turned our air attacks—rightly, as we had to bring about the end of the war as quickly as possible, if only to save the remaining Albanian Kosovans still alive in Kosovo—to economic and infrastructure targets, party headquarters, state-controlled media and so on. It is a sad reflection on how badly the deterrent card was played that we ended up bombing during the war a wider range of targets than we had ever given any intimation we would do during the peace, when we were trying to prevent the conflict from arising.
  In conclusion, it is wholly legitimate and proper to ask whether this appalling humanitarian disaster in Kosovo could have been averted. It is a legitimate question that demands a full and serious answer. It should be answered by those independent of the Government.
  4.12 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) asked a number of wholly legitimate questions. I agree with him that one feature of the conflict was the pinpoint accuracy of the bombing. Yes, there were a dozen or so tragic accidents, but in the context of the 37,000 sorties it gives an indication of the sophistication of modern weaponry.
  I am less happy about what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Rambouillet accords and his assertion that President Milosevic would have been readier to sign the June agreement than the Rambouillet accords. Surely the right hon. Gentleman recalls that the Rambouillet accords would have provided for a substantial number of Serb troops to remain in Kosovo. That was a major difference from the June agreement. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the possible independence of Kosovo. The Rambouillet accords included a carefully crafted form of words, put together by our British negotiators, which may have pointed towards, but certainly did not mention, a referendum. It was certainly not part of the negotiating aim of NATO to provide the basis for an independent Kosovo.
  The right hon. Gentleman made a powerful point about war criminals. The United Nations Security Council resolution calls for the full co-operation of all parties, and that includes the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. However, he ignored the practical point of reaching into Yugoslavia and getting hold of the indicted war criminals. Short of invading Belgrade, it would be wholly impossible to implement. That said, the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I serve on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, made an excellent contribution to the debate.
  I was careful to note that there was no triumphalist tone in the presentation of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Equally, the Prime Minister did not rejoice on the steps of No. 10. That is because we all recognise that we have reached only the first stage in the whole operation. Yes, there has been a remarkable military victory, but many challenges remain. Indeed,
  618
  "Peace hath her victories no less renowned than war",
  and perhaps there will be far greater challenges in establishing peace and stabilising the Balkans in future.
  The Secretary of State for International Development made the important point that sometimes Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen in their criticisms ignored the key factor of alliance diplomacy. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling asked, as have others, why we did not say from the start that we were prepared to commit ground troops. He will know that in the October meetings only one country was prepared to commit ground troops and that was the United Kingdom. That is a fact of life of alliance diplomacy. The debate about ground troops in October last year was diverted by the Holbrooke deal with Milosevic. The deal was almost immediately repudiated by Milosevic as reflected in increased troop deployments in Kosovo.
  At Rambouillet, Milosevic was again offered a good deal which would have retained the territorial integrity of his country. He was not serious about it, and then there was Operation Horseshoe. At the end of Rambouillet there was the promise from the Serb negotiator, Milutinovic, that he would go back and sell that deal to Serbia. Clearly, there was total deceit on the part of the Serb negotiators. We then turned to war and now we are back to diplomacy, which should have been the position from the start. But the House must understand the imperatives of alliance diplomacy.
  I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman was objective enough to mention the key role played by the British Government and to say that the Prime Minister emerges with credit. The Prime Minister was principled and took a moral position from the outset. He stiffened the alliance at key times.
  Russia blocked the possibility of military action in the United Nations Security Council. We have to try to understand that in terms of the problems of Russian history and the feeling in Russia that it has been sidelined and bypassed by the international community, for example in relation to what happened in Iraq and Cyprus. One lesson from the conflict must surely be that we must mend our relationship with Russia as speedily as possible.
  The other area of great concern is the legal basis for the action. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) pointed out the international legal ambiguities. There were great problems in acting, but think of the problems in the area and beyond had there not been action. Think what encouragement it would have been to others inclined to consider ethnic cleansing. Nevertheless the action gives rise to a proper problem in respect of its international legal basis. We were citing the imminence of humanitarian catastrophe and, of course, that can be interpreted subjectively and can provide an unhappy precedent for intervention elsewhere in the world.
  In the early 1990s Lord Hurd, when he was Foreign Secretary, made an interesting speech to the United Nations General Assembly stating that the UN should seek to forestall conflict, but should work through regional groups. His specific proposal in relation to Africa, for example, was that the west should provide military training and infrastructure for an African intervention force. That might be relevant now in the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Alas, nothing appears to have been done regarding that initiative of the

  619
  early-1990s. I hope that one lesson from that would be to consider ways not only of refining the international legal basis, but of using regional intervention by regional groupings when such conflicts arise.
  In relation to the immediate task ahead, the first priority is the safe return of the refugees. Almost 1.4 million Kosovan Albanians are currently refugees—internally displaced, in camps or abroad. It is vital that they are allowed to return home in safety and that shelter should be found for them. I look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development says about prefabricated housing, for example. One of the more distressing features is that, even as they departed, Serb forces were gratuitously destroying the houses of those people who had fled their country. I hope that something will be said about what we can do to ensure the provision of houses.
  The international force must contain the desire for revenge. KFOR faces an enormous challenge in controlling the understandable desire for revenge on both sides. KFOR must be seen to be wholly even-handed. Yes, KLA men as well as Serbs must be arrested—as must whoever tries to step outside the peace agreement. Serbs are indeed now leaving Kosovo; we must try not to replace one form of ethnic cleansing by another. Surely, it is of the utmost importance to try to preserve a multi-ethnic entity in Kosovo itself. It would be a poor model for the region if we were to allow, or condone, atrocities that fuelled a further exodus of the Serb population of Kosovo—which was roughly 200,000.
  Uncertainties remain, including those in respect of Russia. Many points have been made about Russia's cheeky and deceitful intervention at the airport. However, relations with Russia are part of the collateral, political damage that has resulted from the conflict. There are also problems within Russia. The NATO intervention has reinforced the stereotype of an aggressive NATO and encouraged nationalist forces in Russia. Much must be done to build bridges, as I have pointed out. The alliance surely underestimated Russia's determination to seek a role in the Balkans. Moscow is determined to be heard this time and really wants to be part of the solution. In the end game, it is vital that Russia plays a part. However, Russian demands for its own sector, which may lead to partition, must be resisted.
  There are problems regarding the future legal status of Kosovo, and there are ambiguities in the UN Security Council resolution. We talk about the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia remaining, but what will be Serbia's authority—if any—within Kosovo? Travel documents have been mentioned. What form of travel documents will the Kosovan Albanians have when they leave? Clearly, they will be most reluctant to travel on Yugoslav documents. Will they have temporary UN travel documents? What consideration has been given to that matter? It is difficult to see how any real authority can be exercised over Kosovo by Serbia.
  The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing made some points about independence, self-government and the ambiguities relating to those matters in the June agreement. The interim Administration that has been agreed will be under the authority of the UN; that means that China and Russia will have an effective power of veto over the future of the province. However, the status
  620
  under international law is uncertain. One talks about territorial integrity, but, in effect, it will be UN trusteeship in all but the formal, legal position.
  What about President Milosevic himself? He is an indicted war criminal, but we continue to deal with him as if nothing has changed. In so doing, there is a serious danger of undermining the war crimes tribunal and, ultimately, the international criminal tribunal and humanitarian international law generally. Obviously, we must remain alert and must be extremely cautious; we must not give Milosevic too many opportunities to exercise what the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling called the wriggle factor, or the ambiguities remaining after the agreements or in other places, such as Macedonia, Montenegro and Vojvodina where he may try to use his ability to make difficulties. The west will have only a partial victory as long as Milosevic remains in power.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development may pick up the point that I made earlier about the way in which the BBC World Service may be used constructively. Its output to the region has already been increased, but it could play an important role in the training of democratic journalists and media people, and in increasing its output to reach beyond the current Milosevic regime to the people of Yugoslavia.
  In relation to the KLA, a point was made about the interesting difference between "disarmament" and "demilitarisation", presumably because, with some form of light arms, the KLA is still assumed to have a policing force in the new Kosovo. It is not clear how the KLA organisation will respond, although so far the indications are reasonably favourable. However, there is obviously a division within the KLA between those who want an independent Kosovo and others who support a Greater Albania, which would be a highly destabilising feature in the area as a whole. There is antipathy between Rugova loyalists and the KLA leadership, and clear evidence—although it has not been mentioned in this debate—of a degree of criminality among some of the KLA groupings.
  In relation to the longer-term need to build a lasting peace, we want to bring the perpetrators of crimes to justice—a point made forcefully by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling. The evidence of the mass graves already revealed is absolutely appalling. The perpetrators must not be allowed to get away with those atrocities. Although the leaders must be indicted, there should perhaps be a lesser form of punishment for the smaller fry. Various precedents could be considered—perhaps from South Africa, in the use of a truth and reconciliation commission. We need to find some way of allowing people to expiate the acts that they have committed.
  In relation to the longer-term building of relevant structures in the area, economic frameworks are needed. I welcome the British Government's initiative in respect of free trade agreements between the western European countries and the countries of the region. In those economic structures, we need to be aware that several of the countries in the region are themselves innocent victims of the conflict. One thinks of the damage to the economy of not only the obvious countries, such as Macedonia and Albania, but of Bulgaria and Romania. That suggests that we need to have a stability pact—a stabilisation agreement for the Balkans as a whole. There must not be the paralysis of policy that existed after

  621
  1989, when Milosevic ended autonomy in Vojvodina and in Kosovo, but the international community allowed that to continue and did nothing.
  There is a challenge facing us, and we must not allow that paralysis of policy that existed between 1989 and 1999 to return. We must build civic institutions and co-ordinate the efforts of all the relevant international organisations—NATO, the European Union, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the international financial institutions. There has to be a massive injection of resources into the region as a whole. It is often said that, when there is war, lavish resources are speedily found, but there is far greater reluctance to provide resources for peace building.
  Another lesson that we must learn is that the Balkans are part of our common European home, yet there is a great deal of combustible material throughout the Balkans to fuel future conflict. The challenge now is to learn the lessons of what we have done and, as important, what we have failed to do over the past decade. We have to work with vision and commitment in terms of resources, both human and material, to build greater stability for the future.
  4.31 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) in his entirely justified tribute to the Prime Minister and his conduct during these extremely difficult months. The crisis in Kosovo must have placed an appalling burden on the right hon. Gentleman's shoulders, especially as it occurred at the same time as great difficulties in Northern Ireland.
  I also congratulate the Secretary of State for International Development who, in my mind, has been transmogrified into a veritable Boadicea by her robust support for the refugees, the efforts she made to help them, and her support for the remarkable efforts of the British soldiers, who showed with astonishing skill that they can turn their hand to almost any task that is given to them. I am glad that the right hon. Lady gave them such great encouragement, and that she has been of such tremendous support to the armed forces in general.
  I agree with so much of what was said by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who is Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, that I do not propose to take up his points; however, I shall endorse one or two of them in my remarks. I do not think that this is yet the moment for a fundamental and detailed lessons-learned debate, but such a debate will have to take place, so I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman and his Committee are to conduct an exhaustive inquiry into the events in Kosovo, even though far more water will have to flow under the bridge before he commences that exercise. There is a need to examine not only the military but the political and diplomatic background to what transpired.
  I want to raise two matters that have already been touched on by several speakers, because they are of continuing consequence to the unfolding of events. My starting premise is that I do not believe that the war should ever have happened. I have two criticisms to level—criticisms not necessarily of the Government, but of the way in which the whole NATO machine handled the crisis as it developed.
  622
  First, as the hon. Member for Swansea, East said, our failure, and the failure of the west, properly to engage with the Russians over the past few years has gravely damaged the stability of the world, and great dangers will flow from that. The abject failure to engage the Russians much earlier in the process led, among other things, to the inevitability of the ensuing conflict. That was a serious mistake, and I hope that any inquiry will deal at great length with the way in which the Russians were handled.
  Secondly, I believe that it was wrong to undertake operations without the sanction of the United Nations. I have no doubt that our doing so has greatly undermined our position internationally and that it will make our diplomatic life much harder in future. The much-despised United Nations, despite its numerous failings, is the only comprehensive law-based body that exists for the purpose of settling disputes among its members, and however inconvenient the process may be—it is very inconvenient indeed—it was an arrogant subversion of the proper and correct conduct of all the laws relating to the settling of international disputes not to have gone every painful inch of the way to try to make the United Nations deal with its responsibilities. Part of the problem is that, foolishly, our American friends have treated the UN atrociously over the years. It is time for the great western powers to try to make the UN work again, but that will never happen if the rules of international law are flouted.
  All that is now past and, although I congratulate the Government and the Prime Minister on having achieved a successful conclusion to phase 1, there remains a huge amount of work to do. First, we have to deal with the desperate problems facing the returning refugees. I shall not speak at length about reconstruction, because there are hon. Members present who know far more about it than I do, but I shall make some subsidiary points.
  KFOR has to pacify and bring order out of total anarchy in the face of a tidal wave of poison surging through a broken and ruined country. That is not an easy or happy state of affairs. However, there is no one better equipped to play the role that they will be called upon to play than the British troops present on the ground. They are uniquely well-trained and well-equipped to undertake that dangerous and extremely difficult work. It is contemptible that, on the night on which we are debating Kosovo, there are no members of the press present, even though, on the ground in Kosovo, large numbers of British troops face imminent and real danger.
  I pay warm and heartfelt tribute to General Mike Jackson, General Dannatt, Brigadier Freer of the 5th Airborne Brigade, Brigadier Rollo of the 4th Armoured Brigade and all the service men and women under their command for a stunning entry into Kosovo and its subsequent investment. It was a truly miraculous piece of logistical planning, and everyone—I repeat, everyone—deserves the greatest credit.
  As a former Minister for the Armed Forces, I was not surprised, but I was thrilled, to see how all the regiments who spent a long time waiting on the border, knowing that they would eventually have to go into Kosovo, deployed extraordinary and heroic skills to build towns, cities, even empires for those poor refugees. Their wonderfully humane, generous and good-humoured treatment of the refugees makes them some of the finest ambassadors we could ever have.

  623
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing described in moving language, and far better than I could, the astonishing achievements of the NATO pilots and air forces. I pay warm tribute to our own Harrier and Tornado crews, to the Chinook and Puma pilots, to the ground and support crews, and to all their NATO comrades for doing an excellent job.
  However, we need to assess the role of air power in the campaign, especially in view of the astonishing achievements of the new weapons. It has been interesting to see how much of the Serb armour and how many of its men have been withdrawn: there must be an assessment to determine how so much equipment and so many troops survived. At least the air forces achieved one thing: the rate and, in later days, the breadth, of the bombing campaign in Kosovo pretty much ensured that the armour and heavy kit was never used and had to be kept bottled up. To that extent, the campaign worked, because anything that poked its nose out of doors in anything approaching reasonable conditions was given a very nasty smack in the puss indeed.
  Counts of tanks and heavy armoured vehicles destroyed are always unreliable—as they were in the Gulf war. It will be instructive for our armed forces and for all those involved in the conflict to learn how the Serbs hid their heavy kit—hon. Members will know the arrangements that President Tito made over many years. Serb methods proved to be astonishingly effective, and I have no doubt that people will be sent from London to see what we can learn. We will want to gauge the effectiveness of their decoys and their camouflage and see where and how deeply their bunkers were sited. There are important lessons to be learned for future conflicts because, in truth, the Serbs appear to have done tiresomely well.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is it not an awkward truth that the only time that losses were really inflicted on Serb armour was when the KLA guerrillas cut the road from Pec and the Serbs were forced to leave their positions?
  Mr. Soames: This is a world of awkward truths. I have no notion—nor, I think, do the intelligence people—of the scale of Serb losses. If Serb or enemy armour of any sort had put in an appearance at a time and a place where NATO air power was able to deal with it, it would not have progressed far down the road. I suspect that the Serbs moved by night, were extremely canny and were prepared to sacrifice a few—but only a few—tanks when fighting the KLA. We will need to assess on what basis the intelligence people made their estimates and whether their desire to prove how well the campaign was going led to their telling us that more Serb armour had been damaged than was in fact the case. I have no doubt that we will learn lessons for the future.
  I now come to the Russians. As I told the Foreign Secretary on Monday, I believe that Russian behaviour in the past few days has been utterly reprehensible. The Russians have proved yet again that, in military terms, they are totally unreliable and untrustworthy. We must not cave in to the Russian-Serbian collusion to establish a separate zone. That is what they are trying to do and, unless we are careful—because it would be convenient to end this frightful argument and pressure—we will find
  624
  that they have succeeded. I believe that, if we have much more trouble from the Russians, we should cut off their water and give them no more food and see how they like that.
  This Yeltsin power play must not be allowed to stand. If Russia behaves well, it should be rewarded. However, its bad and irresponsible conduct under these circumstances—when it is meant to be part of a force that is attempting to bring peace and order to Kosovo—must not be free of cost. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be extremely frank—a great deal more frank and less mealy-mouthed than he was in the House on Monday—with the Russians when he meets them this weekend, and will tell them that their behaviour is totally unacceptable.
  The lessons of SFOR in Bosnia are instructive to the situation in Kosovo. The Dayton accord stopped the fighting, but with terrible hidden penalties. The Serbs and the Muslims are today no closer to living in harmony than they were at the beginning of the conflict. The various factions fight each other using every means short of war, including bureaucratic and administrative means. They argue about absolutely everything. The point scoring and incessant bloody-mindedness is almost impossible to deal with. We must establish a different structure for Kosovo.
  We can try to bribe the communities in Kosovo to live together—the Secretary of State for International Development can do an awful lot of that through her Department. We can try to cajole them to live together but, in the end, they must accept a common rationale for the future. I believe that that is the greatest challenge ahead. We must develop a clear policy for Kosovo and its future as soon as possible and make sure that we have the will to enforce it with a very robust mandate.
  At the same time as disarming the KLA—which must be done quickly by one means or another—I hope that, after all the rhetoric, we will all show a clear political will to go after the vile war criminals who have perpetrated acts of unspeakable savagery, cruelty and barbarism. We will watch carefully to see how the Government act in that regard. I know that the Government's heart is in the right place because the previous Government said the same thing. However, for all sorts of reasons not connected with the British Government, the necessary authority was not obtained in Bosnia and, time and again, the most terrible war criminals slipped through our fingers when we could have lifted them. We failed then because we did not have the political will. I hope that the Government will act extremely robustly in this case—although I fear that many of the horses will have bolted.
  As to the reconstruction of Kosovo, I hope that, when Kosovo is made safe, the Secretary of State for International Development—who is very imaginative in such matters—will ensure that Great Britain does all sorts of good and original work on the ground. I would like to see British schools adopt schools in Kosovo. I would like to see parish and town councils take responsibility for small villages and try to raise money to ship the things that they will need. The Kosovar people will have nothing. Until people have seen what ethnic cleansing looks like on the ground, what is involved and the awfulness that has been wreaked on those small communities, they can have no idea of the sorts of problems with which the poor Kosovars must deal. I would like to see the building industry volunteer some

  625
  of its expertise and put its shoulder to the wheel to assist in constructing houses. Of course, there will be much work for the non-governmental organisations.
  As the hon. Member for Swansea, East said, this crisis has highlighted the vulnerability of Macedonia and Albania. They will require—and they deserve—economic and other assistance. While press interest in Kosovo declines—in three weeks, there will not be a Kosovo story in the newspapers; the press will have forgotten all about it—the problems will become more severe, not easier, with each passing day. The dangers to the soldiers as they move further inland and off the highways will also increase but the reptiles will show no interest at all. We must ensure that we create a bold regional plan of reconstruction—and that will require a vision that has been terribly lacking in attempts to end previous conflicts in the Balkans.
  I want to say a few words about NATO's strategy. First, the militarily indecisive, inept and morally compromising manner in which the beginning of the 80-day bombing campaign was conducted and the dilatory deployment of troops on the ground in Kosovo—I agreed with every word spoken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling—leaves a residue of long-term concerns that extend well beyond Kosovo. They will have to be seriously addressed.
  Foremost among those concerns, as I have already said, is Russia's role in the crisis, the world's perception of the American way of war and all that it will mean for future foreign policy, and NATO's combat command procedures. The Kosovo crisis raises important issues regarding each of those concerns.
  There are more immediate questions of great importance concerning the civilian administration and future policing arrangements. What should commanders on the ground do today if they are faced with anarchy? Whose law applies tonight? Who will decide questions of land ownership? Who will decide who owns the house at the end of the ruined street when people want to start rebuilding? All those and many more questions will have to be decided within the next few days if we are not to see increasing unrest, when tens of thousands of refugees will be pouring back—God bless them—to their homes.
  This war has been conducted like no other military operation before. It has been fought uniquely, against the wisdom of all the pundits, by high-tech, airborne, stand-off weaponry, as if its sole underlying principle was that the life of even one American or NATO service man was not worth risking to save the lives of thousands of Kosovars. That new way of war sets a dubious, even dangerous, standard for the future. Success in warfare should not be determined by the avoidance of casualties. If the political and moral stakes are imperative enough to warrant the use of force, necessary force should be used to achieve the ends. This war was fought at no political risk or human cost. May it prove to have set an absolutely paralysing precedent for any future American President or British Prime Minister.
  In the light of those factors and the awkwardly and unnecessarily long bombing campaign, we shall need to review and revise NATO's decision-making procedures. A clearer distinction will need to be made between the requirements for a basic, solid unanimity in NATO's commitment to action and the need for a military power or authority endowed with discretion to execute that
  626
  commitment by military means. I have to tell the Secretary of State for International Development that the Normandy landings could not have taken place under the command structure that was used in this campaign.
  Nevertheless, the outcome of the conflict demonstrates that NATO is Europe's only effective security system and that the American-European connection remains absolutely essential to Europe's stability. Along with everyone who has bothered to think about this matter, I am deeply grateful to the Americans for coming to our aid and playing such a vital part in the operations. However imperfect it may have been, this was America's campaign. That makes it all the more important that the Kosovo experience be assessed in a constructively critical fashion. Many lessons must be learned not only about military activities, but about future European security and defence arrangements and the future command structure of NATO. All those are vital to our security not only for the next few years but for generations to come.
  I want again to pay tribute to the soldiers of the 5th Airborne Brigade and the 4th Army Brigade and all the supporting arms of the Royal Air Force in the theatre. I pay particular tribute to my own old regiment, the King's Royal Hussars, who in the past few days have demonstrated great dash and daring, great pride in their skills, and discipline. Their actions on the ground have been seen on television. They combine independence of mind and judgment with the superb ability of the British soldier, whatever his rank, quickly to assess the odds and make instant decisions under the most severe pressure with enduring and inspirational courage.
  The cuts that were made by my Government have, in the light of history, proved to be too deep. I have no doubt that in undertaking the strategic defence review, the Government's heart was in the right place, but although there is a broad stability of spending, the resources are fewer and the commitments remain the same. I look to the Government to honour their obligations to our armed forces and to this country's future security. If we are to develop a greater European capability, we must ensure that defence spending is increased.
  With Northern Ireland possibly about to go pear-shaped—although I pray not—all sorts of problems to come in Kosovo, and the Army's commitments in Cyprus and Bosnia, the Navy's commitments and the commitments of the Air Force in Iraq and elsewhere, the armed forces cannot undertake those operations while being expected to find 3 per cent. efficiency savings per year. That is wholly unacceptable. Looking back on my own role in those discussions, I feel a terrible tightening in my tummy, and shame that we went too far.
  This has been an important debate. I would not want the Secretary of State for International Development to think that any of my criticisms were directed solely at the Government. We have been operating in a coalition and there are lessons to be learned. I hope that the Prime Minister, who, as I said, has behaved admirably throughout, can drive the lessons-learned debate and make sure that we do not end up being such a poodle to the Americans in dealing with the Russians, the middle east and all the other flashpoints when we should have an independent European and British voice which balances that of the United States.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: There were one or two points in the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) to which I shall refer in the course of my own.
  I expect that if the war were continuing, we would be having a somewhat different debate today and a far greater attendance, particularly from those who opposed the military action from the beginning. Several hon. Members on both sides of the House would have been telling us how futile it was, that bombing would never secure an agreement with Belgrade, that it was a disaster from the outset and that we should give up. The scene is quite different today, and I am very pleased that the military action has been successful.
  As I said in my intervention during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, it is appropriate that the debate is taking place on a day when the broadsheets, at least, are reporting on their front page the horrifying atrocities carried out against civilians—men, women and children—who were ethnic Albanians. Those crimes remind one in so many respects of what the Nazis did during their occupation.
  There was never any doubt in my mind that it would have been totally wrong if we had allowed what was happening in Kosovo to continue, without military action being taken. When the Foreign Secretary reported to the House on 18 January on the murder of 45 ethnic Albanians, I said that I did not believe that it would be possible to secure any agreement with Milosevic without air strikes. I would therefore be the last person to have criticised the decision in late March, following the failure of the negotiations in France, to take appropriate military action.
  Of course it would have been preferable if that had been done through the United Nations, as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex said. I have supported the United Nations from the beginning, if only because of my age. I have always been a firm supporter of the United Nations, and I hope that that will continue. However, the hon. Gentleman, like his colleagues and some of mine, knows that it would not have been possible to secure UN agreement.
  If we could have achieved that at the Security Council, of course we would have done so. It would have been preferable, but as it was not possible, the alternative was to take the action that we took under NATO, or to take no action at all. That was the choice. There was no question of our ignoring the United Nations and saying that we were not interested in that organisation.
  I do not believe that, apart from one or two clauses, Belgrade would have accepted the agreement on offer earlier this year in France. It has been claimed by some of my colleagues that it was annexe B that was so objectionable to the Belgrade regime, and that without it, there could have been agreement. I do not believe anything of the kind. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary pointed out that the Serbians did not focus particularly on annexe B during the negotiations in March. The fact is that Milosevic would have found it difficult to sell what would have been seen by the ultra-nationalists as a complete sell-out on Kosovo and, for that reason, he decided not to sign. If he thought, as obviously he did, that he could hold on to Kosovo, he was determined to do so.
  628
  This time round, an agreement was accepted, with much relief among the people in Serbia. We know why, apart from the ultra-nationalists, they are so relieved that the bombing has come to an end and agreement has been possible. The Guardian today reports on the reaction of various people in Belgrade. One 47-year-old woman is quoted as saying:
  "What was the point? What did [the war] achieve? It was madness."
  Then she dropped her voice and said:
  "It's a dangerous thing to say, but we should get rid of the president. He's been a disaster. If there was a protest tomorrow, I'd join it."
  I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). I hope that it is mutual. As it so happens, we disagreed over the Gulf war. But my hon. Friend seemed to say that there had been crimes of atrocity on all sides. No one denies that crimes have been committed in former Yugoslavia by all sides. The difference, as the Foreign Secretary emphasised, is the brutality and the systematic outrages and atrocities that we read about in the newspapers, particularly today. It is not sufficient for my hon. Friend simply to say that she is against Milosevic. I have never doubted that for one moment. She is as much a democrat as I am. But without military action there would have been no way in which we could have achieved what we set out to achieve—the ending of Serbian rule in Kosovo—for all the reasons that I and others have outlined.
  The critics have lost the argument over military action, although, perhaps not surprisingly among professional politicians, there is a reluctance to admit that. In our trade, we do not go out of our way to be self-critical, so I am not particularly surprised that those who have been proved wrong refuse to admit it.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Winnick: Yes, because I was about to refer to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Dalyell: There might be an apology from me. It would probably be an interim apology at the end of the Parliament, and then after five years.
  Mr. Winnick: Yes, I have heard about the five years on a previous occasion. There is one form of apology that my hon. Friend could make, and that is for his remarks on 13 April. In exchanges with the Prime Minister on Kosovo he mentioned a report on drugs by the German Federal Criminal Agency, backed by Scotland Yard, which, he said, points out
  "that the ethnic Albanian community is the most prominent group in Europe in the trafficking".—[Official Report, 13 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 28.]
  Is that not horrifying? If my hon. Friend had said that about blacks, Asians or Jews, there would have been outrage in the House. Should there not be similar outrage now? Here are a people who have been treated in the way I have just described, and that is how my hon. Friend considers it appropriate to refer to ethnic Albanians. That there are some among them, as among all people, who are criminals of one kind or another, is not in doubt, but my hon. Friend should not have phrased that in the way that he did. My hon. Friend talks about an apology, but an apology for those remarks would not come amiss.

  629
  Unlike the critics, I do not use the position of Serbian civilians as a means of knocking NATO. I have just explained my position, which my hon. Friends have known about from the beginning of the military action. But I do say—this is where I agree with other hon. Members—that it is imperative that everything be done, both in words and deeds, to reassure the civilian Serbs in Kosovo that they have no less right to be there, and to be there in peace and safety, than the ethnic Albanians. There can be no question of a Serb-free Kosovo. I do not want that and it would be totally opposed to what we set out to achieve.
  Who cannot understand the bitterness felt by so many of the majority community in Kosovo? The ethnic Albanians perhaps feel that all Serbs are guilty and that the civilian Serbs in Kosovo, if they were not involved in such crimes, did not do much to stop them. Nevertheless, the fact remains that most Serbian civilians there were not involved in such crimes, and that should be recognised.
  The KLA must be brought under control, as soon and as urgently as possible. That organisation needs to know quickly that it must not be in the business of harassing, or worse, civilian Serbs and that it cannot have a structure that inflicts on civilian Serbs the feeling that their safety is continually being undermined. That is why there is an important responsibility for the NATO command to make sure that that happens in practice and that the civilian Serbs are duly protected in every way possible.
  I understand the argument that aid will not be forthcoming for Serbia as long as Milosevic runs that country. He is a total opportunist. Those of us who watched the film about the way in which Yugoslavia disintegrated saw how he climbed on the nationalist platform and used the Serb minority in Kosovo to consolidate his rule in Belgrade. We know and understand that, and he must be held responsible for so many of the crimes that were committed—not only in Kosovo, but in Bosnia.
  Despite that, and although I have only contempt for Milosevic, I have to say that a number of people in the political class in Serbia are against Milosevic, but for the wrong reasons. I have spoken, perhaps twice in all, to some of the demonstrators in Whitehall, who have been there from the beginning of the bombing. I found that, almost without exception, they are against Milosevic, but from an ultra-nationalist point of view. Indeed, they said, "He's a communist."
  Instead of concluding, like us, that democracy is the option, and should be the choice, in Yugoslavia, those people have taken a very different point of view. They represent the most ultra-nationalist element in Belgrade. Although we condemn Milosevic—the politician who, above all, is responsible for the break-up of the former Yugoslavia and for what happened in Bosnia and Kosovo—we should not forget other elements in Serbia who are by no means democrats and no friends of the west.
  Mr. John Randall: The hon. Gentleman's experience with the demonstrators outside Downing street may be slightly unfortunate. I have spoken to them on lots of occasions and many people there are committed to democracy. Many people who were with me in supporting the independent radio station B92 are bitterly opposed to Milosevic—from a democratic, not an ultra-nationalist,
  630
  point of view. If the hon. Gentleman met an ultra-nationalist I am sorry, but I think that that is the exception rather than the rule.
  Mr. Winnick: I hope so. On one occasion when I spoke to the demonstrators I showed them a newspaper report of the murder of a brave man in Serbia, the editor of a newspaper. They showed no interest whatever, but if there are among them people such as those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman that is very good. I know that many people in Serbia, including some in the political class, want a different Government—not a nationalist or a Milosevic Government, but a democratic Government. That was the very reason for putting that editor to death—a reason that is perfectly clear from the point of view of the Belgrade regime.
  I therefore hope that, once the situation in Kosovo becomes more stable, we will see what can be done most effectively to bring Serbia back into the international community. There can hardly be any stability in the Balkans if Serbia is isolated and ordinary people who are not ultra-nationalists or Milosevic supporters have to live a hand-to-mouth existence in much deprivation and despair. Everything that can be done to support people who are opposed to crimes, adventurist policies and so forth should be done. I agree that it is difficult, and that it cannot be done immediately; I merely warn the House that an isolated Serbia could pose a great danger in the future.
  It was said at various times in the war that what was happening was another Vietnam. I may be wrong, but I believe that I am the only Member of Parliament still in the House who, at the time, protested here about what was happening in Vietnam. It must have seemed to some people that I was doing so almost every day, and, if I may say so with due modesty, I do not believe that I was wrong. But I saw no possible comparison between Vietnam and Kosovo, and I believe that had we and our European partners turned away—had we simply said that these crimes were terrible but that we had decided to take no action, a course advocated by my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and promoted during the statement made on 18 January—it would have been a terrible shame, and a stain on our country and its honour.
  Of course I regret the bombing, and the civilian casualties that it caused. I am a human being; why should I not feel regret? Nevertheless, I believe that what NATO did—with our contribution and, of course, that of the United States—was absolutely justified. I believe that future generations of parliamentarians will view it as a necessary step, and I am glad that it has resulted in a successful conclusion. Whatever may be the future in Kosovo, we have demonstrated in practice that we will not allow ethnic cleansing, mass murder and rapes to continue without taking some form of action—if need be, the sort of military action that has been taken over the past few weeks.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. So far, Back-Bench speeches have lasted for an average of more than 20 minutes. If all who have sat through the debate hoping to speak are to have the chance do so, the average must be reduced to about 10 minutes.
  5.13 pm
  Mr. Martin Bell: I promise to make the shortest speech of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Let me, from an independent viewpoint, congratulate the Government on a remarkable achievement, although no one would pretend that it is an unqualified achievement. The original objective of preventing a humanitarian massacre was tragically not met, and the results are being uncovered on the ground every day.
  There is also a moral element. This was the most remarkable military campaign of its kind ever waged in that the attacking force, while inflicting great casualties and damage, suffered not a single casualty itself—not so much as an airman with a twisted ankle. We can be grateful for that, but we should also wonder whether, because the targeting was so general and sometimes unfocused, the casualties on the other side in the target area—often among innocent people—were much greater than they need have been.
  We should also wonder whether there is validity in the new doctrine that decisive military results can be achieved by air power alone. I think not. I note that the Serb capitulation came at precisely the moment when, for the first time, ground forces were used in a realistic way. I am a former infantry man and ground force man myself, and I have insisted from the start that circumstances on the ground can be changed only by boots on the ground. We are fortunate indeed that two of the boots in Kosovo are occupied by one of the most remarkable British military men I know, General Sir Michael Jackson, who has had previous experience of this kind of operation. In 1995, he led part of the implementation force in Bosnia that imposed the Dayton settlement from Gornji Vakuf to Banja Luka. He did it brilliantly. He drove his people hard and won the affection as well as the respect of the soldiers who served him; that is not always the case with generals. Now they face a complex task in Kosovo, especially in dealing with the KLA.
  I cannot help feeling that there may be an uncomfortable analogy with the situation in which British troops found themselves in 1969 and the early 1970s on the streets of Northern Ireland, where they were first greeted as saviours but soon found themselves to be targets. One of the young captains on the streets in those days was Michael Jackson. He will be aware of what the problems are.
  Another problem involves the Serbs. The action is not against the Serbs; it is to protect the Serbs. They are a decent and honourable people, who have been terribly misled and have suffered. There is no monopoly of suffering. There is no monopoly of evil. Let it be noted that many of the Serbs who are streaming out in their tens of thousands are refugees for a second time, having first been driven out of Krajina. Reference was made to the destructive nationalism of the Serbs. In my time in the Balkans, which was considerable, I saw no more destructive nationalism than that of the Croats.
  I note the historical perspective. Next week, we come to the end of the eighth year of the wars of the dissolution of Yugoslavia—eight years of misery and bloodshed. Sometimes I have asked myself whether the situation could have been averted. Could not the decisive action that we have seen in past months have been taken earlier? Of course it could.
  632
  The possible time for action was the autumn of 1990, when Dubrovnik was being shelled and Vukovar obliterated. I was in Vukovar on the day that it fell to the Serbs. It had been hit by 2 million shells and it looked like Stalingrad on the Danube during the second world war.
  Three weeks later, I came back to London thinking that people would surely be taking account of that situation. I discovered that the commentators and the political circles were concerning themselves not with the great tragedy of the Croats and Serbs, but only with the Maastricht treaty, which was then being negotiated.
  It is no secret now—it is well known—that the concessions that were given by the Germans to the British on the opt-out clauses of the treaty were matched by concessions by the British to the Germans on the unilateral recognition of Slovenia and Croatia. That was the fuse that lit two powder kegs: one was Bosnia, the other was Kosovo. We must now live with the consequences.
  I agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). Speaking as an ex-reptile, I especially agree with what he said about the reptiles. Kosovo will soon be gone from the news headlines.
  We do not have an armed force of sufficient size to maintain through rotation the commitments that we have taken on. We will have to raise more infantry battalions and, more specifically, engineer regiments. We will have to pay for it somehow. The cost has not yet been calculated.
  In those eight years, we have seen the consequences not only of action, but, much more lethal, of inaction. That inaction is now over—all credit to the Government for that. Let us all support them as we build a peace.
  5.19 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: The Foreign Secretary said that our soldiers in Kosovo would be blind to the ethnic origin of the people whom they were there to protect. I can only hope that that will be the case. Knowing British soldiers and having served in the services, albeit in the Air Force, I am sure that our soldiers will do their utmost to protect Serbs as well as Albanians in Kosovo. I was delighted that General Sir Michael Jackson took the trouble to say to Serbs in Pristina that that was his objective; I am sure that he is sincere in that objective.
  We have to look at the reality of the situation, and into the minds of many Serbs, in Serbia, have been living for the past eight years against a background of anti-Serb hysteria in the media, particularly in the west—in America, Britain and Germany—which has demonised every Serb, saying that all of them were evil. The hysteria has been deeply regrettable.
  Serbia was bombed for 78 days, which has served only to harness support for Serb ultra-nationalism. In bombing Serbia, NATO has done its best to reward and to give succour to the nationalists. The Serbian people realise that they have been demonised by the west, and that the west has ignored the plight of refugees from Krajina, as it ignored the Serbs who suffered in Bosnia. People in Serbia see Krajina Serbs on their own doorsteps. As the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) rightly said, many of the Krajina Serbs had been given homes in Kosovo, but are now refugees yet again.

  633
  The Foreign Secretary said that NATO had secured its objectives. Has it? I remember being told that NATO's objective was to protect the Albanians and to ensure that they were able to live again in Kosovo, and that bombing would ensure that they were protected. In a debate at the beginning of the war, I asked not whether bombing would bring Yugoslavia to its knees, but whether bombing would make the situation better or worse. Quite clearly, it has made the situation worse.
  Before the bombing started, there were many internally displaced people in Kosovo, but only 4,000 had left as refugees for Albania or Macedonia. If I am wrong about that figure, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development will correct me, but I am sure that it was about 4,000. Now, there are about 800,000 refugees. Although some of the refugees are returning to Kosovo—to a precarious situation—their situation is worse than it was before the bombing.
  God knows how many people were massacred after 24 March, when the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe monitors were withdrawn. I am certain that the monitors' presence saved lives.
  Mr. Bradshaw: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. The OECD itself and the United Nations estimate that 350,000 ethnic Albanians had been ethnically cleansed before a single NATO bomb fell.
  Mr. Wareing: Yes, but all of those people did not go to Macedonia or Albania, as many of them settled in the forests and mountains of Kosovo—[Interruption.] Although my hon. Friend laughs at that, the fact is that, after 24 March, the situation became very much worse.
  We are also being told that Milosevic has now accepted what he was being offered before 24 March. However, as many hon. Members have said, the Rambouillet accords essentially dictated NATO control of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Why, then, are NATO troops now able to enter Kosovo only from Macedonia or Albania? Annexe B is not in the 3 June agreement. Only the Russians have been allowed to go through Serbia to reach Kosovo. When I heard that the Russians were in Kosovo I thought that it was marvellous, because at least that will help to protect the Serb population. There would be less fear in Kosovo with the presence of Russian troops.
  We have all heard about the difficulties that the German forces have had in Prizren. Perhaps Ministers can tell me the current situation there. The headlines in the Evening Standard two nights ago said that the German forces had been sidelined in Prizren and the KLA were in charge there. How can we tell the Serb population that we can protect them if they see that in one of the largest towns in Kosovo the NATO writ does not run?
  I was also pleased that Russian troops had gone to Pristina, if only because the Russians had received no reward for the work that they put into the diplomatic efforts before the 3 June agreement. Without Russia, the Rambouillet accords would not have been changed and NATO would not have made the concessions that it undoubtedly made by no longer saying that it wants to occupy the whole of Yugoslavia. I am surprised that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not feel it necessary to express appreciation for the work of Mr. Chernomyrdin on behalf of us all in bringing about the 3 June agreement.
  634
  The hon. Member for Tatton stole the words from my mouth when he said that the position of the allied forces in Kosovo may well mirror what happened in Northern Ireland. The British troops were originally sent to Northern Ireland to protect the Catholic population against the B Specials, who were eventually disbanded, but they ended up fighting the IRA. I would not be at all surprised if, in the not-too-distant future, British soldiers and others in the NATO force found themselves fighting the KLA.
  Another difference between Rambouillet and the 3 June agreement is that there is no provision in the new agreement for a referendum in three years. Do we think for a moment that the KLA—a terrorist organisation with a vision of a greater Albania—will give way on independence after the fighting that it has been involved in? Of course it will not. If we believe that we can easily disarm the KLA and that all the arms will be taken over by NATO, we are living in a fool's paradise.
  If we want to promote the Balkan region and we are concerned about the Romanians, the Bulgarians, the Hungarians and the Macedonians, we have to look at the situation in Serbia. The depleted uranium bombs that we dropped—a war crime in itself—are polluting the Danube and the earth. That does not stop at the frontier of Serbia; it will affect its trading partners and neighbours in the region.
  If we do not give assistance to Serbia, who will benefit? I warned the House, eight years ago in 1991, of the danger of Seselj. The Foreign Secretary mentioned a democratic Serbia. That will take time. However, I have visited the former Yugoslavia more than 40 times, including about a dozen times during the conflicts of the past eight years, and I can confirm that it is far easier to talk to people on the streets or in the tavernas and cafes of Belgrade or any of the other cities in that part of the world than it was in Ceaucescu's Romania. I remember that people in Romania would talk to me only in whispers in doorways. I suggest that Belgrade is also much freer than Zagreb.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) has done a wonderful job in opposing the insanity that has been inflicted on Europe in past months. She referred to many of the problems and I believe that, unless we give assistance to the Serbs in Yugoslavia, if they get rid of Milosevic they will get someone worse instead—they will get Seselj. They will not get a democrat overnight. If the west shows that it is interested in the ordinary people and their partners in the area, there is a greater chance of getting them to consider their political system and reaching a more desirable end to their political problem.
  It is sad that our country has played its part in helping NATO to usurp the United Nations. We know that the US is undoubtedly the great power behind NATO, which will not do anything without the support of the Americans. If anyone is blind to ethnic origins, it is Americans, at least as far as the Kurds in Turkey are concerned. Turkey is one of the so-called 19 democracies. Is Turkey really a democracy? Of course it is not, and that is why we are placing a barrier in the way of its entrance into the European Union.
  Are the Americans really interested in democracy and human rights, when they supply arms to Indonesia even after all the horror in East Timor? Can we say that the Americans are interested in democracy, when the history of American policy reveals the crushing of a democratic

  635
  regime in Guatemala in 1954? In 1973, the US gave aid to crush the democratic regime in Chile. Many other instances of its imperialism could be cited.
  Mr. Winnick: I mentioned in my speech what I felt about US involvement in Vietnam and my total condemnation of its actions in Chile in 1973 and Guatemala in 1954. However, the fact that the US was wrong on several occasions does not mean that it cannot be right on others. Were we not pleased to have its support in the first and second world wars, in particular? Despite the blemishes on the US record at home and in Latin America, one must take every situation on its merits.
  Mr. Wareing: I was very pleased when the Americans were brought into the war in December 1941 after the bombing of Pearl harbour. I was also delighted—because we were alone—that on 22 June 1941 we got the support of the Soviet Union, despite the regime there.
  We have come to the end of the cold war, or at least we thought so. Many of us, and perhaps even my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—I am careful to get the name of his constituency right, because he was understandably agitated when someone got it wrong before—used to say that we hoped that one day the cold war would end and east and west would come together, with an end to the Warsaw pact and NATO.
  The Warsaw pact has gone and I still hope for the end of NATO because I believe that the security of Europe, and indeed the world, requires harmony with Russia, which is still a great country. True, it has been disastrously ruined by accepting Thatcherite economics, but it has huge potential. It is still a nuclear power and a member of the United Nations Security Council, so it cannot be ignored. We should try not only to end the disastrous situation caused in part by NATO's actions but to find a new European security system that embraces Russia. In that way, we can ensure that there will be no more Kosovos, because we will be together.
  I congratulate the new shadow Foreign Secretary on his appointment, but I was astonished when he spent about a third of his speech attacking Russia. I can understand him attacking Milosevic or Tudjman. I wish that Ministers had attacked Tudjman as much as they attacked Milosevic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax said, Tudjman is equally a war criminal. I have met them both and I know what they are like. It is a toss-up between them. Tudjman is a forbidding character from start to finish, but that does not mean that Milosevic is a great chap.
  We should choose our friends carefully. We chose the undemocratic regime in Turkey and shook hands with the Croatian regime. Croatia helped NATO, allowing flights over its territory and stopping oil supplies to Serbia. We need an even-handed approach in the future, which we have not had for some time.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: The House knows that I opposed the bombing of Kosovo and Belgrade. I did so because I did not think that it would achieve the objective that we set for ourselves: to avoid an horrific humanitarian disaster that was being planned
  636
  by Milosevic. Unfortunately, that disaster has taken place in spades and practically all the people for whom we went to war are displaced or refugees. Including those inside Kosovo, that adds up to more than 1 million people, and the total Albanian population of Kosovo is about 1.5 million.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wells: Not just at the moment, please, particularly since we have very little time—and I know the hon. Lady wants to speak.
  None the less, it would be churlish not to say that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for International Development have been steadfast in pushing through their policy. They have troops going into Kosovo, the bombing has stopped and we are beginning to get the refugees back to their homes. I admire and applaud that achievement but, like many hon. Members, I do not believe that the action was necessary in the first place.
  I think that a consensus has begun to develop in this debate. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) has been courageous in persisting with the points that she has made. Much of what she had to say was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, who agreed that the undermining of the international rule of law enshrined in article 2(4) of the United Nations charter is unforgivable and will lead to unforeseen turbulence in the rest of the world.
  That agreement was shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley). So a consensus is emerging that serious damage has been done to organisations with a long history that we have supported through thick and thin. It is not good enough to say, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) did, that we shall simply ignore and override such organisations when we do not get what we want.
  The result of the action is that Russia has been left on the outside. Russia was the key to achieving any kind of agreement with Serbia. There was an idea that the bombing would get rid of Milosevic, but we have not succeeded in that. We still have to negotiate with him, and we have only reinforced his support in Belgrade and Serbia. If we had not bombed but had encouraged those who were against his policies in Serbia, we might have got rid of him, with the result that we would now be negotiating with a more pliable person with whom we could do business. That is not a possibility with Milosevic.
  So I make no apology for not supporting the war. The diplomacy employed by the international community in relation to the break-up of Yugoslavia has been a disaster. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) said that a deal was done with the former Chancellor Kohl to secure the British opt-outs in the Maastricht treaty talks by letting Germany recognise Croatia and Slovenia. If true, that was one of the most disastrous and dishonourable international agreements ever made. That is why we must call an international conference on how we deal with unacceptable genocidal activities in countries. We must

  637
  find a peaceful way to allow countries to disaggregate without fighting, ethnic cleansing or the other horrors that we have seen.
  If we have the vision, we must try and restore a sustainable international law respected and obeyed by all countries, however inconvenient it may be. Such a rule of law might be implemented by the United Nations Assembly, or NATO might revert to a defensive role. That is what we must try to rebuild.
  However, I believe that Russia's actions, taken to re-establish its position in the world order, are justified. I do not support—and neither do the Government or the Opposition—the idea of a separate Russian zone, as it would be heavily influenced by Serb interests. Yet we ignore Russia at our peril. We would be stupid to do so: we must enfold, embrace and help that country—and get help from it—in these difficult situations. We made a serious mistake by ignoring the Russian veto at the United Nations and Russian counsel at Rambouillet.
  How should we deal with the refugees? The Secretary of State for International Development has been good enough to place in the Library details of what she has done, some of which I have read. Those details will form part of a research paper that the Library is producing. Much aid will be given to international organisations in Europe, to UNICEF and to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. The Secretary of State has accepted that the UNHCR is an imperfect instrument, and I welcome the fact that her Department has given not money but services and supplies when the UNHCR has required them on the ground.
  I retain serious misgivings about the UNHCR's leadership and determination to manage the situation. When refugees flood home in an uncontrolled way, we continually hear cries that there is no power to stop them. However, the UNHCR should have powers to intervene, explain, dissuade and cajole the refugees into returning in an orderly fashion that would allow them to begin to rebuild their lives and their homes. The refugees will return to homes without water or electricity. Sometimes, there will be no road; certainly, there will be no fuel. Their fields will not have been cultivated and they will have no money or means by which to see themselves through the 12 months before the next harvest or with which to rebuild their homes.
  The European Community Humanitarian Office has suggested to the UNHCR a framework within which we can all work. Much more must be done, however. The Secretary of State should explain how the operation will be handled. How will we provide shelter or enable people to build homes? One research paper says that roughly 50 per cent. of the houses in Kosovo have been damaged or destroyed. The UNHCR will provide basic shelter materials for approximately 35,000 housing units. Basic shelter kits will include plastic sheeting, roofing and windows, some timber, a toolkit and possibly some window and door frames.
  I am not certain that that will be enough. We cannot be dealing with only 35,000 houses, the number must be a great deal higher. It also seems to me that one would not be able to rebuild a housing unit with that basic equipment. We require a much more imaginative approach. Pre-fabricated buildings may be the quickest means by which to re-establish refugees in decent housing that will see them through the winter. The situation is
  638
  urgent as the Balkan winter in Kosovo is severe. Homes must be rebuilt between now and October, or refugees will be in the open and young children and older people will die.
  We need an imaginative approach, prosecuted with the vigour and determination that the Secretary of State exhibits in her approach to many problems of international development. We must provide food, shelter and clothes. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) referred to links with British communities, and one feature of recent events has been the huge response of the British public. We should encourage that, and we should provide an organisation within the Department to make links between our schools, local and national non-governmental organisations and organisations in Kosovo. That would get people communicating with each other and working together to re-establish villages and towns as quickly as possible.
  I understand that the Secretary of State has established a new Balkan supremo in her Department—a post aimed at co-ordinating the efforts of her Department and, presumably, liaising with the international organisations to which much of our money is going, namely UNICEF, the UNHCR and the European Community. How does she foresee that working? We are heavily involved and we must show in the civilian, refugee and humanitarian effort the same imagination, co-ordination and determination as was shown in the military campaign in order to return this as quickly as possible to a civilised, organised society going in the direction that the people want to take.
  If we can do that, it could provide the basis for good will to spread in the Balkans and for the Balkan peoples to see that we are interested in their future and want them to live a decent life without civil conflict. It could begin to build a structure and a Balkan settlement of which we can all be proud and under which the people of the Balkans can live at last, after many centuries, in peace and constructive communal living. That would be a wonderful achievement. It is within our grasp, despite the past difficulties.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Bill Rammell: I am pleased to take part in the debate. The conflict in which this country and NATO took part was absolutely justified. It was crucial that we prevailed.
  Anyone who still has doubts about the justice of that action should listen to some of the stories that are coming out of Kosovo day by day from independent reporters. We knew that the situation was appalling from the horrific stories of ethnic cleansing, with old men, women and children being lined up and shot. A description in The Guardian today moved me greatly. A man, describing what had happened, said:
  "You can't imagine the sound of the scream when a child dies … Ismet, who was three, was crying, 'Mummy I want water.' And they shot him in the face."
  Everybody in this Chamber, particularly parents, cannot fail to be moved by such a description. I do not cite that atrocity for the sake of it; I ask those who have opposed the conflict from the beginning, used phrases such as "truth is the first casualty of war" and dismissed these tales as the usual pack of NATO lies, to reflect on these realistic accounts.

  639
  I am relieved that the Government took the stance that they did over Kosovo and that we rejected the isolationist notion that it is justifiable to take military action only when British lives, security or financial interests are at stake. The decision was not an easy one. Clearly, there were problems and reservations. However, the Government, rightly, set out a clear, moral case for action. They took a lead and stuck to it with determination.
  There were political risks. It is conceivable that if we had not achieved our objectives, the Government's reputation could have been tarnished beyond measure. It is worth highlighting that point because some people criticise the Government for not having a moral basis to their values. Despite the political risks, the Prime Minister and the Government took the view that the moral principles at stake outweighed those risks. I am pleased that we took that stance.
  I shall address briefly some of the points made by my hon. Friends. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is not in the Chamber. I respect her and have a great deal of time for her as a politician, although I disagree with her in this case. She cited numerous examples of conflicts throughout the world in which atrocities had occurred. She implied that, because we did not act on those occasions, we should not have acted in Kosovo. The logic of that position is that one would never act anywhere. I wholly reject the notion that if one cannot act everywhere, one should never act anywhere. That is a counsel of despair and would allow the world to develop according to its worst excesses.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the demonising of Serbs. I have absolutely no disagreement with innocent Serbs, who are human beings like everyone in the Chamber. However, the idea, proposed by my hon. Friend, that there is moral equivalence between the actions of the KLA and those of the Serbian regime under Milosevic is not sustainable when we consider the facts.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) made a number of points. I am choosing my words carefully when I say that I begin to get very angry indeed when I hear someone referring to the 350,000 people who were expelled from their homes, and are living in the forests and hills, as settled. To attempt to minimise the scale of the atrocity that took place before even the first NATO bomb had been dropped is to attempt to defend the indefensible.
  It is crucial that we learn lessons from the conflict. The first is that we need to pursue vigorously the concept of European defence co-operation. I say that not because I want to undermine NATO—any form of European defence co-operation would be within NATO—nor because I am arguing for a European army. We shall never give up the right of sovereign nation states to determine whether they should take part in military conflict. However, it is certainly arguable that, in circumstances such as those that have existed in the former Yugoslavia for much of this decade, without the over-dependence on the financial resources and hardware of the United States, European nations would rightly have acted sooner if they had had the capability, and would perhaps have been able to prevent some of the atrocities. It is worth exploring whether we should develop a defence capability that would enable us to do that.
  640
  The second lesson is that we need to rethink the role of the United Nations. I believe in the UN and that it is a force for good and for peace. However, the conflict has shown up the shortcomings of the UN and the need for reform. The UN was born in a different era, and in a different world. Its charter stresses the territorial integrity and political independence of the nation state. However, during the conflict, Kofi Annan made it clear that the right to national sovereignty does not confer an absolute right for a Government—whether or not they are democratic—to do what they will to their people within the confines of the nation state. Since the inception of the UN, the concept of taking military action for humanitarian purposes has developed throughout the world and has gained widespread international repute. However, the UN charter does not address either of those developments in international thinking.
  We need to rethink the UN's decision-making structure. The criticism that there was no explicit authorisation for military action related to the decision-making structure of the UN Security Council, in which one permanent member of the council has an absolute right of veto. Do we really want to preserve the kind of structure whereby, whatever the scale of humanitarian atrocity and however overwhelming the agreement among every other country in the UN, one country, which happens to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council, should be able to block that action? At the least, we need to challenge that notion.
  I realise that time is short and that other hon. Members want to speak. In conclusion, I point out that I am not someone, either as a politician or as an individual, who has a liking for war. War is brutal: it is ugly and, in many ways, it demeans humanity. However, I have never been a pacifist. I know that, in certain circumstances, it is justifiable to take military action to tackle a greater evil. This conflict was one of the occasions on which we were justified in taking such action.
  That action received widespread support because people understood the issues that were at stake and that there was no realistic alternative if the atrocities taking place in Kosovo were to be stopped. I am pleased that the Government adopted the stance that they did; I am pleased that we have prevailed; and I am pleased to have been able to support the action.
  6 pm
  Mr. John Randall: It is a privilege to speak in this debate which, despite the rather low attendance, has been graced by some eloquent speeches. As a new Member of Parliament, it has been a privilege to listen.
  Some events in world history take us by surprise, but some should not. The Kosovo problem did not creep up to take us by surprise; it has been staring at us for decades. The bitter enmity and racial tension between Serbs and ethnic Albanians have often risen to the surface. Hon. Members who have now visited the region will have seen it only in the context of horrendous stories and terrible events, but I am lucky to have known Kosovo in happier times. I also remember being threatened by ethnic Albanians in Pristina more than 20 years ago, because I was speaking Serbo-Croat. I quickly had to return to speaking English, albeit briefly, to establish my identity. That said, many on both sides of the ethnic divide have lived amicably side by side over the centuries, and even today many thousands of ethnic Albanians live in Serbia, including Belgrade.

  641
  Today's is the first debate that has taken place since the end of the bombing campaign, and many of the issues that I wanted to raise have already been touched on. However, I do want to say that it has not been easy for those of us who opposed the NATO bombing: we have struggled with our innate patriotism and sense of loyalty to our armed forces and we have been labelled traitors or even Nazi sympathisers.
  I am confident that no one in the House supports the ruthless regime of Milosevic. Some of us have been trying in recent years to give help to those who oppose him and his regime and to bring democracy to Yugoslavia. Why, because we dared to speak out—an exercise of our democratic rights which is, I concede, largely denied in Milosevic's Yugoslavia—should we have been so labelled?
  I was not a Member of Parliament at the time, but I remember when principled Front Benchers of the then Opposition resigned—some were even sacked—because they opposed or questioned the bombing of Iraq during the Gulf war, even though that war arose from the invasion of one sovereign country by another. However, I do not want to make party-political points, because support for and opposition to the Kosovo conflict has brought together some strange alliances, which has been very revealing.
  One aspect of the conflict that worries me a great deal is the use of weapons containing depleted uranium. We have been assured in parliamentary answers that Britain has not deployed such weapons, but it would appear that some of our allies have done so. The use of such weapons should be the subject of a full and open debate, and I hope that the Government will address that issue in due course.
  I am also greatly alarmed by the environmental damage caused throughout the region, such as the poisoning of rivers of international status. We have learned of great damage done to the unique habitat of the Danube delta, where both people and wildlife are now suffering. The refugees returning to Kosovo will find not only a country materially destroyed, but an environmental wasteland. Of course, Serbia itself has identical problems.
  I turn to the present. We are now in an extremely dangerous position. I pay tribute to all the peacekeeping forces in the area, especially the British armed forces. I have no doubt that they will demonstrate the highest standards of professionalism, and I am utterly confident that they will be as even-handed in their duties as it is possible for them to be.
  However, to the Serbs in Kosovo, NATO will be seen as an occupying force. That is why the Russians' input is so utterly important and why I believe—we have heard this repeatedly this afternoon—that they should have been involved earlier.
  Unfortunately, the Serb population is leaving Kosovo in droves. The pendulum has swung and the humanitarian disaster is only getting worse. We have heard in the debate that the people who fled from Krajina at the point of a gun are on the move again. They are every bit as deserving of our sympathy and humanitarian aid as the poor wretched people who were driven from their homes in Kosovo to Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, or wherever. We must show equality in our pity and in our actions.
  Neighbouring countries must be given as much help as possible because they have paid a great price. Hungary estimated in May that it had lost revenues amounting to
  642
  at least $200 million, and its tourist industry is a wreck. Macedonia has also borne much of the burden of the side effects of this action. Its export trade has all but collapsed, as has that of Albania. Principally, we must not forget Montenegro, the country to which, in a strange twist, we were sending aid at the same time as we were bombing it. Real aid to those countries must be given the highest priority.
  I disagree with the Government's notion that we cannot help Serbia until Milosevic leaves power—although I understand the sentiment. I think that we must use both the carrot and the stick—and I suggest that the stick has been used against the Serbian people with incredible ferocity. If we are earnest in our desire to bring full democracy to Yugoslavia, we must show the Serbian people more than merely a glimpse of the future: we must give them what the vast majority crave. There has been—and still is—a great deal of opposition to the current regime, but we must allow the Yugoslav people to make their own decisions. We must not dictate to them, but we can show them the choices and the possibilities available.
  At this point, I thank the British Yugoslavs. Even in demonstrations, they behaved peacefully in the face of a demonisation that reached great heights. For a few weeks, every crime committed in this country was pinned on the Serbian people.
  Before concluding, I draw the attention of the House to another issue that deserves our immediate focus: the perilous state of and threats to the priceless cultural sites throughout the region. The world-famous Gracanica monastery has been affected by nearby bombs, and I believe its portal in particular has sustained a great deal of damage. Thirteen churches in the Veliko Hoce district have been destroyed and their priests have fled. The monastery at Decani—where, incidentally, monks sheltered Albanian Kosovars throughout the conflict—is also at risk. The list is long. Although most of the damage was caused by stray NATO bombs, retreating Serbs have set fire to the famous Islamic library adjacent to the main mosque in Prizren, and reprisals by the KLA against cultural sites remain a great threat. Important sites in Serbia, such as the fortress at Petrovaradin on the Danube, have also been badly damaged.
  I have had my doubts about whether it was right to oppose the NATO action. Every day, as we read or see pictures of more brutality and horrors, those doubts remain. The thought "What else could we have done?" echoes around my head. The questions that I leave with hon. Members today are whether, as a result of this action, the region is more stable; whether we have averted the humanitarian disaster; whether we stopped the killings as quickly as we could; and whether the world is a safer place. I fear that, despite everything, some countries will start to build up their military forces again—indeed, I think this conflict shows that our armed forces are at a perilously low level.
  These last months have been some of the most difficult, in a political sense, that I have known. I have realised for the first time that propaganda comes from both sides in a war, not just the enemy. I winced at the jingoism of the press and the horror of military action, and I do not think that I will ever again be able to regard such issues in black and white, as I once did. I feel, as in the conversion of St. Paul, that the scales have fallen from my eyes.

  643
  I am pleased that my worst fears have not been realised, and I admit that I am happy that I was wrong. I have also realised the great dilemmas and responsibilities that fall on those who govern this country, and I should like to thank them for their sincere efforts and for bearing those terrible responsibilities so well. I hope that those efforts will be rewarded with the lasting peace that we all desire.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: My own speech is necessarily truncated, but I believe that the debate has been better for the fact that Back Benchers have not been limited to 10-minute speeches.
  I had the good fortune to be called to speak last week, on 10 June, when, at column 843 of the Official Report, I asked several questions to which I am still awaiting answers. On 30 June, I shall ask question No. 3 to the Prime Minister. I shall ask simply who is tasked with disarming the Kosovo Liberation Army.
  On that subject, I refer to an article by Chris Stephen, reporting from Pristina, for The Scotsman this morning. He writes:
  "The rebel Kosovo Liberation Army said yesterday that it would not disarm as required by the United Nations until Russian troops pulled back from the province.
  The KLA spokesman, Pleurat Sejdiu, said in London that the rebel army, with an estimated 20,000 soldiers, might even go to war with Russian troops if they established a separate zone in Kosovo, which he said would amount to a partitioning of the Yugoslav province.
  'Nobody will start to disarm until the Russians go. If they make their own zone it may be war' he said."
  At the United Nations, Russia's ambassador said that the Security Council needed to deal with the refusal of the KLA to give up its weapons. I ask the Government to respond to that point.
  Finally—I promise to be brief—my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred to my remarks about drugs. I shall simply quote from the New Statesman of 9 April, which I was quoting when I made those remarks. It said that
  "a recent intelligence report issued by the German Federal Criminal Agency came to the conclusion that 'ethnic Albanians are now the most prominent group in the distribution of heroin in western Europe'".
  I used that quotation in my remarks. My question might have been better framed if it had asked specifically about the KLA. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North that I was quoting accurately from an article which I shall give him.
  6.13 pm
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: I have listened for a long time to much self-congratulation—not triumphalism—and much analysis of politics and military tactics. It is a trifle early to engage in such analysis of what happened and why.
  I supported the action throughout, and I never doubted that we were doing the right thing. Instead of looking back, at the fag-end of the debate, I shall deal briefly with the present problems. As the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said hours ago—she is no longer in her place—there is an awful mess that needs cleaning up.
  644
  Until the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) spoke, I thought that no one would mention what is to be done about the refugees and the people who are returning to live in Kosovo. The debate has been very one-sided. The hon. Gentleman made several points, particularly about the UNHCR and the organisation of non-governmental organisations to prevent them from becoming confused, as happened in Rwanda. I shall not repeat those points.
  I have a shopping list for the Secretary of State. First, the children in Kosovo, whether they are Serb or Kosovar children, are dreadfully shocked and traumatised. They have experienced things that no child should ever expect to experience. They have seen fathers killed, and mothers raped and beaten before their eyes. I saw an item on the BBC News website about a paramilitary policeman who had killed 54 people in one day. That sort of thing is being witnessed by children.
  The children have lost their families. They need medical, social and, above all, psychiatric help because they are the future of their country. Without the right help now, those events could be repeated in their generation. It is terribly urgent for them to get the necessary help, and I hope that the Secretary of State will put their needs foremost.
  The Secretary of State mentioned yesterday that hospitals were practically non-existent in Kosovo. When I visited Tirana in Albania, which has not been bombed, I described the facilities as pre-Florence Nightingale. That country had not had the effects of war to deal with. It was trying to cope with the refugees and its own people, and it had nothing. Medical facilities must be at the top of the list of the aid to be sent out for returning refugees.
  I shall mention yet again—probably for the third time in the House—the needs of the host families in Albania and Macedonia. If they were given more financial and food aid, they might be able to keep many refugees in their families and homes for a long time yet, so encouraging the refugees to stay where it is safe and not to try to return to Kosovo too early.
  The documentation of refugees has been dealt with, so I shall not go over it again.
  Land mines will cause an enormous amount of injury and death in the coming weeks. The matter has not been discussed much in the House. This could be an opportunity to relaunch the Ottawa treaty process. Is there nothing that we can do to revitalise the campaign against land mines? We need a global land mines task force under the UN. Could not Kosovo and Bosnia be the place to restart the campaign? Will the Serb nation help us do that?
  However optimistic we are, a guerrilla war is sure to be fought in Kosovo for some time. Has anyone addressed the question of where the supply of small arms and armaments will come from? The arms brokers in this country must be rubbing their hands in glee as they contemplate yet another market for their goods. Has any member of the Government considered the problem? What proposals have been advanced to prevent the activities of arms brokers in Britain and elsewhere?
  Lastly—I know that the Secretary of State expects me to say this, so I will say it—I should again like reassurance from her that the medium and long-term costs of aid and the reconstruction of the Balkan states will come from the Treasury and not from the Department for International Development. It was she who said some

  645
  weeks ago that we should not expect the poorest people of the world to pay for the reconstruction of the Balkans. It is our responsibility.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Gary Streeter: On Saturday morning I got up early and watched Sky News to see the entry of British troops into Kosovo. I continued to watch television throughout Saturday morning. Even when my family, with whom I usually long to spend time, rose much later than I had, and even when the cricket came on on the other side, I continued to watch British troops going into Kosovo.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Something serious.
  Mr. Streeter: Yes, for me to miss watching cricket is a serious matter. My wife could not understand why I was watching for so many hours. Sky News was terrific, but of course it repeated the same thing over and over again. I asked myself why I was so gripped by what I was watching. I think it was for two reasons. First, I felt immense pride in the skill and ability of our troops to do this kind of work—the peacekeeping and spearhead rapid reaction soldiering in which they have been trained for so many years. When last year I went with the former shadow Foreign Secretary to meet our troops who were engaged in peacekeeping in Bosnia, again I was impressed by their professionalism, sensitivity, training and ability to keep the peace as well as fight a war. The pride that I have in our troops welled up within me on Saturday.
  Secondly, I had just returned from a five-day visit to Albania visiting refugees in Tirana, and Kukes on the northern border. I went there to see the condition in which the refugees were living. After a poor start, the aid agencies did a terrific job in caring for people there. Most were medically well, with enough food and water, and attempts were being made by UNICEF and others to care for the children and to provide some kind of schooling. That was interesting.
  I also heard the stories of people just like us, and of the trauma that they have experienced. I was able to speak with them about friends, neighbours and relatives who had been killed. I talked with some young people about what they have gone through. I met one girl called Susanna, whom I will never forget. Speaking in good English, she told me how one day the Serbs arrived in her village, knocked down her family's front door and gave them 10 minutes to get out. They got out, but some of their friends and neighbours did not make it.
  As I watched Sky News on Saturday I knew the joy that would be welling up in the hearts of the refugees in Albania. This was the day for which they had been waiting. This was the day that meant that they would soon be going home—the very thing for which they had hoped and prayed all those weeks and months. It was a moving experience.
  Taking part in today's debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said, has been a privilege. We have heard many different points of view, but all of us are now committed to ensuring that we win and lead the peace.
  I join those who have been paying tribute to the Government and to NATO on the outcome of all that has taken place. The Prime Minister has talked in the past of
  646
  a moral crusade. The conservative in me wants to leap up and be more pragmatic than that—and to say that that kind of language does not fit the situation. But when it comes down to it, we are talking about a battle of imperfect good against outrageous evil. I am proud to have been part of a country that has played its part in bringing Milosevic to heel in Kosovo. We were right to do that and we will be right to see it all the way through.
  This has been a debate of the highest quality. It was opened by the Foreign Secretary and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who made some extremely valuable points in his maiden outing, asking questions which I know the Secretary of State for International Development will be keen to answer. Incidentally, I intend to give the right hon. Lady plenty of time to respond to the debate.
  We were pleased to hear from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, who said that his Committee would look into the conflict and see what lessons could be learned from it, and that will be a valuable exercise.
  It was interesting to hear from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who brings experience to these debates. He spoke movingly of the true horror of the war and had many interesting thoughts about how we must now win the peace and restore the property and legal rights of the Kosovar Albanians.
  The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) told us that she had to leave the debate early. I do not agree with her point of view, but I respect her right to bring it to the debate. It would not be much of a debate if everyone agreed.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) voiced his concerns about the ground given to Milosevic by NATO and the possible closing of the door on independence. It was good to hear the Foreign Secretary's intervention on that point. My right hon. Friend also made an important point about the new arrangements not giving NATO the right of free access across the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the impact that that has on our ability to arrest indicted war criminals. We all want those men, and perhaps women, to be brought to justice, but without the power of arrest and the power to gain access to them, any rights are toothless. My right hon. Friend was right to ask those searching questions and to ask also whether more could have been done to avert war.
  As usual, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) made a contribution that showed his experience. He spoke of the difficulties of alliance diplomacy and brought his experience to bear on some of the key issues, including the legal basis of the action that is taking place—that clearly has to be discussed on a wider stage—and the importance of our relationship with Russia.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) made a moving and powerful contribution, speaking with conviction about the importance of the United Nations and how we have to try to make it work again. In the context of globalisation, multilateral global institutions and their mechanisms have to work more effectively, and we must have a debate about that important matter. As usual, my hon. Friend spoke from his considerable knowledge—knowledge which I wish

  647
  I had—of our armed forces, the skill of the British troops, the role that they are playing and some of the challenges that lie ahead.
  My hon. Friend suggested some imaginative ways, including twinning, of helping the communities in Kosovo, and spoke words to which we should all listen, about the need to make sure that we commit enough spending to defence, whoever is in government, to ensure that Britain has the resources to enable it to do what it perhaps does better than any country in the world. If that is our contribution to the global debate, let it be so and let us pay the price required to achieve it. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) also spoke about the desperate need for a more effective European common foreign and defence policy. Is that aspiration shared by his Front Benchers?
  Mr. Streeter: No. It is good to have a debate in which many different views are expressed, but I do not agree with my hon. Friend on that.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has spoken consistently in support of the Government's action throughout the conflict, and rightly called for the KLA to be brought quickly under control. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) congratulated the Government and spoke from his experience about the need for more for infantry battalions and engineers. We are always wise to listen to his view on such issues.
  The contribution of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) did not surprise us, but I respect the hon. Gentleman personally and he brought value to the debate by introducing another point of view to it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), the Chairman of the International Development Committee, has been consistent in his view of the diplomacy and military activity that has taken place in the past few months, and he rightly looked ahead to how best to get the refugees home and support them through the winter. I am sure that the Secretary of State will respond to many of the points he made.
  The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) made powerful points about how and when we intervene—we need to have a debate about that—and spoke of the lessons that we must learn.
  The House listened carefully when my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who has great personal experience of the Balkans, put to us another point of view. His was a measured contribution to which the House would be wise to listen and he rightly talked of the importance of reaching out to the Yugoslav people. Welcoming Serbia into the greater European family of nations should be a medium-term objective, and we should not forget that Serbs are people too.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made a brief contribution, raising the question of the KLA, and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) spoke about the importance of caring for the traumatised children and the host families and made other points about caring for the returning refugees.
  648
  The debate has been valuable and it has been a privilege to take part in it. I have three or four points to raise with the Secretary of State, the first of which has been made by many Members. We need to learn the lessons of what has gone on, whether it has been a success or a failure. Conservative Members have called for an inquiry into all that has taken place, but that is not playing party politics; it is simply an attempt to learn what we can do better next time. That is absolutely vital.
  I have travelled around the world in the past 12 months—that has been part of my international development portfolio—and I have learned that decisions we make in the west affect the lives of people in the developing world. We need to learn the lessons relating to past decisions about our diplomacy, how we intervene and what we say and do. It is absolutely essential that the Government set up a formal inquiry in due course, so that those vital lessons can be learned.
  In particular, I ask the Secretary of State to comment on the role of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. During yesterday's Question Time, we discussed its plan to oversee the return of refugees, and the fact that that plan was already being overwhelmed by the reality on the ground. There is no point in imposing a bureaucratic plan if the operation involved will be clogged up by the thousands who are leaving in advance. We must be flexible, and reflect what is actually happening.
  When I was in Albania two weeks ago, I engaged in discussions with senior UNHCR officials who told me that in 1998 a plan had been drawn up to accommodate the possible mass exodus of refugees from Kosovo, and to respond urgently and instantly to the fear that ethnic cleansing would drive hundreds of thousands of refugees across the border. When the horrible eventuality ensued, however, the action plan was nowhere to be found: no one could find it. When the exodus began, the UNHCR was not ready.
  I consider that an astonishing tale. It may not be true—certainly I find it hard to believe—but I was told it by senior officials. Perhaps the Secretary of State will comment on it. Let me ask her this: what are the British Government doing to ensure that the UNHCR is radically improved, following all that we have seen over the past few months? I know that this is not our Government's primary responsibility, but I hope that we are taking the lead in improving the performance of the UNHCR, which has a vital role to play in overseeing the support of refugees in Kosovo and the reconstruction of their lives.
  Yesterday, I referred to the current return of refugees. We all recognise the need for caution and the danger of mines, but—here we are talking about people who are based in Albania and Macedonia—what kind of mentality can draw up a return plan that suggests that refugees will not start to return in any numbers until three weeks after NATO goes in, and that a further three or four months will elapse before the main body of refugees return? Have these people not spoken to the refugees? All those to whom I spoke in Kukes had only one thing on their minds: to get home as quickly as possible. It is not a bit of good for the UNHCR to say that that is inconvenient or dangerous; it is what the refugees are going to do.
  If the UNHCR is to make a valuable contribution, it must have a plan that is in touch with reality. Of course the refugees must be warned about mines, and of course we must do what we can to clear Kosovo of mines;

  649
  but these people are going home. Make no mistake about it: when the last Serb forces have withdrawn from Kosovo on Sunday, there will be a mass return, and we must be ready for it. I ask the Secretary of State to seek an urgent meeting with Kofi Annan, and to impress on him the need to overhaul the UNHCR's working practice and capacity.
  Can we be confident that adequate food, water and medical supplies are being reserved in preparation for the return of refugees? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the supplies will be sufficient this weekend to support the hundreds of thousands who are likely to return? Can she also say something about the condition of the Kosovars who did not flee the country, but stayed sheltering in the countryside? What steps are now being taken to meet their urgent medical and other needs? Perhaps those are the people who have suffered most of all.
  What is the Department doing to support the demining that is now so vital? What resources are being pumped into that, and will the Secretary of State confirm that the need is urgent? Will she also confirm that humanitarian help will be available to Serb civilians who remain in Kosovo, and that our approach will be simply that humanity is humanity, from whichever ethnic background we come?
  Is the United Kingdom still taking refugees each week? If so, when is that phase of our help expected to end? Has it not always been our priority to see people return home?
  Will the right hon. Lady comment on the situation at Pristina airport? Is it not true that the Russian presence there is not just a minor inconvenience, or diplomatic incident? Is it not hampering our aid effort because we are unable to get supplies flown in as we would like? Does she think that the matter can be finally resolved with our friends in Russia at this weekend's International Monetary Fund talks?
  I was going to make several other points about long-term reconstruction, but I should like to give the Secretary of State plenty of time to respond to the points that have been raised. As I have said, it has been an excellent debate, We are all pleased that NATO has won the war. We commend NATO for that. We all agree that we must now win the peace. We must get the Kosovar Albanians home and begin the long and difficult task of reconstruction so that we can see peace, stability and, in due course, prosperity in the Balkans.
  6.36 pm
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I am grateful to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) for giving me extra time. I want to respond as fully as I can to the good contributions that have been made. I will try to ensure that we respond in writing to those that I do not manage to reach.
  It has been a good debate, although it has been a little too much of a post mortem. We have not got the refugees home. I am not blaming anyone for that, but hon. Members are talking almost as though it is over. In fact, we will have a problem as big as the one we had earlier. It is a welcome problem, but there is still a lot to do. There will be much pain and mess. Many children who were driven out of their homes and into camps will be blown up by mines and unexploded ordnance when they get home, so we should not be complacent about what is left to be done.
  650
  There has been broad support in the House for the action. It is notable that people who oppose wars always talk of those who defend military action as jingoists, saying that they wallow in that action. There has been none of that. It has all been with great regret. As the hon. Member for South-West Devon said, it was imperfect good against outrageous evil. We always knew that.
  War is never good. It is always better prevented. None of us celebrated the war in Kosovo, but most of us thought that it was absolutely necessary. I say to those who opposed the war: of course we all respect their right to do so, but I did not hear a single one of them say what we should have done to prevent ethnic cleansing from being rewarded. Our failure to act in Bosnia made Milosevic stronger and stronger and more willing to go on in Kosovo. Regrettably, there was no other way. Of course, if we had acted earlier in Bosnia, who knows?—but we did not. We should have stopped Hitler earlier.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said that we could not have undertaken the D-day landings in the current climate. I agree—we could not have sustained our action in the second world war. We would not have kept on.
  There has been carping from the media. They expected instant results and no one to get hurt. During the second world war, they would have said, "Mr. Hitler criticised the bombing from his bunker today." They would have said that the concentration camps were not there when the war began, so they were really our responsibility. Some of that is worrying. Is this country capable now of taking military action when it is necessary to defeat monstrous evil? There are profound lessons to discuss and to learn, but we have a bit of time in which to do so.
  The shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), made an impressive and eloquent speech. He talked about the handling of Russia. Clearly, that is a delicate and complicated matter, but we have had contradictory behaviour from Russia. It has co-operated on the UN Security Council resolution, which was important for the world and in resolving the problem—but then came that strange behaviour with its sudden military activity in Pristina.
  The most worrying thing is that there might not be an organised Government in Moscow. If the country's decision making is split, that is very worrying for future stability.
  It is the view of all those close to the ground that the situation at Pristina airport is not a major problem. It can be handled. It is not stopping aid resources being brought in. Of course, we need to do this delicately. There can be no zone; there can be no partition. We all agree about that, but for the future, we should handle Russia delicately now, and look at the conditions in Russia and the terrible growth in poverty.
  Russian men have lost nine years of life expectancy since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The growth of poverty and instability in the country is serious for its people and for the future of us all. We need to give the matter more attention.
  The view of our military forces and of NATO forces generally is that most Kosovo Liberation Army members have behaved remarkably responsibly. Furthermore, the United Nations Security Council resolution states that the KLA should demilitarise, not disarm—there is a difference. People will not be able to go around loaded

  651
  with arms, but neither does every last scrap of weaponry have to be removed. Talks are in progress to reach an agreement on those issues.
  There have been some bad incidents, and some arrests, since KFOR entered Kosovo, but KFOR has been very even-handed in dealing with any abuse, whether it comes from Serb forces or individuals or from the KLA. We hope that we shall be able to reach a sensible settlement on those matters.
  Initially, the United Nations will lead the new civilian authorities, and local police forces will have to be established and trained. Many very responsible young men joined the KLA and should be encouraged to become part of the new policing arrangements, so that they have a responsible job in bringing order to their country. We have to make arrangements such as that.
  We are very clear that we should try, in every way that we possibly can, to ensure that the Kosovar Serbs are made to feel safe. That is part of the agreement and of everything that we have said. Enormous pressure is being put on the KLA to ensure that there is no victimisation, and KFOR has given great assurances on the matter. Nevertheless, 38,000 Kosovar Serbs have left. Although we regret that, not all the Kosovar Serbs will leave.
  We know that, in any exodus, everyone does not leave. There will still be Serbian people in Kosovo, and they will have to be reassured that they are full citizens and are protected absolutely. Those who are guilty of terrible war crimes, as some are, should be dealt with by the International War Crimes Tribunal, not in reprisals. We shall do everything in our power to secure that objective.
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon asked whether Yugoslav forces have co-operated in providing information on mines and demining. The answer is yes—although, of course, that does not mean that all the mines have been cleared, or that KFOR has detailed reports on all the mines. Nevertheless, Yugoslav forces have co-operated, in accordance with the agreement.
  We are also clear that, as long as Milosevic and his regime remain—he is an indicted war criminal, and the regime is deeply corrupt and oppressive—there will be no reconstruction assistance to Serbia. We are equally clear that the moment there is any change of regime, we shall do everything in our power to co-operate with Serbia in helping it to become part of modern, democratic Europe. Although that is the position, if humanitarian assistance is needed, it will be provided; it goes to anyone, regardless of his or her origins. If Serbia has such a need, it will be provided for.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said, it is very significant that the Orthodox Church leadership has called for Milosevic to step down. Let us really hope he does, as that would be the best thing for the future of the people of Serbia.
  The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) paid tribute to Louise Arbour. I join him in that. She has been responsible for dealing with war crimes not only in former Yugoslavia, but in Rwanda—which is also recovering from terrible genocide, although the international community failed to act in that case. She has done a very fine job, and I am sure that we all wish
  652
  her well in her future job. We must, if we can, find someone else in the international system who is as good to take over from her.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) had, as she said, to leave the Chamber before the end of the debate. She knows that I have great affection for her, but profoundly disagree with the position that she has taken on the conflict. I should tell her—and everyone else who says that we should not act without United Nations authority—that, if we had waited for such authority, we would not have acted in Kosovo, so that ethnic cleansing would have been rewarded, and territory would have been taken by rape, pillage and the killing of children.
  At the United Nations Human Rights Commission hearings, Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General, said that he was proud to lead an organisation of sovereign nations, and to live at a time when we have more respect for democracy and human rights than ever before in human history. He also said, however, that, in recent years, there have been three terrible incidents of genocide and ethnic cleansing—in Cambodia, Bosnia and Rwanda—and that there has now been another one, in Kosovo. He said that for as long as he leads the United Nations, no organisation based on sovereign states can be used as a cloud to allow ethnic cleansing and genocide to go on.
  The Secretary-General of the United Nations has said that UN arrangements were imperfect and there had to be a way to deal with such situations. The UN has sensibly taken on responsibilities as soon as possible. It is not good enough to say that we can do nothing in the face of a great evil unless the UN says so. We had to act against forces that were not only evil but preventable and threatening massive and increasing instability in Europe, probably spreading to the territories of the former Soviet Union and creating a danger of continuing war and conflict for our continent. Those who say that we should not have acted without specific UN authorisation disagree with Kofi Annan and are wrong.
  Many hon. Members spoke about environmental damage. I have met the head of the UN environmental agency in the past few days. It is going to carry out a survey of Kosovo and Serbia and report to the international community. He said that a quick survey of the Danube had been carried out and the situation was not as bad as some people claim. He is going to do that for the benefit of us all, but he thinks that the reports of terrible environmental degradation are exaggerated.
  The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), a former Minister for the Armed Forces, raised some important issues to which I do not have time to do justice. Some of them relate to the new international arrangements in the post-cold war world, such as what kind of NATO and United Nations we want. Paragraph 11(e) of the Security Council resolution says that the Secretary-General should facilitate
  "a political process designed to determine Kosovo's future status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords."
  That leaves the future status of Kosovo open and it will be decided by the UN. Mr. Milosevic says that he is determined that it will remain part of the former Yugoslavia, but he is not speaking the truth, just as he does not about many other matters.
  I agree that the record of arresting war criminals since Bosnia has been very poor. That is partly because of the nature of Republika Srpska and all the difficulties

  653
  involved. Milosevic thought that he could get Republika Srpska to be part of his greater Serbia. The situation should become easier if we are wise about settling Kosovo. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that we should invade Serbia to get the war criminals. Obviously we should get all of them as soon as we can, but the Dayton settlement meant that we have been operating with our arms behind our backs. I think that we shall make faster progress now.
  Sir John Stanley rose—
  Clare Short: I am terribly sorry, but I do not have time to give way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, spoke about training journalists. We have been doing that. The World Service has scheduled extra programming. We have been training Kosovar Albanians in the camps, because information is desperately needed there. We have been providing wind-up radios. We shall continue with that work, because access to the truth is an important part of democracy. We are engaging in ever more such programmes across the world and I guarantee that we shall try to expand the work further.
  I share in the tribute that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) paid to the armed forces. When I went to Macedonia, many thousands of refugees were stuck on the border in no man's land, people were dying, babies were being born in the mud and there was a real danger of cholera. They had been there for days. Our armed forces set up a kitchen and cooked 26,000 meals. No one ordered them to do it or provided the money. When I went there I said that I would pay for it, but the armed forces spent money without being asked and ferried all the meals up. Then they started building the camp. It was very moving and I felt enormously proud of them. I am sure that they saved many people from dying. We should always be enormously proud of them.
  I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) for having left the Chamber when they spoke, but I had some things to do. I have been given a report of what they said.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has consistently taken a position sympathetic to Mr. Milosevic. I profoundly disagree with him. He continues to argue that position, as he has a right to do, but I think that he is deeply wrong. He and many others—John Pilger, Tariq Ali—are so anti-American that they are against what the US does, not against what is wrong. The US has been wrong in the past—
  Mr. Wareing rose—
  Clare Short: I cannot give way because of the time constraints. It is morally blind to take one side regardless of what it does. It is profoundly wrong to stand against taking action against ethnic cleansing just because the US is in favour of action. My hon. Friend the Member for West Derby claims that we are all pro-Croatia and Tudjman, but that is not true. The Croatian regime is ethnically oppressive and undemocratic, the economy is
  654
  in poor shape, and the people of Croatia will need help in reforming their institutions, so no one here speaks in favour of the situation in that country.
  I apologise to some of the hon. Members who spoke because I will not have time to address their comments. I briefly addressed the point made about the KLA by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but I do not have time to speak at any great length.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) talked about the need to make progress with European defence co-operation. I ask Conservative Front Benchers not to be so anti-European that they adopt foolish positions. Some 80 per cent. of the air power used was US air power. Europe spends 60 per cent. of what the US spends on defence, but we spend it so ineffectively that we do not have 60 per cent. of its capacity. We must be able to collaborate and use resources more effectively. The nature of war has changed and we need different equipment. We must therefore seek better European defence co-operation.
  The overwhelming task now is to get the refugees home in safety. Some of those who were displaced internally are weak and malnourished, but they are not in such bad shape as some people feared. They are under-nourished, but most of them have had some kind of nourishment. The priority is to get food and medical supplies to them and get them home.
  As I have said before, we cannot tell the refugees in Macedonia and Albania that they cannot go home. They need information. They need to be advised about where the mines are and what the dangers are. We are undertaking massive mine education campaigns. There have already been some accidents, and I fear that there will be more. However, the refugees are starting to move home. Those who lived near Kukes can see their villages from the border and they want to go home.
  The return will be phased, as we have learned from Bosnia. The people who are close and who know they are safe will go early. The young and the fit go home to fix up the house or to find out the situation, and then send for the children and the older people later. Some of the more vulnerable will stay in Macedonia, Albania and here and go back as their families get things ready for them. Then we will be left with the very vulnerable—the children who became separated from their families and the elderly people whose children were killed. They will need special help to get home and we must ensure that provision is made for them.
  The return will be messy, but we can support people as they make their own decisions. It will be chaotic and untidy, and the UNHCR is unwise to think that it can control it all. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on this point. He knows that I respect him greatly, but I must tell him that now is not the time for speaking at length about what went wrong with the UNHCR. It is still in charge of the operation to return people to Kosovo and we must work with it and strengthen it. Things are a bit better now, but there are lessons to be learned when it is all over and we will get on to that job at the appropriate time.
  Britain has a capacity to move more quickly than some others do. We have offices in Tirana and Skopje and we shall open an office in Pristina. We can spend our money quickly and we therefore have flexibility. We operate through the most effective agencies we can find to assist

  655
  programmes on the ground. We need to examine the specific role Britain can play to make the best contribution we can make, and we will try to make a big contribution on demining.
  The military will demine on the routes they will use, but the rest of the country needs to be demined too. We have agreed with the UN Mines Advisory Service—we had a meeting in London—that we will help. The Halo Trust, a British NGO, has started surveying for mines and unexploded ordnance.
  We will begin to do the job systematically. I said to the head of the United Nations Environment Programme that the people surveying the mines and those examining the environmental damage should act together and see where the problems are throughout Kosovo and Serbia. I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax that unexploded ordnance is both NATO and Serb, and the mines are all Serb.

  We will bring in building materials to enable people instantly to patch up their houses and get into some accommodation, perhaps putting up tents beside the houses to see them through the winter, and then we will move on to more long-term facilitation for rebuilding. Reconstruction will take a long time. The process needs to run seamlessly as people get home and start to rebuild. Wherever possible we want to empower people to solve their own problems rather than doing it for them.
  The new civilian authorities will be led by the UN. There is a Secretary-General plan, and we will implement it as soon as possible. A society has to be built from scratch, with schools, hospitals and medical systems, and we have to settle what law will apply. It will not be easy. It will take time and there will be a lot of mess but we must do it as well as possible.
  I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow that there are a lot of drug addicts and drug dealers in Scotland. That is what is wrong with what he said. Scotland Yard may have reported that there are some Albanian criminals in the world, but to speak of people who have been bombed, raped and killed as though they were all criminals is unbearable.
  I am humbled by the courage of people who kept their dignity as they were driven out and made to live in camps. Now they are going back and they are determined to rebuild. That does not mean that they are all saints—no people are—but their dignity is humbling and they have a considerable job to do.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Clare Short: I am really sorry, but I cannot because I have only a couple of minutes left.
  There are special problems because the World Bank cannot lend to Kosovo any more than it can to Montenegro, first, because it can lend only to countries that are members, and, secondly, because of their status as part of the former Yugoslavia. We need to make special
  656
  arrangements to ensure that Kosovo and Montenegro get the reconstruction help that they need, and to make up for the fact that the World Bank and the other development banks cannot help them.
  The other countries in the region have been absolutely remarkable in their support for the NATO action, in a way that they were not at the time of Bosnia. They have the beacon of modern democratic Europe before their eyes and they desperately want to be a part of it. They know that the old poison of the Balkans—ethnic hatred, separation and attacks—cannot be part of their future if they are to be part of a modern Europe. That gives us a fantastic historical responsibility and opportunity.
  The region wants to change and to become part of a modern democratic Europe. We have to help in that process. It will not be easy. The neighbouring countries have not been bombed—people sometimes talk as though they have—but they are in transition from communism and many of them are hardly making the transition. Albania is the poorest country in Europe.
  Macedonia complained and complained. It heroically took a lot of refugees but when we said that we would help with money, it did not have the Government systems to tell us how much was needed. We had to send in experts—from the Adam Smith Institute, as it happens—to work out what was needed. Incidentally, the experts told me the other day that they never supported Thatcherism. Macedonia's Government financial systems do not work. Helping the countries to reconstruct is not simply a matter of throwing money around. We need to build democratic societies from scratch. It will not be easy, but it is possible.
  Anything less means that all this can happen again. That is the story of the Balkans. We have in our hands the real chance to take the poison and nastiness of ethnic hatred, and the taking of territory by ethnic cleansing, out of the region and to make the Balkans a part of modern Europe. That is a great responsibility and it will take years. We need to work together.
  We have had a problem in the conflict, but there is still a major problem in Russia and for the people of Russia.
  It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I gently say, as a former elected member of the executive of the British-American parliamentary group, that some of us feel a little hurt at just being told that we are anti-American, when our objection is to certain—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a matter for debate, not for the Chair.

  LIAISON COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Rhodri Morgan be discharged from the Liaison Committee and Dr. Tony Wright be added to the Committee.—[Jane Kennedy.]

  Footwear Industry
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
  7 pm
  Mr. Phil Sawford: I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry for the interest that he has shown in the footwear industry. I welcome the fact that he supports the footwear industry action plan launched in Rossendale last year. I am also grateful for his Department's support of the benchmarking programme between the United Kingdom and Italian footwear industries, and for its efforts in promoting the benefits of British safety footwear.
  I am sure that most hon. Members know that footwear is the traditional industry of Northamptonshire. Thousands of people in the county are still employed making shoes. The skills and expertise are part of a proud tradition, and we continue to produce some of the finest shoes in the world. I am told that Northamptonshire produced most of the boots for Cromwell's army, so the tradition goes back some time.
  Mr. Phil Hope: He never paid for them.
  Mr. Sawford: There is a rumour to that effect, which we shall pursue with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
  Anyone born in the county, as I was, will more than likely have some connection with the footwear trade. Two of my grandparents worked in the footwear industry all their working lives. My parents met in a shoe factory: she heard him clicking, he admired her uppers, and here I am.
  I must be one of the few hon. Members who walk into Parliament each day wearing shoes made in their home town by people they know personally. Being Northamptonshire born and bred, I am very proud of that. Also, although it is not a fetish, I notice what other hon. Members wear on their feet. Without being too critical of my colleagues, few of them wear anything as good as a pair of Cheaney's finest when they enter the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Minister visited the factory recently, and I invite him to buy a pair of top-quality shoes made in Desborough. I shall be glad to collect them and deliver them to him.
  I want to highlight the successes and opportunities in the industry, and to draw attention to a number of problems and concerns. It is important to set the context. There is no doubt that the industry has declined. In 1979, more than 80,000 people were employed in the British shoe industry. The total is now nearer 20,000. However, the industry is still important. It produces 89 million pairs of shoes a year, with a value of more than £500 million, and almost half the output is exported. Many other industries would be doing well if they could match that.
  The industry provides employment for more than 20,000 people, and is a world leader in men's formal footwear and in youth street fashion footwear.
  Mr. Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and can tell him that I, too, am wearing a pair of Cheaney's shoes, which I bought from the factory shop in Desborough, so he no longer need bother to look at my feet.
  658
  However, I hope that that is not being disloyal to the Dr. Martens factory—
  Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: I am wearing a pair of those shoes.
  Mr. Hope: My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) is wearing shoes from that factory, which is in my constituency and also in his. It employs 2,300 people locally and about 3,000 nationwide. It sells 10 million of the 89 million shoes made in the United Kingdom and it has a £280 million turnover. In a recent global survey, Dr. Martens was rated one of the world's 100 best-known brands. I spoke to the managing director today—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Interventions should be much briefer. If the hon. Gentleman intends to make a speech, he should do so after the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Sawford) has finished his.
  Mr. Hope: Will my hon. Friend address concerns about the high rate of the pound, which is affecting exports of Dr. Martens, and import penetration?
  Mr. Sawford: My hon. Friend has mentioned Dr. Martens, but there are many well-known names, including Barkers and Loakes. Many small family businesses produce good shoes, but Dr. Martens is perhaps one of the biggest success stories in the shoe industry in Britain. In addition to having a high reputation for our footwear, we have a good reputation for research. The Shoe and Allied Trade Research Association, which the Minister has visited, is at the forefront of testing, innovation, research and development. It deals with the shoe trade in Britain and thousands of companies around the world.
  Britain is a world leader in footwear design and teaching. Cordwainer college has an excellent reputation, and the variety of ethnic styles and outrageous designs on show at its Barbican exhibition last year was impressive. Young people are coming through, and our training programmes have much to contribute.
  The footwear industry is an important part of my local economy and in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) and for Corby. I am delighted to see all of them behind me. The industry is also important to the national economy. Exports have doubled during the 1990s, and the Department of Trade and Industry has assisted with much-appreciated trade fairs and export promotions.
  Ms Sally Keeble: My hon. Friend will know that the famous Church's of Northampton produces excellent shoes. Will he comment on the difficult export position in which both Church's and Griggs find themselves because of trade barriers that certain countries have raised?
  Mr. Sawford: That is one of the issues that I had intended to raise. The UK footwear industry is open and competitive. Through good times and bad, we have successfully met the challenge of overseas competition.

  659
  However, 85 per cent. of footwear sold in Britain is imported. That is not true of other countries, and many foreign markets are effectively closed to the UK industry. We welcome efforts by the Government to press for a sharp reduction in tariffs, and I ask the Minister to press that case hard during the millennium round of trade negotiations. I hope that he will stick rigidly to the goal of removing all tariffs by 2010.
  Talking to manufacturers and employees, I have found that they fear that the UK or the European Union may make concessions on our tariffs while other countries maintain restrictions on our exports. I ask the Minister to keep a watchful eye on negotiations to ensure that market access is fair to all parties. The industry asks only for a fair system and a level playing field, and we should support those aims. I congratulate the National Organisation for Footwear, Leather and Shoe Repairs on its accreditation with the Department for Education and Employment. It is recognised as a national training organisation, and I ask the Minister to join me in welcoming the industry's increased investment in the skills of its employees.
  I know that I am asking a lot, but will the Minister also look favourably on any request for support from his Department for any project to upgrade the recruitment and career resources of the industry? There is a perception that the industry is old-fashioned—a sort of sweatshop industry. That is not how it is. It is an industry with a future, a lot of high-tech and opportunities. It is important that we promote the industry in that way to attract the right people to develop their skills and a career within the footwear trade.
  I am sure that the Minister knows that China is the world's largest footwear producer. It incorporates many state trading companies within its industry. Proof of dumping and customs fraud by Chinese traders has been found through the European Commission. Will the Minister do his best to ensure that any future trade agreements with China are rigorously fair in both directions?
  Mr. Paul Gates, the general president of KFAT—the knitwear, footwear and allied trades union—drew attention to that particular issue this week in Llandudno at the union's national conference. He said:
  "China imports into the UK some 40 million pairs of footwear. Much of this is produced in modern factories with the Latest Machinery. Indeed, I learned of one factory which is investing $43 million on the latest equipment. No UK company can make this sort of commitment. That is why we are calling for China's entry into the WTO (World Trade Organisation) to be with 'Developed Nation Status'."
  It is important for the industry that China's entry is considered and approved, but with that developed nation status. We are not dealing with a third-world economy. When it comes to producing shoes, China has the technology, the modern equipment and the factories. There is no reason to be more generous to China than we need be.
  Mr. Gates also called for the whole issue of tariff and non-tariff barriers, which restrict the ability of UK manufacturers to export overseas, to be addressed at the next round of WTO talks at Seattle. I hope that the Minister and his Department will take that point on board.
  660
  The industry needs more IT support. Footwear is no more low-tech than any other industry these days. Many companies want to develop their IT, computerisation and, particularly, electronic commerce. Our smaller companies and traditional family businesses in and around Northamptonshire and elsewhere in Britain do not always have the resources and skills to take that forward.
  Mr. Stinchcombe: My hon. Friend mentioned small family businesses. Will he join me in expressing concern to the Minister that some of those firms feel that they are over-regulated?
  Mr. Sawford: Yes, I think that they do express that view. That has not happened just in the past two years. I know that many of those businesses feel that successive Governments have perhaps regulated them a little too much.
  Mr. Gates has called on the Government to work alongside regional development agencies and to recognise the need for positive help and support on IT. I hope that the Minister will note that and provide support if his Department can be of assistance in that direction.
  I do not intend to speak for too long, but I hope that in this short debate I have been able to highlight the successes of our footwear industry as well as its challenges and concerns. Yesterday I was interviewed by a television company which said that it wanted to talk about the crisis in the industry. I said that that was not my agenda or how I saw it. That is not what we are talking about here. There are problems in terms of trade agreements and negotiations, and the industry has become depleted since its heyday; but, for all that, we are highlighting successes—we are proud of our industry.
  I am most grateful to the Footwear Manufacturers Association and KFAT for helping to prepare me for this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his interest in this important industry. Finally, I thank those people in my constituency and in the rest of Britain who use their skills to make the shoes that many of us wear every day when we come to Parliament.
  7.15 pm
  The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): It is traditional to compliment hon. Members on winning an Adjournment debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Sawford) on that. However, I want to do more than that. The way in which he used a constituency example—a personal story—not only to champion the excellence of the production skills of a company in his constituency, but to spell out the structural questions relating to a whole sector, was quite remarkable. I enjoyed the personal tone and the lively and interesting way in which he presented the case. It was a model of what Adjournment debates should be.
  I notice that my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Mr. Hope), for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) and for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) are in the Chamber. They were anxious to speak, but, at this time of the evening, were unable to fit in more than one sentence. It is unfortunate that we cannot hold a longer debate in which to raise these matters; they are precisely what we should be talking about in the Chamber.

  661
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering and I began the day together in the Chamber, because he switched the place on—as it were—with his question at Trade and Industry questions. Now, he is putting the lights out tonight—what a day. He assiduously represents his constituency in raising these matters.
  When I was elected to this place in 1987, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked me how I got here. It was somewhat unexpected because I won against the trend. I explained to him that I had traipsed around my constituency, knocking on doors and talking to people. He made the remark, "What makes a good politician is shoe leather". A winning politician is about shoe leather. I think that we could take my hon. Friend's remark especially personally in the case of the footwear industry.
  I enjoyed my visit to Cheaney. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering patiently persisted in urging me to go there, to see one of the United Kingdom's leading manufacturers. From that visit, I learned about the blend of traditional craft skills with the latest high-tech technologies that has transformed what is regarded as a traditional sector, and has shown how that sector can be regenerated and built up for the 21st century. It was a good experience. My hon. Friend invites me to buy a pair of shoes, and I shall be more than happy to do so. If he is willing to act as their transport, he can be my guest. I am happy to purchase a pair of stout shoes, as I shall continue to do a great deal of walking; I shall be glad to do so in a pair of Cheaney's best.
  In February 1998, I gave a speech at the footwear liaison action group's first national conference to launch its action plan for the industry and to try to get ahead of the game—not to treat events as a crisis, but to anticipate what we would be up against. The fact that the hon. Friends whom I mentioned are in the Chamber shows that the regional clusters that we talk about in my Department exist. There is a cluster of excellence in the industry that should be supported, and should be given the best assistance that we can provide to meet the challenges of global competitiveness that face industry.
  The sector has real strengths: quality, design, innovative products, world-leading flagship brands—Church's, Clarks, Dr. Martens or Cheaney's—and an amazingly strong export performance. There is a positive attitude towards improving the sector's performance, from the trade associations, the business support associations and, of course, the Cordwainer college, which my hon. Friend congratulated. The college is internationally renowned for the design talent of Patrick Cox and others. The list is impressive. It provides a firm foundation that will ensure a successful future for the industry.
  Some ideas have already emerged from the action plan. There are developments in relationships with customers—life style clothing retailers, department stores, mail order companies and so on—to build and develop supply chain management. There are benefits from the clustering that aids collaboration between manufacturers, components suppliers and educational establishments; that has already happened in Northamptonshire, providing a model of how to do it. Export markets have been developed, using innovative sales techniques and methodologies.
  I hope that high-tech in the industry will also include e-commerce, because that is where the trade of the future will be. That needs to be plugged in to the overall
  662
  development. Marketing—especially effective branding—should be used to add value. Changes should be explored to improve adaptability and flexibility to new market demands. Technologies should be adopted that make production more efficient and, indeed, environmentally friendly. I have seen evidence of that in my visits. The industry is pursuing those opportunities enthusiastically, and many manufacturers have taken up the challenge and are well-positioned to break through into the 21st century.
  In the time available to me, I shall focus on technology and innovation. We cannot meet the challenge of global competitiveness on low wages: only one company can be the cheapest; everyone else must compete on quality, innovation, new ideas, new processes, new products and new ways of doing things. That involves technology, looking at production methods and management systems, and innovating to meet the needs of the market. Here in the UK, companies in the footwear sector produce some of the highest-quality footwear in the world and have done so for generations. I expect them to do so well into the 21st century.
  The British Footwear Association runs an ADAPT project—Quickfoot—to help smaller UK manufacturers adapt to the threats and challenges posed by international competitiveness by offering a series of events and diagnostic support. With the participation of Nottingham Trent university, Cordwainer college, Business Links, the Department of Trade and Industry and Eurocad Projects Ltd., that project has delivered a range of consultative and training events to the smaller companies that make up the majority of the UK footwear industry.
  UK footwear manufacturers increasingly use CAD-CAM digital last-making and other high-technology and environmentally friendly applications to ensure that the sector has a positive international future. In 1997, the shoe and allied trades research association, with some support from the DTI's innovation budget, ran a project to develop water-based adhesives for the footwear industry to replace some of the solvent-based adhesives. Such innovation is world class and world leading, and it sends a signal to other sectors to transform traditional manufacturing industries into ones of which we can be proud in the 21st century.
  There are several education and training schemes and projects run with DTI support either by the Leicester and County Footwear Manufacturers Association or by the national footwear training organisation, which was recently granted national training organisation status by the Department for Education and Employment. Those schemes are designed to ensure that there is adequate and appropriate training in the sector; to attract youngsters and school leavers and to persuade managers to enter the footwear sector because they have a prosperous and successful future there; and to encourage closer links between companies, schools and colleges, so as to ensure that the right skills are taught and the right imagination, willingness and commitment to the sector instilled in the next generation.
  With DTI support, the BFA has launched, here and in 12 overseas markets, the industry's largest-ever marketing exercise. The BFA produced a life style brochure that demonstrates the capacities and capabilities of footwear manufacturers in the made-to-order sector. The brochure was sent to more than 2,000 freshly researched contacts, all of which are potential specifiers of own-label footwear.

  663
  The 22 participating companies have started to assemble new marketing methods to ensure a market for their products.
  The footwear liaison action group is a partnership between the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Education and Employment, the KFAT, Business Link Northamptonshire, the British Footwear Association, the Leicester and County Footwear Manufacturers Association and the Northamptonshire Footwear Manufacturers Association. All have come together to combine, co-ordinate and co-operate, even in the context of competition, to determine when to compete and when to co-operate for the good of the whole sector. They are working together to support the footwear industry.
  FLAG's steering committee has consulted many parties on the range of challenges facing the industry and has drawn up an action plan under three main headings. "Education and training" identifies skills shortages and challenges misperceptions of the industry to increase graduate recruitment. "Competitiveness" addresses supply-chain management issues and runs the Footprint project, which is designed to enhance the use of information technology and other high-tech technologies. "Marketing and exports" encourages branding, sets out a benchmarking project looking at Italian footwear companies, and seeks means of enhancing the safety footwear sector. The group has also advanced a number of projects for support from the DTI's innovation budget. Some are already up and running and others are nearing approval and start-up. I hope that they will prove helpful.
  The group is responsible for organising national footwear conferences, such as the one held in Rossendale last February. I think there is to be a second conference on 11 November in Northamptonshire. We hope to build around those conferences and add some momentum and dynamism to the whole sector. Companies are certainly making more use of business support organisations in their local areas.
  I must move on to the issue of trade. Given the problems and challenges facing the sector, it is absolutely remarkable that footwear manufacturers achieved an export figure of £517 million in 1998. What is the sector up against? It has received assistance from the DTI's support for the exhibitions and seminars abroad scheme and for overseas trade fairs. This relatively small sector is doing very well in winning resources to participate internationally, which speaks volumes for the industry's tenacious and forward-thinking approach.
  There are several important issues to consider. The Government acknowledge that the sector has suffered as a result of both high tariffs on footwear exported from the United Kingdom and low tariffs on imported footwear, particularly products from developing countries. However, the United Kingdom will not be acting unilaterally and we want to see other World Trade Organisation members offering reductions in their tariff rates in order to achieve a level playing field. We will work to that end.
  664
  Several of my hon. Friends mentioned China. Any complaints of alleged dumping are lodged with the European Commission, which investigates on behalf of all member states, including the United Kingdom. Each case is then considered carefully by the Government. When there are allegations of fraud, we encourage the Commission to investigate. We are fully apprised of the various non-tariff barriers restricting access to the Chinese market, and we are pressing the European Commission—which negotiates on behalf of the United Kingdom and other member states—to address those matters robustly in the continuing negotiations concerning China's accession to the World Trade Organisation. That issue is part of the negotiations and we will continue to press the Commission about it. It is a vital matter for the sector.
  I am aware also of the sector's priorities and goals set out in the British Footwear Association's recently published trade policy paper, and we will take full account of them during the World Trade Organisation market access negotiations. That is consistent with the aim of opening up markets fairly and creating a level playing field that will enable this quality sector to flourish. A paper has been submitted arguing that many overseas markets have high tariffs and other market access restrictions, and that there should now be reciprocity. We cannot wait: we must press hard to ensure that happens.
  There have been requests for projects to upgrade recruitment and careers resources in the industry. Officials in the textile, clothing and footwear unit will consider on merit any applications for project support, including those involving the innovation project. We anticipate that the national footwear training organisation will make a strong application and, if it fits the usual project criteria, I hope it will be viewed favourably. I can say no more than that in the Chamber. Let us see what can be done.
  The point of this debate is to get ahead of the game and anticipate future difficulties. The industry today is facing real difficulties involving China and tariff barriers. However, the WTO and the European Commission are forums for negotiation and we will keep challenging and working on behalf of the sector. The sector has realised that the traditional crafts and skills, honed over generations—which are a pleasure and a delight to see in action—can be blended with new technologies, including information technologies, mechanical equipment technologies and CAD-CAM design. That will lift the sector but not denature traditional crafts. Traditional hands-on crafts can be blended with the best scientific and technological advances to develop and deliver a product that is serviceable and a pleasure to wear.
  I cannot think of a more vital industry. Try walking around London or elsewhere in modern Britain without shoes. That is practically impossible. We want to ensure that the British footwear sector is strong. There is a cluster of excellence in the region represented by my hon. Friends, and I am sorry that we cannot debate this matter further tonight. Let us treat this Adjournment debate as the beginning of our conversation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the agenda of the planned Intergovernmental Conference of Spring 2000. [87307]

  The Prime Minister
  The Cologne European Council took decisions about the timing, scope and preparation of the next Intergovernmental Conference. These are set out in the Presidency conclusions, which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Government received prior communication from Russian sources of an intent to occupy areas of strategic importance in Kosovo independently of NATO. [87300]

  The Prime Minister
  We and NATO have long made clear that we looked forward to a substantial Russian contribution to KFOR, the NATO-led peacekeeping force in Kosovo. Russia did not notify NATO in advance that it intended to deploy a small unit to Pristina airfield but, as the commander of KFOR has explained, this Russian unit had not affected either the deployment of NATO forces or the implementation of the Kosovo peace agreement. NATO is working with Russia on detailed command and control arrangements for Russian forces in KFOR.

  Security and Intelligence Services
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the Commissioner appointed under the Security Service Act 1989 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement. [87661]

  The Prime Minister
  A copy of the annual report of the Commissioner, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, for 1998 has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 4(6) of the Security Service Act 1989. The confidential annex to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 4(7) of the 1989 Act and in line with the Commissioner's recommendation. I am grateful to the Commissioner for his work in reviewing the issues of warrants under the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the Commissioner appointed under the Intelligence Services Act 1994 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement. [87662]

  The Prime Minister
  A copy of the annual report of the Commissioner, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, for 1998 has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 8(6) of the Intelligence Services 196
  Act 1994. The confidential annexe to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 8(7) of the 1994 Act. I am grateful to the Commissioner for his work in reviewing the issue of warrants and authorisations, and in providing assistance to the Tribunal as provided for in the Act.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the Commissioner appointed under section 8(1) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement. [87663]

  The Prime Minister
  A copy of the annual report of the Commissioner, Lord Nolan, for 1998 has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 8(7) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The confidential annexe to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 8(8) of the 1985 Act and in accordance with the Commissioner's recommendations. I am grateful to the Commissioner for his work in reviewing the issue of warrants during the year. I note in particular the Commissioner's view that interception of both postal communications and telecommunications remains an effective and an essential operation in the interests of national security and the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, and the prevention and detection of serious crime.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 10 February 1999,Official Report, columns 283–84, if he will (a) list Government expenditure on ministerial overseas visits at current prices for the financial years 1993–94 to 1998–99, (b) list all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing in excess of £500 between 2 May 1997 and 31 March 1999 including the cost, destination and purpose of the visit and (c) publish the rules governing travel by Ministers. [87665]

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure on Ministerial overseas visits for the periods requested is estimated as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1993–94

  6.5

  1994–95

  6.6

  1995–96

  6.9

  1996–97

  7.8

  1 May 1997–31 March 1998

  6.1

  1998–99

  4.8

  The figures for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 do not include some expenditure falling to the Scottish Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Welsh Office because the information was not recorded centrally or is incomplete. Full costs are available from 1996–97 onwards. All figures are in 1997–98 prices. The figure for 1998–99 reflects payments made so far for travel undertaken in this period; a few bills have yet to be submitted to departments for payment.

  A list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during the period 2 May 1997 and 31 March 1999 has been placed in the Libraries of the House. The list provides details of the date,

  197
  destination and purpose of all such visits and the cost of Ministers' travel and accommodation where appropriate. Comprehensive listings for earlier years is not available.

  Guidance on travel by Ministers is set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers. The rules on travel by Ministers are the same as those that applied under the previous Administration. Travel by Ministers has always been an internal guidance document. However, in line with this Government's commitment to greater openness, I have decided to publish the document and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The Ministerial Code is already in the public domain.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many fraud cases the Benefits Agency Security Investigation Service have brought to a successful conclusion in this financial year; and if he will break this figure down by administrative region. [86900]

  Mr. Timms
  Operational matters are the responsibility of the Benefits Agency Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Frank Field, dated 16 June 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many fraud cases the Benefit Agency Security and Investigation Service has brought to a successful conclusion in this financial year; and if he will break this figure down by administrative region.
  As at 31 May 1999, the BASIS has brought to a successful conclusion thirty one cases in the Southern Area and thirty six in the Northern Area.
  I hope that this is helpful.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  China Western Poverty Reduction Project
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received from the Chinese Ambassador concerning the Qinghai component of the China Western Poverty Reduction Project. [87124]

  Clare Short
  None.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received from(a) Tibetans in Dulan county and (b) other interested parties concerning the Qinghai component of the China Western Poverty Reduction Project. [87122]

  Clare Short
  We have not received any representations from Tibetan or other ethnic groups living in Dulan county. A number of UK non-governmental organisations have written to me.
  198
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what assessment she has made of the impact on the indigenous population of the Qinghai component of the China Western Poverty Reduction Project; [87118]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the World bank category B environmental status given to the China Western Poverty Reduction Project; [87120]

  (3) if she will make a statement on the consultation process undertaken by the World bank with the people currently living in the move-in area of the proposed China Western Poverty Reduction Project; [87121]

  (4) if she will provide details of the World bank's environmental impact assessments of the Qinghai component of the China Western Poverty Reduction Project. [87123]

  Clare Short
  The World bank's staff appraisal report on this project was made available at the end of last week. I will write to the hon. Member when we have had an opportunity to study this.

  Southern Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the current humanitarian situation in southern Sudan. [87114]

  Clare Short
  Southern Sudan has some of the worst malnutrition and mortality rates in the world. While the situation in the south this year is significantly better than in 1998, it is essential that a long term and just peace is achieved in Sudan. Until it is, crises on the scale of last year are liable to reoccur at any time.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the current harvest and food levels in southern Sudan. [87115]

  Clare Short
  The best estimates available indicate that total productive efforts, that is from fishing and livestock as well as the last harvest production, should be sufficient to meet about 90 per cent. of needs in southern Sudan this year. The actual ability of the rural population in southern Sudan to meet their own needs remains dependent on external factors such as the level of insecurity and internal displacement.

  World Bank Projects
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the World bank projects involving(a) the construction of dams and (b) population resettlement, which have been given category "B" status. [87119]

  Clare Short
  The World bank informs us that according to the information in its database, there are 95 projects currently under implementation which are listed as having significant dam components. Of these, 41 are listed as Environmental Assessment category "B" projects. According to the report "Inventory of Projects with Involuntary Resettlement" dated 14 June 1999, the bank has 234 projects with resettlement which are currently under implementation. Of these, 122 projects are classified as category "B" projects.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if another member state of the European Union were to license the commercial planting of genetically modified crops by a company there would be any bar to that company proceeding with commercial planting in the United Kingdom. [86135]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]Commercial growing of a genetically modified crop can be approved only at community level, not by an individual member state. The relevant legislation is Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Under Part C of this Directive, applications for consent for placing on the market products containing or consisting of GMOs must be considered and cleared by all member states at the Community level. Once a GM crop has Part C (marketing) consent under the Directive, it applies across all member states, including, of course, the United Kingdom.

  However, before any new variety of a crop, including GM varieties, can be grown commercially, it also has to have passed the necessary tests and be placed either on the UK national list of seeds or the EU common catalogue. If the crop is herbicide tolerant, the use of that herbicide on the GM crop may also require specific approval under the pesticides legislation.

  Specific conditions may be attached to consents issued under the Directive, for example to limit the geographical area in which the GM crop is grown or used. But in absence of any such restrictions and subject to the other necessary approvals for any crop being in place, there is no bar to commercial planting in the UK.

  A safeguard clause, Article 16, in the Directive allows a member state provisionally to restrict or prohibit the use and/or sale on its territory of a GMO that has been given consent if there are justifiable reasons to consider that the product constitutes a risk to human health or the environment. In such circumstances a decision on whether or not to uphold the consent is subsequently taken at Community level after consideration of the new evidence.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he has obtained about the use of antibiotic marker genes in genetically modified plants which provide raw materials for the production of cosmetics and perfumes. [86316]

  Mr. Meacher
  All releases of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are governed by the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 as amended. Under the Regulations, the possible effects of using antibiotic marker genes in a GM plant on human health or the environment are considered as part of the approvals process. However, once any GM plant material had been processed for use in products such as cosmetics and perfumes, it would not come under the scope of these Regulations because it is no longer a living organism, i.e. not capable of replication or of transferring genetic material. The products would, however, be 200
  assessed under the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1996 to ensure that they are not harmful to human health.

  The Government welcome the European Commission's plan to develop harmonised guidelines for GMO risk assessments for cosmetic products and will push in Europe for their adoption.

  Asbestos Imports
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 May 1999,Official Report, columns 170–71, when he expects to make a decision on the recommendation of the Health and Safety Commission to implement a ban on white asbestos; and when he expects the European Commission to ratify the vote of their Technical Committee to tighten the restrictions on the import of white asbestos; and if he will make a statement. [86651]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are determined to apply further necessary restrictions to the importation, marketing and use of white asbestos. I have received advice from the Health and Safety Commission about those new restrictions in the form of draft regulations. I will act on that advice as soon as the European Commission has ratified the vote of their technical committee on 4 May to adapt to technical progress Council Directive 76/769/EEC. Under European law, it would be illegal for new domestic restrictions to be introduced before this has happened. I am hopeful that the European Commission will ratify the adaptation directive this month. The UK continues to encourage the European Commission to act swiftly on this vitally important measure.

  House Adaptations
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the research conducted by Age Concern and RADAR into the performance of local authorities in meeting their duties to provide adaptations for older and disabled people. [86918]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have read with interest the initial findings of the research undertaken by Age Concern and RADAR. We are currently consulting on "You and Your Services", a draft charter for long-term care, and would encourage Age Concern and RADAR in their response to consider how that charter could be used as a basis for setting targets for performance on housing adaptations. My Department is addressing other issues of local authority performance in this area in the work we are doing to develop the Best Value regime, and in our guidance to local authorities on the Housing Investment Programme. We will consider these issues further in the light of our consideration of the recent report by the Royal Commission on Long Term Care.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to update the joint Department of Health and Department of the Environment Circular 10/90 (LAC (90)7) on house adaptations for people with disabilities. [86919]
  201
  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has no plans to update the Circular. It was replaced in December 1996 by a new Circular, Department of the Environment Circular 17/96, which contained guidance on changes made by the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 to local housing authorities' responsibilities. The parts of Circular 17/96 which updated Circular 10/90 were written in consultation with the Department of Health, and that Circular was sent to all local authorities, including those responsible for the provision of social services.

  Right to Roam
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with English Nature on the environmental impact of a right to roam in(a) national nature reserves, (b) Ramsar sites, (c) special protection areas under the EU Birds Directive, (d) special areas of conservation under the EU Habitats Directive, (e) sites of special scientific interest and (f) other environmentally sensitive areas. [86421]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 14 June
  1999]Before reaching our decision to
  legislate for a new statutory right of access to open
  countryside, we consulted a wide range of organisations,
  including English Nature. In addition to that, I have regular quarterly meetings with English Nature, where we have exchanged views on the Government's access proposals.

  Access on foot is generally compatible with the conservation of wildlife. Indeed, many sites protected under national and international legislation are already open to public access. However, we recognise that restrictions on access may, in some cases, be necessary to protect particular wildlife interests. We shall, therefore, be looking to English Nature to provide advice on the need for closures and restrictions on conservation grounds.

  Rent Levels
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's system of monitoring the rent levels of local authority(a) leased property and (b) allocated bed-and-breakfast accommodation. [86890]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 16 June 19991 Our system of monitoring local authority rents does not cover these types of property, which would fall outside an authority's Housing Revenue Account.

  South West Water
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take action to ensure that South West Water reduces its increase in consumer bills. [87138]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 June 1999]Under the Water Industry Act 1991, the regulation of water and sewerage undertakers' price limits is for the Director General of Water Services. Changes in average charges for water and sewerage services must remain within limits 202
  set by the Director General for each company for each year. The price limits governing South West Water in 1999–2000 are those determined on appeal in 1995 by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (RPI + 1% on average).

  The Director General is currently conducting his periodic review of prices for the period 2000 to 2005. The Government have given guidance to the Director General on the environmental and water quality improvements to be delivered by 2005. We believe that these can be secured while offering reductions of around 10 per cent. in average water and sewerage bills. The Director General expects to announce draft price limits for each undertaker in July.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the Regional Development Agencies. [86510]

  Mr. Meale
  The Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) inherited the main part of their staff and programmes on 1 April 1999, so it is too early for a formal assessment of their impact. However, early indications are that the RDAs are making good progress on building partnerships with regional stakeholders. They are also on target for producing draft regional strategies for consultation over the summer.

  British Waterways
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to appoint a new Chairman for British Waterways; and if he will make a statement. [87636]

  Mr. Meale
  Dr. George Greener, ex-group chief executive, Hillsdown Holdings, will succeed Bernard Henderson as Chairman of British Waterways (BW) on 10 July. The appointment will be for three years.

  The new Chairman's main priority will be to steer BW in its new direction following my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement on 18 February about the Government's decision on the future status and direction for BW. Dr. Greener will need to ensure that BW develops successful and innovative partnerships with the public, private and voluntary sectors and maximises its contribution towards the Government's objectives for transport, regeneration, conservation and amenity.

  Dr. Greener's strong commercial background and previous experience of strategic leadership will be invaluable at what is a significant time for BW. He will continue to hold a small number of non executive directorships.

  I would like to acknowledge the commitment and enthusiasm Bernard Henderson has brought to BW over the past five years and the important contribution he has made during the Government's review of options for the future of BW.

  I am issuing a news release today announcing Dr. Greener's appointment.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his proposals for reducing the burdens on small businesses. [86511]

  Mr. Wills
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently announced a number of deregulatory measures which will benefit small business:the draft National Minimum Wage regulations were amended to reduce record keeping requirements;
  supplementary guidance will be produced on the Working Time Regulations to make it clear that for the vast majority of British businesses, existing documentation and systems already meet the record-keeping requirements;
  we will consider using sunset clauses in some future regulations causing them to lapse after a fixed term unless renewed; and in addition I have today published a consultation paper which sets out our proposals for a new service to help small employers get to grips with running a payroll.

  These measures will benefit thousands of businesses, in particular small businesses, and significantly reduce their costs. My right hon. Friend has made clear his intention to announce further measures to reduce burdens on business over the coming weeks.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received in response to his Department's paper on renewable energy. [86512]

  Mr. Battle
  We have received well over 200 written responses from a wide variety of interests including Members of Parliament, the renewable energy and electricity industries, renewable energy trade associations, academia and business institutions, developers and designers, environmental lobby groups, and members of the public. The responses are presently being analysed.

  Part-time Work Directive
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress his Department has made on the implementation of the part-time work directive. [86514]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Employment Relations Bill contains powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations and issue codes of practice which will implement the Directive. The Department will consult on implementation over the summer, with a view to bringing the measures into force by the deadline of 7 April 2000.

  EU Energy Markets
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that United Kingdom companies can compete in European Union energy markets. [86515]

  Mr. Battle
  We are driving forward the agenda to create a single European market in gas and electricity. At the Energy Council on 11 May I stressed the importance of creating a single open and competitive market in Europe rather than 15 individual and separate open 204
  markets for each member state. I also stressed the need for the Council to regularly review progress and the Commission resolved to provide progress reports.

  Competition
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure fair and open competition between companies in the United Kingdom. [86516]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Competition Act 1998 will introduce tough new powers to deal with anti-competitive agreements and abuses of market dominance when its main provisions are brought into force on 1 March 2000. These include strong powers of investigation, a power to take interim measures where necessary pending the completion of an investigation, powers to direct undertakings to bring infringements to an end and powers to impose penalties for breaches of the prohibitions. The Director General of Fair Trading has the main responsibility for enforcement of the new Act and extra resources have been provided to the Office of Fair Trading for that purpose.

  British Manufacturers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how he plans to improve the international competitiveness of British manufacturers. [86517]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The 77 commitments of Government action in the Competitiveness White Paper published last December are aimed at increasing the competitiveness of all business and many are directly relevant to manufacturers. Fifteen commitments have already been delivered and work is well underway on all the others, which collectively represent a long-term agenda for Government and industry. Manufacturing will play a key role in this work.

  European Directives (Business Costs)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates his Department has made of the cost of the(a) social chapter's parental leave directive, (b) works councils directive and (c) part-time work directive to British business. [86518]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Employment Relations Bill estimated the recurring compliance costs to business of the Parental Leave to be £28.8 million.

  A Compliance Cost Assessment was attached to the Explanatory Memoranda submitted to this House and another place on 28 October 1997 in relation to the European Works Councils Directive. The Government are carrying out further work to update and refine those estimates which will be published shortly as part of a consultation exercise on the implementation.

  A Compliance Cost Assessment was attached to the Explanatory Memorandum submitted to this House on 17 March 1998 in relation to the part-time work directive. As stated in the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Employment Relations Bill, there is evidence to suggest that discrimination is not wide

  205
  spread and costs should therefore be low. A Regulatory Impact Assessment will accompany the draft Regulations.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to ensure the prosecution of employers paying their staff less than the national minimum wage. [86519]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Inland Revenue enforce the national minimum wage on behalf of this Department. Inspectors have powers to inspect records and to issue enforcement and penalty notices. They can prosecute the worst offenders for the criminal offence of 'refusal or wilful neglect' to pay the minimum wage, and for offences relating to record keeping and obstruction of officers. The decision to prosecute in a particular case will be a matter for the Revenue.

  Enforcement Officers respond to complaints from workers and from other employers, and will shortly begin targeted inspections of low-paying employers.

  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his actions to enforce the minimum wage. [86521]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Secretary of State has made arrangements with the Inland Revenue to enforce the national minimum wage on behalf of this Department. Enforcement is carried out through a helpline, a compliance co-ordination team and by a network of minimum wage inspectors in the regions.

  Officers respond to complaints from workers and employers, and will shortly begin proactive inspections of low-paying employers.

  E-commerce
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about Government proposals in respect of encryption in electronic commerce. [86522]

  Mr. Wills
  Encryption technology, whether used for authentication or confidentiality purposes, has a significant role to play in the emerging importance of electronic business and electronic government. I intend to give a boost to the use of these important technologies in the legislation on electronic commerce I will shortly bring before the House.

  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his plans to regulate electronic commerce. [86523]

  Mr. Wills
  I am pleased to say our recent consultation—Building Confidence in Electronic Commerce—announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 5 March 1999,Official Report, columns 928–29, resulted in over 240 responses, from industry and other interested parties.

  The Government intend to introduce legislation on electronic commerce during the current session.

  British Steel Industry
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on recent developments in the British steel industry. [86525]

  Mr. Battle
  The UK steel industry remains one the most productive and competitive in the world.

  If my hon. Friend's question refers to the recent announcement by British Steel that it intends to merge with the Dutch steel producer, Koninklijke Hoogovens, I should advise him that the proposed merger is likely to be subject to European competition rules. Given the UK's part in any competition investigation, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with British Aerospace on future prospects for the aircraft industry; and if he will make a statement. [86527]

  Mr. Battle
  I and my officials maintain regular contact with British Aerospace and other companies involved in the aerospace and defence industries. Indeed I was happy to attend the Paris Air show earlier this week when I enjoyed constructive discussions with many of industry's key players. Our discussions cover a wide range of issues relevant to the future success of these sectors, including the need to play a leading role in international restructuring and to maintain global competitiveness.

  Manufacturing Competitiveness (English Regions)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to increase the(a) export success and (b) manufacturing competitiveness of the English regions. [86528]

  Mr. Wills
  The Competitiveness White Paper published last December set out 77 commitments for Government action aimed at increasing the export success and competitiveness of all businesses, including manufacturing, throughout the UK. We recognise that each region has different needs. The Regional Development Agencies have therefore been asked to identify measures in their forthcoming economic strategies which are aimed at improving business competitiveness. I have made funds available to Regional Development Agencies to address the priorities they identify. Pending the establishment of the London Development Agency next year, my Department is supporting similar work being undertaken by the London Development Partnership.

  British Trade International, the new unified DTI/FCO operation for trade promotion, will place greater emphasis on effective delivery of export services in the English regions. The regional and local network, currently in Government Offices and Business Links, will be integral to the new service and under the effective control of the Chief Executive, Sir David Wright. British Trade International will work closely with the Small Business Service and Regional Development Agencies as the new trade promotion organisation takes shape.
  207
  I have also given my backing to the CBI's "Fit for the Future" campaign which aims to help to improve business competitiveness by the adoption of "best practice" techniques.

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in implementing the Small Business Service. [86529]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government announced their plans to set up the Small Business Service in the Budget statement. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry reinforced this in his statement to the House on 10 March, 1999,Official Report, columns 367–69.

  We will be publishing a consultation document shortly on the specific role and functions of the Small Business Service. I will be welcoming views from all interested parties.

  Car Prices
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress made with his inquiry into UK car prices. [86496]

  Dr. Howells
  The Director General of Fair Trading referred the market for new cars to the Competition Commission on 17 March this year. The conduct of the inquiry is entirely a matter for the Commission. The Commission is due to report on 16 December; the Government await its conclusions with interest.

  Ministerial Visit (USA)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which companies the Minister for Science visited during his most recent visit to the USA; and what was discussed. [87034]

  Mr. Battle
  My noble Friend, Lord Sainsbury, visited Boston on 8–10 June as part of a fact-finding mission to examine the growth of biotechnology clusters and how Britain can improve its competitive position.

  Details of all the organisations visited by my noble Friend and the accompanying team of leading business people and academics were set out in a DTI Press Notice of 8 June (P/99/45) which was sent to the right hon. Member. A copy of the DTI Press Notice was also provided automatically to the Library of the House.

  Lead-free Solders
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial assistance his Department has given to the Welding Institute in relation to research into lead-free solders. [87268]

  Mr. Battle
  The Department has no record of recent support having been given to the Welding Institute, TWI as it is now known, to carry out such research but in the past my Department has given considerable support to TWI for research work in many areas.

  Tin
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans his Department has to aid the 208
  International Tin Research Institute in its development of (a) the use of tin as an alternative to lead-based products and (b) lead-free solders. [87267]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department has no current plans to provide assistance to the International Tin research institute to develop either the use of tin as an alternative to lead-based products or lead-free solders. There is no sound scientific evidence, or comprehensive analysis, that clearly shows a need to replace uses of lead with tin but I am aware there are some environmental concerns about the continuing use of lead-based solders in electrical and electronic equipment.

  TUPE
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of public sector employees who may be eligible for compensation because of the delay in implementing the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. [87279]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  This will depend on how many people can show that they suffered damage as a result of the breach of the Directive. Legal action was brought on behalf of 1,473 people. However, no statement has yet been made of any damage caused to any of them, or the circumstances in which it may have been caused, which could lead to a decision on whether they are due compensation.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he plans to take to reduce the administrative burdens placed on manufacturing industry. [86910]

  Mr. Battle
  Earlier this month my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a number of new measures to reduce burdens on business, including the manufacturing sectors. These measures include consultation on raising the audit threshold for companies and new guidance on the Working Time Regulations which will make it clear that for the vast majority of British businesses, existing documentation and systems already meet the record-keeping requirements. They are part of our ongoing effort to reduce burdens on business.

  Small Employers (Payroll Service)
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for providing the payroll service for small employers, announced at the time of the Budget. [87668]

  Mr. Wills
  I have today published a consultation paper, 'Developing a Payroll Service for Small Businesses', which sets out our proposals for a new service to help small employers get to grips with running a payroll. Comments are being sought from a number of interested parties and the closing date for responses is Tuesday 7 September.

  Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Parental Leave Directive
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evaluation he has made of the use by each member state of the European Union of the protective provisions for small businesses under the Parental Leave Directive. [87361]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Information we have been able to access suggests that there are some limited variations on some aspects of the provisions for small businesses across EC member states. For example, in Belgium, where there is a requirement to allow employees to take their leave on a part-time basis for six months, there is an exemption applying to companies with fewer than 10 employees. In the Netherlands, parental leave can be postponed in a small company if a replacement cannot be found.

  Energy Use
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into trends in energy use in the office and commercial business sectors. [87362]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) have commissioned work on services sector energy consumption in recent years.

  At the request of officials in my Department the Building Research Establishment (BRE) has been commissioned to investigate methods for estimating energy consumption in the office and commercial business sectors. The report on this work is in progress and is expected to be completed during the summer of 1999.

  In order to assess the pattern of energy end uses and what emission reductions may be achieved to tackle climate change the DETR has commissioned BRE to carry out work to improve the understanding of energy use in non-domestic buildings. This ongoing project resulted in the publication in January 1998 of the "Non-Domestic Building Energy Fact File". The results of this project underpin the work described in the previous paragraph.

  Statisticians in DTI have produced an analysis of trends in services sector energy consumption. This provided information for the private commercial sector as a whole and was published in December 1997 by the Stationery Office in "Energy Paper 66: Energy Consumption in the United Kingdom". Information on services sector energy consumption is also routinely published in the "Energy Report Volume 2" and in the "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics".

  British Nuclear Fuels
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much his Department has spent in each of the last five years in supporting British Nuclear Fuels plc's efforts to secure foreign contracts (i) in total and (ii) for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel in the United Kingdom. [86967]

  Mr. Battle
  There is no specific financial assistance for BNFL to support its efforts to secure foreign commercial contracts.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to ensure that adequate match funding arrangements are in place in Objective 1 areas. [86508]

  Mr. Wills
  Match funding will continue to be the responsibility of the grant applicant. This ensures local ownership and commitment to the projects. There are numerous possible sources for match funding including local authorities, TECs, government schemes, the voluntary sector and also the private sector. Organisations such as the European Investment Bank can make loans to local authorities for use as match funding. In some areas innovative loan and equity funds such as the Merseyside Special Investment fund have been set up to draw in resources from commercial banks.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Mrs. Rosemary Nelson
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many officers of what ranks and from which police force make up the inquiry team into the murder of Mrs. Rosemary Nelson. [85452]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 25 May 1999]The make-up of the team investigating Rosemary Nelson's murder is a matter for Deputy Chief Constable, Colin Port. He is leading the investigation. The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has given him authority to draw together whatever team he requires. The number of officers making up the inquiry team varies as the needs of the investigation dictate. Officers from up to nine police forces, other than the Royal Ulster Constabulary, have been involved in this investigation.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Royal Ulster Constabulary sought the permission of Mr. Paul Nelson, husband of the late Rosemary Nelson, before publishing on the RUC web site, the home address of the Nelson family. [85454]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 25 May 1999]The RUC judged it as essential to give these details, which were already in the public domain, to attract possible witnesses with the aim of catching those responsible for murdering Mrs. Nelson.

  Housing
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what rules and guidelines govern the decision-making process of the Northern Ireland Housing Council in its nominations to the board of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive; what was the breakdown of those nominated by(a) perceived community origin and (b) gender in each year that nominations have been made; and what actions she will take to promote parity of esteem and equality in this area. [87170]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 16 June 1999]Under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, three members of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (the Executive) shall be persons nominated by the Northern Ireland
  211
  Housing Council (the Council) from its members. Under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 of the same Order, the Council may regulate its own proceedings.

  Since its inception in 1973, except in 1995 when an SDLP member, perceived to be from the minority community was nominated, the Council has always nominated Unionist members, who are perceived to be from the majority community. In 1996, the first woman member, perceived to be from the majority community, was nominated for appointment, was re-nominated in 1997, and served until the Department received notification of her resignation on 2 June 1998, to stand in the election to the new Northern Ireland Assembly. In 1998, all three nominations were male, perceived to be from the majority community.

  Draft legislation in preparation would allow the Department to regulate the nomination process in order to achieve a broader balance. Progress of any legislation will, however, be a matter for consideration by the devolved Administration.

  Parades Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) of 29 March 1999,Official Report, column 479, if she will provide a breakdown of the moneys spent under the heading, media and publicity advice and services, listing the consultancies and individuals providing services and the moneys received by each and describe the process of selection of consultants and purchased services. [87169]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 June 1999](a)

  £

  Item (financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99)

  Amount

  Fees

  103,170.90

  Expenses

  3,683.70

  Printing

  2,353.97

  Work relating to the website/database

  5,544.23

  Hire of locations (for press conferences, etc.)

  3,511.72

  Transportation (Commission briefings in USA)

  2,466.27

  Sundries

  1,595.73

  Total

  122,326.52

  (b) The Media Adviser contracted to the Parades Commission is Gordon Corporate Communications Ltd. The firm arranges for all the Commission's work relating to media and publicity advice and services, sub-contracting work as necessary.

  (c) The Parades Commission uses the services of the Government Purchasing Agency in establishing contracts for the provision of goods and services. Standard procedures are used for all aspects of the contracting process.

  Reconciliation (Funding)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to meet the Irish Prime Minister to agree a joint British-Irish funding body for organisations involved in reconciliation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. [86151]
  212
  Marjorie Mowlam
  None. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on 15 June 1999,Official Report, column 67.

  Nursery Units
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at which locations nursery units have been provided under the first tranche of the childhood funds; how many of these units are associated with the Council of Catholic Maintained Schools; and what assessment she has made of the extent to which the EU peace package for peace and reconciliation is being used for cross-community nursery units. [86312]

  Mr. McFall
  19 nursery units have been provided in the following locations:

  West Winds Primary School, Newtownards

  Kilcooley Primary School, Bangor

  Old Warren Primary School, Lisburn

  Bushmills Primary School

  Harpur's Hill Primary School, Coleraine

  St. James' Primary School, Whiteabbey

  St. John's Primary School, Carnlough

  College Farm Nursery School, Armagh

  St. Patrick's Primary School, Newry

  St. Patrick's Primary School, Dungannon

  St. Patrick's Primary School, Crossmaglen

  St. Patrick's Primary School, Cullyhanna

  St. Joseph's Primary School, Newry

  Barrack St. Boys Primary School, Strabane

  St. Ronan's Primary School, Lisnaskea

  St. Patrick's Primary School, Castlederg

  Ashlea Primary School, Londonderry

  Enniskillen Nursery School

  Glendermott Primary School, Londonderry

  Twelve of the units are located at schools in the Catholic-maintained sector.

  All nursery provision is open to all children regardless of religious denomination and a number of the projects under tranche 1 of the EU Peace and Reconciliation Programme have been approved with the specific aim of making cross-community provision. Several have been developed on neutral sites and through partnerships in order to secure places which can be attended by children from all religious backgrounds, and management structures have been established to reflect this.

DEFENCE

  Warships
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when(a) HMS Fearless and (b) HMS Intrepid will be taken out of service; and if he will make a statement. [85961]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]On current plans, Fearless and Intrepid are due to be payed-off in 2001 and 2002, respectively. However, the pay-off dates are linked to the acceptance of the LPD(R)s,
  213
  the replacement vessels, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. In the light of delays to the LPD(R)s, the pay-off dates for Fearless and Intrepid are under review.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on HMS Brave over the last two years; what is the cost of holding her in a state of extended readiness over the next 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [86372]

  Mr. Spellar
  Maintenance work on HMS Brave in the two years to June 1999 has cost about £1.9 million. This includes the cost of preparations for extended readiness and the cost of the tow from Devonport to Portsmouth where the ship is now berthed. The estimated cost of maintaining HMS Brave at extended readiness for the next 12 months is about £0.4 million.

  Medical Officers Pay
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the pay of medical and dental officers in the armed forces. [87664]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has made recommendations on the pay of medical and dental officers in the armed forces. In view of the particular retention difficulties in the Defence Medical Services, the Review Body recommends that all medical and dental officers should receive a general 4.5 per cent. increase in basic pay. The Review Body also recommends, in order to achieve greater comparability with equivalent personnel in the NHS, an increase to Trainers' Pay and the activation of a Distinction Award scheme.

  The Government have decided to accept the Review Body's recommendations and these will be payable in full from 1 April 1999.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Family Law Act 1996
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to implement Part II of the Family Law Act 1996. [87637]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government will not now implement Part II of the Family Law Act 1996 in 2000. Before implementing Part II, the Government must be satisfied that the new arrangements for divorce which it would put in place will work. The pilot projects which have been run to test the provision of information meetings under Part II were concluded at the end of May. The preliminary research results are disappointing, in view of the Government's objectives of saving saveable marriages and encouraging the mediated settlement of disputes. A summary of the research results so far will be published today, and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The full research results from the pilots will not be ready until early next year, when the Government will consider whether further research is necessary.

  The Government will therefore bring forward amendments today to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill currently before Parliament to ensure that its pension sharing provisions can take effect under the
  214
  existing divorce law or under the divorce law as reformed by Part II of the Family Law Act. A set of supplementary explanatory notes for the Bill will be available from today.

SCOTLAND

  Human Rights Act 1998
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the Government have taken to ensure that the Judiciary and the Procurator Fiscal Service is equipped to deal with the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998; what material has been produced to assist with this process; and if he will place copies of it in the Library. [86209]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 15 June 1999]The Judicial Studies Committee established in 1997 under the Chairmanship of the right hon. Lord Ross has undertaken a comprehensive programme of training on human rights issues for all Judges, Sheriffs Principal, Sheriffs and Temporary Sheriffs. This includes the provision of specially commissioned briefing material, texts and reports produced by commercial publishers and a series of seminars held at various locations for all Judges and Sheriffs, with particular emphasis on the human rights issues arising immediately in Scotland as a result of the Scotland Act 1998. The normal programme of Court business has been adjusted to allow attendance at these events. Following the Government's recent announcement of the commencement date of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Judicial Studies Committee will shortly be embarking on the detailed planning necessary to ensure that appropriate further Judicial education is provided in good time before that date.

  The Lord Advocate is responsible for the Procurator Fiscal Service. His Department is now trained and equipped to deal with the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998. Early last year his officials prepared a detailed action plan for his Department on implementation of Convention rights in Scotland. A full time Working Group of 4 senior lawyers was established in June 1998 and has conducted a comprehensive review of prosecution policy and practice in Scotland. The most extensive training exercise in the history of the Department commenced in February 1999 and was completed on 3 June 1999 with all lawyers in the Department receiving three days training on the European Convention on Human Rights, the Scotland Act and the Human Rights Act. Further practical workshops and training for support staff will take place during the summer of 1999 and the Human Rights Act will, in future, form part of the core training of all prosecutors in Scotland. This training was accompanied by detailed and extensive training material and guidance. The materials produced for the Procurator Fiscal Service contain prosecution policy and are confidential.

  Since 20 May 1999 prosecution in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  The other matters will also be for that Parliament from 1 July 1999.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [87318]

  Dr. Reid
  Since 15 April, thirty-two parliamentary questions have been tabled to my Department for answer on a named day. Of these, forty-seven per cent. received a substantive reply on the nominated day.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect devolution will have on ministerial responsibilities for forestry. [87666]

  Dr. Reid
  From 1 July 1999, Scottish Ministers in the Scottish Parliament will have responsibility for forestry in Scotland, the National Assembly for Wales will have responsibility for forestry in Wales, while the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will continue to have responsibility for forestry in England.

  The Prime Minister has agreed that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will also, from 1 July, assume responsibility for forestry issues affecting Great Britain as a whole. The Minister will, of course, consult Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly on such matters.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has responsibility for forestry in Northern Ireland.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 14–15 June; and if he will make a statement. [87373]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the European Union Agriculture Council in Luxembourg on 14–15 June.

  Concluding a negotiation launched under the UK Presidency last year, the Council reached a unanimous landmark agreement (Spain abstaining) on battery cages for laying hens, the farming system which is most heavily criticised on grounds of animal welfare. From 1 January 2003, any new battery cages must meet new and more welfare-friendly standards. Conventional battery cages will be banned altogether after the end of 2011.

  One of my aims was to accommodate non-cage systems of the kind which many UK producers have voluntarily adopted out of concern for animal welfare, and I am pleased to have secured terms which will allow producers who have such systems to keep them, without significant change also until 31 December 2011.

  I regard it as important that, as we raise standards of animal welfare in the European Union, our producers should not be undermined by producers in third countries operating on lower standards. This week's agreement
  216
  includes a firm undertaking from the Commission to seek wider international agreement on animal welfare standards in the next round of World Trade Organisation negotiations which starts early next year.

  The Council also reached unanimous agreement on standards for organic livestock, ending nearly three years' discussion. Consumers and producers will benefit from knowing that all livestock products sold as organic must in future conform to a minimum set of requirements applicable throughout the EU. It remains open to each member state to set stricter (but not less strict) standards for its own producers. I intend that there should be early discussion between Government and UK organic farming organisations about the implementation of the new rules.

  In the light of the problem of dioxin contamination in Belgium, the Council agreed on the urgent need to improve the monitoring and control of foodstuffs, and in particular invited the Commission to carry out a thorough review of feedingstuffs legislation and labelling.

  The Council also agreed the 1999 CAP price proposals by qualified majority, Italy voting against. This largely prolongs the status quo for the 1999–2000 marketing year, in advance of the Agenda 2000 price cuts beginning next year. As part of the deal, I secured an important Commission commitment to allow member states to apply more flexible set-aside rules where this brought environmental benefits, as well as their agreement to correct an anomaly which prevented fruit and vegetable producer groups including non-grower members on their Boards.

  Ministers also registered the importance they attach to milk consumption by school children and undertook to reflect further on how to encourage such consumption in a cost-efficient way.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the report on organic farming and gene transfer from genetically modified crops commissioned from the John Innes Centre will be published. [87296]

  Mr. Rooker
  The report is being published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Quarantine
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the criteria he used to exempt the pet of William Dowell from quarantine and (b) the powers under which the exemption was granted. [86629]

  Mr. Rooker
  This is a wholly exceptional and very tragic case, and in the circumstances it would have been heartless not to make an exemption from the quarantine rules.

  The power to be used is contained in Article 2(1) of the Animals (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order of 1927 (SR & O 1927, No. 290).

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list total United Kingdom
  217
  permitted landings, in tonnes, of fish under the present Common Fisheries Policy distributions; and if he will estimate discards, by tonne, of each fish type in the past 12 months. [86730]

  Mr. Morley
  The United Kingdom's quota share of the Total Allowable Catch (which need not be landed in the UK) for 1999 is set out in the table:

  Tonnes

  Stock and ICES1 reporting area

  1999 UK quota

  Sandeels IIa, IV

  20,000

  Herring I, II

  25,190

  Herring IVa, b

  40,570

  Herring IVc, VIId

  1,693

  Herring Vb, VIaN, VIb

  39,240

  Herring VIa (Clyde)

  1,000

  Herring VIIa

  4,880

  Herring VIIe, f

  500

  Herring VIIg-k

  30

  Herring IIa, IV Industrial by-catch

  550

  Cod IIa, IV

  56,260

  Cod Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  5,690

  Cod VIIa

  1,585

  Cod VIIb-k, VIII, IX, X

  1,570

  Megrim IIa, IV

  2,880

  Megrim Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  1,520

  Megrim VII

  3,210

  Dab and Flounder IIa, IV

  2,590

  Anglers IIa, IV

  17,960

  Anglers Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  2,650

  Anglers VII

  4,800

  Haddock IIa, IV

  57,045

  Haddock Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  15,110

  Haddock VII, VIII, IX, X

  2,220

  Haddock VIIa

  2,390

  Whiting IIa, IV

  24,590

  Whiting Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  4,060

  Whiting VIIa

  1,720

  Whiting VIIb-k

  2,680

  Hake Ha, IV

  350

  Hake Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  5,550

  Lemon sole and Witch IIa, IV

  7,330

  Blue Whiting IIa, IV

  1,070

  Nephrops IIa, IV

  13,165

  Nephrops Vb, VI

  12,305

  Nephrops VII

  7,545

  Plaice IIa, IV

  28,070

  Plaice Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  1,450

  Plaice VIIa

  885

  Plaice VIId, e

  2,150

  Plaice VIIf, g

  205

  Plaice VIIh, j, k

  170

  Pollack Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  400

  Pollack VII

  2,960

  Saithe IIa, IIIb, c, d IV

  8,830

  Saithe Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  3,125

  Saithe VII, VIII, IX, X

  1,350

  Turbot and Brill IIa, IV

  1,390

  Skates and Rays IIa, IV

  3,920

  Mackerel IIa (EC) III, IV

  1,390

  Mackerel IIa (non-EC), Vb, VI, VII, VIIIa, b, d, e, XII, XIV

  165,480

  Sole II, IV

  945

  Sole Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  30

  Sole VIIa

  200

  Sole VIId

  905

  Sole VIIe

  410

  Sole VIIf, g

  270

  Sole VIIh, j, k

  120

  Sprat IIa, IV

  5,900

  Sprat VIId, e

  6,300

  Horse mackerel IIa, IV

  5,840

  Horse mackerel Vb, VI, VII, VIIIa, b, c, d, e, XII, XIV

  25,310

  1 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

  218
  Information on discards is not collected on a comparable stock by stock basis. From research work involving observers on fishing vessels, scientists estimate that the level of discarding varies according to number and age of fish available, season, mesh size used and anticipated market conditions as perceived by fishermen. We understand that discarding tends to be very low for pelagic species and for some demersal fish such as sole but can be significantly higher for gadoids such as cod, haddock and whiting.

  MAFF is contributing funds to an international project to study the economic causes of discarding at sea and to consider alternative management measures to reduce discarding in EU fisheries. The majority of fish discarded is undersize or considered uneconomic.

  Sandeels
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy towards sandeel conservation; what are the present estimated total stocks in UK waters; and what is the present allowable catch. [87342]

  Mr. Morley
  I remain concerned to ensure that an appropriate Total Allowable Catch is established each year for sandeels. I am also concerned to ensure that effective conservation measures are put in place to ensure that sandeels are available to those sea birds that depend on them at certain times of the year.

  Figures for estimated total sandeel stocks in UK waters are not available. The main sandeel fishery off the UK is in the North Sea. In October 1998 the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea advised that the North sea spawning stock biomass of this short lived species stood at 1.8 million tonnes. On this advice the Council of Ministers set a Total Allowable Catch of 1 million tonnes. A further 7,000 tonnes may be taken in the tightly regulated local fishery at Shetland.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Communications Regulation
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how the Government are implementing the proposals in the Green Paper regulating communications, approaching convergence in the information age. [87773]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have today published a report 'Regulating Communications: The Way Ahead', setting out the way forward on the regulation of the converging industries.

  The Government's proposals for an evolutionary approach to the regulation of the converging communication sectors to take account of convergence proposed in last July's Convergence Green Paper received widespread support in the consultation it initiated.
  219
  The new statement makes clear the Government's determination to ensure that the UK can take advantage of the opportunities convergence of telecommunications, broadcasting and information technology will bring. It shows how the Government are adapting the UK's regulatory framework to take account of changes in markets and technology, notably through modernisation and strengthening of competition law and deepening co-operation between OFTEL, the ITC and the Office of Fair Trading.

  Changes in these fast moving markets will eventually amount to a transformation and so demand new approaches to regulation to achieve policy goals. But the pattern and timing are far from clear. Our rejection of a big bang approach to reforming communications regulation in favour of the evolutionary approach outlined in last year's Convergence Green Paper has received widespread support. Most of those who commented supported this approach, recognising the uncertainties about the pace and direction of change. We believe that the changes we have made and continue to make will ensure that consumers and businesses alike are well served by flexible and effective regulation.

  The document announces a number of important new initiatives to promote UK competitiveness and protect the consumer interest in the converging communications sectors. In particular it:
  proposes new models for a reformed system of telecommunications regulation, including the possibility of ending licensing, to take account of the fact that we now have many different operators;
  announces a detailed assessment of the regulation of commercial TV broadcasting to ensure that the differences in regulation between different commercial broadcasters are no more than is necessary to protect the public interest;
  sets out a number of measures to take account of developments in commercial radio broadcasting;
  details the steps to be taken in implementing the lifting of restrictions on BT's provision of entertainment services including the amendment of local cable licenses to remove "build obligations" in certain circumstances.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps have been taken to implement Recommendations 4 and 9 of the Review of the Crown Prosecution Service in respect of research on discontinuances and downgrading of charges by the CPS. [86908]

  The Solicitor-General
  Recommendations 4 and 9 of the Glidewell Report are being considered by the CPS with the inter-agency Criminal Justice Information Working Group. The first part of Recommendation 9 was accepted by the Government in November 1998, and has been implemented. The Attorney-General will be announcing the Government's decisions on Recommendation 4 and the second part of Recommendation 9 later this month as part of a wider statement on the Glidewell Report.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  CS Spray
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people required hospital treatment following the application of CS spray by a police officer in the most recent year for which figures are available. [87347]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not maintained centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Arrangements are being made by the Association of Chief Police Officers to gather information from forces on the use of CS spray, as part of their monitoring of police use of force.

  Carnivals (Police Cover)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions he has issued to police forces on providing police cover for carnival processions. [87357]

  Mr. Boateng
  None. The assessment of the policing needs of carnivals and similar events is an operational matter for chief officers of police, who will generally consult event organisers, local authorities and other agencies.

  The Association of Chief Police Officers issued advice and guidance on public safety at organised events in April 1999, which recommends a multi-agency approach to public safety issues.

  Jury Trial
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) of the defendants who exercised their right to elect jury trial in 1998, how many were(a) acquitted in the Crown Court of all the charges against them, (b) convicted in the Crown Court following a jury trial and (c) convicted in the Crown Court on pleas of guilty and without going to jury trial; [86909]

  (2) in respect of the most recent period for which information is available, what proportions of defendants tried in the Crown Court following election for jury trial were (a) acquitted, or otherwise not convicted, in relation to all of the charges against them, (b) convicted, following jury trial, on all or some of the charges against them and (c) convicted, following pleas of guilty, and without going to jury trial, on all or some of the charges against them; [86960]

  (3) in respect of the most recent period for which information is available, what proportions of defendants convicted in the Crown Court following an election for jury trial were (a) convicted on all of the same charges with which they were originally charged and (b) convicted of fewer or lesser charges than those with which they were originally charged. [86961]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Age of Consent
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has
  221
  had with the Scottish Executive to ensure that any changes to legislation relating to the age of consent in Scotland are introduced and proceeded with simultaneously in the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament. [87172]

  Mr. Straw
  I have discussed this issue with my right hon. Friend the Scottish First Minister. This is a devolved issue, but one which is complicated by the consideration being given by the United Kingdom Government to the use of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. I fully support the conclusions reached on this by the Scottish Executive, as set out in the First Minister's statement to the Scottish Parliament on 9 June 1999,Official Report of the Scottish Parliament, columns 358–60, in which he said:
  "The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill is a United Kingdom measure designed to equalise the age of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals, and to introduce a new offence of abuse of trust. It was introduced to the Westminster Parliament in December last year and defeated in the House of Lords in April this year. The United Kingdom Government is likely to reintroduce the Bill, making use of the Parliament Acts to ensure its passage. That means that the Bill that is re-introduced would have to be identical to the one that was defeated. Therefore, even if it were thought desirable, it will not be possible to remove Scotland from the Bill's scope if the Parliament Acts are invoked. Until the United Kingdom Government and Parliament have concluded the existing legislative process, it is logical to regard it as unfinished Westminster business. However, these are devolved matters of some sensitivity. It is essential that this Parliament should have the opportunity to debate the Scottish provisions of the Bill. We shall therefore provide for a debate in Executive time. I and my colleagues in the Executive will argue in that debate that the powers under the Parliament Acts should be used if that is thought appropriate by the United Kingdom Government. We have reached that conclusion in the knowledge that this Parliament will have the power, if it so wishes, to amend or repeal any Scottish provision enacted by the passage of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill."

  Firearms Compensation Scheme
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much compensation has been paid out under Option A Code 3001 of the Firearms Compensation Scheme to(a) Firearms Certificate holders and (b) firearms dealers; and what proportion of the amount paid out under that part of the scheme this represents; [86905]

  (2) how many claimants under Option A Code 3001 of the Firearms Compensation Scheme (a) are still awaiting payment and (b) have been paid, broken down by (i) Firearms Certificate holders and (ii) firearms dealers; [86906]

  (3) how much compensation has been paid by the Firearms Compensation Scheme under the Large Calibre Handgun Compensation Scheme; [86907]

  Mr. Boateng
  A total of £80.87 million has been paid in compensation under the large calibre scheme. Of this, £51,450 has been paid to 536 firearm certificate holders and £1.23 million has been paid to 475 registered firearms dealers under Option A Code 3001 of the scheme. These payments represent 9.2 per cent. of the total paid under Option A. There should be no qualifying claims outstanding under this code.

  Criminal Inquiries Compensation
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claims were 222
  submitted to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (i) in total and (ii) by the victims of rape and incest; and what percentage in each case were (a) processed, (b) awarded and (c) rejected, in each of the last five years. [83266]

  Mr. Boateng [pursuant to his reply, 5 May 1999, c. 377–78]The figures for the total number of claims received under the criminal injuries compensation schemes in 1996–97 and 1997–98 should have read 75,414 and 77,743 respectively.

TREASURY

  Foreign Exchange Executory Contracts
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy with regards to longer term foreign exchange executory contracts following the judgment of the European Court in the First National Bank of Chicago case (Case C-172/96). [85678]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Following the judgment of the European Court in the First National Bank of Chicago case, policy is that all foreign exchange transactions are supplies of services. Where these transactions take place within the EU, the services are exempt from VAT and therefore taxpayers are not able to recover the VAT incurred on related costs. Where the transaction is with a party belonging outside the EU, however, the VAT incurred is recoverable. The recoverable amount is determined on a basis agreed between the taxpayer and Customs.

  Financial Services and Markets Committee Reports
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government expects to respond to the first and second reports from the Joint Committee on Financial Services and Markets. [87669]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are today publishing their response to the Joint Committee's reports to coincide with the introduction of the Financial Services and Markets Bill in the House of Commons. Copies of the Government's response are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. It will also be published on the Treasury's Internet website (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk). The Government very much appreciate and welcome the work of the Joint Committee.

  VAT
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 8 June 1999,Official Report, column 289, on the European Court judgment in the First National Bank of Chicago case, how many claims HM Customs and Excise have received as a consequence of the judgment; and what is their total value. [86965]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As at 31 May 1999 Customs and Excise had received 64 claims with a total value of £36.8 million, excluding interest.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 8 June 1999,Official Report, column 289, on the European Court judgment in the First National Bank and Chicago case, how many claims

  223
  received from businesses as a consequence of the judgment HM Customs and Excise are monitoring; and what is the total value of the claims. [87023]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As at 31 May 1999 Customs and Excise had received and are monitoring 64 claims with a total value of £36.8 million, excluding interest.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with retailers about the losses sustained by their industry as a result of tobacco smuggling. [86500]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs continue to work with industry representatives on estimating the scale of tobacco smuggling and finding new ways to tackle the problem. Several retail trade associations contributed to the review of alcohol and tobacco fraud and smuggling published in July last year. The Government accepted the review findings and Customs are now progressing the recommendations in partnership with the trade.

  Interest Rates
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the introduction of a statutory maximum interest rate. [86526]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government gave the Bank of England operational independence to set interest rates to ensure the Government's commitment to low inflation is delivered in practice. Setting a maximum interest rate would limit the Bank of England's ability to meet the Government's inflation target.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Fair Trade Products
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to introduce fair trade products at(a) meetings, (b) events and (c) catering facilities within his Department. [82872]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Department of Education and Employment has sought prices for both fair trade and non-fair trade products from catering suppliers during a recent tender exercise. The Department will continue to do so. In line with Government procurement policy, the evaluation of tenders will take into account value for money considerations having due regard to propriety and regularity. Furthermore, we work closely with our current catering providers and encourage them to offer fair trade products as an option to customers in staff restaurants. Discussions are taking place to ensure that fair trade products are considered for inclusion in product specification sent out for tender.

  Employment Service (New Deal)
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what targets the Government have set the Employment Service in respect of the New Deal; and if the Employment Service has passed targets on to individual employment centres and New Deal advisers. [87294]
  224
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Employment Service has been set a target of helping 100,000 young people into employment, through the New Deal, in this financial year. This national target is disaggregated to local Jobcentre level. Planning to meet local targets is the responsibility of each Jobcentre Manager, including, where appropriate, further disaggregation of office targets to New Deal personal Advisers.

  DLA Claimants
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if people in receipt of disability living allowance will be exempt from attending the ONE interview for the single work-focused gateway. [87280]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In twelve ONE pilot areas from April next year, subject to the passage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill through Parliament, anyone of working age, who is working for less than sixteen hours per week and claiming one or more of the income replacement benefits listed in the Bill, will be required to participate in a work-focused interview as a condition of receiving that benefit. Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is not specified as one of these benefits, as it is not an income replacement benefit. Accordingly, this means that anyone receiving only DLA, and no other benefits, will not be required to participate in an interview. Claimants of DLA only will continue to claim directly via the regional Disability Benefits Centre.

WALES

  Higher Education Funding
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated increase in the budget for the current financial year, expressed in cash and percentage terms of the Higher Education Funding Council; and if he will make a statement. [86337]

  Mr. Hain
  The recurrent grant for the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales for 1999–2000 is £263.341 million. This represents an increase of £32.119 million (almost 14 per cent.) over 1998–99. In addition £5.362 million of capital has been provided to support the research and teaching infrastructure and to provide new teaching equipment.

  The funding represents an excellent settlement for the Welsh higher education sector.

  Responsibility for higher education funding will transfer to the National Assembly from 1 July.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on higher education funding. [86342]

  Mr. Hain
  A very small number of representations have been received since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the funding allocation for higher education in Wales following the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  The real terms increase in resources for the Welsh HE sector has been welcomed.

  Responsibility for higher education funding will transfer to the National Assembly from 1 July.

  Women's Organisations (Consultation)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the women's organisations which have been consulted over proposed legislation by his Department during this session; and if their responses have been published. [86998]

  Mr. Michael
  The women's organisations consulted over proposed legislation during this session are: the National Federation of Women's Institutes, Welsh Women's Aid, Merched y Wawr and the Wales Assembly for Women. Some consultation exercises are ongoing. To date one response from Welsh Women's Aid has been published.

  Consultation has also taken place with the Equal Opportunities Commission. This offered further opportunity for consulting women's organisations through the EOC's support of the Wales Women's National Coalition which is made up of representatives of women's organisations including, in addition to those mentioned above, Chwarae Teg, Mewn Cymru, Wales Women's Euro Network, and the Wales TUC Women's Advisory Committee.

  The Welsh Office is committed to ensuring that its policies are inclusive and take account of the views and experience of those who will be affected by them. The National Assembly for Wales, through its Equalities Committee, will play a significant role in future, in co-orporation with the Office of the Secretary of State.

HEALTH

  Tobacco Advertising Directive
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the draft regulations to implement the Tobacco Advertising Directive 98/43/EC; and if he will make a statement. [87363]

  Mr. Dobson
  I have today published draft regulations to implement Directive 98/43/EC banning tobacco advertising and sponsorship. Copies will be placed in the Library.

CABINET OFFICE

  Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the maximum and minimum durations of meetings of the Joint Consultative Committee and the number of agenda items in each case. [87036]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Details of the proceedings of the Joint Consultative Committee are exempt from disclosure under the internal discussion and advice exemption of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information".

  Written Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to 226
  his Department for written answer on a named day since 15 April; and what percentage of them received a substantive response on that day. [87320]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Between the period of 15 April 1999–11 June 1999 there have been 21 named day parliamentary questions tabled to my Department, of which 90.5 per cent. received a substantive reply on the day specified.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EU Charter of Rights
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will deposit in the Library the Presidency draft of an EU Charter of Rights; and if he will make a statement. [86720]

  Ms Quin
  No such draft exists. The Cologne European Council agreed a declaration setting out the process for developing the Charter. An initial draft will be prepared over the next 18 months according to the process described in the Cologne Conclusions (Annexe N), which have been deposited in the Library.

  Sudan
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions the Government are taking to bring about a ceasefire in Southern Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [87007]

  Mr. Hoon
  During a visit by the late Minister of State, Derek Fatchett, to Nairobi and Khartoum last July, the SPLA and Government of Sudan agreed a three-month ceasefire in Bahr el Ghazal. This limited ceasefire has been extended and both parties again committed themselves to it at a recent meeting in Oslo.

  Peace in the Sudan remains a priority. We shall continue to call for a comprehensive ceasefire in the Sudan and shall continue to be active in pursuit of peace, working closely with IGAD and the IGAD Partners Forum.

  Arms Registration
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom submitted its 1998 return to the UN Register of Conventional Arms; and if copies of the return will be placed in the Library. [87101]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The 1998 return to the UN Register of Conventional Arms, covering transfers during calendar year 1997, was submitted on 7 May 1998. The 1999 return, covering transfers in calendar year 1998, was submitted on 27 May 1999. Copies of both returns were placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Iran
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge Iran to grant free and equal rights to all citizens. [87132]

  Mr. Hoon
  We and our EU partners regularly raise our concerns with the Iranian authorities over the plight of minorities in Iran, in particular the Baha'i community. We
  227
  will continue to press the Iranians for improvements. Our position was again made clear in the EU sponsored UN Commission on Human Rights resolution on Iran adopted in April.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the level of anti-semitism in Iran. [87129]

  Mr. Hoon
  Judaism, along with Christianity and Zoroastrianism are recognised religions under the Iranian constitution. The Jewish community are represented in the Iranian Parliament (Majles) by a Jewish MP who represents the community as a whole rather than a constituency and whose seat is reserved by the constitution. The Iranian authorities have frequently stated that they recognise Judaism but not Zionism, a position also adopted by the Iranian Jewish community. The Jewish community in Iran has shrunk to approximately 27,000 from around 100,000 since the revolution in 1979. Those remaining do so through choice and have experienced occasional problems mainly related to the clash of cultures between Judaism and Islam (Jewish shopkeepers wishing to open on the Islamic weekend and other similar incidents). We welcome President Khatami's statement following the recent arrests of members of the Jewish communities that he is responsible for individuals of very religious persuasion in Iran.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge the Government of Iran to state the conditions under which the group of thirteen Jews from Shiraz who have been arrested are being held. [87130]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have sought assurances that the detained will be treated fairly under Iranian law.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take concerning the arrest and proposed trial of 13 members of the Jewish community in Iran; and if he will make a statement. [87159]

  Mr. Hoon
  We and our EU partners are concerned at reports of the arrest of 13 Iranian Jews. The German EU Presidency on a visit to Tehran on 20 May expressed the concern of EU member states at these detentions. This was before news broke of the detainees being charged with espionage on 7 June. This will be followed up with an EU demarche to the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We have also told the Iranians of our concern 228
  bilaterally, both in London and Tehran, and have pressed for the detainees to be treated fairly under Iranian law, as have many of our EU partners. We will continue to watch developments closely and will take further action as necessary.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions he has given to the British Ambassador in Teheran concerning the situation of members of the Baha'i community in Iran. [87128]

  Mr. Hoon
  We and our EU partners regularly raise with the Iranian authorities our concerns over the plight of the Baha'i community in Iran. I most recently raise the issue with the Iranian Ambassador on 24 May. Last October our then Charge (now Ambassador), with partners in the EU Troika, spoke to the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs about two Baha'is under sentence of death. So far that action appears to have been effective in preventing those executions. He and his EU colleagues regularly report on human rights issues including the Baha'is. I discussed these issues with Barnabas Leith, the Secretary General of the Baha'i Community of the United Kingdom, when we met on 14 June.

  British Nuclear Fuels Plc
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department has spent in each of the last five years in supporting British Nuclear Fuels plc's efforts to secure foreign contracts (i) in total and (ii) for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel in the United Kingdom. [86966]

  Mr. Hoon
  My Department, working with the DTI as British Trade International, provides wide-ranging, non-discriminatory support for all British companies, provided their products and services are mainly of UK origin and are legal. That support ranges from tailored market information to high-level political lobbying and multilateral work to liberalise markets.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc has, like other British exporters, benefited from Government export support. The international market within which it operates is framed by inter-governmental nuclear co-operation agreements covering the export of nuclear materials and contracts for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel in the United Kingdom. No charge is made for the work necessary to conclude these. Records of this work and other support are not collated centrally and cannot be quantified in the way requested.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Viscount Margesson—Took the Oath.

Salmon: Environment Agency's By-laws
Viscount Trenchard Viscount Trenchard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Environment Agency's national by-laws require the release of all salmon caught by rod and line until 16th June whereas net fisheries are only so restricted until 1st June in any year.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, these by-laws are designed to reduce salmon mortality in both rod and net fisheries and are justified by the decline in numbers of early running salmon. The difference in dates referred to by the noble Viscount is intended to ensure that fish which are denied to the nets at the end of May are not caught and killed by anglers when they move into rivers early in June, bearing in mind that salmon tend to be particularly vulnerable to anglers just after they have entered the river.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer and must declare an interest as a director of Endsleigh Fishing Club Ltd, one of the principal riparian owners of the River Tamar. I would agree that fish which have just entered a river are particularly vulnerable to being caught by rod fishermen, but does the Minister agree that fish which are about to enter a river are even more vulnerable to being caught by net fishermen?
Does he also agree that, by introducing measures which may well be justified in principle but are discriminatory and unequal in application, he runs the risk of alienating the support of the rod fishermen whose commitment and financial support, which maintain and improve the quality of the salmon's environment, are crucial to the future of the species?
Lord Donoughue: No, my Lords, I do not accept that the new by-laws are discriminatory, certainly not against rod fishermen. After all, the restraints on the net fishermen are seemingly greater in that they prevent net fishing between the start of the season, usually March, to 1st June. The purpose of the by-laws is quite clear. We have been advised by the International Council on the Exploration of the Sea that our salmon stocks, and those in southern Europe, are now so low that they do not support replication of the species. Therefore, we have to take urgent action. We believe that this action
408
will increase the number of spring salmon spawning in the spring by between one-third and one-half. That is our purpose.
As the noble Viscount will know, the by-laws allow rod fishermen to catch salmon during the period from the opening of the season to 16th June, but they are expected to release them.
Lord Moran: My Lords, first, I declare an interest as the owner of a beat on the upper Wye. Is the Minister aware that allowing the nets to fish from 1st June, which I believe was a last-minute concession, will, according to authoritative estimates of the Environment Agency, result in the killing of 3,000 fish in the first two weeks of June, a loss which in present circumstances we ought not to contemplate?
Is the Minister also aware that when as chairman of the Salmon and Trout Association I saw his colleague the Minister for Fisheries, Mr Elliot Morley, I told him that we supported the broad thrust of these measures, draconian though they are, but that we thought it very important that there should be absolute even-handedness with regard to the nets and the rods, and that consequently the nets should not be allowed to fish while the rods are subject to compulsory catch and release? Will the noble Lord consider with his colleagues whether next year and in following years the nets should not be allowed to fish until 16th June when rods are allowed to take salmon?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, a number of concessions were made following widespread consultation—and that was one of them. It resulted in an increase in the number of salmon which would be caught. However, it is small compared with the expected benefit of the new rules. The noble Lord mentioned a figure of 3,000, but we are talking of a stock of about 500,000. We shall of course continue to look at the situation. The new by-laws are for 10 years, but we shall review them after five years. Our view is that we have been even handed in the way I explained to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, first, is the Minister aware of the advice given to the Scottish Office by Professor Shearer that fish caught and released are more susceptible to terminal disease and therefore pass that disease to other fish? Secondly, does he agree that most advice now indicates that it is degradation of rivers and habitat which has caused the decline in salmon stocks and that that has been caused largely by intensive farming and forestry, and that the same riparian owners who now complain were the beneficiaries of those activities?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, as regards riparian owners, I refer to the Question. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is related to the Tamar scheme, which I have visited. I should like to commend that magnificent scheme of co-operation between the various authorities and recommend that it be applied to other rivers. As regards disease in released fish, we are aware that there are disadvantages in allowing fish to be caught and then

409
released. However, we still believe that the by-laws we have introduced will have the major benefit of resulting in a significant increase in the number of spring salmon spawning of between one-third and one-half. As regards salmon stocks, it is estimated that in the 1970s some 1·5 million salmon returned from the seas to our rivers. That figure is now only half a million. As regards the salmon catch, 20 years ago it was 25,000 a year; it is now below 5,000. Therefore, we believe that there is an urgent need for action—and we believe that we have taken it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, of the total number of salmon caught, can the Minister tell the House what proportion is caught by nets and what proportion is caught by rods in the rivers?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord those numbers, but I shall certainly write to him with them—in so far as we can estimate them.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, bearing in mind the dwindling of the stocks of salmon, is not the Minister concerned that the Government have cut by £1.5 million the funding going to the Environment Agency, which would have been used on work to enhance the stocks?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is true that under the financial settlement there were cuts in the fishing area and cuts allocated to the Environment Agency. However, I should point out that those cuts will take place in two to three years' time. We have given the agency an extra £0.5 million to deal with fish matters.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have a beat on the Tay. I support what is proposed in general. However, I believe that it is unreasonable that the nets should have an advantage of 3,000 fish over and above what can be caught generally. I hope very much that in the next by-laws consideration will be given to ensuring that the rods and nets are equal from the beginning.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his support. I assure him that we shall undertake a review in five years' time.

Lamb Production: Meat Hygiene Service Instruction
3.10 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Meat Hygiene Service's instruction that the head and ears of slaughtered lambs should be cut off and discarded prior to grading and inspection will discourage efficient lamb production and traceability.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the whole head of a sheep, including the ears, is removed and discarded
410
immediately after slaughter to meet longstanding statutory requirements in respect of both fresh meat hygiene and specified risk material controls. However, effective means are available to enable sheep carcasses to be traced through the abattoir, usually on a batch basis, so removal of the head should have no effect on efficient lamb production or traceability.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I acknowledge the effort the noble Lord has put in to try to bring the agricultural market into the 20th century. However, is he suggesting by his Answer that I should personally follow my lambs from the time they lose their heads, in and out, round about the slaughter line until they get to the grading table? In which case, can he assure me that having outwitted the meat hygiene inspector, I will not be caught by the safety inspector? Will the Minister try to explain to his noble friends that, despite their pathological hatred of the hereditary principle, it is a necessary evil in improving my lamb carcasses?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I appreciate the links made by the noble Lord. I assure him that the last thing I would wish—I have not consulted my noble friends—would be for him to be "topped" in some remote Welsh abattoir. However, I would seriously point out that any noble Lord who comes to this House and puts down an agricultural question on Ascot Gold Cup day is putting his head on the block.
In response to his Question, there are no rules that require individual identification of sheep. We have rules that require temporary identification in movement. The rules require individual identification for export. In the abattoir there is no requirement for identification relating to the head. The carcasses, or the previous animals, can be identified in relation to batches. However, we do not have a requirement for individual identification. I accept that those such as the noble Lord, who are concerned with the breeding of sheep, would find that helpful.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to "remote abattoirs". Is not that exactly the problem? All the local abattoirs to which the farmer could go and which would solve the problem referred to by my noble friend Lord Stanley are being closed down through excessive costs and bureaucracy. What is the noble Lord doing to ensure that they can stay open for the local farmers?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, this most important question is currently of concern to us. As the noble Lord will know, we announced a review of the impact of charges on abattoirs. We have delayed the proposals to introduce charges for SRM controls at a cost to the Government of some £20 million. We are still considering an increase in the meat hygiene service charges. We wish the maximum number of abattoirs and small abattoirs to continue. It is a free market. This matter is for the industry. If there is an over-supply, some will disappear. We believe that small abattoirs in the remote areas such as those referred to by the noble Lord serve a very important purpose to the rural community and local producers.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, Is the Minister aware that we used to feed our dogs on sheeps heads, which were a valuable nutrient, and that we cannot now do so? The last time my husband went into a butcher's shop to buy a sheep's head, he said, "Have you got a sheep's head?" The butcher said, "No, it's just the way I part my hair".
A Noble Lord: Follow that!
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I enjoyed that but I shall not attempt to match it, just as I have never seriously attempted to part my hair. For the record, perhaps I may point out that the exclusion of sheep's heads was introduced under the order of the previous government as a result of SEAC advice on the possible danger of BSE. It is a precautionary principle.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, as somebody who has no hair and no problem in that connection, perhaps I may ask a question of my noble friend. Brains used to be a delicacy in restaurants. Can he say whether calves' brains are still allowed to be eaten, and, if not, why not?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the exclusion of various offals has been the result of scientific advice of where there is a possible danger of disease. We have not excluded anything that has not been the subject of scientific advice.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, is the Minister aware that for those who keep livestock, and particularly those who keep cattle, torn ears and missing tags are an everyday feature? Can he tell us what, if anything, the Ministry is doing to try to devise some rather more up-to-date and less primitive methods, such as micro-chipping? That could be applied cheaply, would be tamper-proof and would not lead to the stress caused by the present system.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. We are very aware of the disadvantages of tagging and of the technical advantages of micro-chips. However, given the price of lambs, since the chips would cost £3 to £4, we believe that is an unacceptable additional burden.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, can the Minister clarify the long-term hygiene regulation about the removal of sheep's heads? It seems to me that it was not so very long ago that it was introduced mainly on the basis of an EEC regulation.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, there was a regulation in relation to meat hygiene. But we, or the previous government, acted on the basis of scientific advice and introduced the 1996 regulation for the removal of sheep's heads in relation to sheep's heads being a specified risk material. That will be in force as long as there is that threat to health. We all look forward to the time when that threat is lifted.

Members of Parliament: Voting Rights
3.18 p.m.
Lord Ellenborough Lord Ellenborough asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to restrict the voting rights of Members of Parliament for Scottish constituencies in the Westminster Parliament in relation to matters affecting England.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): No, my Lords. Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies will continue to enjoy their current voting rights.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, I can hardly thank the Minister for that Answer. Are the Government not concerned that the recent, somewhat lengthy and voluble report, with the grandiose title, Procedural Consequences of Devolution, totally ignored what has now become known as the "English Question" and produced absolutely no proposals to allow English MPs to vote on English matters? Cannot the Government by now wake up and realise the potential dangers to the United Kingdom? Burying their heads in the devolution sand causes resentment to the English and undermines England's very identity as a nation, not least with the Government's insulting proposals to fragment England into artificial regions.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, English MI's will of course continue to be able to vote on English matters. The devolution agenda in no way attacks, impugns or derogates from the English identity. Indeed, it may assist the pride that Scots people rightly have in their national identity and undoubtedly is likely to do so in Wales. This is part of a constitutional change which I believe, as it develops, will have increasing support in every part of the United Kingdom.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, with regard to constitutional change, I see from Hansard that some Answers to Questions in Parliament are now being refused on the ground that they cover matters devolved to Scotland, in spite of the fact that this Parliament remains ultimately responsible and the Government are apparently going to propose legislation to this Parliament covering some matters otherwise devolved to Scotland. On what criteria, therefore, are Ministers refusing to answer Questions?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not sure it is Ministers who decide to refuse; I believe it is a question for the House authorities as to whether the Questions are appropriately put. If I am wrong about that, the principle is perfectly well established that matters which have been devolved by the decision of this House as well as by the decision of another place. either in the context of Wales or of England, are properly to be answered by Ministers in the Scottish Parliament, in due time the Northern Ireland Assembly, or the Assembly in Cardiff.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of any case of Conservative Peers, during the

413
existence of the Stormont Parliament, complaining about Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland voting on English affairs?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not aware of any such complaint. None has ever been drawn to my attention. I believe it was my noble friend Lord Sewel who said that the answer to the West Lothian question might be similar to that given to the West Belfast question, to which my noble friend Lord Monkswell is referring.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does not the noble Lord, Lord Williams, agree, first, that Northern Ireland under the Stormont Parliament had only 70 per cent of the seats to which it would otherwise have been entitled, which would give the Scots 39 or 40 seats at Westminster and not the number they now have? Secondly, if the MSPs were to vote to ban hunting in Scotland, as has been forecast, without the English or Welsh having any say in the matter, would it not be intolerable for Scottish MPs at Westminster then to be able to vote to ban hunting in England and Wales?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the figures put by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, do not go to the principle. I understood the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, and his supplementary, to be based on principle. So whether Northern Ireland Members comprised 70 per cent, 100 per cent or 50 per cent does not go to the point. I do not know whether hunting will be banned by the Scottish Parliament. The noble Lord is quite right that it is within its legislative competence. The fact is that we have come to a different constitutional settlement in the context of devolution. The Scottish people voted very substantially in favour of it. The Welsh people also voted in favour of it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain, in his enthusiasm for devolution, the logic which permits Scots MPs to vote on English matters when the same English MPs cannot vote on some of the Scottish matters?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am an enthusiast for devolution. I believe that if one takes a courageous breath and sees the consequences of over-centralisation, which was remarked upon by many Scottish Peers in this House as well as by many Welsh Peers, one will realise that that is the way ahead. I cannot pretend that any constitutional settlement will be of perfect intellectual symmetry, in the same way as I am unable to find any perfect intellectual symmetry about the continuation of the hereditary peerage.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as someone who was born in the Rhondda Valley, and is therefore Welsh, can my noble friend say, if it is right that Scottishness should be represented through a Scottish Parliament and Welshness through a Welsh Assembly, why Englishness should not be represented through an English Parliament? Should we not put that to the English people by way of a referendum?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have not detected any enormous movement of public opinion in favour of an English Parliament. The present Leader of the Conservative Party floated it as a question, but he never offered the answer and he does not seem to be asking the question any more. It is only right that the interests of Rhondda émigrés should be properly looked after and I believe that they are being properly and scrupulously attended to.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, can the Minister give an undertaking that no legislation which has passed all its stages in your Lordships' House and the other place can then be delayed by any requirement of the Scottish or Welsh Parliaments, and that this House and the other place are sovereign in that respect?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am happy to reassure the noble Baroness that the sovereignty of this Parliament remains intact. That has been said on many occasions. As I answered in response to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, a few days ago, administrative arrangements will be required to be made by virtue of memorandums of understanding and concordats, all of which were abundantly discussed when the Government of Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill were going through.

Disabled People: Financial Support
3.26 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of current proposals to cut support for disabled people, they will consider switching resources from the national changeover plan to spending on disabled people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the Government have made absolutely clear our commitment to improving the opportunities and support for disabled people. We are spending now over £24 billion on disability benefits and over this Parliament we expect to spend £2 billion more. Small targeted investment on changeover planning is essential to give the UK a real practical choice to join the single currency should that be in the national interest.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for answering the Question, although not for the Answer. Is the Minister aware that in another place today the Government are pressing Clause 121 of the Finance Bill, which gives the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and other government agencies the right to spend tens of millions of pounds before a referendum on the national changeover plan for the euro? Bearing that in mind, can the Minister explain why the social security department uses disciplines of budgets which have resulted in the loss of benefits to some people and the abolition of the severe disability allowance to others

415
while the Treasury appears not to use those disciplines when throwing tens of millions of pounds at the national changeover plan?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not accept either part of the noble Lord's question. What the Prime Minister said, repeated in a Statement by my noble friend Lady Jay on 23rd February, was that, if we wish to have the option of joining, we must prepare. If we do not prepare, the British people do not have a choice. As to the implication for DSS budgets, because the DSS accounts for one-third of the Government's expenditure one would expect some proportion of those national changeover plan moneys to fall on the DSS. In the current year—1999–2000—the DSS is expecting to spend £1.5 million out of its budget of £100 billion.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, despite our differences on some aspects of the welfare reform Bill, the Government deserve great credit for the many constructive and positive actions they are taking to help millions of disabled people? Is she aware also that there is genuine misunderstanding about some of the figures involved in the gains and the losses for those who are disabled? For example, the Secretary of State said on 23rd February this year that we are spending £1 billion more on disability benefits this Parliament. Yet on 20th May he said that this year we have spent £25 billion on benefits for the sick and disabled and that the sum will increase by £2 billion in this Parliament.
I am sure that there are good reasons for the discrepancy. However, can the Government draw up a balance sheet which would help the House enormously to understand the gains and losses to disabled people?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I should be delighted to provide any statistics or information that my noble friend Lord Ashley or, indeed, any noble Lord wishes to have on disability issues. It is clear that the Government's budget for disability is going up from £24 billion to £26 billion in the course of this Parliament. That is because, first, we are increasing the opportunities for disabled people to return to work, and secondly, giving extra help to children and young people, for example, through proposals for disability living allowance and mobility allowance for young children and through extra money from working families' tax credit to young children. Thirdly, we are spending money on the poorest disabled people, such as those with low incomes, by ensuring a minimum income of £75 a week—an additional £60 million of expenditure. So we are spending more money on disabled people over and beyond some of the demographic pressures that come, fortunately, with older people living longer and many of them drawing on disability benefits in their old age. As I said, I shall be delighted to share with my noble friend any information that he wishes to have.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, do not recent events, especially the result of the European elections and the resignation of various charitable bodies from the Social
416
Security Advisory Committee, suggest that the Government have got their priorities wrong in both these areas? As far as concerns the national changeover plan, given the way in which things are developing, should we not at least also have a plan in anticipation of the fact that we may not join the euro? Further, as far as concerns the overall position on social security, although the Government have failed in their commitment to cut the total social security budget, they now appear to be reducing it by hitting particular groups of disabled people through the Bill now before the House which has been unanimously objected to in all parts of both Houses.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not accept any of the noble Lord's points. First, the fact that we are not in the euro, and may not be. is the current situation. Therefore, in that sense, there is always the option of no change. But, equally, there will be no option of change unless we start preparing now. We want the people of this country to decide and not to have their choice inhibited by the fact that we cannot deliver because we have not invested in the work, computers, leaflets, staff training, and so on, to make such a move possible and smooth were we to go down that path.
Secondly, the noble Lord says that we have failed on a manifesto commitment to cut social security spending. What we said—and what we have delivered—is that we would cut the rate of growth. Under the previous administration the rate of growth of the social security budget was 4 per cent over the previous Parliament. Under this Administration the rate of growth is 2 per cent. The reason for that growth is primarily, and fortunately, because of the number of elderly people living longer. We have cut expenditure on the issues where the previous administration failed; namely, we have brought people back into work, unemployment figures are at their lowest ever, and more people are now in work than ever before. As a result, that frees resources to help those who cannot work and who need our support.

Immigration and Asylum Bill
3.33 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name of the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 6,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 7 to 18,

417

Schedule 2,

Clause 19,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 20 and 21,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 22 to 31,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 32 to 46,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 47 to 54,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 55 to 65,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 66 to 69,

Schedules 9 and 10,

Clauses 70 to 76,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 77 to 79,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 80 to 82,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 83 to 85.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Freedom of Information: Select Committee
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 a Select Committee be appointed to report on the draft Freedom of Information Bill published in the Command Paper entitled Freedom of Information: consultation on draft legislation on 24th May 1999 (Cm 4355);
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Committee:

L. Archer of Sandwell (Chairman),

L. Bach,

E. Caithness,

V. Colville of Culross,

B. Crawley,

L. Dean of Harptree,

L. Freeman,

L. Goodhart,

L. Lucas,

L. McNally,

L. Morris of Castle Morris;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee from time to time shall if the Committee think fit be printed and delivered out;
That the Committee shall report by 29th July 1999; and
That the Committee do meet on Tuesday 22nd June at 10 a.m. in Committee Room 4.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as a matter of practicality, this is a frightfully important subject. The Select Committee meets on 22nd June and the Motion says that it, "shall report by 29th July". If the committee has to take evidence from outside interests, which it will have to do in order to do its job properly, how on earth can this be done in that time? Moreover, if members of that committee do not do it, what will happen to them? Will they be taken off and put into the Tower, or what? It seems totally impracticable to me.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I understand that the time limit proposed to your Lordships is comparable with that which was set on the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Perhaps I may assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, further and say that I also understand that the proposed chairman of this committee, if your Lordships decide to set it up now, is happy with the suggested time limit. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health Bill [H.L.]
3.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health Bill [H.L.]
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The page and line refer to Bill 77 as first printed for the Commons]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  1 Clause 2, page 2, leave out lines 8 to 11.
  Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. We had extensive debates on the role of the primary care group in the process of establishing primary care trusts when the Health Bill was previously considered in your Lordships' House. Reflecting on what was said then, I am convinced that there is in fact little difference on this issue between the underlying aim of the Government and that of those on the Opposition Benches.
  I have read the official record again, and I agree with much of what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We share a common objective that the establishment process should be locally owned and driven. We also agree that the voice of the PCGs is crucially important.

  419
  My ministerial colleagues and I considered these debates very carefully and our decision to table an amendment in another place was not taken lightly. In our considerations, from whatever perspective we approached the matter, we always came back to the fundamental point of principle—whether or not the views of one local stakeholder, however important, could mean that the views of others are automatically set on one side or ignored. That would be the effect of the amendment that was made in your Lordships' House. It would give the primary care group a statutory right of veto over the views of all other local stakeholders. I believe that that would demean the importance of the views of partners in the local NHS, such as community trusts and their staff, and indeed patient groups.
  We also believe that it would be unwise to set down such a rigid rule on the face of the Bill. Complex and difficult situations may well arise which require careful and sensitive handling. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, recognised on Report, in the form of what was then Amendment No. 5, that there might indeed be exceptional circumstances which needed to be considered. We are aware, for example, that in some places proposals are under discussion to establish PCTs which cover the area currently covered by several PCGs. While it remains to be seen whether such large PCTs could effectively fulfil the functions that we have set out for them, we would not wish to prevent such proposals from being considered at this early stage.
  It is equally possible that such a proposal could have the support of all but one PCG—and perhaps be opposed by a very narrow majority of members of that individual PCG—and enjoy widespread support among clinicians and others in the local area. While very great care and sensitivity would be needed in deciding how to proceed in such circumstances, it is clear that a statutory PCG veto could mean that a very small number of people could potentially block an extremely beneficial development. It is precisely because we cannot fully anticipate all the possible scenarios that could develop, such as this one, that the Government brought forward this amendment in another place.
  I would like to make it clear, however, that the Government attach the greatest importance to the successful establishment of primary care trusts. They offer unparalleled opportunities for local stakeholders—including family doctors, nurses, midwives, health visitors, the professions allied to medicine and social services—to shape services to provide better healthcare and to improve health. They will bring significant benefits to patients, clinicians and the local NHS as a whole. But a PCT will work only if it builds on local enthusiasm and local commitment, in particular of those working at the front line of patient care: GPs, nurses, midwives and other health and social care professions.
  For this reason the Government have no intention whatsoever of establishing primary care trusts without broad local support from the very professions which will form them and give them the energy they will need to succeed. We believe that a voluntary approach is the only sensible way to proceed. I can be quite clear to the House today that we do not want, and are not
  420
  encouraging, a headlong rush to primary care trust status. Instead we are looking for measured and evolutionary change. We want progression to trust status to be locally driven at a pace that suits local circumstances.
  That desire is reflected in the Government's proposals for the establishment process. We have deliberately left it to the local NHS—the PCG board, GPs, nurses, other professions, a community trust or a health authority—to bring forward a proposal to develop a primary care trust. If a proposal has local NHS support—from a PCG or NHS trust providing community services—the health authority will be required to enter into a formal local consultation. This consultation process will be particularly important to hear the views of the wider community and local patients in particular.
  Once the local consultation process is complete, the health authority will submit the proposal to the Secretary of State for his consideration. I can assure the House that we intend that the Secretary of State will not simply be sent a recommendation. We intend that regulations will require all the responses to the consultation to be attached to the recommendation so that the Secretary of State has the benefit not only of the views of the local health authority, but also those of consultees, and at first hand. The views of primary care groups. local GPs and other professions, as well as those of the wider community and the NHS locally, will be key considerations for the Secretary of State in deciding whether to establish a primary care trust.
  I go further and say that the support of the relevant primary care group will he a critical factor in our consideration. The Government intend to establish primary care trusts in a way that is sensitive to local views, and primary care groups are key to that. For the reasons I have given and in the light of these assurances I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the Government in this amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Baroness Hayman.)
  3.45 p.m.
  Earl Howe: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for the clear way in which she has spoken to this important amendment. I am reassured that she feels there is little that separates us on this issue. If I do not misread her, I think that the Minister has modified her position somewhat from that which she adopted on the previous occasion when this issue was debated in your Lordships' House. In particular she seemed to me to have moved away from the guarded form of words that she used several times both in Committee and on Report. She said then that a decision to establish a primary care trust would,
  "take into account all local views".
  She also said that it was the Government's "assumption" that the support of the primary care group would be required by the Secretary of State before he approved a primary care trust.
  Those phrases did not seem to me to reflect one of the essential requirements in any transition to PCT status; namely, the need to have the prior, wholehearted

  421
  backing of those who are most affected by such a change. The previous Minister, Mr. Milburn, spoke about putting doctors and nurses "in the driving seat". At the time I thought I knew what that meant, but in the light of the Government's antipathy to your Lordships' amendment I realised that I did not. However, hearing the noble Baroness speak in the way she has today, in terms—if I do not misquote her—that referred to measured, evolutionary change, locally driven, I am considerably reassured.
  One of the arguments we debated at earlier stages was that it is pointless going out to wide consultation on a proposal to move to trust status if the health professionals themselves do not support it. But the important point is that the degree of support among health professionals should be established. Can the Minister say in what way this will be done? Would it, for example, make sense to involve the local medical committee in organising some kind of a ballot?
  I agree with the noble Baroness that when a PCT is established it is in all our interests that it should be a success. Without broad support among GPs and the key professional stakeholders, the chances are that it will not be. But the Secretary of State should, I suggest, be looking for other indicators as well. He needs to ensure that there is competent management in place, with tight financial management and proper accountability. Can the Minister be a little more specific about the criteria that the Secretary of State will adhere to when making his decision? If there is a dissenting group of health professionals among those in the proposed PCT, will he ensure that that fact is made publicly available?
  I have a further concern which the Minister may be able to help me with. We understand that the first wave of PCTs are expected to be in place by April 2000. In another place the Minister made it clear that the necessary orders to establish such PCTs would need to be finalised by about the beginning of December. Prior to that the Government are committed to consulting on the draft PCT orders. If that consultation follows the normal pattern it will be a three-month process. But prior to that, regulations will need to be laid, and they, too, will be subject to consultation, again over some three months. Working hack from the early December deadline—when the PCT orders are to be laid—it is clear that the draft regulations will need to be ready shortly indeed. Are those draft regulations ready now and, if they are, can the noble Baroness say why neither your Lordships nor another place has had the benefit of seeing them yet? If we were able to see them, I have little doubt that they would inform our debates considerably. Can the Minister say whether the timetable I have outlined is roughly right, or have I got it wrong?
  I thank the Minister for the added reassurances she has been able to give. They are important reassurances. It may be wishful thinking on my part, but in the light of what she has said I am inclined to conclude that we can be slightly more confident than once we were of the procedural safeguards that will be put in place. If the
  422
  Minister is able to answer my questions satisfactorily I would not propose to recommend to your Lordships that the House's earlier amendment should be insisted upon.
  Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the comprehensive notes that we have had on the amendments that are before us today. The notes have made it much easier to understand the Bill's progress through the other place. I also thank the Minister for what I thought was a considerable degree of movement on this amendment in terms of the broad spirit in which the department suggests that consultation takes place on the progress from PCG status to PCT status. I refer in particular to the Minister's statements that there is no intention of establishing PCTs without broad local support; that there is no headlong rush to primary care trust status; and that the support of relevant primary care groups will be a critical factor. All those statements reassure us that the primary care groups will be an intimate and essential part of the process.
  Certain issues should be addressed as we look at the details of the consultation process. It is clear that professional groups still have questions that need to be answered. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked a number of questions which it would be useful to address at this stage. We did not vote for the amendment when it was before this House on the previous occasion. We felt that a spirit of consultation was in place. However, we welcome the additional "mile" that the Minister has gone today. The only question I ask, in addition to those asked by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, concerns the reporting of the outcome of the consultation. Will there be a transparent process which makes it clear what objections have occurred during that process? Will that be available for all to see?
  Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that has been given to my statement of the Government's position. I do not think that I have modified my position; I hope that I have expressed myself with more clarity than I did in our earlier deliberations. Perhaps that is because of the time of day at which we are debating these matters.
  I wish to respond to one or two of the detailed points that have been raised, particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. He is absolutely right to say that the timetable for the regulations is very tight. We are currently working on them and, although they are not yet ready to go out to public consultation, we hope that it will not be too long before they do. We are very well aware that we have to meet a tight timetable, as the noble Earl so eloquently reminded us.
  As to the mechanisms that the Secretary of State will put in place to measure the extent of local support for a PCT proposal, he will direct health authorities to select those proposals to go to consultation under what will be new Sections 16C and 17. We have said that the directions will require health authorities to select a proposal if it has been made or endorsed by a PCG or NHS trust which provides community services locally. This approach allows anyone to generate proposals but ensures consultation on any proposal which is supported by at least one of the relevant local NHS bodies.

  423
  The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about consultation. We want the consultation to be open and transparent, with the aim of capturing the views of all local stakeholders. The regulations will therefore specify who conducts the consultation—that will be the health authority—and what essential information must be included in the consultation document so that key stakeholders have sufficient detail to allow them to take an informed view. The regulations will also set out who must be consulted. This will include local GPs, nurses and other health and social care professionals as well as the wider NHS and the local community, including professional and patient representative groups. Finally, these regulations will set out the form and contents of the report which the health authority must make to the Secretary of State on the consultation. As I said earlier, the report will include the responses received.
  It will then he for the Secretary of State to consider the responses to the consultation and make a judgment on whether the proposal should proceed. This is a role with which Ministers are very familiar from, for example, consultations on proposals for major service reconfigurations. In considering the results of the consultation, we will of course pay particular heed to the views of local health professionals, on whom the success of a PCT will ultimately depend, if it goes ahead.
  The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked specifically whether the consultation regulations will require or allow for ballots. Ballots are certainly one means of testing opinion, but they are not the only way. We are not proposing to make them an absolute requirement. The Secretary of State's decision on whether or not to establish a primary care trust needs to take account of all local views. Any requirement for a ballot would need therefore to apply to other stakeholder groups and not just, for example, to GPs or nurses. But a proliferation of ballots for so many different interest groups is clearly impracticable and unattractive. It is difficult to see exactly which groups should or should not have a right to be balloted. In some cases, the constituency would he extremely difficult to define. I refer, for example, to whether it should comprise patients or practitioners, who would be working for some sessions in a new trust and working elsewhere in a community trust. Our approach will therefore allow for ballots but not make them mandatory.
  We are proposing consultation on proposals to establish PCTs, not on the draft establishment orders. These will be drafted only following the Secretary of State's consideration of the responses to the consultation.
  As to the question about the criteria against which PCTs will be assessed, the outline criteria against which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will consider applications for primary care trust status were set out in the White Paper, The new NHS, and repeated in the paper, Primary Care Trusts—Establishing Better Services, which we issued in April. They are: broad local support for its establishment, including among those GPs affected; a clear vision of the service and health benefits which establishing a primary care trust will bring, backed by agreed standards and targets to
  424
  make progress towards them: making an effective contribution to the local health improvement programme and working well with partner organisations: effective arrangements for developing clinical standards, including at practice level; proper arrangements for monitoring activity, sound financial management and accountability; a clear assessment of the local impact of change and reconfiguration; access to good, high quality human resources support; and, for level 4 primary care trusts, that the proposals take proper account of the wide range of community health services, including those which are more specialised.
  I hope that that gives a sense of the comprehensiveness. We are currently working with the NHS, GP groups and other organisations on developing those criteria. We plan to issue guidance on the application, consultation and establishment process within the next month or so, assuming, of course, Royal Assent to the Bill.
  I hope that I have covered the specifics. Perhaps I may now return to the general issue. It is one of principle: whether we should allow the Bill to remain in the position where the views of one local stakeholder, however important, could veto a potentially beneficial development. In his letter on this subject on the 19th February, my honourable friend the Minister of State made clear that,
  "The assumption will generally be that a Primary Care Trust would not be established without the support of the relevant Primary Care Group".
  I know that that wording does not appear sufficiently robust to some. If it would help to address some of the fears—which I think are about the semantics rather than the realities, although I have set out the reasons why we do not think it would be prudent to put an absolute and blanket prohibition on the face of the Bill—I can assure the House that it is very clearly the Government's general expectation that a primary care trust would not be established if the relevant primary care group opposed it.
  I hope that that is sufficiently reassuring and that I have made it clear that we need to reserve the position where we could use the care and sensitivity needed for the sort of exceptional circumstances that potentially could arise. The guidance that we are about to issue on primary care trusts will reflect the expectation I have just described: that a primary care trust would not be established if the relevant primary care group opposed it.
  We want primary care trusts to work well. The simple truth is that we cannot afford to alienate the very professionals who will be carrying out the PCTs' functions. On that basis, I hope that I have provided some reassurance to the House.
  4 p.m.
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that very full reply.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  2 Clause 2, page 2, line 25, after ("Act") insert ("(including this section)").
  Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. In doing so, I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 3 to 9, 16 and 17, 20 to 23, 73 and 74, 95 to 97, 101, 103, 105 and 106, 108 to 110 and 118. It sounds worse than it is!
  This group of amendments is a mixed bag of technical, consequential and drafting amendments and one or two other more substantive changes. I am afraid that they are all none the less essential. The common theme is that they each, in part at least, relate to primary care trusts and they all serve, albeit modestly, to tidy up and improve the Bill.
  The amendments in this group can be broadly considered under three headings: some important amendments concerning the role of primary care trusts regarding Primary Care Act pilot and permanent schemes; a group of amendments which tidy up the provisions in the Bill which deal with the delegation to and exercise of functions by health authorities, special health authorities and primary care trusts; and a rather more disparate group of technical and drafting amendments.
  I turn, first, to the amendments concerned with the primary care Act, Commons Amendments Nos. 9, 20, 73, 74 and 105. The primary care Act 1997 introduced a new option for the delivery of family health services and provides for primary care professionals to provide personal medical services and personal dental services under agreements with their health authority.
  Clearly it is important to carry forward the capacity to innovate and to improve services which this Act allows into the new world of primary care trusts. At present, health authorities manage primary care Act pilot contracts. In future, however, this function may be better exercised by primary care trusts. Primary care trusts will have a detailed knowledge of the primary care services and providers at a local level, and that is what is required to get the best out of any contract, benefiting both the primary care professionals and their patients.
  The Bill already makes provision for primary care trusts to be able to take on the role of providing personal medical services and personal dental services under the Act. The Bill also already provides for health authorities to delegate their functions in respect of primary care Act medical and dental pilots, including the function of contracting with service providers.
  Commons Amendment No. 9 sets out the circumstances in which health authorities may not delegate their functions in respect of primary care Act pilots and makes provision for the transfer of rights and liabilities where parties to the contract change. The Bill currently makes it possible for primary care trusts both to provide personal medical services themselves and to contract for personal medical services in place of the health authority.
  I think we would all agree that it would be inappropriate for primary care trusts to manage a contract for services which they were also involved in
  426
  providing. Commons Amendment No. 9 specifically prevents that from happening. It also limits the delegation of other functions in respect of personal medical services where a possible conflict of interest might arise. It provides that a health authority will not be able to delegate to a primary care trust the function of turning personal medical services applications into formal proposals to the Secretary of State. This includes acting as the recipient of applications and undertaking the formal local consultations. Nor will it be able to delegate the payment of funding to meet applicants' preparatory costs.
  Commons Amendments Nos. 20 and 105 are consequential on these provisions and Commons Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 make similar provision in respect of Scotland.
  A large number of the amendments deal with the delegation of functions to and the exercise of functions by health authorities, special health authorities and primary care trusts. These are technical amendments, Commons Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 97, 106, 108 to 110 and 118, which tidy up and streamline the provisions of the Bill. I do not intend to take up the time of the House in describing them unless noble Lords wish to raise specific questions.
  I shall also try to be brief on the disparate group of technical and drafting amendments, Commons Amendments Nos. 4 to 8, which clarify the Bill's provisions concerning the provision of services by primary care trusts. Together they make clear that the goods and services which a primary care trust may provide to another NHS body include accommodation. Commons Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 make minor drafting changes. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2—(Baroness Hayman.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said in her rapid but careful summary of this vast list of mainly drafting and technical amendments—
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have now agreed to Commons Amendment No. 2.
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, perhaps I may help. If the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would like to move Commons Amendment No. 3, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, could speak to it.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  3 Clause 2, page 2, line 27, leave out from ("for") to end of line 41 and insert ("any functions to which this section applies to be exercised—

  (a) by another Primary Care Trust,

  (b) by a Special Health Authority, or

  (c) jointly with any one or more of the following: Health Authorities, NHS trusts and other Primary Care Trusts.

  (3) Regulations may provide—

  (a) for any functions to which this section applies to be exercised, on behalf of the Primary Care Trust by whom they are exercisable, by a committee, sub-committee or officer of the trust,

  427

  (b) for any functions which, under this section, are exercisable by a Special Health Authority to be exercised, on behalf of that authority, by a committee, sub-committee or officer of the authority,

  (c) for any functions which, under this section, are exercisable by a Primary Care Trust jointly with one or more Health Authorities or other Primary Care Trusts (but not with any NHS trusts) to be exercised, on behalf of the health service bodies in question, by a joint committee or joint sub-committee." ").

  4 Clause 5, page 8, line 32, after ("services") insert ("(including accommodation)"
  5 Page 8, line 44, after ("accommodation") insert ("or services").).
  6 Page 8, line 47, at end insert ("or services").
  7 Page 9, line 4, after ("accommodation") insert ("or services").
  8 Page 9, leave out line 17.
  9 After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
  DELEGATION OF HEALTH AUTHORITY FUNCTIONS RELATING TO PILOT SCHEMES AND SECTION 28C ARRANGEMENTS
  (".—(1) After section 8 of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 (variation and termination of pilot schemes), there is inserted—
  "Exercise of Health Authority functions relating to pilot schemes by Primary Care Trusts.
  8A.—(1) The following functions of a Health Authority are excepted functions for the purpose of section 17A of the 1977 Act—

  (a) their function of entering into pilot schemes under which personal dental services are provided, and, where they have entered into such a scheme, any functions arising under the scheme which relate to those or any other services provided under the scheme,

  (b) where a Primary Care Trust is providing any services under a pilot scheme, any functions of the Health Authority arising under that scheme (but the functions are only excepted in relation to that trust),

  (c) their functions under section 4 (preparation of pilot scheme proposals),

  (d) any function conferred under section 18 (funding work preparatory to pilot schemes).

  (2) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for any rights and liabilities arising under pilot schemes under which personal medical services are provided to be transferred from Health Authorities to Primary Care Trusts and from Primary Care Trusts to Health Authorities.
  (3) Subsection (2) is without prejudice to any other power of the Secretary of State to transfer rights and liabilities under the 1977 Act."
  (2) After section 28E of the 1977 Act (personal medical or dental services: regulations) there is inserted—
  "Exercise of Health Authority functions relating to section 28C arrangements by Primary Care Trusts.
  28EE.—(1) The following functions of a Health Authority are excepted functions for the purpose of section 17A above—

  (a) their function of entering into agreements under section 28C above under which personal dental services are provided, and, where they have entered into such an agreement, any functions arising under the agreement which relate to those or any other services provided under the agreement,

  428

  (b) where a Primary Care Trust is providing any services in accordance with section 28C arrangements, any functions of the Health Authority arising under those arrangements (but the functions are only excepted in relation to that trust),

  (c) any function conferred under section 28E of considering or approving proposals to provide services in accordance with section 28C arrangements,

  (d) any function conferred under section 28E(3)(k) above of making payments of financial assistance to fund work relating to section 28C arrangements.

  (2) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for any rights and liabilities arising under an agreement to provide personal medical services under section 28C above to be transferred from Health Authorities to Primary Care Trusts and from Primary Care Trusts to Health Authorities.
  (3) Subsection (2) above is without prejudice to any other power of the Secretary of State to transfer rights and liabilities under this Act." ").
  Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 to 9.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 to 9.—(Baroness Hayman.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  10 Clause 8, page 12, line 12, after ("below") insert ("and'"').
  4.15 p.m.
  Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24, 25, 28, 52, 63, 68, 70, 75, 82, 83, 93, 94, 98, 99, 102, 104, 107, 111 to 117, 119, 120, 122 to 124, 126, 127, 129 and 131 to 143. The fact that I am dealing with another large group of amendments may give the noble Lord, Lord Renton, an opportunity to make his point.
  These amendments are mainly minor, drafting, technical or consequential amendments to tidy up the Bill's provisions in a number of places. I shall therefore keep my remarks on this group brief, merely indicating some of the issues which the amendments seek to address. Some correct slight drafting errors. For example, Commons Amendment No. 10 inserts a missing "and" into Clause 8 and Commons Amendment No. 25 corrects a grammatical error, involving the mixed use of the singular and the plural in the same context.
  A number of the amendments, Commons Amendments Nos. 75, 111, 112, 114, 122 and 129, are consequential to the provisions in Part II of the Bill concerning Scotland.
  A large number, Commons Amendments Nos. 102, 120, 123, 124, 126, 127, 134 to 139 and 141 to 143, are consequential on Clause 1 and the abolition, of GP fundholding. They remove existing statutory references to fundholding and fundholders.
  A further chunk of the amendments, Commons Amendments Nos. 28, 52, 63, 68, 82, 83, 98, 107 and 117, form a group of amendments that make changes to

  429
  the provisions in the Bill that set out the manner in which the powers to make directions may be exercised. The main amendment in this group is Commons Amendment No. 82 which inserts new subsections into Clause 55. Subsections (1A) and (1B) replace the various individual provisions in the Bill that set out how the powers of direction may be exercised. The amendments simplify the provisions and ensure that they are to be interpreted consistently. If one needs to know how the Secretary of State's powers of direction under the Bill are to be exercised, one will need only to look in one place—at Clause 55.
  Commons Amendment No. 99 seeks to clarify how the consultation process on a draft order under Clause 54 of the Bill concerning professional self-regulation, as set out in paragraph 9 of Schedule 3, will work when a draft order concerns matters within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. That is where a draft order seeks to regulate a profession not currently regulated by statute. The intention is that such orders should, wherever possible, be made on a United Kingdom basis. This means that the drafting of the order and the consultation needs to be co-ordinated between the various administrations in the United Kingdom. This amendment serves to clarify how this process would work in relation to the Scottish Parliament. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(Baroness Hayman.)
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this group of amendments because, as the noble Baroness has said, it contains a number of amendments which relate to Scotland. I am very grateful—as I know are other noble Lords—for the notes that the Minister was kind enough to send us on the amendments. The notes have made it very much easier to understand the procedure in which we are engaged.
  I should just like to comment again, because I did so during the passage of the Bill, on the timing of the passage of Part II of the Bill. The group of amendments relating to Scotland now under consideration are not entirely technical or minor. For example, Commons Amendment No. 75 affects the many employees in the Scottish National Health Service and their conditions of employment if they transfer between health service bodies. An entire new clause is being inserted into the Bill on the subject of health workers in Scotland when the health service in Scotland is already devolved to the Scots Parliament. Only yesterday, the First Minister in the Scots Parliament began to announce the legislative programme that it will consider. It did not, of course, contain this particular subject because Westminster is considering it.
  It has been established during the Bill's passage that this is a perfectly legal procedure. Under the Scotland Act, not only can the Westminster Parliament complete Part II of this Bill for Scotland after devolution, but the Westminster Parliament will be able to legislate for anything it likes, whether or not the matter has been devolved. So there is no question about the legality. But
  430
  I hope that the Minister will convey to her noble friends and to her right honourable friends the view that it is important that the Government do not continue in this way. We do not want Westminster deciding for Scotland matters which have been devolved to the Scots Parliament. It should not be necessary. Had the passage of this Bill been differently timed, it would not be necessary. It is a strange procedure. We hope that it will not be repeated. I hope that the Minister will take note of the fact that something is being done that should not be repeated often. A matter that has been devolved to Scotland should, once the Scots Parliament takes over, be decided in Scotland, not at Westminster.
  Earl Howe: My Lords, perhaps I may add to my noble friend's comments by putting another point to the Minister. I believe I am right in saying that this Bill is classed as a pre-commencement enactment. That means that any regulations laid under the provisions for regulation of the professions after the Bill is enacted will fall, in respect of Scotland, to the Scottish Parliament. Am I therefore right in supposing that there is no guarantee to this House or another place either that the regulations laid in the Scottish Parliament will be similar to those that may be laid south of the Border; or that the same professions will be regulated?
  There could be a wide disparity between the rules applicable north of the Border and those applicable south of the Border to the same type of professional individual. I see that as something of an anomaly. I hope that I am not departing too far from the views expressed by my noble friend. I shall be interested in the Minister's comments.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, coming from Scotland, I suggest that the regulations in Scotland may perhaps be better than those in England.
  Baroness Hayman: My Lords, during earlier discussions on the Bill we dealt with the challenges—I shall not say "difficulties"—that were posed by this piece of legislation given the timing of the inception of the Scottish Parliament. We have to manage that transition. Being as close as we are to 1st July makes it particularly pertinent and relevant. But in the future, as regards the broad issue of whether the United Kingdom Parliament will legislate for Scotland on devolved matters, it will be for Scottish Ministers to decide whether they want to implement any part of the Bill. The UK Parliament will not, by convention, be legislating for the Scottish Parliament without its permission.
  As regards the specifics of Commons Amendment No. 75, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, referred, when NHS trusts were established in Scotland by the 1990 Act they took over a range of facilities—for example, hospitals and clinics—from health boards. Where facilities were transferred, the rights and terms of employment of the staff who worked in them were safeguarded and transferred to the new trusts by means of a staff transfer scheme under Section 12B of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. Paragraph 43 of Schedule 4 of this Bill sought to extend the

  431
  protection that these orders give to staff to situations where functions transferred to NHS trusts after their establishment. The inclusion of new Clause 13 renders paragraph 34 redundant and we seek to delete it. The Government consider that setting out the provision in a self-standing clause rather than a series of detailed amendments would introduce some clarity into the Bill in this area.
  As regards the order-making power in relation to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 provides that the regulation of the health professions, currently regulated by statute, is a reserved matter: that is, any profession regulated on 1st July 1999 by the Pharmacy Act 1954; the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960; the Medical Act 1983; the Dentists Act 1984; the Opticians Act 1989; the Osteopaths Act 1993; the Chiropractors Act 1994; and the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997.
  The regulation of other professions, however, is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. Nevertheless, the departments will work closely together on the development of professional self-regulation. It is in the interests of all concerned that, wherever possible, we have a UK-wide approach to professional self-regulation. That view was aired on all sides of the House throughout our discussions.
  These working arrangements will be set out in concordats, agreements between the health departments. It is the intention to continue to make UK-wide provision for the professions so that patients, wherever they live, are afforded the same level of protection and there are no artificial barriers to the free movement of professionals within the United Kingdom.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  11 Clause 9, Page 13, line 40, leave out from ("he") to end of line 45 and insert—
  ("(a) shall consult a body appearing to him to be representative of persons to whose remuneration the determination would relate, and
  (b) may consult such other persons as he considers appropriate.").
  Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 12 to 14, 77 to 80, 100, 121, 128 and 130.
  When I introduced Clause 9 at Third Reading, I explained that the purpose of what was then a new clause was very simple. In essence, it was intended to put on a sounder legal footing the existing arrangements for remunerating the Part II practitioners who provide family health services. The clause will also enable the delegation to primary care trusts of the function of determining cash-limited payments to GPs. The clause will otherwise not signal any change to the existing remuneration system for GPS, dentists, pharmacists or opticians. None the less, the clause is complex, technical and long. Those features derive from the existing Sections 43A and 43B which the new clause replaces.
  432
  We have chosen to retain the structure of the existing sections to help to demonstrate that the intention is to regularise and not to change existing practice. However, in considering the clause in Committee in another place, the Government and the Opposition identified a number of points in the clause that needed amendment, either to make the legal provisions fully consistent with established practice, or simply to tidy up the drafting. These amendments represent the fruits of that constructive deliberation.
  The need to make the first amendment, Commons Amendment No. 11, was brought to our attention by the Opposition. Before a national determination of remuneration is made, we invariably consult the relevant representative body. That was also the practice of the previous administration. For example, before making changes to the GPs' statement of fees and allowances, we consulted the General Practitioners Committee of the BMA. However, in another place it was pointed out that the consultation requirements that paragraphs (a) and (b) of the new Section 43B(1) place on the Secretary do not quite reflect that practice.
  Subsection (1) of the new Section 43B of the 1977 Act requires the Secretary of State to consult at least one of either a suitable advisory body or an appropriate representative body of the profession concerned. In practice, the Secretary of State could discharge the duty to consult by consulting an advisory body rather than a representative body. Since it is not our intention to do so we took the opportunity at Report stage in another place to make this clear on the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 11 requires the Secretary of State to consult the appropriate representative body for the profession concerned and allows consultation with others.
  All the other amendments are technical or consequential and together they tidy up Clause 9. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 provide consistent wording throughout the clause. Amendment No. 14 omits Clause 10(4) as the event for which this subsection provides cannot now occur. Amendments Nos. 77 to 80 repeat these changes for Scotland. The remaining amendments in the group, Amendments Nos. 100, 121, 128 and 130, are all minor or consequential. In particular, they secure the repeal of Section 10 of the 1966 Act for England, Scotland and Wales.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.—(Baroness Hayman.)
  Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I express
  warm support for this group of amendments which I believe corrects an important omission from the Bill that originally left this place. The duty of consultation is extremely important. These amendments will be greatly welcomed by the professions involved.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  12 Clause 9, page 14, line 5, leave out ("revised") and insert ("varied")
  13 Page 15, line 24, leave out ("revocation or revision") and insert ("or revocation").
  14 Page 15, line 39, leave out subsection (4).
  Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 to 14.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 to 14.—(Baroness Hayman.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  15 After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
  LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEES
  (".—(1) Section 44 of the 1977 Act (recognition of local representative committees) is amended as provided in subsections (2) to (4).
  (2) Before subsection (1) there is inserted—
  "(A1) A Health Authority may recognise a committee formed for their area which they are satisfied is representative of—

  (a) the medical practitioners providing general medical services or general ophthalmic services in that area;

  (b) those medical practitioners and the deputy medical practitioners for that area; or

  (c) the medical practitioners mentioned in—

  (i) paragraph (a) above; or

  (ii) paragraph (b) above,

  and the section 28C medical practitioners for that area,
  and any committee so recognised shall be called the Local Medical Committee for the area.
  (B1) A Health Authority may recognise a committee formed for their area which they are satisfied is representative of—

  (a) the dental practitioners providing general dental services in that area;

  (b) those dental practitioners and the deputy dental practitioners for that area; or

  (c) the dental practitioners mentioned in—

  (i) paragraph (a) above; or

  (ii) paragraph (b) above,

  and the section 28C dental practitioners for that area,

  and any committee so recognised shall be called the Local Dental Committee for the area."
  (3) In subsection (1), paragraphs (a) and (b) and "the Local Medical Committee, the Local Dental Committee," are omitted.
  (4) After subsection (2) there is inserted—
  "(3) For the purposes of this section and section 45 below, a person who meets the condition in subsection (4) below—

  (a) is a deputy medical practitioner for the area of a Health Authority if he is a medical practitioner who assists a medical practitioner providing general medical services in that area in the provision of those services but is not himself on a list;

  434

  (b) is a section 28C medical practitioner for the area of a Health Authority if he is a medical practitioner who provides or performs personal medical services in accordance with arrangements made under section 28C above by the Health Authority (whether with himself or another);

  (c) is a deputy dental practitioner for the area of a Health Authority if he is a dental practitioner who assists a dental practitioner providing general dental services in that area in the provision of those services but is not himself on a list;

  (d) is a section 28C dental practitioner for the area of a Health Authority if he is a dental practitioner who provides or performs personal dental services in accordance with arrangements made under section 28C above by the Health Authority (whether with himself or another).

  (4) The condition referred to in subsection (3) above is that the person concerned has notified the Health Authority that he wishes to be represented under this section by the appropriate committee for their area (and has not notified them that he wishes to cease to be so represented).

  (5) For the purposes of subsection (3) above—

  (a) a person is to be treated as assisting a medical practitioner or dental practitioner in the provision of services if he is employed by that practitioner for that purpose or if he acts as his deputy in providing those services; and

  (b) "list" has the same meaning as in section 46
  below."

  (5) Section 45 of that Act is amended as provided in subsections (6) to (8).

  (6) For subsection (1) there is substituted—

  "(1) Regulations may require Health Authorities—

  (a) in the exercise of their functions under this Part of this Act to consult committees recognised by them under section 44 above,

  (b) in the exercise of any of their functions which relate to arrangements under section 28C above to consult committees recognised by them under section 44(A1)(c) or (B1)(c) above,

  on such occasions and to such extent as may he prescribed.

  (1A) The power conferred by subsection (1) above is without prejudice to any other power to require a Health Authority to consult any committee recognised under section 44 above.

  (1B) Committees recognised under section 44 above shall exercise such other functions as may be prescribed.

  (1C) A committee recognised for an area under subsection (A 1)(b) or (c) or (B1)(b) or (c) of section 44 above shall, in respect of each year, determine the amount of its administrative expenses for that year attributable—

  (a) in the case of a committee recognised under subsection (A1)(b) or (c)(ii) of that section, to the deputy medical practitioners for the area;

  (b) in the case of a committee recognised under subsection (Al)(c) of that section, to the section 28C medical practitioners for the area;

  (c) in the case of a committee recognised under subsection (B 1)(b) or (c)(ii) of that section, to the deputy dental practitioners for the area;

  435

  (d) in the case of a committee recognised under subsection (B 1)(c) of that section, to the section 28C dental practitioners for the area."

  (7) In subsection (2), "(including travelling and subsistence allowances payable to its Members)" is omitted.

  (8) After subsection (3) there is inserted—

  "(4) Where a committee has made a determination under subsection (1C) above, it shall apportion the amount so determined among the deputy medical practitioners, section 28C medical practitioners, deputy dental practitioners or section 28C dental practitioners, as the case may be, for the area and each such practitioner shall pay in accordance with the committee's directions the amount so apportioned to him.

  (5) References in this section to administrative expenses of a committee include references to travelling and subsistence allowances payable to its Members; but the reference in subsection (2) above to a committee's administrative expenses does not include so much of the committee's administrative expenses as are determined under subsection (1C) above to be attributable to any practitioners mentioned in that subsection.''").

  Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15. In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 19 and 125. These provisions amend Sections 44 and 45 of the 1977 Act which provide for recognition of, and consultation with, local representative committees in respect of their statutory functions. The primary care Act made possible personal medical and personal dental services, and arrangements to pilot such services, but left untouched the provisions in the 1977 Act for doctors' and dentists' statutory consultation arrangements by which a committee is recognised by a health authority as being representative of medical or dental practitioners in its area.
  My right honourable friend the Member for Darlington undertook to put right this obvious defect to ensure that any doctors who had opted to provide services under the primary care Act could be reintegrated into the local medical committee arrangements if they wished, and that undertaking is honoured by these government amendments. In the light of discussions during the Committee stage in another place my honourable friend the Member for
  Southampton Itchen had extensive discussions with the chairman of the General Practitioners Committee of the BMA. The chairman asked us to go further than the original undertaking in order to strengthen the role of local medical committees so that they can represent not only doctors working as principals in general medical services and doctors in primary care Act pilots but also the many other doctors who contribute to our high-quality family doctor services as assistants and deputies.
  Having listened carefully to the arguments, my honourable friend brought forward government amendments to the clause to give effect to the more broadly based representative machinery; and after further discussions with the GDSC the Government took the opportunity to broaden the representative base of local dental committees in the same way. The details of the amendments were discussed with the national representative bodies of both doctors and dentists, and we understand that they have their support. A tidying-up amendment was also tabled to ensure that the statute
  436
  is in line with long-established practice and with what successive Health Secretaries and the professions' representative bodies have understood the position to be for many years.
  Section 45 currently requires local representative committees to be consulted but only where that requirement to consult is made in regulations. The requirement to make regulations to make or vary consultation requirements involves a very inflexible framework for developing a service which can, as now, evolve rapidly. In practice, successive Health Secretaries have made provisions for a health authority to consult locally on specific issues over and above any consultation requirements specified in regulations. These are mainly in connection with the questions of entitlement to certain fees and allowances and other matters to do with the remuneration of individual practitioners. Consequential Amendment No. 19 updates a cross-reference in Section 17A of the Act; and Amendment No. 125 details repeals consequential on Amendment No. 15.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.—(Baroness Hayman.)
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I welcome these amendments, in particular Amendment No. 15. I welcome especially the scope of that amendment. I understand that a government amendment on this issue was tabled in Committee in another place almost at the last moment. The clause as then framed was deficient, at least in the eyes of the Opposition, in that it did not cover, as the noble Baroness rightly said, the 7,000-plus non-principal GPs who have the right to expect their views to be represented in their local representative committees, if those committees are to perform their very important statutory functions in an effective manner. I am delighted that the Government tabled further amendments in Standing Committee to meet the concerns expressed. The very satisfactory result is what we now see on the Marshalled List as Amendment No. 15. I thank the Minister for her comments.
  Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in very similar terms I add my thanks to the Minister for the amendment. I know that the amendment is very broadly welcomed by the medical profession.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
16 Clause 10, page 16, line 7, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State may direct a Special Health Authority to exercise any functions of a Health Authority or a Primary Care Trust which are specified in the directions.").
17 Page 16, line 8, after ("specified") insert ("in directions under this section").
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 and 17,—(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
18 Page 16, leave out lines 19 to 23.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT 18A
That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18. As your Lordships will remember, the House agreed two amendments referring to out-of-area treatments where appropriate for the purpose of receiving specialist hospital treatment and after-care. The second amendment stressed the need for co-operation over this matter. There was a great deal of support for OATs to be written on the face of the Bill in another place, but the Government want them taken out.
I thank the Minister for her communication. The noble Baroness knows so well the need to be able to access the correct medical treatment when illness strikes. In the past few days I have been implored by patient organisations to table a Motion disagreeing with the Commons amendment. On Wednesday 9th June in your Lordships' House there was an Unstarred Question on the subject of artificial limbs. There is a great need for improvement in many National Health Service specialised services.
In the past few days every time I open a newspaper I read of some avoidable health disaster. The case of the Treasury official who was refused admission to a psychiatric hospital and then killed his wife illustrates the need for better communication between junior doctor and consultant and, with the shortage of beds, between health authorities. If there is not a bed in one area there should be easy access out of a person's home area so that he gets the correct treatment quickly. The Government will realise that serious illness can come to anyone at any time. I believe that the general public regard access to correct health treatment as a top priority.
Referring to the bottom of page 11 of the Notes on Commons Amendments to the Health Bill, perhaps the Minister can explain the following statement:
"adding wording of that sort … may have the unfortunate and unintended consequence of being construed as limiting the scope of the power".
Having discussed this matter with expert advice from your Lordships' House, the matter needs clarification.
In the modern world people who suspect complicated medical conditions turn to the Internet to see what treatments exist. The Patients Forum believes that longer-term service agreements replacing ECRs (extra contractual referrals), based on past referral patterns, will reinforce existing inequalities. Some areas will not plan to provide services at all. The transition from ECRs to the out-of-area treatments (OATs) is confusing users and practitioners.
The lack of clarity and poor communication run counter to the NHS code of openness, which emphasises the importance of users,
"having access to available information about the services provided by the National Health Service. The cost of these services, quality, standards and performance against targets … authorities must ensure that people know whom to ask for information".
438
There seems to be no clear accountability.
Denying access to specialist services, through limiting OATs referrals, risks denying access to greater independence and other opportunities such as Welfare to Work and the New Deal. Referrals out of area should be made on clinical need. Refusals of OATs referrals must be monitored to ensure that they are not based on non-clinical factors such as PCG, PCT or health authority pressure.
Can the Minister give an assurance that rural health authorities, which often do not have many of the specialised hospital units within their local hospitals, will not be at a disadvantage when they have to send patients out of their local areas? The cost-inefficiency of losing specialist centres of excellence must be avoided.
Disability organisations, the College of Health and the National Consumer Council all support this matter and know the importance of getting expert treatment when needed and will continue to press the government on behalf of patients. To have OATs written into the Bill is a very reasonable request and I believe that it is the Government who are being unreasonable over this matter. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18.—(Baroness Masham of Ilton.)
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I speak in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and about genuine miracles. My concern is about the future of specialist services for deaf people. I wish to speak also about the provision of cochlear implants.
I declare a personal interest, but that does not mean that anything in the Bill will affect me because I already have a cochlear implant. A person with such an implant knows that it miraculously transforms his or her life if they have been, as I was, totally deaf. I am in no doubt that anyone who could benefit should get one. That is a very simple proposition, but it is one which is impeded and sometimes obstructed by health authorities. Cochlear implants are still relatively new and rare. Many people, including health professionals, simply do not appreciate that they are medical miracles.
Any loss of hearing can be a problem as many noble Lords in this House will know, but the complete loss of hearing is of a very different order. To hear nothing is a terrible deprivation because it ends easy conversation. It means that there is no music, no meaningful television, no radio, no birdsong and no children's laughter. It means exclusion and isolation.
To a large extent a cochlear implant remedies much of that. It is not perfect, but it returns a deafened person to near normal social living. The number of implants being carried out now is falling especially for adults. In 1997 there were 180, and 155 in 1998. The number of refusals is rising. For adults there were 27 refusals in 1997 and 65 in 1998.
Health authorities have discovered a shabby trick. If they refuse an initial assessment, that can stop a deaf person protesting, and that is being done. Out of 65 adults, 41 were refused assessments in 1998. That is the

439
kind of shabby behaviour of some of our health authorities. That is a depressing and deplorable outlook facing people deprived of a major sense.
The first cochlear implants were funded by charities. Then came three-year central NHS funding, coupled with Medical Research Council research, which established that they are safe and cost effective. Then funding became a health authority responsibility and the problem started. I did a personal survey of all health authorities in January 1997. It showed a great variation in understanding of total deafness and willingness to relieve it. Since then I have received countless letters from deaf people despairing of ever getting an implant. Many health authorities have responded to my letters about this medical miracle and some have now agreed to fund. Even the most rigid health authority in Britain, which is Oxfordshire, was refusing to implant adults in the foreseeable future, but it has now relented. I congratulate that authority on its change of mind.
But it is still guerrilla warfare. Many health authorities are good; some are slow but tolerable; and others are deplorable. That is no way to treat the hearing needs of totally deaf people. As my noble friend the Minister knows, there were high hopes that we would get regional commissioning. Cochlear implants fulfil all the conditions in Annexe A of the HSC circular Commissioning Services, but they are not named in Annexe B, as are bone-anchored hearing aids. There is only a reference to "communication aids". Not naming cochlear implants gives scope for argument and disagreement and deaf people want and need certainty.
The new procedures of out-of-area treatment mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and service agreements may sound sensible to my noble friend and other Ministers and civil servants. All of them are trying to be helpful. But they are linked—at least initially—to previous levels of referrals. That is the weak element which needs to be remedied. There is a strong smack of lip service backed up only by promises that remedial action will be taken if necessary. That is a "wait and see" strategy when we can already see a highly visible problem for deaf people. I urge the Government to think again. I know that my noble friend will do what she can to ensure that cochlear implants are firmly based on the regional commissioning list. If they are not, the funding bodies will be able to duck, weave and swerve, and some deaf people will be left knowing that help is possible, but they cannot have it. If my noble friend can meet this provision she will have struck a major blow for the totally deaf. I support my noble friend.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I supported the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, when she moved that the words the Government intend to leave out should in fact be inserted in the Bill. When we were asked not to accept this amendment I read the notes and I am grateful for having received them.
In the notes, the Government suggest that the words are unnecessary. On page 11 the notes state,
"The Government considers the words which have been removed to be unnecessary".
440
At the beginning of the next paragraph, they add:
"Nothing in this Bill cuts across GPs' existing freedom to refer their patients for whatever treatment is in their best interests, whether locally or at a specialist centre".
I believe that there is a doubt about this. The noble Lord referred to one, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. When there is a doubt, it is best to remove it when legislating, especially when people's lives may be at stake.
In one or two cases in these amendments, the Government have been wonderfully overzealous. In Commons Amendment No. 2, the word "Act" is to include "this section". Every Act includes every section. Yet the Government use the specific wards saying that in that case, and in one or two others, the word "Act" includes a specific section of the Act. If the Government are willing to be so overzealous in such a small drafting matter—perhaps I may have the attention of the Minister; I know that the Chief Whip may have something very important to say—I suggest that it is a good thing for them to be overzealous about the removal of doubt in this important matter of specialist services. Specialist services these days are essentially localised. They are not in every health authority area, as we all know from personal experience. I think that in this important Bill, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has been so careful to explain to us in great detail, it would be regrettable if on this important matter there was the slightest doubt left.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is doing a service in inviting the Government to remove a doubt.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says about whether the House should accept Commons Amendment No. 18. I, too, read the Notes on Commons Amendments. I note that the Government consider the amendment unnecessary and that it might limit the powers of the Bill.
I shall listen carefully to the Minister. It is crucial that people should, as far as humanly possible, have access to the specialist services they need. I want to hear from the Minister what the Secretary of State will have power to direct. The notes state that the powers,
"are amply broad enough to enable the Secretary of State to issue directions to ensure appropriate access to specialist service".
That will depend whether the specialist services are available; whether the cost of getting the patient there can be paid; and whether it will be possible to fund the patient's treatment. If it is possible for the Minister to describe that which the Bill allows, it will be important to the House. That is what matters to patients, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will agree. That is what she and the whole House will listen to.
As the noble Baroness also said, we all wish to know what the notes mean when they state that this amendment may have the unfortunate and unintended consequence of being construed as limiting the scope of the power. We want to know whether the amendment would be counter-productive. But we also need to know precisely what the Bill will allow to happen and how

441
the Secretary of State can intervene. He cannot intervene about every patient. So we need to know the precise procedure.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Berners: My Lords, I support the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. There should be more readiness to make other specialist options available to desperate patients. I hope that the Government will reconsider the Motion and agree to it.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I speak as a clinician. In the past a clinician had to fulfil the requirement to meet the extra-contractual referrals. That made out-of-area referrals difficult. Therefore, it is important that the Bill enables easier out-of-area referrals. I believe that the co-operation encouraged and enshrined in the Bill allows for that.
As a clinician, the other aspect I look for is the freedom and ability to persuade the trust—I work in a hospital—to develop specialised services. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can reassure the House that measures will be in place to ensure local monitoring of out-of-area referrals. That will help the development of new services.
I do not believe that the amendment is necessary because of the encouragement to co-operate. As a clinician, I have to tell noble Lords that in the past we were discouraged from referring patients out of area because funding issues were involved. We do not have that situation now. I do not want to see any restrictive measures in legislation acting as a disincentive for a trust to develop specialised services.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I add my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on these issues which she highlighted so ably. I do not want to repeat the points she made. However, some fundamental unanswered questions remain.
The first relates to doctors' clinical freedom. I refer to the section of the Notes on Commons Amendments picked up by my noble friend Lord Renton. At page 11 the assurance is given that,
"Nothing in this Bill cuts across GPs' existing freedom to refer their patients for whatever treatment is in their best interests, whether locally or at a specialist centre".
There is a touch of disingenuousness about that statement. There may be nothing on the face of the Bill which discourages out-of-area referrals. But we know the Government's intentions. The intention is that most specialist tertiary services should be funded through long-term service agreements between health authorities and PCGs or PCTs and an appropriate NHS trust. Sometimes an agreement will cover a number of health authorities and their PCGs and PCTs. There will be a move to establish agreements of three to five years' duration. That scheme of things may well assist planning and budgeting, but where does it leave the doctor who may not want to refer a patient to the hospital chosen by his or her health authority? As I understand the proposals, the long-term service
442
agreement will govern his decision on where his patient is seen and treated. How is that not a diminution or fettering of a doctor's clinical freedom?
My second question relates to those 10 per cent of conditions which under the Department of Health's own estimate will not be subject to long-term service agreements. Ten per cent may be a minority proportion but it will not be an insignificant number of cases. If 10 per cent of services previously funded by extra-contractual referrals are now to be accounted for by out-of-area referrals, we need to be sure that the mechanisms to fund them are adequate.
In her helpful letter to me of 22nd March, the noble Baroness explained how a health authority, acting as the main commissioner of a specialist centre, will have funding added to its own service agreement with the trust to reflect past patterns of one-off referrals. My question to the noble Baroness is: how will this work in practice? If there is a service agreement between a health authority and a specialist centre and the margin built into that contract is exceeded as a result of a higher volume of referrals from out of the area, how is the centre supposed to cope with that? Under the duty of partnership it will be bound to accept those referrals, yet it will have no money to pay for them.
I understood Ministers in another place to say that money will not follow the patient. Indeed, that sort of arrangement is what the Government say they want to get away from in abolishing the internal market. An upwards adjustment in a trust's budget for the following year will not pay for the unfunded cases it has already dealt with. Can the noble Baroness shed further light on that conundrum?
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, having heard the debate so far, and in particular the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, no one can doubt the importance of the points that have been made. There is also no doubt about the absolute importance of OATs working much better than extra-contractual referrals. The funding and the clinical freedom must be there in the future. We must have thriving centres of excellence and we have heard throughout our debates when the original amendment was before the House at Report stage and again today, problematic stories about how the centres of excellence are not thriving. It is our view that the working of OATs is of crucial importance. That has also been emphasised throughout the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, put his finger on one point. We are not persuaded on these Benches that the best way forward is necessarily by means of primary legislation. It is a matter of ends and means. What is the best means of achieving a system of well-managed OATs, a system that works where the funding is in place and where clinical freedom is important? I look forward very much to hearing from the Minister with assurances that perhaps go further than some of the points made in the notes about the working of OATs; and then of course we will take a view.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for once

443
again making the House concentrate on an immensely important area. It has been echoed all round the House, particularly by my noble friend Lord Ashley, that patients should have access to appropriate services, particularly to appropriate specialised services, and the difficulties that might be inherent when those services are not available for very obvious reasons—because of their very specialised nature—at primary or even local secondary care level.
I have to say to the House that some of the anxieties mentioned spring from the very unfortunate experiences around extra-contractual referrals to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred. I believe that the new arrangements actually provide a great deal more reassurance to patients in terms of how they can be referred, and to doctors about their clinical freedom to refer. I will deal with those matters in a moment.
I hope I shall be able to reassure the House that the amendment is unnecessary in terms of the need to give extra powers to the Secretary of State. Also and, I believe, more importantly, I want to assure your Lordships that we are taking appropriate action to see that specialised commissioning is available for out-of-area treatment, with the freedom to refer in order to ensure high quality services for patients. The point about mechanisms was made by the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Clement-Jones. I will say a little more about the changes that we have already put in place and I hope to be able to give assurances about further steps in a moment.
One thing is very clear: there is still uncertainty as to the nature of the new arrangements we are introducing and how they will work in practice, together with the need for better communication. As well as the debates in your Lordships' House, ministerial colleagues and I have had the opportunity to hear directly the views of patient groups and, most recently, there was a very constructive meeting between my right honourable friend the Minister of Health and representatives of the Carers National Association and the Patients Forum last week.
Important issues were raised in the House and elsewhere, and I should like to respond to them. However, returning to the technicalities of this particular amendment, I should explain why it remains the Government's clear view that the amendments introduced by your Lordships' House on Third Reading, for which the noble Baroness has again argued today, are not necessary; nor are they the right way forward.
Those amendments amplify the wording of the general powers of direction and the duty of co-operation between NHS bodies to specify that they apply in particular to arrangements for referrals for specialised treatment. The key point is that the Secretary of State's general powers of direction, as originally set out in Clause 10 of the Bill, and the duty of co-operation between NHS bodies in Clause 23 are both wide enough to contain the arrangements needed for commissioning specialist services and for the so-called "out-of-area" treatments. Indeed, it is precisely because the Government attach such importance to partnership working between NHS bodies to ensure that all service
444
are properly responsive to patients' needs that we have for the first time introduced the statutory duty of co-operation.
I can confirm that nothing further is needed on the face of the Bill to ensure that those provisions are indeed as wide as the noble Baroness intends them to be. Again, I should like to confirm, as has been pointed out in the notes dealing with the amendments, that nothing in the Bill restricts a GP's freedom of referral or stands in the way of commissioning services from whatever centre may be appropriate. I want to make that quite clear for the record.
I am also happy to give the commitment that, should it prove necessary, the Government would not hesitate to use the powers of direction and ensure that the duty of co-operation is complied with in order to ensure that arrangements in this area work as intended. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, asked precisely what those powers were. The Secretary of State is able, under Clause 10(17) of the 1977 Act, as amended, to direct all NHS bodies—health authorities, SHAs, PCTs and NHS trusts—about their exercise of any functions. So this is comprehensive; it covers commissioning and funding arrangements should it be necessary to make directions on those. Therefore we believe that it is comprehensive enough.
We believe that reinstating the wording proposed by the noble Baroness would in practice add nothing to what the Bill already allows. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, to whom the whole House listens with great respect in these matters, suggested that it would remove doubt. I have to say to him that I do not believe there is doubt to remove, because of the breadth of the Secretary of State's general powers of direction. I believe in fact that it would create doubt in another area. That is because there is a danger that by introducing provisions regarding particular applications of a general power or duty—such as those in Clauses 10 and 23—we risk the unfortunate, and I am sure, absolutely unintended consequence of it being construed as limiting the scope of these general provisions.
I remind the House of a few of the other important purposes for which the powers may be used. For example, Clause 10 would enable the Secretary of State to issue directions, if necessary, to ensure an NHS body followed through speedily on the recommendations of the commission for health improvement. Clause 23 would cover local NHS bodies working together on the agreed priorities for local health improvement.
We must not run the risk of limiting the scope of the powers of direction and the duty of co-operation in respect of all matters that will advance patient care, given their intended breadth. This Motion is not the way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, rightly said that it was important to get the legal framework right. But in this area it is essential to get more than the legal framework right. We must have the resources in place and smooth arrangements operating. We must ensure equal access for patients and remove some of the existing inequalities. That will entail a huge and comprehensive programme of work which we have already begun to undertake. For example, in the area of

445
mental health, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred, the national service framework will be the way forward in ensuring that there is greater consistency and better access to services for patients across the board.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. That is a very important point and I am anxious to help to make it clear. A difficulty arises under Clause 10 which states,
"The Secretary of State may",
I underline the word "may",
"give directions to any of the bodies mentioned in subsection (2) below about their exercise of any functions".
The authorities are then set out. But subsection (3), which the Government propose to leave out, says,
"The power conferred by subsection (I) shall be exercised so as to enable patients resident in an area, covered by a body referred to in that subsection to be referred out of their area".
"May" and "shall" are the operative words. It is the mere existence of "may" which raises a doubt, and the existence of "shall" which removes that doubt. That is what we must be careful about.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand absolutely the point to which the noble Lord refers. There is an issue in the drafting of legislation in these areas regarding putting "shall" into legislation where it may not be necessary for the Secretary of State to use the powers of direction. I hope that the noble Lord will accept from me that the power of direction means that the Secretary of State is able to follow through if necessary. I have today made a commitment that, should it prove necessary, the Government will not hesitate to use the powers of direction and ensure that the duty of co-operation is complied with in order to make sure that the arrangements work as intended.
Perhaps I may turn to the action we propose to take. I hope to reassure the House of the importance we attach to trying to improve the situation. Action continues on the specialised commissioning arrangements. National priorities for attention have been identified for attention in 1999–2000. We have already issued guidance on the commissioning of cleft lip and palate services. Guidance on medium and high secure psychiatric services will follow shortly. The two national service frameworks on coronary heart disease and mental health will include guidance on commissioning specialist services in those fields. So the rolling programme is under way as we promised.
At the same time, a process of peer review is under way across regions to ensure consistency of approach and to share best practice. My noble friend Lord Ashley spoke powerfully from his personal experience about arrangements for the provision of cochlear implants. He argued that they should be specifically included in the list of specialised services that had been issued in previous guidance. I should explain that this list is a working brief for the NHS Executive regional offices to use in reviewing current service arrangements over time. It has been deliberately framed so as to contain a
446
measure of detail where necessary, but also to retain sufficient flexibility to be used in differing regional or local circumstances.
I hope that my noble friend will be reassured to know that the list is not set in stone. It will be refined as it is used, in discussion with the NHS. In the light of today's debate, I shall draw the attention of my ministerial colleagues to the importance which my noble friend attaches to this issue although I do not think that they are in any doubt as to that already. I shall ask my colleagues to ensure that the issue of cochlear implants is carefully considered as the list is developed. I say to my noble friend that we would expect an area which identified a particular problem over access to cochlear implants, or indeed to any other service, to follow that up, whether or not the service was on the list as a specialised service. I know that he is concerned about the number of implants that are taking place, particularly among people in middle years. Our figures show that the number of operations for cochlear implants in children under four and people over 75 has increased, but I accept absolutely the importance of keeping the figures under review so that the appropriate services for patients who would benefit from cochlear implants remain in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to the importance of getting the legal framework right. I accept that. But the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Ashley concerned an annexe to a circular which was issued before the Bill was introduced and which is still in force now. That reflects the need to get the arrangements right. The remedy to that does not necessarily lie on the face of this particular Bill.
Debates in this House and elsewhere have confirmed the need for better understanding of the new arrangements for out-of-area treatments. I am glad to say that since we last debated those issues in this House the department has issued further guidance on the arrangements under the cover of HSC99 171. Copies are in the Library. Regional offices of the NHS Executive continue to keep the arrangements under close review to ensure that any problems which emerge can be nipped in the bud.
The guidance also draws attention to the need for new or developing services to be identified and explicitly planned for. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Ashley and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would also welcome that provision. However, management guidance alone is not enough. We acknowledge the need to do more to ensure that local clinicians, patient groups and others understand and have confidence in all aspects of the new arrangements. Therefore, the department will be exploring with patient groups, managers and clinicians what sort of information will be helpful and how it can best be made available. It is especially important that those who depend on specialised services, whether for treatment for life-threatening conditions or for rare continuing illnesses, have confidence in the new arrangements. That is why I wish to confirm today that the Government welcome and accept the proposal that has come forward from user and carer groups in particular that we should arrange for annual reports to be

447
published locally on the new regional specialised commissioning arrangements. We shall want those reports to explain which services are being commissioned through collective arrangements; to outline possible priorities for future in-depth review; and in due course to report on the operations already in place.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point, will she say whether there will be a right to appeal for patients if they are not sent to the appropriate place of treatment?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with that issue in a moment. The way in which the right of appeal is defined and implemented in terms of clinical judgments about what is an appropriate referral is a difficult issue. However, we want the new regional reports to cover the interface between specialised commissioning arrangements and the arrangements for ad hoc, out-of-area treatment. In that respect, patients could consider that they fall between two stools.
The report will identify, for example, where an increase in the number of ad hoc referrals suggests the need to move to a planned long-term service agreement within the specialised commissioning arrangements. This will enable all concerned to reach clear understandings about the pace at which the service will develop and the types of case that it will treat.
Each annual report will of course be available to health authorities, primary care groups and trusts, NHS trusts and patient groups in the region concerned. But, recognising the interest in your Lordships' House, I can confirm that we shall ensure that a full set of these regional reports is available in the Library. The year 1999–2000 is the first for the development of the new arrangements and we therefore anticipate the first reports being available next summer.
It will also be important to take stock of national lessons emerging from these regional arrangements and ensure that good practice is shared; and we wish to ensure that the interface between the national and regional commissioning arrangements is working smoothly. The National Specialised Commissioning Advisory Group, which deals nationally with some of the most specialised services of all—for example, specialised psychiatric services for the deaf—already produces an annual report. We believe that the right way forward is likely to be to ask this group to extend its annual report to cover national lessons emerging from the regional arrangements so that there is a comprehensive and readily accessible account available. Again, copies will be placed in the Library.
Finally, I should like to reaffirm the importance we attach to ensuring that the users of these services are involved in the development of the new arrangements and have confidence in them.
Our debates have highlighted the need to look at strengthening user and carer involvement, not just in local commissioning arrangements, but in the new regional arrangements and indeed in the arrangements for the National Specialised Commissioning Advisory
448
Group. In the light of our debates, I shall want the department to explore with patient groups and the NHS how best to secure greater user and carer input into the new arrangements; for example, through involvement in service reviews.
I return to the issue of a patient being unhappy with the decision not to refer. Of course, all patients can discuss with their GP a decision not to refer where the GP considers it clinically appropriate. If a patient is not happy, the GP can arrange a second opinion and the GMC guidance is very clear that it is good professional practice to arrange for that second opinion if the patient asks. However, in response to the issue raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the principle that GPs have the clinical freedom to refer in the best interests of their patients remains. There is now greater scope than ever before for PCGs to align the available resources with those GP judgments. They are now involved explicitly through their PCGs in discussions about priorities and cost effectiveness to ensure that they achieve the best for their patients with the total resources available.
The basic principle for all the new commissioning arrangements is to promote the development of services that best match the needs of patients as identified by their GPs. As regards referrals where, for other reasons, patients are not met by the PCGs' service agreements, general practitioners can use the out-of-area treatment mechanism. Unlike the previous arrangements. there is no formal prior approval mechanism for out-of-area treatments, so we have a simplification of the situation rather than making it more difficult. There is nothing to stop a PCG, for example, making a service agreement to refer patients outside their own areas where that makes sense.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about the funding arrangements. They are designed to ensure that the issues are resolved while ensuring that patients receive the treatment they need. Clearly, it is key that over-performance within service agreements for more specialised services should not prejudice the delivery of more routine and locally based services. In managing their portfolio agreements, NHS trusts, health authorities and PCGs should ensure that that does not happen. Additional work is in hand in some areas to develop risk pools to which health authorities and PCGs will contribute to help manage in-year fluctuations under the OAT arrangements. Clinical units under short-term pressure could have access to cash brokerage in the usual way. That helps trusts both with their financial management and in imposing a measure of financial discipline as regards commissioners. The guidance we are issuing on those will encourage such pooling developments.
If there were a significant increase in referrals, the units concerned would need to explore with the referring PCG whether this trend was likely to continue In that case, it would be better handled through a planned service agreement using the usual specialised arrangements if appropriate rather than continued use of out-of-area treatment and having to deal with the financial consequences.

449
In our earlier debates, including our debate at Third Reading when the House voted through amendments moved eloquently then, as again today, by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, my sense was that the House wished to register the importance it attached to ensuring proper access to high quality specialised services for those who need them. That, rather than the specific terms of the amendments, formed the substance of our debate. Perhaps I may repeat that the Government share the views of the House and that the arrangements we will put in place are designed to achieve that end. I cannot pretend that they will be achieved overnight because we start from a position in which there is unequal access to some services.
I believe that the right response to the view your Lordships have expressed so strongly today is not to be found in fine-tuning the drafting of the Bill. I have explained that it already contains the necessary powers and duties and that there are no legal obstacles to referrals to specialist centres. I believe that in legislative terms there are dangers in leaving the Bill as it is and not agreeing with another place in their amendments. I believe that the right way forward is to ensure that the new arrangements fulfil their potential and that they command the confidence of the patients who depend on these services and the clinicians who provide them.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for the way in which she has kept our attention focused on these important matters as the Bill has proceeded. I believe that together the developments I have described represent a serious and constructive response to the debates we have held. I hope that the House will understand why the Government do not consider that the amendments passed in your Lordships' House at Third Reading offer the right way forward. But I hope that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have spoken, and those who have listened, will accept that the Government have listened and responded and that we intend to continue to listen and respond to the views of patients and clinicians as the arrangements develop further and that the commissioning of specialised services will be better as a result.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have supported the Motion and I thank the Minister for her full answer. However, I am concerned because often the tertiary referrals are from hospital to hospital and the GP is not even involved. I hope that that aspect is included.
We have had a useful debate. It was well worthwhile tabling the Motion because we have prised more information out of the Government. We will keep watching carefully, as will the bodies outside your Lordships' House and another place. I know that Members of Parliament are under pressure from their constituents over this matter.
It would not be right to divide the House on this issue. We have been able to put our views forward and to say how strongly we feel over this matter. We will go on feeling strongly. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18.—[Baroness Hayman.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
19 Clause 10, page 17, line 1, leave out ("45(2) or (3)") and insert ("45(1C) to (4)").
20 Page 17, line 7, at end insert—
("or a function referred to in section 28EE(1)(a) to (d) below").
21 Page 17, line 33, leave out ("11,").
22 Page 17, line 40, leave out ("11,").
23 Page 18, line 1, leave out (""17" there is substituted "17B") and insert (""11 to 17" there is substituted "16 to 17B").
24 Clause 11, page 18, line 43, at end insert—
("() In paragraph 16(2) of that Schedule (general powers of NHS trusts), for "which is owned and managed" there is substituted "at or from which services are provided".")
25 Clause 12, page 19, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("be") in line 9 and insert—
("For section 5(9) of the 1990 Act (restrictions on exercise of certain powers) there is substituted—
"(9) A power conferred by paragraph 14 or 15 of Part II of Schedule 2 to this Act may only").
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 19 to 25.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 19 to 25.—(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
26 Clause 16, page 20, line 20, leave out ("Primary Care Trust, and each NHS trust,") and insert ("Health Authority, Primary Care Trust and NHS trust").
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26. In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 27, 29 to 49, 76, 87 and 91.
These amendments deal with a variety of issues regarding the provisions in the Bill designed to drive up quality. Those issues are: the addition of further NHS bodies to which the duty of quality applies; joint working arrangements between the commission for health improvement and the Audit Commission; arrangements between the commission and Ministers of the Crown regarding other publicly funded health services and measures to clarify and strengthen the provisions on the accessing and disclosing of confidential information by the commission. I shall briefly address each of these matters in turn.
Amendment No. 26 extends the bodies to which the duty of quality in Clause 16 applies to include health authorities, in addition to NHS trusts and primary care trusts to which it already applies. It is in line with

451
amendments debated during our own consideration of this clause, and has been largely prompted by that debate. We have no wish to be inflexible where we can see genuine scope for improvement.
We acknowledge that some health authority activity may be regarded as healthcare provision within the scope of the definition set out in the Bill. We have already made clear in guidance that we expect clinical governance to apply to health authority functions, such as communicable disease control. We believe that these are important and should be included within the scope of the statutory duty.
Amendment No. 76 applies the duty of quality for Scotland, set out in Clause 45, to the Common Services Agency of the NHS in Scotland. The agency is an integral part of the NHS in Scotland, providing a range of support services and activities which touch more directly on the treatment of patients; for example, breast and cervical cancer screening in Scotland.
Amendment No. 29 provides for joint working between the commission for health improvement and the Audit Commission. In A First Class Service the Government made clear that the commission for health improvement and the Audit Commission would be expected to agree a joint programme of national and local reviews in a way which makes best use of their particular expertise and combined resources.
I also recall that at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, questioned what the relationship will be between the Audit Commission and the commission for health improvement. We believe that if your Lordships accept this amendment, it will be close and productive, not only for both commissions but also, and perhaps most importantly, for the NHS.
Noble Lords will know that the Bill provides for levels of assistance and partnership between the commission for health improvement and other bodies, but this does not allow for joint studies or joint reporting arrangements.
The amendment provides for joint reviews in two broad areas: first, joint reviews covering clinical governance and organisational risk, and, secondly, covering reviews of national service frameworks and value for money studies. In these joint studies the commission for health improvement will concentrate on clinical matters and the Audit Commission on those areas where it has longstanding expertise.
Subsection (2) of Amendment No. 29 provides for the commission to assist the Audit Commission in its wider programme of value for money studies by providing informed clinical expertise. The amendment also makes provision for joint reports and the recovery of costs by either commission for any assistance given to the other. The Audit Commission has expressed enthusiasm and commitment to working with the commission for health improvement and has given a particularly warm welcome to this provision.
I turn to Amendment No. 30. This enables Ministers of the Crown or a Northern Ireland Minister with responsibility for the provision of publicly funded healthcare services to enter into arrangements with the commission for it to perform functions in relation to
452
those services. The amendment has been designed with three such health services in mind: the Northern Ireland Health Service, the Prison Medical Service and the Defence Medical Service which provides healthcare to members of the Armed Forces. However, the amendment is not limited to these health services.
Those Ministers with responsibility for the provision of these services may consider that the commission can make a valuable contribution in raising the quality of services. Where they wish to do so, we believe it is sensible to provide for arrangements to allow access to the commission's expertise. Amendments No. 87 and 91 are consequential to this amendment to ensure that it works properly.
Amendment No. 27 amends Clause 17 and is consequential to Amendments Nos. 29 and 30. which I have discussed. Those provide for joint working between the commission and the Audit Commission and for arrangements between the commission and Ministers of the Crown. Clause 17 establishes the commission for health improvement and gives it the functions set out in Clause 18. Subsection 17(2) states that the Commission is to have the functions conferred on it under Clause 18. The two new clauses confer additional functions on the commission. This amendment extends subsection (2) of Clause 17 to include those functions.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 31 to 49 on confidentiality. Noble Lords will recall that we had an important and well-informed debate on issues of confidentiality in relation to the commission for health improvement. The Government certainly share the concern expressed here that confidentiality is protected. Amendments Nos. 31 to 49 consist of drafting and technical amendments, an amendment to address your Lordships' concern about when individuals can be identified from various pieces of information and an amendment to address when information can be disclosed about a health professional's performance.
The drafting amendments, Amendments Nos. 31 to 41, 43 to 45, 47 and 49, attempt to clarify and tighten the provisions in Clauses 19 and 20 to give greater protection to the confidentiality of individuals. They also address some technical legal points.
On more substantial amendments, noble Lords will recall we debated the issue of confidential information being disclosed that of itself does not identify but, when taken in combination with other information, reveals or helps to reveal an individual's identity. Concern was expressed about the possibility of this scenario and I gave a commitment to look at these concerns.
I believe that Amendments Nos. 42 and 48 now adequately address those concerns. In combination they make it a criminal offence to disclose confidential information which would enable an individual to be identified from the information or from that information in combination with other information disclosed by the commission unless that disclosure is made with lawful authority.
Finally, on confidentiality, there is Amendment No. 46. This amends Clause 20(5)(g). The existing provision was intended to permit disclosure where there were concerns about a health professional's performance.

453
However, in looking again at this provision we were concerned that the existing provision may be interpreted too narrowly; for example, only allowing disclosure of such confidential information in relation to a formal assessment of the health professional's performance.
In practice, this could mean that the commission could disclose such information to a regulatory body only where that body was already conducting an inquiry into the performance of the health professional concerned. Therefore, the commission would not be able to disclose such information to an employer or an appropriate regulatory body where it had emerged in the course of a review or investigation. This would hamper the commission's efforts to help to nip problems in the bud by informing relevant bodies of possible problems. Amendment No. 46 addresses that particular problem.
I am pleased to say that following discussions we have had, both the GMC and the BMA are content with this amendment, which brings the commission's operation into line with the GMC's code of conduct. The regulatory body's code states that a health professional must disclose information about a colleague if there is serious concern about his or her performance, conduct, or fitness to practice.
In previous debates on this Bill your Lordships expressed support for the provisions to improve quality in the National Health Service, although in characteristic fashion the House gave way to attention to detail. The result has been to help the Government to make many improvements in this and in other areas. These are a group of amendments which fall in that category and I hope that noble Lords will be happy to accept them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26—(Baroness Hayman.)
5.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I should like to express my particular thanks to the Minister for Amendments Nos. 42 and 48 which respond to concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord McColl at earlier stages in the Bill that if the commission wishes to disclose confidential information about a person, it should ensure that that person cannot be identified from that information in combination with other information it has disclosed. It is good news that the Government found a form of words to address that concern and I am sure that all noble Lords will be pleased to see these new clauses in the Bill.
Perhaps I can ask the Minister one question relating to confidentiality as it applies to deceased persons. Is she in a position to update the House any further on the Government's thinking in that area?
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister and my support for this important set of amendments, again particularly Amendments Nos. 42 and 48, bringing the duties of the medical profession in line with the GMC's code of practice. They are very welcome. Amendment No. 29 was unexpected. It does a good job of clarifying the relationship between the
454
Audit Commission and CHI. It is always nice to be reminded of what one said in Committee even though it was some time ago—or feels as though it was.
There is the loose end on information relating to deceased patients. I understand that further consultation with the medical profession has been promised by the department and it will be useful if the Minister can describe the current state of play.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their welcome for what we have been able to achieve. They are right to pinpoint the issue in relation to safeguards on information relating to deceased persons. We gave that matter specific attention and discussed it with the professions. It is a complicated area and we came to the conclusion that it would be inappropriate to use this Bill to make provision in that regard.
This is a complex area that goes far wider than the Bill. It needs to be tackled in the round, if that is seen to be necessary, rather than piecemeal in provisions that relate to the commission for health improvement. We hope to be able to develop guidance on the handling of confidential information in consultation with the professions. We will be keeping this under review to keep it in line with current law and practice, and the guidance issued by the professions. It is possible, as noble Lords will be aware, that directions can be issued to the commission on specific issues if that should become necessary.
There are real reasons—for example, the fundamental lack of legal clarity on how far the duty of confidentiality extends after death, if at all—that make this a complex area to tackle in the context of this Bill. But I accept that the wider issue needs to be considered and we hope to continue to do that with the professions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
27 Clause 17, page 20, line 35, leave out ("section 18") and insert ("sections 18, (Arrangements with the Audit Commission) and (Arrangements with Ministers)")
28 Clause 18, page 21, line 35, leave out subsection (5)
29 After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE AUDIT COMMISSION
(".—(1) If requested to do so by the Commission in any particular case, the Audit Commission may join with the Commission in exercising—

(a) the Commission's functions under section 18(1)(b) or (d), or

(b) any functions of the Commission —

(i) which are conferred under section 18(1)(e),

(ii) which correspond to its functions under section 18(1)(b), and

(iii) which relate to Health Authorities or Special Health Authorities.

(2) If requested to do so by the Audit Commission in any particular case, the Commission may assist the Audit Commission in the exercise of its functions under section 33(1) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 so far as they relate to any body specified in section 98(1) of the 1977 Act.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Commission's functions under paragraph (b) or (d) of section 18(1) are to be treated as including the function of conducting and making reports on studies designed to improve—

(a) economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the performance of any functions of the persons mentioned in that paragraph, and

(b) the management of those persons.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Commission's functions mentioned in subsection (1)(b) are to be treated as including the function of conducting and making reports on studies designed to improve—

(a) economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the performance of any functions of the bodies mentioned in subsection (1)(b)(iii) to which those functions of the Commission relate, and

(b) the management of those bodies.

(5) Any report prepared by virtue of subsection (1) is to be prepared by the Commission acting in conjunction with the Audit Commission.
(6) The Audit Commission may not act as mentioned in subsection (1) unless, before it does so, the Commission has agreed to pay the Audit Commission an amount equal to the full costs incurred by the Audit Commission in so acting.
(7) The Commission may not act as mentioned in subsection (2) unless, before it does so, the Audit Commission has agreed to pay the Commission an amount equal to the full costs incurred by the Commission in so acting.
(8) Any reference in subsection (5) or (6) to subsection (1) is a reference to that subsection as read with subsections (3) and (4).
(9) In this section "the Audit Commission" means the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales."
30 After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—

ARRANGEMENTS WITH MINISTERS
(".—(1) Arrangements may he made between the Commission and a Minister of the Crown—

(a) for the Commission to perform any of its functions in relation to any prescribed health scheme for which the Minister has responsibility, or

(b) for the Commission to provide services or facilities in so far as they are required by the Minister in connection with any such health scheme.

(2) Arrangements may be made between the Commission and a Northern Ireland Minister—

(a) for the Commission to perform on behalf of the Minister any functions of the Minister which

(i) correspond to any functions of the Commission, and

(ii) relate to the Northern Irish health service, or

(b) for the Commission to provide services or facilities in so far as they are required by the Minister in connection with the exercise by him of any such functions.

(3) Arrangements under this section may be made on such terms and conditions as may be agreed between the parties to the arrangements.
(4) Those terms and conditions may include provision with respect to the making of payments to the Commission in respect of the cost to the Commission of performing or providing any functions, services or facilities under the arrangements.
(5) Any arrangements under subsection (2)(a) are not to affect the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Minister on whose behalf any functions are exercised.
(6) In this section—
"health scheme" means any scheme which appears to the Secretary of State to be a health or medical scheme paid for out of public funds,
456
"Minister of the Crown" has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975,
"Northern Ireland Minister" includes the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and a Northern Ireland department,
"Northern Irish health service" means any of the health services under any enactment which extends to Northern Ireland and which corresponds to section 1(1) of the 1977 Act,
"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State."
31 Clause 19, page 22, line 28, leave out ("relating to") and insert ("which are the subject of")
32 Page 22, line 32, leave out front ("provision") to ("identifies") in line 34 and insert ("with respect to the disclosure of confidential information which relates to and")
33 Page 22, line 36, leave out ("document or information is made available or produced") and insert ("information is disclosed")
34 Page 22, line 38, leave out from second ("the") to end of line 39 and insert ("information being disclosed")
35 Page 22, line 44, leave out ("make available or produce the document or") and insert ("disclose the")
36 Page 23, line 5, leave out from second ("the") to ("without") in line 6 and insert ("information should be disclosed")
37 Page 23, line 8, leave out from ("provision") to ("prohibited") in line 10 and insert ("with respect to the disclosure of information if that disclosure would be")
38 Page 23, line 10, leave out ("a document or")
39 Page 23, line 12, leave out ("document or")
40 Page 23, line 14, leave out ("as to the inspection, copying or production of the document or") and insert ("with respect to the disclosure of the")
41 Page 23, leave out lines 29 and 30
42 Clause 20, page 23, line 41, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) A person who, without lawful authority, knowingly or recklessly discloses information which—

(a) falls within section 19(2), and

(b) has been obtained by the Commission in accordance with any condition mentioned in section 19(2),

is guilty of an offence if the disclosure is made during the lifetime of the individual to which the information relates.
(1A) A person who, without lawful authority, knowingly or recklessly discloses information which—

(a) relates to and identifies an individual,

(b) has been obtained by the Commission on terns or in circumstances requiring it to be held in confidence, and

(c) does not fall within subsection (1),

guilty of an offence if the disclosure is made during the lifetime of that individual.")
43 Page 24, line 1, leave out from ("person") to ("liable") in line 2 and insert ("guilty of an offence under this section is")
44 Page 24, line 9, leave out from ("form") to ("or") in line 10 and insert ("in which the individual to which the information relates is not identified")
45 Page 24, line 23, leave out ("or any person authorised to act on his behalf")
46 Page 24, line 33, leave out paragraph (g) and insert—
("(g) in a case where the information appears to the Commission to reveal—

(i) that the performance of a health professional in his capacity as such has or may have fallen substantially below that which is expected,

(ii) that a health professional has or may have been guilty of serious professional misconduct, or

457

(iii) that the fitness of a health professional to practise as such is or may be seriously impaired by reason of his physical or mental condition,

and the person to whom the information is disclosed is a person to whom the Commission considers that it should be disclosed in order for appropriate action to be taken, or")
47 Page 24, line 36, leave out ("relates to a person who") and insert ("reveals that a person")
48 Page 24, line 40, at end insert—
("(5A) For the purposes of subsection (3)(a), information obtained by the Commission is to be regarded as identifying an individual if the individual can be identified—

(a) from that information, or

(b) from that information and from other information obtained by the Commission.

(5B) For the purposes of subsection (3)(a), information disclosed by a person is not to be regarded as being in a form in which an individual is not identified if the individual can be identified—

(a) from that information, or

(b) from that information and from other information disclosed—

(i) by the Commission, or

(ii) by any member or employee of the Commission.

(5C) Any reference in subsection (1), (1A), (5A) or (5B)(b)(i) to the Commission includes a reference to any person authorised by the Commission under section 19.")
49 Page 24, leave out line 42
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 to 49. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 to 49.—(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
50 Leave out Clause 22.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50.
In moving Amendment No. 50 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 144. I am grateful for the opportunity of explaining the actions of the Government in removing from the Bill the former Clause 22 on the independent healthcare sector which was inserted during the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House. We had a lengthy debate on the issue at that time, but events have now moved on in ways which I believe—and I hope the House will agree—demonstrate the Government's clear commitment to meaningful action on private and voluntary sector regulation. I hope that much of what I have to say will reassure those who expressed concerns in this area.
Clause 22 essentially attempts to permit the Secretary of State for Health, by regulations, to extend some or all of the functions of the commission for health improvement to private providers of acute healthcare. The rationale behind the amendment was principally that the commission for health improvement might have an important role in the regulation of the independent
458
healthcare sector, forming part of a new system to replace the current arrangements. Indeed, there are those who suggested that the commission would be an appropriate body to take lead responsibility for regulating the sector.
Perhaps I can say at the outset that I believe there is no disagreement that the current system for regulating the private and voluntary healthcare sector is inadequate. I should like explicitly to reassure the House that the Government believe they have a duty to ensure that private and voluntary healthcare is properly regulated and that we are committed to improving on the current arrangements. In particular, we believe that regulation is necessary to protect patients and to reassure those using private and voluntary healthcare sectors that they will receive safe services. Healthcare is not a service which should be bought and sold in an unregulated market, with individual patients being required to satisfy themselves about the safety of services being provided.
When we last debated these issues, I explained that our White Paper, Modernising Social Services made a commitment to establishing new arrangements for the regulation of both residential and nursing homes. Both are currently regulated under the 1984 Registered Homes Act which is now badly out of date. We have set out specific proposals to establish new commissions for care standards to inspect and regulate private and voluntary residential care premises and I can assure the House that when we legislate to implement this proposal, we intend also to make appropriate new arrangements for the regulation of private healthcare and the independent health sector.
Noble Lords will recall that I announced during our earlier debates the Government's intention to issue a consultation document on options for the regulation of the private and voluntary healthcare sector. I am pleased to say that this document, Regulating Private and Voluntary Health Care was published on Tuesday of this week. I should also like to pay tribute to the way in which debates in this House helped us in shaping and framing that document.
The consultation document re-emphasises the Government's commitment to effective regulation of the private and voluntary healthcare sectors and seeks views on three main sets of issues: first, the scope of regulation and specifically the range of establishments which should be covered by the new arrangements; secondly, the regulatory standards which should be applied and the sanctions which might be brought to bear when these are not met. The Government believe that those standards should go beyond those in the existing regulatory system which focus primarily on facilities. We suggested that they should include other issues such as complaints, information for patients and staff registration. Thirdly, we seek views on the regulatory structure for administering the process. Our favoured option here is a new independent statutory body, purpose-designed to perform this function.
The arguments against using the commission for health improvement to administer the new arrangements are well rehearsed and I shall not labour them this

459
afternoon. Quite simply, the commission has been designed to operate as part of a managed healthcare system—the National Health Service. It is quite a different matter to perform a regulatory function in the context of a system which operates primarily on the basis of private contracts between individuals and healthcare providers. The same basic argument applies in respect of the duty of quality.
I know that it has been said in defence of Clause 22 that it does not compel the Secretary of State to act and that it merely leaves the door open for the commission to have some future role in the regulatory process should this be thought appropriate. I can only re-emphasise a point I have been at pains to stress since we first debated the issue: we cannot sensibly legislate in anticipation of a system we do not yet know. If we attempt to do so, we will in all likelihood get it wrong and have to amend the legislation again at a future date. I think that that point is amply illustrated by the extent to which Clause 22 harks back to elements of the 1984 Act, which I believe everyone will agree is becoming a little long in the tooth. For example, the effect of that Act is to define rather narrowly the healthcare providers to be regulated. We are consulting on whether the new arrangements should in fact cover a more extended range both of bodies and of premises.
Noble Lords will wish to note that, in line with the commitment I gave during our earlier discussions, the consultation document does, however, acknowledge that a regulator might wish to contract with another body, such as the commission for health improvement—or, indeed, the Commission for Care Standards or another private or public sector body—in order to help carry out local inspections. That is an issue on which we explicitly invite views.
The consultation will run until 17th September, which I believe is ample time for all relevant interests to make their views known. We shall consider very carefully the responses to this document before taking further action. Of course, we will also have the benefit of the report which is due to be made by the Health Committee in another place.
I hope that I have been able to explain to noble Lords' satisfaction why the Government felt it was right to remove from the Bill the new clause inserted by the House. Since we last discussed these issues, there has been significant progress. In line with both the White Paper commitment and my own assurances to the House, and with the benefit of your Lordships' debates on these issues, the Government have brought forward concrete proposals for addressing just the matters with which this House was rightly concerned. We are taking action to assure quality in the private and voluntary healthcare sector. I believe that there is little or no ground between us on many of the fundamentals. Given this progress, I hope that your Lordships will feel able to allow the amendment made in another place to stand.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50.—(Baroness Hayman.)
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Baroness has taken a great deal of trouble to set out the Government's
460
thinking on this amendment; as, indeed, she did in our earlier debates on Report. I should like to ex press my appreciation for that. What she has said undoubtedly takes us further forward. There was much in her speech which gives me cause to think that at least some of the points of principle that I and other noble Lords tried to articulate at earlier stages have not fallen entirely on deaf ears. Nevertheless, the amendment carried by your Lordships, which gave the Secretary of State power to extend to the independent hospital sector both the duty of quality and the remit of the commission for health improvement, reflected, I believe, some extremely important issues of principle. It was approved by a very significant majority of your Lordships and won the support of noble Lords from both sides of the House.
Although the Government have chosen to overturn that amendment in another place, their amendment bringing about that deletion has not been debated in another place by the whole House of Commons. It has only been debated in Standing Committee where the majority in the Government's favour was the narrowest possible one. If an amendment to a Bill is approved by your Lordships—especially one of this significance—I believe that the Government owe it both as a duty and as a courtesy to this House to allow the issue to be debated on the Floor of another place. The fact that this was not done is, I respectfully suggest, most regrettable.
I started with the thought that it would be by no means unreasonable of your Lordships to ask the other place to look at the Lords' amendment again. The logic of the case that it advanced remains clear. Day to day, the NHS and the independent sector work hand in glove; indeed, in many areas, the NHS would simply not survive without the ability to contract out to the private sector. In mental health, for example, 30 per cent of the beds in the independent sector are funded by the NHS. There are many thousands of doctors who divide their time between the NHS and private work. If the duty of quality is to apply to one part of the healthcare system in this country, it should apply across all parts of it.
From the point of view of the patient, there is no case whatever for seeking to draw artificial divisions between the NHS and the independent sector in terms of the standards of care that each should be delivering. Those standards, and the standards of clinical governance overarching them, should be consistent right the way across the board. If they are not, it is difficult to see how the Secretary of State's duty to safeguard and promote the health of the nation—that is to say, the nation as a whole—is being properly fulfilled. But that is the rub for this Government.
I would never accuse the noble Baroness of being ruled by dogma. Her message today was couched in balanced and reassuring tones. But those were not the tones of the press release that accompanied the publication of the consultation document on Tuesday. The headline says:
"Regulatory Body to Tackle Failures in Private Health Care".
The release continues:
"Mr. Dobson said, `Today's document responds directly to widespread patient concern about poor care in parts of the private sector. The small number of people who go private deserve protection'".

461
If that is what the Secretary of State believes this debate to be about, he really has lost the plot. But, of course, he does not believe it. He knows perfectly well that the concern of doctors and clinicians in the private sector is to see standards of care raised across the healthcare system as a whole. There is not a word in the press release to acknowledge that it is the private sector which has been campaigning for this regulation; not a word about the huge strides that it has made in establishing a coherent quality agenda alongside that being developed in the NHS.
"The small number of people who go private", in Mr Dobson's words, actually numbered 850,000 surgical patients in 1998. The total turnover of the private health and social care sector is £17 billion a year—a figure that includes 20 per cent of all acute elective surgery performed in this country. The truth is that the very existence of the independent sector is offensive to old Labour. If we want even more graphic evidence of that proposition, we need look no further than a recent statement by the chairman of the Health Select Committee in another place, Mr. Hinchcliffe. When asked to comment on doctors and other professionals who work in private practice, he replied:
"I hate the bastards, and you can quote me".
That is the sort of mindset we are dealing with. That is why I approach the new consultation document with a degree of scepticism. The whole thrust of the document is to propose what might be termed a "bargain basement" system of clinical standards for the private sector—a safety-net approach rather than a proper, fully-fledged quality agenda. That was not at all the thrust of the amendment approved by your Lordships.
In deciding my attitude to this amendment, I need to ask the Minister a few questions. Does she accept the suggestion that this consultation document, even if it does not usher in the kind of level playing field of clinical standards that I have been pressing for, nevertheless opens the door to such a level playing field. In other words, will she confirm that nothing in these proposals stands in the way of the adoption by the independent sector of clinical governance arrangements on a par with those in the NHS?
To be positive about this document, it does at least open up as a possibility that a new independent regulatory body could contract with the commission for health improvement, as the noble Baroness mentioned, to carry out inspections. It also suggests that clinical and professional standards in the private sector could be the subject of regulations or a statutory code of practice. All that suggests that there could be a de facto, if not a de jure, unitary framework of regulation. That is what the independent sector wants. It wants to come under the wing of CHIMP and NICE. It wants better regulation. It wants nationally consistent quality standards. I am the first to recognise that there may be more than one way of achieving those aims and I look to the noble Baroness for some further reassurance.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the motives of these Benches in supporting the original amendment
462
were clear. Where healthcare and our hospitals are concerned, it seemed to us to be completely illogical and unfair that patients might be entitled only to minimum standards depending on whether or not they are treated in the NHS or the independent sector, or even whether or not they are an NHS or private patient in an independent hospital. Throughout the debates in both Houses our view has been that there should be consistency of standards between NHS pay bed units and independent hospitals and consistent standards when NHS and private care are provided alongside each other in independent hospitals, such as medium-secure psychiatric hospitals. We on these Benches believe that every patient should have the right to minimum standards of quality care and safety irrespective of the sector in which they are treated.
As we have seen from the consultation paper, which we read with considerable interest when it was published on Tuesday, the Government are moving towards consistent standards of clinical governance so that, for instance, suspensions can take effect in the independent sector on receipt of an "alert" letter. There is therefore a strong prospect of seamless clinical governance between the two sectors which we welcome.
Moreover, we on these Benches look forward to further moves. We look forward to a prospect of wider consistency of quality of treatment. While not agreeing with the precise mechanics suggested in the consultation paper, we welcome the commitments the Minister has given and some of the statements in the consultation paper, for instance the clear recognition of the inadequacies of the existing regulatory structure and the commitment to protect all members of the public, including private patients as well as patients in NHS hospitals. Further, we welcome a recognition that it is important that patients who choose to use the independent sector are reassured that they receive services that are safe. We welcome the further statements made today by the Minister explaining the paper, and the preference for a single regulator for the acute independent healthcare sector rather than putting him under the regional commissions. We believe that is at least a step in the right direction.
We also welcome the recognition that that single regulator of independent healthcare might well want to take advantage—and be able to take advantage—of the particular expertise of the commission for health improvement. We believe that there is considerable potential synergy between the responsibilities of that single regulator and the work of the commission itself. However, we believe that some further assurances are needed. For instance, we need the assurance that NICE guidance for doctors in the NHS on the treatments that they use can also be adopted by the new independent regulator, and that the independent regulator could also introduce all or part of the national service frameworks.
The Select Committee on Health in another place has carefully considered the matter, as the noble Baroness mentioned. However, we seek the assurance that if it recommends—it certainly appears to be moving in this direction—that a common duty of quality is extended across the two sectors, the Government will carefully consider that proposal as part of the consultation

463
exercise. We realise that the Minister cannot give an undertaking to provide legislative time to introduce a new system of regulation for the independent sector in the next Session but we hope that we have grounds for optimism on that score.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the Government's response to this amendment which your Lordships have made to the Bill is to me both disappointing and also surprising because it seems to me an astonishingly out of date attitude to have taken to the way private medical institutions should be brought up to quality. I am sorry now that we did not have a separate amendment relating to Scotland. If I remember rightly, the debate was a fairly general one. I expected the Government's response to be rather different and that Scotland would be able to follow what was decided for south of the Border. But in view of the fact that there is nothing about Scotland here—that is of course understandable—I wonder whether the noble Baroness can tell us the way the wind is blowing on this subject in Scotland, if she knows that, and whether the Government have been talking to the Scots Parliament about the matter. I hope she can tell us whether any consultation paper will he issued in relation to Scotland because it seems to me that this is an urgent matter north as well as south of the Border. I would have thought that potential—
Lord Patel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I reassure the noble Baroness that as far as I am aware there is no bar to the remit of the clinical standards board for Scotland extending to the private sector. It is responsible for quality standards in Scotland. I speak as a chairman of the standards board.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reassuring me on this matter. He is a neighbour of mine and he knows everything about what happens in Scotland. However, I am not sure that everyone in Scotland is completely happy about this situation. However, perhaps those comments exonerate the noble Baroness from replying to my question. I apologise if I have wasted noble Lords' time.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for those comments. I always believe in cutting out the middleman if necessary!
Serious issues have been raised today and were raised in earlier debates we have had in regard to regulatory standards and how we ensure the protection of patients without there being any of the artificial divisions to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred. I hope that I can give some assurances that the Government are not being ideologically obdurate in these areas. What we have said—I have said this to the House on many occasions—is that we must ensure that the processes that we have in place to ensure patient protection, quality of care for patients and the safety of patients, are appropriate to the environment in which they are receiving care. The processes and the structures which are applicable within the NHS—a managed service—will be different from the structures and processes that are in place within the independent sector. That is the argument I have been trying to propose.
464
I say to the noble Earl that it is neither his fault nor mine that these issues were not debated on the Floor of the House in another place. I suggest in the gentlest of terms that if Members in another place had not decided to spend four hours debating the timetable Motion out of the five and a half hours that were available on Tuesday of this week, we might have been able to have a debate on these issues.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Is she suggesting that Madam Speaker in another place was not regulating the Chamber as she should have been, because if she is suggesting that it is a disgraceful thing for her to say?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I would never suggest that. Madam Speaker was active on these matters. I believe that the Opposition had to be called to order 21 times in the course of Monday's debate. However, the allocation of time as between the timetable Motion and other discussions was in the hands of Members. Fortunately such considerations do not apply in your Lordships' House and we can return to the substantive issues before us.
The debate has focused on standards of care and the quality of care that is available and is to be ensured for all patients. In our consultation document we propose that as part of the regulatory framework we would establish a range of standards that would apply either to all private and voluntary establishments or to a particular kind of establishment. These might be set out in regulations or in a statutory code of practice but it will be a responsibility of the regulatory body to make sure that they are delivered.
We believe that this is much more than a safety net approach and that it addresses one of the weaknesses of the current regulatory regime: that standards and inspections tend to focus on facilities rather than on the quality of care available to patients. We are proposing that standards might be developed in a number of areas which relate more closely to the care delivered and which ensure that, where appropriate, there are parallels with the protection that is provided within the NHS.
Perhaps I may give specific examples. At present, staff working in private and voluntary healthcare can be employed in private and voluntary hospitals as, for example, chiropodists or physiotherapists, without being properly qualified and registered. The Government believe that all private and voluntary hospitals should ensure that they employ only state registered staff, as is already the position in NHS hospitals. So here we are bringing in a parallel that will increase protection.
It is also important that patients, their relatives and carers should have access to a comprehensive range of information about services being provided in a hospital or clinic where they may be treated. The Government consider that this should cover clinical as well as non-clinical services. It might include information on staffing, facilities available and the range of services provided. We propose that the provision of information for patients should be one of the standards for the new regulatory system—again ensuring some sort of parallel with what is available elsewhere.
6 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. There are assistants to physiotherapists who do valuable work both in the health service and in the private sector. It is well known that there are not enough therapists. It might be very serious if the private sector and the National Health Service were not allowed to employ such assistants, who work under a qualified physiotherapist.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness that there is no intention that appropriate services should not be provided by staff who are not necessarily state registered within their profession. The issue is about protection of title, to which I am sure my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester will respond. It is also about an assurance to patients that they are being treated by someone who, if he says he is a chiropodist, is indeed a state registered chiropodist. That is not to undervalue the assistance that can be given by aides both in the public and private sector, but it should be at the appropriate level and no one should be in any doubt.
The issue of the complaints procedure within the private sector has been raised. A number of patients have written to me about that issue. We propose that, as a condition of registration, private and voluntary healthcare establishments should be required to make available a complaints procedure to patients and their relatives. That procedure must allow, as does the NHS system, for independent review of both clinical and non-clinical complaints.
We also believe that providers in this sector should be required to publish information annually on complaints received and that patients should have the right to make representations to the regulatory body if they are dissatisfied with the way their complaints have been handled. This would give private patients access to a wholly independent mechanism comparable to that provided for NHS patients by the Health Service Commissioner.
The Government expect there to be appropriate standards set out for the care of vulnerable groups, including children. It is extremely important that staff working with children are subject to proper recruitment and vetting procedures, that appropriately qualified nursing staff are employed and that children are treated in suitable, preferably dedicated, facilities. Again, this is common practice in the NHS.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, used the expression "a level playing field". We are ensuring that the areas where protection is given to patients in the NHS are also covered by an appropriate mechanism in the private and voluntary sectors. A good example of this concerns the issue of suspensions, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred. It is obviously not possible for an NHS employer formally and legally to suspend a doctor who is working for somebody else. But in terms of protection for patients it is important that other employers of that doctor are aware of the situation and are under an obligation to take appropriate action. That is what we intend to put in place.
466
I was asked specifically about ensuring that there were no obstacles to looking at and learning from the NHS in terms of overall quality improvement. I agree with the noble Earl that it would be quite possible. What we are doing on clinical governance is very open; we believe that it is the right thing to do. It would be appropriate for a private sector provider to take it into account and to adopt similar structures of clinical governance that would give reassurance to the regulatory body that it was taking appropriate measures to ensure high clinical standards.
In exactly the same way, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked me about the possibility of NICE guidelines proving of relevance to the regulatory body when in the course of its regulatory and inspection work it looked at quality standards in the private sector. Equally, existing clinical guidance, good practice or relevant sections of national service frameworks might be the common source of material drawn upon by the regulator of the private sector in implementing clinical governance, as it is by NHS trusts.
But we cannot import wholesale the system of one area into the system of another; they are designed for different purposes. We accept that we have a responsibility for fundamental standards—for example, in relation to staff qualifications and premises. Were there to be wholly inappropriate clinical practice by an individual clinician within the private sector, that would be a matter for the relevant professional regulatory body. Whether or not a particular procedure was an appropriate treatment to provide is not properly a decision for the Secretary of State. In areas where there is such doubt, the professional regulatory body must take precedence.
The professional standards of those bodies apply to individual health professionals regardless of where they work. That is another element of commonality between the two sectors. Good professional practice is good professional practice, whether within the NHS or the private sector. Doctors, nurses and other health professionals are bound by the same professional standards wherever they work. The drive to strengthen and modernise professional regulatory mechanisms, which this Bill underpins, will have a positive impact across the board.
I hope that I can reassure the House that the Government are happy to acknowledge that they have responsibility both for patients treated in the NHS and for patients treated in the private and voluntary sectors. The Government's responsibility for NHS patients are patently different. In that context, they are themselves the care manager and the provider of services. We need to use different mechanisms for the two sectors-a matter of horses for courses, if you like-but the underlying intention is to protect all patients and to ensure that the same high quality care is available for all patients.
As I said at the beginning, healthcare provision cannot be an unregulated, unmanaged free-for-all. We believe that all patients need to be confident that wherever they are treated they will receive care that is safe and of good quality. We are taking action to ensure that that is the case.

467
I hope that my explanation of the Government's thinking on these issues and our intention that the legislation for the commission for care standards should also cover the regulation of the private and voluntary sector will reassure noble Lords that we have made progress since our earlier debates.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
51 Clause 23, page 26, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 51.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 51.—(Baroness Hayman.)
[Motion 51A not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
52 Clause 25, page 27, line 39, leave out subsection (10).
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52.—(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
53 Clause 30, page 31, line 38, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(4)").
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 53. In moving that amendment, I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 54 to 62, 64 to 67, 69 and 92.
I wish to say at the outset that it is the intention of the Government to continue to work with the pharmaceutical industry through co-operation and voluntary agreement. The clauses in the Bill which relate to the control and prices of medicines supplied to the NHS and the profits made by companies from those sales have been drafted against that background. A new voluntary agreement is in the final stages of negotiation. It is our sincere hope that this new agreement will be sufficient to ensure that the NHS obtains its medicines on reasonable terms which recognise, among other things, the costs and value of research and development undertaken by the industry. It is also our hope that we shall not have to rely on any powers provided in these clauses in respect of a statutory scheme.
During their passage through another place these clauses were further amended by the Government in response to some remaining concerns of the pharmaceutical industry. First, I refer to the matter of scheme membership and Commons Amendments Nos. 53 to 57. We have changed the nature of the test for removing a company from the voluntary scheme. The subjective test was not intended to enable the
468
Secretary of State to remove companies for flimsy reasons. Given the concerns raised, we are seeking to make the test an objective one.
Secondly, Commons Amendment No. 57 requires the Secretary of State to consult the industry body before he can exercise the power provided in Clause 30 to require information from scheme members.
Thirdly, the aim of Clauses 30 to 35 is to control prices and profits of medicines supplied to the health service. The Government have no interest in interfering with the prices charged for medicines supplied privately or through exports. Commons Amendments Nos. 59 to 61 and 64 to 67 add a further limit on the face of the Bill in the expression of that aim. The powers to control prices are only exercisable with a view to limiting prices which may be charged for the supply of health service medicines for the purposes of the health service. The power to limit profits is similarly restricted; that is, they may be exercised with a view to limiting profits arising from the supply of health service medicines for the purposes of the health service.
Finally, I turn to territorial issues. Commons Amendment No. 92 enables the Secretary of State to control the prices of medicines supplied to the health services in Great Britain by companies based in Northern Ireland. Commons Amendment No. 69 includes the health service in Northern Ireland in the definition of the health service within the Bill. There are advantages, if Northern Ireland agrees, for the Secretary of State to control prices for the whole of the United Kingdom. That would avoid placing an extra burden on the pharmaceutical industry, would avoid creating extra administration costs and would avoid different prices for the same medicines within the UK. Commons Amendment No. 69 therefore makes it possible to make regulations which cover sales of medicines to the health service in Northern Ireland if the regulations stipulate that they shall apply to Northern Ireland. It also becomes a simple matter to reverse their application to Northern Ireland by superseding those regulations with others which would apply only to Great Britain. We will not make regulations covering Northern Ireland unless the Assembly chooses to opt in.
We are aiming to deal with the United Kingdom as a whole through the voluntary scheme. Should the Northern Ireland Assembly choose to opt in then we would similarly have a statutory scheme with equal application. If the Assembly decides to make its own statutory provisions then the statutory scheme made under this Bill will revert to application in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and will be dealt with separately under statute made by the assembly. This arrangement is entirely consistent with the devolution settlement and has the support of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 53.—(Baroness Hayman.)
6.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this is a welcome group of amendments, covering as they do a series of issues of concern to the pharmaceutical industry, some of which we debated at earlier stages of the Bill.

469
The issue of how the Bill should define a health service medicine, which is covered by Commons Amendments Nos. 64 to 67, occupied us in Committee. I have no doubt that the Government's stated aim was no different from the aim that I endeavoured to express on that occasion. The amendments that I tabled were amendments to the definitions set out at the end of Clause 35 and were designed to ensure that the controls proposed in the Bill would apply to a medicine only when it was supplied to the NHS and not in other circumstances.
I note that the government amendments on that question adopt a somewhat different approach from the one that I tabled. I hope and trust that the amendments will achieve the same result, although I would point out that leaving the definition of health service medicine as it was appears to have an ambiguity about it which to my mind at least is unsatisfactory. However, I place my trust in the Minister and the department. I hope that no difficulties will emerge as a result of the government amendments to this part of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
54 Clause 30, page 31, line 42, leave out (", in the opinion of the Secretary of State,").
55 Page 32, line 1, leave out from ("may") to end of line 2 and insert ("by a written notice given to the scheme member determine that the scheme is not to apply to him").
56 Page 32, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("has") and insert ("A notice under subsection (4) must give the Secretary of State's reasons for giving the notice; and the Secretary of State may not give a notice under that subsection until he").
57 Page 32, leave out lines 5 to 7.
58 Page 32, line 10, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with the industry body").
59 Clause 31, page 32, line 32, leave out from ("limit") to third ("to") in line 33.
60 Clause 32, page 33, line 10, leave out from ("scheme") to first ("to") in line 11.
61 Page 33, line 16, leave out from ("scheme") to third ("to") in line 11.
62 Clause 34, page 34, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert—
("(b) in subsection (5) of that section, the references to interested persons as references to any persons and the reference to any decision to take enforcement action as a reference to any enforcement decision.").
63 Clause 35, page 35, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
64 Page 35, line 13, after ("limiting") insert ("by reference to the prices or profits which would be reasonable in all the circumstances—
(a)").
65 Page 35, line 13, after ("or") insert—
("(b)").
66 Page 35, line 15, after ("supply") insert ("for the purposes of the health service").
67 Page 35, line 15, leave out from ("medicines") to end of line 16.
68 Page 35, leave out line 29.
69 Page 35, line 30, leave out from ("service"") to end of line 31 and insert ("means any of the health services within the meaning of the 1977 Act, the 1978 Act or the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972").
S.I. 1972/1265 (N.I. 14).
70 Clause 36, page 39, line 31, at end insert—
("(8) Subsection (4) of section 122A above applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that."").
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 54 to 70.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 54 to 70.—(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
71 After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—
HEALTH SERVICE COMMISSIONERS
(".—(1) Section 15 of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (confidentiality of information) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), at the beginning of paragraph (e) there is inserted "where the information is to the effect that any person is likely to constitute a threat to the health or safety of patients".
(3) Subsection (1A) is omitted.
(4) In subsection (1B)—

(a) for "such a case" there is substituted "a case within subsection (1)(e)",

(b) the words following "patients" are omitted.

(5) In subsection (1C), for paragraphs (a) and (b) there is substituted—

"(a) where he knows the identity of the person mentioned in subsection (1)(e), inform that person that he has disclosed the information and of the identity of any person to whom he has disclosed it, and

(b) inform the person from whom the information was obtained that he has disclosed it".").

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 71. This amendment delivers on a commitment that I made during our previous consideration of the Bill. The Health Service Commissioner believes that the current legislation under which he works—the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993—unnecessarily restricts him in disclosing information that he receives. That issue was raised by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. At present there are statutory limitations on the commissioner's discretion to disclose information that he obtains as a result of a complaint which leads him to believe there is a threat to the health or safety of patients. In particular, he has been advised that he cannot disclose information if he decides not to investigate the complaint or if the matter of concern fails to be disclosed in one of his investigation reports. If the commissioner obtains information which suggests that the health or safety of patients is likely to be at risk, he should be able to pass that information on to the appropriate authorities, irrespective of how he chooses to deal with the specific complaint made. This amendment makes that possible.
I reassure the House that this amendment seeks only to remove inappropriate restrictions on the commissioner's existing discretion to disclose information. He is not seeking powers to make more

471
general judgments about professional competence and conduct. However, if a complaint indicates a serious threat to the health or safety of patients, it is right that he should be able to pass on appropriate information to those with responsibility for investigating and dealing with that threat.
Subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Commons Amendment No. 71 allow the commissioner to make appropriate disclosure of information where it is in the interests of the health or safety of patients for him to do so. It is equally important that he should not be constrained as to which responsible authorities he can disclose information. The latter half of Section 15(1B) of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, as amended, could be interpreted as placing such a constraint on him. Subsection (4)(b) of the new clause removes that element of uncertainty by omitting the list of examples of the type of body which might be passed information.
Subsection (5) of the new clause places an obligation on the commissioner to tell the provider of the information that he has disclosed it. In practice, he already does so, on the very rare occasions when he has exercised his discretion, but we believe it is appropriate to make that explicit.
The amendment clarifies the extent of the Health Service Commissioners' discretion to disclose information in the interests of the health and safety of patients. It responds positively to concerns raised in this House during our initial consideration of the Bill. We have worked closely with the current Health Service Commissioner, Mr Michael Buckley, in drafting the amendment. I confirm that he is happy with it. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 71.—(Baroness Hayman.)
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I merely wish to welcome the amendment and say how pleased I am that the Government have been able to bring a provision forward in another place on this issue.
There was an anomaly here. It potentially removed a line of protection for patients. The health service commissioner might come upon circumstances in the course of an investigation that really should be dealt with by some other body, but would be unable directly to pass the matter on. The amendment gives the Health Service Commissioner unequivocally the powers, where the health and safety of patients is at risk, to refer such matters to other bodies. I am delighted that the provision will now be on the face of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
72 After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—
("Rectification of transitional arrangements
POWER TO RECTIFY TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS ETC
—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make such provision as he considers appropriate in consequence of the matters mentioned in subsection (2) (the "relevant defects").

(2) Those matters are—

(a) the omission from Part III of Schedule 2 to the Health Authorities Act 1995 (Transitional Provisions; Order 1996 (which determined the relevant Health Authority in relation to any Family Health Services Authority in England whose locality comprised or formed part of the area of more than one Health Authority) of an entry for Bromley Family Health Services Authority,

(b) the inclusion in Part III or IV of Schedule I to that order (which determined the relevant Health Authority in relation to any Family Health Services Authority whose locality comprised or formed part of the area of only one Health Authority) of an entry for any Family Health Services Authority in England or Wales whose locality comprised or formed part of the area of more than one Health Authority (and an entry for which should accordingly have been included in Part III or IV of Schedule 2 to that order),

(c) the omission from column 2 of the entry for any Family Health Services Authority in Part III or IV of Schedule 2 to that order (which together with column 3 of that entry specified the relevant Health Authorities in relation to that Family Health Services Authority) of any Health Authority whose area or any part of whose area forms part of the locality of the Family Health Services Authority and which was not included in column 3 of that entry,

(d) where—

(i) the locality of a Family Health Services Authority and the area of a Health Authority overlap but do not coincide, and

(ii) the Family Health Services Authority had compiled a list of persons residing in its locality,

the treatment, incorrectly. by a Health Authority of a person included in that list as residing. or as not residing, in their area.

(3) Provision that may be made under subsection (1) includes, in particular—

(a) provision amending the Health Authorities Act 1995 (Transitional Provisions) Order 1996,

(b) provision transferring, or adding, the name of any Part II practitioner to any Part II list in which he is (or, at the material time, was) not included because of any of the relevant defects,

(c) provision for treating anything done by or in relation to an acting authority or a person of any description identified by reference to an acting authority as having been done by or in relation to the proper authority or a person of that description identified by reference to the proper authority,

(d) provision for treating anything done by or in relaion to an acting authority or a person of any description identified by reference to an acting authority as having been so done in the exercise by them or him of functions on behalf of the proper authority or a person of that description identified by reference to the proper authority.

(4) Any provision made by an order under this section may be made with effect from any date after 31st March 1996 specified in the order.

(5) Provision contained in an order under this section by virtue of section 55(2) may include provision conferring functions on the Secretary of State.

(6) In subsection (3)(b)—

"Part II practitioner" means a person who provides (or, at any time since 31st March 1996, has provided) general medical services, general dental services, general ophthalmic services or pharmaceutical services in accordance with arrangements made or treated as made (or which, but for any of the relevant defects, would have been made or treated as made) under Part II of the 1977 Act,

473
"Part II list" means a list kept by a Health Authority under section 29(2)(a), 36(1)(a), 39(a) or 42(2)(a) of that Act (lists of persons providing general medical, general dental, general ophthalmic or pharmaceutical services).

(7) In subsection (3)(c) and (d), in relation to anything done by or in relation to a Health Authority or person identified by reference to a Health Authority—

"acting authority" means the Health Authority by or in relation to whom the thing was done or person was identified because of any of the relevant defects,
"proper authority" means the Health Authority by or in relation to whom the thing should have been done or by reference to whom the person should have been identified.").
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 72. It inserts a clause which allows the Secretary of State to correct deficiencies in an order made in 1996 which made transitional provisions to implement the Health Authorities Act 1995. The 1995 Act abolished family health services authorities and district health authorities and established new successor health authorities.
The deficiencies in the earlier order have the primary effect that no successor health authority was designated to replace Bromley Family Health Services Authority on 1st April 1996. Other deficiencies have meant that in some cases the designation of successor health authorities took no account of various small boundary changes.
It is only a technical oversight which means that Bromley and some other health authorities did not make decisions and payments concerning family health service practitioners in law. However, I should emphasise that patient care has been unaffected and no one will have received money that does not reflect a payment for a service which was provided.
It is not possible to remedy the situation solely by amendments to existing provisions, since that would not provide legal cover for the decisions and payments which have technically been unlawful since 1st April 1996. The clause therefore gives us the power to make a fresh order which will retrospectively amend the deficiencies that have been identified, and thereby validate all the decisions taken and payments made by the "wrong" authority since that date. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
73 Clause 42, page 47, line 12, after ("functions") insert
("—
(a)")
74 Page 47, line 14, at end insert (";or

(b) relating to pilot schemes under Part I of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997; or

(c) relating to arrangements under section 17C for the provision of personal medical services and personal dental services."."

75 After Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
TRANSFER OF STAFF AMONG HEALTH SERVICE BODIES
(". After section I 2C of the 1978 Act there is inserted—
"Transfer of staff among health service bodies.
12CA.—(1) This section applies to any person who is—

(a) employed by a health service body (the transferor authority) and is transferred to another health service body (the transferee authority) because a function of the transferor authority is transferred to the transferee authority; and

(b) designated for the purposes of this section by a scheme made by the transferor authority.

(2) A scheme under this section shall not have effect unless approved by the Secretary of State.

(3) The contract of employment between a person to whom this section applies and the transferor authority shall have effect from the transfer date as if originally made between him and the transferee authority.

(4) Without prejudice to subsection (3)—

(a) all the transferor authority's rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with a contract to which that subsection applies shall by virtue of this section be transferred to the transferee authority on the transfer date; and

(b) anything done before the transfer date by or in relation to the transferor authority in respect of that contract shall be deemed from that date to have been done by or in relation to the transferee authority.

(5) Subsections (3) and (4) are without prejudice to any right of an employee to terminate his contract of employment if a substantial change is made to his detriment in his working conditions; but no such right shall arise by reason only of the change in employer effected by this section.

(6) A scheme under this section may designate a person either individually or as a member of a class or description of employees.

(7) In this section—

a "health service body" is a body mentioned in section 17A(2); and

the "transfer date" is the date on which the function is transferred from the transferor authority to the transferee authority."").

76 Clause 45, page 47, line 36, after ("trust") insert ("and of the Agency").
77 Clause 51, page 54, leave out lines 45 to 50 and insert—
("(a) shall consult a body appearing to him to be representative of persons to whose remuneration the determination would relate, and
(b) may consult such other persons as he considers appropriate.").
78 Page 55, line 8, leave out ("revised") and insert ("varied").
79 Page 56, line 26, leave out ("revocation or revision") and insert ("or revocation").
80 Page 56, line 41. leave out subsection (4).
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 73 to 80 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 73 to 80 en bloc.—
(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
81 After Clause 54. insert the following new clause—
ENGLISH AND SCOTTISH BORDER PROVISIONS
".—(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any functions to which subsection (2) applies which are specified in the Order, so far as exercisable in respect of the provision of services to persons in English border areas, to be exercisable (instead of any corresponding function to which subsection (4) applies) in respect of the provision of the services in question to persons in Scottish border areas who are specified in the Order.
(2) This subsection applies to any functions under the 1977 Act, or Part I of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997, which are exercisable by the Secretary of State or any Health Authority or Primary Care Trust.
(3) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any functions to which subsection (4) applies which are specified in the Order, so far as exercisable in respect of the provision of services to persons in Scottish border areas, to be exercisable (instead of any corresponding function to which subsection (2) applies) in respect of the provision of the services in question to persons in English border areas who are specified in the Order.
(4) This subsection applies to any functions under the 1978 Act, or Part I of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997, which are exercisable by the Scottish Ministers or any Health Board or NHS trust established under the 1978 Act.
(5) In this section—

"English border area" means the area of any Health Authority adjacent to Scotland,

"Scottish border area" means the area of any Health Board adjacent to England.").

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 81. In speaking to this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 84 and 85.
This new clause, and the amendments consequential upon it, will enable sensible provision to be made for local healthcare services at the Border between England and Scotland. It is intended that similar provision will be made at the Border between England and Wales, but that does not require primary legislation.
A number of GP practices located near the England/Scotland Border have patients on their lists from both sides of the Border. Under the existing arrangements that means that the GPs concerned are part of both the English and the Scottish NHS systems. This clause will enable a GP practice and its patients to be dealt with by either an English health authority or a Scottish health board, rather than having to deal with both. It enables a more coherent approach to be taken to the planning of local healthcare services, simplifies local administrative procedures and avoids duplication of time and effort.
As the effect of the order will be to confer on the Secretary of State or English health authorities the ability to operate in relation to Scottish patients, and for Scottish Ministers and Scottish health boards to operate in relation to English patients, both Westminster and the Scottish Parliament will be able to scrutinise, debate and approve the order. Amendment No. 85 provides that the Order in Council must be laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament and the Scottish Parliament.
476
While only relatively few patients will be affected by these provisions—around 3,500 on current estimates—they are important in ensuring that sensible practical arrangements can be made in respect of the provision of healthcare in Border areas. We have consulted those that will be most affected by the provisions—health authorities, health boards and GPs in cross-Border areas—and everyone who responded was in favour of the approach that we propose to take. I commend the clause to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
82 Clause 55, page 65, leave out lines 10 to 14 and insert—
("(1A) Directions under section 18 or 25 or Schedule 2, or by virtue of section 35(1)(b), are to be given by an instrument in writing.
(1B) Any such directions may be varied or revoked by subsequent directions under, or by virtue of, the same provision.
(2) Subsections (4) and (5) of section 126 of the 1977 Act (supplementary provisions about subordinate legislation) apply in relation to any power conferred by this Act to make Orders in Council, orders or regulations, or to give directions mentioned in subsection (1A), as they apply in relation to the powers which may be exercised as mentioned in subsection (4)(a) and (b) of that section").
83 Page 65, line 15, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsection (4) of that section").
84 Page 65, line 16, after ("28") insert ("or an Order in Council under section (English and Scottish border provisions)").
85 Page 65, line 37, at end insert—
("() No recommendation is to be made to Her Majesty to make an Order in Council under section (English and Scottish border provisions) unless a draft—

(a) has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament, and

(b) has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Scottish Parliament.").

86 Clause 57, page 66, line 9, at end insert—
("() "NHS trust" has the same meaning—

(a) in Part I of this Act as in the 1977 Act,

(b) in Part II of this Act as in the 1978 Act.").

87 Clause 59, page 66, line 16, at end insert (''but this subsection does not apply to section (Arrangements with Ministers)").
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 82 to 87 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 82 to 87 en bloc.—(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
88 Clause 59, page 66, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 39 and insert—
("(2) The power of a Minister of the Crown under section 60 to appoint a day for any of the following provisions to come into force in relation to Wales—

(a) sections 1 to 5, (Delegation of Health Authority functions relating to pilot schemes and section 28C arrangements), 6, 7, 9, (Local representative committees), 10 to 16 and Schedule 1,

477

(b) sections 23 to 29,

(c) section 58(1) and Schedule 4, so far as concerns the following provisions of that Schedule: paragraphs 1 to 13, 20 to 23, 24(a), 25 to 32, 34, 35 (except sub-paragraph (2)(b) and (d)), 36, 37, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72(b), 73 to 75A, 76 (except sub-paragraph (2)(b)), paragraphs 78, 79, 80 (except sub-paragraph (2)(a)) and 82 to 85,

is exercisable instead by the National Assembly for Wales.

(3) In Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 1998 (bodies and offices covered by section 74), after paragraph 12 there is inserted—

"12A. The Commission for Health Improvement".

(4) The National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 is amended as follows; and those amendments are to have effect as if made by an Order in Council under section 22 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (transfer of Ministerial functions).

(5) In Schedule 1—

(a) in the entry for the 1977 Act, after paragraph (c) there is inserted—

"(cc) section 43C;
(ccc) sections 46 to 49E",.
(b) at the end of the entry for the 1990 Act, there is inserted—
"The references above to paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 are references to that paragraph before the amendments made by section 15 of the Health Act 1999.
The Treasury consent requirement under paragraph 8 of that Schedule (inserted by Schedule 4 to the Health Act 1999), so far as relating to the matters referred to in paragraph (b) of that paragraph, shall continue in effect",.

(c) after the entry for the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 there is inserted—

"In the Health Act 1999—

(a) Part I and Schedule 4, except sections 18(1), (Arrangements with Ministers) and 30 to 35 and Schedule 2 (other than paragraph 2);

(b) section 56, so far as it relates to any of the provisions which, by virtue of section 59(2), may be brought into force by the Assembly".

(6) In Schedule 2, after the entry for the Audit Commission Act 1998, there is inserted—

"Health Act 1999
The functions of the Secretary of State under section 18(1) shall be exercisable only with the agreement of the Assembly.
The functions of the Secretary of State under paragraphs 4 to 7 of Schedule 2 shall be exercisable only after consultation with the Assembly".").
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 88. I shall also speak to Amendment No. 90.
It may be helpful if I begin by setting the context for Clause 59. We made it clear before the devolution referenda in 1997 that there would continue to be a UK-wide National Health Service. However, as your Lordships are aware, the devolved bodies are charged with funding and administering the NHS in Northern
Ireland, Scotland and Wales according to the particular needs of those countries.
At present, Clause 59 of the Bill provides that the National Assembly for Wales will have vested in it all the new functions created by the free-standing provisions in the Bill appropriate to its role in managing
478
the NHS in Wales. So, for example, the Assembly will be able to make use of the new operational flexibilities at the interface between the NHS and local government, and will be able to exercise the powers conferred on the Secretary of State in relation to health improvement programmes.
But the Bill also makes substantial amendment to existing NHS legislation. There are some parts of the Bill which insert new sections into the 1977 Act, or which amend existing functions that are to be transferred to the Assembly by the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999—which has already been made and which comes into force on 1st July. For example, Clause 11 amends Section 5 of the 1990 Act, which provides for the establishment of NHS trusts. This is a function which is to be transferred to the Assembly by the transfer of functions order.
I indicated in Committee, in response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that amendments to deal with this issue would be required at a later stage. We wish to ensure that the functions created by the amendments to existing NHS legislation are as effectively transferred to the Assembly as new functions. It is important that the transfer of functions order can be interpreted in such a way that references in the order to existing NHS legislation are to be construed, where appropriate, as references to the legislation as amended by the Bill.
At the time the Bill was introduced into this House the transfer of functions order had not been made and so appropriate provisions could not be drafted. We have therefore brought forward these amendments at a later stage. They are technical in nature, but they deal with the issue. The clause as amended will ensure the proper transfer to the Assembly of the appropriate provisions in the Bill, so that it can manage the NHS in Wales in line with the reforms that the Bill effects. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
89 Clause 60, page 67, line 5, leave out ("accordingly comes into force") and insert ("comes into force on 1st July 1999 or, if later").
90 Page 67, line 6, at end insert—
("() Subsection (1) does not apply to section 59, of which—

(a) subsections (1) and (3) to (6) come into force on the day on which this Act is passed,

(b) subsection (2) comes into force on 1st July 1999 or, if later, the day on which this Act is passed.").

91 Clause 61, page 67, line 15, leave out ("Section 21 extends") and insert ("Sections (Arrangements with Ministers) and 21 extend").
92 Page 67, line 16, at end insert ("and Northern Ireland").
93 Page 67, line 16, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State may by order provide that so much of this Act as extends to England and Wales is to apply to the Isles of Scilly with such modifications (if any) as are specified in the order; but otherwise this Act does not extend there.").
94 Clause 62, page 67, line 18, leave out subsection (2).
95 Schedule 1, page 68, line 34, leave out ("any such") and insert ("the").
96 Page 68, line 35, leave out ("Primary Care Trust") and insert ("authority").
97 Page 70, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 71 and insert—
("13.—(1) Any rights acquired, or liabilities (including liabilities in tort) incurred, in respect of the exercise by a Primary Care Trust of any function exercisable by it by virtue of section 16B or 17A above are enforceable by or (as the case may he) against that trust (and no other health service body).
(2) This paragraph does not apply in relation to the joint exercise of any functions by a Primary Care Trust with another body under section 16B(2)(c) above.").
98 Schedule 2, page 78, line 1, leave out paragraph 20.
99 Schedule 3, page 79, line 34, leave out from second ("Parliament") to end of line 35 and insert—
("(a) the Secretary of State's duty under sub-paragraph (1) must be performed also by the Scottish Ministers, and
(b) sub-paragraph (4) shall apply instead of sub-paragraph (2).

(4) After the end of the period of three months beginning with the publication of the draft, the draft as published, or that draft with any modifications which the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate, may be laid before Parliament and the Scottish Parliament together with a report made by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers about the consultation.").

100 Schedule 4, page 80, line 31, at end insert—
("National Health Service Act 1966 (c. 8)
1A. Section 10 of the National Health Service Act 1966 (modification of prohibition of full-time salaried practitioner service) is omitted (and, accordingly, section 29(4) of the 1977 Act and section 19(3) of the 1978 Act continue to have effect).").
101 Page 81, line 8, at end insert—
("4A. In section 11 (Special Health Authorities), for subsection (1) there is substituted—
"(1) The Secretary of State may by order establish special bodies for the purpose of exercising any functions which may be conferred on them by or under this Act." ").
102 Page 81, line 10, at end insert—
("5A. In section 15 (duty of Health Authority in relation to family health services), subsections (1B) to (1D) are omitted.").
103 Page 81, leave out lines 11 to 17 and insert—
("6. For section 16 (exercise of functions) there is substituted—
"Exercise of functions by Health Authorities and Special Health Authorities.
16.—(1) This subsection applies to functions which are exercisable by a Health Authority under or by virtue of this Act (including this section), the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 or any prescribed provision of any other Act.
(2) Regulations may provide for any functions to which subsection (1) above applies to be exercised—

(a) by another Health Authority,

(b) by a Special Health Authority, or

(c) jointly with any one or more of the following: Primary Care Trusts and other Health Authorities.

(3) Regulations may provide for any functions which are exercisable by a Special Health Authority under section 16D below to be exercised—

(a) by another Special Health Authority, or

(b) jointly with one or more other Special Health Authorities.

(4) Regulations may provide—
480

(a) for any functions to which subsection (1) above applies to be exercised, on behalf of the Health Authority by whom they are exercisable, by a committee, sub-committee or officer of the Health Authority,

(c) for any functions which, under section 16D below or this section, are exercisable by a Special Health Authority to be exercised, on behalf of that authority, by a committee, sub-committee or officer of the authority,

(d) for any functions exercisable jointly under subsection (2)(c) or (3)(b) above to be exercised, on behalf of the health service bodies in question, by a joint sub-committee or joint sub-committee." ").

104 Page 85, line 38, after ("arrangements)") insert ("—
(a) in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) there is inserted—
"(ba) Primary Care Trusts,",.
(b)").
105 Page 86, line 3, at end insert ("section 28EE(2) above,").
106 Page 86, line 7, leave out from ("for") to end of line and insert (""11 to 17" there is substituted "16D to 17B".").
107 Page 86, line 12, leave out from ("(4),") to end of line 13 and insert ("for "incidental or supplemental" there is substituted "supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitory, transitional or saving".").
108 Page 86, leave out line 14 and insert—
(".—(1) Section 128 (interpretation) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—").
109 Page 86, line 22, at end insert—
("(3) After that subsection there is inserted—
"(1A) So far as is necessary or expedient in consequence of a direction under section 16D or 17A above providing for the exercise by a Health Authority, Special Health Authority or Primary Care Trust of a function exercisable by another person, any reference in any enactment, instrument or other document to that other person is to be read as a reference to the Health Authority, Special Health Authority or Primary Care Trust."").
110 Page 86, leave out lines 39 to 47 and insert—
(""15.—(1) Any rights acquired, or liabilities (including liabilities in tort) incurred, in respect of the exercise by an authority of any function exercisable by them by virtue of section 16 or 16D above are enforceable by or (as the case may be) against that authority (and no other health service body).
(1A) This paragraph does not apply in relation to the joint exercise of any functions by an authority with another body under section 16(2)(c) or (3)(b) above." ").
111 Page 87, leave out lines 39 to 44.
112 Page 90, line 17, at end insert—
(". In section 85B(2) (bodies in respect of which schemes for meeting losses and liabilities may be made)—

(a) the "and" after paragraph (c) is omitted,

(b) after paragraph (d) there is inserted "and

(e) Special Health Boards".").

113 Page 90, line 25, at end insert—
("56A. In section 105(7) (orders, regulations and directions) for "incidental or supplemental" there is substituted "supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitory, transitional or saving".).
114 Page 90, line 34, at end insert—
("() in paragraph 16(c), the words from "which purposes shall include" to the end are omitted,").
115 Page 91, line 23, leave out ("for").
116 Page 91, line 23, leave out from ("special") to ("services") in line 26 and insert ("hospital" is omitted, after "above)" there is inserted "in a hospital at which high security psychiatric services are provided" and for "other special hospital" there is substituted "other hospital at which those").
117 Page 91, line 28, leave out from ("for") to ("which") in line 30 and insert (""which is not a special hospital" there is substituted "at").
118 Page 92, line 42, leave out (""13"") and insert (""11 or 13"").
119 Page 93, line 30, at end insert—
("75A. Section 18 (indicative amounts for doctors' practices) is omitted.").
120 Page 95, line 32, at end insert—
("Audit Commission Act 1998 (c. 18)
85. In section 5 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (general duties of auditors), in subsection (I)(a), for "(2B) (NHS trusts) or (2B) (fund-holding practices)" substitute "or (2B)".").
121 Schedule 5, page 95, line 38, at end insert—
("1966 c. 8.
The National Health Service Act 1966.
Section 10.").
122 Page 95, line 38, at end insert—

("1973 c. 65.

The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

In section 97, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), sub-paragraph (iii), subsection (2A) and in subsection (2B) the definitions of "recognized fund-holding practice" and "allotted sum".").

123 Page 95, line 42, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 15(1B) to (1D).").

124 Page 96, line 4, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 28E(4).").

125 Page 96, line 4, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 44(1), paragraphs (a) and (b) and "the Local Medical Committee, the Local Dental Committee". In section 45(2), "(including travelling and subsistence allowances payable to its members)".").

126 Page 96, line 21, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 98, the subsection numbered (2B) which was inserted by section 20(2)(b) of the 1990 Act.").

127 Page 96, line 27, column 3, leave out ("definition of) and insert ("definitions of "fund-holding practice" and").
128 Page 96, line 31, column 3, at end insert—

("In Schedule 15, paragraph 37.").

129 Page 96, line 46, column 3, after ("6(2),") insert ("in paragraph 16(c) the words from "which purposes shall include" to the end,").
130 Page 96, line 52, column 3, at end insert—

("In Schedule 16, paragraph 22.").

131 Page 96, line 55, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 123(1), "in a special hospital".").

132 Page 97, line 17, column 3, after ("4,") insert ("subsection (2)(f),").
133 Page 97, line 28, column 3, leave out ("17") and insert ("18").
134 Page 97, line 28, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 20(2)(b).").

135 Page 97, line 28, column 3, at end insert—

("Sections 34 and 35").

136 Page 97, line 40, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 15, subsection (1A) and, in subsection (1B), the words following "patients".").

137 Page 97. line 46, column 3, after ("4,") insert ("6(c) and (d), 34, 50(c), 58(b),").
138 Page 97, line 46, column 3, after ("72") insert ("to 77").
139 Page 97, line 46, column 3, at end insert—

("In Schedule 2, paragraph 13(5).").

140 Page 97, line 46, at end insert—

("1995 c.31.

The National Health Service

Section 1.

(Amendment) Act 1995.

Section 2(2).

Section 3.

Section 7 and 9.").

141 Page 98, line 4, column 3, after ("paragraphs") insert ("4(3) and (4),").
142 Page 98, line 5, column 3, at end insert (", 65(3) to (10), 69, 71(4), 77 and 78.").
143 Page 98, line 5, at end insert—

("1998 c. 18.

The Audit Commission Act 1998.

Section 6(3).

In section 53(1), the definitions of "allotted sum" and "recognized fund-holding practice" and, in the definition of "health service body", paragraph (b) and "or" preceding it.

In section 53(3), paragraph (b) and "and" preceding it.

In Schedule 2, paragraph 3.").

144 In the Title, line 4, leave out from ("functions") to ("confer") in line 6.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 89 to 144 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 89 to 144 en bloc.
(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
6.29 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Best value authorities]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert—
("() No authority or body which budgets in any year to spend a sum not exceeding £500,000 or such higher sum as the Secretary of State may by order specify shall be regarded as a best value authority.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 seeks to amend Clause 1. That clause is concerned with those authorities that are to be regarded as best value authorities. We had a debate at the previous stage on a de minimis provision. It appears to be generally accepted that a budget threshold of £500,000 a year is about the right sum. The Minister at that stage said that the Government were still considering the figure, although he informed the Committee that discussions with the National Association of Local Councils (town and parish) indicated that £500,000 was the right figure.
I have tabled this amendment in part to ask the Government whether further progress has been made in those discussions and in part because at the previous stage there was some little concern that the amendment as drawn—the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, moved the amendment and we supported it—did not allow flexibility. If that was the objection—I suspect that it was not the only one, but doubtless we shall hear from the Minister—I hope that I have dealt with it in the present drafting. If the Minister tells the House that he wants to allow for a lower limit than£500,000 we shall happily return to this matter yet again at the next stage. My point is as brief as that. Given the lateness in starting these proceedings, I shall not expand on the background to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, when we debated this issue in Grand Committee the Minister in his response indicated that it would not be normal practice to put into legislation figures that might require subsequent adjustment in the light of inflation. I accept that that is a reasonable argument, but that was never the intended basis on which I moved the amendment. If I did not then make the matter sufficiently clear, or press it hard enough, I am in error. I always envisaged that it might he possible, in the light of experience in a year or two, that the limit now proposed—I believe that we
484
should put as much on to the face of the Bill as possible, whatever may have been the custom and practice—would be unreasonably low.
The decision might be taken in the light of practice that £1 million was a perfectly acceptable figure, and that would have nothing to do with an inflationary increase. It seems to me that if we are considering the matter on that scale it is not unreasonable to see that on the face of the Bill. At that level a greater number of authorities would undoubtedly come within the exempt category, but in overall expenditure terms that would be very small beer in relation to the totality of local government expenditure. That would still be controlled by Part I of the Bill, which is concerned with best value authorities. I support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government have recognised throughout that the best value duties could be extremely onerous for smaller parish and town councils. The Bill therefore enables us to exempt them. This subsection gives the necessary powers. "Specified description" in this context may refer, for example, to parish councils with budgeted income of a particular amount. As the noble Baroness said, officials have met the National Association of Local Councils and the Audit Commission to discuss how best value can be applied. I confirm that it is the intention of the Government to set a de minimis level of £500,000, as indicated in the White Paper last year. On that basis, approximately 70 or 80 parish and town councils out of a total of 8,000 would be covered by that regime. Any parish council with a lower income would be entirely exempt, although we would like it to follow the spirit of best value.
For those few parishes above the threshold we can use the powers provided in the Bill to ensure that the duties are applied sensibly with regard to a parish's ability to fulfil those duties. We do not wish to impose excessive burdens on those best value parish councils. We shall be consulting on that matter.
We do not think that it is sensible to put a figure on the de minimis level on the face of the Bill because that will remove the capacity to alter the level up or down in the light of changing circumstances and seeing how it applies. Setting a figure by order provides us with the flexibility that we need. The amendment gives us the flexibility to raise the threshold but it would not provide the flexibility to lower it. Were we to take the noble Lord's advice and go to £1 million, next year or the year after we might find that that turned out to be too high and we wished to lower it.
There is an additional problem. The amendment as drafted does not achieve our intention as discussed with parish councils, since we propose to set the threshold with reference to budgeted income in line with existing audit thresholds rather than budgeted expenditure as the amendment provides. With that reaffirmation of our intention and the reason why we seek this flexibility, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the information with which he has provided

485
the House. If the discussions with the parish councils have been related to budget income rather than expenditure I do not wish this amendment to be applied. I do not want to upset those discussions. The Minister referred to lowering the threshold. I do not believe that my amendment would preclude coming back to £500,000 or a slightly higher figure had it gone by order to, say, £1 million. It certainly would preclude coming back to £300,000. I said that if the Government suggested they might want to lower the limit we could be tempted to return to the matter at Third Reading. We shall wait and see. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [The general duty]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 6. leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 11 and 12. These amendments deal with the criteria that apply both to the best value duty in Clause 3 and the performance indicators and standards in Clause 4. The clauses explain that the criteria to which authorities are to have regard are, in combination, economy, efficiency and effectiveness. "Economy" probably speaks for itself, as do the other two. However, it may be worth pausing for a moment to reflect on their precise meaning. I believe that "efficiency" is about producing the desired result with the minimum wasted effort, and "effectiveness" is about bringing about a result. Neither of those is entirely original. I looked them up in the Oxford English Dictionary last night.
We do not believe that those are adequate criteria. We do not challenge their inclusion but seek to add to them. This group of amendments seeks to add the criterion of fairness. At Committee stage we spent a little time on whether the term used then—"equity"—was the right one. The Minister volunteered that he preferred "fairness", perhaps simply as a matter of elegance of language; I am not sure. I noted his criticism about switching between "equity" and "equality" in a rather seamless fashion, and I accept that there are differences. I believe that fairness is a good. plain and straightforward term. It embodies concepts of being just and equitable and of providing an equal chance of success. There was quite a lot of support in the Grand Committee for the concept of equity, as it was referred to then. It was regarded as being integral to the best value duty. The Minister argued then that there were difficulties in writing equity or fairness into the criteria as distinct from ensuring the concept of the criterion under the effectiveness banner.
On 10th May the Minister said that the Government,
"have not thought it appropriate to write in wellbeing provisions. [The Bill] is primarily about the way in which local government conducts its management and delivers its services and, to some extent, its financial control rather than the broader objectives of local government".
486
He went on to say,
"The Government consider it essential that as a result of introducing best value, our local authorities concentrate on service outputs and outcomes".—[Official Report, 10/5/99; col. CWH 22.]
Our concern is that effectiveness may not be interpreted as being capable of including fairness. If fairness is outside economy, efficiency and effectiveness, then guidance, which it was suggested would deal with fairness, cannot bring fairness within it. I accept that there are a number of occasions where guidance can be used to expand on a matter, but if the primary legislation does not allow for it then I would be worried that guidance could not properly provide for it.
We on these Benches are not alone in believing that the promotion of the well-being of one's community in which fairness is absolutely central is the most important part of local government. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that promoting the well-being of one's community was the only reason for being involved in a local authority in the first place. I am sure that at a personal level there are a number of noble Lords in the Chamber at the moment who have been—and some still are—in local government. I believe that most of us would identify with that.
I mentioned the Minister's point about outcomes rather than process. But we do not believe that it is possible to separate process and outcome quite as easily as the noble Lord's speech suggested. However, even if one accepts that best value is only about outcomes, we say that fairness is an outcome that a local authority should seek to achieve. We are not arguing that it should take priority over the criteria set out in the Bill, but we believe that it should have at least equality with them.
The anxieties about fairness are dealt with in other constitutional legislation. Understandably it is extensively dealt with in the Northern Ireland legislation. It is also dealt with in the recent Welsh legislation. Therefore, I do not believe that it would be out of place in this Bill.
Economy, efficiency and effectiveness are terms with which local government has lived for quite some time now. I believe that they carry the baggage of referring fairly narrowly to financial concerns. The reports that one sees from the Audit Commission are substantially concerned with financial matters. Looking at performance indicators where the Audit Commission is involved, they certainly have a distinct financial flavour.
The Minister may tell me tonight that this amendment is not necessary. Perhaps the rather trite response to that is to ask what is the harm in it. I believe that there is a message that one wants to give as regards the whole modernisation programme for local government concerning fairness being very important and absolutely central. Sadly, it is a current issue. I have not described the different areas of gender equality, social justice and so on that come within it, but I would like to mention one point, which is racial equality. The Macpherson Report concerning the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence and what happened afterwards recommended that the police service, local government and the relevant agencies should specifically consider implementing community and local initiatives aimed at

487
promoting cultural diversity and addressing racism. There is also a need for focused, consistent support for such initiatives. This and the other amendments within the group are squarely within that spirit.
Notions of economy, efficiency and effectiveness have now been applied in local government and elsewhere for more than a decade and a half. As I have said, I believe that they are generally regarded as being financial. If the Minister can assure me that they are wider than that I shall listen to that with care. But I am particularly concerned as to how local authorities, those scrutinising them, the wider community and if necessary the courts interpret the term "effectiveness" and whether fairness can be encompassed by what we have on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, my noble friend has put so well why we are trying to move away, as the Government are, from the ethos of CCT and develop a way of thinking which is removed from that. After the Grand Committee stage I spent some time mulling over the point of outcomes, process and so on. I went back to the fact that the aim of this Bill is to promote improvement in the way that functions are exercised. The Minister's statement during the Grand Committee was that fair access to services could be regarded as being equity under another name.
Having researched the matter a little more, without including fairness—I agree that we should decide on one term that is going to be used and fairness seems to be a good one—on the face of the Bill we shall have continual misunderstanding about it not only from the local authorities involved but also from those who are supposed to measure outcomes, such as the Audit Commission, and those who are supposed to give guidance.
I would like to give a brief example. It comes from development control, which is usually one of the most contentious areas. I believe that the example shows that it is riot just a question of fairness as to whether people feel able to take up that service or have access to it, but about the very design of the service. The example comes from a letter from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions dated 19th February. It was checking on how people felt about the various indicators. The letter states:
"Under the fair access indicators this category of indicator is concerned with the ease of gaining access to particular services both physically and by having readily comprehensible and usable procedures. We are not required to have a best value indicator under all five headings. Our initial view is that this aspect of the planning service may not warrant a whole indicator. Instead we suggest that fair access be addressed within the proposed quality check list."
I believe that as that is one of the most contentious of services it deserves the most scrutiny. If that is the feeling about fair access for that service, I do not believe that it augurs well for the rest.
It is not just a question of whether people can understand the notices about development control, or feel able to put their cases well at meetings. It is also a question of the way the service is designed within the
488
authority and its ethos of fairness. If one is articulate, it is easy to put one's case well. Unless we include "fairness" within the Bill, specific services will suffer.
I do not believe that community planning will be the answer overall. By their nature, communities have articulate people as well as those individuals who do not know how to use the system and are inarticulate. Sometimes that inability to express oneself may be exploited by an authority should it not wish to hear the other side of the argument.
I support my noble friend. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the view that it is unnecessary to write "fairness" into the Bill. The situation cannot be addressed simply by indicators.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Baronesses have indicated, we have had some discussion that "equity" and "fairness" raised similar issues. I have some sympathy with the aim of the noble Baronesses. But I do not believe that writing "fairness" into the Bill in that form would achieve their aim.
It is important that we have clear duties and that those duties are put in a new context. The best value regime is designed to achieve that. It is also important that those duties are not so diffuse that they mean different things to different people. The noble Baroness is correct to say that the three Es are familiar to local government; and that there is a downside in that they have been familiar in the context of tight budgetary controls and CCT provision. But they are also clear within a regime which intends to take into account broader matters under the best value regime. Those are the guiding principles of delivery of services under the new regime. In so far as there is a downside, we are changing the whole context in which the regime operates, but we retain a degree of clarity.
We tend to go into semantics in these debates! However, fairness can relate to method and outcome. Does one treat people fairly in trying to achieve an objective; or is the objective fair? Those are two different concepts. They are perceived by different groups as being two different things. That is why we believe that fairness must be one aspect of effectiveness. An effective service must meet its objectives and satisfy the various groups' requirements. If services are good for one section of the community and poor for another, common sense dictates that, all other matters being equal, that would be unfair and the service cannot claim to be effective. On the other hand, in some instances all other things are not equal. Therefore if we allocate action and resources on the basis of need, those who receive on the basis of need may consider the system fair; those who have less need may consider the outcome unfair. To introduce "fairness" in this context is a somewhat confusing concept, although the ethos of fairness underlies the whole structure of best value.
The noble Baroness says that one cannot achieve these aims by guidance. But in reality the statutory guidance can relate the operation of those powers to specific outcomes and performance management structures. It also requires people to consult and deal with those groups which are judging whether or not

489
these matters are fair. It is important that the guidance lays down that authorities consult not only the articulate but all those who have an interest whether or not they are represented by articulate spokespeople.
Best value indicators will include indices of fair access and customer satisfaction. All authorities will need to set clear targets in respect of both those dimensions in key service areas and will be held to account in achieving them by their annual best value performance plans. Detailed guidance will ensure that explicit consideration of fairness is placed at the heart of best value. We shall consult shortly on the draft indicators.
The noble Baroness related this concept to that of well-being. Fairness is one aspect of well-being. Well-being is a wider concept. I indicated in earlier discussions that the overall concept of well-being is not primarily for this legislation, which is about the management of local authorities, but may well arise in subsequent consideration of reform of local authorities. As noble Lords know, we shall have a debate next week to discuss the issue of well-being.
I believe that we have provided a flexible approach to the way in which the performance reviews will be conducted. We have given local authorities the ability to set priorities locally. But we have also made clear that we expect poor performance to be confronted promptly; and the performance framework is designed to assess authorities against common goals in a consistent way. That in itself is an element of assessing fairness.
Best value authorities which fail to apply that concept in a reasonable and fair way would be susceptible to challenge if they did so fail. Indeed, best value auditors and inspectors will be challenging authorities to comply with both the letter and the spirit of the legislation as part of their scrutiny of best value performance plans.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness is reassured that the concept of fairness is central to the issue of best value. But its inclusion as one of the objectives in this clause, as she suggests, would confuse and could give rise to conflict in this area rather than helping to clarify how the best value regime should be delivered.
Again, one aspect of fairness is equality. It is our intention that all these matters should be subject to equality legislation, both current and potential, and that equality issues, whether of gender or race, will be part of the best value regime as well. However, that is not easily written into the Bill at this stage. It is clear that all best value authorities will be subject to those criteria as well.
I hope that our intentions are clear. I hope I have indicated enough to say that adding fairness to the criteria of the three Es would be more confusing than helpful. I hope that my indications of the Government's intention in this area are sufficient to enable the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the care he has taken over the reply. I hope that I may pick up the points he made. In doing so, I hope that I shall not sideline any issue of importance.
490
The noble Lord suggested that the term may be somewhat diffuse, and referred to "well-being". I do not suggest importing well-being. He mentioned that the three Es are familiar in financial regimes and argued that because the regime is changing the application of the three Es will also change. That is my problem. I am concerned that the three Es will not be seen or understood to be changing.
The noble Lord spoke of fairness being within effectiveness: that local authorities would be expected to achieve fairness, and that therefore effectiveness would cover fairness.
I do not believe that unless an authority articulates one of its objectives as being fairness the term "effectiveness" can apply. In other words, I do not think you can argue backwards from being effective to saying what the objectives should be: you have to sort out the objectives first. My concern is that if an authority does not particularly address itself to fairness it could be effective in achieving its own objectives, with that issue not featuring very highly. That is why I am concerned that one may not get as far as guidance and the performance indicators in the way the Minister mentioned.
He said, too, that sometimes what local authorities do is not equal in the way that different groups of people are treated. I accept that, but I would say that, for instance, it would not be fair if wealthy groups were treated in precisely the same way in certain matters as poorer groups of people. I do not think one would argue that the spread of council tax through bands was not fair. One could argue about the detail of it, but one would not say it was not fair that people who live in band H houses are paying more than those who live in band A houses. I do not accept that point from the Minister. I agree with him that fairness is, to use his words, "central to best value." I accept also that we are very close on the point of principle but I do not agree that including the term would lead to conflict and confusion.
The Minister said that the Government's intentions are clear. I would not wish, having moved this amendment—and I shall in a moment test the opinion of the House—to suggest that the Government do not believe in the importance of the concept. My concern is to get it into legislation and on the face of the Bill. I therefore seek the view of the House on this amendment.
7.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 90.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hamwee, B.

Carlisle, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Leigh, L

Dholakia, L.

Liverpool, E.

Glenarthur, L.

McNair, L.

491

Maddock, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Marlesford, L.

Stewartby, L

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Milverton, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Norrie, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B [Teller.]

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

Thurso, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Tordoff, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Torrington, V.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hollick, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hughes, L.

Alli, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ampthill, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Bach, L.

Jeger, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Berkeley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bragg, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Brookman, L.

Burlison, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Mallalieu, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Crawley, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Desai, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dubs, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Richard, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Fitt, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Goudie, B.

Sewel, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon, V.

Green way, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grenfell, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hacking, L.

Thornton, B.

Hanworth, V.

Uddin, B.

Hardie, L.

Whitty, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Wllliams of Elvel, L.

Haskel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hayman, B.

Winston, L

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 6, at end insert ("and sustainability").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4. These amendments seek to provide that we should include "sustainability" as a prime part of the Bill immediately after "economy, efficiency and effectiveness" and also as one of the main indicators.
Your Lordships may think that the arguments in relation to sustainability will be a rerun of those in relation to fairness. Indeed, some, but not all, are similar. I start by pointing out one of the main differences, which I hope will cause the result of any Division to be rather different. Sustainability is a long-term issue. Economy, efficiency and effectiveness are seen as fairly short-term issues, both by councillors and council officials. Councillors have a duty to look beyond their term of office but, to be frank, they find it difficult to do that and certainly find it difficult to look at matters in the extremely long term. Sustainability is certainly not a short-term issue.
During the debate on fairness we touched on why we should move away from the ethos of CCT and the way in which councils have conducted themselves in the past; indeed, the way that they have been made to conduct themselves. What has been striking about councils in the past 20 years has been their short-termism. Sustainability is very much about how we pass on our environment to future generations.
Between the start of the Bill's passage through this House and now, the Government have published the very impressive A Better Quality of Life: a Strategy for Sustainable Development for the United Kingdom. In a very good introduction, the Prime Minister said:
"We have failed to see how our economy, our environment and our society are all one and that delivering the best quality of life for us all means more than concentrating solely on economic growth".
I believe that that could have been adapted—although I expect the Minister will give me reasons why it could not have been—to say that sustainability is equally applicable to local government services and that concentrating simply on economy. efficiency and effectiveness will not deliver sustainability.
I said that it is not an add-on. If those services are to reflect the sort of society and environment that we wish to see in 20, 30 or 40 years' time, sustainability must be on the face of the Bill.
In Committee, we discussed the Local Agenda 21 mainstreaming of sustainable development. The Minister said the Government expect local authorities to give expression to those principles primarily through the process of community planning. I believe that we need to do something different. We should go beyond expecting. We should require those principles. The way to achieve that is by including sustainability in the Bill.
I turn now to indicators of sustainability. Because sustainability must be considered in the long term, it needs indicators which measure in the long term. So far, those indicators have not been developed. Being of a fairly cynical frame of mind, I wonder whether sustainability indicators have not been included in the Bill because they are extremely difficult to develop. Those who have worked in local government trying to develop those sustainability indicators would agree with that. That is so even in relation to fairly simple issues; for example, how one measures how local authorities are doing in terms of sustainability.
The indicators referred to in Opportunities for Change are extremely basic. The first is in relation to how many local authorities have LA21 plans in place.

493
On the face of it, that is an indicator. However, having those plans in place is not the key issue. The key issue is how many authorities have started to implement those plans and how many are doing so effectively. Therefore, I agree that effectiveness is one measure but without the sustainable angle, it does not add up to much action.
The other two factors mentioned are community spirit and voluntary activity. Rather touchingly, after both of them, in brackets it says, "to be developed". I am not sure whether it is the indicator that is to be developed or the community spirit. The paucity of indicators in that section indicates to me that those who are developing the indicators are finding it very difficult. They must be extremely sophisticated and I am not surprised that those who must draft them have balked at including them in the Bill.
If the Government are as committed to sustainable development as this document suggests they really need measurable targets which have sustainability at their heart. I should try to explain that in different words. I see best value as a mirror into which local authorities look to see how they are performing. The local authority may be dressed up in certain indicators and may be wearing certain standards. But if the mirror into which it is looking is distorted—and I believe it is distorted without sustainability being included—the reflection will not be accurate.
That may be a slightly difficult analogy but that is the nearest that I can come to explaining why not having sustainability and sustainable indicators in the Bill will distort the way that local authorities think about themselves and the ethos that drives them. New councillors will be directed to a new way of working which has at its heart economy, efficiency and effectiveness. As I mentioned before, they are already struggling with short-term issues. They find the long-term view difficult. They need something to indicate to them that sustainability is a long-term aim for which they must strive. Having it tacked on in guidance and performance indicators is not sufficient. I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I urge the Minister to consider the amendment with some seriousness. Perhaps, first, we can get some semantics out of the way because those of the previous amendment were enough to last us for the entire evening. The amendment refers to sustainability. I intend to talk about sustainable development and I hope that the Minister will accept that they are intended to be the same thing and we do not argue about whether they are different.
The point I wish to make was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. The ink on the Government's sustainable development strategy, which has only recently been published, is barely dry. The Deputy Prime Minister launched it with a great, if brief, flourish. It stresses the importance of the integration of sustainable development into the roles of a whole range of bodies, particularly statutory bodies, and is an excellent example of joined-up thinking and joined-up government.
494
Best-value authorities are among the most important for the delivery of sustainable development in this country and this Bill provides the key opportunity to build the sustainable development requirement into the roles of the best-value authorities. In legislative terms, this is probably the only opportunity we have in the near future. The only other local government Bill that is likely to come forward in the immediate future in its current draft form appears not to take the opportunity to build in sustainable development duties.
There are of course other examples of sustainable development duties being laid on public authorities on the face of their Bills that have not brought them crashing to their knees with the weight of over-statutory requirement. Indeed, the Environment Agency has operated perfectly satisfactorily with a sustainable development duty which was on the face of the Bill establishing that agency for a number of years and doing perfectly well.
If the amendment were to be accepted, it would not lay any more onerous requirements on best-value authorities than I hope they would morally and spiritually feel was laid upon them by the sustainable development strategy. However, it sends an important signal about how seriously the Government are taking the sustainable development strategy. Therefore, I urge the Minister to encourage us all about the Government's commitment to sustainable development so that we can believe that the drying ink of the sustainable development strategy is not simply ink and is not drying too rapidly.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support my noble friend and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her comments, with which I heartily agree. As my noble friend said, sustainability, or sustainable development, is about the long term. It is also the big issue for now and for the start of the next century. I regard it as the sine qua non not only for local authorities but for all authorities and bodies which are within the Bill as best-value authorities.
I do not pretend that dealing with sustainable development issues is easy. It is very much about reconciling interests and finding the right balances. The point my noble friend made about the performance indicator referring to Local Agenda 21 was most telling. An indicator asking whether LA21 is in place supports my arguments that the term "effectiveness" is insufficient to promote everything that we would like to see promoted by the Bill. I endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said about the importance of the signals that the Government give, using this opportunity, which may well be the only one for a while. It is important to have legislation in place which, bearing in mind how the debate on sustainability is going, is fit for the purpose in the sense of being the right legislation for the developing debate concentrating on the importance of the issue.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I had not intended to enter the debate, but having heard the arguments previously and not being entirely convinced, I, like any other council leader, have a great deal of

495
sympathy for ensuring that we place sustainability at the forefront of our thinking in the way in which we procure, run and operate our services. I believe that the movers of the amendment are missing an essential point. The point about sustainability is to make it a practical and effective tool with which to service procurement in local government. While I have some sympathy with the amendment, it does not take us any further along that path.
For that reason, I believe that the issue should be dealt with in the form of guidance. I say that as the leader of an authority which has a best-value pilot status. During the past 18 months we have systematically worked through our services and through the process of review—to a degree, screening—beginning to look at ways in which we can train procurement processes and acquire new and different services by putting sustainability into our thinking.
It did not require legislation for us to do that. Perhaps it required a nudge and a wink from central government that that was what they wanted. But we got there before and earlier in any event. I believe that that is the most practical way to deal with the matter and we can take the issue further when the Government construct guidance and talk to the Local Government Association and other external expert bodies. We shall therefore get the guidance, support and back-up right so that sustainability begins to have a practical effect rather than being seen as a token gesture or motion described on the face of the legislation.
On those terms, I am unable to support an amendment with which in a more practical form I would perhaps have greater sympathy.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I expect that Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches are inured to the fact that I shall say that I have considerable sympathy with what they are intending to do but I cannot believe that the legislation is appropriate to their sustainability argument.
Clearly, local authorities must put sustainability as part of their strategy, but they must also turn it into reality in relation to particular policies, projects and service delivery. We have emphasised that the Bill is about how local authorities are managed and not about the outcome of that management. It is clear from government policy, and the policy of most local authorities, that sustainability is not only increasingly important but probably the most important aspect of their activity. An authority is neither effective nor efficient if it conducts policies which do not deliver sustainability. Actually, sustainability is a bigger issue than how and to what outcome one delivers. Any best-value authority which failed to take into account sustainability could not be said to be meeting the best value criteria.
On the other hand, it is important that we turn sustainability into something clearer than merely writing it as an additional criterion in the Bill in a list of aspects which are well understood. We need to make sustainability understood at various different levels. There are many points at which best value and
496
sustainability come together and are pursued on different fronts. As I indicated in Grand Committee, our whole approach and quality-of-life indicators and the department's sustainability, which runs across government and is much wider than my own department, are part of a new approach to sustainability. But we need to develop those quality-of-life indicators in a fashion which can be used effectively by local government.
We are urging best value authorities to draw up Local Agenda 21 strategies which. as the noble Baroness said, have sustainability at their heart. We are altering the planning system in order that sustainability is more maintained in that area. We are working with the Audit Commission and others to identify clear performance indicators which tackle this cost-cutting issue of sustainability and which can be included explicitly in the best value suite.
So we are taking all kinds of measures to put the practical indicators and measures of sustainability into the best value regime. In terms of the legislation, we believe that the principles are best dealt with through the promotion of economical, social and environmental well-being at the local level in recognition of local authorities' community leadership role.
We have done this with the Greater London Authority Bill where contributing towards sustainable development is contained within the principal purpose of the GLA to promote social and economic development and environmental improvement for London. We are considering how best to apply similar provisions to local authorities in England and Wales. That relates to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Bassam; namely, that it is our intention to bring forward legislation as parliamentary time permits. as they say, and to ensure that that does happen, but not in a Bill which is primarily about the management systems of local authorities. As I have already mentioned, we also have the opportunity to discuss well-being in your Lordships' House next week.
We therefore concur with the remarks of a number of noble Lords in relation to sustainability. However, we do not believe it is appropriate to write it in this way into the Bill. We already have in train a number of developments in association with local authorities which will give meaning and reality to sustainability criteria, sustainability indicators and measures which will help to make a reality of this dimension of best value. Introducing this new element at this stage would dilute the focus of the management systems. However, the Government are certainly committed to introducing it as an overall concept. We are trying to develop the tools to turn it into a reality. I therefore hope the noble Baroness will not consider it necessary to pursue her amendment in this context.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am fairly new to your Lordships' House and as yet I am not inured to the disappointment of never seeing anything go through. I hope that I shall always continue to live in hope.

497
The Minister referred to the duty to promote social, economic and environmental well-being as that upon which we should pin our hopes to see sustainability duties introduced in a different form. However, as he indicated, it does not seem as if parliamentary time will allow for that either this year or next. Much as we may debate it next week, and I am sure the debate will be interesting, that does not mean that it will be on the statute book in the near future. I am sure the Minister knows more about that than I do. I would not wish to depend upon that to see a greater promotion of environmental well-being.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred to the fact that in tune with government thinking, the best authorities—of which, of course, his is one—are piloting best value. The Minister also referred to that. I remind the House that best value is intended to address the problems of the worst authorities; those which are not able to address the issues of sustainability or virtually anything else. It is to those authorities that we should be sending a message to put it at the heart of their delivery, not to the splendid authorities which have been chosen as best value pilots.
The Minister said that sustainability was a most important aspect of local authority service. I thoroughly agree. However, when we go out to our communities and involve them in community planning, how seriously can we ask them to take the question of sustainability? How seriously can we expect them to regard that as a duty to put first if local authorities do not have it as one of their basic duties?
I disagree with the Minister when he states that the Bill is fundamentally about how local authorities are managed; it is about more than that. It is about how their policies are developed and their priorities driven. If it was only a question of management, we would leave it mostly to the officers. We would not have councillors undergoing a massive training exercise with the Improvement and Development Agency making every effort to make councillors better at developing policy and priorities. I do not accept that the Bill is only about management. If we do not put sustainability on to the face of the Bill we shall be guilty of not thinking that it is fundamentally the most important aspect of local authority service. With all due regard for the wish of the Minister that we do not pursue the matter further, I should like to seek the opinion of the House.
7.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 85.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Goodhart, L.

Carlisle, E.

Hamwee, B.

Dholakia, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L

Glenarthur, L.

Hooper, B.

498

McNair, L.

Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

Maddock, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Meston, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.[Teller.]

Thurso, V.

Tordoff, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hughes, L.

Alli, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bach, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Berkeley, L.

Jeger, B.

Blackstone, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bragg, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Leathers, V.

Brookman, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Burlison, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Chandos, V.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Crawley, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Molloy, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Monkswell, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Peston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dubs, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gilbert, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Richard, L.

Goudie, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sawyer, L.

Greenway, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Grenfell, L.

Sewel, L.

Hacking, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hanworth, V.

Simon, V.

Hardie, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Haskel, L.

Thornton, B.

Hayman, B.

Warner, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Whitty, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.43 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 6, at end insert—
"() The duty arising under subsection (1) shall not apply to a best value authority when working in partnership with another public body unless that body is under a similar duty.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 5 and my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer will speak to Amendments Nos. 6 and 10.
Amendment No. 5 seeks to provide that the best value duty will not apply to an authority,
"when working in partnership with another public body unless that body is under a similar duty".
We moved a rather different clause in Committee in connection with partnerships when we proposed that public authorities working in partnership with best value authorities should themselves be subject to the duty of best value. This amendment disapplies the duty when the authority is working with another public body unless that body is under a similar duty.
The Minister explained in Grand Committee what the Government are doing in various sectors to apply best value or something like it, but there will not necessarily be blanket coverage of the duty. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, in Grand Committee made some interesting points in relation to partnership working which increasingly local government is undertaking. He said that he could,
"envisage all kinds of anomalies as to whether the principles of best value have to operate under those various sets or circumstances".— [Official Report, 10/5/99; col. CWH28.]
The noble Lord used examples of health provision; increasingly health trusts working jointly with social services, sometimes notionally under the aegis of the health trust, sometimes under that of the local authority which, as he rightly said, is often simply a matter of convenience. What prompted me to table the amendment at this stage was his comment that he would hate to see the structures determining which authority became the lead authority rather than what made sense for practical reasons in the subject area.
If the Minister can help us a little further in this area I would be very interested. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, first, shall speak to Amendment No. 6 which addresses the question of formally constituted groups. It seeks to define who should be consulted under subsection (2).
Obviously the duty of best value depends on authorities consulting with their residents and the Bill defines those people who should be consulted. I have to make the point again that best value seeks to address in particular those authorities which are not performing well. We tabled this amendment because we fear that it could be easy for an authority which is not particularly keen to consult, to consult in a minimal way. As we know., it is much quicker and easier, and likely to produce more predictable results if consultation is confined to formally constituted groups. It is often known what those groups will say and who makes them up and therefore it is popular to stay within the parameters of groups whose make-up is known and whose representatives have the same view. In fact, in many councils, when representatives come from those groups, the mutter goes round, "It's the same old suspects".
Even with the advent of such things as public opinion panels, focus groups and citizens juries, all of which have a very worthy place, they still can become a "formally constituted group". I believe that public opinion panels are a very good thing. However, such people will be consulted year after year. Even if you roll on different people over time, they will, after they have been consulted a few times, become very familiar with the way that the council works. They will probably take a greater interest in what it does, arid so on.
500
Therefore, councils should have a requirement to consult those who are of no group—in other words, a very random selection of the population. For that reason, this amendment seeks to ensure that the temptation to take a quick and easy route of consulting only formally constituted groups would not be allowed under this Bill. Otherwise, as the Bill is drafted, a council could get away with only ever consulting formally constituted groups, which I believe would be most unfortunate arid not really in the spirit of the legislation.
I turn now to Amendment No. 10, which seeks to include representatives of best value authorities when the Secretary of State wants to consult on what the performance indicators should be. Indeed, it is possible that it could be claimed that there were certain time constraints. Therefore, the differences of opinion between government and local authorities could lead to a disinclination on the part of the Secretary of State to consult.
Further, I can imagine the scenario, although perhaps not at the moment, where the Government would not want to consult on performance indicators. Perhaps I may draw on history for a moment. I am not sure that I could have imagined the government of the time consulting on performance indicators, for example, for poll tax collection, or on how to measure client views on the efficiency of the enforcement procedure for that tax.
Therefore, for all of those reasons, it is absolutely essential that the Secretary of State is required to meet and take the opinions of representative best value authorities. After all, they are the practitioners. There is no likelihood that their views would not be forthcoming in terms of much practical experience of what has happened on the ground. I believe that the fact that they are not included in the Bill might be an oversight. They are the obvious people to consult first; indeed, best value authorities are those which are already carrying out best practice. It is not as though representatives of local authorities which may not be practising best value would be consulted.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, once again, I should like to lend support to Amendment No. 5. I spoke to this in Committee and I also included it in my original speech on Second Reading. My concern all along has been that there are difficulties in partnerships anyway because different authorities approach their work in different ways. The different accounting, reporting and planning systems and the whole paraphernalia of best value that we see in Clauses 4, 5 and 6 could, if they were rigidly applied, have the effect of rendering some of the work which best value authorities do with their partners open to criticism by, for example, the Audit Commission. That was behind my support for our original amendment in Committee.
The phraseology of the current amendment is better. It is more practical in its approach and it would enable local authorities in particular, but also other best value authorities, to go into partnership with external authorities or external groups which are not liable to the same laws and audit processes.

501
I am looking for some indication that the Minister understands the subtlety of the problem and that the Government have thought of ways, either through guidance or in some other way, of ensuring that this possible conflict does not arise. Alternatively, I should like an assurance that best value authorities acting in good faith in partnership with others cannot be criticised on the grounds that they have not in every detail followed best value codes in what is always a compromise arrangement.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will not be surprised to learn that we are not attracted to Amendment No. 5. However, I am grateful to her for identifying some very important practical issues. The Government have consistently said that the duty of best value will be all-embracing. It will apply to all of the functions which best value authorities carry out.
Perhaps I may now correct what may have been a misunderstanding on my part as regards a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Best value applies to all authorities and not just the worst, as I understood the noble Baroness to say. There were pilots from 1997, but the duty of best value is not merely for the worst authorities. It will apply to all of the functions which best value authorities carry out. Nevertheless, I appreciate that the noble Baroness may wish to probe further about how the duty of best value will apply in situations in which only one of the partners is subject to the formal duty of best value in delivering the function.
One of the fundamental questions which the best value authority in question will need to determine before entering into the partnership arrangement will be: will this arrangement deliver best value for local people? If the answer to the question is yes, and there is no alternative arrangement which offers better results, clearly the authority will be free to enter into the partnership and bound to meet the duty of best value while doing so.
Although the Government wish to encourage best value authorities to think innovatively about such partnerships, it makes no sense to exempt the best value authority partner from its statutory duties when it enters into a partnership. Local people are still entitled to expect excellence in the quality of services, regardless of which particular vehicle is used to deliver them. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
I turn from the issue of partnerships to that of consultation. The statutory duty of consultation is clearly an integral part of best value. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for this opportunity to explain the Government's approach. I am sympathetic to what I believe to be the thrust of Amendment No. 6, although I do not believe it to be necessary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, made the very fair point in Committee that we needed to ensure that all voices were heard during consultations, and not just those of persons or bodies who were the best organised, most articulate or who had access to the best technology.
502
These are sentiments which I am pleased to embrace and endorse. I am confident that the approach that we are taking is most likely to ensure that consultation is all-inclusive. In our view, the requirement in the Bill that the authority should consult with those who are representative of a group is not merely confined to those who speak on behalf of others but will include those who are representative of a group in the sense that they are a good example or are typical of that particular group. Therefore, I am confident that the Bill already achieves the practical effect which the noble Baroness seeks.
However, Amendment No. 6 would place conditions upon the way in which best value authorities confronted a task which calls—and I believe the noble Baroness's contribution recognised this fact—for the maximum variety in terms of approach. Further, such conditions may well be inappropriate in some cases. Although I understand the thinking behind it, the amendment is viewed by us as being unnecessary. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will not move it.
I am sympathetic to Amendment No. 10. I have given your Lordships assurances in Grand Committee about whom the consultation will include. I have said that it will include those known to the Secretary of State as representatives of best value authorities and specifically the LGA and WLGA.
However, my concern here is that placing this amendment on the face of the Bill will place the onus on the Secretary of State to identify all those bodies who claim to be representative of best value authorities. The wording of the amendment is concise; namely, that the Secretary of State shall consult with representatives of best value authorities. But the term "representatives" can be drawn widely. How will the Secretary of State know if he has included all ad hoc groups that claim to be representative?
I understand the intention behind this amendment and indeed support the principle, but the wording of the amendment could have the undesirable side effects which I have discussed. In the light of the noble Baroness's comment about not yet having become cynical as regards having any point that is raised accepted, I hope that she will not move the amendment on the understanding that we shall produce a suitably drafted amendment on Third Reading that will both meet the noble Baroness's wishes and address my current concerns.
8.00 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps we had better not divide the House on any more amendments as the result of not doing so is far more satisfactory! We thank the Minister for those remarks. As an amendment is to be produced for Third Reading I shall not make the comments that I intended to make in response to what the Minister had to say on Amendment No. 10, and on Amendment No. 6, the thrust of which is similar if not absolutely the same.
My noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood made the important point about the detail of the best value obligations in speaking to Amendment No. 5. Her

503
concern—which is also my concern—is that the best value duty and programme could become too formalised, too cumbersome and too difficult to apply. The various public authorities which are the subject of the best value duty—and which may work in partnership with other authorities—have over the past few years adopted a partnership approach with increasing enthusiasm. I do not believe that any of us disagree about the value of that.
The Minister said that people are entitled to expect that their authorities will always be excellent. That is to be aimed at and to be hoped for but politics are about priorities. As my noble friend said, partnerships often have to embody compromise. That is why we wished to pursue the amendment. We shall consider what the Government had to say on this matter. I believe that they understand our concerns. We shall want to be sure that we have not made the situation rather worse—as one sometimes does—by exploring it in detail. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Performance indicators and standards]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 31, leave out ("different")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 15. With the leave of the House, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 together. I shall then speak to Amendment No. 15 as although it addresses a related point it is slightly separate.
We have now reached a rather fundamental issue in the Bill, small though these amendments may appear to be. Whatever the errors of my party when it was in government—before noble Lords opposite begin to crow about the possible errors that my party may have committed while in government, they would do well to remember that it will only be a matter of time before much that they do is likely to be seen as erroneous—there are now clear signs that my party is moving towards a situation in which it begins to treat local authorities as grown up and responsible rather than as babes to be wrapped in the swaddling clothes of regulation. That is a rather important point of principle.
Clause 4 as drafted gives the Secretary of State immense power over individual local authorities at any and all times. We are not here discussing whether the Secretary of State should have power to intervene in emergency situations, or where services might be perceived to be breaking down, or indeed where there has been some tragic disaster perhaps in the social services field—the kind of thing which we have heard so often. Clause 4 of the Bill gives the Secretary of State power, by order, to specify performance indicators and, more significantly, performance standards for local authorities; different performance indicators or standards for different functions for different authorities to apply at different times. If the Secretary of State chooses to exercise the power, he can set a performance standard for an individual authority to apply tomorrow morning. The Minister may say that he would never do
504
such a thing and of course it is wholly unreasonable, but it is not impossible under the Bill. I know that the Secretary of State will act under conventions. However, even the most reasonable people sometimes behave unreasonably for what appear to them to be good reasons.
Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 set out simply to restrict somewhat—it is only to restrict somewhat—the power of the Secretary of State to specify different performance indicators and standards for different: functions and so on. If the amendment were accepted. individual local authorities would have less to fear from the possibility of irrational action from, say, a Secretary of State who happened to get out of bed on the wrong side one morning. That concept may be completely foreign to government but in my experience we are all human and occasionally we are susceptible to error.
Amendment No. 15 seeks to give an individual local authority the right to appeal against the application of a standard if it feels that the standard as specified by the Secretary of State in an order is unreasonable in its particular circumstances. This amendment is slightly different from the other three amendments in the group. I ask the Minister to consider this matter extremely carefully. It would of course be a gross exaggeration to say that a local authority's circumstances were infinitely variable. When all is said and done there are some 400 local authorities and there are probably another 400 authorities that might be considered to be best value authorities of one kind or another. The numbers are not significant in themselves and therefore to claim infinite variability would be, as I say, a gross exaggeration.
However, their circumstances are all different; their histories are different; their locations are different; their development over the years has been different; their patterns of investment in infrastructure, in buildings, in schools and so on are different; and so their financial circumstances are different. While I have a great deal of confidence in Secretaries of State, they are not omniscient and they cannot know every circumstance. I can conceive of circumstances in which a local authority feels that the application of a particular standard is unjust, even though the standard was set in good faith and in the light of the best information that the Secretary of State's civil servants could produce for him. I see that some of them are sitting in the Box; it is good to see them there. Amendment No. 15 seeks to give a local authority which finds itself in that situation the opportunity to go to the Secretary of State and say, "Please, in our particular circumstances this is unreasonable. Can we do something about it?" I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we explored in Grand Committee the question of different responses for different authorities. I had been concerned initially about the provisions in the Bill and I was very glad to have the Minister's assurance that the Secretary of State does not retain powers to discriminate. He specifically said that the Secretary of State does not have the open-ended power to pick and choose. As I say, although we were initially bothered about that matter, we were pleased to have that assurance.

505
As far as concerns Amendment No. 8, we support it in principle. I have more difficulty with Amendment No. 9, which would leave out paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 4(2). The subsection would then simply remain,
"An order may specify different performance indicators or standards".
As far as concerns Amendment No. 15, quite apart from the practicalities, we would rather keep the Secretary of State out of the workings of local authorities. We would not want to bring him in by way of appeal. We cannot support the noble Lord on Amendment No. 15.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will know that I do not hold him personally responsible for any of the policies of the previous regime. I am not one to crow over sinners that repenteth. The problem with his enunciation of the current position of the Conservative Party is that it has repented a little too much; it has moved away from the kind of Napoleonic centralisation of the previous regime to outflanking the Liberal Democrats in terms of local authority autonomy. Several noble Lords on this side of the House find that bewildering.
The Secretary of State needs subtle powers for the reason, in a sense, to which the noble Lord referred. Some mistakes will be made; we need therefore the powers to put such mistakes right. There will be some broad categorisations which will prove to be inappropriate; we will need to judge that. Hopefully we can judge it in advance, but if we do not have the flexibility to adjust we will not be able to tailor the whole framework to the delivery of best value. We need the powers and we need the flexibility.
These distinctions are not arbitrary. Distinctions could be made between authorities by different category—unitary authorities, district authorities and so on; by the various functional activities of the local authorities; or by different circumstances, such as sparse populations, island authorities and so on. Perhaps I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that this is not discrimination or cherry picking but sensible flexibility. It is important to help the Secretary of State tailor the performance measurement to the needs of best value authorities and their electorates. Taken as a whole, the amendments would completely remove the Secretary of State's ability to tailor a performance framework to take account of those different situations. They would take a major subtlety out of the best value regime we are trying to introduce.
I appreciate that the Conservative Party in its new mode would rather not have the powers at all. However, we consider that we need the powers, which should be operated with a degree of sophistication which past financial regimes of all parties have not had.
Amendment No. 15 refers to a formal appeals process, which, so far as I am aware, has not existed under any prior financial regime. It would bring the Secretary of State into making judgements in areas where that may not always be appropriate. It would give
506
him a quasi-judicial function in what is supposed to be an administrative system. Moreover, the iteration between the individual authorities, plus the flexibility of the powers, means that the Secretary of State has the flexibility to recognise particular situations. He is required under Clause 4(3) to consult before specifying performance indicators. That regime should give best value authorities and others the opportunity to comment before the proposed standard is laid down.
With that kind of partnership between the Government and local authorities, I do not believe that we need a formal appeals procedure. Allied to this, the flexibility provided under Clause 4(2)(a), (b) and (c), would mean that in exceptional circumstances the Secretary of State could specify a standard for only certain types of authority. That would meet the exceptional circumstances with which the appeal procedure was intended to deal. Introducing a formal appeal system into the Bill as distinct from an on-going partnership between local authorities and central government is unnecessarily bureaucratic and legalistic in an area where we are trying to introduce a new ethos. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I will study it with considerable care. I think he has probably answered me in a way which will satisfy me. The House will be pleased to hear that I may not therefore bring the matter back at Third Reading.
The Minister should beware that he is appearing now to be the Conservative in this matter. Time and thinking are moving on. Earlier today or yesterday there was a question on the Floor of the House in which the subject of subsidiarity arose. As is usually the case, it arose in relation to Scotland and Wales, but subsidiarity was always a relevant issue between Brussels and London. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, will recognise that a very long, unending and never satisfied debate existed between Westminster and local government. It was to address that particular subsidiarity that I brought forward the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 15 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Best value reviews]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 5, at end insert—
("() Any additional costs falling on an authority as a consequence of this section shall be included as an addition to the authority's Standard Spending Assessment in the subsequent financial year.")
The n oble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 16 seeks to ensure that the costs of the best value system incurred by local authorities are recognised for the purposes of calculating their revenue support grant through their standard spending assessment. We have pressed the Minister on the issue of the cost of the best value system. I accept that from the point of view of public expenditure overall there is not a problem. We can be reasonably confident that the savings which accrue as a result of the best value system will in fact

507
be greater than the costs. Therefore, from the point of public expenditure as a whole the sum of expenditure will not increase. That is fine when one calculates at the national level. But I am concerned about what will happen at the local authority level. There is no doubt that when best value is introduced in every authority costs will increase.
In a Written Answer, the Minister said that it was not a matter of concern. However, at the individual authority level it should be a matter of concern. The Minister also said in the Written Answer that the Government expected that as a result of the onset of the best value system they would he able to build in to the revenue support grant system a 2 per cent efficiency factor. We have all been used to efficiency factors in the past. They have been built in for a long time and, by golly, we have complained about them too. They do in fact drive efficiency. But a 2 per cent efficiency factor built in as a result of best value, which one has to assume might be in addition to other efficiency factors that are already in existence, implies a 2 per cent reduction annually in government funding. That is one adverse result at the local authority level. But the authority might experience a 1 per cent increase in costs as well because it has to administer the whole of this system. That would have a 3 per cent effect on the local authority's budget at the local level, and so would cause a great deal of difficulty.
From the public expenditure point of view, the system can do nothing but good. If one looks at the issue of local! government expenditure in overall] terms, again the system can do nothing but good. But at the individual authority level the effect might be perverse unless all these costs are properly taken into account in the revenue support grant system. The Minister could answer my point quite easily by giving me a sufficient assurance that that is what will happen. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too am concerned about the assumption that efficiency savings will be adequate to fund the best value work. Earlier today we dealt with the best value criteria. They cover not only economy and efficiency. We have talked about effectiveness meaning each authority achieving its objectives. Achieving certain of its objectives, though they may be worthy and be what the community would support, may carry a cost. The best value duty in Clause 3 recognises the different criteria. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand the concern in local government circles that the best value system will introduce costs, at least initially. However, it is not our assessment—I do not think it is local government's assessment either—that the costs would be disproportionate to the efficiency savings or that special provisions in the financial regime, which in general we are trying to move to a non-earmarked system, should be specifically earmarked for best value reviews and the introduction of best value systems.
The kind of efficiency gains that we are looking for—it does not have a direct read-across to the level of central government finance but is nevertheless 2 per cent—offers more than enough scope for any
508
up-front costs that are needed to introduce the best value regime. After that the regime should, as well as delivering non-financial benefits, be more than paid for by that. It is true that some costs will be entirely within the control of the individual authority. However, as I explained at an earlier stage, we are already taking steps to ensure that resources are made available to meet the costs of audit and inspection. My colleagues in another place have given a number of assurances that we intend to ensure that authorities are not financially penalised by that aspect of the best value framework. For instance, we have already explained that additional funding to meet the cost of inspections will come from the revenue support grant or from a direct grant to the Audit Commission to meet those costs. In so far as there is a differential impact between local authorities on costs over which they have no control, noble Lords already have that assurance.
As for reviews, reviews should be conducted in any case as part of the management system. What matters is that they produce the plans to deliver the continuous improvements so that we have a more efficient delivery of the objectives. Therefore, I do not think there is a need for a specific new grant to cover the cost of those reviews.
In many ways this amendment runs counter to the spirit of the best value ethos. I hope that on reflection the noble lord will not pursue it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply which goes some way towards meeting the points that I raised. I shall study with great care exactly what he said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwe Baroness Hamwe moved Amendment No. 17:
page 4, line 10, at end insert—
("() Nothing in such an order shall restrict the term of any contract let by an authority to perform any of its functions.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 17 proposes that nothing in an order made under Clause 5 covering best value reviews,
"shall restrict the term of any contract let by an authority to perform any of its functions".
I have tabled the amendment in order to seek an assurance from the Minister. Can he confirm that the five-yearly reviews will not mean that contracts cannot be let by authorities for more than five years if an authority considers that to be appropriate in the case of a particular contract. Some functions of an authority require considerable investment, both by the authority and by the contractors. For instance, dealing with waste and waste disposal are capital intensive functions. Contracts need to be structured on a fairly long-term basis.
A particular authority has drawn to my attention its concern about the continuing inherent tension between the Bill's requirement for regular periodic reviews of an authority's functions, and the benefits in some circumstances of letting contracts over a significant period of time in order to attain wider policy objectives.

509
Waste collection, as I mentioned, is one area that concerns the authority. IT procurement is another, where letting a contract for a longer period improves value for money. Contracts are usually let for at least five years and, I understand, in the case of this particular authority possibly much longer.
I am assured that most of the contracts in question include a requirement for a year-on-year quality improvement. In that sense, these services have in effect been "best valued" as part of the letting of the contract. If they have to be re-let under the terms of a best value review, as the Minister will well understand, the council will be likely to incur a heavy financial penalty for breaking the contract.
Those who have raised the point with me are not clear as to who would be responsible for paying the compensation claim. I am fairly clear that it would be the authority. I am not concerned only about contracts that may be in existence or which may be brought into existence in the future, but about each authority's ability to plan for the long term. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the amendment is unnecessary. As I have explained on previous occasions, our intention is that best value authorities should fundamentally review all functions over a five-year period to ensure that continuous improvements to all services are made. Reviews will involve challenging the way in which, and the level at which, the function is being exercised, comparing performance with other authorities and bodies, consulting local communities and assessing competitiveness.
The noble Baroness also raised an important issue relating to the review of service contracts. Whether a service is reviewed every year or every five years should not affect the term of the contract. Authorities are well aware of the need to build in appropriate flexibility to ensure that their arrangements secure continuous improvement and can be adapted to meet changing local and national priorities. To do otherwise would not achieve best value.
Orders made under Clause (5)(2) allow the Secretary of State to specify the time period within which best value authorities have to review all their functions. Such orders cannot in themselves restrict the term of any contract let by an authority. I do not believe that the amendment would work in quite the way that the noble Baroness intends; but I can in any case assure her that it is unnecessary, and I urge her to withdraw it.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I shall certainly withdraw the amendment at this stage because I want to read carefully what the Minister has said. In drawing attention to subsection (2) of Clause 5, she alerts me to the fact that an order can make different provision for different authorities and can require specified functions to be reviewed in specified financial years; but the subsection does not—although one might be able to read
510
the point across from other provisions, a point that we shall have to examine—state that the order may make different provision for different functions. We shall want to consider the point carefully. I believe that the Minister takes the point that I have been making. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Inspections]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 8, line 25, at end insert ("and inform the authority concerned")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 10 gives the Secretary of State power to order a best value inspection by the Audit Commission under what might be described as emergency circumstances. In establishing such an emergency inspection, the Secretary of State "shall consult the Commission" before giving a direction. I believe that the Secretary of State should also inform the authority concerned.
In reality, it is probably inconceivable that one would arrive at this situation without the authority knowing that it was in trouble. I do not think it would be surprised. I suspect that such a direction would arise at the end of a year or two, or even as many as five years, of descent in satisfaction with the administration of a service. But as the Secretary of State is obliged to consult the commission before establishing a special review, it would not be unreasonable to require him at the same time to inform the authority concerned formally that that was going on. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as we discussed in Committee, I recognise that generally speaking it is important for authorities to know when they are to be inspected. However, we believe Amendment No. 8 to be unnecessary and undesirable, as it would constrain the Secretary of State's ability to act swiftly to investigate a seriously poor-performing authority.
For routine planned inspections as provided for in Clause (1)(1), it would be sensible working practice for the authority about to be subjected to inspection not only to be informed but also to be consulted about timing. That will help to prevent duplication of effort by inspectors and will avoid authorities being subject to too many inspection visits at a time, and will ensure that key personnel are on hand to assist in the process.
In most instances, in the interests of inspector and inspected alike, authorities will also be notified in good time of inspections directed by the Secretary of State. Sometimes, however, where serious failure has occurred, inspectors may be asked to act swiftly to gather evidence in order to establish facts and identify problems. If vulnerable members of the community may be at risk, we need to ensure that the system can work effectively to uncover the problem so that it can be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Placing a requirement on the face of the Bill that a notification be given before a directed inspection is ordered would therefore place an unnecessary restriction on the flexibility of the Secretary of State to respond quickly where such urgent investigation is needed.

511
In addition, the Bill already provides under Clause 11 that inspectors themselves should give authorities three days' working notice of the actual inspection. That should be sufficient to ensure that, even in the most urgent of cases, a proper balance is struck between the need to achieve prompt scrutiny in the interests of people who may be vulnerable and the need properly to protect the interests of the authority and its employees. I hope that that reassurance will encourage the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. It gives me some solace. I shall need to study it with care. I find it somewhat fascinating that informing the local authority—which, after all, takes no more than a telephone call—might actually constrain the powers of the Secretary of State. If that is all it takes to constrain the powers of the Secretary of State—which were the words of the noble Baroness—I must phone him more often. I believe that that would be an excellent thing to do.
When one considers vulnerable people in particular, certainly nothing that I say is intended to reduce the power to carry out such investigations, properly examine the position and put right whatever is wrong. But where there are really urgent cases—it must be faced that in the past some have arisen—almost invariably they are likely to give rise to criminal investigations, which are probably already under way by the time we get to this procedure. I find that reason for rejecting this particular amendment somewhat strange. However, I undertake to study carefully what has been said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Inspectors' powers and duties]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 9, line 1, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (4A),")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 19 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 20 and 21. Amendment No. 19 is a paving amendment. Amendment No. 20 provides that normally notice of at least 28 days will be given before an inspector goes in. Amendment No. 21 provides for extraordinary inspections where shorter notice of not less than three days, which is the notice provided in the Bill, will be given.
We were assured in Committee that the provision giving three days' notice would be used very rarely. The Minister said it was,
"anticipated that the period of such notice will normally be greater not only than the three days set out in Clause 11 but also than the 10 days proposed by Amendment No. 61 ".—[Official Report, 5/99; col. CWH 63.]
That was the amendment I then moved. She went on to say that the provision in Clause 11 mirrored the conditions for extraordinary audit in Section 25(4) of the Audit Commission Act 1998. That tempted me to look up the section. As the Minister said, the section provides for three days' notice but explicitly where the Secretary of State considers it desirable that, essentially, short notice should be given.
The provisions that I seek to include in the Bill now mean that normally at least 28 days' notice will be given. That picks up the point that more than my previously suggested 10 days' notice would be given. The new subsection (4A) in Amendment No. 21 mirrors Section 25(2) of the 1998 Act, which provides:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State that it is desirable in the public interest that there should be an extraordinary audit of the accounts of a body subject to audit he may require the Commission to direct such an audit by an auditor or auditors appointed by it".
The section contains particular provisions that apply to an extraordinary audit. I have attempted to reflect that approach in these amendments. I believe that it would be appropriate for the meaning of the Bill to he more detailed rather than allow for very draconian powers to be used which, by common consent, will not be applied in ordinary circumstances. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as I explained in discussing the previous amendment, we consider that the minimum notice period of three days currently set out in Clause 11 will ensure that a proper balance is struck between the need to achieve prompt scrutiny and the need properly to protect the interest of best value authorities and their employees.
It may help to reassure the noble Baroness if I explain that the intention of subsection (4) is not to fix the amount of notice at three days—I believe that that has become clear at Report stage—but merely to specify the minimum period which can be given. We anticipate that significantly more than the 28 days' notice specified in Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 will normally be given to the authority being inspected.
However, we believe that the question of a standard period of notice to inspect authorities is an important one. The Audit Commission is currently looking at the question of notice periods as part of the process of setting up the new best value inspectorate. It will be taking into account the current practice of existing inspectorates and opinions such as those expressed in the recent Work of Ofsted report issued by the Education and Employment Committee in another place. This report also suggested a notice period of 28 days. The noble Baroness will be aware that existing inspectorates have quite different notice periods, from the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate at three months through to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary at six months and the Fire Service inspectorate at 12 weeks.
We envisage that very short periods of notice will be needed only in extreme cases, for example, those where there is serious failure or where an authority has not responded to a normal notice of inspection. In such cases, the ability to move quickly will be invaluable. Clause 11 as drafted provides an appropriate mechanism to achieve this. I hope that, reassured by these comments, the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press her amendments.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am not entirely sure that the Minister's response has taken the matter a great deal further. The noble Baroness spoke of the importance of a standard period of notice. It seems to

513
me that if the legislation provides for three clear days' notice—I accept that that is a minimum and that generally, in normal circumstances, much longer notice will be given—and it is known that very often it will be far longer than that, that goes against providing a standard.
The Minister spoke of the need to deal with extreme cases. I believe that that is precisely what Amendment No. 21 does. I have followed as closely as I can the language of the Audit Commission Act. I shall not press the point further; it would be tedious to do so now. However, while I am reassured by the thrust of the Minister's response, I am not satisfied that best value authorities have the protection that they are entitled to see on the face of this legislation as to what the normal situation will be. Only the abnormal and extreme appears to be catered for. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
INSPECTIONS: HOUSING BENEFIT AND COUNCIL TAX BENEFIT
(" .—(1) The following shall be substituted for section 139A(1) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (reports on administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit)—
"(1) The Secretary of State may authorise persons to consider and report to him on the administration by authorities of housing benefit and council tax benefit.
2) The Secretary of State may ask persons authorised under subsection (1) to consider in particular—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments in this group are technical and clarify the position. The new clause in government Amendment No. 22 is designed to put the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's powers on a clear statutory footing. The inspectorate's work on
514
the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit is very much in keeping with the whole ethos of best value. But the existing powers are described in very specific, rather than general, terms. By the new clause we wish to make absolutely sure that this very important area of local authority work is subject to the same best value scrutiny as will exist elsewhere.
Amendment No. 30 provides an opportunity to commence certain provisions promptly where it is sensible or helpful to do so. They will ensure that there can be, if necessary, early commencement of provisions relating to police and fire authorities in both England and Wales.
Amendment No. 33 will ensure that Clause 28(2)(b) correctly identifies those provisions which confer powers which have been reserved to the Secretary of State and which will not be exercisable by the National Assembly for Wales. It therefore adds two new references to Clause 28(2)(b). The first makes provision for inspection and other arrangements in respect of police authorities. The second reflects the new clause included in Amendment No. 22 as regards inspection of council tax benefit administration and housing benefit administration. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Secretary of State's powers]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 10, line 16, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 24, among others. They have been introduced to make a technical change to Clause 14. They would have the effect of making what was Clause 14(2)(d) a free-standing section. Your Lordships will note that the wording of the new provision remains identical to the original and does not extend the powers of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales in any way. The amendment has been brought forward simply to clarify the scope of the existing provisions.
Amendment No. 26 is also in this group and it is a slightly more complex matter. I mentioned at Committee stage that we had identified a number of situations where the exercise of Clause 14(5) powers by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales might cause difficulties in cases where there was a right of recourse to the Secretary of State or where he had an existing role or power in relation to a best value authority.
Amendment No. 26 is designed to clarify the operation of the clause in those situations and addresses this problem by introducing two new subsections to Clause 14.
I would like to emphasise that the circumstances to which this provision would apply are exceedingly rare. We have always maintained that intervention under Clause 14(5), where the Secretary of State takes over responsibility for a function, would be the exception and not the norm and that it would be to address the very worst failure in service delivery. In the handful of cases where a direction is issued under Clause 14(5) we envisage that in most cases the Secretary of State would

515
not exercise the function himself but would appoint an independent person to carry out that function. Where a nominee was appointed that nominee would in most cases be considered independent from the Secretary of State and the difficulties outlined above in relation to the Secretary of State's powers would not arise.
However, although the circumstances in which these provisions would be necessary are very rare, this amendment is essential for ensuring the proper functioning of this clause in al] circumstances. Amendment No. 26 is not about increasing the powers of the Secretary of State or of the National Assembly. It is about ensuring that existing powers and roles can continue to be exercised in a sensible way. When the Secretary of State takes over a function he is doing so on behalf of local people to ensure that a higher standard of service is delivered. Local people's rights of appeal, therefore, and other such entitlements should not be compromised to enable that to happen.
Amendment No. 35 is also in this group. It is a technical amendment to ensure that the new regulatory powers we have proposed to introduce at subsection 14(5A)(a) can be used effectively in Wales. Amendment No. 31 is another technical amendment. Subsection 27(2.) lists those order-making and regulatory powers which, in England, should be subject to the negative resolution procedure in either House of Parliament. Amendment No. 31 adds the new regulatory power in Amendment No. 26 to the list about which I have just spoken. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 10, line 25, at end insert —
("() Where this section applies in relation to an authority the Secretary of State may direct the authority to take any action which he considers necessary or expedient to secure its compliance with the requirements of this Part.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 10. line 26, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 27. These amendments deal with the powers of intervention of the Secretary of State in Clause 14. We made no secret at Committee of our distaste for that and particular elements of it.
The first of the amendments leaves out subsection (5), which is the provision allowing the Secretary of State to put in a nominee to exercise certain functions or to take them over himself, which I guess is a less likely scenario. If that were so, trying to get the Secretary of State on the telephone would become well nigh impossible. It also provides that the authority will comply with the Secretary of State's instructions or those of his nominee, in relation to the exercise of certain functions.
We protested about that provision at Committee stage and it is appropriate to do so on the Floor of the House. We were told then by the Minister that the powers would be exercised sparingly, but that in a sense this
516
provision is the teeth of the Bill because of its deterrent powers. We protest again because of the principle of democratic accountability. We deplore the trend which became increasingly apparent under the previous government—sadly, we see similar tendencies now——to centralise or at any rate to provide very substantial reserve powers to central government to the detriment of the powers and autonomy of democratically elected local authorities.
We accept that there may be some very particular occasions when things go so badly wrong at local level that on any view matters need to be taken out of the hands of the local authority. An example is when abuse comes to light in a children's home. I believe that such matters are dealt with by other legislation particularly by criminal legislation.
Clause 14(1) applies this provision when the Secretary of State is satisfied that the best value authority is failing to comply with the Act. Reference was made at the previous stage to the protocol. I do not know whether there is a draft of it as yet which does so, but it will set out the step by step application of increasingly vigorous measures to deal with an authority. It will begin with the not so tough measures before moving up to direct intervention. As I say, I do not believe there is a draft yet providing a hierarchy. The Minister may correct me on that.
The draft protocol has been published. Its appendix provides for failure of process and of substance, which are examples of triggers which would allow intervention powers. It seems to us that the failures which are listed are capable of being so minor that for the Bill to allow them to be triggered with such major powers seems quite unbalanced. I shall refer to just a couple in the failures of substance. There is the failure to improve service standards or deterioration. Failure to improve could be a very minor failure and barely deserve such a term in normal parlance. Under the list of failures of process, there is the failure to set performance targets which, in the opinion of the external auditor, are sufficiently challenging. It seems inappropriate to permit these extreme powers. Clearly, there will be differences of opinion as to whether the performance targets are sufficiently challenging. One may say that the degree of challenge within the targets is outside legislation.
We believe that it is for the electorate to respond to an authority not being quite as good as it should be—which is what some of the failures amount to. The Government have proposals for annual elections. Those opportunities for the electorate to express its views may leave some of us feeling that we have barely recovered from one election before being faced with the next. In summary, that is our objection to Clause 14(5).
Amendment No. 27 deals with the urgency provisions. Under Clause 14(8) the Secretary of State is able to give directions without complying with the provisions which require him to give the authority opportunities to make representations. There is no requirement to have regard to an authority's statement if he considers the direction is "sufficiently urgent." We are concerned about the lack of criteria on the face of the Bill and in the draft protocol as drafted as to what constitutes urgency.
When we discussed the matter in Grand Committee, the Minister was not satisfied that the amendment was appropriate. It referred to immediate danger of substantial harm or substantial financial loss. He made the point that financial loss could be long term. He believed that the provision was over rigid and wanted to be more flexible. I take issue on that. If the Secretary of State can set aside the provisions in Clause 14(6) and (7), it suggests to me and my noble friends that the criteria should not be flexible. To suggest that they could be flexible or variable is wrong.
For their own reputation, as well as for other more principled matters, the Government must spell out "sufficiently urgent." To leave the matter to the Secretary of State's discretion without the words being put on paper to describe what is sufficiently urgent does not achieve what the Government and those of us who provide constructive criticism of this part of the Bill should achieve. To that extent, I align myself with the Government because, if we have to have this provision, I want to get it right. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate the way in which the noble Baroness proposes the amendment. However, there is a fundamental disagreement between us on the first part. We believe that the full effect of the best value regime will be available only if there are ultimately some deterrent powers. The noble Baroness refers to my colleague's earlier commitments that those powers will be used only in proportion to the failure established and that the more extreme powers will be used only after attempting to deal with it in a different way and only in the very worst circumstances. The powers would rarely be used and only after other options had been fully explored.
There is a difficulty. The noble Baroness does not accept that we need these powers. However, we believe that we do. There may be evidence in future of serious and long term systemic failure where an authority has conspicuously failed to act despite having been given several opportunities to do so and following other forms of intervention. I am sure that the ultimate power would be relevant to only a handful of cases, but if we do not have it those cases may persistently obstruct other forms of assistance. In those cases, we shall need to take the difficult decision, including the decision to intervene with the direct provision of that service. However, as our White Paper indicated, in those circumstances we should need to have the power for,
"responsibility to be transferred to another authority or third party".
The provisions contained in Clause 14(5) may never be necessary. I hope that they will never need to be used. However, to remove them from the face of the Bill would undermine the best value concept and take away the ultimate means of ensuring that it is enforced in all cases. I believe that in practice the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales would have a range of options available to it before it reached that stage. It is to be hoped that the local authorities would respond to those other interventions. But at the end of the day the
518
Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales have to have these powers. I cannot, therefore, accept the amendment and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Amendment No. 27 deals with intervention powers in cases of urgency. The noble Baroness recognises that there may be such situations and we need some provision to deal with these wholly exceptional circumstances. As she indicated, we are in the process of producing a protocol on intervention in conjunction with the LGA which will set out the principles underpinning intervention and the broad procedures to be followed. It will clarify the provisions contained in the Bill and will contain, as the noble Baroness asks, an agreed definition of the circumstances in which we envisage the fast track procedures would be used. We consider that it is better to lay out what she has said is desirable in terms of definition of circumstances in a protocol because we are in a rapidly changing situation and in a new form of regime. We do not believe it is necessary, or indeed that we are able, to lay that out on the face of the Bill which introduces that regime. The protocol will state clearly that the fast-track procedures would be used only in exceptional circumstances where the severity, the urgency or the persistency of failure or the continuing risk of harm or financial loss show that urgent intervention is necessary.
It is noteworthy that the wording of the noble Baronesses' amendment does not include the whole of the wording that is in the protocol. It would exclude the situation where the Secretary of State could use the fast-track procedures to address persistent and systemic failure where the local authority has failed to take action. I would not regard that as a helpful restriction on what we have already agreed, or almost agreed, with the Local Government Association in the protocol context. I think it takes away a power to intervene in continuous defiance of the whole objectives of "best value" from the Secretary of State or from the national assembly.
Therefore I would hope that the noble Baroness would recognise the desirability of proceeding via the protocol, an approach which meets many of the objectives she has spelt out in relation to the fast-track procedure, rather than attempting to lay down provisions on the face of the Bill. She should also recognise that the exact words she is suggesting do not meet the range of circumstances which are already envisaged, in partnership with the local authorities, as being included in the protocol still in draft.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with regard to Clause 14(5), I accept that the Government believe they need the powers. As for Clause 14(8), one of the criticisms is that my amendment does not allow the Secretary of State to address systemic failure. Since this is the fast-track procedure and systemic failure, by definition, is not something which springs up overnight and becomes suddenly and obviously urgent, I think it is entirely right that the Secretary of State should not be able to apply the urgency provisions in such a case. The

519
only reason he might want to take urgent action in the case of systemic failure would be if he noticed at a rather late stage that the failure existed.
With regard to the protocol—and I am glad to note the Minister's assurance—I wonder whether, with the leave of the House, he could tell us when the further draft will be available with the definition for the fast-track procedure. It would be helpful to the House if we could know tonight if the draft might be available soon——and at any rate in connection with this point—before Third Reading. This is a matter with which we on these Benches are particularly concerned. If the Minister is not able to tell me tonight, may I ask him to write to me?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not immediately able to give an indication about the draft tonight. It is already widely available in local government circles, but I am not able to give a date for the final version. I will write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 10, line 35, at end insert
("(5A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision which—

(a) relates to an enactment which confers a function on him in respect of a function of a best value authority, and

(b) he considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of cases in which he makes a direction under subsection (51(a).

(5B) Regulations under subsection (5A) may, in relation to the cases mentioned in subsection (5A)(b)—

(a) disapply or modify an enactment of the kind mentioned in subsection (5A)(a);

(b) have an effect similar to the effect of an enactment of that kind.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 26 formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Power to modify enactments and confer new powers]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 11, line 13, after ("enactment") insert ("made before the passage of this Act")
The noble Lord: My Lords, Clause 15 of the Bill begins:
"If the Secretary of State thinks that an enactment prevents or obstructs compliance by best value authorities with the requirements of this Part he may by order make provision modifying or excluding the application of the enactment in relation to those authorities".
It goes on:
"The Secretary of State may by order make provision conferring on best value authorities any power which he considers necessary or expedient to permit or facilitate compliance with the requirements of this Part".
520
Those are very sweeping powers indeed over all legislation. The first amendment that I have put down in relation to this clause, Amendment No. 28, is grouped with Amendment No. 29, which I will come to in a moment. It puts a minor restriction on this particular power in that the Secretary of State would only be able to apply the power to legislation which is presently in place. In other words, new legislation coming in the future will not be able to have this power applied to it. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition. There may well be existing circumstances and laws which could rightly require to be set aside for best value to work well. Anyone who has been involved in local government will know of individual circumstances which already exist here and there, where the ability to make use of this power will indeed be welcome. To that extent it is good, but the power is so wide in its present application that some restriction on it would perhaps be desirable.
That is why I also tabled Amendment No. 29. which limits the application of this particular clause to five years. If we have not found out what the problems are and where the shoe pinches within five years of passing this Bill, it will be remarkable. It will be even more remarkable if some ambitious Secretary of State's department as it presently exists, or whatever its successor department may be, has not by then decided to pass some other local government Bill which then might supersede this one. That being so, it is not unreasonable to put a time limit on the application of this clause. In any event, it will have the wholly beneficial effect of concentrating people's minds so that, should there be issues which they feel are worth exploring because the shoe of existing legislation pinches too tightly, they will raise them within a reasonable timescale.
It is with those thoughts in mind that these amendments were put down on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendment No. 28 will prevent the Secretary of State from amending local authorities' powers in respect of future legislation. We recognise that this amendment reflects a concern about how far we intend to amend existing legislation so as to enable local authorities to deliver best value. The paper produced by the department on possible uses of this clause indicates to some extent the sort of legislative changes that may be necessary. We are now developing that thinking and will be consulting on our proposals later this summer.
We recognise that we are in a changing world, and despite our best efforts it will not always be possible to forecast those changes. We feel that future Secretaries of State must have powers to tackle changing circumstances. Amendment No. 28 would unduly fetter their hands. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will feel able to withdraw that amendment.

521
The noble Lord also moved Amendment No. 29 which reflects concern about the use of Clause 15 powers. He may consider a five-year period a sufficient time to change legislation, and that within that period it will quickly become clear which changes are necessary.
However, his argument does not take account of the sort of regime which we expect to emerge for delivering best value to local communities. We expect best value authorities to develop new forms of service delivery with others, including the private and voluntary sectors. Such new ways of working will not spring up immediately after local authorities have their new duty of best value from 1st April 2000. Indeed, they may not become apparent for some years; for example, advances in information technology will not suddenly stop in 2005. There will be an incremental process as many partner organisations implement new ways of working. The time limit proposed by the noble Lord would create unnecessary pressure. A finite period may not allow us to identify current as well as future barriers. It could also encourage authorities and others to seek immediate legislative solutions to perceived problems. Amendment No. 29 could prevent partnerships from evolving naturally at a time during which difficulties could emerge and hopefully be resolved without the need for legislative changes.
We believe that it is better to have sufficient time to identify correctly the problems and to develop effective administrative or legislative solutions over the full lifetime of best value. When the power under Clause 15 is needed, it will be used to improve authorities' ability to achieve best value. That may be at any point when this duty is in force. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not press this amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the Minister's response and she made some interesting points. However, I am afraid that I can envisage a situation in which one might conclude that the most efficient way of delivering best value might be to remove all legal constraints from local authorities and let them get on with it. But I suppose that it would be a little too idealistic to conceive that any government would give local authorities that degree of freedom.
However, the Greater London Authority Bill is going through this House and it has within it the power of general competence. It is possible to conceive that in the not too distant future we shall be passing a Bill through this House, which I and the noble Baroness would welcome, giving local authorities the power of general competence. If that were to occur the need for Clause 15 might disappear. It is not impossible to conceive of such a situation, but I shall study the Minister's response with great interest and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Commencement]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 16, line 23, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
522
("(2) The Secretary of State may by order provide for—

(a) any of sections 1 to 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22. 24 and 25 to be brought into force in relation to England before the time appointed by subsection (1);

(b) any of those sections, in so far as it relates to an authority falling within section 1(1)(d) or (e), to be brought into force in relation to Wales before that time;

(c) any of sections (Inspections: housing benefit and council tax benefit), 15 to 17 and 23 to be brought into force before that time.

(3) The National Assembly for Wales may by order provide for any of the sections mentioned in subsection (2)(a), except in so far as it relates to an authority falling within section 1(1)(d) or (e), to be brought into force in relation to Wales before the time appointed by subsection (1).")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Orders]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 16, line 35, at end insert ("14 or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Modifications for Wales]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 17, line 1, after ("2(6),") insert ("15(4),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may recall that during the Grand Committee's considerations of this Bill I expressed my concern about the obscure way in which the provisions relating to Wales were drafted in Clause 28. I was pleased to see in the Health Bill, which was debated today, that in Clause 59 progress had been made and a greater degree of clarification obtained. There is a long way to go, but the parliamentary draftsmen are working along the right lines.
Clause 28 excludes the National Assembly for Wales from exercising any powers under Clauses 15 and 16. Your Lordships will recall that those clauses give to the Secretary of State the power to amend primary legislation by order by means of secondary legislation, which is subject to the affirmative procedures in this Parliament. What is the purpose of giving these extensive powers to the Secretary of State? It is said to be flexibility. In an article written in Public Finance on 5th March, the Local Government Housing Minister, Miss Hilary Armstrong, stated:
"No one can claim to know or even understand all the ways in which Best Value might be achieved and developed over the coming years. For example, significant developments in technology, in customer preferences and in business methods are likely to transform the way services are provided and delivered in future years. There will be new ways of working, new forms of partnership and new standards to meet as public services continue to modernise. The last thing councils need is primary legislation written now in a way that would need further primary legislation to update it year after year. Also, the numerous small-scale measures that will be appropriate locally would never be appropriate for a national legislative programme. It is only by providing flexibility of legislative response that we can assure flexibility in local delivery".
I ask the Government to pause and consider that that flexibility, that legislative response, is one of the reasons that has caused this Government to introduce the Government of Wales Bill to set up the National Assembly for Wales. It is right for the National

523
Assembly to consider these changes which are hardly the subject matter for primary legislation in the Westminster Parliament.
What is the reason for excluding the National Assembly from exercising these powers? I strongly suspect that it was because there was a fear that Ministers should not grant any primary legislative powers to Wales. The whole ethos of the National Assembly for Wales as opposed to that of Scotland is that its powers are limited to the passing of secondary legislation.
If we look at the National Assembly for Wales Transfer of Functions Order, which comes into force on 1st July, and with which I was concerned in its passage through this House, there are no less than 100 functions passed to the National Assembly for Wales to amend, repeal or modify primary legislation. It is already within the power of the National Assembly to modify primary legislation so why not within the circumstances of this Bill?
The Government have been asked this question and have given no reason. Miss Armstrong said, in Standing Committee B in another place on 11th February:
"The power to make orders which have an effect in relation to Wales will be exercised by the Secretary of State for Wales. That is because we do not think it appropriate to confer these powers on the National Assembly for Wales. Of course, where the Secretary of Stale for Wales exercises his powers under Clause 15 there will be full consultation with the Assembly".
The only reason that the Government have given for withholding these important and extensive powers from the National Assembly is, "We do not think it appropriate". I should like to know why it is not appropriate.
Let us pursue that a little further. Why is it that the Secretary of State for Wales alone is to exercise these powers? This was a matter I raised in Grand Committee. In a very courteous reply to me, the noble Lord, Lord Whiny, pointed out that the precise identity of the Secretary of State who operates powers under this legislation in practice will vary from case to case according to circumstances. As nobody envisages how this legislation is to be changed, I cannot see why the Secretary of State for Wales should be designated as the person to exercise powers under Clauses 15 and 16 as opposed to the many other ministers who may be concerned in the various points that arise from time to time.
There is confusion, a lack of clarity and, I suspect, simply a lack of thought as to the function of the National Assembly, as to why the powers are withheld and how they are to be operated.
I turn to the amendments. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34 and 36. Amendment No. 34 gives the Assembly the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to Clauses 15 and 16. Amendment No. 32 removes the parliamentary procedures for Assembly orders under Clause 15. Amendment No. 36 sets out what is proposed as alternative assembly procedures, how the National Assembly for Wales would exercise these powers to amend legislation if the best value provisions are found to need that sort of amendment.
I do not propose to seek a vote on this issue tonight but I ask the Government to consider carefully the points that I have made. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important and complex issue, because of his breadth of knowledge of the subject. As a Whip, I am aware of the depth of detail he followed during the passage of the Bill establishing the National Assembly. Should I fail to answer any of the details he raised, I shall write to him and send copies to all noble Lords who have been present and taken part in the debate. I know it is unusual to start with that, but in the light of the depth of knowledge of the noble Lord, I felt safer doing so.
Clause 28 makes provision for the application of Part I of the Bill in Wales. It provides generally for powers in Part I of the Bill to be exercised by the National Assembly rather than the Secretary of State. However, the clause gives some powers to the Secretary of State rather than to the Assembly. These include the powers to modify primary legislation contained within Clauses 15 and 16 which are the subject of Amendments Nos. 32, 34 and 36. These amendments would give the order-making powers in Clauses 15 and 16 to the National Assembly rather than to the Secretary of State in relation to their application in Wales. They would also provide for these orders to be subject to the Assembly's procedures for making secondary legislation rather than to parliamentary procedures.
Clauses 15 and 16 provide for potentially wide-ranging powers to modify primary legislation and for orders made under these powers to be subject to rigorous scrutiny procedures. This Government feel strongly that the order-making powers in Clause 15 should be exercised by Ministers accountable to Parliament and that it would not be appropriate for these powers to be given to the National Assembly. We also consider that orders under Clause 15 should be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament in relation to their application in England and Wales. Clause 15 provides for this and we do not believe that these procedures, which are set out in Clause 16, should be different for Wales.
While we recognise that the Assembly's procedures for making secondary legislation are rigorous, the Government are strongly of the view that all orders made under Clause 15 should be subject to the stringent scrutiny provided for by Clause 16. However, the Bill builds in safeguards for the National Assembly. Clause 28 provides that the Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Assembly about using his powers under Clause 15 to modify primary legislation which has effect in relation to Wales. It also provides that the Secretary of State may not use his powers under Clause 15 to modify secondary legislation made by the Assembly itself without its explicit agreement.
The provisions in Clauses 15 and 16 are consistent with the principles of devolution in that the powers to modify primary legislation are retained by the Secretary of State and are subject to parliamentary procedures,

525
while recognising and protecting the position of the National Assembly. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press these amendments.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I have already indicated that it is not necessary to take this matter to a vote. But let me state this as a matter of principle. The National Assembly in relation to Welsh matters is a far better instrument for scrutiny provided by the Government of the day, with the grateful thanks of the Welsh nation, than the affirmative or negative resolutions of Westminster. Anybody who sits in this House knows just what sort of safeguard those procedures actually are in practice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, if Amendment No. 33 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 34; it will have been pre-empted.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 17, line 4, leave out ("sections 15 to 17 or section 26") and insert ("any of sections (Inspections: housing benefit and council tax benefit), 15 to 17. 23 and 26")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 17, line 10, at end insert —
("() Section 14(5A)(a) shall apply to Wales as if the reference to a function conferred on the Secretary of State were a reference to a function conferred on the National Assembly for ales or the Secretary of State; but the Assembly may not make regulations under section I4(5A) which relate to a function conferred on the Secretary of State without his approval.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Limitation of council tax and precepts]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 17, line 16, at end insert—
("(2A) Schedule I shall cease to have effect on 1st April 2005 unless previously extended by order made by statutory instrument and laid in draft before, and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(2B) An order laid under subsection (2A) shall not apply for a period exceeding five years.
(2C) If an order laid pursuant to subsection (2A) is approved, Schedule I shall cease to have effect on the date specified in the order subject to any subsequent order or orders approved by both Houses of Parliament none of which shall extend its effect for more than five years.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 38 and 40, which are tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Miller. This grouping also contains Amendment No. 39 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. With these amendments we move to the question of council tax capping and the substantive amendment in this group, although the Minister may think that knocking out Clauses 29 and Schedule 1 is
526
pretty substantive. However, the point I want to address in particular is what one might call the sunset clause which, at this time of night, is perhaps appropriate.
We have received assurances that the capping powers retained by the Secretary of State in respect of local authority expenditure are very much reserve powers, but we have made no secret of the fact that we are against capping. If any powers are to be retained, we want to test how necessary they are. We are moving into a regime for local authorities of best value and increasingly, as I have said several times this evening, of partnership. It is possible that there may well be new experiences over the next few years.
At the last stage of the proceedings, the Government said that they were not confident that their modernisation programme would be completed by the year 2005, which was when we proposed that the provisions for capping should sink without trace and with no possibility of being continued. On reading that comment, it seems to me that that may imply that local authorities are dependent on central government to modernise. I do not think that that is so; indeed, we all know of examples where local authorities are very much making the running and are doing some very admirable things. Although the extent to which we admit it may vary, we all know that the concern is about a limited number of rather old-fashioned authorities. I have said before in another context that I think it is a matter for the electorate to decide the way that it responds to such authorities.
In Amendment No. 37 we propose that the capping provisions should cease to have effect after 2005 unless they have been extended by affirmative resolution of both Houses; in other words, the testing of whether the reserve powers are necessary will be a matter for Parliament. The proposed subsections (2B) and (2C) would provide for a rolling five-yearly extension, if necessary. It seems to me that it would be illogical in the year 2005 to allow the powers to be extended without limit. Therefore, I have simply sought to replicate the five-year provision.
I believe that the existence of the capping powers itself constrains what local authorities want to do and not in a positive or helpful fashion. The very impact of the threat of a cap can constrain innovation and good practice. I think we are all agreed that best value is not necessarily cheapest value. We all seek good value for money but that may not be achieved by the expenditure of the lowest amount. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, Amendment No. 39, which is included in this grouping, would of course be a trifle unnecessary if the House were to take a decision at some point to accept Amendment No. 40. However, having said that, my amendment was tabled to give me the opportunity, so to speak, to explore the mind of the Secretary of State through the words of the Minister sitting opposite on one or two matters.
The first and most simple one is the issue of whose view is the most important as regards local expenditure and the budget of local authorities. Is it the view of the Secretary of State, or should it not rather be that of the

527
local electorate, provided always, of course, that they have no power to commit the Secretary of State's expenditure? That is an important proviso.
Recently, it was drawn to our attention that a local referendum was held in, I believe, Milton Keynes. The local community voted for a particular level of precept increase. Nonetheless they were issued with a "yellow card" warning by the Secretary of State; they were told in effect that they might be going too far and that any further misbehaviour might result in a "red card." That may be the way the system works but I wish to explore why that is so. In the great, wide macro-economic world I have long held the view that current expenditure is current expenditure whether it is undertaken by a local authority or by private individuals. If the council tax rises, all that happens to the volume of current expenditure is that private individuals spend less and the public authority spends more. The impact on macro-economic expenditure is neutral.
That has been a belief for which I have not had supporting evidence in the past. However, I now have in my hands a paper which supports that view. The paper is written by Mr Peter Watt, senior lecturer in economics at the Department of Local Government Studies, University of Birmingham, and by Mr John Fender, professor of economics at the same university. The study was commissioned by the Local Government Management Board.
I shall not bore the House with all the details of the report as that would take an interminably long time. It would be unbearably rude to do so at this hour of the night. However, it may be worthwhile drawing attention to the beginning and the end of the document. It starts by saying that there is a tension with regard to local expenditure,
"between a desire to remove control and a desire to retain it".
The study states that that,
"is evident in the drafting of the Comprehensive Spending Review".
That is a well-established and well-known document. The study continues,
"Crude and universal capping will no longer constrain local government finance. But…the Government will protect people from excessive council tax increases…Given this strong desire to retain controls over expenditure, it might be expected that there are strong macroeconomic arguments to support such controls. However, this briefing paper argues that this is not the case".
As one would expect of a good academic paper, the study describes the arguments for, and the arguments against the measure. The study concludes:
"We have surveyed a range of arguments for central control of locally financed local government expenditure put forward by the Treasury firstly to the Layfield Committee and in subsequent years. The overall conclusion from this paper is that the government has not established sound macroeconomic arguments for the control it has imposed over many years on local government self-financed expenditure".
That is an interesting paper to read in view of my prejudice. Therefore I would like to explore with the Minister why he believes that the Secretary of State—I understand entirely why he should wish to support him—has right on his side in feeling that his opinion in these matters has greater validity than that of the locals who will have to pay the bill.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches share the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. In the light of all that has been said about public consultation and how best value will move authorities much further towards delivering the kind of things their communities wish, and for all the reasons that the noble Lord has said, this amendment is very much in line with that objective.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, some interesting matters have been raised in the debate. As to the Liberal amendments—the Liberal Democrat amendments—Amendment No. 37 is a sunset clause which would end the powers in 2005. One could probably term Amendments Nos. 38 and 40 as total eclipse clauses; they wipe out the powers entirely.
It is probably too late at night for me to discuss principles of public finance and macro economics with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, much as I would like to do so. At one level he makes an arguable point; no doubt the papers will illuminate that.
Both financially and politically it is very important to recognise that even locally financed expenditure by local government has an impact on the national taxpayer and that the national government have a responsibility to protect the local taxpayer. We take both responsibilities seriously. We believe therefore that we must have reserve powers in that regard. We do not believe that, in extreme circumstances, national government should be without powers to constrain an increase in the local taxpayers' burden. We obviously expect and hope that all local authorities will behave sensibly and prudently; that is why we have removed crude capping measures and why we did not use this year the powers that we have under the existing legislation.
We believe that we need some reserve powers. We are making clear that we wish to change the system of financial control of local authority expenditure and to give more freedom to local authorities. We said quite explicitly in our manifesto that we needed reserve powers for precisely such an eventuality. If local authorities act responsibly and reasonably the powers will not be used.
Amendment No. 37 would require us to have a kind of abstract debate every five years as to whether we needed the powers. Under the provisions of the Bill, in every instance when the Secretary of State invokes these powers—and we hope that such instances will be extremely rare—the affirmative procedure will ensure that we have a debate on the particular circumstances in which the Secretary of State decides to set a cap on a local authority.
At the beginning of the debate I was deeply in sympathy with what the Liberals were after—the Liberal Democrats, I beg your pardon—even if I could not accept the way they were going about it. In this they are pushing too far the issue of local authority autonomy. These are powers we do not wish to use but, nevertheless, they are powers that any responsible government must maintain.

529
As to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—Amendment No. 39—it effectively says that where there is a referendum supporting what would otherwise be seen as an excessive council tax, that should exempt the local authority concerned from that provision. Milton Keynes was under the old regime, but under the new regime the Secretary of State will very strongly take into account the outcome of such a referendum.
But of course a referendum is not the only kind of consultation with local people; there may be other kinds. As your Lordships will know from other debates, all kinds of issues arise as to how a referendum is put—the questions, the options, the turn out and so on—before a decision is taken that will always result in non-intervention by the Secretary of State. However, I can assure the noble Lord that a referendum result would be taken very strongly into account, as would the results of other kinds of consultation with local people. We recognise that in most circumstances local people are best able to judge the precise level at which the tax would be raised and at which they would continue to elect their existing authority. However, we need those powers in extreme circumstances. The result of a referendum is only one aspect of how such extreme circumstances would be judged by the Secretary of State.
With that assurance that we would take such a result into account, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment. I hope also that the noble Baroness will see fit not to pursue her amendment, although I understand her commitment to this dramatic change in local authority financial regimes.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister need not apologise for referring to my noble friends as Liberals, because we are, and, as it happens, the amendment is about democracy. The Minister said that central government have an obligation to protect the local taxpayer. Our response is to ask why, to what extent, and when. At this late hour I will not pursue the matter further. However, with regard to the referendum amendment, I think I am right in saying that the turnout in the Milton Keynes referendum was rather high. These powers are referred to as reserve powers. Yet again, the problem we are faced with is that there is nothing to say, "Oh, but the Secretary of State will use these powers only in the most extreme circumstances". We accept that they have not been used this year. There are very good political reasons for their not being used this year. This is somewhat the equivalent of Mandy Rice-Davies—he wouldn't, would he, not this year.
We may wish to come back to this point, knowing that there are fundamental differences between us which I do not think we will resolve. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts]:
[Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Major precepting authorities: further regulation]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 17, line 17, after ("applies") insert ("for the purpose of eliminating any liability of a billing authority as a consequence of the limitation of council tax benefit subsidy resulting from a decision taken by a precepting authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have tabled Amendment No. 41 because in my view Clause 30 is outwith the Long Title of the Bill. Therefore, some explanation as to why it is here should appear within the Bill. The Long Title states:
"Make provision imposing on local and certain other authorities requirements relating to economy, efficiency and effectiveness; and to make provision for the regulation of council tax and precepts".
Clause 30 has nothing to do with economy, efficiency and effectiveness; nor does it have anything to do with the regulation of council tax precepts. It is in the Bill to put right a wrong. It is necessary because the Government have acted in haste and have thereby created an anomaly.
Until the Government introduced changes that have made Clause 30 necessary, all social security benefits were paid exclusively by the Exchequer. That is no longer the case. Council tax benefit, which 6.5 million people receive in England, Scotland and Wales, is dependent on the level of a locally determined tax. Because of that fact, the Government decided that they would pay council tax benefit only up to limits that they decided to determine. After that, if the council tax rises to a greater degree, that national benefit falls on the local taxpayer. That is a major change in the way in which the country does its business.
There may be plausible arguments as to why that change should have been made. But in making it, the Government have found that they have created an anomaly. Council tax benefit subsidy is paid to council tax billing authorities, which pass it on to the recipients. But council tax rises not exclusively at the behest of the decisions of the billing authorities. There are precepting authorities which precept on the billing authorities. If their precept rises too far, the power exists and can be used to hold up the subsidy. But because the subsidy is paid to the billing authority, that leaves the billing authority with a hole in its finances. Under the existing law there is no power under which the precepting authority can pay that deficit—it does not have the legal power to do so—when it has actually caused the problem. That is the reason why Clause 30 is in the Bill. This is a convenient place to put it. It is relevant in that it is a local government matter in part.
I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me earlier this week, during what has been a very busy time for him. We had some fruitful discussions. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was also present. I was grateful for the time and consideration that were given. I do not know whether we can come to a satisfactory conclusion to this matter, but I have still not seen a better one than the amendment that I have proposed.
There were suggestions that the matter might be dealt with by some clear explanation in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. But having examined them further, I do not

531
think that that would be satisfactory. Paragraph 1 carries with it a government health warning in the final sentence; namely, that the notes,
"do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by Parliament".
So to attempt to go down that route would not be satisfactory.
I am therefore looking for some provision, not merely by way of assurance but on the face of the Bill, that gives a sufficient explanation as to why this particular clause should be here. As I have said, it is my view that it is outwith the Long Title of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord correctly describes the anomaly which required this clause to be included and the reasons behind it. Therefore, I believe that he recognises the need for this provision. His concern is that the legislation is not clear. I fear that much of our legislation may not be particularly clear and that lawyers need legal encyclopaedias, let alone the innovation of our Explanatory Notes to explain what was intended. The noble Lord dismisses the role of Explanatory Notes. However, it is important to recognise that this innovation was brought in in order to help the reader of new legislation. The notes will not alter the purport of the legislation but they will clarify what it is about. Since the noble Lord seeks to clarify the position rather than change the effect of what is already in the legislation. I would have thought that the Explanatory Notes met his objective.
At present paragraph 12 of the existing version of the Explanatory Notes seeks to explain that any shortfall in council tax benefit arising from large increases in council tax falls on the authority responsible rather than— if we do not have this change—solely on the billing authority. Any reader who needs clarification of Clause 30 can therefore look at the notes. I take the noble Lord's point that perhaps that explanation is not sufficient. However, I do not accept his point about the status of the notes. If he is concerned that the status of the notes is not sufficiently clear, or that the disavowal makes them inappropriate for the purposes of clarification, as distinct from the purposes of substantive powers or functions, there is a longstanding tradition that Hansard has some effect in clarifying the intent of the provision. Therefore, for the record we intend to revise paragraph 12 which, subject to minor drafting changes, would read along the following lines:
"In addition, the Bill will contain provisions to require major precepting authorities to make payments to their billing authorities. Under the Council Tax Benefit Subsidy Limitation Scheme, local authorities which make increases in council tax above a guideline set by the Secretary of State are required to make a contribution to the council tax benefit costs. Clause 30 is needed to ensure that, where a major precepting authority exceeds the guideline, it pays the contribution to its billing authority since they are responsible for the administration of council tax benefit".
I believe that that extends the explanation. It is now in Hansard and I hope, therefore, that if clarification is all that the noble Lord seeks—he has never said that he seeks anything else—that is extant and he will not pursue the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his explanation, which I shall study
532
carefully. He may well have answered every point that is of concern to me; if so. he will hear no more of the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Scottish Parliament (Assistance for Registered Political Parties) Order 1999 The Scotland Act 1998 (Modifications of Schedules 4 and 5) Order 1999 The Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.)Order 1999 The Scotland Act 1998 (Border Rivers)Order 1999 The Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities)(Adaptation of Functions etc.) Order 1999 The Scotland Act 1998 (Functions Exercisable in or as Regards Scotland Order 1999 The Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Functions) Order 1999 The Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) (No. 2) Order 1999
10.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel) rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 26th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move en bloc the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper. We are reduced to a happy but merry band. We have come to the end of a long road which started in September 1997 when we first debated the referendum Bill. Tonight we are debating the final set of orders that implement the devolution settlement. It has been a long road with many twists and turns upon it. Some of those who have participated in the debate have finished up at their desired destinations; others, alas, have not.
The eight draft orders under the Scotland Act for approval today form a vital part of the legislative package required to deliver devolution for Scotland. To reflect the interface between the Scottish Parliament and the administration several of these draft orders require

533
the agreement of this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. The orders before us this evening were debated and approved by the Scottish Parliament on 2nd and 3rd June.
Perhaps I may briefly describe the main contents of the various orders. The Scotland Act 1998 (Modifications of Schedules 4 and 5) Order 1999 adjusts in a number of areas the matters in relation to which the Parliament will have legislative competence so as to extend or clarify its powers.
The Scotland Act 1998 (Functions Exercisable in or as Regards Scotland) Order 1999 assists in ensuring the devolution of functions to the Scottish Ministers either through Section 53 of the Scotland Act, because they relate to devolved matters, or by the Executive Devolution Order under Section 63. In particular, it clarifies cases where there might be doubt as to whether a function is or is not exercisable as regards Scotland. This clarification is necessary to ensure that the relevant function will or will not devolve. Your Lordships may consider that that is a fairly fundamental point.
The Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Functions) Order 1999, modifies enactments to facilitate the transfer of functions to the Scottish Ministers under Sections 53 or 63 of the Scotland Act.
The Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 1999 provides for what has generally become known as "executive devolution", that is the devolution to the Scottish Ministers of powers and duties in relation to reserved matters. It is important to note that these functions will be additional to those relating to devolved matters which will transfer to the Scottish Ministers automatically by virtue of Section 53 of the Scotland Act. What we are concerned with in this draft order is the transfer of executive powers and duties in areas where primary legislation will continue to be a matter for this Parliament. In exercising these functions, the Scottish Ministers will, of course, be accountable to the Scottish Parliament.
The Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) (No. 2) Order 1999 makes a variety of amendments to legislation to take account of the Act for the simple reason that a great deal of legislation that had been previously enacted was obviously enacted at a time when devolution was but a glimmer in the eye. Therefore, these provisions take account of the fact that devolution is now a reality.
The Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (Adaptation of Functions etc.) Order 1999 puts in place customised arrangements for the control and accountability of certain public authorities which have been specified as cross-border public authorities.
The Scotland Act (Border Rivers) Order 1999 makes provision for whole river management of the Tweed and Esk Rivers. Briefly, it means that the Tweed will be treated as a Scottish river while the Esk will be treated as an English river.
The Scottish Parliament (Assistance for Registered Political Parties) Order 1999 provides for the Scottish parliamentary corporate body to make payments to
534
qualifying political parties for the purpose of assisting members of the Parliament who are connected with such parties to perform their parliamentary duties.
At this stage it is sufficient for me to have given that brief account of the content of the orders and their purpose. I shall respond to matters of detail that noble Lords may wish to make. I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft orders laid before the House on 26th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sewel.)
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, the notes that I have in front of me begin with the words, "I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister for having explained these various orders in his usual helpful manner". But as I was listening to him it suddenly struck me that he went through them in a different order from that on the Order Paper. Therefore, the first question is whether that procedure is competent where each order he has spoken to is incorrectly entered on the Order Paper. That gives him plenty of time to find an answer to that very searching question.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the answer is that the orders are perfectly in order. I do not think that we should be detained by the point made by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I have to take up the Minister on another point. It was not in September 1997 that we started talking about the referendum Bill. That was the month, as I recall, when we voted in the referendum. It was some months previously that we set out on this long and, by and large, happy and interesting path.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, that joyful experience is somewhat compressed.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, these repeated interruptions might turn this into one of my longer speeches, for whatever purpose that may be necessary!
I am grateful not only to the Minister but to his officials for having sent me copies of these orders in advance of the draft orders having been tabled in this House. That courtesy is typical of the courtesy shown by Scottish Office officials to Peers on all sides of the House throughout the devolution project. It was of great assistance to us when the Bill was going through Parliament and to me recently in setting aside the necessary time to read through the considerable volume of paper-work which the orders constitute.
It is also appropriate to pay tribute to those who were involved in the drafting of these orders. I take it that the Minister does not intend to take personal credit for that. Some of these orders are lengthy and highly technical. There can be little doubt that many hours of research and drafting must have been involved in their preparation. They may be being nodded through your Lordships' House this evening in a comparatively short period of time, but it is right to place on record our

535
appreciation of the expertise, ability and labours which went into producing these major documents. They may have rather dry titles but they provide many of the necessary nuts and bolts to make the devolution settlement work in the way we all hope.
There is only one order about which I wish to say anything in detail. I refer to the order which appears first on the Order Paper; namely, the order relating to the provision of financial assistance for registered political parties. That is an order which would normally require the approval not only of both Houses of Parliament but also of the Scottish Parliament. I appreciate that in terms of an order previously made, it is not necessary to take the approval of the Scottish Parliament at this stage. However, if the order comes to be amended in due course, that may be required.
There are a number of grounds for regretting both the manner and the terms in which the draft order has been brought forward for approval, which may explain why its approval was put to a Division when debated in another place. Contrary to the practice which applies in this Parliament when decisions are being made as to what financial assistance Opposition parties should receive, there was not, as I understand it, any consultation between the Scottish Executive and opposition parties before the amounts set out in the order were determined. Quite why that happened is unclear to me. I believe that it has never been fully explained in public. I should be most grateful if the Minister could do so now, in particular in view of the fact that since in the terms of the order the Liberal Democrats are to receive some payments it is reasonable to assume that there was at least a measure of consultation with them, if only through the Deputy First Minister, Mr Jim Wallace. If he were consulted, why were the leaders of the other parties not consulted also?
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for allowing me to intervene. So far as I am aware there is no evidence that any such consultations took place. I am unaware of their having taken place. No one has ever said that they took place. Therefore I do not see what ground the noble and learned Lord has for putting forward the case that such consultations did take place.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I think it is a matter of reasonable inference. As I understand it, the Liberal Democrats are in coalition with the Labour Party in the Scottish Executive. I suppose it is technically possible that even the First Minister was not consulted about the terms of this order in that it did not require to be approved by the Scottish Parliament itself. No doubt the noble Lord the Minister can enlighten us about that in due course. I would have thought that as it is now getting on for two months since the election was held and this order has only been brought forward in the month of June, it is reasonable to assume that at the numerous meetings of the Scottish Executive, or the Scottish Cabinet as they call themselves, this matter was touched on. Of course I may be entirely wrong in which case the Minister will correct me.
536
The concern which I feel, and I am not alone, is that neither the Scottish Conservative Party nor the Scottish National Party, as far as I know, was consulted. It seems to me that if one is seeking to embark on a form of new consensus politics this is one area in which full and co-operative discussions might profitably have taken place. That is particularly so in view of what was commended in the Neill Committee's report on the funding of political parties. Your Lordships will be aware that it was primarily concerned with the funding of those political parties who operate in the Westminster Parliament and who receive what is colloquially known in the other place as "Short money" and sometimes, in your Lordships' House, as "Cranborne money".
The Neill Committee took the view that it was necessary that all the political parties involved in the work of this Parliament should review the matter to ensure that the Opposition parties received sufficient resources to enable them to perform their functions adequately. The committee went on to recommend that both Short and Cranborne money should be increased substantially. It is my understanding that after discussion, not only through the usual channels but with all the parties, agreement was reached and the payment of such funds has been increased.
The Neill Committee also recommended that the political parties who would be functioning in the new Scottish Parliament should consider making provision for financial support for the purpose of the better performance of their parliamentary functions: in other words, the committee put forward its views as to what should happen at Westminster and suggested that a similar approach should be taken not only in the Scottish Parliament but also in the Welsh Assembly, as I recall.
It is therefore most regrettable that the Government have not followed the practice currently adopted at Westminster nor taken the advice of the Neill Committee in seeking to achieve agreement with all the political parties involved in the Scottish Parliament as to what funds the Opposition parties should appropriately require to ensure that they can properly discharge their duties. Parliamentary democracy depends not only on the government in power but on opposition pubes who can test legislation and policies as the months and years go by.
I ask the Minister to explain how the figure of £5,000 was decided upon as the relevant amount for the purposes of Article 2 of the draft order. What criteria were taken into account when the Government decided that £5,000 was the appropriate figure? On what factual basis are the Government satisfied that £5,000 per MSP will meet the test recommended by the Neill Committee that Opposition parties should be in a position adequately to discharge their parliamentary functions?
As far as that figure is concerned, why should we do anything other than believe that it was plucked out of the air as a number which the Government felt was the minimum they could get away with, particularly AS it is a figure substantially less than the figure per MP in another place which is used, I understand, II the calculation of Short money?

537
The concern that I express is even more acute when one considers the army of special advisers that the 22 Scottish Ministers are employing. As I understand it, their salary and support will cost the taxpayer somewhat in excess of £0.5 million per annum. Under this draft order, the sums which the Scottish Conservative Party and the Scottish National Party—and many believe that those are the only parties truly in opposition—will receive will be less than half the figure I mentioned.
I am fully aware that the terms of Section 97(3) of the Act permit payments to be made to a party which is in coalition. Therefore, I do not challenge the competency of the terms in which the order is framed. Nevertheless, I cannot refrain from expressing the view that the fact that the Liberal Democrats are to receive money may make it difficult to dispel the increasing concern felt in many quarters about the coalition deal which has been entered into and about how long that will last.
While I do not expect the Minister to answer for the very difficult, if not impossible, position in which the Liberal Democrats now find themselves in Scotland, it would be helpful for your Lordships to hear the Minister's view on why that whole topic was not the subject of proper consultation prior to the draft order being tabled.
Before I pass from the order, perhaps I may take the opportunity to mention one practical difficulty that I have encountered in preparing for the debate this evening, of which I have given notice to the Minister; that is, the difficulty of obtaining in this House hard copies of the Official Report of the Scottish Parliament—the Scottish Hansard, if I may describe it in such terms.
The Minister may recall that I tabled a Written Question in regard to that some months ago. I asked about the arrangements to be made for Members of both Houses of Parliament to have access to the parliamentary papers of the Scottish Parliament. By that I had in mind the daily Hansard, draft Bills, reports and so on. The written reply that I received was that copies of the papers would be placed in the Library and that the full proceedings of the Scottish Parliament would also be on the Internet.
In the event, since the Parliament started to hold debates, delay has been experienced in the arrival of the Official Report in the Library, although we have not yet reached the stage when draft Bills, notices of amendments, reports and other documents have started to be produced.
I fully accept that searching the Internet may be one way of locating the parliamentary material which one is interested to consider. But it is not the only way and, for my part, it is not necessarily the quickest way. In my experience, skimming through the report in Hansard may be a far quicker way of finding what one is looking for rather than searching page after page on the Internet. When one is using documents as hard copy, as one must, particularly when one is in opposition, it is essential to look at more than one document at the same time. That is not at all easy.
538
Therefore, I hope that the Government will look further at that issue and will see whether arrangements can be made to ensure that Members of your Lordships' House can have speedy access to hard copies of all the parliamentary papers of the Scottish Parliament. In view of the fact that the Parliament will be enacting primary legislation which will amend legislation which has passed through this Parliament, it is essential that that should happen.
I am happy to say that I have very few detailed comments to make about the other orders. I recognise that some are very important indeed; in particular, the third order on the Order Paper relating to the transfer of executive functions to Scottish Ministers. I have read through that order in detail. It seemed to me that if I started to ask questions about individual paragraphs, we might be here all night and, therefore, I do not propose to do so.
I appreciate that in deciding what additional executive powers had to be devolved difficult choices had to be made. Time will tell whether the correct decisions have been made. However, I recognise that there are procedures under which the order can be amended should that prove to be necessary in the light of experience.
Finally, I turn to the order dealing with the modification of Schedules 4 and 5 to the Act. Will the terms of paragraph 5 allow the United Kingdom Government to veto the release of information held under the Scottish executive if that information had been supplied to the appropriate body on a confidential basis by a Minister of the Crown? If the answer to that question is yes, as I suspect it will be, does that not mean that the Scottish Parliament's power to legislate on freedom of information will be significantly restricted by the new provision entering a new reserve matter into Schedule 5? Does it not mean that the Scottish executive and the Scottish Parliament will be prevented from releasing information which they consider should be released? Does that not mean that they may be required to act contrary to the public interest as they perceive it? If the Scottish executive or the Scottish Parliament wished to take a more liberal attitude to freedom of information than the Home Office currently wishes to do, why should they not be able to do so?
In conclusion, I again thank the Minister and his colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, for their assistance throughout the long process. After the conclusion of the Bill the Minister held a party in Dover House which will go down in the annals of Dover House as one of the better and longer parties. I do not look forward in anticipation to a similar event tonight, but I hope that once the orders are approved, as no doubt they will be, it may be possible to raise a glass to the end of a long and interesting parliamentary experience.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his excellent introduction to the orders and extend those thanks to the officials who drafted them. Broadly speaking, we support all the orders before the House tonight. Despite my great dislike of secondary legislationn, it is clear that in matters as complex as those

539
we dealt with within the Scotland Act, it would not have been possible to do so in any other way. I believe that the drafting of the orders has been of a high standard and we are grateful.
I want to raise only two small points and one of slightly more substance. The first relates to the Border Rivers order. My honourable friend in another place, Alan Beith, made the point that the Government are as careful as possible, both in this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, in respect of consultation. There was a considerable degree of confusion following the passing of the adjacent water boundary order, which had not been properly scrutinised by some Members in another place and had unforeseen consequences in terms of the change of the border for the fishing zones. In fact, it moved the border so that it went right through the centre of the Berwick bank, and that has caused great difficulties. There have been considerable reports in the Scottish Parliament about that, all of which I have managed successfully to obtain from the internet and print out on my printer. I am not sure how one refers to a friend in the Scottish Parliament. Is it "my Scottish friend"? I have honourable friends next door, noble friends here and now Scottish friends. If that be the case, my Scottish friend Euan Robson has taken the matter up and is pressing very hard for the Secretary of State and relative Ministers in the Scottish government to have that issue rectified. It has had considerable consequences for the fishermen, which were probably unintended.
The second point relates to the cross-border public authorities order that we have before us today. That order goes back to a previous statutory instrument from this year, No. 1319, which defined the cross-border authorities. As I understand it, today's order goes further in defining some of the functions as between the two governments and the Ministers in each government. I was rather surprised by one omission. It is late at night and I shall not give too many examples, but on page 17 the order we have before us tonight refers to Food from Britain. Page 9 refers to the British Wool Marketing Board. These are very similar to the British Tourist Authority, which is not contained or mentioned in the orders we are discussing tonight.
When we discussed the Bill, all those many long days ago and for all those many long hours, I am sure the Minister will remember that on a number of occasions I jumped to my feet to inquire whether tourism was a wholly devolved issue. I was given assurances on several occasions that that was the case. 'Unfortunately, some time after the Bill had become an Act of Parliament it became necessary for the Minister to write to me to inform me that, although tourism was wholly devolved, the mechanism by which international tourism would be controlled would be through the British Transport Authority, which would then necessarily, through Section 88(5), become a cross-border authority.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. I am sure it was a slip of the tongue, but I do not think it was the British Transport Authority; it was the British Tourist Authority.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that correction. Despite having been obliged
540
to spend the whole afternoon in the Library reading the various Acts, that slip of the tongue, probably Freudian, came out.
I return to the British Tourist Authority. There are a number of questions where the definition of the functions and capabilities of the relevant Ministers have not been clearly defined; for example, the responsibility for international tourism rests firmly with the Scottish Parliament yet its function will be conducted by the BTA. However, the money for that function is to be provided through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. The BTA will report wholly to him. How, in that circumstance, does the Scottish Parliament verify how much of the BTA's budget is to be spent on promoting Scotland internationally? Will the Secretary of State be called before the relevant tourism committee or will the chairman of the BTA be called before the committee?
I recognise that at this stage it is probably too late for this Parliament to do much about that. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would at least have some regard for those concerns.
My third point, of somewhat more substance, concerns the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, with regard to the registration of political parties. He and his noble friends, or rather his honourable friends in another place, made a considerable brouhaha over this matter. We discussed it before we came into the Chamber. I asked him whether he had any points of substance and lie said, "No, just the usual cheap jibes against the Liberals". True to his word, as ever, he has come and he has delivered. Very simply—
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be prepared to give way? Perhaps I may suggest that, as I understand it, we do not refer to each other in this Chamber in quite such colloquial terms?
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I apologise to him most profusely if I have offended his sensibilities in any way.
This is a fairly straightforward and simple mater. As far as I am aware, no consultation took place between our parties. This order was presumably drafted some time before or around the time of the election when all of these matters were being put through. It is accepted that if we want our political system to work effectively it requires to be funded. Furthermore, it is accepted that in this very different kind of Parliament there will be circumstances where the funding has to be done somewhat differently.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, drew attention to the Neill Committee. Perhaps one ought to read some of that report, which said,
"The Committee is aware of the differences which will exist between the forms that the devolved bodies take".

541
It went on to say,
"the political parties may well have functions related to the transaction of business, whether or not some of their members are part of the Executive".
I am aware that his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, and indeed in the SNP and the Opposition, have written to the Neill Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Neill, responded in fairly straightforward terms to say that he believes that what is going on is perfectly appropriate. I believe that that letter has been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House though I was not able to get my hands on it this evening.
It is a perfectly straightforward piece of business and it is reasonable that Back-Benchers in a small minority part of an administration be permitted to exercise their functions. Broadly speaking, I agree that it is a shame that the consultation process did not go ahead with all three parties, other than the Government; that there was not more broad consultation. I assume that there simply was not time available.
The heart of the matter is that the Conservative Party has not yet realised that devolution is here and is a fact. It wishes simply to try and put the boot in wherever it can. It has not realised that twice the Scottish people have expressed their view at the ballot box and their settled will is that, in relation to domestic matters, they want to be in the UK, but not ruled by the UK.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, given the hour, your Lordships will realise that there may be a certain deliberation in my words as I proceed. Perhaps I can deal with the points raised by the two noble Lords who spoke in the debate. First, I thank them sincerely and associate myself with their kind, but justified words in relation to the skill and application of members of the Scottish Office Civil Service and the way that they have advanced and progressed the whole business of the legislation relating to devolution. It has been an enormous challenge. It is a new area in the constitutional history of the United Kingdom. It is important that legislation, both primary and secondary, is properly crafted and in many cases it has had to be worked out from first principles. So, I too, pay tribute to members of the Scottish Office and the civil servants who serve it for their work, and thank both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for their comments in that regard.
I deal now with some of the substantive points that were raised. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, asked about the nature of consultations, if any, that had taken place with the opposition parties on the figure of £5,000. I say straightaway that there was no consultation. Obviously, in a perfect world there would have been, and I am sure that there will be in the future, but this was a project which was moving forward at an extremely rapid pace. It was necessary for the executive to come forward with firm proposals. They were discussed, debated and voted upon by the Scottish Parliament and on that basis we have to accept that the Scottish Parliament was content with the figure arrived at.
542
The arrangements that are in place at the moment are purely transitional. They are really a sticking plaster job and it will be up to the Scottish Parliament, as a result of the orders we are discussing tonight, where we are transferring legislative competence to the Parliament in relation to these areas, to go through the whole process itself. Clearly, that would give the opportunity for a much more deliberate approach to be taken and for consultation to take place. However, on this occasion, with the speed of the whole process and the setting up of the business, things moved so quickly that proposals were brought forward rather in haste. I accept that fact. I give way.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I do not wish to play lawyers' games at this time of night, but this order was not in fact approved by the Scottish Parliament in terms of a transitional and transitory provisions order made some months ago. Although this order was the subject of discussion in a debate in the Scottish Parliament, it was not approved. On that basis, it certainly would be of some reassurance to the Opposition parties involved if the Minister would be prepared to undertake to draw to the attention of the First Minister and his colleagues the measure of concern about the lack of consultation.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is quite right. My words were not carefully chosen. I accept that the Scottish Parliament did not debate the Short money order as such, but the subject was covered in the debate on the order for the modification of Schedules 4 and 5. Therefore, it has been before the Scottish Parliament and, in substance, a view was reached. Nevertheless, I take the point that the noble Lord made. I am sure that the First Minister will be aware of what the noble and learned Lord has said this evening as regards the way in which matters are taken forward in the future.
Perhaps I may now deal with the business of the amount being made available to the Liberal Democrat Party—a party which, as has been indicated, is in coalition. However, I have to say that I see the most consistent coalition in the Scottish Parliament as being that between the SNP and the Conservative Party. I suppose there would be those, although I do not for a moment count myself among them, who would say that the Liberal Democrat Party needs all the help that it can get in order to reach a considered and coherent line. But I would not make that cheap and nasty comment.
The noble and learned Lord made a point about the provision of hard copies of the Scottish Hansard. I suspect that these may be settling down, teething issues. It is clearly the intention that the record of the Scottish Parliament and the Bills with which it deals should be made available to Members of this and the other House, as quickly as possible. I am sure that we can look forward to seeing improvements in present arrangements being put in place.
The noble and learned Lord also drew attention to the problem regarding the freedom of information Act. As he indicated, freedom of information is devolved so there will in fact be the possibility of having a freedom

543
of information Act that applies basically to Westminster/Whitehall and one that applies to Holyrood. Clearly there will be a difficulty if there is a difference between those Acts. The noble and learned Lord posited the view that one regime may be more liberal than the other. It would not be right and proper—and this is purely for the sake of argument—if, say, a Whitehall department made available to Scottish Ministers information in confidence that was exempt under the freedom of information Act of this Parliament, while an individual could obtain access to it by using the provisions of a Scottish freedom of information Act. That would be an unacceptable kind of back-door route to undermining the legislative provisions of this Parliament. I believe that there is rightly and properly a safeguard in place against that happening. I do not believe that that is a matter which affects the good government of the state in any way at all.
The noble Viscount mentioned fishing borders. He will not be surprised to learn that I have some considerable interest in this matter. The simple case is that the boundary that has been decided upon, and which has been accepted by this House, is drawn on the median line principle. That simply means that all waters north of the boundary line are nearer to Scotland than to England and rightly subject to the regulation of the Scottish Parliament and all waters south of that line are nearer to England than to Scotland and rightly the subject of regulation by this Parliament. Those who
544
argue a different case have the difficult task of arguing that waters that are nearer to England than to Scotland should somehow rightly be regulated by a Scottish parliament. I think that is a difficult case to sustain. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I have indicated that we are happy to discuss this issue with members of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation.
As regards tourism, the noble Viscount made an interesting and important point. We have to recognise that tourism has grown from some decades ago from being a relatively Cinderella industry to being one of Scotland's premier industries. The point the noble Viscount made is well taken. This is a matter for the two governments to sort out—which I am sure they will—in a way which is to the benefit of both the United Kingdom and Scotland. I see no automatic conflict between those interests.
I believe that I have covered the points raised by noble Lords and I hope that the House will feel able to pass these orders this evening and, as I say, bring to an end£and reach our final destination in this respect—the process of putting in place all the legislative blocks. I should have said bricks rather than blocks; that is a Freudian slip if ever there was one. As I say, I hope we can put in place all the legislative bricks that build a sound and secure basis for devolution to Scotland.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Family Law Act 1996
  Family Law Act 1996
  Financial Services and Markets: Joint Committee Reports
  Financial Services and Markets: Joint Committee Reports
  Liberia: Disposal of Arms
  Liberia: Disposal of Arms
  Low Yield Non-strategic Nuclear Weapons
  Low Yield Non-strategic Nuclear Weapons
  Kosovar Refugees
  Kosovar Refugees
  Juveniles in Prison Custody
  Juveniles in Prison Custody
  Youth Offending Teams
  Youth Offending Teams
  Persistent Young Offenders: Time from Arrest to Sentence
  Persistent Young Offenders: Time from Arrest to Sentence
  Immigration Policy: Unmarried Partners
  Immigration Policy: Unmarried Partners
  Immigration Policy: Spouses and Domestic Violence
  Immigration Policy: Spouses and Domestic Violence
  Further Education Colleges: Staffing
  Further Education Colleges: Staffing
  University Student Support: Applicants' Details
  University Student Support: Applicants' Details
  Service Personnel: Secondary Medical Care in NHS Hospitals
  Service Personnel: Secondary Medical Care in NHS Hospitals
  Yugoslavia: Cost of Bombing Damage
  Yugoslavia: Cost of Bombing Damage
  Yugoslavia: NATO Targeting Doctrine
  Yugoslavia: NATO Targeting Doctrine
  Tobacco Advertising Directive
  Tobacco Advertising Directive
  Organic Farming and Gene Transfer from GM Crops
  Organic Farming and Gene Transfer from GM Crops
  Food Standards Committee Report: Government Response
  Food Standards Committee Report: Government Response
  Agriculture Council, 14/15 June
  Agriculture Council, 14/15 June
  Transport: Responsibilities of Scottish Parliament
  Transport: Responsibilities of Scottish Parliament
  M4: Traffic Load between Junctions 4 and 2
  M4: Traffic Load between Junctions 4 and 2
  Nitrogen Fixation: Transfer between Crops
  Nitrogen Fixation: Transfer between Crops